Paper · 2005 · Potato Journal/Journal of the Indian Potato Association

IMPACT OF VERIFICATION TRIAL ON FARMERS’ ADOPTION OF PEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN POTATO

Anil Kumar; NK Pandey; V. K. Chandla

7
claims
23
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

The potato productivity in Himachal Pradesh (115.5 q/ha) is far below the national average due to rainfed conditions, unavailability of healthy seed and inadequate plant protection measures. In the spring crop of potato grown at an altitude of 1500 meter above msl, the incidence of leaf spot complex (early and phoma blight) and cutworms is very high. The farmers do not use any control measures against these pests. Verification trials were conducted on the management of these pests by the IVLP team of CPRI in Rampur-Keonthal and Baghi panchayats during 1999-2004 by adopting the recommended scientific practices. The trials were conducted on 25 different farmers’ fields every year. For this purpose two types of field plots (400 sq. m. each) were kept side by side, viz., control plot with farmers’ practices and demonstration plot with recommended scientific practices. For the management of leaf spot complex, 2 sprays of Mancozeb (0.25%) and Urea (1%) at 15 days interval were suggested. This resulted in reduction in the incidence of the diseases from 9.4 per cent in the control plot to 3.1 per cent in the demonstration plot. The yield also increased by 24.7 q/ha, there by improving the benefit-cost ratio from 2.0 to 2.3. For the management of cutworms, drenching of ridges with Chlorpyriphos (0.25%) was suggested. It brought down the infestation of cutworms from 2.8 per cent in the control plot to 0.4 per cent in the demonstration plot. The marketable yield increased by 26.3 q/ha leading to an improvement in benefit-cost ratio from 2.4 to 2.6. The impact on technology adoption was assessed by comparing the adoption level of adopted and non-adopted farmers. The impact study was conducted in March, 2005 by selecting a sample of 10 per cent of respondents from the adopted and non-adopted categories. It was found that the adoption level of the recommended practices increased from 28.20 per cent among the non-adopted category to 40.55 per cent among adopted category. The ‘t’ value of the mean difference of adopted and non-adopted categories was found to be 2.55, which was significant at 0.05 level of probability. It can be concluded that the effect of verification trials on technology dissemination and control of potato pests was substantial. The technology also got diffused among the non-adopted category of farmers in a span of 4 years, which is evidenced by the fact that 28.20 per cent of the technology is also adopted by the non-adopted category of farmers.

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

Mancozeb and urea sprays reduced leaf spot incidence from 9.4% to 3.1%.

Treatment
2 sprays of Mancozeb (0.25%) and Urea (1%) at 15 days intervale0
Outcome
incidence of the diseasese0
Direction
reductione0
Value
3.1 per cente0
Qualifier
9.4 per cente0
Comparator
control plote0

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“2 sprays of Mancozeb (0.25%) and Urea (1%) at 15 days interval were suggested. This resulted in reduction in the incidence of the diseases from 9.4 per cent in the control plot to 3.1 per cent in the demonstration plot”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 918–1136 · show in text ↑
t0

“POTATO”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 82–88 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Leaf spot management increased potato yield by 24.7 q/ha.

Treatment
2 sprays of Mancozeb (0.25%) and Urea (1%)e1
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
24.7 q/hae0
Comparator
control plot with farmers’ practicese2

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The yield also increased by 24.7 q/ha”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1138–1175 · show in text ↑
e1

“2 sprays of Mancozeb (0.25%) and Urea (1%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 918–960 · show in text ↑
e2

“control plot with farmers’ practices and demonstration plot with recommended scientific practices”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 778–875 · show in text ↑
t0

“POTATO”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 82–88 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Leaf spot management improved benefit-cost ratio from 2.0 to 2.3.

