MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2288619531 · doi:10.6000/1927-5129.2016.12.06

Effect of Biopesticides Against Sucking Insect Pests of Brinjal Crop Under Field Conditions

2016· article· en· W2288619531 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Syed Shahzad Ali, Sher Ahmad, Syed Sohail Ahmed, Huma Rizwana, Saima Siddiqui, S. Shahbaz Ali, Irshad Ali Rattar, Munawer Ali Shah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Basic & Applied Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Practices and Plant Genetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAzadirachtaBiologyBiopesticideChemical controlToxicologyHorticulturePopulationAcaricideEucalyptusCropAzadirachtinBotanyPesticideAgronomyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A field study was carried out during 2013 at the experimental area of Entomology Section, Agriculture Research Institute, (ARI) Tando Jam to examine the effect of bio-pesticides against sucking insect pests of brinjal crop under field conditions. Five treatments with three replications were applied. The treatments were: T1=chemical control (confidor/Diamond), T2=Neem (Azadirachta indica), T3= Tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum), T4= Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globus), T5= Untreated (Control). Three insect pests were found infesting brinjal including white flies, jassid and mites. Pre treatment- and post-treatment observations were recorded. The results revealed that against white fly, the first spray of chemical control(confidor) showed highest reduction percent (96.62%) followed by Neem extract (82.60%), Tobacco extract (75.95%), Eucalyptus extract (73.93%) and lowest for untreated control (11.07%); while in the second spray also, chemical control(Diamond) showed highest effect against white fly (78.32%); followed by Neem extract (67.53%), Tobacco extract (56.43%), Eucalyptus extract (42.25%) and least by untreated plot (5.49%). Against jassid, chemical control (confidor) showed highest effect (77.90%) as observed during 1st spray, followed by Neem extract (55.95%), Tobacco extract (53.38%), Eucalyptus extract (53.99%) and untreated control (8.00%), while after second spray also chemical control (Diamond) showed highest reduction percent (81.70%) followed by Neem extract (68.73%), Tobacco extract (55.72%), Eucalyptus extract (50.66%) and the lowest was resulted by untreated control (13.91%). Against mites population on brinjal the first spray results showed that chemical control (confidor) showed highest effect (98.19%) followed by Neem extract (96.19%), Tobacco extract (95.75%), Eucalyptus extract (86.86%) and least population was recorded in untreated control (9.96%). After second spray, chemical control (Diamond) showed highest reduction percent (99.65%), followed by Neem extract (98.33%), Tobacco extract (92.85%), Eucalyptus extract (88.93%) and the lowest reduction percent was resulted by untreated control (9.14%) respectively. Chemical control (confidor/Diamond) showed its superiority in effect to combat sucking insect pests studied in brinjal, followed by Neem extract, Tobacco extract, Eucalyptus extract and untreated control remained the least.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Basic & Applied SciencesSame topicAgricultural Practices and Plant GeneticsFrench-language works237,207