Abstract
The results of the present studies depicted that deltamethrin 2.8 EC was most effective against C. partellus recording minimum deadhearts (6.85%). The soil application of green molecule, chlorantraniliprole 0.4 GR, foliar application of biopesticide, B. thuringiensis var. Kurstaki and cultural practice of intercropping fodder cowpea in two rows of maize were at par with each other for reducing the deadhearts (48.30–50.12%). The seed treatment with imidacloprid 600 FS and foliar application of B. bassiana were found to be least effective (15.12–15.30% dead hearts), but were better than control (20.89%).
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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
Claim · model-written summary
Deltamethrin 2.8 EC was the most effective treatment against C. partellus, with minimum deadhearts (6.85%).
- Treatment
- deltamethrin 2.8 ECe1
- Interactor
- C. partellus
_Figure_27c.jpg?width=60)
Chilo partelluse1pest - Outcome
- deadheartse1
- Direction
- minimume1
- Value
- 6.85%e1
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_Figure_27c.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
t0“maize stem borer, Chilo partellus”
e1“deltamethrin 2.8 EC was most effective against C. partellus recording minimum deadhearts (6.85%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil application of chlorantraniliprole 0.4 GR reduced deadhearts by 48.30–50.12%, at par with the other top treatments.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize stem borer, Chilo partellus”
e2“The soil application of green molecule, chlorantraniliprole 0.4 GR, foliar application of biopesticide, B. thuringiensis var. Kurstaki and cultural practice of intercropping fodder cowpea in two rows of maize were at par with each other for reducing the deadhearts (48.30–50.12%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar application of B. thuringiensis var. Kurstaki reduced deadhearts by 48.30–50.12%, at par with the other top treatments.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize stem borer, Chilo partellus”
e2“The soil application of green molecule, chlorantraniliprole 0.4 GR, foliar application of biopesticide, B. thuringiensis var. Kurstaki and cultural practice of intercropping fodder cowpea in two rows of maize were at par with each other for reducing the deadhearts (48.30–50.12%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping fodder cowpea in two rows of maize reduced deadhearts by 48.30–50.12%, at par with the other top treatments.
- Treatment
- intercropping fodder cowpea in two rows of maizee2
- Outcome
- deadheartse2
- Direction
- reducinge2
- Value
- 48.30–50.12%e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize stem borer, Chilo partellus”
e2“The soil application of green molecule, chlorantraniliprole 0.4 GR, foliar application of biopesticide, B. thuringiensis var. Kurstaki and cultural practice of intercropping fodder cowpea in two rows of maize were at par with each other for reducing the deadhearts (48.30–50.12%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Seed treatment with imidacloprid 600 FS was the least effective treatment, with 15.12–15.30% dead hearts, though better than control.
- Treatment
- seed treatment with imidacloprid 600 FSe3
- Outcome
- dead heartse3
- Direction
- least effectivee3
- Value
- 15.12–15.30%e3
- Comparator
- controle3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize stem borer, Chilo partellus”
e3“The seed treatment with imidacloprid 600 FS and foliar application of B. bassiana were found to be least effective (15.12–15.30% dead hearts), but were better than control (20.89%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar application of B. bassiana was the least effective treatment, with 15.12–15.30% dead hearts, though better than control.
- Treatment
- foliar application of B. bassianae3
- Outcome
- dead heartse3
- Direction
- least effectivee3
- Value
- 15.12–15.30%e3
- Comparator
- controle3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize stem borer, Chilo partellus”
e3“The seed treatment with imidacloprid 600 FS and foliar application of B. bassiana were found to be least effective (15.12–15.30% dead hearts), but were better than control (20.89%)”
Claim · model-written summary
The control treatment had 20.89% dead hearts.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize stem borer, Chilo partellus”
e3“The seed treatment with imidacloprid 600 FS and foliar application of B. bassiana were found to be least effective (15.12–15.30% dead hearts), but were better than control (20.89%)”
The same questions in other papers
imidacloprid · pest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →deltamethrin · Chilo partellus · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →seed treatment · pest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
20 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
23 papers more in this group
See all 27 papers →application · pest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
27 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
31 papers more in this group
See all 35 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.