Paper · 2020 · American Journal of Plant Biology

On Farm Demonstration of Management of Fusarium Wilt Disease of Chickpea Under Rainfed Conditions in Mid Hill Region of Jammu, Jammu & Kashimir, U.T., India

Shahid Ahamad; Jag Paul Sharma; Bimal Singh Jamwal

7
claims
19
verbatim quotes
4
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Chickpea is one of the most vulnerable crop to attack of pests and diseases causing huge production losses. Among the diseases, chickpea wilt poses a severe problem in rainfed areas of Jammu region. It was observed that chickpea seeds treated with Trichoderma viride (soil application) recorded 21.50% wilt incidence followed by Trichoderma viride (seed application) 35.25%, neem seed cake 47.00%, Carbendazim 48.90%, Thiram 50.14% and Captan 56.50%. While Trichoderma viride (soil application) gave 78.50% (highest) wilt disease control, followed by Trichoderma viride (seed application) 64.75%, neem seed cake 53.00%, Carbendazim 51.10%, Thiram 49.86%, Captan 43.50% and least in check. Recommendations of the results were repeated in the 4 farmers field in Reasi district, disease incidence were 25.40% but after applying of Trichoderma viride (soil application) diseases incidence reduced to 7.95% only and it was reduced to 6.75% (Table 2). While yield of chick pea was enhanced from 5.25 to 9.20 q/ha and maximum 9.80 q/ha against least farmers’ practices i.e. 5.25% only.

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 7

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Trichoderma viride (soil application) achieved 78.50% wilt disease control.

Taxon
ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
Trichoderma viride (soil application)e0
Outcome
wilt disease controlt1
Value
78.50%e0

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

“Trichoderma viride (soil application) gave 78.50% (highest) wilt disease control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 457–537 · show in text ↑
t0

“Chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–79 · show in text ↑
t1

“wilt disease control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 517–537 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Trichoderma viride (seed application) achieved 64.75% wilt disease control.

Taxon
ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
Trichoderma viride (seed application)e0
Outcome
wilt disease controlt1
Value
64.75%e0

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

“Trichoderma viride (seed application) 64.75%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 551–595 · show in text ↑
t0

“Chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–79 · show in text ↑
t1

“wilt disease control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 517–537 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

neem seed cake achieved 53.00% wilt disease control.

Taxon
ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
neem seed cakee0
Outcome
wilt disease controlt1
Value
53.00%e0

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

“neem seed cake 53.00%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 597–618 · show in text ↑
t0

“Chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–79 · show in text ↑
t1

“wilt disease control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 517–537 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Carbendazim achieved 51.10% wilt disease control.

Taxon
ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
Carbendazime0
Outcome
wilt disease controlt1
Value
51.10%e0

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

“Carbendazim 51.10%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 620–638 · show in text ↑
t0

“Chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–79 · show in text ↑
t1

“wilt disease control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 517–537 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Thiram achieved 49.86% wilt disease control.

Taxon
ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
Thirame0
Outcome
wilt disease controlt1
Value
49.86%e0

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

“Thiram 49.86%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 640–653 · show in text ↑
t0

“Chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–79 · show in text ↑
t1

“wilt disease control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 517–537 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Captan achieved 43.50% wilt disease control.

Taxon
ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
Captane0
Outcome
wilt disease controlt1
Value
43.50%e0

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

“Captan 43.50%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 655–668 · show in text ↑
t0

“Chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–79 · show in text ↑
t1

“wilt disease control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 517–537 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Chickpea yield increased from 5.25 to 9.20 q/ha, with a maximum of 9.80 q/ha.

Taxon
chick peaCicer arietinume0
Outcome
yield of chick peae0
Direction
enhancede0
Value
9.20 q/hae0
Qualifier
maximum 9.80 q/hae0
Comparator
farmers’ practicese0

Not reportedTreatment

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

“yield of chick pea was enhanced from 5.25 to 9.20 q/ha and maximum 9.80 q/ha against least farmers’ practices i.e. 5.25% only”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 952–1077 · show in text ↑

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

17 papers: 16 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

13 papers more in this group

See all 17 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 →

captan · 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 →

thiram · disease · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree

8 papers: 8 positive, 0 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

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

25 papers: 20 positive, 5 negative or no effect

19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

21 papers more in this group

See all 25 papers →

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

31 papers: 29 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. positive

27 papers more in this group

See all 31 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.