Abstract
The effects of some alternative control methods consisting of biofumigation, intercropping with attractive plants, grafting, solarization or biological nematicides against Meloidogyne incognita in organic tomato production were evaluated in two successive short growing cycles (2007 autumn and 2008 spring) in unheated greenhouse conditions. Eight treatments were investigated in both growing seasons while four treatments were the same in each year, two were different. Soil solarization was applied for 6 weeks with a covering of 110 μm thickness of clear polyethylene sheets. For the biofumigation treatments, all the plant parts of the broccoli (Brassica olerace var. italica) (14 t ha -1 ) or the leaves and fruits of the castor oil plant (Ricinus communis) (2.5 t ha -1 ) were added to the soil one week before planting the tomatoes. The American Marigold plant (Tagetes erecta) seedlings were transplanted to the plots one week before planting as an intercrop with the tomato plants. As a biological nematicide, BioAct® [Paecilomyces lilacinus, strain 251: 62.5 g kg-1, 1010 cfu g-1 LD 50>5000 mg kg-1 cfu mL-1 (Boyut Foreign Trade Ltd, Turkey)] was applied three times at the firm's recommended rates. Organic manure, acting as a biological nematicide namely Netisin® (BioGlobal Company, Turkey), was applied at a rate of 10 kg ha -1 using a drip irrigation system to the soil twice. In both seasons root galling caused by M. incognita was lower (1.90 in autumn and 2.95 in spring) in the grafted tomato plants on the rootstock Beaufort than the other treatments. In terms of yield, among the tested treatments, grafting (0.922 kg plant-1 in autumn and 1.785 kg plant -1 in spring) and biofumigation with R. communis in autumn (0.924 kg plant-1) and biofumigation with broccoli in the spring (2.315 kg plant-1) gave higher yields. The overall results showed that biofumigation with broccoli and
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 5
Claim · model-written summary
Grafted tomato on Beaufort had lower root galling in both seasons than other treatments.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicume0 - Treatment
- grafted tomato plants on the rootstock Beauforte0
- Interactor
- M. incognita
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=60)
Meloidogyne incognitae0pathogen - Outcome
- root galling caused by M. incognitae0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 1.90 in autumn and 2.95 in springe0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“In both seasons root galling caused by M. incognita was lower (1.90 in autumn and 2.95 in spring) in the grafted tomato plants on the rootstock Beaufort than the other treatments.”
Claim · model-written summary
Grafting gave higher tomato yield in autumn.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- graftinge0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 0.922 kg plant-1 in autumne0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grafting (0.922 kg plant-1 in autumn and 1.785 kg plant -1 in spring) and biofumigation with R. communis in autumn (0.924 kg plant-1) and biofumigation with broccoli in the spring (2.315 kg plant-1) gave higher yields.”
t0“tomato production”
Claim · model-written summary
Grafting gave higher tomato yield in spring.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- graftinge0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 1.785 kg plant -1 in springe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grafting (0.922 kg plant-1 in autumn and 1.785 kg plant -1 in spring) and biofumigation with R. communis in autumn (0.924 kg plant-1) and biofumigation with broccoli in the spring (2.315 kg plant-1) gave higher yields.”
t0“tomato production”
Claim · model-written summary
R. communis biofumigation gave higher autumn tomato yield.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- biofumigation with R. communis in autumne0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 0.924 kg plant-1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“biofumigation with R. communis in autumn (0.924 kg plant-1) and biofumigation with broccoli in the spring (2.315 kg plant-1) gave higher yields.”
t0“tomato production”
Claim · model-written summary
Broccoli biofumigation gave higher spring tomato yield.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- biofumigation with broccoli in the springe0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 2.315 kg plant-1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“biofumigation with broccoli in the spring (2.315 kg plant-1) gave higher yields.”
t0“tomato production”
The same questions in other papers
Ricinus communis · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
Brassica oleracea var. italica · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
grafting · Meloidogyne incognita · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →grafting · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
150 papers in the same direction as this paper · 25 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
172 papers more in this group
See all 176 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.