Abstract
Experiments on validation of integrated pest management (IPM) module against insect pest of pigeonpea in comparison with the Non-IPM (farmer’s practices) were conducted at N.E.B. Crop Research Centre, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar during Kharif 2014 and 2015. Adopted IPM module contained Seed treatment with Trichoderma spp. @10g/kg of seed, Sole crop, Bird perches @ 50/ha, need based insecticides spray (Chlorantraniliprole 18.5SC @ 30 g a. i./ha; Neem soap@10g/lit; Acetamiprid 20SP @ 20 g a. i./ha). The results indicated that minimum population of pod borers (Helicoverpa armigera,Maruca vitrata and podfly) and sucking insects (aphids, jassids, pod bug) was reported in IPM plots and maximum population of insects was observed in Non-IPM plots. Percent insect control over non-IPM was 50.98 % for H. armigera, 44.69 % for M. vitrata and 19.17 % for Maruca webbing were recorded. While, for sucking pest complex, insect control over non-IPM was 51.59 %, 40.36 % and 36.17 % against jassids, aphids and tur pod bug, respectively. Similarly, minimum pod borer damage (6.48 and 7.71 %) was recorded in IPM plots as compared to maximum pod borer damage (8.37 and 8.22 %) in non-IPM plots, respectively during 2014 and 2015. Whereas, pooled grain yield for IPM plots was 1286.5 kg/ha for both seasons as against 888 kg/ha in non-IPM plots with 1:2.89 benefit cost ratio. Hence, It is apparent that studied IPM module was able to increase the yield of pigeonepea with lower cost of production as against non-IPM thus it would be benefiting the farmers.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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 12
Claim · model-written summary
IPM plots had the minimum population of pod borers compared with non-IPM plots.
- Taxon
- pigeonpea
Cajanus cajane0 - Treatment
- IPM plotse1
- Interactor
- Helicoverpa armigera
_gusano_cogollero.png?width=60)
Helicoverpa armigerae1pest - Second interactor
- Maruca vitrata
Maruca vitratae1pest - Outcome
- population of pod borerse1
- Direction
- minimume1
- Comparator
- Non-IPM plotse1
- Setting
- Pantnagare0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_gusano_cogollero.png?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“Experiments on validation of integrated pest management (IPM) module against insect pest of pigeonpea in comparison with the Non-IPM (farmer’s practices) were conducted at N.E.B. Crop Research Centre, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar during Kharif 2014 and 2015”
e1“minimum population of pod borers (Helicoverpa armigera,Maruca vitrata and podfly) and sucking insects (aphids, jassids, pod bug) was reported in IPM plots and maximum population of insects was observed in Non-IPM plots”
Claim · model-written summary
IPM plots had the minimum population of sucking insects compared with non-IPM plots.
- Taxon
- pigeonpeaCajanus cajane0
- Treatment
- IPM plotse1
- Interactor
- aphidsAphidomorphae1pest
- Second interactor
- jassidse1pest
- Outcome
- population of insectse1
- Direction
- minimume1
- Comparator
- Non-IPM plotse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Experiments on validation of integrated pest management (IPM) module against insect pest of pigeonpea in comparison with the Non-IPM (farmer’s practices) were conducted at N.E.B. Crop Research Centre, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar during Kharif 2014 and 2015”
e1“minimum population of pod borers (Helicoverpa armigera,Maruca vitrata and podfly) and sucking insects (aphids, jassids, pod bug) was reported in IPM plots and maximum population of insects was observed in Non-IPM plots”
Claim · model-written summary
The IPM module gave 50.98 % insect control over non-IPM against Helicoverpa armigera.
