Paper · 2016 · Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences

Interaction between plant symbionts, bio-organic waste and antagonistic fungi in the management of Meloidogyne incognita infecting chickpea

Rose Rizvi; Irshad Mahmood; Safiuddin Ansari

5
claims
10
verbatim quotes
19
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-nd

Abstract

Experiments were conducted at the University Agricultural Research Farm for the two consecutive years, 2013–2014 and 2014–2015 to study the individual and interactive effects of different plant symbionts (Glomus fasciculatum, Mesorhizobium ciceri), bio-organic waste (Avena sativa straw) and antagonistic fungi, Trichoderma harzianum in all possible combinations for biocontrol of root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita infecting chickpea var. Avrodhi. Biocontrol agents and organic wastes were evaluated for their efficacy in terms of growth characteristics, chlorophyll content, nutrients status, mycorrhization and nematode-related parameters. Combined treatments resulted in higher plant growth, biomass, chlorophyll and nutrient status (N, P and K). Antagonistic fungi, Trichoderma harzianum @ 106 spores plant−1 proved to be most effective of all the plant symbionts (G. fasciculatum, M. ciceri) and organic waste in suppressing the nematode-related parameters in chickpea plants. Of all the treatments, combined inoculation of AM fungus (Glomus fasciculatum @ 800 spores plant−1) + root-nodulating bacteria (Mesorhizobium ciceri @ 1gplant−1) + organic waste (Avena sativa straw @ 10gplant−1) and antagonistic fungi (Trichoderma harzianum @ 106 spores plant−1) was found to be the most efficient in improving the plant growth parameters and decreasing the root-knot development of M. incognita in chickpea plants.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined treatments increased chickpea growth and biomass.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume1
Treatment
Combined treatmentse0
Interactor
Meloidogyne incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae1pathogen
Outcome
plant growth, biomasse0
Direction
highere0

Not reportedComparator

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
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

“Combined treatments resulted in higher plant growth, biomass, chlorophyll and nutrient status (N, P and K).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 650–757 · show in text ↑
e1

“Meloidogyne incognita infecting chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 401–441 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined treatments increased chickpea chlorophyll and nutrient status.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume1
Treatment
Combined treatmentse0
Interactor
Meloidogyne incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae1pathogen
Outcome
chlorophyll and nutrient status (N, P and K)e0
Direction
highere0

Not reportedComparator

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
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

“Combined treatments resulted in higher plant growth, biomass, chlorophyll and nutrient status (N, P and K).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 650–757 · show in text ↑
e1

“Meloidogyne incognita infecting chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 401–441 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Trichoderma harzianum was the most effective treatment for suppressing nematode parameters.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Treatment
Trichoderma harzianum @ 106 spores plant−1e0
Interactor
Meloidogyne incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae1pathogen
Second interactor
Trichoderma harzianumTrichoderma harzianume0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
nematode-related parameterse0
Direction
suppressinge0
Comparator
plant symbionts (G. fasciculatum, M. ciceri) and organic wastee0

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
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 ↗
Trichoderma harzianum
Trichoderma harzianum · Second interactorUS Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Systematic Botany and Mycology Laboratory, [1] · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Trichoderma harzianum @ 106 spores plant−1 proved to be most effective of all the plant symbionts (G. fasciculatum, M. ciceri) and organic waste in suppressing the nematode-related parameters in chickpea plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 778–988 · show in text ↑
e1

“Meloidogyne incognita infecting chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 401–441 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The four-component combination was most efficient at improving chickpea growth.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Treatment
combined inoculation of AM fungus (Glomus fasciculatum @ 800 spores plant−1) + root-nodulating bacteria (Mesorhizobium ciceri @ 1gplant−1) + organic waste (Avena sativa straw @ 10gplant−1) and antagonistic fungi (Trichoderma harzianum @ 106 spores plant−1)e0
Interactor
Glomus fasciculatumRhizophagus fasciculatuse0symbiont
Second interactor
Mesorhizobium ciceriMesorhizobium cicerie0symbiont
Outcome
plant growth parameterse0
Direction
improvinge0
Qualifier
Trichoderma harzianume0
Comparator
all the treatmentse1

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“combined inoculation of AM fungus (Glomus fasciculatum @ 800 spores plant−1) + root-nodulating bacteria (Mesorhizobium ciceri @ 1gplant−1) + organic waste (Avena sativa straw @ 10gplant−1) and antagonistic fungi (Trichoderma harzianum @ 106 spores plant−1) was found to be the most efficient in improving the plant growth parameters and decreasing the root-knot development of M. incognita in chickpea plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1013–1421 · show in text ↑
e1

“Of all the treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 990–1011 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The four-component combination was most efficient at reducing chickpea root-knot development.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Treatment
combined inoculation of AM fungus (Glomus fasciculatum @ 800 spores plant−1) + root-nodulating bacteria (Mesorhizobium ciceri @ 1gplant−1) + organic waste (Avena sativa straw @ 10gplant−1) and antagonistic fungi (Trichoderma harzianum @ 106 spores plant−1)e0
Interactor
M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae0pathogen
Second interactor
Trichoderma harzianumTrichoderma harzianume0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
root-knot development of M. incognitae0
Direction
decreasinge0
Qualifier
Glomus fasciculatume0
Comparator
all the treatmentse1

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
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 ↗
Trichoderma harzianum
Trichoderma harzianum · Second interactorUS Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Systematic Botany and Mycology Laboratory, [1] · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“combined inoculation of AM fungus (Glomus fasciculatum @ 800 spores plant−1) + root-nodulating bacteria (Mesorhizobium ciceri @ 1gplant−1) + organic waste (Avena sativa straw @ 10gplant−1) and antagonistic fungi (Trichoderma harzianum @ 106 spores plant−1) was found to be the most efficient in improving the plant growth parameters and decreasing the root-knot development of M. incognita in chickpea plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1013–1421 · show in text ↑
e1

“Of all the treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 990–1011 · show in text ↑

Rhizophagus fasciculatus · Meloidogyne incognita · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

Rhizophagus fasciculatus · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)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 →

Mesorhizobium ciceri · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree

12 papers: 12 positive, 0 negative or no effect

11 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 papers →

Trichoderma harzianum · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree

21 papers: 21 positive, 0 negative or no effect

20 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

17 papers more in this group

See all 21 papers →

inoculation · Meloidogyne incognita · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

7 papers: 3 positive, 4 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

mycorrhiza · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

15 papers: 13 positive, 2 negative or no effect

12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. positive

11 papers more in this group

See all 15 papers →

inoculation · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

152 papers: 135 positive, 17 negative or no effect

134 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

148 papers more in this group

See all 152 papers →

mycorrhiza · Meloidogyne incognita · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 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.