Abstract
The effectiveness of chemical, fungal and bacterial fungicide treatments of spring soft wheat seeds and stands against major diseases was compared on leached chernozem of Novosibirsk region in 2021. Biological preparations including Sternifag, WP (Trichoderma harzianum) showed effect as early as in the tillering phase. The biologicals’ effectiveness in root rot suppression was comparable to Scarlet, ME (imazalil+tebuconazole) and amounted to 62–64 %, while Sternifag, WP halved the disease development. By the end of the growing season, all treatments, including the chemical one, equally suppressed root rot development; the best option was Scarlet, ME + Vitaplan, WP (Bacillus subtilis) with biological efficiency of 38 %. In the case of severe pressure by Septoria blotch (33 % in control), the most effective treatment was spraying the crop on the earing stage with Titul 390, KKR (propiconazole), which reduced the incidence of Septoria blotch by 84.3 %, while biologicals had no effect. The powdery mildew was best suppressed by seed treatment with Scarlet, ME (73.9 %), and the brown rust was best suppressed by Scarlet, ME + Vitaplan, WP (78.8 %). The vegetation treatments inhibited the powdery mildew by 41–54 % but didn’t show a reliable effect against the brown rust. Seed treatment with microbial fungicides increased soil cellulolytic activity by 1.5–1.8 times while chemical disinfectant reduced it. The amount of plant residues decreased by 2.5–2.8 times due to the application of Sternifag, WP. The greatest increase in grain yield was obtained due to chemical fungicides - 0.64 t/ha, while biological preparations resulted in additional 0.25–0.33 t/ha.
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Biological preparations showed disease-control effects by tillering.
- Taxon
- spring soft wheate1
- Organ / stage
- tillering phasee0
- Treatment
- Biological preparations including Sternifag, WP (Trichoderma harzianum)e0
- Interactor
- Trichoderma harzianum
Trichoderma harzianume0biocontrol_agent - Outcome
- effecte0
- Direction
- showed effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Biological preparations including Sternifag, WP (Trichoderma harzianum) showed effect as early as in the tillering phase.”
e1“spring soft wheat seeds and stands”
Claim · model-written summary
Biological treatments suppressed root rot by 62–64%, comparably to Scarlet.
Verbatim
e0“The biologicals’ effectiveness in root rot suppression was comparable to Scarlet, ME (imazalil+tebuconazole) and amounted to 62–64 %”
e1“spring soft wheat seeds and stands”
Claim · model-written summary
Sternifag halved root rot development.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Sternifag, WP halved the disease development”
e1“spring soft wheat seeds and stands”
Claim · model-written summary
All treatments suppressed root rot at season end; Scarlet plus Vitaplan had 38% biological efficiency.
- Taxon
- spring soft wheate1
- Treatment
- Scarlet, ME + Vitaplan, WP (Bacillus subtilis)e0
- Interactor
- Bacillus subtilis
Bacillus subtilise0biocontrol_agent - Outcome
- biological efficiencye0
- Direction
- beste0
- Value
- 38 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“By the end of the growing season, all treatments, including the chemical one, equally suppressed root rot development; the best option was Scarlet, ME + Vitaplan, WP (Bacillus subtilis) with biological efficiency of 38 %.”
e1“spring soft wheat seeds and stands”
Claim · model-written summary
Titul spraying at earing reduced Septoria blotch incidence by 84.3%.
- Taxon
- spring soft wheate1
- Organ / stage
- earing stagee0
- Treatment
- spraying the crop on the earing stage with Titul 390, KKR (propiconazole)e0
- Outcome
- incidence of Septoria blotche0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 84.3 %e0
SeptoriaNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“spraying the crop on the earing stage with Titul 390, KKR (propiconazole), which reduced the incidence of Septoria blotch by 84.3 %”
e1“spring soft wheat seeds and stands”
Claim · model-written summary
Biological preparations did not affect Septoria blotch.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“biologicals had no effect”
e1“In the case of severe pressure by Septoria blotch (33 % in control)”
e2“spring soft wheat seeds and stands”
Claim · model-written summary
Scarlet seed treatment suppressed powdery mildew by 73.9%.
