MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2509503432 · doi:10.6000/1927-5129.2016.12.51

Effect of Green Manure, Sesbania bispinosa Wight Amendment on Incidence of Sucking Insect Pests, their Predators and Yield in Organic Cotton

2016· article· en· W2509503432 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jam Ghulam Mustafa Sahito, Tajwar Sultana Syed, Ghulam Hussain Abro, İnayatullah Rajpar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Basic & Applied Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural pest management studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySesbaniaPopulationAgronomyToxicologyGreen manureChrysoperla carneaPredationManureBiopesticideBiological pest controlTetranychus urticaePesticidePEST analysisPredatorHorticultureEcologyChrysopidae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cotton holds the key importance in the economy of Pakistan, but its yield is severely affected due to the infestation of many insect pests. Farmers mostly rely on chemicals to control pests but their adverse effects on human health and their interests are also considerable. Therefore, this study was conducted over two years to evaluate the influence of amendment of soil with green manure (GM) Dhancha, Sesbania bispinosaWight on the population of cotton sucking insect pests and their predators. Significant impact of GM was found in lowering the population of sucking pests of cotton i.e., Thrips tabaci(Lind), Bemisia tabaci (Gennadus), Amrasca bigutulla bigutulla (Ishida) and Tetranychus urticae (Koch) during both years. Population of predators i.e., Chrysoperla carnea, Geocoris punctipesand Orius sp. was also higher in dhancha treated plots in comparison to control. Application of neem oil was found effective in lowering the population of sucking insect pests during 2014; whereas, application of C. carnea cards showed significant impact after the mid cotton season during 2015. Overall growth and yield parameters were better in dhancha amended organic cotton treatment in comparison to control.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.550
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Basic & Applied SciencesSame topicAgricultural pest management studiesFrench-language works237,207