Abstract
The field investigation was carried out in the Prayagraj district of Uttar Pradesh. The experiment was conducted in rabi 2022 at Central Research Farm (CRF), SHUATS, Naini, Prayagraj district. The field was laid in RBD with three replication and eight treatments viz., Beauveria bassiana (2×108 CFU/gram) (2 ml/liter), Metarhizium anisopliae (2×108 CFU/gram) (2 g/liter), Bacillus thuringiensis (1×109CFU/ml) (2 ml/liter), Ha NPV (1×109 POB’s/ml) (1 ml/liter), Azadirachtin 0.3EC (5 ml/liter), Spinosad 45% SC (0.5 ml/liter), Neem seed kernel extract 5% (5 ml/liter), and untreated controlled plot to check the efficacy of biopesticides against pod borer, on chickpea. The result on the efficacy of treatments the least larval population was recorded in Spinosad 45% SC (0.96) followed by Ha NPV (1.20), Bacillus thuringiensis (1×109 CFU/ml) (1.84), Beauveria bassiana (2×108 CFU/gram) (1.91), Metarhizium anisopliae (2×108 CFU/gram) (2.02), Azadirachtin 0.3EC (2.22), Neem seed kernel extract 5% (2.48) and the highest larval population of pod borer was found in control treatment (4.02). In another parameter higher yield and cost benefit ratio was recorded in Spinosad 45% SC (20.33 q/ha) (1:2.84), followed by Ha NPV (1×109 POB’s/ml) (18.60 q/ha) (1:2.59), Bacillus thuringiensis (1×109 CFU/ml) (17.65 q/ha) (1:2.46), Beauveria bassiana (2×108 CFU/gram) (15.68 q/ha) (1:2.19), Metarhizium anisopliae (2×108 CFU/gram) (14.58 q/ha) (1:2.03), Azadirachtin 0.3% EC (13.81 q/ha) (1:1.92) and Neem seed kernel extract 5% (13.58 q/ha) (1:1.89) as compared to control (10.83 q/ha) (1:1.54).
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 20
Claim · model-written summary
Spinosad 45% SC produced a pod borer larval population of 0.96 versus 4.02 in control.
- Taxon
- Chickpea
Cicer arietinumt0 - Treatment
- Spinosad 45% SCe0
- Interactor
- pod borere0pest
- Outcome
- larval population of pod borere0
- Direction
- leaste0
- Value
- 0.96e0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The result on the efficacy of treatments the least larval population was recorded in Spinosad 45% SC (0.96) followed by Ha NPV (1.20), Bacillus thuringiensis (1×109 CFU/ml) (1.84), Beauveria bassiana (2×108 CFU/gram) (1.91), Metarhizium anisopliae (2×108 CFU/gram) (2.02), Azadirachtin 0.3EC (2.22), Neem seed kernel extract 5% (2.48) and the highest larval population of pod borer was found in control treatment (4.02).”
t0“Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Ha NPV produced a pod borer larval population of 1.20 versus 4.02 in control.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Ha NPVe0
- Interactor
- pod borere0pest
- Outcome
- larval population of pod borere0
- Value
- 1.20e0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The result on the efficacy of treatments the least larval population was recorded in Spinosad 45% SC (0.96) followed by Ha NPV (1.20), Bacillus thuringiensis (1×109 CFU/ml) (1.84), Beauveria bassiana (2×108 CFU/gram) (1.91), Metarhizium anisopliae (2×108 CFU/gram) (2.02), Azadirachtin 0.3EC (2.22), Neem seed kernel extract 5% (2.48) and the highest larval population of pod borer was found in control treatment (4.02).”
t0“Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Bacillus thuringiensis produced a pod borer larval population of 1.84 versus 4.02 in control.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Bacillus thuringiensise0
- Interactor
- pod borere0pest
- Outcome
- larval population of pod borere0
- Value
- 1.84e0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The result on the efficacy of treatments the least larval population was recorded in Spinosad 45% SC (0.96) followed by Ha NPV (1.20), Bacillus thuringiensis (1×109 CFU/ml) (1.84), Beauveria bassiana (2×108 CFU/gram) (1.91), Metarhizium anisopliae (2×108 CFU/gram) (2.02), Azadirachtin 0.3EC (2.22), Neem seed kernel extract 5% (2.48) and the highest larval population of pod borer was found in control treatment (4.02).”
