Paper · 2017 · Advances in Crop Science and Technology

Management of Faba Bean Gall Disease through the use of Host Resistance and Fungicide Foliar Spray in Northwestern Ethiopia

Getnet Yitayih Alemu; Yehizbalem Azmeraw Tadele

6
claims
11
verbatim quotes
12
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Most developing countries are hesitated in maximizing tissue culture technology due to the overhead costs involved. Therefore, this research was initiated to evaluate alternative cheap carbon sources and energy in culture media in order to reduce production input costs of sugarcane in vitro propagation. The experiment was carried out in completely randomized design (CRD) with 2 × 6 factorial treatment arrangements of genotypes and carbon source in combination. The interaction analysis of genotypes and table sugar concentration significantly influenced in vitro sugarcane multiplication. On MS medium with 50 gl-1 table sugar, B4906 gave the highest (13.42 ± 0.29) shoots, whereas Pr1013 produced a maximum of 7.78 ± 0.19 shoots at 60 gl-1 table sugar. However, 40 gl-1 table sugar was optimum to produce usable and separable shoots for further subculture of multiplication. Accordingly results showed that table sugar not only enhanced multiplication but also significantly reduced the production input costs by 94.89% when compared with the analytical grade sucrose.

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 6

Associationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Genotype and table sugar concentration interacted significantly in sugarcane multiplication.

Taxon
sugarcanee0
Material
genotypese0
Treatment
table sugar concentratione0
Outcome
sugarcane multiplicatione0

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

e0

“The interaction analysis of genotypes and table sugar concentration significantly influenced in vitro sugarcane multiplication.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 465–592 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

B4906 produced the highest shoot number, 13.42 ± 0.29, on MS medium with 50 gl-1 table sugar.

Taxon
sugarcanee1
Material
B4906e0
Treatment
50 gl-1 table sugare0
Outcome
shootse0
Direction
higheste0
Value
13.42 ± 0.29e0
Setting
MS mediume0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“On MS medium with 50 gl-1 table sugar, B4906 gave the highest (13.42 ± 0.29) shoots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 593–676 · show in text ↑
e1

“in vitro sugarcane multiplication”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 558–591 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pr1013 produced a maximum of 7.78 ± 0.19 shoots at 60 gl-1 table sugar.

Taxon
sugarcanee1
Material
Pr1013e0
Treatment
60 gl-1 table sugare0
Outcome
shootse0
Direction
maximume0
Value
7.78 ± 0.19e0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Pr1013 produced a maximum of 7.78 ± 0.19 shoots at 60 gl-1 table sugar”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 686–756 · show in text ↑
e1

“in vitro sugarcane multiplication”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 558–591 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

A concentration of 40 gl-1 table sugar was optimal for usable, separable shoots for subculture.

Taxon
sugarcanee1
Treatment
40 gl-1 table sugare0
Outcome
usable and separable shootse0
Direction
optimume0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“40 gl-1 table sugar was optimum to produce usable and separable shoots for further subculture of multiplication”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 767–878 · show in text ↑
e1

“in vitro sugarcane multiplication”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 558–591 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Table sugar enhanced sugarcane multiplication.

Taxon
sugarcanee1
Treatment
table sugare0
Outcome
multiplicatione0
Direction
enhancede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“table sugar not only enhanced multiplication”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 912–956 · show in text ↑
e1

“in vitro sugarcane multiplication”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 558–591 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Table sugar reduced production input costs by 94.89% relative to analytical grade sucrose.

Taxon
sugarcanee1
Treatment
table sugare0
Outcome
production input costse0
Direction
reducede0
Value
94.89%e0
Comparator
analytical grade sucrosee0

Verbatim

e0

“table sugar not only enhanced multiplication but also significantly reduced the production input costs by 94.89% when compared with the analytical grade sucrose”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 912–1072 · show in text ↑
e1

“in vitro sugarcane multiplication”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 558–591 · show in text ↑

sucrose · growth · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results

12 papers: 11 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 papers →

sucrose · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)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 →

sucrose · pest · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree

4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 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.