Abstract
The efficacy of neem and Bt formulations vis-a-vis recommended insecticide endosulfan alone and in combination with one another was evaluated during kharif, 1997 and 1998 seasons. Neem Bt tormulations and endosullan separately and in combinatton offered good protection against damage caused by C. partellus. Applicatton of endosullan effecttvely suppressed the pest than neem and Bt formulations. Severity of damage under artificial infestation conditions was low in plots treated with neem oil and endosulfan combination. Btk, endosulfan as well as their combination reduced stem tunneling in artificially infested plants by stem borer. All the treatments adversely affected the spider population in the field. Higher grain yield was realized with endosulfan treatment than neem and Bt formulations.
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
Claim · model-written summary
Neem, Bt and endosulfan treatments protected maize from C. partellus damage.
- Treatment
- Neem Bt tormulations and endosullane0
- Interactor
- C. partellus
_Figure_27c.jpg?width=60)
Chilo partelluse0pest - Outcome
- damage caused by C. partelluse0
- Direction
- good protectione0
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_Figure_27c.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“Neem Bt tormulations and endosullan separately and in combinatton offered good protection against damage caused by C. partellus”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Endosulfan suppressed the pest more than neem and Bt.
- Treatment
- endosullane0
- Interactor
- Chilo partellusChilo partellust0pest
- Outcome
- peste0
- Direction
- suppressede0
- Comparator
- neem and Bt formulationse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“endosullan effecttvely suppressed the pest than neem and Bt formulations”
t0“Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) Infestation in Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Neem oil plus endosulfan produced low damage severity under artificial infestation.
- Treatment
- neem oil and endosulfan combinatione0
- Interactor
- Chilo partellusChilo partellust0pest
- Outcome
- Severity of damagee0
- Direction
- lowe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Severity of damage under artificial infestation conditions was low in plots treated with neem oil and endosulfan combination”
t0“Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) Infestation in Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Btk reduced stem tunneling.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Btk, endosulfan as well as their combination reduced stem tunneling in artificially infested plants by stem borer”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Endosulfan reduced stem tunneling.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Btk, endosulfan as well as their combination reduced stem tunneling in artificially infested plants by stem borer”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Btk and endosulfan together reduced stem tunneling.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Btk, endosulfan as well as their combination reduced stem tunneling in artificially infested plants by stem borer”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
All treatments adversely affected spider populations.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All the treatments adversely affected the spider population in the field”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Endosulfan gave higher grain yield than neem and Bt.
- Treatment
- endosulfan treatmente0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- Highere0
- Comparator
- neem and Bt formulationse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Higher grain yield was realized with endosulfan treatment than neem and Bt formulations”
t0“Maize”
The same questions in other papers
endosulfan · pest · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
endosulfan · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
endosulfan · Chilo partellus · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
transgenic · Chilo partellus · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
botanical · Chilo partellus · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 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.