Abstract
Chlorothalonil (as Bravo 720) was applied at 1255 g/ha 7 times to groundnut cv. Florunner in 0.12, 17.8 or 1.7 kl of water/ha via ground sprays, centre pivot irrigation (chemigation) or pivot-mounted underslung boom, respectively. Some of the chemigated plots were subjected to tractor traffic. Rhizoctonia limb rot (caused by R. solani anastomosis group 4) was generally not controlled by chlorothalonil and tended to be more severe with tractor traffic. Plants in untreated plots had final defoliation of 96 and 68% because of late leaf spot (caused by Cercosporidium personatum [Mycosphaerella berkeleyi]) in 1987 and 1988, respectively. Ground sprays gave the best leaf spot control in both years, followed by the underslung boom and chemigation applications. In 1987, yields were significantly lower in plots that received the underslung boom or chemigation treatments than in ground-sprayed plots. With less disease in 1988, pod yields were equal in chemigated and ground-sprayed plots and were significantly higher in plots treated by means of the underslung boom.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Chlorothalonil generally did not control Rhizoctonia limb rot.
- Taxon
- groundnut
Arachis hypogaeat0 - Treatment
- chlorothalonile0
- Interactor
- R. solani
Rhizoctonia solanie0pathogen - Outcome
- Rhizoctonia limb rote0
- Direction
- not controllede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Rhizoctonia limb rot (caused by R. solani anastomosis group 4) was generally not controlled by chlorothalonil”
t0“groundnut cv. Florunner”
Claim · model-written summary
Rhizoctonia limb rot tended to be more severe with tractor traffic.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- tractor traffice0
- Interactor
- R. solaniRhizoctonia solanie0pathogen
- Outcome
- Rhizoctonia limb rote0
- Direction
- more severee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Rhizoctonia limb rot (caused by R. solani anastomosis group 4) was generally not controlled by chlorothalonil and tended to be more severe with tractor traffic”
t0“groundnut cv. Florunner”
Claim · model-written summary
Untreated plants had 96% final defoliation due to late leaf spot in 1987.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Interactor
- Cercosporidium personatumNothopassalora personatae0pathogen
- Outcome
- final defoliatione0
- Value
- 96e0
- Qualifier
- 1987e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Plants in untreated plots had final defoliation of 96 and 68% because of late leaf spot (caused by Cercosporidium personatum [Mycosphaerella berkeleyi]) in 1987 and 1988, respectively.”
t0“groundnut cv. Florunner”
Claim · model-written summary
Untreated plants had 68% final defoliation due to late leaf spot in 1988.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Interactor
- Cercosporidium personatumNothopassalora personatae0pathogen
- Outcome
- final defoliatione0
- Value
- 68%e0
- Qualifier
- 1988e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Plants in untreated plots had final defoliation of 96 and 68% because of late leaf spot (caused by Cercosporidium personatum [Mycosphaerella berkeleyi]) in 1987 and 1988, respectively.”
t0“groundnut cv. Florunner”
Claim · model-written summary
Ground sprays provided the best leaf spot control in both years.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- Ground sprayse0
- Outcome
- leaf spot controle0
- Direction
- beste0
- Comparator
- underslung boom and chemigation applicationse0
Not reportedInteractor
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Ground sprays gave the best leaf spot control in both years, followed by the underslung boom and chemigation applications.”
t0“groundnut cv. Florunner”
Claim · model-written summary
Underslung boom application ranked below ground sprays and above chemigation for leaf spot control.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- underslung boome0
- Outcome
- leaf spot controle0
- Direction
- followed bye0
- Comparator
- chemigation applicationse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Ground sprays gave the best leaf spot control in both years, followed by the underslung boom and chemigation applications.”
t0“groundnut cv. Florunner”
Claim · model-written summary
In 1987, underslung boom treatment yielded significantly less than ground sprays.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- underslung boome0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- 1987e0
- Comparator
- ground-sprayed plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1987, yields were significantly lower in plots that received the underslung boom or chemigation treatments than in ground-sprayed plots.”
t0“groundnut cv. Florunner”
Claim · model-written summary
In 1987, chemigation yielded significantly less than ground sprays.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- chemigatione0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- 1987e0
- Comparator
- ground-sprayed plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1987, yields were significantly lower in plots that received the underslung boom or chemigation treatments than in ground-sprayed plots.”
t0“groundnut cv. Florunner”
Claim · model-written summary
In 1988, chemigation and ground sprays produced equal pod yields.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- chemigatede0
- Outcome
- pod yieldse0
- Direction
- equale0
- Qualifier
- 1988e0
- Comparator
- ground-sprayed plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“With less disease in 1988, pod yields were equal in chemigated and ground-sprayed plots”
t0“groundnut cv. Florunner”
Claim · model-written summary
In 1988, underslung boom treatment produced significantly higher pod yields.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- underslung boome0
- Outcome
- pod yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- chemigated and ground-sprayed plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“pod yields were equal in chemigated and ground-sprayed plots and were significantly higher in plots treated by means of the underslung boom”
t0“groundnut cv. Florunner”
The same questions in other papers
application · disease · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
47 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
48 papers more in this group
See all 52 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.