t0“Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Beauveria bassiana produced a pod borer larval population of 1.91 versus 4.02 in control.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Beauveria bassianae0
- Interactor
- pod borere0pest
- Outcome
- larval population of pod borere0
- Value
- 1.91e0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The result on the efficacy of treatments the least larval population was recorded in Spinosad 45% SC (0.96) followed by Ha NPV (1.20), Bacillus thuringiensis (1×109 CFU/ml) (1.84), Beauveria bassiana (2×108 CFU/gram) (1.91), Metarhizium anisopliae (2×108 CFU/gram) (2.02), Azadirachtin 0.3EC (2.22), Neem seed kernel extract 5% (2.48) and the highest larval population of pod borer was found in control treatment (4.02).”
t0“Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Metarhizium anisopliae produced a pod borer larval population of 2.02 versus 4.02 in control.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Metarhizium anisopliaee0
- Interactor
- pod borere0pest
- Outcome
- larval population of pod borere0
- Value
- 2.02e0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The result on the efficacy of treatments the least larval population was recorded in Spinosad 45% SC (0.96) followed by Ha NPV (1.20), Bacillus thuringiensis (1×109 CFU/ml) (1.84), Beauveria bassiana (2×108 CFU/gram) (1.91), Metarhizium anisopliae (2×108 CFU/gram) (2.02), Azadirachtin 0.3EC (2.22), Neem seed kernel extract 5% (2.48) and the highest larval population of pod borer was found in control treatment (4.02).”
t0“Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Azadirachtin 0.3EC produced a pod borer larval population of 2.22 versus 4.02 in control.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Azadirachtin 0.3ECe0
- Interactor
- pod borere0pest
- Outcome
- larval population of pod borere0
- Value
- 2.22e0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The result on the efficacy of treatments the least larval population was recorded in Spinosad 45% SC (0.96) followed by Ha NPV (1.20), Bacillus thuringiensis (1×109 CFU/ml) (1.84), Beauveria bassiana (2×108 CFU/gram) (1.91), Metarhizium anisopliae (2×108 CFU/gram) (2.02), Azadirachtin 0.3EC (2.22), Neem seed kernel extract 5% (2.48) and the highest larval population of pod borer was found in control treatment (4.02).”
t0“Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Neem seed kernel extract 5% produced a pod borer larval population of 2.48 versus 4.02 in control.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Neem seed kernel extract 5%e0
- Interactor
- pod borere0pest
- Outcome
- larval population of pod borere0
- Value
- 2.48e0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The result on the efficacy of treatments the least larval population was recorded in Spinosad 45% SC (0.96) followed by Ha NPV (1.20), Bacillus thuringiensis (1×109 CFU/ml) (1.84), Beauveria bassiana (2×108 CFU/gram) (1.91), Metarhizium anisopliae (2×108 CFU/gram) (2.02), Azadirachtin 0.3EC (2.22), Neem seed kernel extract 5% (2.48) and the highest larval population of pod borer was found in control treatment (4.02).”
t0“Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Spinosad 45% SC yielded 20.33 q/ha versus 10.83 q/ha in control.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Spinosad 45% SCe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 20.33 q/hae0
- Qualifier
- 10.83 q/hae0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In another parameter higher yield and cost benefit ratio was recorded in Spinosad 45% SC (20.33 q/ha) (1:2.84), followed by Ha NPV (1×109 POB’s/ml) (18.60 q/ha) (1:2.59), Bacillus thuringiensis (1×109 CFU/ml) (17.65 q/ha) (1:2.46), Beauveria bassiana (2×108 CFU/gram) (15.68 q/ha) (1:2.19), Metarhizium anisopliae (2×108 CFU/gram) (14.58 q/ha) (1:2.03), Azadirachtin 0.3% EC (13.81 q/ha) (1:1.92) and Neem seed kernel extract 5% (13.58 q/ha) (1:1.89) as compared to control (10.83 q/ha) (1:1.54).”
