Paper · 2023 · International Journal of Environment and Climate Change

Strategies for Management of Pink Boll Worm Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) in Cotton through Different Methods

G. Narendar; B. R. Madhushekar; K. Avil Kumar

7
claims
19
verbatim quotes
2
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

The present study of experiment entitled on the strategies for management of pink boll worm Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) in cotton though different methods was conducted in famers fields as a form of Frontline Demonstration (FLD). The experiment was conducted in 30 locations in Nalgonda and Yadadri bhuvangiri distrits of Telangana during kharif 2018, 2019 and 2020 respectively. The results revealed that, due to the adoption of IPM practices in addition to good agricultural practices, the average kapas yield was high in IPM demonstration plots (1857.0 kg/ha) with 12.0% increase over the farmers’ practice (1658 kg/ha) during three years of study. The average gross returns of Rs.1,01,007/ha, net returns of Rs.52,027/ha, and Benefit-cost ratio of 2.05 was recorded as higher in the demonstration plot as compared to farmers practice Rs. 90,121/ha, Rs.37,430 and 1.69 respectively during the study period. The additional average net returns of Rs.14,597/ha and reduction in the cost of cultivation of Rs.1912/ha were saved per year.

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 7

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

IPM practices with good agricultural practice increased cotton kapas yield by 12.0% over farmers’ practice.

Treatment
IPM practices in addition to good agricultural practicese1
Interactor
Pectinophora gossypiellaPectinophora gossypiellae0pest
Outcome
kapas yielde2
Direction
increasee2
Value
12.0%e2
Qualifier
during three years of studye2
Comparator
farmers’ practicee2

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

“pink boll worm Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) in cotton though different methods”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 77–162 · show in text ↑
e1

“due to the adoption of IPM practices in addition to good agricultural practices”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 415–494 · show in text ↑
e2

“the average kapas yield was high in IPM demonstration plots (1857.0 kg/ha) with 12.0% increase over the farmers’ practice (1658 kg/ha) during three years of study”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 496–658 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Average cotton kapas yield in IPM demonstration plots was 1857.0 kg/ha.

Outcome
kapas yielde2
Value
1857.0 kg/hae2
Setting
IPM demonstration plotse2

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

“pink boll worm Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) in cotton though different methods”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 77–162 · show in text ↑
e2

“the average kapas yield was high in IPM demonstration plots (1857.0 kg/ha) with 12.0% increase over the farmers’ practice (1658 kg/ha) during three years of study”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 496–658 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Gross returns were higher in IPM demonstration plots than in farmers practice plots.

Treatment
IPM practices in addition to good agricultural practicese1
Outcome
average gross returnse3
Direction
highere3
Value
Rs.1,01,007/hae3
Qualifier
Rs. 90,121/hae3
Comparator
farmers practicee3

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

“pink boll worm Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) in cotton though different methods”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 77–162 · show in text ↑
e1

“due to the adoption of IPM practices in addition to good agricultural practices”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 415–494 · show in text ↑
e3

“The average gross returns of Rs.1,01,007/ha, net returns of Rs.52,027/ha, and Benefit-cost ratio of 2.05 was recorded as higher in the demonstration plot as compared to farmers practice Rs. 90,121/ha, Rs.37,430 and 1.69 respectively during the study period”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 660–916 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Net returns were higher in IPM demonstration plots than in farmers practice plots.

Treatment
IPM practices in addition to good agricultural practicese1
Outcome
net returnse3
Direction
highere3
Value
Rs.52,027/hae3
Qualifier
Rs.37,430e3
Comparator
farmers practicee3

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

“pink boll worm Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) in cotton though different methods”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 77–162 · show in text ↑
e1

“due to the adoption of IPM practices in addition to good agricultural practices”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 415–494 · show in text ↑
e3

“The average gross returns of Rs.1,01,007/ha, net returns of Rs.52,027/ha, and Benefit-cost ratio of 2.05 was recorded as higher in the demonstration plot as compared to farmers practice Rs. 90,121/ha, Rs.37,430 and 1.69 respectively during the study period”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 660–916 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Benefit-cost ratio was higher in IPM demonstration plots than in farmers practice plots.

Treatment
IPM practices in addition to good agricultural practicese1
Outcome
Benefit-cost ratioe3
Direction
highere3
Value
2.05e3
Qualifier
1.69e3
Comparator
farmers practicee3

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

“pink boll worm Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) in cotton though different methods”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 77–162 · show in text ↑
e1

“due to the adoption of IPM practices in addition to good agricultural practices”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 415–494 · show in text ↑
e3

“The average gross returns of Rs.1,01,007/ha, net returns of Rs.52,027/ha, and Benefit-cost ratio of 2.05 was recorded as higher in the demonstration plot as compared to farmers practice Rs. 90,121/ha, Rs.37,430 and 1.69 respectively during the study period”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 660–916 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

IPM practices gave an additional average net return of Rs.14,597/ha per year in cotton.

Outcome
additional average net returnse4
Value
Rs.14,597/hae4
Qualifier
per yeare4

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

“pink boll worm Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) in cotton though different methods”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 77–162 · show in text ↑
e4

“The additional average net returns of Rs.14,597/ha and reduction in the cost of cultivation of Rs.1912/ha were saved per year”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 918–1043 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

IPM practices reduced the cost of cotton cultivation by Rs.1912/ha per year.

Treatment
IPM practices in addition to good agricultural practicese1
Outcome
reduction in the cost of cultivatione4
Direction
reductione4
Value
Rs.1912/hae4
Qualifier
per yeare4

Not reportedComparator

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

“pink boll worm Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) in cotton though different methods”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 77–162 · show in text ↑
e1

“due to the adoption of IPM practices in addition to good agricultural practices”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 415–494 · show in text ↑
e4

“The additional average net returns of Rs.14,597/ha and reduction in the cost of cultivation of Rs.1912/ha were saved per year”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 918–1043 · show in text ↑

ipm · Pectinophora gossypiella · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

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.