Abstract
Maize (Zea mays) is an important crop cultivated in Thoothukudi district of Tamil Nadu. ICAR - SCAD Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu conducted frontline demonstrations on fall armyworm management in maize at north Karaseri village of Karunkulam block, Tamil Nadu during rabi season of 2019-20. The integrated management of fall armyworm in maize strategies included summer ploughing, border crop with sorghum (2-4 rows), seed treatment with cyatranilprole 19.8 per cent + thiamethoxam 19.8 per cent (Fortenza Duo 480FS) @ 2 ml/kg, installation of pheromone traps @ 4/acre at the time of sowing, collection and destruction of egg masses (8th day onwards), azadirachtin 10,000 ppm @ 1 ml/l (8-15 days after crop emergence), if infesation was 5-10 per cent, spray of Bacillus thuringiensis formulation @ 2 ml/l or Metarhizium anisopliae @ 2 ml/l or Beauveria bassiana @ 5 ml/l and if infestation was more than 10 per cent, spray of emamectin benzoate 5SG @ 0.4 g/l or spinetoram 11.7SC @ 0.3 ml/l (30-60 DAS). The results revealed that adoption of IPM practices recorded the lower incidence of fall armyworm (16.0%) as compared to the farmers’ practices (29.0%). Similarly, higher population of natural enemies (coccinellid population – 0.30 grubs and adult/plant) was recorded in IPM plots compared to farmers’ practice (0.11 grubs and adults/plant). IPM demonstration plots recorded higher yield (37.5 q/ha), net return (Rs 38,000/ha) and benefit-cost ratio (2.03).
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 5
Claim · model-written summary
IPM reduced fall armyworm incidence to 16.0%, versus 29.0% with farmer practice.
- Treatment
- IPM practicese0
- Interactor
- fall armyworm
.jpg?width=60)
Spodoptera frugiperdae0pest - Outcome
- incidence of fall armyworme0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 16.0%e0
- Qualifier
- 29.0%e0
- Comparator
- farmers’ practicese0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“adoption of IPM practices recorded the lower incidence of fall armyworm (16.0%) as compared to the farmers’ practices (29.0%)”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
IPM plots had 0.30 coccinellids per plant versus 0.11 under farmer practice.
- Treatment
- IPM plotse0
- Interactor
- coccinellide0other
- Outcome
- coccinellid populatione0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 0.30 grubs and adult/plante0
- Qualifier
- 0.11 grubs and adults/plante0
- Comparator
- farmers’ practicee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“higher population of natural enemies (coccinellid population – 0.30 grubs and adult/plant) was recorded in IPM plots compared to farmers’ practice (0.11 grubs and adults/plant)”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
IPM plots yielded 37.5 q/ha.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“IPM demonstration plots recorded higher yield (37.5 q/ha)”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
IPM plots had net return of Rs 38,000/ha.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“IPM demonstration plots recorded higher yield (37.5 q/ha), net return (Rs 38,000/ha) and benefit-cost ratio (2.03)”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
IPM plots had benefit-cost ratio 2.03.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“IPM demonstration plots recorded higher yield (37.5 q/ha), net return (Rs 38,000/ha) and benefit-cost ratio (2.03)”
t0“maize”
The same questions in other papers
ipm · Spodoptera frugiperda · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →ipm · pest · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
7 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →ipm · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
14 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.