Paper · 2020 · Indian Journal of Entomology

Evaluation of ipm modules against whitefly bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) in cotton

Vinay Singh; Jasjinder Kaur; Vijay Kumar

12
claims
26
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

On-farm trials were conducted for the evaluation of IPM modules in cotton against the whitefly Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) by the Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Bathinda and Mansa at five locations during 201718 and 2018-19. The modules included neem-based insecticides along with detergent powder, darek (Melia azedarach L.) extract and the University recommended insecticides compared with that of farmers’ practice of mixing of non-recommended insecticides. The data revealed significantly maximum reduction (80.0- 85.1% and 80.9- 85.4%) in the incidence of adults compared to the University recommended practice (Mj) at Bathinda and Mansa, respectively. This was followed by module (Mj) comprising use of home-made darek extract (54.4 to 63.3% at Bathinda and 58.0 to 72.5% at Mansa). Module (M3) comprising of addition of detergent powder in neem-based spray solution remained on a par with M with 55.8 to 62.7 and 57.4 to 71.9% reduction in incidence over untreated check. Farmers’ practice of spraying non-recommended insecticides resulted in minimum reduction in incidence (16.7 to 23.1% and 23.6 to 36.3%, at Bathinda and Mansa, respectively). The trend in yield was similar to the above, with maximum being in M4 followed by Mj and M3 with the least yield being with the module comprising of use of non-recommended sprays by the farmers. Maximum number of spray applications (5-6) were given in M4 (farmer’s practice). Maximum and minimum B: C ratio was obtained with the modules M4 (1.3 to 1.5) and M4 (0.8 to 1.2), respectively.

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 12

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The recommended module reduced whitefly adult incidence by 80.0-85.1% at Bathinda.

Treatment
University recommended practice (Mj)e0
Interactor
bemisia tabaciBemisia tabacit0pest
Outcome
incidence of adultse0
Direction
reductione0
Value
80.0- 85.1%e0
Setting
Bathindae0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bemisia tabaci
Bemisia tabaci · InteractorPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“significantly maximum reduction (80.0- 85.1% and 80.9- 85.4%) in the incidence of adults compared to the University recommended practice (Mj) at Bathinda and Mansa, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 469–647 · show in text ↑
t0

“bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) in cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 43–79 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The recommended module reduced whitefly adult incidence by 80.9-85.4% at Mansa.

Treatment
University recommended practice (Mj)e0
Interactor
bemisia tabaciBemisia tabacit0pest
Outcome
incidence of adultse0
Direction
reductione0
Value
80.9- 85.4%e0
Setting
Mansae0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bemisia tabaci
Bemisia tabaci · InteractorPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“significantly maximum reduction (80.0- 85.1% and 80.9- 85.4%) in the incidence of adults compared to the University recommended practice (Mj) at Bathinda and Mansa, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 469–647 · show in text ↑
t0

“bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) in cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 43–79 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Darek extract module reduced whitefly incidence 54.4 to 63.3% at Bathinda.

Treatment
home-made darek extracte0
Interactor
bemisia tabaciBemisia tabacit0pest
Outcome
incidencee1
Direction
reductione1
Value
54.4 to 63.3%e0
Setting
Bathindae0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bemisia tabaci
Bemisia tabaci · InteractorPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“module (Mj) comprising use of home-made darek extract (54.4 to 63.3% at Bathinda and 58.0 to 72.5% at Mansa).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 669–778 · show in text ↑
t0

“bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) in cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 43–79 · show in text ↑
e1

“reduction in incidence over untreated check”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 924–967 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Darek extract module reduced whitefly incidence 58.0 to 72.5% at Mansa.

Treatment
home-made darek extracte0
Interactor
bemisia tabaciBemisia tabacit0pest
Outcome
incidencee1
Direction
reductione1
Value
58.0 to 72.5%e0
Setting
Mansae0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bemisia tabaci
Bemisia tabaci · InteractorPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“module (Mj) comprising use of home-made darek extract (54.4 to 63.3% at Bathinda and 58.0 to 72.5% at Mansa).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 669–778 · show in text ↑
t0

“bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) in cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 43–79 · show in text ↑
e1

“reduction in incidence over untreated check”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 924–967 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Neem spray with detergent reduced incidence 55.8 to 62.7 at Bathinda.

