Paper · 2013 · Pakistan Journal of Zoology

Efficacy and Economics of Different Insecticides Against Stem Borers, Scirpophaga incertulas (Walker) in Rice Crop

G. H. Abro; T.S. Syed; A. H. Shah; et al.

8
claims
26
verbatim quotes
8
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The present study on the efficacy of insecticides in reducing the infestation of rice stem borer, Scirpophaga incertulas (Walker) was conducted during 2008. The seed of rice (Cv. IRRI-6) was sown in the fourth week of June and transplanted in the fourth week of July. The distance between row to row and plant to plant was maintained at 20cm. The experiment had fourth treatments replicated four times in Randomized Complete Block Design. Pretreatment observation was taken 24 hrs before application of insecticides. At the time of harvest the number of filled grains and yield was recorded. The results obtained indicated that application of insecticides significantly (P<0.05) reduced the infestation of rice stem borer in rice crop compared with control treatment. After second application cartap hydrochloride was found most effective insecticide with the minimum percent infestation (4.37%) followed by carbofuran (7.08%), fipronil (8.68%) and control (38.53%). Application of insecticides also significantly (P<0.01) increased the filling of rice grain and yield of rice crop. The maximum cost: benefit ratio of 1: 50.3 was obtained with application of cartap hydrochloride followed by carbofuran (1: 26.45) and fipronil (1: 24.24).

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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Insecticide application significantly (P<0.05) reduced rice stem borer infestation in rice compared with the control.

Treatment
application of insecticidese0
Interactor
rice stem borere0pest
Outcome
infestation of rice stem borere0
Direction
reducede0
Comparator
control treatmente0

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“application of insecticides significantly (P<0.05) reduced the infestation of rice stem borer in rice crop compared with control treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 628–766 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

After the second application cartap hydrochloride gave the lowest stem borer infestation (4.37%) versus 38.53% in the control.

Treatment
cartap hydrochloridee1
Interactor
Scirpophaga incertulasScirpophaga incertulast1pest
Outcome
percent infestatione0
Direction
minimume0
Value
4.37%e0
Qualifier
38.53%e2
Comparator
controle2

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Scirpophaga incertulas
Scirpophaga incertulas · InteractorDonald Hobern · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“minimum percent infestation (4.37%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 860–895 · show in text ↑
e1

“cartap hydrochloride was found most effective insecticide”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 793–850 · show in text ↑
e2

“control (38.53%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 949–965 · show in text ↑
t0

“Rice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 105–109 · show in text ↑
t1

“Scirpophaga incertulas”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 70–92 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Carbofuran gave a stem borer infestation of 7.08% after the second application versus 38.53% in the control.

Treatment
carbofurane1
Interactor
Scirpophaga incertulasScirpophaga incertulast1pest
Outcome
percent infestatione0
Direction
decreaseinferrede0
Value
7.08%e1
Qualifier
38.53%e2
Comparator
controle2

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Scirpophaga incertulas
Scirpophaga incertulas · InteractorDonald Hobern · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“percent infestation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 868–887 · show in text ↑
e1

“carbofuran (7.08%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 908–926 · show in text ↑
e2

“control (38.53%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 949–965 · show in text ↑
t0

“Rice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 105–109 · show in text ↑
t1

“Scirpophaga incertulas”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 70–92 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fipronil gave a stem borer infestation of 8.68% after the second application versus 38.53% in the control.

Treatment
fipronile1
Interactor
Scirpophaga incertulasScirpophaga incertulast1pest
Outcome
percent infestatione0
Direction
decreaseinferrede0
Value
8.68%e1
Qualifier
38.53%e2
Comparator
controle2

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Scirpophaga incertulas
Scirpophaga incertulas · InteractorDonald Hobern · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“percent infestation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 868–887 · show in text ↑
e1

“fipronil (8.68%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 928–944 · show in text ↑
e2

“control (38.53%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 949–965 · show in text ↑
t0

“Rice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 105–109 · show in text ↑
t1

“Scirpophaga incertulas”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 70–92 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Insecticide application significantly (P<0.01) increased rice grain filling and rice yield.

Treatment
Application of insecticidese0
Outcome
filling of rice grain and yield of rice crope0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Application of insecticides also significantly (P<0.01) increased the filling of rice grain and yield of rice crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 967–1081 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cartap hydrochloride gave the maximum cost:benefit ratio of 1:50.3.

Treatment
cartap hydrochloridee1
Outcome
cost: benefit ratioe0
Direction
maximume1
Value
1: 50.3e1

Not reportedComparator

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“cost: benefit ratio”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1095–1114 · show in text ↑
e1

“maximum cost: benefit ratio of 1: 50.3 was obtained with application of cartap hydrochloride”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1087–1179 · show in text ↑
t0

“Rice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 105–109 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Carbofuran gave a cost:benefit ratio of 1:26.45, lower than cartap hydrochloride.

Treatment
carbofurane1
Outcome
cost: benefit ratioe0
Direction
lowerinferrede1
Value
1: 26.45e1

Not reportedComparator

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“cost: benefit ratio”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1095–1114 · show in text ↑
e1

“carbofuran (1: 26.45)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1192–1213 · show in text ↑
t0

“Rice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 105–109 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fipronil gave a cost:benefit ratio of 1:24.24, lower than carbofuran.

Treatment
fipronile1
Outcome
cost: benefit ratioe0
Direction
lowerinferrede1
Value
1: 24.24e1

Not reportedComparator

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“cost: benefit ratio”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1095–1114 · show in text ↑
e1

“fipronil (1: 24.24)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1218–1237 · show in text ↑
t0

“Rice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 105–109 · show in text ↑

fipronil · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Results differ

22 papers: 21 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

18 papers more in this group

See all 22 papers →

carbofuran · Scirpophaga incertulas · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

7 papers: 5 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

cartap · Scirpophaga incertulas · Oryza sativa (rice)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 →

hydrochloride · Scirpophaga incertulas · Oryza sativa (rice)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 →

fipronil · Scirpophaga incertulas · Oryza sativa (rice)Results agree

9 papers: 9 positive, 0 negative or no effect

8 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 papers →

hydrochloride · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Results agree

10 papers: 10 positive, 0 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 papers →

cartap · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Results agree

16 papers: 16 positive, 0 negative or no effect

15 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

12 papers more in this group

See all 16 papers →

carbofuran · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Results agree

24 papers: 24 positive, 0 negative or no effect

23 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

20 papers more in this group

See all 24 papers →

8 of 10 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.

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.