- Taxon
- pigeonpeaCajanus cajane0
- Treatment
- integrated pest management (IPM) modulee0
- Interactor
- H. armigeraHelicoverpa armigerae2pest
- Outcome
- insect controle2
- Direction
- increaseinferrede2
- Value
- 50.98 %e2
- Comparator
- non-IPMe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Experiments on validation of integrated pest management (IPM) module against insect pest of pigeonpea in comparison with the Non-IPM (farmer’s practices) were conducted at N.E.B. Crop Research Centre, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar during Kharif 2014 and 2015”
e2“Percent insect control over non-IPM was 50.98 % for H. armigera, 44.69 % for M. vitrata and 19.17 % for Maruca webbing were recorded”
Claim · model-written summary
The IPM module gave 44.69 % insect control over non-IPM against Maruca vitrata.
- Taxon
- pigeonpeaCajanus cajane0
- Treatment
- integrated pest management (IPM) modulee0
- Interactor
- M. vitrataMaruca vitratae2pest
- Outcome
- insect controle2
- Direction
- increaseinferrede2
- Value
- 44.69 %e2
- Comparator
- non-IPMe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Experiments on validation of integrated pest management (IPM) module against insect pest of pigeonpea in comparison with the Non-IPM (farmer’s practices) were conducted at N.E.B. Crop Research Centre, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar during Kharif 2014 and 2015”
e2“Percent insect control over non-IPM was 50.98 % for H. armigera, 44.69 % for M. vitrata and 19.17 % for Maruca webbing were recorded”
Claim · model-written summary
The IPM module gave 19.17 % insect control over non-IPM against Maruca webbing.
- Taxon
- pigeonpeaCajanus cajane0
- Treatment
- integrated pest management (IPM) modulee0
- Outcome
- insect controle2
- Direction
- increaseinferrede2
- Value
- 19.17 %e2
- Qualifier
- Maruca webbinge2
- Comparator
- non-IPMe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Experiments on validation of integrated pest management (IPM) module against insect pest of pigeonpea in comparison with the Non-IPM (farmer’s practices) were conducted at N.E.B. Crop Research Centre, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar during Kharif 2014 and 2015”
e2“Percent insect control over non-IPM was 50.98 % for H. armigera, 44.69 % for M. vitrata and 19.17 % for Maruca webbing were recorded”
Claim · model-written summary
The IPM module gave 51.59 % insect control over non-IPM against jassids.
- Taxon
- pigeonpeaCajanus cajane0
- Treatment
- integrated pest management (IPM) modulee0
- Interactor
- jassidse3pest
- Outcome
- insect controle3
- Direction
- increaseinferrede3
- Value
- 51.59 %e3
- Comparator
- non-IPMe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Experiments on validation of integrated pest management (IPM) module against insect pest of pigeonpea in comparison with the Non-IPM (farmer’s practices) were conducted at N.E.B. Crop Research Centre, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar during Kharif 2014 and 2015”
e3“While, for sucking pest complex, insect control over non-IPM was 51.59 %, 40.36 % and 36.17 % against jassids, aphids and tur pod bug, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The IPM module gave 40.36 % insect control over non-IPM against aphids.
- Taxon
- pigeonpeaCajanus cajane0
- Treatment
- integrated pest management (IPM) modulee0
- Interactor
- aphidsAphidomorphae3pest
- Outcome
- insect controle3
- Direction
- increaseinferrede3
- Value
- 40.36 %e3
- Comparator
- non-IPMe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Experiments on validation of integrated pest management (IPM) module against insect pest of pigeonpea in comparison with the Non-IPM (farmer’s practices) were conducted at N.E.B. Crop Research Centre, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar during Kharif 2014 and 2015”
e3“While, for sucking pest complex, insect control over non-IPM was 51.59 %, 40.36 % and 36.17 % against jassids, aphids and tur pod bug, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The IPM module gave 36.17 % insect control over non-IPM against tur pod bug.