Treatment
addition of detergent powder in neem-based spray solutione0
Interactor
bemisia tabaciBemisia tabacit0pest
Outcome
incidencee0
Direction
reductione0
Value
55.8 to 62.7e0
Comparator
untreated checke0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bemisia tabaci
Bemisia tabaci · InteractorPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“addition of detergent powder in neem-based spray solution remained on a par with M with 55.8 to 62.7 and 57.4 to 71.9% reduction in incidence over untreated check.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 805–968 · show in text ↑
t0

“bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) in cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 43–79 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Neem spray with detergent reduced incidence 57.4 to 71.9%.

Treatment
addition of detergent powder in neem-based spray solutione0
Interactor
bemisia tabaciBemisia tabacit0pest
Outcome
incidencee0
Direction
reductione0
Value
57.4 to 71.9%e0
Comparator
untreated checke0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bemisia tabaci
Bemisia tabaci · InteractorPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“addition of detergent powder in neem-based spray solution remained on a par with M with 55.8 to 62.7 and 57.4 to 71.9% reduction in incidence over untreated check.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 805–968 · show in text ↑
t0

“bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) in cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 43–79 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Farmers’ non-recommended sprays gave the lowest incidence reduction, 16.7 to 23.1% at Bathinda.

Treatment
spraying non-recommended insecticidese0
Interactor
bemisia tabaciBemisia tabacit0pest
Outcome
incidencee0
Direction
minimum reductione0
Value
16.7 to 23.1%e0
Setting
Bathindae0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bemisia tabaci
Bemisia tabaci · InteractorPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Farmers’ practice of spraying non-recommended insecticides resulted in minimum reduction in incidence (16.7 to 23.1% and 23.6 to 36.3%, at Bathinda and Mansa, respectively).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 969–1142 · show in text ↑
t0

“bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) in cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 43–79 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Farmers’ non-recommended sprays gave the lowest incidence reduction, 23.6 to 36.3% at Mansa.

Treatment
spraying non-recommended insecticidese0
Interactor
bemisia tabaciBemisia tabacit0pest
Outcome
incidencee0
Direction
minimum reductione0
Value
23.6 to 36.3%e0
Setting
Mansae0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bemisia tabaci
Bemisia tabaci · InteractorPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Farmers’ practice of spraying non-recommended insecticides resulted in minimum reduction in incidence (16.7 to 23.1% and 23.6 to 36.3%, at Bathinda and Mansa, respectively).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 969–1142 · show in text ↑
t0

“bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) in cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 43–79 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton yield ranked M4 highest, followed by Mj and M3, and farmers’ non-recommended sprays lowest.

Outcome
yielde0
Direction
maximume0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The trend in yield was similar to the above, with maximum being in M4 followed by Mj and M3 with the least yield being with the module comprising of use of non-recommended sprays by the farmers.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1143–1337 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 73–79 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

M4 farmer practice used the most sprays, 5-6.

Outcome
number of spray applicationse0
Direction
Maximume0
Value
5-6e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Maximum number of spray applications (5-6) were given in M4 (farmer’s practice).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1338–1418 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 73–79 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The text reports maximum B:C ratio of 1.3 to 1.5 for M4.

Outcome
B: C ratioe0
Direction
Maximume0
Value
1.3 to 1.5e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Maximum and minimum B: C ratio was obtained with the modules M4 (1.3 to 1.5) and M4 (0.8 to 1.2), respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1419–1530 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 73–79 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The text also reports minimum B:C ratio of 0.8 to 1.2 for M4.

Outcome
B: C ratioe0
Direction
minimume0
Value
0.8 to 1.2e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Maximum and minimum B: C ratio was obtained with the modules M4 (1.3 to 1.5) and M4 (0.8 to 1.2), respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1419–1530 · show in text ↑
t0

“cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 73–79 · show in text ↑

application · Bemisia tabaci · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 7 positive, 1 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

insecticide · Bemisia tabaci · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 6 positive, 2 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

botanical · Bemisia tabaci · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

9 papers: 9 positive, 0 negative or no effect

8 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. 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.