Abstract
The armyworm, Mythimna separata Walker is the potential insect pest of maize, causes a severe damage on the vegetative and reproductive stages of that plant. Insecticides are the common practices to manage the broad categories of the pest in a maize field. Further, these practices have been linked to farmers health, biodiversity loss and declining of predatory arthropods. However, pest management by adopting a tool of integrated pest management is one potential option to reduce the pesticide in maize fields. Field experiments were conducted in winter maize with the aim of evaluating the potential bio-rational pesticides to manage the armyworm. The studies were conducted for two consecutive years in 2015/16 and 2016/17 at Rampur, Chitwan. Treatments were: Metarrhizium anisopliae (0.2ml/lit water), Nuclear Polyhedrosis Virus (NPV) ( 2.5gm/lit water), Spinosad 45% SC (0.25ml/liter of water), Multineem (Azadriachta indica) (2 .0 ml/ liter water), Furadan 3G (3-4g/ Whorl application), Lara (Chloropyriphos 50 EC + Cypermethrin 5 EC) (1.0 ml/liter of water), Magik (Imidacloprid 17.8% (0.5ml/liter of water) and Control. The experiments were completely randomized block design with three replicates. Spinosad treated plots demonstrated the lowest damage (0.884%) followed by Magik (1.27%) which was significantly lower (P< 0.05) than other treatments in 2015/2016. However, in 2016/2017, Spinosad treated plot also showed the significantly lowest damage (1.67%) followed by Lara plots (2.67%), both of these were significantly different (P< 0.05) to Metarhizium and control plots, but similar to the other treatments, but not significantly so. Maximum yield was recorded in spinosad treated plots (9.8 t/ha and 9.12 t/ha) followed by Lara treated plots (9.17t/ha and 8.69t/ha) and were lowest in control plots (4.55 t/ha and 7.18 t/ha) for both years. Hence, Spinosad (soil actinomycete bacterium, Saccharopolyspora spinose ) has the potentiality to maximize the maize yield and also potentially to the reduce the pesticide consumption and incurred cost caused by the pesticide use. Such a safe and eco-friendly insecticide has the potential to replace the synthetic pesticide and provide the benign environment to the natural predators and service providing units of multiple ecosystem services in maize agro-ecosystem.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Spinosad plots had 0.884% armyworm damage in 2015/2016.
- Treatment
- Spinosade0
- Interactor
- armyworme1pest
- Outcome
- damagee0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Value
- 0.884%e0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse2
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Spinosad treated plots demonstrated the lowest damage (0.884%)”
e1“armyworm, Mythimna separata Walker is the potential insect pest of maize”
e2“significantly lower (P< 0.05) than other treatments in 2015/2016”
Claim · model-written summary
Magik plots had 1.27% armyworm damage in 2015/2016.
- Treatment
- Magike0
- Interactor
- armyworme1pest
- Outcome
- damagee2
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 1.27%e0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“followed by Magik (1.27%) which was significantly lower (P< 0.05) than other treatments in 2015/2016”
e1“armyworm, Mythimna separata Walker is the potential insect pest of maize”
e2“Spinosad treated plots demonstrated the lowest damage (0.884%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Spinosad plots had 1.67% armyworm damage in 2016/2017.
- Treatment
- Spinosade0
- Interactor
- armyworme1pest
- Outcome
- damagee0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Value
- 1.67%e0
- Comparator
- Metarhizium and control plotse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Spinosad treated plot also showed the significantly lowest damage (1.67%)”
e1“armyworm, Mythimna separata Walker is the potential insect pest of maize”
e2“Metarhizium and control plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Lara plots had 2.67% armyworm damage in 2016/2017.
- Treatment
- Larae0
- Interactor
- armyworme1pest
- Outcome
- damagee2
- Value
- 2.67%e0
- Comparator
- Metarhizium and control plotse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“followed by Lara plots (2.67%), both of these were significantly different (P< 0.05) to Metarhizium and control plots”
e1“armyworm, Mythimna separata Walker is the potential insect pest of maize”
e2“Spinosad treated plot also showed the significantly lowest damage (1.67%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Spinosad plots yielded 9.8 t/ha in 2015/16.
- Treatment
- spinosade0
- Interactor
- armyworme1pest
- Outcome
- yielde2
- Direction
- Maximume2
- Value
- 9.8 t/hae0
- Comparator
- control plotse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“spinosad treated plots (9.8 t/ha and 9.12 t/ha)”
e1“armyworm, Mythimna separata Walker is the potential insect pest of maize”
e2“Maximum yield was recorded in spinosad treated plots (9.8 t/ha and 9.12 t/ha) followed by Lara treated plots (9.17t/ha and 8.69t/ha) and were lowest in control plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Spinosad plots yielded 9.12 t/ha in 2016/17.
- Treatment
- spinosade0
- Interactor
- armyworme1pest
- Outcome
- yielde2
- Direction
- Maximume2
- Value
- 9.12 t/hae0
- Comparator
- control plotse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“spinosad treated plots (9.8 t/ha and 9.12 t/ha)”
e1“armyworm, Mythimna separata Walker is the potential insect pest of maize”
e2“Maximum yield was recorded in spinosad treated plots (9.8 t/ha and 9.12 t/ha) followed by Lara treated plots (9.17t/ha and 8.69t/ha) and were lowest in control plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Lara plots yielded 9.17t/ha in 2015/16.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Lara treated plots (9.17t/ha and 8.69t/ha)”
e1“insect pest of maize”
e2“Maximum yield was recorded in spinosad treated plots (9.8 t/ha and 9.12 t/ha) followed by Lara treated plots (9.17t/ha and 8.69t/ha) and were lowest in control plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Lara plots yielded 8.69t/ha in 2016/17.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Lara treated plots (9.17t/ha and 8.69t/ha)”
e1“insect pest of maize”
e2“Maximum yield was recorded in spinosad treated plots (9.8 t/ha and 9.12 t/ha) followed by Lara treated plots (9.17t/ha and 8.69t/ha) and were lowest in control plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Control plots yielded 4.55 t/ha in 2015/16.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“control plots (4.55 t/ha and 7.18 t/ha)”
e1“insect pest of maize”
e2“Maximum yield was recorded in spinosad treated plots (9.8 t/ha and 9.12 t/ha) followed by Lara treated plots (9.17t/ha and 8.69t/ha) and were lowest in control plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Control plots yielded 7.18 t/ha in 2016/17.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“control plots (4.55 t/ha and 7.18 t/ha)”
e1“insect pest of maize”
e2“Maximum yield was recorded in spinosad treated plots (9.8 t/ha and 9.12 t/ha) followed by Lara treated plots (9.17t/ha and 8.69t/ha) and were lowest in control plots”
The same questions in other papers
spinosad · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →spinosad · pest · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
5 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- 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.