Treatment
2 sprays of Mancozeb (0.25%) and Urea (1%)e1
Outcome
benefit-cost ratioe0
Direction
improvinge0
Value
2.3e0
Qualifier
2.0e0
Comparator
control plot with farmers’ practicese2

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“improving the benefit-cost ratio from 2.0 to 2.3”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1186–1234 · show in text ↑
e1

“2 sprays of Mancozeb (0.25%) and Urea (1%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 918–960 · show in text ↑
e2

“control plot with farmers’ practices”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 778–814 · show in text ↑
t0

“POTATO”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 82–88 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Chlorpyriphos drenching lowered cutworm infestation from 2.8% to 0.4%.

Treatment
drenching of ridges with Chlorpyriphos (0.25%)e0
Interactor
cutwormse0pest
Outcome
infestation of cutwormse0
Direction
brought downe0
Value
0.4 per cente0
Qualifier
2.8 per cente0
Comparator
control plote0

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“drenching of ridges with Chlorpyriphos (0.25%) was suggested. It brought down the infestation of cutworms from 2.8 per cent in the control plot to 0.4 per cent in the demonstration plot”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1268–1453 · show in text ↑
t0

“POTATO”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 82–88 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cutworm management raised marketable yield by 26.3 q/ha.

Treatment
drenching of ridges with Chlorpyriphos (0.25%)e1
Outcome
marketable yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
26.3 q/hae0
Comparator
control plot with farmers’ practicese2

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The marketable yield increased by 26.3 q/ha”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1455–1498 · show in text ↑
e1

“drenching of ridges with Chlorpyriphos (0.25%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1268–1314 · show in text ↑
e2

“control plot with farmers’ practices”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 778–814 · show in text ↑
t0

“POTATO”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 82–88 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cutworm management improved benefit-cost ratio from 2.4 to 2.6.

Treatment
drenching of ridges with Chlorpyriphos (0.25%)e1
Outcome
benefit-cost ratioe0
Direction
improvemente0
Value
2.6e0
Qualifier
2.4e0
Comparator
control plot with farmers’ practicese2

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“improvement in benefit-cost ratio from 2.4 to 2.6”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1513–1562 · show in text ↑
e1

“drenching of ridges with Chlorpyriphos (0.25%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1268–1314 · show in text ↑
e2

“control plot with farmers’ practices”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 778–814 · show in text ↑
t0

“POTATO”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 82–88 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Adoption was 40.55% among adopted farmers versus 28.20% among non-adopted farmers, a significant difference.

Outcome
adoption level of the recommended practicese0
Direction
increasede0
Value
40.55 per cente0
Qualifier
28.20 per cente0
Comparator
non-adopted categorye0

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“adoption level of the recommended practices increased from 28.20 per cent among the non-adopted category to 40.55 per cent among adopted category”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1844–1989 · show in text ↑
e1

“mean difference of adopted and non-adopted categories was found to be 2.55, which was significant at 0.05 level of probability”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2012–2138 · show in text ↑
t0

“POTATO”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 82–88 · show in text ↑

chlorpyrifos · yield · Solanum tuberosum (potato)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 7 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

chlorpyrifos · pest · Solanum tuberosum (potato)Positive and negative results

10 papers: 9 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 papers →

mancozeb · disease · Solanum tuberosum (potato)Positive and negative results

26 papers: 24 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. positive

22 papers more in this group

See all 26 papers →

chlorpyrifos · quality: postharvest · Solanum tuberosum (potato)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 →

mancozeb · yield · Solanum tuberosum (potato)Results agree

21 papers: 21 positive, 0 negative or no effect

20 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

17 papers more in this group

See all 21 papers →

nitrogen · yield · Solanum tuberosum (potato)Results differ

132 papers: 109 positive, 23 negative or no effect

108 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

128 papers more in this group

See all 132 papers →

nitrogen · disease · Solanum tuberosum (potato)Positive and negative results

16 papers: 12 positive, 4 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

12 papers more in this group

See all 16 papers →

application · quality: postharvest · Solanum tuberosum (potato)Positive and negative results

22 papers: 19 positive, 3 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

18 papers more in this group

See all 22 papers →

8 of 11 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.