Abstract
청양지역을 비롯한 멜론 연작재배지에서 매년 피해를 나타내고 있는 시들음 증상 발생주의 뿌리로부터 뿌리씩 음병 원균 Monosporascus cannonballus(28.4%), Fusarium spp.(27.4%), Didymella bryoniae(24.2%), Phytophthora spp.(20.0%) 등을 각각 분리하였다. 멜론 연작재배 토양내 뿌리썩음병 방제를 위해 고온수 관주 및 훈증제 3종 살균처리하고 방제효율을 검정하였다. 고온수($92{\sim}98^{\circ}C$) 토양관주 살균처리는 $'05{\sim}'06$년 정식전 4시간(관주량: $52{\sim}55$ tons/10a) 관주하였다. 그 결과 발병율이 0.01$\sim$0.08%로 무처리의 발병량(6.6$\sim$81.4%)보다 높은 방제효과를 나타내었다(p<0.05). 이는 토양훈증 살균제 3종의 방제효과(54.8$\sim$79.7%) 보다 20.2$\sim$45.1% 높았다. 또한, 고온수 관주처리 토양에서의 역병(Fire blight), 시들음병 (Fusarium wilt)의 발병율도 극히 낮았다 한편, 2005-2006년 고온수 관주처리구의 수량은 39톤/ha으로 무처리구(13.6톤/ha)에 비해 매우 높아 고도의 유의성을 나타내었다(P<0.05). 그러나, Dazomet, methyl bromide등 훈증제 처리는 약제 처리간 유의성은 없었으나 수량은 무처리 보다 39$\sim$47% 높았다. 결과적으로 고온수($92{\sim}98^{\circ}C$)를 이용한 연작재배지 토양 살균은 토양병해에 높은 방제효과를 나타내어 약제에 의한 훈증살균보다 효과적이라 판단되었다. This study was carried out to determine the causal agents of soil-borne fungal diseases that pose a threat to the muskmelon production in Cheong Yang, Korea and to investigate the potential effects of hot water drenching and three fumigant (metam sodium, dazomet and methyl bromide) on these diseases. As the agents of the diseases, Monosporascus cannonballus, Didymella sp., Fusarium sp., Phytophthora sp., were detected. Hot water and the fumigants were treated on two successive cropping seasons of melon. Soil temperature was measured at 0, 10, 20 and 30 cm soil depth. In 2005, soil sterilization by hot-water was more effective significantly to control of the diseases than by fumigant. yield was the highest in hot-water sterilized plot as $39\;ton{\cdot}ha^{-1}$. Dazomet ($50\;g/m^2$) treated plot was followed as $23\;ton{\cdot}ha^{-1}$. In 2006, hot water sterilized plot showed higher yields than non-treated plots ($14.8\;ton{\cdot}ha^{-1}$). But the other three fumigant contained Dazomet ($50\;g/m^2$) were no difference (P<0.05) in yield.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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 9
Claim · model-written summary
The study detected Monosporascus cannonballus as a muskmelon disease agent.
- Taxon
- Muskmelon
.jpg?width=60)
Cucumis melot0 - Interactor
- Monosporascus cannonballusMonosporascus cannonballuse0pathogen
- Outcome
- Monosporascus cannonballuse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“As the agents of the diseases, Monosporascus cannonballus, Didymella sp., Fusarium sp., Phytophthora sp., were detected”
t0“Muskmelon”
Claim · model-written summary
The study detected Didymella sp. as a muskmelon disease agent.
- Taxon
- MuskmelonCucumis melot0
- Outcome
- Didymella sp.e0
DidymellaOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“As the agents of the diseases, Monosporascus cannonballus, Didymella sp., Fusarium sp., Phytophthora sp., were detected”
t0“Muskmelon”
Claim · model-written summary
The study detected Fusarium sp. as a muskmelon disease agent.
- Taxon
- MuskmelonCucumis melot0
- Outcome
- Fusarium sp.e0
FusariumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“As the agents of the diseases, Monosporascus cannonballus, Didymella sp., Fusarium sp., Phytophthora sp., were detected”
t0“Muskmelon”
Claim · model-written summary
The study detected Phytophthora sp. as a muskmelon disease agent.
- Taxon
- MuskmelonCucumis melot0
- Interactor
- Phytophthora sp.
Phytophthorae0pathogen - Outcome
- Phytophthora sp.e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“As the agents of the diseases, Monosporascus cannonballus, Didymella sp., Fusarium sp., Phytophthora sp., were detected”
t0“Muskmelon”
Claim · model-written summary
Hot water soil sterilization controlled diseases significantly better than fumigation in 2005.
- Taxon
- MuskmelonCucumis melot0
- Treatment
- soil sterilization by hot-watere0
- Outcome
- control of the diseasese0
- Direction
- more effectivee0
- Comparator
- fumigante0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 2005, soil sterilization by hot-water was more effective significantly to control of the diseases than by fumigant”
t0“Muskmelon”
Claim · model-written summary
Hot water sterilization yielded 39 ton per hectare, the highest in 2005.
- Taxon
- MuskmelonCucumis melot0
- Treatment
- hot-water sterilized plote0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- $39\;ton{\cdot}ha^{-1}$e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“yield was the highest in hot-water sterilized plot as $39\;ton{\cdot}ha^{-1}$”
t0“Muskmelon”
Claim · model-written summary
Dazomet treatment yielded 23 ton per hectare in 2005.
- Taxon
- MuskmelonCucumis melot0
- Treatment
- Dazomet ($50\;g/m^2$)e0
- Outcome
- treated plote0
- Value
- $23\;ton{\cdot}ha^{-1}$e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dazomet ($50\;g/m^2$) treated plot was followed as $23\;ton{\cdot}ha^{-1}$”
t0“Muskmelon”
Claim · model-written summary
Hot water plots had higher yields than untreated plots in 2006.
- Taxon
- MuskmelonCucumis melot0
- Treatment
- hot water sterilized plote0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- $14.8\;ton{\cdot}ha^{-1}$e0
- Comparator
- non-treated plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 2006, hot water sterilized plot showed higher yields than non-treated plots ($14.8\;ton{\cdot}ha^{-1}$)”
t0“Muskmelon”
Claim · model-written summary
The other fumigants did not differ in yield in 2006.
- Taxon
- MuskmelonCucumis melot0
- Treatment
- the other three fumigante0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- no differencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the other three fumigant contained Dazomet ($50\;g/m^2$) were no difference (P<0.05) in yield”
t0“Muskmelon”
The same questions in other papers
heat · yield · Cucumis melo (muskmelon)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
heat · control · Cucumis melo (muskmelon)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
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.