Paper · 2013 · Journal of Biological Control

Field Evaluation of Beauveria bassianb and Metarhizium anisopliae against the Cutworm, Agrotis ipsilon (Hufnagel) Damaging Potato in Uttarakhand Hills

Ajay Kumar Pandey

6
claims
18
verbatim quotes
2
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted at crop research center (Gaja) of College of Forestry and Hill Agriculture, GBPUA&T, Ranichauri during the year 2006-2009 to test the effectiveness of entomopathogenic fungi, Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae in comparison with an chlorpyriphos against cutworm, Agrotis ipsilon on potato. Lowest tuber damage (15.6%) was recorded in treatment of M. anisopliae (5.0x1011 spores/g) followed by B. bassiana (5.0x109 spores/g) with tuber damage of 17.82% as compared to control (31.82%). Highest yield of 126.97 q ha-1 was recorded in M. anisopliae treatment. However, among all the treatments, chlorpyriphos was found to be the most effective at lowest tuber damage (8.80%) with 142.01 q ha-1 yield while in control it was 65.78 q ha-1. Cost benefit ratio also revealed that application of higher dosage of M. anisopliae proved most effective followed by B. bassiana.

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 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

M. anisopliae had 15.6% tuber damage versus 31.82% in control.

Treatment
M. anisopliae (5.0x1011 spores/g)e0
Interactor
Agrotis ipsilonAgrotis ipsilont1pest
Second interactor
M. anisopliaeMetarhizium anisopliaee0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
tuber damagee0
Direction
Loweste0
Value
15.6%e0
Comparator
controle0

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 ↗
Agrotis ipsilon
Agrotis ipsilon · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryKomal et al. (2021) · CC BY 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Metarhizium anisopliae
Metarhizium anisopliae · Second interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryChengshu Wang and Yuxian Xia · CC BY-SA 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Lowest tuber damage (15.6%) was recorded in treatment of M. anisopliae (5.0x1011 spores/g) followed by B. bassiana (5.0x109 spores/g) with tuber damage of 17.82% as compared to control (31.82%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 334–527 · show in text ↑
t0

“Potato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 123–129 · show in text ↑
t1

“Agrotis ipsilon (Hufnagel) Damaging Potato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 87–129 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

B. bassiana had 17.82% tuber damage versus 31.82% in control.

Treatment
B. bassiana (5.0x109 spores/g)e0
Interactor
Agrotis ipsilonAgrotis ipsilont1pest
Second interactor
B. bassianaBeauveria bassianae0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
tuber damagee0
Direction
lowerinferrede0
Value
17.82%e0
Comparator
controle0

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 ↗
Agrotis ipsilon
Agrotis ipsilon · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryKomal et al. (2021) · CC BY 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Beauveria bassiana
Beauveria bassiana · Second interactorBealeiderman · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“B. bassiana (5.0x109 spores/g) with tuber damage of 17.82% as compared to control (31.82%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 437–527 · show in text ↑
t0

“Potato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 123–129 · show in text ↑
t1

“Agrotis ipsilon (Hufnagel) Damaging Potato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 87–129 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

M. anisopliae produced the highest fungal-treatment yield of 126.97 q ha-1.

Treatment
M. anisopliae treatmente0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
Higheste0
Value
126.97 q ha-1e0

Not reportedComparator

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

“Highest yield of 126.97 q ha-1 was recorded in M. anisopliae treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 529–599 · show in text ↑
t0

“Potato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 123–129 · show in text ↑
t1

“Agrotis ipsilon (Hufnagel) Damaging Potato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 87–129 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Chlorpyriphos resulted in the lowest tuber damage of 8.80%.

Treatment
chlorpyriphose0
Interactor
Agrotis ipsilonAgrotis ipsilont1pest
Outcome
tuber damagee0
Direction
loweste0
Value
8.80%e0
Comparator
controle0

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 ↗
Agrotis ipsilon
Agrotis ipsilon · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryKomal et al. (2021) · CC BY 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“chlorpyriphos was found to be the most effective at lowest tuber damage (8.80%) with 142.01 q ha-1 yield while in control it was 65.78 q ha-1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 636–777 · show in text ↑
t0

“Potato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 123–129 · show in text ↑
t1

“Agrotis ipsilon (Hufnagel) Damaging Potato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 87–129 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Chlorpyriphos produced 142.01 q ha-1 yield versus 65.78 q ha-1 in control.

Treatment
chlorpyriphose0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
higherinferrede0
Value
142.01 q ha-1e0
Qualifier
65.78 q ha-1e0
Comparator
controle0

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

“chlorpyriphos was found to be the most effective at lowest tuber damage (8.80%) with 142.01 q ha-1 yield while in control it was 65.78 q ha-1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 636–777 · show in text ↑
t0

“Potato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 123–129 · show in text ↑
t1

“Agrotis ipsilon (Hufnagel) Damaging Potato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 87–129 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Higher dosage of M. anisopliae had the best cost benefit ratio.

Treatment
higher dosage of M. anisopliaee0
Outcome
Cost benefit ratioe0
Direction
most effectivee0
Comparator
B. bassianae0

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

“Cost benefit ratio also revealed that application of higher dosage of M. anisopliae proved most effective followed by B. bassiana”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 779–908 · show in text ↑
t0

“Potato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 123–129 · show in text ↑
t1

“Agrotis ipsilon (Hufnagel) Damaging Potato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 87–129 · 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 →

Metarhizium anisopliae · yield · Solanum tuberosum (potato)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

chlorpyrifos · Agrotis ipsilon · Solanum tuberosum (potato)Results agree

6 papers: 6 positive, 0 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 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.