Paper · 2023 · Middle East Journal of Agriculture Research

Impact of Cotton Intercropping with Cowpea and Insecticides on CropsCharacteristics and Infestation with Aphis gossypii and Pectinophora gossypiella

Moshira El-Shamy; Hend El-Tahawe; Abdel-Salam Farag; et al.

13
claims
21
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

The objective of the present study evaluates the effect of acetamiprid and profenofos to the two of the most important damage pests, Aphis gossypii (Glover Homoptera: Aphididae) and Pectinophora gossypiella (Saund.Lep.: Gelechiidae) on cotton plants intercropping with three cultivars of cowpea (qaha, kafr elsheikh and kareem) during successive seasons 2021 and 2022.The field experiments were performed at the farm of Sakha Agricultural Research Station, Kafr El-Sheikh Governorate, Egypt.The main plots were devoted for three components.The results recorded that all crop characteristics and the infestation levels by insect pests of cotton were difference when intercropping with cow pea varieties as compared with solid cotton.The percentage of reduction was higher when cotton is intercropping with cowpea varieties kareem compared with varieties Qaha and kafr elsheikh.Yield and yield components of were also significantly affected by the three components of cowpea cultivars.The yield of cotton with cowpea under first treatment components exceeded that with second treatment in the first and second seasons.The average reduction percentage in aphids population thought in the first and second seasons were had significantly different with 92.59 and 91.01 reduction percentage when using profenofos sprays applied to cotton+ cowpea varieties qaha compared to 82.21 and 84.90 reduction percentage for acetamiprid, respectively.Application of profenofos on P. gossypiella showed the highest reduction percentage was 85.06 and 79.27 % during 2021 and 2022 when used to cotton + cowpea varieties kareem and cultivars kafr elsheikh, respectively.While acetamiprid caused leas toxic was 48.01 and 52.55 reduction percentage during 1 st and 2 nd seasons when applied to cotton + cowpea cultivars kareem respectively.Found significantly different between of the two insecticides during studies seasons.The results, also indicated that yields and the infestation levels by insect pests of all cowpea cultivars were decreased under intercropping qaha cultivar surpassed the other cultivars (kafr elsheikh and kareem) in all treats except plant height but infestation levels was decreased.The first treatment components recorded the highest seed yield / fad and were significantly superior to those of second treatments.

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 13

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercropping cowpea varieties altered cotton crop characteristics and pest infestation relative to solid cotton.

Treatment
intercropping with cow pea varietiese0
Outcome
crop characteristics and the infestation levels by insect pests of cottone0
Comparator
solid cottone0

Not reportedDirection

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

“all crop characteristics and the infestation levels by insect pests of cotton were difference when intercropping with cow pea varieties as compared with solid cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 566–731 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercropping with kareem gave greater reduction than Qaha and kafr elsheikh.

Material
kareeme0
Treatment
intercropping with cowpea varieties kareeme0
Outcome
percentage of reductione0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
varieties Qaha and kafr elsheikhe0

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 percentage of reduction was higher when cotton is intercropping with cowpea varieties kareem compared with varieties Qaha and kafr elsheikh”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 732–875 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Cowpea cultivar components significantly affected cotton yield and yield components.

Treatment
three components of cowpea cultivarse0
Outcome
Yield and yield componentse0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

“Yield and yield components of were also significantly affected by the three components of cowpea cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 876–982 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 10–16 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton yield under the first treatment components exceeded the second treatment in both seasons.

Treatment
first treatment componentse0
Outcome
yield of cottone0
Direction
exceedede0
Qualifier
first and second seasonse0
Comparator
second treatmente0

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 yield of cotton with cowpea under first treatment components exceeded that with second treatment in the first and second seasons”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 983–1115 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Profenofos sprays reduced aphid populations by 92.59 in the first season on cotton with qaha cowpea.

Material
qahae0
Treatment
profenofos sprayse0
Interactor
aphidsAphidomorphae1pest
Outcome
aphids populatione1
Direction
reduction percentagee0
Value
92.59e0
Qualifier
first and second seasonse2
Comparator
acetamipride0

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

“92.59 and 91.01 reduction percentage when using profenofos sprays applied to cotton+ cowpea varieties qaha compared to 82.21 and 84.90 reduction percentage for acetamiprid”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1248–1419 · show in text ↑
e2

“The average reduction percentage in aphids population thought in the first and second seasons”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1116–1209 · show in text ↑
e1

“aphids population”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1152–1169 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Profenofos sprays reduced aphid populations by 91.01 in the second season on cotton with qaha cowpea.

