Abstract
Cowpea, Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. is an economically important seed legume that helps combat food and nutrition insecurity in the Sahel, particularly Niger. However, its yield remains low due to insect pest attacks. This study was conducted at a station and in seven villages in the Maradi and Tahoua regions. It aimed to test the effectiveness of neem seed biopesticides [Azadirachta indica A. Juss] and sanitized human urine for integrated insect pest management. The cowpea variety UAM09 1055-6 was used for the experiments. The experimental trial was a Fisher block design consisting of five treatments: neem oil, neem seed extract (NSE), hygienized human urine (HHU), chemical pesticide, and a control, replicated five times at the station and twice in farmers’ environments. The study shows that Megalurothrips sjostedti Trybom, Clavigralla tomentosicollis Stål and Maruca vitrata Fabricius are the main insect pests. Plots treated with synthetic pesticides were the least infested by C. tomentosicollis. They were followed by neem seed extract and HHU treatments, which recorded an infestation level of 2.44 and 20.5 times lower than controls at the station and in farming environments. The density of thrips was 1.06 to 32.6 times lower in treated plots compared to controls. The proportion of pods damaged by M. vitrata was 1.95, 2.55, and 2.77 times lower in plots treated with HHU, NSE, and synthetic pesticide, respectively, compared to controls. Grain yields were 1.80 and 2.62 times higher in UHH and NSE treatments compared to control plots, both at the station and in farmers’ environments. A yield increase of 44.58% and 61.92% was noted for these treatments at the station and in farmers’ environments, respectively. These results may promote the dissemination of NSE and HHU biopesticide technologies in rural areas as an alternative method for integrated pest management of cowpeas.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Three insects were identified as the main cowpea pests.
- Taxon
- Cowpea
Vigna unguiculatat0 - Interactor
- Megalurothrips sjostedti TrybomMegalurothrips sjostedtie0pestt0
- Outcome
- main insect pestse0
- Qualifier
- Clavigralla tomentosicollis Stål and Maruca vitrata Fabriciuse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The study shows that Megalurothrips sjostedti Trybom, Clavigralla tomentosicollis Stål and Maruca vitrata Fabricius are the main insect pests.”
t0“Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.]”
Claim · model-written summary
Synthetic pesticide plots had the lowest C. tomentosicollis infestation.
- Taxon
- CowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- synthetic pesticidese0
- Interactor
- C. tomentosicollisClavigralla tomentosicollise0pestt0
- Outcome
- infested by C. tomentosicollise0
- Direction
- leaste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Plots treated with synthetic pesticides were the least infested by C. tomentosicollis.”
t0“Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.]”
Claim · model-written summary
Neem seed extract lowered infestation relative to controls.
- Taxon
- CowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- neem seed extracte0
- Outcome
- infestation levele0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 2.44e0
- Comparator
- controlse0
- Setting
- statione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“They were followed by neem seed extract and HHU treatments, which recorded an infestation level of 2.44 and 20.5 times lower than controls at the station and in farming environments.”
t0“Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.]”
Claim · model-written summary
HHU lowered infestation relative to controls.
- Taxon
- CowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- HHUe0
- Outcome
- infestation levele0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 20.5 timese0
- Comparator
- controlse0
- Setting
- farming environmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“They were followed by neem seed extract and HHU treatments, which recorded an infestation level of 2.44 and 20.5 times lower than controls at the station and in farming environments.”
t0“Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.]”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatments reduced thrips density versus controls.
- Taxon
- CowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- treated plotse0
- Outcome
- density of thripse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 1.06 to 32.6 timese0
- Comparator
- controlse0
ThripsOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The density of thrips was 1.06 to 32.6 times lower in treated plots compared to controls.”
t0“Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.]”
Claim · model-written summary
HHU reduced M. vitrata pod damage 1.95 times.
- Taxon
- CowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- HHUe0
- Interactor
- M. vitrata
Maruca vitratae0pestt0 - Outcome
- proportion of pods damaged by M. vitratae0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 1.95e0
- Comparator
- controlse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The proportion of pods damaged by M. vitrata was 1.95, 2.55, and 2.77 times lower in plots treated with HHU, NSE, and synthetic pesticide, respectively, compared to controls.”
t0“Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.]”
Claim · model-written summary
NSE reduced M. vitrata pod damage 2.55 times.
- Taxon
- CowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- NSEe0
- Interactor
- M. vitrataMaruca vitratae0pestt0
- Outcome
- proportion of pods damaged by M. vitratae0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 2.55e0
- Comparator
- controlse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The proportion of pods damaged by M. vitrata was 1.95, 2.55, and 2.77 times lower in plots treated with HHU, NSE, and synthetic pesticide, respectively, compared to controls.”
t0“Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.]”
Claim · model-written summary
Synthetic pesticide reduced M. vitrata pod damage 2.77 times.
- Taxon
- CowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- synthetic pesticidee0
- Interactor
- M. vitrataMaruca vitratae0pestt0
- Outcome
- proportion of pods damaged by M. vitratae0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 2.77 timese0
- Comparator
- controlse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The proportion of pods damaged by M. vitrata was 1.95, 2.55, and 2.77 times lower in plots treated with HHU, NSE, and synthetic pesticide, respectively, compared to controls.”
t0“Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.]”
Claim · model-written summary
UHH increased grain yield 1.80 times over controls.
- Taxon
- CowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- UHHe0
- Outcome
- Grain yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 1.80e0
- Comparator
- control plotse0
- Setting
- statione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Grain yields were 1.80 and 2.62 times higher in UHH and NSE treatments compared to control plots, both at the station and in farmers’ environments.”
t0“Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.]”
Claim · model-written summary
NSE increased grain yield 2.62 times over controls.
- Taxon
- CowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- NSEe0
- Outcome
- Grain yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 2.62 timese0
- Comparator
- control plotse0
- Setting
- farmers’ environmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Grain yields were 1.80 and 2.62 times higher in UHH and NSE treatments compared to control plots, both at the station and in farmers’ environments.”
t0“Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.]”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield increases at station and farmer sites were 44.58% and 61.92%, respectively.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A yield increase of 44.58% and 61.92% was noted for these treatments at the station and in farmers’ environments, respectively.”
t0“Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.]”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield increase in farmer environments was 61.92%.
- Taxon
- CowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 61.92%e0
- Setting
- farmers’ environmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A yield increase of 44.58% and 61.92% was noted for these treatments at the station and in farmers’ environments, respectively.”
t0“Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.]”
The same questions in other papers
Azadirachta indica · yield · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →Azadirachta indica · pest · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results
20 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
18 papers more in this group
See all 22 papers →Azadirachta indica · Maruca vitrata · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
botanical · yield · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results
77 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- positive
76 papers more in this group
See all 80 papers →botanical · pest · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results
122 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
122 papers more in this group
See all 126 papers →insecticide · Maruca vitrata · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
botanical · Maruca vitrata · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Results agree
13 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 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.