Paper · 2006 · Homeopathy

Effects of Cina on root-knot disease of mulberry

SC Datta

8
claims
18
verbatim quotes
32
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Root-knot disease of mulberry is caused by the nematode Meloidogyne incognita. It has important economic implications for sericulture. The homeopathic medicines, Cina mother tincture (MT) and potentised Cina 200C, prepared from the flowering meristems of Artemisia nilagirica (Clarke) Pamp, were applied by foliar spray on mulberry (Morus alba L.) infected with M. incognita juveniles (J2). Pretreatment (ending 6 days before inoculation) and post-treatment (starting 6 days after inoculation) schedules were tested. The two uninoculated control batches were treated with the same procedure with Cina MT and Cina 200C. Both pre- and post-treatment significantly reduced nematode infection in terms of root gall number and nematode population in root. All the treated plants showed improved growth in terms of fresh biomass of shoot and root, length of shoot and root, number of leaves, leaf surface area, root and leaf-protein content. Cina 200C is more effective than Cina MT in all respects of nematode control as well as growth of the test plants. Pretreatments show slightly better effects than the post-treatments. It is interesting that inoculated and treated plants not only are less affected by nematodes but also have a better growth than uninoculated, untreated control.

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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Pretreatment significantly reduced root gall number and root nematode population.

Taxon
mulberryt0
Treatment
pre-e0
Interactor
M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae1pathogen
Outcome
root gall number and nematode population in roote0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Meloidogyne incognita
Meloidogyne incognita · InteractorPhoto by William Wergin and Richard Sayre. Colorized by Stephen Ausmus. U.S. Department of Agriculture · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Both pre- and post-treatment significantly reduced nematode infection in terms of root gall number and nematode population in root.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 619–750 · show in text ↑
t0

“mulberry”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–48 · show in text ↑
e1

“mulberry (Morus alba L.) infected with M. incognita juveniles (J2)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 323–389 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Post-treatment significantly reduced root gall number and root nematode population.

Taxon
mulberryt0
Treatment
post-treatmente0
Interactor
M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae1pathogen
Outcome
root gall number and nematode population in roote0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Meloidogyne incognita
Meloidogyne incognita · InteractorPhoto by William Wergin and Richard Sayre. Colorized by Stephen Ausmus. U.S. Department of Agriculture · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Both pre- and post-treatment significantly reduced nematode infection in terms of root gall number and nematode population in root.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 619–750 · show in text ↑
t0

“mulberry”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–48 · show in text ↑
e1

“mulberry (Morus alba L.) infected with M. incognita juveniles (J2)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 323–389 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treated mulberry had improved shoot and root fresh biomass and shoot length.

Taxon
mulberryt0
Treatment
treatede0
Outcome
fresh biomass of shoot and root, length of shoote0
Direction
improvede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“All the treated plants showed improved growth in terms of fresh biomass of shoot and root, length of shoot and root, number of leaves, leaf surface area, root and leaf-protein content.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 751–935 · show in text ↑
t0

“mulberry”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–48 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treated mulberry had improved root length, leaf number and leaf surface area.

Taxon
mulberryt0
Treatment
treatede0
Outcome
length of shoot and root, number of leaves, leaf surface areae0
Direction
improvede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“All the treated plants showed improved growth in terms of fresh biomass of shoot and root, length of shoot and root, number of leaves, leaf surface area, root and leaf-protein content.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 751–935 · show in text ↑
t0

“mulberry”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–48 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treated mulberry had improved root and leaf protein content.

Taxon
mulberryt0
Treatment
treatede0
Outcome
root and leaf-protein contente0
Direction
improvede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“All the treated plants showed improved growth in terms of fresh biomass of shoot and root, length of shoot and root, number of leaves, leaf surface area, root and leaf-protein content.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 751–935 · show in text ↑
t0

“mulberry”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–48 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cina 200C was more effective than Cina MT for nematode control and plant growth.

Taxon
mulberryt0
Treatment
Cina 200Ce0
Outcome
nematode control as well as growthe0
Direction
more effectivee0
Comparator
Cina MTe0

Verbatim

e0

“Cina 200C is more effective than Cina MT in all respects of nematode control as well as growth of the test plants.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 936–1050 · show in text ↑
t0

“mulberry”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–48 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pretreatments had slightly better effects than post-treatments.

Taxon
mulberryt0
Treatment
Pretreatmentse0
Outcome
slightly better effectse0
Direction
bettere0
Comparator
post-treatmentse0

Verbatim

e0

“Pretreatments show slightly better effects than the post-treatments.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1051–1119 · show in text ↑
t0

“mulberry”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–48 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Inoculated treated mulberry grew better than uninoculated untreated controls.

Taxon
mulberryt0
Treatment
inoculated and treatede0
Outcome
growthe0
Direction
bettere0
Comparator
uninoculated, untreated controle0

Verbatim

e0

“inoculated and treated plants not only are less affected by nematodes but also have a better growth than uninoculated, untreated control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1143–1280 · show in text ↑
t0

“mulberry”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–48 · show in text ↑

inoculation · growth · Morus (mulberry trees)Results agree

14 papers: 14 positive, 0 negative or no effect

13 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

10 papers more in this group

See all 14 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.