Abstract
The relationship of crops grown in rotation or in succession has increased every day and the use of antagonistic plants and/or non-host plants is one of the most efficient practices of integrated management of nematodes. This study aimed to evaluate the efficiency of crotalaria (Crotalaria spectabilis Roth) and millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) Leeke] ‘ADR 300’ in reducing the population of Meloidogyne incognita and M. javanica and in increasing the productivity of okra [Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench] when cultivated in succession. The experiment was conducted in an area cultivating okra (host culture) in rotation, with a history of severe infestation by phytonematoids. The experimental design involved randomized blocks with six treatments and four replicates, with the following treatments: T1, 15 kg.ha-1 of millet seeds; T2, 30 kg.ha-1 of crotalaria; T3, 10 kg.ha-1 of millet + 20 kg.ha-1 of crotalaria; T4, 20 kg.ha-1 of millet + 6 kg.ha-1 of crotalaria; T5, 6 kg.ha-1 of millet + 36 kg.ha-1 of crotalaria; and T6, control. The nematode populations in the soil and roots were evaluated about 60 d after planting okra, and the yield was evaluated at the end of the crop cycle. Simple treatment with millet or crotalaria reduced the nematode population by 61% and 72%, respectively. The millet-crotalaria intercropping treatments reduced the nematode population by up to 85% compared with the control. In terms of productivity, there was an increase of 787 kg.ha-1 in the millet treatment and 2,109 kg.ha-1 in the intercropping treatments. Both the single cultivation of crotalaria or millet and the consortia of crotalaria and millet were effective in controlling the root-knot nematodes, and increased the productivity of okra.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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
Claim · model-written summary
Simple treatment with millet reduced the nematode population by 61%.
- Taxon
- okra
.jpg?width=60)
Abelmoschus esculentuse1 - Treatment
- Simple treatment with millete2
- Interactor
- Meloidogyne incognita
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=60)
Meloidogyne incognitae1pest - Second interactor
- M. javanicaMeloidogyne javanicae1pest
- Outcome
- nematode populatione2
- Direction
- reducede2
- Value
- 61%e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e1“reducing the population of Meloidogyne incognita and M. javanica and in increasing the productivity of okra”
e2“Simple treatment with millet or crotalaria reduced the nematode population by 61% and 72%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Crotalaria reduced the nematode population by 72%.
- Taxon
- okraAbelmoschus esculentuse1
- Treatment
- crotalariae2
- Interactor
- Meloidogyne incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae1pest
- Second interactor
- M. javanicaMeloidogyne javanicae1pest
- Outcome
- nematode populatione2
- Direction
- reducede2
- Value
- 72%e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“reducing the population of Meloidogyne incognita and M. javanica and in increasing the productivity of okra”
e2“Simple treatment with millet or crotalaria reduced the nematode population by 61% and 72%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Millet treatment increased okra productivity by 787 kg.ha-1.
- Taxon
- okraAbelmoschus esculentuse1
- Treatment
- millet treatmente4
- Outcome
- productivitye4
- Direction
- increasee4
- Value
- 787 kg.ha-1e4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“reducing the population of Meloidogyne incognita and M. javanica and in increasing the productivity of okra”
e4“In terms of productivity, there was an increase of 787 kg.ha-1 in the millet treatment and 2,109 kg.ha-1 in the intercropping treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping treatments increased okra productivity by 2,109 kg.ha-1.
- Taxon
- okraAbelmoschus esculentuse1
- Treatment
- intercropping treatmentse4
- Outcome
- productivitye4
- Direction
- increasee4
- Value
- 2,109 kg.ha-1e4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“reducing the population of Meloidogyne incognita and M. javanica and in increasing the productivity of okra”
e4“In terms of productivity, there was an increase of 787 kg.ha-1 in the millet treatment and 2,109 kg.ha-1 in the intercropping treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Millet-crotalaria intercropping reduced the nematode population by up to 85% compared with the control.
- Taxon
- okraAbelmoschus esculentuse1
- Treatment
- millet-crotalaria intercropping treatmentse3
- Interactor
- Meloidogyne incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae1pest
- Second interactor
- M. javanicaMeloidogyne javanicae1pest
- Outcome
- nematode populatione3
- Direction
- reducede3
- Value
- up to 85%e3
- Comparator
- controle3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“reducing the population of Meloidogyne incognita and M. javanica and in increasing the productivity of okra”
e3“The millet-crotalaria intercropping treatments reduced the nematode population by up to 85% compared with the control”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · yield · Abelmoschus esculentus (okra)Positive and negative results
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 21 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
42 papers more in this group
See all 46 papers →intercropping · Meloidogyne incognita · Abelmoschus esculentus (okra)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
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.