Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Pseudomonas fluorescens (Pf-1) gave a disease control of 65.52% on chilli, at par with P. guillermondii (Y-12).

A claim from Bio-efficacy of different biological control agents for the management of chilli fruit rot/anthracnose disease · 2019

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pseudomonas fluorescens (Pf-1) gave a disease control of 65.52% on chilli, at par with P. guillermondii (Y-12).

Taxon
Chilli (Capsicum annum L.)e0
Treatment
seed treatment, seedling dip and foliar spraye2
Interactor
chilli fruit rot pathogense6pathogen
Second interactor
P. fluorescens (Pf-1)Pseudomonas fluorescense3biocontrol_agent
Outcome
DCe3
Direction
at pare3
Value
65.52%e3
Comparator
P. guillermondii (Y-12)e1

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageSettingQualifier

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

Pseudomonas fluorescens
Pseudomonas fluorescens · Second interactorNinjatacoshell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Chilli (Capsicum annum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–26
e1

“Lowest mean disease intensity (MDI), highest disease control (DC) over untreated control was recorded in the treatment P. guillermondii (Y-12) (5.39% MDI, 64.72% DC)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1028–1193
e3

“this was found at par with the treatment P. fluorescens (Pf-1) (5.92% MDI, 65.52% DC)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1198–1283
e6

“against chilli fruit rot pathogens”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1416–1450
e2

“were tested through seed treatment, seedling dip and foliar spray”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 782–847

Title

Bio-efficacy of different biological control agents for the management of chilli fruit rot/anthracnose disease

B. L. RAGHUNANDAN; MAYANK V. PATEL; NEHA M. PATEL; et al. Journal of Biological Control 2019. doi:10.18311/jbc/2019//22716

Other claims from this paper (6)

Record rev-36569dcb03ffb5ca8e03efbffce7843e410f972779f62fd0f29fecfad4ef4d5f · schema claims-v0.9 · position 4 in the model’s answer

seed treatment · control · Capsicum (peppers)Results agree

4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this claim

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

application · control · Capsicum (peppers)Results agree

8 papers: 8 positive, 0 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this claim

  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.