Paper · 2005 · Nigerian Journal of Entomology

Efficacy of some Plant Materials for the Control of Cowpea Field Insect Pests at Bauchi, Nigeria

S. M. DUNGUM; M.C. DIKE; S.A. ADEBITAN; et al.

16
claims
32
verbatim quotes
2
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Studies were conducted at the Teaching and Research Farm of Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University Bauchi during the 2001 and 2002 rainy seasons. Extracts of Anona reticulate (Pers.) seed; Anacardium occidentale (Linn.) nut and Azadirachia indica (A.) Juss.) seed were evaluated for their efficacy against field insect pests of cowpea. All treatments exhibited significant (P < 0.05) protection of cowpea pods and seeds from Megalurothrips sjostedii (Tryp.), Maruca vitrata (Fab.) and pod-sucking bugs damage compared with the untreated control. Differences among extracts were not significant but the extracts were less effective than larnbda-cyhalothrin (Karate(R) applied at 20 g a:i.lha. A. occidentale. A. reticulata and A. indica had 32.5%; 30.5%; 25.5% and 31.5%; 29.0%; 24.0% pod damage in 2001 and 2002 respectively as against 78% and 66.3% pod damage in the untreated control. Synthetic insecticide showed least pod damage (16% and 15%) in both years. Plant extracts gave 659 – 740 kg/ha and 733 – 808.3 kg/ha. higher grain yield respectively in both years while untreated plots gave 205 and 302 kg/ha. Yields obtained from Lambda-cyhalothrin treated plots were 1191.5 and 1271.5 kg/ha in both years. The plant extracts which are readily available and cheap within Bauchi could be used as alternative to synthetic insecticide to increase cowpea yield.

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 16

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The three plant extracts significantly protected cowpea pods and seeds from field insect damage versus untreated controls.

Treatment
All treatmentse0
Interactor
Megalurothrips sjostediie0pest
Outcome
protection of cowpea pods and seedse0
Direction
protectione0
Qualifier
Maruca vitrata (Fab.) and pod-sucking bugse0
Comparator
untreated controle0

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 52–58 · show in text ↑
e0

“All treatments exhibited significant (P < 0.05) protection of cowpea pods and seeds from Megalurothrips sjostedii (Tryp.), Maruca vitrata (Fab.) and pod-sucking bugs damage compared with the untreated control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 331–539 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Differences in efficacy among the extracts were not significant.

Outcome
Differences among extractse0

Not reportedDirection

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 52–58 · show in text ↑
e0

“Differences among extracts were not significant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 541–588 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The extracts were less effective than lambda-cyhalothrin.

Treatment
the extractse0
Outcome
less effectivee0
Direction
less effectivee0
Comparator
larnbda-cyhalothrine0

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 52–58 · show in text ↑
e0

“the extracts were less effective than larnbda-cyhalothrin (Karate(R) applied at 20 g a:i.lha”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 593–685 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Anacardium extract yielded 32.5% pod damage in 2001.

Treatment
A. occidentalee0
Outcome
pod damagee0
Value
32.5%e0
Qualifier
2001e0
Comparator
untreated controle0

Not reportedDirection

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 52–58 · show in text ↑
e0

“A. occidentale. A. reticulata and A. indica had 32.5%; 30.5%; 25.5% and 31.5%; 29.0%; 24.0% pod damage in 2001 and 2002 respectively as against 78% and 66.3% pod damage in the untreated control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 687–880 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Anacardium extract yielded 31.5% pod damage in 2002.

Treatment
A. occidentalee0
Outcome
pod damagee0
Value
31.5%e0
Qualifier
2002e0
Comparator
untreated controle0

Not reportedDirection

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 52–58 · show in text ↑
e0

“A. occidentale. A. reticulata and A. indica had 32.5%; 30.5%; 25.5% and 31.5%; 29.0%; 24.0% pod damage in 2001 and 2002 respectively as against 78% and 66.3% pod damage in the untreated control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 687–880 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Annona extract yielded 30.5% pod damage in 2001.

Treatment
A. reticulatae0
Outcome
pod damagee0
Value
30.5%e0
Qualifier
2001e0
Comparator
untreated controle0

Not reportedDirection

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 52–58 · show in text ↑
e0

“A. occidentale. A. reticulata and A. indica had 32.5%; 30.5%; 25.5% and 31.5%; 29.0%; 24.0% pod damage in 2001 and 2002 respectively as against 78% and 66.3% pod damage in the untreated control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 687–880 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Annona extract yielded 29.0% pod damage in 2002.