- Taxon
- spring soft wheate1
- Treatment
- seed treatment with Scarlet, MEe0
- Outcome
- powdery mildewe0
- Direction
- suppressede0
- Value
- 73.9 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The powdery mildew was best suppressed by seed treatment with Scarlet, ME (73.9 %)”
e1“spring soft wheat seeds and stands”
Claim · model-written summary
Scarlet plus Vitaplan suppressed brown rust by 78.8%.
- Taxon
- spring soft wheate1
- Treatment
- Scarlet, ME + Vitaplan, WPe0
- Outcome
- brown ruste0
- Direction
- suppressede0
- Value
- 78.8 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“the brown rust was best suppressed by Scarlet, ME + Vitaplan, WP (78.8 %)”
e1“spring soft wheat seeds and stands”
Claim · model-written summary
Vegetation treatments inhibited powdery mildew by 41–54%.
- Taxon
- spring soft wheate1
- Treatment
- vegetation treatmentse0
- Outcome
- powdery mildewe0
- Direction
- inhibitede0
- Value
- 41–54 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The vegetation treatments inhibited the powdery mildew by 41–54 %”
e1“spring soft wheat seeds and stands”
Claim · model-written summary
Vegetation treatments lacked a reliable effect against brown rust.
- Taxon
- spring soft wheate2
- Treatment
- vegetation treatmentse1
- Outcome
- brown ruste0
- Direction
- didn’t show a reliable effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“didn’t show a reliable effect against the brown rust”
e1“The vegetation treatments”
e2“spring soft wheat seeds and stands”
Claim · model-written summary
Microbial fungicide seed treatment increased soil cellulolytic activity by 1.5–1.8 times.
- Taxon
- spring soft wheate1
- Treatment
- Seed treatment with microbial fungicidese0
- Outcome
- soil cellulolytic activitye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 1.5–1.8 timese0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Seed treatment with microbial fungicides increased soil cellulolytic activity by 1.5–1.8 times”
e1“spring soft wheat seeds and stands”
Claim · model-written summary
Chemical disinfectant reduced soil cellulolytic activity.
- Taxon
- spring soft wheate2
- Treatment
- chemical disinfectante0
- Outcome
- soil cellulolytic activitye1
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“chemical disinfectant reduced it”
e1“soil cellulolytic activity”
e2“spring soft wheat seeds and stands”
Claim · model-written summary
Sternifag reduced plant residues 2.5–2.8 times.
- Taxon
- spring soft wheate1
- Treatment
- application of Sternifag, WPe0
- Outcome
- amount of plant residuese0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 2.5–2.8 timese0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The amount of plant residues decreased by 2.5–2.8 times due to the application of Sternifag, WP.”
e1“spring soft wheat seeds and stands”
Claim · model-written summary
Chemical fungicides increased grain yield by 0.64 t/ha.
- Taxon
- spring soft wheate1
- Treatment
- chemical fungicidese0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 0.64 t/hae0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The greatest increase in grain yield was obtained due to chemical fungicides - 0.64 t/ha”
e1“spring soft wheat seeds and stands”
Claim · model-written summary
Biological preparations increased grain yield by 0.25–0.33 t/ha.
- Taxon
- spring soft wheate2
- Treatment
- biological preparationse0
- Outcome
- grain yielde1
- Direction
- additionale0
- Value
- 0.25–0.33 t/hae0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“biological preparations resulted in additional 0.25–0.33 t/ha”
e1“grain yield”
e2“spring soft wheat seeds and stands”
The same questions in other papers
seed treatment · disease · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
64 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
66 papers more in this group
See all 70 papers →fungicide · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
231 papers in the same direction as this paper · 30 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
258 papers more in this group
See all 262 papers →application · Septoria · Triticum aestivum (wheat)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.