t0“Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Ha NPV yielded 18.60 q/ha versus 10.83 q/ha in control.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Ha NPVe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 18.60 q/hae0
- Qualifier
- 10.83 q/hae0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In another parameter higher yield and cost benefit ratio was recorded in Spinosad 45% SC (20.33 q/ha) (1:2.84), followed by Ha NPV (1×109 POB’s/ml) (18.60 q/ha) (1:2.59), Bacillus thuringiensis (1×109 CFU/ml) (17.65 q/ha) (1:2.46), Beauveria bassiana (2×108 CFU/gram) (15.68 q/ha) (1:2.19), Metarhizium anisopliae (2×108 CFU/gram) (14.58 q/ha) (1:2.03), Azadirachtin 0.3% EC (13.81 q/ha) (1:1.92) and Neem seed kernel extract 5% (13.58 q/ha) (1:1.89) as compared to control (10.83 q/ha) (1:1.54).”
t0“Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Bacillus thuringiensis yielded 17.65 q/ha versus 10.83 q/ha in control.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Bacillus thuringiensise0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 17.65 q/hae0
- Qualifier
- 10.83 q/hae0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In another parameter higher yield and cost benefit ratio was recorded in Spinosad 45% SC (20.33 q/ha) (1:2.84), followed by Ha NPV (1×109 POB’s/ml) (18.60 q/ha) (1:2.59), Bacillus thuringiensis (1×109 CFU/ml) (17.65 q/ha) (1:2.46), Beauveria bassiana (2×108 CFU/gram) (15.68 q/ha) (1:2.19), Metarhizium anisopliae (2×108 CFU/gram) (14.58 q/ha) (1:2.03), Azadirachtin 0.3% EC (13.81 q/ha) (1:1.92) and Neem seed kernel extract 5% (13.58 q/ha) (1:1.89) as compared to control (10.83 q/ha) (1:1.54).”
t0“Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Beauveria bassiana yielded 15.68 q/ha versus 10.83 q/ha in control.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Beauveria bassianae0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 15.68 q/hae0
- Qualifier
- 10.83 q/hae0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In another parameter higher yield and cost benefit ratio was recorded in Spinosad 45% SC (20.33 q/ha) (1:2.84), followed by Ha NPV (1×109 POB’s/ml) (18.60 q/ha) (1:2.59), Bacillus thuringiensis (1×109 CFU/ml) (17.65 q/ha) (1:2.46), Beauveria bassiana (2×108 CFU/gram) (15.68 q/ha) (1:2.19), Metarhizium anisopliae (2×108 CFU/gram) (14.58 q/ha) (1:2.03), Azadirachtin 0.3% EC (13.81 q/ha) (1:1.92) and Neem seed kernel extract 5% (13.58 q/ha) (1:1.89) as compared to control (10.83 q/ha) (1:1.54).”
t0“Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Metarhizium anisopliae yielded 14.58 q/ha versus 10.83 q/ha in control.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Metarhizium anisopliaee0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 14.58 q/hae0
- Qualifier
- 10.83 q/hae0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In another parameter higher yield and cost benefit ratio was recorded in Spinosad 45% SC (20.33 q/ha) (1:2.84), followed by Ha NPV (1×109 POB’s/ml) (18.60 q/ha) (1:2.59), Bacillus thuringiensis (1×109 CFU/ml) (17.65 q/ha) (1:2.46), Beauveria bassiana (2×108 CFU/gram) (15.68 q/ha) (1:2.19), Metarhizium anisopliae (2×108 CFU/gram) (14.58 q/ha) (1:2.03), Azadirachtin 0.3% EC (13.81 q/ha) (1:1.92) and Neem seed kernel extract 5% (13.58 q/ha) (1:1.89) as compared to control (10.83 q/ha) (1:1.54).”
