Abstract
Efficacy and profitability of different management packages comprising white sticky trap, biopesticide and synthetic insecticides were evaluated against flower thrips and pod borers of mungbean at Pulses Research Center, Ishurdi, Pabna, Bangladesh during two consecutive seasons of kharif-1, 2015 & 2016. All the treatments significantly reduced flower infestation by thrips and pod borer infestation. The highest percentage of flower infestation and thrips population reduction was observed in installing white sticky trap + spraying of chlorfenapyr (Intrepid 10 SC) + spraying with emamectin benzoate (Proclaim 5 SG) followed by farmers practice, i.e. spraying imidacloprid (Imitaf 20 SL). Again, the highest pod borer infestation reduction was found in installing white sticky trap + spraying azadirachtin (Bio-neem plus 1EC) + spraying with spinosad (Success 2.5 SC) treated plots followed by installing white sticky trap + spraying chlorfenapyr (Intrepid 10 SC) + spraying with emamectin benzoate (Proclaim 5 SG). The highest grain yield was obtained from installing white sticky trap + spraying chlorfenapyr (Intrepid 10 SC) + spraying with emamectin benzoate (Proclaim 5 SG), but the highest return came from farmers practice (spraying Imidacloprid). This might be due to the higher cost of Intrepid 10 SC and Proclaim 5 SG reduced the return as well as benefit. Therefore, considering the efficacy and benefit, it is seen that the evaluated IPM package could not be profitable against low level infestation of flower thrips and pod borer infestation. It could be profitable that areas where serious out break of flower thrips and pod borer occurs.Jahangirnagar University J. Biol. Sci. 7(1): 55-64, 2018 (June)
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
All treatments significantly reduced thrips flower infestation and pod borer infestation.
- Taxon
- mungbean
.jpg?width=60)
Vigna radiatat0 - Treatment
- All the treatmentse0
- Outcome
- flower infestation by thrips and pod borer infestatione0
- Direction
- reducede0
ThripsNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“All the treatments significantly reduced flower infestation by thrips and pod borer infestation.”
t0“mungbean (Vigna radiata L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Sticky traps with chlorfenapyr and emamectin produced the largest reduction in flower infestation and thrips population.
- Taxon
- mungbeanVigna radiatat0
- Treatment
- installing white sticky trap + spraying of chlorfenapyr (Intrepid 10 SC) + spraying with emamectin benzoate (Proclaim 5 SG)e0
- Outcome
- flower infestation and thrips population reductione0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Comparator
- farmers practicee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest percentage of flower infestation and thrips population reduction was observed in installing white sticky trap + spraying of chlorfenapyr (Intrepid 10 SC) + spraying with emamectin benzoate (Proclaim 5 SG) followed by farmers practice, i.e. spraying imidacloprid (Imitaf 20 SL).”
t0“mungbean (Vigna radiata L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Sticky traps with azadirachtin and spinosad produced the largest pod borer infestation reduction.
- Taxon
- mungbeanVigna radiatat0
- Treatment
- installing white sticky trap + spraying azadirachtin (Bio-neem plus 1EC) + spraying with spinosad (Success 2.5 SC)e0
- Interactor
- pod borere0pest
- Outcome
- pod borer infestation reductione0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Comparator
- installing white sticky trap + spraying chlorfenapyr (Intrepid 10 SC) + spraying with emamectin benzoate (Proclaim 5 SG)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest pod borer infestation reduction was found in installing white sticky trap + spraying azadirachtin (Bio-neem plus 1EC) + spraying with spinosad (Success 2.5 SC) treated plots followed by installing white sticky trap + spraying chlorfenapyr (Intrepid 10 SC) + spraying with emamectin benzoate (Proclaim 5 SG).”
t0“mungbean (Vigna radiata L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The chlorfenapyr and emamectin package produced the highest grain yield.
- Taxon
- mungbeanVigna radiatat0
- Treatment
- installing white sticky trap + spraying chlorfenapyr (Intrepid 10 SC) + spraying with emamectin benzoate (Proclaim 5 SG)e0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- higheste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest grain yield was obtained from installing white sticky trap + spraying chlorfenapyr (Intrepid 10 SC) + spraying with emamectin benzoate (Proclaim 5 SG)”
t0“mungbean (Vigna radiata L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Farmers practice produced the highest return.
- Taxon
- mungbeanVigna radiatat0
- Treatment
- farmers practice (spraying Imidacloprid)e0
- Outcome
- returne0
- Direction
- higheste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the highest return came from farmers practice (spraying Imidacloprid)”
t0“mungbean (Vigna radiata L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The evaluated IPM package was judged unprofitable under low pest infestation.
- Taxon
- mungbeanVigna radiatat0
- Interactor
- flower thripse0pest
- Outcome
- could not be profitable against low level infestation of flower thrips and pod borer infestatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the evaluated IPM package could not be profitable against low level infestation of flower thrips and pod borer infestation”
t0“mungbean (Vigna radiata L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The IPM package could be profitable under serious pest outbreaks.
- Taxon
- mungbeanVigna radiatat0
- Interactor
- flower thripse0pest
- Outcome
- could be profitablee0
- Qualifier
- serious out break of flower thrips and pod borere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“It could be profitable that areas where serious out break of flower thrips and pod borer occurs.”
t0“mungbean (Vigna radiata L.)”
The same questions in other papers
azadirachtin · pest · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
emamectin benzoate · yield · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
spinosad · pest · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Results agree
8 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →imidacloprid · yield · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Results agree
12 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →application · pest · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Positive and negative results
21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 papers →application · yield · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Positive and negative results
208 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
212 papers more in this group
See all 216 papers →trap barrier · Thrips · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
trap barrier · pest · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →8 of 10 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.