Paper · 2012 · Journal of Plant Pathology & Microbiology

Role of Antagonistic Microbe Pseudomonas fluorescens on Colletotrichum capsici Infecting Curcuma longa

Muthuraman Pandurangan; Ram kumar

2
claims
3
verbatim quotes
7
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · other-oa

Abstract

The present study was attempted to find out the efficacy of commercially formulated Pseudomonas fluorescens in the form of foliar spray on Colletotrichum capsici infecting leaf spot disease in turmeric. The rhizomes dipped in biocontrol/chemical fungicide (bavistin) solution for overnight was planted in their respective triplicate plots for field study. 90-days old plants were sprayed with C. capsici spore spray (7-1210 4 spores/ml) and subsequently on the next day by Pseudomonas fluorescens/bavistin spray in their respective plots. The second dosage of biocontrol/ bavistin spray was given 15 days after the 1 st biocontrol/bavistin spray. The leaf samples were collected from healthy; infected; biocontrol and bavistin sprayed plots on the 10 th day after I and II spray schedule were subjected to various biochemical analyses. The result revealed that P. fluorescens (2%) in the form of rhizome treatment as well as foliar spray (two times) was found to be best antagonistic microbe in controlling C. capsici infecting Curcuma longa. The superiority of Pseudomonas spray over bavistin was mainly due to rapid cumulative antagonistic and antibiotic action against the pathogen.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed other-oa. 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 2

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

P. fluorescens rhizome and foliar treatment best controlled C. capsici infection.

Taxon
Curcuma longaCurcuma longae0
Treatment
P. fluorescens (2%) in the form of rhizome treatment as well as foliar spray (two times)e0
Interactor
C. capsiciColletotrichum truncatume0pathogen
Second interactor
P. fluorescensPseudomonas fluorescense0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
C. capsici infecting Curcuma longae0
Direction
beste0

Not reportedComparator

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

Curcuma longa
Curcuma longa · TaxonJ.M.Garg · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Pseudomonas fluorescens
Pseudomonas fluorescens · Second interactorNinjatacoshell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“P. fluorescens (2%) in the form of rhizome treatment as well as foliar spray (two times) was found to be best antagonistic microbe in controlling C. capsici infecting Curcuma longa”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 861–1041 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pseudomonas spray was superior to bavistin, attributed to antagonistic and antibiotic action.

Taxon
Curcuma longaCurcuma longat0
Treatment
Pseudomonas spraye0
Outcome
superiority of Pseudomonas spray over bavistine0
Qualifier
rapid cumulative antagonistic and antibiotic actione0

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

Curcuma longa
Curcuma longa · TaxonJ.M.Garg · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The superiority of Pseudomonas spray over bavistin was mainly due to rapid cumulative antagonistic and antibiotic action against the pathogen.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1043–1185 · show in text ↑
t0

“Curcuma longa”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 89–102 · show in text ↑

application · Colletotrichum truncatum · Curcuma longa (turmeric)Results agree

5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 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.