Paper · 2022 · International Journal of Plant & Soil Science

Comparative Efficacy of Certain Insecticides and Biopesticides against Chickpea Pod Borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on Chickpea, Cicer arietinum (L.)

Suman Mohanty; Anoorag R. Tayde

13
claims
23
verbatim quotes
2
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

The experiment was conducted at the research plot of the Department of Agricultural Entomology at the Central Research Farm, Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences, Prayagraj during the Rabi season of 2021-22. The treatments selected for this experiment were Emamectin benzoate 5%SG @0.4g/L (T1), Spinosad 45%SC @0.5ml/L (T2), Profenophos 50%EC @2ml/L (T3), Indoxacarb 14.5%SC @1ml/L (T4), Neem seed kernel extract 5% @5ml/L (T5), Karanja oil 0.2% @2ml/L (T6), Bacillus thuringiensis (1×109 CFU) @2ml/L (T7) and Control (T0). The treatments were sprayed 2 times on the pod borers having crossed their ETL levels at an interval of 15 days. Observations i.e. the larval counts (5 random plants/plot) were taken in an order of the day before spray, 3rd,7th, and 14th days after spray. The results revealed that the treatments (insecticides and biopesticides) were successful in bringing down the pest infestation and superior over control. Among all the treatments applied, the lowest infestation of gram pod borer was observed in Spinosad 45%SC followed by Emamectin benzoate 5%SG, Indoxacarb 14.5%SC significantly superior over untreated control. Spinosad 45% SC gave a maximum grain yield of 22.50 q/ha against the control yielding only up to 6.66 q/ha. At the same time, the benefit-cost ratios of the treatments stand like the best and most economical treatment Spinosad (1:3.75) followed by Emamectin benzoate (1:3.71), Indoxacarb (1:2.94), Profenophos (1:2.53), NSKE (1:2.19), Karanja oil (1:1.53), Bacillus thuringiensis (1:0.87) and control (1:0:67).

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 13

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Insecticide and biopesticide treatments reduced pest infestation relative to control.

Taxon
ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
insecticides and biopesticidese0
Interactor
Helicoverpa armigeraHelicoverpa armigerat0pest
Outcome
pest infestatione0
Direction
bringing downe0
Comparator
controle0

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Helicoverpa armigera
Helicoverpa armigera · InteractorRaimundo Pastor · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The results revealed that the treatments (insecticides and biopesticides) were successful in bringing down the pest infestation and superior over control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 811–965 · show in text ↑
t0

“Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on Chickpea, Cicer arietinum (L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 91–154 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Spinosad 45%SC gave the lowest pod borer infestation and was significantly superior to untreated control.

Taxon
ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
Spinosad 45%SCe0
Interactor
Helicoverpa armigeraHelicoverpa armigerat0pest
Outcome
infestation of gram pod borere0
Direction
loweste0
Comparator
untreated controle0

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Helicoverpa armigera
Helicoverpa armigera · InteractorRaimundo Pastor · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Among all the treatments applied, the lowest infestation of gram pod borer was observed in Spinosad 45%SC followed by Emamectin benzoate 5%SG, Indoxacarb 14.5%SC significantly superior over untreated control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 966–1174 · show in text ↑
t0

“Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on Chickpea, Cicer arietinum (L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 91–154 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Emamectin benzoate followed Spinosad in infestation suppression and was significantly superior to untreated control.

Taxon
ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
Emamectin benzoate 5%SGe0
Interactor
Helicoverpa armigeraHelicoverpa armigerat0pest
Outcome
infestation of gram pod borere0
Direction
lowerinferrede0
Comparator
untreated controle0

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Helicoverpa armigera
Helicoverpa armigera · InteractorRaimundo Pastor · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Among all the treatments applied, the lowest infestation of gram pod borer was observed in Spinosad 45%SC followed by Emamectin benzoate 5%SG, Indoxacarb 14.5%SC significantly superior over untreated control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 966–1174 · show in text ↑
t0

“Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on Chickpea, Cicer arietinum (L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 91–154 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Indoxacarb followed Emamectin in infestation suppression and was significantly superior to untreated control.

Taxon
ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
Indoxacarb 14.5%SCe0
Interactor
Helicoverpa armigeraHelicoverpa armigerat0pest
Outcome
infestation of gram pod borere0
Direction
lowerinferrede0
Comparator
untreated controle0

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Helicoverpa armigera
Helicoverpa armigera · InteractorRaimundo Pastor · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Among all the treatments applied, the lowest infestation of gram pod borer was observed in Spinosad 45%SC followed by Emamectin benzoate 5%SG, Indoxacarb 14.5%SC significantly superior over untreated control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 966–1174 · show in text ↑
t0

“Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on Chickpea, Cicer arietinum (L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 91–154 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spinosad produced maximum grain yield of 22.50 q/ha compared with control at 6.66 q/ha.

