Paper · 2025 · SKUAST JOURNAL OF RESEARCH

Bio-efficacy of novel insecticides on green apple aphid, Aphis pomi in Kashmir

Zewar Hussain Bhat; Muneer Ahmad Sofi

5
claims
11
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Laboratory bioassay of seven selected insecticides namely imidacloprid, acetamiprid, thiamethoxam, diafenthiuron, spiromesifen chlorfenapyr and dimethoate was carried out at Plant Protection Laboratory of KVK Anantnag to evaluate the bio-efficacy of novel insecticides against green apple aphids (Aphis pomi) during 2020 and 2021. The Relative efficacy based on LC50 values was conducted using two bioassay methods viz., leaf dip and direct spray method. Relative efficacy of imidacloprid (8.022) was highest in leaf dip method followed by thiamethoxam (2.419) while in direct spray method Spiromesifen (1.948) showed highest efficacy followed by thiamethoxam (1.617). Results of this study indicated that out of selected seven insecticides, neonicotinoid insecticide were highly effective against green Apple aphid.

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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In the leaf dip bioassay, imidacloprid had the highest relative efficacy, above thiamethoxam.

Treatment
imidaclopride1
Interactor
Aphis pomiAphis pomit0pest
Outcome
Relative efficacye1
Direction
higheste1
Value
8.022e1
Qualifier
leaf dip methode1
Comparator
thiamethoxame1
Setting
Plant Protection Laboratory of KVK Anantnage4

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Aphis pomi
Aphis pomi · InteractorRhetos · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“green apple aphid, Aphis pomi”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 38–67 · show in text ↑
e1

“Relative efficacy of imidacloprid (8.022) was highest in leaf dip method followed by thiamethoxam (2.419)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 455–560 · show in text ↑
e4

“Laboratory bioassay of seven selected insecticides namely imidacloprid, acetamiprid, thiamethoxam, diafenthiuron, spiromesifen chlorfenapyr and dimethoate was carried out at Plant Protection Laboratory of KVK Anantnag”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–217 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In the leaf dip bioassay, thiamethoxam ranked second in relative efficacy, behind imidacloprid.

Treatment
thiamethoxame1
Outcome
Relative efficacye1
Direction
followed bye1
Value
2.419e1
Qualifier
leaf dip methode1
Comparator
imidaclopride1

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“green apple aphid, Aphis pomi”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 38–67 · show in text ↑
e1

“Relative efficacy of imidacloprid (8.022) was highest in leaf dip method followed by thiamethoxam (2.419)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 455–560 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In the direct spray bioassay, spiromesifen had the highest efficacy, above thiamethoxam.

Treatment
Spiromesifene2
Outcome
efficacye2
Direction
higheste2
Value
1.948e2
Qualifier
direct spray methode2
Comparator
thiamethoxame2

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“green apple aphid, Aphis pomi”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 38–67 · show in text ↑
e2

“in direct spray method Spiromesifen (1.948) showed highest efficacy followed by thiamethoxam (1.617)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 567–667 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In the direct spray bioassay, thiamethoxam ranked second in efficacy, behind spiromesifen.

Treatment
thiamethoxame2
Outcome
efficacye2
Direction
followed bye2
Value
1.617e2
Qualifier
direct spray methode2
Comparator
Spiromesifene2

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“green apple aphid, Aphis pomi”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 38–67 · show in text ↑
e2

“in direct spray method Spiromesifen (1.948) showed highest efficacy followed by thiamethoxam (1.617)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 567–667 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Neonicotinoid insecticides were highly effective against green apple aphid among the seven insecticides tested.

Treatment
neonicotinoid insecticidee3
Interactor
green Apple aphide3pest
Outcome
effective against green Apple aphide3
Direction
highly effectivee3

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“green apple aphid, Aphis pomi”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 38–67 · show in text ↑
e3

“Results of this study indicated that out of selected seven insecticides, neonicotinoid insecticide were highly effective against green Apple aphid”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 669–815 · show in text ↑

imidacloprid · Aphis pomi · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree

4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 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.