Paper · 2011 · Crop Research

Evaluation of neem products against insect-pests of cotton

T. Rudramuni; K. M. Reddy; V. T. Sannaveerappanavar

5
claims
11
verbatim quotes
1
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Field evaluation of commercial neem products with different levels of azadirachtin was done against sucking pests (aphids, leaf hoppers and thrips) and bollworms. The neem-based formulation used in the study included Neemazal, Nimbicidine, Vijayneem, Neemplus, Neemgold, Nimbo bas, Multineem, Nimbex and Neem seed kernel extract. All the treatments were superior to the untreated control and the neem products, irrespective of the azadirachtin content, did not differ from each other in controlling the aphids. Five days after the spray, neemazal (1% aza) and NSKE (5%) were more effective in suppressing leaf hoppers followed by nimbex, neemgold and monocrotophos. All the neem products including NSKE (5%) significantly reduced the damage by bollworms

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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All treatments were superior to the untreated control in controlling sucking pests on cotton.

Treatment
commercial neem productse0
Interactor
sucking pestse0pest
Outcome
superior to the untreated controle1
Direction
superiore1
Comparator
untreated controle1
Setting
Fielde0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“insect-pests of cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 36–58 · show in text ↑
e0

“Field evaluation of commercial neem products with different levels of azadirachtin was done against sucking pests (aphids, leaf hoppers and thrips) and bollworms”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–161 · show in text ↑
e1

“All the treatments were superior to the untreated control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 330–387 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Neem products with different azadirachtin contents did not differ from each other in controlling aphids on cotton.

Treatment
neem productse2
Interactor
aphidsAphidomorphae2pest
Outcome
controlling the aphidse2
Direction
did not differe2
Qualifier
irrespective of the azadirachtin contente2
Comparator
each othere2

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“insect-pests of cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 36–58 · show in text ↑
e2

“the neem products, irrespective of the azadirachtin content, did not differ from each other in controlling the aphids”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 392–509 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Neemazal (1% aza) was more effective than nimbex, neemgold and monocrotophos in suppressing leaf hoppers on cotton five days after spraying.

Treatment
neemazal (1% aza)e3
Interactor
leaf hoppersCicadellidaee3pest
Outcome
suppressing leaf hopperse3
Direction
more effectivee3
Comparator
nimbex, neemgold and monocrotophose3

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“insect-pests of cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 36–58 · show in text ↑
e3

“Five days after the spray, neemazal (1% aza) and NSKE (5%) were more effective in suppressing leaf hoppers followed by nimbex, neemgold and monocrotophos”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 511–664 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NSKE (5%) was more effective than nimbex, neemgold and monocrotophos in suppressing leaf hoppers on cotton five days after spraying.

Treatment
NSKE (5%)e3
Interactor
leaf hoppersCicadellidaee3pest
Outcome
suppressing leaf hopperse3
Direction
more effectivee3
Comparator
nimbex, neemgold and monocrotophose3

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“insect-pests of cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 36–58 · show in text ↑
e3

“Five days after the spray, neemazal (1% aza) and NSKE (5%) were more effective in suppressing leaf hoppers followed by nimbex, neemgold and monocrotophos”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 511–664 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Neem products including NSKE (5%) significantly reduced bollworm damage on cotton.

Treatment
neem products including NSKE (5%)e4
Interactor
bollwormsHelicoverpa zeae4pest
Outcome
damage by bollwormse4
Direction
reducede4

Not reportedComparator

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Helicoverpa zea
Helicoverpa zea · InteractorAndy Reago & Chrissy McClarren · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“insect-pests of cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 36–58 · show in text ↑
e4

“All the neem products including NSKE (5%) significantly reduced the damage by bollworms”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 666–753 · show in text ↑

botanical · control · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 4 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

botanical · Aphidomorpha · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

7 papers: 6 positive, 1 negative or no effect

6 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

botanical · Helicoverpa zea · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 6 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 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.