t0“Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Azadirachtin 0.3% EC yielded 13.81 q/ha versus 10.83 q/ha in control.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Azadirachtin 0.3% ECe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 13.81 q/hae0
- Qualifier
- 10.83 q/hae0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In another parameter higher yield and cost benefit ratio was recorded in Spinosad 45% SC (20.33 q/ha) (1:2.84), followed by Ha NPV (1×109 POB’s/ml) (18.60 q/ha) (1:2.59), Bacillus thuringiensis (1×109 CFU/ml) (17.65 q/ha) (1:2.46), Beauveria bassiana (2×108 CFU/gram) (15.68 q/ha) (1:2.19), Metarhizium anisopliae (2×108 CFU/gram) (14.58 q/ha) (1:2.03), Azadirachtin 0.3% EC (13.81 q/ha) (1:1.92) and Neem seed kernel extract 5% (13.58 q/ha) (1:1.89) as compared to control (10.83 q/ha) (1:1.54).”
t0“Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Neem seed kernel extract 5% yielded 13.58 q/ha versus 10.83 q/ha in control.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Neem seed kernel extract 5%e0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 13.58 q/hae0
- Qualifier
- 10.83 q/hae0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In another parameter higher yield and cost benefit ratio was recorded in Spinosad 45% SC (20.33 q/ha) (1:2.84), followed by Ha NPV (1×109 POB’s/ml) (18.60 q/ha) (1:2.59), Bacillus thuringiensis (1×109 CFU/ml) (17.65 q/ha) (1:2.46), Beauveria bassiana (2×108 CFU/gram) (15.68 q/ha) (1:2.19), Metarhizium anisopliae (2×108 CFU/gram) (14.58 q/ha) (1:2.03), Azadirachtin 0.3% EC (13.81 q/ha) (1:1.92) and Neem seed kernel extract 5% (13.58 q/ha) (1:1.89) as compared to control (10.83 q/ha) (1:1.54).”
t0“Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Spinosad 45% SC had a cost benefit ratio of 1:2.84 versus 1:1.54 in control.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Spinosad 45% SCe0
- Outcome
- cost benefit ratioe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 1:2.84e0
- Qualifier
- 1:1.54e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In another parameter higher yield and cost benefit ratio was recorded in Spinosad 45% SC (20.33 q/ha) (1:2.84), followed by Ha NPV (1×109 POB’s/ml) (18.60 q/ha) (1:2.59), Bacillus thuringiensis (1×109 CFU/ml) (17.65 q/ha) (1:2.46), Beauveria bassiana (2×108 CFU/gram) (15.68 q/ha) (1:2.19), Metarhizium anisopliae (2×108 CFU/gram) (14.58 q/ha) (1:2.03), Azadirachtin 0.3% EC (13.81 q/ha) (1:1.92) and Neem seed kernel extract 5% (13.58 q/ha) (1:1.89) as compared to control (10.83 q/ha) (1:1.54).”
t0“Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Ha NPV had a cost benefit ratio of 1:2.59 versus 1:1.54 in control.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Ha NPVe0
- Outcome
- cost benefit ratioe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 1:2.59e0
- Qualifier
- 1:1.54e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In another parameter higher yield and cost benefit ratio was recorded in Spinosad 45% SC (20.33 q/ha) (1:2.84), followed by Ha NPV (1×109 POB’s/ml) (18.60 q/ha) (1:2.59), Bacillus thuringiensis (1×109 CFU/ml) (17.65 q/ha) (1:2.46), Beauveria bassiana (2×108 CFU/gram) (15.68 q/ha) (1:2.19), Metarhizium anisopliae (2×108 CFU/gram) (14.58 q/ha) (1:2.03), Azadirachtin 0.3% EC (13.81 q/ha) (1:1.92) and Neem seed kernel extract 5% (13.58 q/ha) (1:1.89) as compared to control (10.83 q/ha) (1:1.54).”
