Abstract
In this survey, Fusarium oxysporum was isolated from roots infected plants and was shown to be pathogenic. Experiment were carried out with seven antagonistic bacteria. Based on biochemical, Physiological and morphological tests, isolates B-120, B-32, B-28 and B-22 were identified as Bacillus subtilis and isolates Pf-100, Pf-10 and CHAO as Pseudomonas fluorescens. In greenhouse studies, only isolate B-120 (Less than benomyl) reduced Fusarium wilt of chickpea in both seed and soil treatments. The application of antagonistic bacteria had no different effects on plant growth factors. Soil treatment of bacteria had a better effects on plant growth than that of bacterial seed treatment. The use of antagonists (B-120, B-28, B-120 and CHAO) in combination had no significant effect on plant growth factors and reduction wilt disease than that each isolate was applied individually.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
Fusarium oxysporum isolated from infected roots was pathogenic.
- Taxon
- chickpea
Cicer arietinumt0 - Interactor
- Fusarium oxysporum
_(Fusarium_oxysporum_f.sp._batatas)_1234227-PPT-Clemson_University.jpg?width=60)
Fusarium oxysporume0pathogen - Outcome
- Fusarium oxysporum was isolated from roots infected plants and was shown to be pathogenice0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_(Fusarium_oxysporum_f.sp._batatas)_1234227-PPT-Clemson_University.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“Fusarium oxysporum was isolated from roots infected plants and was shown to be pathogenic”
t0“chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Four tested antagonistic isolates were identified as Bacillus subtilis.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Material
- isolates B-120, B-32, B-28 and B-22e0
- Interactor
- Bacillus subtilis
Bacillus subtilise0biocontrol_agent - Outcome
- identified as Bacillus subtilise0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“isolates B-120, B-32, B-28 and B-22 were identified as Bacillus subtilis”
t0“chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Three tested antagonistic isolates were identified as Pseudomonas fluorescens.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Material
- isolates Pf-100, Pf-10 and CHAOe0
- Interactor
- Pseudomonas fluorescens
.JPG?width=60)
Pseudomonas fluorescense0biocontrol_agent - Outcome
- Pseudomonas fluorescense0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.JPG?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“isolates Pf-100, Pf-10 and CHAO as Pseudomonas fluorescens”
t0“chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
B-120 reduced chickpea Fusarium wilt under greenhouse conditions with seed treatment, less than benomyl.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- isolate B-120e0
- Outcome
- Fusarium wilt of chickpeae0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- seed and soil treatmentse0
- Comparator
- benomyle0
- Setting
- greenhouse studiese1
FusariumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“only isolate B-120 (Less than benomyl) reduced Fusarium wilt of chickpea in both seed and soil treatments”
e1“In greenhouse studies”
Claim · model-written summary
Antagonistic bacteria did not differ in their effects on chickpea growth factors.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- antagonistic bacteriae0
- Outcome
- plant growth factorse0
- Direction
- no different effectse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The application of antagonistic bacteria had no different effects on plant growth factors.”
t0“chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil treatment with bacteria had a better effect on chickpea growth than bacterial seed treatment.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Soil treatment of bacteriae0
- Outcome
- plant growthe0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Comparator
- bacterial seed treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil treatment of bacteria had a better effects on plant growth than that of bacterial seed treatment.”
t0“chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Combining antagonists had no significant effect on chickpea growth factors relative to individual isolates.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- antagonists (B-120, B-28, B-120 and CHAO) in combinatione0
- Outcome
- plant growth factorse0
- Direction
- no significant effecte0
- Comparator
- each isolate was applied individuallye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The use of antagonists (B-120, B-28, B-120 and CHAO) in combination had no significant effect on plant growth factors and reduction wilt disease than that each isolate was applied individually.”
t0“chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Combining antagonists did not significantly improve chickpea wilt reduction relative to individual isolates.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- antagonists (B-120, B-28, B-120 and CHAO) in combinatione0
- Interactor
- wilt diseasee0pathogen
- Outcome
- reduction wilt diseasee0
- Direction
- no significant effecte0
- Comparator
- each isolate was applied individuallye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The use of antagonists (B-120, B-28, B-120 and CHAO) in combination had no significant effect on plant growth factors and reduction wilt disease than that each isolate was applied individually.”
t0“chickpea”
The same questions in other papers
biocontrol · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →biocontrol · disease · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
15 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →inoculation · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
134 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
148 papers more in this group
See all 152 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.