Abstract
Field experiment was conducted for management of gram pod borer in chickpea during rabi season in 2019/20 and 2020/21. Two technologies, namely two times spray of profenophose 50 EC, and the use pheromone trap at flowering time and spray of spinosad 45 SC @ 50% practices of spraying quinalphos in eight farmers’ field using variety “BG-372”. The results of two years pooled data revealed that the use pheromone trap at flowering time and spraying of spinosad 45 SC @ 50% pod formation were the most effective against gram pod borer management. The least per cent pod infestation (1.75%) was recorded in these technologies followed by the per cent pod infestation recorded (2.74%) in two times spray of profenophos 50 EC at 50% flowering and pod formation stage. The highest pod infestation was recorded (7.82%) in farmers’ practices. Similarly, maximum grain yield (14.84 q/ha) was recorded in using pheromone trap at flowering and spraying spinosad 45 SC @ 50% pod formation stages followed by the yield record in spraying profenophos 50 EC (12.26 q/ha) and the yield record in farmers’ practices (9.42 q/ha). The cost benefit analysis showed that the net return and benefit cost ratio was also higher in using pheromone trap and spraying spinosad 45 SC (₹ 52763/ha and 2.48:1) than the net return and benefit cost ratio in the farmers’ practices (₹ 28544/ha and 1.55:1), 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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Pheromone trapping and spinosad produced the lowest pod infestation at 1.75%.
- Taxon
- Chickpea
Cicer arietinumt0 - Treatment
- use pheromone trap at flowering time and spraying of spinosad 45 SC @ 50% pod formatione1
- Interactor
- Helicoverpa armigera
_gusano_cogollero.png?width=60)
Helicoverpa armigerat1pest - Outcome
- per cent pod infestatione0
- Direction
- leaste0
- Value
- 1.75%e0
- Comparator
- farmers’ practicese2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_gusano_cogollero.png?width=500)
Verbatim
t0“Chickpea”
e0“The least per cent pod infestation (1.75%) was recorded in these technologies”
e1“use pheromone trap at flowering time and spraying of spinosad 45 SC @ 50% pod formation”
e2“highest pod infestation was recorded (7.82%) in farmers’ practices”
t1“Helicoverpa armigera”
Claim · model-written summary
Profenophos spraying gave 2.74% pod infestation.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- two times spray of profenophos 50 EC at 50% flowering and pod formation stagee0
- Interactor
- Helicoverpa armigeraHelicoverpa armigerat1pest
- Outcome
- per cent pod infestatione0
- Direction
- lowerinferrede0
- Value
- 2.74%e0
- Comparator
- farmers’ practicese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Chickpea”
e0“per cent pod infestation recorded (2.74%) in two times spray of profenophos 50 EC at 50% flowering and pod formation stage”
e1“highest pod infestation was recorded (7.82%) in farmers’ practices”
t1“Helicoverpa armigera”
Claim · model-written summary
Farmer practice gave the highest pod infestation at 7.82%.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- farmers’ practicese0
- Interactor
- Helicoverpa armigeraHelicoverpa armigerat1pest
- Outcome
- pod infestatione0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 7.82%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Chickpea”
e0“The highest pod infestation was recorded (7.82%) in farmers’ practices.”
t1“Helicoverpa armigera”
Claim · model-written summary
Pheromone trapping and spinosad produced the highest grain yield, 14.84 q/ha.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- using pheromone trap at flowering and spraying spinosad 45 SC @ 50% pod formation stagese0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- 14.84 q/hae0
- Comparator
- farmers’ practicese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Chickpea”
e0“maximum grain yield (14.84 q/ha) was recorded in using pheromone trap at flowering and spraying spinosad 45 SC @ 50% pod formation stages”
e1“farmers’ practices (9.42 q/ha)”
Claim · model-written summary
Profenophos produced 12.26 q/ha grain yield.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- spraying profenophos 50 ECe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- higherinferrede0
- Value
- 12.26 q/hae0
- Comparator
- farmers’ practicese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Chickpea”
e0“yield record in spraying profenophos 50 EC (12.26 q/ha)”
e1“farmers’ practices (9.42 q/ha)”
Claim · model-written summary
Farmer practice yielded 9.42 q/ha.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- farmers’ practicese0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Value
- 9.42 q/hae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Chickpea”
e0“yield record in farmers’ practices (9.42 q/ha)”
Claim · model-written summary
Pheromone trapping and spinosad gave higher net return, ₹ 52763/ha, than farmer practice at ₹ 28544/ha.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- using pheromone trap and spraying spinosad 45 SCe0
- Outcome
- net returne0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- ₹ 52763/hae0
- Qualifier
- ₹ 28544/hae0
- Comparator
- farmers’ practicese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Chickpea”
e0“net return and benefit cost ratio was also higher in using pheromone trap and spraying spinosad 45 SC (₹ 52763/ha and 2.48:1) than the net return and benefit cost ratio in the farmers’ practices (₹ 28544/ha and 1.55:1)”
Claim · model-written summary
Pheromone trapping and spinosad gave a higher benefit cost ratio, 2.48:1, than farmer practice at 1.55:1.
- Taxon
- ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- using pheromone trap and spraying spinosad 45 SCe0
- Outcome
- benefit cost ratioe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 2.48:1e0
- Qualifier
- 1.55:1e0
- Comparator
- farmers’ practicese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Chickpea”
e0“net return and benefit cost ratio was also higher in using pheromone trap and spraying spinosad 45 SC (₹ 52763/ha and 2.48:1) than the net return and benefit cost ratio in the farmers’ practices (₹ 28544/ha and 1.55:1)”
The same questions in other papers
pheromone · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
pheromone · Helicoverpa armigera · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
spinosad · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
17 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →spinosad · Helicoverpa armigera · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
22 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 papers →application · Helicoverpa armigera · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →stage · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
41 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
43 papers more in this group
See all 47 papers →application · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
172 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
173 papers more in this group
See all 177 papers →trap barrier · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
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.