Paper · 2015 · The Bioscan

Biological and fungicidal management of chickpea wilt caused by fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceri

V. B. Patil; D. B. Gawade; A. P. Surywanshi; et al.

14
claims
28
verbatim quotes
6
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L), wilt caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceri is the most destructive disease in India and also first reported from India in 1918. It is seed-borne as well as soil-borne pathogen. Yield losses vary between 10% to 100% depending on varietal susceptibility and agroclimatic conditions. The results concluded that the significantly highest reduction in growth of the pathogen was induced by Trichoderma viride (15.3%), followed by Trichoderma koningii (24.4%). The moderate inhibition was induced by Trichoderma harzianum (28.9%), Gliocladium virens (30.5%) which were statistically at par and could induce however significant inhibition over control (75.20%). The significantly highest germination was obtained with Carbendazim (77.66%) which was at par with seed treatment by Trichoderma viride (75.33%). However, the all doses of seed treatment with T. viride and fungicidal seed treatments have significantly improved germination (%), increased vigour index, dry matter production and number of pods produced per plant were significantly influenced. Whereas, all the fungicides were found to be significantly superior over control in checking the radial growth and sporulation of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceri. Among all the fungicides Carbendazim (22.41%) was significantly superior and was at par with Benomyl (21.4%), Thiram (31.42%) and Captan (31.82%). Very scarce sporulation was observed in Carbendazim, Benomyl, Thiram and Captan acted as antisporulant.

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 14

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Trichoderma viride reduced pathogen growth, with 15.3% reported.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
Trichoderma viridee0
Outcome
growth of the pathogene0
Direction
reductione0
Value
15.3%e0

Not reportedInteractorComparator

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

“significantly highest reduction in growth of the pathogen was induced by Trichoderma viride (15.3%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 347–446 · show in text ↑
t0

“chickpea wilt”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–53 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Trichoderma koningii reduced pathogen growth, with 24.4% reported.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
Trichoderma koningiie0
Outcome
growth of the pathogene0
Direction
reductione0
Value
24.4%e0

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 ↗

Verbatim

e0

“reduction in growth of the pathogen was induced by Trichoderma viride (15.3%), followed by Trichoderma koningii (24.4%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 369–488 · show in text ↑
t0

“chickpea wilt”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–53 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Trichoderma harzianum inhibited pathogen growth by 28.9%.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
Trichoderma harzianume0
Outcome
inhibitione0
Direction
inhibitione0
Value
28.9%e0

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 ↗

Verbatim

e0

“moderate inhibition was induced by Trichoderma harzianum (28.9%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 494–558 · show in text ↑
t0

“chickpea wilt”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–53 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Gliocladium virens inhibited pathogen growth by 30.5%.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
Gliocladium virense0
Outcome
inhibitione0
Direction
inhibitione0
Value
30.5%e0
Comparator
controle0

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

“Gliocladium virens (30.5%) which were statistically at par and could induce however significant inhibition over control (75.20%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 560–688 · show in text ↑
t0

“chickpea wilt”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–53 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Carbendazim seed treatment gave the highest germination, 77.66%.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
Carbendazime0
Outcome
germinatione0
Direction
higheste0
Value
77.66%e0
Comparator
seed treatment by Trichoderma viridee0

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

“significantly highest germination was obtained with Carbendazim (77.66%) which was at par with seed treatment by Trichoderma viride (75.33%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 694–834 · show in text ↑
t0

“chickpea wilt”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–53 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Trichoderma viride seed treatment gave 75.33% germination, at par with Carbendazim.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
seed treatment by Trichoderma viridee0
Outcome
germinatione0
Value
75.33%e0
Comparator
Carbendazime0

Not reportedDirection

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

“germination was obtained with Carbendazim (77.66%) which was at par with seed treatment by Trichoderma viride (75.33%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 716–834 · show in text ↑
t0

“chickpea wilt”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–53 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

T. viride seed treatment improved germination, vigour, dry matter and pods.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
all doses of seed treatment with T. viridee0
Outcome
germination (%)e0
Direction
improvede0