- Taxon
- pigeonpeaCajanus cajane0
- Treatment
- integrated pest management (IPM) modulee0
- Interactor
- tur pod buge3pest
- Outcome
- insect controle3
- Direction
- increaseinferrede3
- Value
- 36.17 %e3
- Comparator
- non-IPMe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Experiments on validation of integrated pest management (IPM) module against insect pest of pigeonpea in comparison with the Non-IPM (farmer’s practices) were conducted at N.E.B. Crop Research Centre, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar during Kharif 2014 and 2015”
e3“While, for sucking pest complex, insect control over non-IPM was 51.59 %, 40.36 % and 36.17 % against jassids, aphids and tur pod bug, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The IPM module reduced pod borer damage to 6.48 and 7.71 % compared with 8.37 and 8.22 % in non-IPM plots, in 2014 and 2015.
- Taxon
- pigeonpeaCajanus cajane0
- Treatment
- IPM plotse4
- Interactor
- pod borere4pest
- Outcome
- pod borer damagee4
- Direction
- minimume4
- Value
- 6.48 and 7.71 %e4
- Qualifier
- 8.37 and 8.22 %e4
- Comparator
- non-IPM plotse4
- Setting
- 2014 and 2015e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Experiments on validation of integrated pest management (IPM) module against insect pest of pigeonpea in comparison with the Non-IPM (farmer’s practices) were conducted at N.E.B. Crop Research Centre, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar during Kharif 2014 and 2015”
e4“minimum pod borer damage (6.48 and 7.71 %) was recorded in IPM plots as compared to maximum pod borer damage (8.37 and 8.22 %) in non-IPM plots, respectively during 2014 and 2015”
Claim · model-written summary
IPM plots gave a higher pooled grain yield, 1286.5 kg/ha, than non-IPM plots, 888 kg/ha.
- Taxon
- pigeonpeaCajanus cajane0
- Treatment
- IPM plotse5
- Outcome
- pooled grain yielde5
- Direction
- higherinferrede5
- Value
- 1286.5 kg/hae5
- Qualifier
- 888 kg/hae5
- Comparator
- non-IPM plotse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Experiments on validation of integrated pest management (IPM) module against insect pest of pigeonpea in comparison with the Non-IPM (farmer’s practices) were conducted at N.E.B. Crop Research Centre, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar during Kharif 2014 and 2015”
e5“pooled grain yield for IPM plots was 1286.5 kg/ha for both seasons as against 888 kg/ha in non-IPM plots with 1:2.89 benefit cost ratio”
Claim · model-written summary
The IPM module had a benefit cost ratio of 1:2.89.
- Taxon
- pigeonpeaCajanus cajane0
- Outcome
- benefit cost ratioe5
- Value
- 1:2.89e5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Experiments on validation of integrated pest management (IPM) module against insect pest of pigeonpea in comparison with the Non-IPM (farmer’s practices) were conducted at N.E.B. Crop Research Centre, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar during Kharif 2014 and 2015”
e5“pooled grain yield for IPM plots was 1286.5 kg/ha for both seasons as against 888 kg/ha in non-IPM plots with 1:2.89 benefit cost ratio”
Claim · model-written summary
The IPM module gave a lower cost of production than non-IPM practice.
- Taxon
- pigeonpeaCajanus cajane0
- Treatment
- IPM modulee6
- Outcome
- cost of productione6
- Direction
- lowere6
- Comparator
- non-IPMe6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Experiments on validation of integrated pest management (IPM) module against insect pest of pigeonpea in comparison with the Non-IPM (farmer’s practices) were conducted at N.E.B. Crop Research Centre, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar during Kharif 2014 and 2015”
e6“studied IPM module was able to increase the yield of pigeonepea with lower cost of production as against non-IPM”
The same questions in other papers
ipm · yield · Cajanus cajan (pigeon pea)Positive and negative results
19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- positive
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →ipm · Helicoverpa armigera · Cajanus cajan (pigeon pea)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
ipm · control · Cajanus cajan (pigeon pea)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
ipm · pest · Cajanus cajan (pigeon pea)Results agree
8 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 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.