Material
qahae0
Treatment
profenofos sprayse0
Interactor
aphidsAphidomorphae1pest
Outcome
aphids populatione1
Direction
reduction percentagee0
Value
91.01e0
Comparator
acetamipride0

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

“91.01 reduction percentage when using profenofos sprays applied to cotton+ cowpea varieties qaha compared to 82.21 and 84.90 reduction percentage for acetamiprid”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1258–1419 · show in text ↑
e1

“aphids population”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1152–1169 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Profenofos reduced P. gossypiella by 85.06 with kareem in 2021.

Material
kareeme0
Treatment
profenofose0
Interactor
P. gossypiellaPectinophora gossypiellae0pest
Outcome
P. gossypiellae0
Direction
reductione0
Value
85.06e0
Qualifier
2021e0

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 ↗
Pectinophora gossypiella
Pectinophora gossypiella · InteractorAlbertonatureza · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Application of profenofos on P. gossypiella showed the highest reduction percentage was 85.06 and 79.27 % during 2021 and 2022 when used to cotton + cowpea varieties kareem and cultivars kafr elsheikh, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1434–1648 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Profenofos reduced P. gossypiella by 79.27% with kafr elsheikh in 2022.

Material
kafr elsheikhe0
Treatment
profenofose0
Interactor
P. gossypiellaPectinophora gossypiellae0pest
Outcome
P. gossypiellae0
Direction
reductione0
Value
79.27 %e0
Qualifier
2022e0

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 ↗
Pectinophora gossypiella
Pectinophora gossypiella · InteractorAlbertonatureza · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Application of profenofos on P. gossypiella showed the highest reduction percentage was 85.06 and 79.27 % during 2021 and 2022 when used to cotton + cowpea varieties kareem and cultivars kafr elsheikh, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1434–1648 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Acetamiprid reduced P. gossypiella by 48.01 in the first season with kareem.

Material
kareeme0
Treatment
acetamipride0
Interactor
P. gossypiellaPectinophora gossypiellae1pest
Outcome
P. gossypiellae1
Direction
reduction percentagee0
Value
48.01e0
Qualifier
1 ste0

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 ↗
Pectinophora gossypiella
Pectinophora gossypiella · InteractorAlbertonatureza · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“acetamiprid caused leas toxic was 48.01 and 52.55 reduction percentage during 1 st and 2 nd seasons when applied to cotton + cowpea cultivars kareem respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1655–1816 · show in text ↑
e1

“P. gossypiella”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1463–1477 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Acetamiprid reduced P. gossypiella by 52.55 in the second season with kareem.

Material
kareeme0
Treatment
acetamipride0
Interactor
P. gossypiellaPectinophora gossypiellae1pest
Outcome
P. gossypiellae1
Direction
reduction percentagee0
Value
52.55e0
Qualifier
2 nde0

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 ↗
Pectinophora gossypiella
Pectinophora gossypiella · InteractorAlbertonatureza · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“acetamiprid caused leas toxic was 48.01 and 52.55 reduction percentage during 1 st and 2 nd seasons when applied to cotton + cowpea cultivars kareem respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1655–1816 · show in text ↑
e1

“P. gossypiella”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1463–1477 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cowpea cultivar yield and pest infestation decreased under intercropping.

Treatment
intercroppinge0
Outcome
yields and the infestation levels by insect pestse0
Direction
decreasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“yields and the infestation levels by insect pests of all cowpea cultivars were decreased under intercropping”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1935–2043 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Qaha surpassed the other cowpea cultivars in measured traits except height, while infestation decreased.

Material
qahae0
Outcome
all treats except plant heighte0
Direction
surpassede0
Comparator
kafr elsheikh and kareeme0

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“qaha cultivar surpassed the other cultivars (kafr elsheikh and kareem) in all treats except plant height but infestation levels was decreased”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2044–2185 · show in text ↑
t0

“cowpea”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 36–42 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The first treatment components had the highest seed yield per faddan, significantly above second treatments.

Treatment
first treatment componentse0
Outcome
seed yield / fade0
Direction
higheste0
Comparator
second treatmentse0

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 first treatment components recorded the highest seed yield / fad and were significantly superior to those of second treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2186–2316 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 10–16 · show in text ↑

profenofos · Aphidomorpha · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

profenofos · Pectinophora gossypiella · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

application · Aphidomorpha · 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 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 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.