t0“Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Bacillus thuringiensis had a cost benefit ratio of 1:2.46 versus 1:1.54 in control.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Bacillus thuringiensise0
- Outcome
- cost benefit ratioe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 1:2.46e0
- Qualifier
- 1:1.54e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In another parameter higher yield and cost benefit ratio was recorded in Spinosad 45% SC (20.33 q/ha) (1:2.84), followed by Ha NPV (1×109 POB’s/ml) (18.60 q/ha) (1:2.59), Bacillus thuringiensis (1×109 CFU/ml) (17.65 q/ha) (1:2.46), Beauveria bassiana (2×108 CFU/gram) (15.68 q/ha) (1:2.19), Metarhizium anisopliae (2×108 CFU/gram) (14.58 q/ha) (1:2.03), Azadirachtin 0.3% EC (13.81 q/ha) (1:1.92) and Neem seed kernel extract 5% (13.58 q/ha) (1:1.89) as compared to control (10.83 q/ha) (1:1.54).”
t0“Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Beauveria bassiana had a cost benefit ratio of 1:2.19 versus 1:1.54 in control.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Beauveria bassianae0
- Outcome
- cost benefit ratioe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 1:2.19e0
- Qualifier
- 1:1.54e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In another parameter higher yield and cost benefit ratio was recorded in Spinosad 45% SC (20.33 q/ha) (1:2.84), followed by Ha NPV (1×109 POB’s/ml) (18.60 q/ha) (1:2.59), Bacillus thuringiensis (1×109 CFU/ml) (17.65 q/ha) (1:2.46), Beauveria bassiana (2×108 CFU/gram) (15.68 q/ha) (1:2.19), Metarhizium anisopliae (2×108 CFU/gram) (14.58 q/ha) (1:2.03), Azadirachtin 0.3% EC (13.81 q/ha) (1:1.92) and Neem seed kernel extract 5% (13.58 q/ha) (1:1.89) as compared to control (10.83 q/ha) (1:1.54).”
t0“Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Metarhizium anisopliae had a cost benefit ratio of 1:2.03 versus 1:1.54 in control.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Metarhizium anisopliaee0
- Outcome
- cost benefit ratioe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 1:2.03e0
- Qualifier
- 1:1.54e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In another parameter higher yield and cost benefit ratio was recorded in Spinosad 45% SC (20.33 q/ha) (1:2.84), followed by Ha NPV (1×109 POB’s/ml) (18.60 q/ha) (1:2.59), Bacillus thuringiensis (1×109 CFU/ml) (17.65 q/ha) (1:2.46), Beauveria bassiana (2×108 CFU/gram) (15.68 q/ha) (1:2.19), Metarhizium anisopliae (2×108 CFU/gram) (14.58 q/ha) (1:2.03), Azadirachtin 0.3% EC (13.81 q/ha) (1:1.92) and Neem seed kernel extract 5% (13.58 q/ha) (1:1.89) as compared to control (10.83 q/ha) (1:1.54).”
t0“Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Azadirachtin 0.3% EC had a cost benefit ratio of 1:1.92 versus 1:1.54 in control.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Azadirachtin 0.3% ECe0
- Outcome
- cost benefit ratioe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 1:1.92e0
- Qualifier
- 1:1.54e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In another parameter higher yield and cost benefit ratio was recorded in Spinosad 45% SC (20.33 q/ha) (1:2.84), followed by Ha NPV (1×109 POB’s/ml) (18.60 q/ha) (1:2.59), Bacillus thuringiensis (1×109 CFU/ml) (17.65 q/ha) (1:2.46), Beauveria bassiana (2×108 CFU/gram) (15.68 q/ha) (1:2.19), Metarhizium anisopliae (2×108 CFU/gram) (14.58 q/ha) (1:2.03), Azadirachtin 0.3% EC (13.81 q/ha) (1:1.92) and Neem seed kernel extract 5% (13.58 q/ha) (1:1.89) as compared to control (10.83 q/ha) (1:1.54).”
t0“Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)”
The same questions in other papers
azadirachtin · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- positive
Beauveria bassiana · pest · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
Beauveria bassiana · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →azadirachtin · pest · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
Metarhizium anisopliae · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
Bacillus thuringiensis · pest · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
Bacillus thuringiensis · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
5 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →spinosad · pest · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
7 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →8 of 13 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.