Paper · 2014 · Journal of Food Legumes

Estimation of yield losses due to field pea rust (Uromyces fabae) severity

SK Singh; HS Tripathi

4
claims
8
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Rust (Uromyces fabae) has increased in terms of frequency of disease severity, grain yield losses and per cent yield decrease in field pea (Pisum sativum) at the Crop Research Centre, of the university. During 2007–08 and 2008–09 crop seasons an experiment was conducted to assess the damage/yield loss caused by the disease. Rust was first observed in field on Ist week of February and by 23 March plants of all treatments were dead. One, two, three and four sprays of seven fungicides viz., propiconazole (tilt) (0.1%), bitertanol (baycor) (0.1%), triadimefon (calixin) (0.05%), mancozeb (indofil M-45) (0.25%), probineb (antracol) (0.1%), tebuconazole (folicur) (0.25%) and captafol (difolatan) (0.2%) were sprayed separately in each plot. Among all fungicides one, two, three and four times foliar spray (10 days interval) of propiconazole was found most effective against rust severity and grain yield followed by bitertanol and triadimefon.

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 4

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rust appeared in the first week of February.

Taxon
field peat0
Interactor
Ruste0pathogen
Outcome
Rust was first observede0
Setting
fielde0

Verbatim

e0

“Rust was first observed in field on Ist week of February”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 326–382 · show in text ↑
t0

“field pea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 34–43 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Plants in all treatments were dead by 23 March.

Taxon
field peat0
Outcome
plants of all treatments were deade0
Qualifier
by 23 Marche0

Verbatim

e0

“by 23 March plants of all treatments were dead”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 387–433 · show in text ↑
t0

“field pea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 34–43 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Propiconazole sprays were most effective against rust severity among the fungicides.

Taxon
field peat0
Treatment
propiconazolee0
Interactor
ruste0pathogen
Outcome
rust severitye0
Direction
most effectivee0
Comparator
bitertanol and triadimefone0

Verbatim

e0

“propiconazole was found most effective against rust severity and grain yield followed by bitertanol and triadimefon”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 830–945 · show in text ↑
t0

“field pea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 34–43 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Propiconazole sprays were most effective for grain yield among the fungicides.

Taxon
field peat0
Treatment
propiconazolee0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
most effectivee0
Comparator
bitertanol and triadimefone0

Verbatim

e0

“propiconazole was found most effective against rust severity and grain yield followed by bitertanol and triadimefon”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 830–945 · show in text ↑
t0

“field pea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 34–43 · show in text ↑

propiconazole · disease · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 4 positive, 1 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

propiconazole · yield · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)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.