Abstract
All current commercial soybean cultivars are susceptible to charcoal rot, a disease caused by Macrophomina phaseolina. Efforts to manage this disease through non-genetic means have not been effective. However, the combined effects of tillage, cover crop and herbicide use, and their roles in the population dynamics of this fungus have not been fully investigated. A field experiment was conducted in 2002 through 2004 at Stoneville, MS, to determine the population dynamics of Macrophomina phaseolina (Tassi) in soybean stem and root tissues at harvest and in soil at planting and harvest as affected by tillage, cover crop, and herbicide. The tillage treatments were conventional tillage (CT) and no-tillage (NT); the cover crops were hairy vetch, rye, and no cover crop; and the herbicide treatments were glyphosate- and non-glyphosate-based applications. Analysis of variance indicated that there was an effect due to tillage, cover crop, and tillage by year interaction on colony forming units (CFU) of M. phaseolina recovered from soybean tissue. Colony forming units in soybean tissue were greater under the CT than NT and were greater for hairy vetch and no cover crop than rye. Regardless of the cover crop system used, CFU in tissue was greater for CT in 2002 than in 2003 and 2004. Application of glyphosate did not affect the CFU in stem and root tissues or in the soil. The CFU from soil at harvest was significantly higher than at planting. The CFU in soil at planting and harvest was only affected by tillage and not by cover crop system. The CFU from stem and root tissues was greater than in soil suggesting that quantification of CFU in tissue may provide a better estimate of treatment effects at harvest. These results also suggest that charcoal rot may be better managed in the NT rather than in the CT system. Accepted for publication 11 December 2008. Published 30 January 2009.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage, cover crop and a tillage-by-year interaction affected M. phaseolina CFU recovered from soybean tissue.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe0 - Treatment
- tillage, cover crop, and tillage by year interactione0
- Interactor
- M. phaseolina
Macrophomina phaseolinae0pathogen - Outcome
- colony forming units (CFU) of M. phaseolina recovered from soybean tissuee0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Analysis of variance indicated that there was an effect due to tillage, cover crop, and tillage by year interaction on colony forming units (CFU) of M. phaseolina recovered from soybean tissue.”
Claim · model-written summary
Soybean tissue had more M. phaseolina CFU under conventional tillage than no-tillage.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- CTe0
- Interactor
- Macrophomina phaseolinaMacrophomina phaseolinat0pathogen
- Outcome
- Colony forming units in soybean tissuee0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- NTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Colony forming units in soybean tissue were greater under the CT than NT and were greater for hairy vetch and no cover crop than rye.”
t0“Macrophomina phaseolina in Soybean Tissue”
Claim · model-written summary
Soybean tissue had more M. phaseolina CFU with hairy vetch than rye.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- hairy vetche0
- Interactor
- Macrophomina phaseolinaMacrophomina phaseolinat0pathogen
- Outcome
- Colony forming units in soybean tissuee0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- ryee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Colony forming units in soybean tissue were greater under the CT than NT and were greater for hairy vetch and no cover crop than rye.”
t0“Macrophomina phaseolina in Soybean Tissue”
Claim · model-written summary
Soybean tissue had more M. phaseolina CFU with no cover crop than rye.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- no cover crope0
- Interactor
- Macrophomina phaseolinaMacrophomina phaseolinat0pathogen
- Outcome
- Colony forming units in soybean tissuee0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- ryee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Colony forming units in soybean tissue were greater under the CT than NT and were greater for hairy vetch and no cover crop than rye.”
t0“Macrophomina phaseolina in Soybean Tissue”
Claim · model-written summary
Under conventional tillage, tissue CFU were higher in 2002 than in 2003 and 2004 across cover crops.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- CTe0
- Interactor
- Macrophomina phaseolinaMacrophomina phaseolinat0pathogen
- Outcome
- CFU in tissuee0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- 2003 and 2004e0
- Setting
- 2002e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Regardless of the cover crop system used, CFU in tissue was greater for CT in 2002 than in 2003 and 2004.”
t0“Macrophomina phaseolina in Soybean Tissue”
Claim · model-written summary
Glyphosate did not affect M. phaseolina CFU in soybean stem and root tissue.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Organ / stage
- stem and root tissuese0
- Treatment
- glyphosatee0
- Interactor
- Macrophomina phaseolinaMacrophomina phaseolinat0pathogen
- Outcome
- CFU in stem and root tissuese0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of glyphosate did not affect the CFU in stem and root tissues or in the soil.”
t0“Macrophomina phaseolina in Soybean Tissue”
Claim · model-written summary
Glyphosate did not affect M. phaseolina CFU in soil.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- glyphosatee0
- Interactor
- Macrophomina phaseolinaMacrophomina phaseolinat0pathogen
- Outcome
- CFU in stem and root tissues or in the soile0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of glyphosate did not affect the CFU in stem and root tissues or in the soil.”
t0“Macrophomina phaseolina in Soybean Tissue”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil CFU at harvest were significantly higher than at planting.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Interactor
- Macrophomina phaseolinaMacrophomina phaseolinat0pathogen
- Outcome
- CFU from soile0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- at plantinge0
- Setting
- at harveste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The CFU from soil at harvest was significantly higher than at planting.”
t0“Macrophomina phaseolina in Soybean Tissue”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage affected soil CFU at planting and harvest.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- tillagee0
- Interactor
- Macrophomina phaseolinaMacrophomina phaseolinat0pathogen
- Outcome
- CFU in soil at planting and harveste0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The CFU in soil at planting and harvest was only affected by tillage and not by cover crop system.”
t0“Macrophomina phaseolina in Soybean Tissue”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crop system did not affect soil CFU at planting or harvest.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- cover crop systeme0
- Interactor
- Macrophomina phaseolinaMacrophomina phaseolinat0pathogen
- Outcome
- CFU in soil at planting and harveste0
- Direction
- note0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The CFU in soil at planting and harvest was only affected by tillage and not by cover crop system.”
t0“Macrophomina phaseolina in Soybean Tissue”
Claim · model-written summary
CFU were higher in stem and root tissues than in soil.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Interactor
- Macrophomina phaseolinaMacrophomina phaseolinat0pathogen
- Outcome
- CFU from stem and root tissuese0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- soile0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The CFU from stem and root tissues was greater than in soil suggesting that quantification of CFU in tissue may provide a better estimate of treatment effects at harvest.”
t0“Macrophomina phaseolina in Soybean Tissue”
Claim · model-written summary
Tissue CFU quantification may better estimate treatment effects at harvest than soil CFU.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Interactor
- Macrophomina phaseolinaMacrophomina phaseolinat0pathogen
- Outcome
- estimate of treatment effects at harveste0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Comparator
- soilt0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“quantification of CFU in tissue may provide a better estimate of treatment effects at harvest.”
t0“Macrophomina phaseolina in Soybean Tissue and Soil”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest no-tillage may manage charcoal rot better than conventional tillage.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- NTe0
- Interactor
- Macrophomina phaseolinaMacrophomina phaseolinat0pathogen
- Outcome
- charcoal rot may be better managed in the NT rather than in the CT systeme0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“These results also suggest that charcoal rot may be better managed in the NT rather than in the CT system.”
t0“Macrophomina phaseolina in Soybean Tissue”
The same questions in other papers
glyphosate · Macrophomina phaseolina · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
cover crop · Macrophomina phaseolina · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
tillage · Macrophomina phaseolina · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- 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.