Paper · 2008 · Journal of Plant Protection and Pathology /Journal of Plant Protection and Pathology

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF WILT AND DAMPING-OFF DISEASES OF TOMATO.

A. El-Samadisy,; F. Ali; A. Helalia; et al.

10
claims
20
verbatim quotes
1
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Seven fungicides (i.e. tetraconazole, difenoconazole, trifloxystrobin, pyraclostrobin +metiram, metiram, mancozeb and flutolanil ) and three biological agents (i.e. Trichoderma harzianum, Trichoderma album and Bacillus subtilis)were evaluated in laboratory against two pathogenic fungi; Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici and Rhizoctonia solani causing wilt disease and damping off of tomato seedlings, respectively. Depend upon EC50 values of the tested fungicides, the in vitro studies showed that the descending order of fungicidal activity against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici growth was as follows; difenoconazole > tetraconazole > pyraclostrobin + metiram > trifloxystrobin > metiram > mancozeb > flutolanil, while it was flutolanil > difenoconazole > tetraconazole > mancozeb > pyraclostrobin + metiram >trifloxystrobin > metiram against Rhizoctonia solani growth. In greenhouse trials, the fungicides were applied at 1500 and 3000 µg a.i./ml water as seed treatment, while biological agents were applied at 1.5 and 3.0 x 106 spore/ml water as soil treatment. The results showed that all fungicides and bioagents treatments significantly reduced diseases incidence and increased emergence and plant stands. Fungicides tested were better to control wilt and damping off than bioagents. Generally the most effective treatments for controlling wilt disease weredifenoconazole, tetraconazole, pyraclostrobin + metiram, followed by trifloxystrobin, metiram, mancozeb, T. harzianum, while the lowest were B. subtilis, T. album and flutolanil as compared with the control treatment, while the most effective fungicide for controlling damping off was flutolanil followed by difenoconazole, tetraconazole, pyraclostrobin + metiram, mancozeb and the lowest was metiram as compared with the control treatment. Trichoderma harzianum was the most effective bioagent tested for controlling damping off, followed by B. subtilis while T. album was the least effective one. Castel rouck cultivar was more resistant to the two diseases under artificial inoculation and greenhouse conditions, whereas Money Maker seemed to be highly susceptible.

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 10

Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Difenoconazole was the most active tested fungicide against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici in vitro.

Treatment
difenoconazolee0
Interactor
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersiciFusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersicie0pathogen
Outcome
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici growthe0
Direction
descendinge0

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 ↗
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici · Interactor · picture of its genus (no picture of exactly this name)Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the descending order of fungicidal activity against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici growth was as follows; difenoconazole > tetraconazole > pyraclostrobin + metiram > trifloxystrobin > metiram > mancozeb > flutolanil”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 503–725 · show in text ↑
t0

“TOMATO”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–74 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Flutolanil ranked first against Rhizoctonia solani growth in vitro.

Treatment
flutolanile0
Interactor
Rhizoctonia solaniRhizoctonia solanie0pathogen
Outcome
Rhizoctonia solani growthe0
Direction
>e0

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 ↗
Rhizoctonia solani
Rhizoctonia solani · Interactoranonimowy, niektóre prawa zastrzeżone (CC BY) · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“flutolanil > difenoconazole > tetraconazole > mancozeb > pyraclostrobin + metiram >trifloxystrobin > metiram against Rhizoctonia solani growth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 740–882 · show in text ↑
t0

“TOMATO”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–74 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

All fungicide and bioagent treatments reduced disease incidence significantly.

Treatment
all fungicides and bioagents treatmentse0
Outcome
diseases incidencee0
Direction
reducede0

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

e0

“all fungicides and bioagents treatments significantly reduced diseases incidence and increased emergence and plant stands”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1103–1224 · show in text ↑
t0

“TOMATO”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–74 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

All fungicide and bioagent treatments increased emergence and plant stands significantly.

Treatment
all fungicides and bioagents treatmentse0
Outcome
emergence and plant standse0
Direction
increasede0

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

e0

“all fungicides and bioagents treatments significantly reduced diseases incidence and increased emergence and plant stands”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1103–1224 · show in text ↑
t0

“TOMATO”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–74 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fungicides controlled wilt and damping off better than bioagents.

Treatment
Fungicidese0
Outcome
control wilt and damping offe0
Direction
bettere0
Comparator
bioagentse0

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

e0

“Fungicides tested were better to control wilt and damping off than bioagents”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1226–1302 · show in text ↑
t0

“TOMATO”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–74 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Difenoconazole, tetraconazole, and pyraclostrobin plus metiram were the most effective wilt treatments.

Outcome
controlling wilt diseasee0
Direction
most effectivee0

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

e0

“the most effective treatments for controlling wilt disease weredifenoconazole, tetraconazole, pyraclostrobin + metiram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1314–1432 · show in text ↑
t0

“TOMATO”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–74 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Flutolanil was the most effective fungicide for damping-off control.

Treatment
flutolanile0
Outcome
controlling damping offe0
Direction
most effectivee0

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

e0

“the most effective fungicide for controlling damping off was flutolanil”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1601–1672 · show in text ↑
t0

“TOMATO”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–74 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Trichoderma harzianum was the most effective tested bioagent for damping-off control.

Interactor
Trichoderma harzianumTrichoderma harzianume0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
controlling damping offe0
Direction
most effectivee0

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 ↗
Trichoderma harzianum
Trichoderma harzianum · InteractorUS Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Systematic Botany and Mycology Laboratory, [1] · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Trichoderma harzianum was the most effective bioagent tested for controlling damping off”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1818–1906 · show in text ↑
t0

“TOMATO”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–74 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Castel rouck was more resistant to both diseases under artificial inoculation in the greenhouse.

Material
Castel roucke0
Outcome
resistant to the two diseasese0
Direction
more resistante0
Setting
greenhouse conditionse0

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

e0

“Castel rouck cultivar was more resistant to the two diseases under artificial inoculation and greenhouse conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1976–2091 · show in text ↑
t0

“TOMATO”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–74 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Money Maker was highly susceptible to both diseases.

Material
Money Makere0
Outcome
highly susceptiblee0

Not reportedDirection

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

e0

“Money Maker seemed to be highly susceptible”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2101–2144 · show in text ↑
t0

“TOMATO”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–74 · show in text ↑

fungicide · growth · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

13 papers: 11 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. positive

9 papers more in this group

See all 13 papers →

biocontrol · growth · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

29 papers: 28 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

25 papers more in this group

See all 29 papers →

biocontrol · disease · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

39 papers: 38 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

35 papers more in this group

See all 39 papers →

fungicide · disease · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

45 papers: 41 positive, 4 negative or no effect

40 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. negative

41 papers more in this group

See all 45 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.