Paper · 2020 · International Journal of Pest Management

Effect of pit-composting on root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne incognita and M. javanica) population densities and yield of tomato under field conditions

Grace Mohoanatso Tefu; Dirk De Waele; Hendrika Fourie; et al.

8
claims
16
verbatim quotes
9
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Soil amendments, constituting of various plant and animal sources, were evaluated in pits for their effects on Meloidogyne spp. infecting tomato in comparison to the synthetic nematicide fenamiphos and the untreated control. Fifty-six days after transplanting, soil and root samples were collected for nematode extraction and counting while fruit mass and the number of fruits were also recorded and the average yield per treatment calculated. The plant-based pit-composting treatments decreased nematode population densities, from 43% to 94%; with the citrus fruit-pit compost being the most effective (reducing nematode densities by up to 94%). Conversely, chicken and cattle manure treatments generally resulted in increased nematode densities (up to 141% and 159%, respectively). Increases in tomato yield ranged from 7% to 94% in response to compost, cattle and chicken manure treatments while all pit-composting significantly enhanced yield ranging from 100% to 400%; except for the shrub-pruning pit compost which decreased yield. Pit-composting is a promising strategy that can be used by especially subsistence farmers to grow crops sustainably in the presence of lower nematode pest densities.

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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Plant-based pit-composting treatments decreased nematode population densities by 43% to 94% relative to the untreated control.

Treatment
plant-based pit-composting treatmentse2
Interactor
Meloidogyne spp.Meloidogynee1pest
Outcome
nematode population densitiese2
Direction
decreasede2
Value
43% to 94%e2
Comparator
untreated controle1
Setting
field conditionst0

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Meloidogyne
Meloidogyne · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Photo by William Wergin and Richard Sayre. Colorized by Stephen Ausmus. U.S. Department of Agriculture · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Soil amendments, constituting of various plant and animal sources, were evaluated in pits for their effects on Meloidogyne spp. infecting tomato in comparison to the synthetic nematicide fenamiphos and the untreated control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–223 · show in text ↑
e2

“The plant-based pit-composting treatments decreased nematode population densities, from 43% to 94%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 444–542 · show in text ↑
t0

“under field conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 128–150 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The citrus fruit-pit compost was the most effective pit-composting treatment, reducing nematode densities by up to 94%.

Treatment
citrus fruit-pit composte3
Interactor
Meloidogyne spp.Meloidogynee1pest
Outcome
nematode densitiese3
Direction
reducinge3
Value
up to 94%e3
Qualifier
the most effectivee3

Not reportedComparator

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Meloidogyne
Meloidogyne · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Photo by William Wergin and Richard Sayre. Colorized by Stephen Ausmus. U.S. Department of Agriculture · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Meloidogyne spp. infecting tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 111–144 · show in text ↑
e3

“with the citrus fruit-pit compost being the most effective (reducing nematode densities by up to 94%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 544–645 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Chicken manure increased nematode densities by up to 141%.

Treatment
chicken and cattle manuree4
Interactor
Meloidogyne spp.Meloidogynee1pest
Outcome
nematode densitiese4
Direction
increasede4
Value
up to 141%e4
Qualifier
respectivelye4

Not reportedComparator

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Meloidogyne
Meloidogyne · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Photo by William Wergin and Richard Sayre. Colorized by Stephen Ausmus. U.S. Department of Agriculture · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Meloidogyne spp. infecting tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 111–144 · show in text ↑
e4

“chicken and cattle manure treatments generally resulted in increased nematode densities (up to 141% and 159%, respectively)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 659–782 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cattle manure increased nematode densities by up to 159%.

Treatment
chicken and cattle manuree4
Interactor
Meloidogyne spp.Meloidogynee1pest
Outcome
nematode densitiese4
Direction
increasede4
Value
159%e4
Qualifier
respectivelye4

Not reportedComparator

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Meloidogyne
Meloidogyne · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Photo by William Wergin and Richard Sayre. Colorized by Stephen Ausmus. U.S. Department of Agriculture · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Meloidogyne spp. infecting tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 111–144 · show in text ↑
e4

“chicken and cattle manure treatments generally resulted in increased nematode densities (up to 141% and 159%, respectively)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 659–782 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Compost, cattle and chicken manure treatments increased tomato yield by 7% to 94%.

Treatment
compost, cattle and chicken manure treatmentse5
Outcome
tomato yielde5
Direction
Increasese5
Value
7% to 94%e5

Not reportedComparator

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e5

“Increases in tomato yield ranged from 7% to 94% in response to compost, cattle and chicken manure treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 784–892 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

All pit-composting treatments significantly increased yield by 100% to 400%.

Treatment
pit-compostinge6
Outcome
yielde6
Direction
enhancede6
Value
100% to 400%e6

Not reportedComparator

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Meloidogyne spp. infecting tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 111–144 · show in text ↑
e6

“all pit-composting significantly enhanced yield ranging from 100% to 400%; except for the shrub-pruning pit compost which decreased yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 899–1036 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The shrub-pruning pit compost decreased tomato yield.

Treatment
shrub-pruning pit composte6
Outcome
yielde6
Direction
decreasede6

Not reportedComparator

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Meloidogyne spp. infecting tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 111–144 · show in text ↑
e6

“all pit-composting significantly enhanced yield ranging from 100% to 400%; except for the shrub-pruning pit compost which decreased yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 899–1036 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Pit-composting is a promising strategy to grow crops sustainably in the presence of lower nematode pest densities.

Treatment
Pit-compostinge7
Outcome
grow crops sustainably in the presence of lower nematode pest densitiese7

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Meloidogyne spp. infecting tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 111–144 · show in text ↑
e7

“Pit-composting is a promising strategy that can be used by especially subsistence farmers to grow crops sustainably in the presence of lower nematode pest densities”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1038–1202 · show in text ↑

fertilization · Meloidogyne · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

21 papers: 20 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

17 papers more in this group

See all 21 papers →

fertilization · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

978 papers: 850 positive, 128 negative or no effect

849 papers in the same direction as this paper · 104 in the opposite direction · 24 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. negative

974 papers more in this group

See all 978 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.