Paper · 2023 · Silicon

Effect of Silicon and Biostimulant on Fall Armyworm Infestation in Maize (Zea mays L.)

Chinnadurai Srinivasan; Chandramani Periyakaman; Shanthi Mookiah; et al.

8
claims
19
verbatim quotes
6
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Abstract In the Virudhunagar district's Thoppur village from rabi 2021–22, a field trial was carried out to examine the impact of silicon sources and growth regulator on the harm caused by maize fall armyworm ( Spodoptera frugiperda ). Basal soil application of calcium silicate at six different doses and foliar applications of silicic acid, gibberellic acid and potassium silicate in maize crop revealed that basal application of 150 kg of calcium silicate/ha + 0.2% silicic acid @ 15 DAS + 50 ppm GA @ 30 DAS was found to be effective in reducing leaf damage (42.88% per plant), whorl damage (36.05% per plot) and cob damage (26.92% per plot), followed by treatment with 75 kg of calcium silicate/ha + 0.2% silicic acid @ 15 DAS + 50 ppm GA @ 30 DAS with leaf, whorl and cob damage of 44.74% per plant, 39.24% per plot and 26.92% per plot respectively. The treatment with a basal application of 150 kg of calcium silicate/ha + 0.2% SA @ 15 DAS + 50 ppm GA @ 30 DAS produced the highest yield (7, 287 kg/ha), which was followed by the treatment with 75 kg of calcium silicate + 0.2% SA @ 15 DAS + 50 ppm GA @ 30 DAS (7, 092 kg/ha). As a result, in the current research, the basal application of calcium silicate 150 kg/ha along with foliar application of silicic acid (0.2%) and gibberellic acid (50 ppm) at 15 and 30 DAS decreased the level of leaf, whorl, and cob damage caused by fall armyworm on maize at the field condition.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 150 kg calcium silicate combination reduced leaf damage to 42.88% per plant.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Treatment
150 kg of calcium silicate/ha + 0.2% silicic acid @ 15 DAS + 50 ppm GA @ 30 DASe0
Interactor
fall armywormSpodoptera frugiperdae1pest
Outcome
leaf damagee0
Direction
reducinge0
Value
42.88% per plante0

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Spodoptera frugiperda
Spodoptera frugiperda · InteractorUSGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab from Beltsville, Maryland, USA · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“basal application of 150 kg of calcium silicate/ha + 0.2% silicic acid @ 15 DAS + 50 ppm GA @ 30 DAS was found to be effective in reducing leaf damage (42.88% per plant)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 411–580 · show in text ↑
e1

“maize fall armyworm ( Spodoptera frugiperda )”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 189–234 · show in text ↑
t0

“Maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–72 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 150 kg calcium silicate combination reduced whorl damage to 36.05% per plot.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Outcome
whorl damagee0
Direction
reducinge1
Value
36.05% per plote0

Not reportedTreatmentComparator

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“whorl damage (36.05% per plot)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 582–612 · show in text ↑
e1

“effective in reducing leaf damage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 528–561 · show in text ↑
t0

“Maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–72 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 150 kg calcium silicate combination reduced cob damage to 26.92% per plot.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Outcome
cob damagee0
Direction
reducinge1
Value
26.92% per plote0

Not reportedTreatmentComparator

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“cob damage (26.92% per plot)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 617–645 · show in text ↑
e1

“effective in reducing leaf damage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 528–561 · show in text ↑
t0

“Maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–72 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 75 kg calcium silicate combination had 44.74% leaf damage per plant.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Outcome
leafe0
Value
44.74% per plante0

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“leaf, whorl and cob damage of 44.74% per plant, 39.24% per plot and 26.92% per plot respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 758–854 · show in text ↑
t0

“Maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–72 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 75 kg calcium silicate combination had 39.24% whorl damage per plot.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Outcome
whorle0
Value
39.24% per plote0

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“leaf, whorl and cob damage of 44.74% per plant, 39.24% per plot and 26.92% per plot respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 758–854 · show in text ↑
t0

“Maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–72 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 75 kg calcium silicate combination had 26.92% cob damage per plot.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Outcome
cob damagee0
Value
26.92% per plote0

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“leaf, whorl and cob damage of 44.74% per plant, 39.24% per plot and 26.92% per plot respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 758–854 · show in text ↑
t0

“Maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–72 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 150 kg calcium silicate combination produced the highest yield of 7, 287 kg/ha.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Treatment
150 kg of calcium silicate/ha + 0.2% SA @ 15 DAS + 50 ppm GA @ 30 DASe0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
higheste0
Value
7, 287 kg/hae0

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“150 kg of calcium silicate/ha + 0.2% SA @ 15 DAS + 50 ppm GA @ 30 DAS produced the highest yield (7, 287 kg/ha)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 898–1009 · show in text ↑
t0

“Maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–72 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 75 kg calcium silicate combination yielded 7, 092 kg/ha.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Outcome
7, 092 kg/hae0
Value
7, 092 kg/hae0

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“75 kg of calcium silicate + 0.2% SA @ 15 DAS + 50 ppm GA @ 30 DAS (7, 092 kg/ha)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1052–1132 · show in text ↑
t0

“Maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–72 · show in text ↑

Gibberellic acid · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ

22 papers: 19 positive, 3 negative or no effect

18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

18 papers more in this group

See all 22 papers →

salicylic acid · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ

44 papers: 42 positive, 2 negative or no effect

41 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

40 papers more in this group

See all 44 papers →

calcium silicate · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

7 papers: 6 positive, 1 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

calcium silicate · Spodoptera frugiperda · Zea mays (maize)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

silicic acid · Spodoptera frugiperda · Zea mays (maize)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

Gibberellic acid · Spodoptera frugiperda · Zea mays (maize)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 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.