Taxon
ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
Spinosad 45% SCe0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
maximume0
Value
22.50 q/hae0
Qualifier
6.66 q/hae0
Comparator
controle0

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Spinosad 45% SC gave a maximum grain yield of 22.50 q/ha against the control yielding only up to 6.66 q/ha.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1175–1282 · show in text ↑
t0

“Chickpea, Cicer arietinum (L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 124–154 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spinosad was the best and most economical treatment, with benefit-cost ratio 1:3.75.

Treatment
Spinosade0
Outcome
benefit-cost ratiose0
Direction
beste0
Value
1:3.75e0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“At the same time, the benefit-cost ratios of the treatments stand like the best and most economical treatment Spinosad (1:3.75)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1283–1410 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Emamectin benzoate had benefit-cost ratio 1:3.71.

Treatment
Emamectin benzoatee0
Outcome
benefit-cost ratiose0
Value
1:3.71e0

Not reportedTaxonDirection

Verbatim

e0

“benefit-cost ratios of the treatments stand like the best and most economical treatment Spinosad (1:3.75) followed by Emamectin benzoate (1:3.71)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1305–1450 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Indoxacarb had benefit-cost ratio 1:2.94.

Treatment
Indoxacarbe0
Outcome
benefit-cost ratiose0
Value
1:2.94e0

Not reportedTaxonDirection

Verbatim

e0

“benefit-cost ratios of the treatments stand like the best and most economical treatment Spinosad (1:3.75) followed by Emamectin benzoate (1:3.71), Indoxacarb (1:2.94)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1305–1471 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Profenophos had benefit-cost ratio 1:2.53.

Treatment
Profenophose1
Outcome
benefit-cost ratiose0
Value
1:2.53e1

Not reportedTaxonDirection

Verbatim

e0

“benefit-cost ratios”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1305–1324 · show in text ↑
e1

“Profenophos (1:2.53)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1473–1493 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NSKE had benefit-cost ratio 1:2.19.

Treatment
NSKEe1
Outcome
benefit-cost ratiose0
Value
1:2.19e1

Not reportedTaxonDirection

Verbatim

e0

“benefit-cost ratios”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1305–1324 · show in text ↑
e1

“NSKE (1:2.19)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1495–1508 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Karanja oil had benefit-cost ratio 1:1.53.

Treatment
Karanja oile1
Outcome
benefit-cost ratiose0
Value
1:1.53e1

Not reportedTaxonDirection

Verbatim

e0

“benefit-cost ratios”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1305–1324 · show in text ↑
e1

“Karanja oil (1:1.53)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1510–1530 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacillus thuringiensis treatment had benefit-cost ratio 1:0.87.

Treatment
Bacillus thuringiensise1
Outcome
benefit-cost ratiose0
Value
1:0.87e1

Not reportedTaxonDirection

Verbatim

e0

“benefit-cost ratios”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1305–1324 · show in text ↑
e1

“Bacillus thuringiensis (1:0.87)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1532–1563 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Control had benefit-cost ratio 1:0:67.

Treatment
controle1
Outcome
benefit-cost ratiose0
Value
1:0:67e1

Not reportedTaxonDirection

Verbatim

e0

“benefit-cost ratios”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1305–1324 · show in text ↑
e1

“control (1:0:67)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1568–1584 · show in text ↑

emamectin benzoate · Helicoverpa armigera · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree

14 papers: 14 positive, 0 negative or no effect

13 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

10 papers more in this group

See all 14 papers →

indoxacarb · Helicoverpa armigera · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree

18 papers: 18 positive, 0 negative or no effect

17 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

14 papers more in this group

See all 18 papers →

spinosad · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree

18 papers: 18 positive, 0 negative or no effect

17 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

14 papers more in this group

See all 18 papers →

spinosad · Helicoverpa armigera · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree

23 papers: 23 positive, 0 negative or no effect

22 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

19 papers more in this group

See all 23 papers →

insecticide · Helicoverpa armigera · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

18 papers: 17 positive, 1 negative or no effect

16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

14 papers more in this group

See all 18 papers →

biocontrol · Helicoverpa armigera · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree

7 papers: 7 positive, 0 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 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.