Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Iprodione moderately suppressed Monilinia fructicola spore production from infected peduncles by 39% and 83%.

A claim from New fungicides for suppression of sporulation byMonilinia fructicolafrom overwintering sites in peach trees in spring · 1983

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Iprodione moderately suppressed Monilinia fructicola spore production from infected peduncles by 39% and 83%.

Organ / stage
infected pedunclese2
Treatment
Iprodione (375 ppm)e2
Interactor
Monilinia fructicolaMonilinia fructicolae0pathogen
Outcome
spore productione0
Direction
suppressinge2
Value
39% and 83%e2
Qualifier
moderately effectivee2

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSetting

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

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Monilinia fructicola
Monilinia fructicola · InteractorMary Ann Hansen · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“overwintering sites in peach trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 73–107
e0

“Spore production by Monilinia fructicola occurs in spring from overwintering sites on peach peduncles and mummified fruit”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 7–128
e2

“Iprodione (375 ppm) was moderately effective in two separate tests, suppressing spore production from infected peduncles by 39% and 83%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 306–441

Title

New fungicides for suppression of sporulation byMonilinia fructicolafrom overwintering sites in peach trees in spring

P. F. Kable Journal of Horticultural Science 1983. doi:10.1080/00221589.1983.11515089

Other claims from this paper (6)

Record rev-ccc2edac187e4a343c865fcd4179dc0ec092eb5b155d1adea62d9ea70e6347e7 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 2 in the model’s answer

iprodione · Monilinia fructicola · Prunus persica (peach)Results agree

5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this claim

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
  4. positive
See all 5 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.