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 ↗

Verbatim

e0

“all doses of seed treatment with T. viride and fungicidal seed treatments have significantly improved germination (%), increased vigour index, dry matter production and number of pods produced per plant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 849–1051 · show in text ↑
t0

“chickpea wilt”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–53 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Fungicidal seed treatments improved germination, vigour, dry matter and pods.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
fungicidal seed treatmentse0
Outcome
vigour index, dry matter production and number of pods produced per plante0
Direction
increasede0

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 ↗

Verbatim

e0

“fungicidal seed treatments have significantly improved germination (%), increased vigour index, dry matter production and number of pods produced per plant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 896–1051 · show in text ↑
t0

“chickpea wilt”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–53 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Fungicides suppressed Fusarium radial growth and sporulation relative to control.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
all the fungicidese0
Interactor
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceriFusarium oxysporume0pathogen
Outcome
radial growth and sporulation of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cicerie0
Direction
checkinge0
Comparator
controle0

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 ↗
Fusarium oxysporum
Fusarium oxysporum · InteractorClemson University - USDA Cooperative Extension Slide Series · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“all the fungicides were found to be significantly superior over control in checking the radial growth and sporulation of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceri”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1092–1245 · show in text ↑
t0

“chickpea wilt”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–53 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Carbendazim was superior among fungicides, with 22.41% reported.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
Carbendazime0
Outcome
superiore0
Direction
superiore0
Value
22.41%e0
Comparator
Benomyle0

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

“Carbendazim (22.41%) was significantly superior and was at par with Benomyl (21.4%), Thiram (31.42%) and Captan (31.82%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1272–1392 · show in text ↑
t0

“chickpea wilt”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–53 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Benomyl was at par with Carbendazim, with 21.4% reported.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
Benomyle0
Outcome
at pare0
Direction
at pare0
Value
21.4%e0
Comparator
Carbendazime0

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

“Carbendazim (22.41%) was significantly superior and was at par with Benomyl (21.4%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1272–1355 · show in text ↑
t0

“chickpea wilt”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–53 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Thiram was at par with Carbendazim, with 31.42% reported.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
Thirame0
Outcome
at pare0
Direction
at pare0
Value
31.42%e0
Comparator
Carbendazime0

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

“Carbendazim (22.41%) was significantly superior and was at par with Benomyl (21.4%), Thiram (31.42%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1272–1372 · show in text ↑
t0

“chickpea wilt”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–53 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Captan was at par with Carbendazim, with 31.82% reported.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
Captane0
Outcome
at pare0
Direction
at pare0
Value
31.82%e0
Comparator
Carbendazime0

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

“Carbendazim (22.41%) was significantly superior and was at par with Benomyl (21.4%), Thiram (31.42%) and Captan (31.82%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1272–1392 · show in text ↑
t0

“chickpea wilt”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–53 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Carbendazim produced very scarce sporulation.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
Carbendazime0
Outcome
Very scarce sporulatione0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

“Very scarce sporulation was observed in Carbendazim, Benomyl, Thiram and Captan acted as antisporulant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1394–1496 · show in text ↑
t0

“chickpea wilt”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–53 · show in text ↑

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

14 papers: 13 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

10 papers more in this group

See all 14 papers →

carbendazim · disease · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

18 papers: 17 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

14 papers more in this group

See all 18 papers →

Trichoderma harzianum · disease · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

22 papers: 21 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

18 papers more in this group

See all 22 papers →

Trichoderma virens · disease · 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 →

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

18 papers: 18 positive, 0 negative or no effect

17 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

14 papers more in this group

See all 18 papers →

fungicide · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results differ

19 papers: 12 positive, 7 negative or no effect

11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

15 papers more in this group

See all 19 papers →

seed treatment · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results differ

81 papers: 76 positive, 5 negative or no effect

75 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

77 papers more in this group

See all 81 papers →

seed treatment · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results differ

90 papers: 82 positive, 8 negative or no effect

81 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

86 papers more in this group

See all 90 papers →

8 of 9 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.

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.