Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Without a pre-flower fungicide application, chickpea had higher Ascochyta blight severity than with a pre-flower application.

A claim from Fungicide application timing for management of Ascochyta blight in chickpea · 2004

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Without a pre-flower fungicide application, chickpea had higher Ascochyta blight severity than with a pre-flower application.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Material
desi cv. Myles and the kabuli cv. CDC Yumae4
Treatment
without a pre-flower application of fungicidee5
Interactor
Ascochyta rabieiAscochyta rabieie0pathogen
Outcome
disease severitye5
Direction
highere5
Comparator
with a pre-flower applicatione5
Setting
Saskatoon in 2003e4

Not reportedGeneCompoundOrgan / stageSecond interactorSecond interactor roleValueQualifier

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Ascochyta rabiei
Ascochyta rabiei · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDr. Weidong Chen Research Plant Pathologist · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Ascochyta blight of chickpea [Ascochyta rabiei] is an extremely destructive disease capable of causing high yield and quality losses”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–132
e4

“Trials investigating the effectiveness of different fungicide application timings and sequences were conducted on the desi cv. Myles and the kabuli cv. CDC Yuma at Saskatoon in 2003”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 451–632
e5

“In both cultivars, treatments without a pre-flower application of fungicide had higher disease severity and lower yields than treatments with a pre-flower application”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 930–1096

Title

Fungicide application timing for management of Ascochyta blight in chickpea

Cheryl Armstrong-Cho; G. Chongo; Yong Gan; et al. 2004

Other claims from this paper (3)

Record rev-021afc92b2d897bb3edd7d3ce14ebd0f99c0713c52e3d5b8e62473abdedf63d1 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 1 in the model’s answer

fungicide · Ascochyta rabiei · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 7 positive, 1 negative or no effect

7 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
  4. positive
  5. positive
  6. positive
  7. positive
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.