Paper · 2023 · The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences

Management strategy for pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella) in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) in farmers-participatory mode

AJANTA BIRAH; ANOOP KUMAR; M K KHOKHAR; et al.

6
claims
11
verbatim quotes
3
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-sa

Abstract

Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) in central India is witnessing increasing infestation of bollworm and sucking pests since 2016. In recent years, pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypeilla (Saunders) has emerged as a serious problem causing severe damage to cotton in several parts of our country. Farmers rely on chemical pesticides to control pest incidence that adversely affects naturally occurring predators and parasitoids in the crop ecosystems. The study was conducted by ICAR-National Research Centre for Integrated Pest Management, New Delhi during rainy (kharif) season 2018–21 to implement IPM validation trials at Wakhari village of Jalna district, Maharashtra with a view to study the economic viability and feasibility of adaptable IPM technology in farmer participatory mode. IPM implementation significantly reduced the number of insecticidal sprays (49.74%) and increased the cotton yield (28.49%) againstthe farmer’s practice (FP). Benefit to cost ratio was also higher in IPM fields (1.7, 2.4, 2.3 and 3.96) as compared to FP (1.3, 1.5, 1.74 and 2.97) during 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021, respectively. It was evident that by adopting IPM strategy, pink bollworm in cotton can be successfully managed with minimum application of insecticides along with conservation of natural enemies and higher net return (42.6%) over farmer’s practice. The technology will be helpful in increasing the seed cotton yield and improve quality especially in terms of reduced pesticides contents, thereby improving the socio-economic status of cotton growers of the country.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-sa. 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 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

IPM reduced insecticidal sprays by 49.74% versus farmer practice.

Treatment
IPM implementatione0
Outcome
number of insecticidal sprayse0
Direction
reducede0
Value
49.74%e0
Comparator
farmer’s practicee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“IPM implementation significantly reduced the number of insecticidal sprays (49.74%) and increased the cotton yield (28.49%) againstthe farmer’s practice (FP)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 787–944 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–95 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

IPM increased cotton yield by 28.49% versus farmer practice.

Treatment
IPM implementatione0
Outcome
cotton yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
28.49%e0
Comparator
farmer’s practicee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“IPM implementation significantly reduced the number of insecticidal sprays (49.74%) and increased the cotton yield (28.49%) againstthe farmer’s practice (FP)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 787–944 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

IPM fields had higher benefit to cost ratios than farmer practice across 2018–2021.

Treatment
IPM fieldse0
Outcome
Benefit to cost ratioe0
Direction
highere0
Value
1.7, 2.4, 2.3 and 3.96e0
Qualifier
1.3, 1.5, 1.74 and 2.97e0
Comparator
FPe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Benefit to cost ratio was also higher in IPM fields (1.7, 2.4, 2.3 and 3.96) as compared to FP (1.3, 1.5, 1.74 and 2.97) during 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 946–1114 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–95 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

IPM was judged able to manage pink bollworm with minimum insecticide applications and conservation of natural enemies.

Interactor
pink bollwormPectinophora gossypiellae0pest
Outcome
pink bollworm in cotton can be successfully managed with minimum application of insecticides along with conservation of natural enemiese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Pectinophora gossypiella
Pectinophora gossypiella · InteractorAlbertonatureza · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“by adopting IPM strategy, pink bollworm in cotton can be successfully managed with minimum application of insecticides along with conservation of natural enemies”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1135–1296 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–95 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

IPM yielded 42.6% higher net return than farmer practice.

Outcome
net returne0
Direction
highere0
Value
42.6%e0
Comparator
farmer’s practicee0

Not reportedTreatment

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“higher net return (42.6%) over farmer’s practice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1301–1349 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–95 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors expect the technology to increase seed cotton yield and improve quality through reduced pesticide content.

Outcome
increasing the seed cotton yield and improve quality especially in terms of reduced pesticides contentse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The technology will be helpful in increasing the seed cotton yield and improve quality especially in terms of reduced pesticides contents”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1351–1488 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–95 · show in text ↑

ipm · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

39 papers: 39 positive, 0 negative or no effect

38 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

35 papers more in this group

See all 39 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.