Abstract
In the present study, the talc-based formulation of Pseudomonas fluorescens strain (Pf1) was tested against H. armigera in cotton, okra and pigeonpea. The susceptibility of H. armigera fed on P. fluorescens treated and untreated plants was bioassayed against cypermethrin on cotton bolls, okra fruits and pigeonpea pods. The susceptibility of third instar larvae of H. armigera to cypermethrin, fed on P. fluorescens treated plants did not differ significantly with the untreated plants. However, there was variation in the protein banding pattern among the P. fluorescens treated and untreated plants with or without infestation of H. armigera. Protein bands of molecular weight 83 and 40 kDa in cotton, 130 and 52 kDa in okra were observed in the Pseudomonas treated plants with infestation of H. armigera.
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 4
Claim · model-written summary
Cypermethrin susceptibility of larvae fed on Pseudomonas-treated plants did not differ significantly from larvae fed on untreated plants.
- Taxon
- cotton, okra and pigeonpea
Gossypium hirsutum
Cajanus cajan.jpg?width=60)
Abelmoschus esculentuse1 - Treatment
- P. fluorescens treated plantse0
- Interactor
- H. armigera
_gusano_cogollero.png?width=60)
Helicoverpa armigerae0pest - Second interactor
- P. fluorescens
.JPG?width=60)
Pseudomonas fluorescense0biocontrol_agent - Outcome
- susceptibility of third instar larvae of H. armigera to cypermethrine0
- Comparator
- untreated plantse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
_gusano_cogollero.png?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“The susceptibility of third instar larvae of H. armigera to cypermethrin, fed on P. fluorescens treated plants did not differ significantly with the untreated plants”
e1“H. armigera in cotton, okra and pigeonpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Protein banding patterns varied between treated and untreated plants, with or without H. armigera infestation.
- Taxon
- cotton, okra and pigeonpeaGossypium hirsutumCajanus cajanAbelmoschus esculentuse1
- Interactor
- H. armigeraHelicoverpa armigerae0pest
- Second interactor
- P. fluorescensPseudomonas fluorescense0biocontrol_agent
- Outcome
- protein banding patterne0
- Direction
- variatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there was variation in the protein banding pattern among the P. fluorescens treated and untreated plants with or without infestation of H. armigera”
e1“H. armigera in cotton, okra and pigeonpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Infested Pseudomonas-treated cotton plants had protein bands at 83 and 40 kDa.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- Pseudomonas treated plantse0
- Interactor
- H. armigeraHelicoverpa armigerae0pest
- Second interactor
- Pseudomonas
Pseudomonase0biocontrol_agent - Outcome
- Protein bandse0
- Value
- 83 and 40 kDae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Protein bands of molecular weight 83 and 40 kDa in cotton, 130 and 52 kDa in okra were observed in the Pseudomonas treated plants with infestation of H. armigera”
Claim · model-written summary
Infested Pseudomonas-treated okra plants had protein bands at 130 and 52 kDa.
- Taxon
- okraAbelmoschus esculentuse0
- Treatment
- Pseudomonas treated plantse0
- Interactor
- H. armigeraHelicoverpa armigerae0pest
- Second interactor
- PseudomonasPseudomonase0biocontrol_agent
- Outcome
- Protein bandse0
- Value
- 130 and 52 kDae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Protein bands of molecular weight 83 and 40 kDa in cotton, 130 and 52 kDa in okra were observed in the Pseudomonas treated plants with infestation of H. armigera”
The same questions in other papers
Pseudomonas fluorescens · Helicoverpa armigera · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
Pseudomonas fluorescens · Helicoverpa armigera · Abelmoschus esculentus (okra)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
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.