Treatment
A. reticulatae0
Outcome
pod damagee0
Value
29.0%e0
Qualifier
2002e0
Comparator
untreated controle0

Not reportedDirection

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 52–58 · show in text ↑
e0

“A. occidentale. A. reticulata and A. indica had 32.5%; 30.5%; 25.5% and 31.5%; 29.0%; 24.0% pod damage in 2001 and 2002 respectively as against 78% and 66.3% pod damage in the untreated control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 687–880 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Azadirachia extract yielded 25.5% pod damage in 2001.

Treatment
A. indicae0
Outcome
pod damagee0
Value
25.5%e0
Qualifier
2001e0
Comparator
untreated controle0

Not reportedDirection

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 52–58 · show in text ↑
e0

“A. occidentale. A. reticulata and A. indica had 32.5%; 30.5%; 25.5% and 31.5%; 29.0%; 24.0% pod damage in 2001 and 2002 respectively as against 78% and 66.3% pod damage in the untreated control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 687–880 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Azadirachia extract yielded 24.0% pod damage in 2002.

Treatment
A. indicae0
Outcome
pod damagee0
Value
24.0%e0
Qualifier
2002e0
Comparator
untreated controle0

Not reportedDirection

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 52–58 · show in text ↑
e0

“A. occidentale. A. reticulata and A. indica had 32.5%; 30.5%; 25.5% and 31.5%; 29.0%; 24.0% pod damage in 2001 and 2002 respectively as against 78% and 66.3% pod damage in the untreated control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 687–880 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Synthetic insecticide yielded 16% pod damage in 2001.

Treatment
Synthetic insecticidee0
Outcome
pod damagee0
Direction
leaste0
Value
16%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 52–58 · show in text ↑
e0

“Synthetic insecticide showed least pod damage (16% and 15%) in both years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 882–955 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Synthetic insecticide yielded 15% pod damage in 2002.

Treatment
Synthetic insecticidee0
Outcome
pod damagee0
Direction
leaste0
Value
15%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 52–58 · show in text ↑
e0

“Synthetic insecticide showed least pod damage (16% and 15%) in both years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 882–955 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Plant extracts produced 659–740 kg/ha grain yield in 2001, above untreated plots.

Treatment
Plant extractse0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
659 – 740 kg/hae0
Comparator
untreated plotse0

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 52–58 · show in text ↑
e0

“Plant extracts gave 659 – 740 kg/ha and 733 – 808.3 kg/ha. higher grain yield respectively in both years while untreated plots gave 205 and 302 kg/ha”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 957–1106 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Plant extracts produced 733–808.3 kg/ha grain yield in 2002, above untreated plots.

Treatment
Plant extractse0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
733 – 808.3 kg/hae0
Comparator
untreated plotse0

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 52–58 · show in text ↑
e0

“Plant extracts gave 659 – 740 kg/ha and 733 – 808.3 kg/ha. higher grain yield respectively in both years while untreated plots gave 205 and 302 kg/ha”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 957–1106 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Lambda-cyhalothrin treated plots yielded 1191.5 kg/ha in 2001.

Treatment
Lambda-cyhalothrine0
Outcome
Yieldse0
Value
1191.5e0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 52–58 · show in text ↑
e0

“Yields obtained from Lambda-cyhalothrin treated plots were 1191.5 and 1271.5 kg/ha in both years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1108–1204 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Lambda-cyhalothrin treated plots yielded 1271.5 kg/ha in 2002.

Treatment
Lambda-cyhalothrine0
Outcome
Yieldse0
Value
1271.5 kg/hae0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 52–58 · show in text ↑
e0

“Yields obtained from Lambda-cyhalothrin treated plots were 1191.5 and 1271.5 kg/ha in both years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1108–1204 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend the locally available plant extracts as alternatives to synthetic insecticide for increasing cowpea yield.

Outcome
alternative to synthetic insecticide to increase cowpea yielde0
Setting
Bauchie0

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 52–58 · show in text ↑
e0

“The plant extracts which are readily available and cheap within Bauchi could be used as alternative to synthetic insecticide to increase cowpea yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1206–1355 · show in text ↑

lambda-cyhalothrin · yield · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)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 →

Anacardium occidentale · pest · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Results agree

4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

insecticide · pest · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results

24 papers: 23 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

20 papers more in this group

See all 24 papers →

botanical · yield · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results

80 papers: 78 positive, 2 negative or no effect

77 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. positive

76 papers more in this group

See all 80 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.