Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Disease incidence and infection frequency were lower under azoxystrobin than under folpet, thiram or skipped spray.

A claim from Suppressive Activities of Foliar Spray Fungicides for Apple Against Sporulation of Botryosphaeria dothidea, the Causal Fungus of White Rot, and Their Role in Disease Control · 2006

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Disease incidence and infection frequency were lower under azoxystrobin than under folpet, thiram or skipped spray.

Treatment
azoxystrobine1
Outcome
Disease incidence and infection frequencye0
Direction
lowere0
Comparator
thirame1

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingValueQualifier

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Disease incidence and infection frequency at the plots sprayed former two chemicals which suppressed sporulation were much lower than those of the plots adopted latter two chemicals and untreated plot at which the fungicide spray was skipped at that time”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1194–1448
e1

“carbendazim, azoxystrobin, folpet and thiram, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1134–1192
e2

“apple diseases in Korea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 54–77

Title

Suppressive Activities of Foliar Spray Fungicides for Apple Against Sporulation of Botryosphaeria dothidea, the Causal Fungus of White Rot, and Their Role in Disease Control

Dong-Hyuk Lee; Lae-Hong Cho; Jung-Sup Shin; et al. Research in Plant Disease 2006. doi:10.5423/rpd.2006.12.3.240

Other claims from this paper (11)

Record rev-e39db62a98362eaa287c65441eb288e179208a4e6136b5b83eaed037b0d8369c · schema claims-v0.9 · position 7 in the model’s answer

azoxystrobin · disease · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this claim

  1. positive
See all 2 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.