Abstract
The samples were treated with the recommended dose of malathion, recommended rate of phosphine, the powders and extracts of each of (ficus, camphor, clove), the powder of copper nanoparticles and untreated seed as a control treatment. Treated seed were stored in different packages (Jute, Plastic and Polyethylene) for months. The most important results can be summarized as follows: Increasing storage periods of wheat seed up to months significantly affected storage efficacy, vitality and quality of wheat seed. The best results of storage efficacy of wheat recorded when seed stored in polyethylene packages, followed by seed stored in jute packages and lastly stored in plastic packages. Seed treated with copper nanoparticles were the best in germination percentage, electrical conductivity, acidity, protein percentage, carbohydrate percentage, relative density and 1000-seed weight. The best treatment for acidity, relative density, 1000-seed weight, and insect infestation rate was malathion. In terms of moisture percentage, insect infestation %, and weight loss percentage, phosphine performed best. The length of storage has a significant impact on the quality of wheat seeds. The aim of storage is to offer the best possible preservation of the physiological and physical traits of the seed. By preserving the initial seed moisture content and lowering respiration, the storage packing should help slow down the rate of deterioration. Depending on how easily water vapour may exchange between the seeds and the atmosphere, the qualities of the packaging containers affect how quickly seeds deteriorate. Therefore, this experiment was created to ascertain the impact of storage durations, package kinds and the use of natural and synthetic materials to treat wheat seed on storage effectiveness, seed viability and seed quality in relation to environmental factors.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Longer storage periods significantly affected storage efficacy, vitality and quality of wheat seed.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume1 - Treatment
- storage periodse1
- Outcome
- storage efficacy, vitality and qualitye1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Increasing storage periods of wheat seed up to months significantly affected storage efficacy, vitality and quality of wheat seed”
Claim · model-written summary
Copper nanoparticle seed treatment was the best for germination percentage, electrical conductivity and acidity of wheat seed.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume2
- Treatment
- copper nanoparticlese1
- Outcome
- germination percentage, electrical conductivity, aciditye1
- Direction
- beste1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Seed treated with copper nanoparticles were the best in germination percentage, electrical conductivity, acidity, protein percentage, carbohydrate percentage, relative density and 1000-seed weight”
e2“Increasing storage periods of wheat seed up to months significantly affected storage efficacy, vitality and quality of wheat seed”
Claim · model-written summary
Copper nanoparticle seed treatment was the best for protein percentage, carbohydrate percentage and relative density of wheat seed.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume2
- Treatment
- copper nanoparticlese1
- Outcome
- protein percentage, carbohydrate percentage, relative densitye1
- Direction
- beste1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Seed treated with copper nanoparticles were the best in germination percentage, electrical conductivity, acidity, protein percentage, carbohydrate percentage, relative density and 1000-seed weight”
e2“Increasing storage periods of wheat seed up to months significantly affected storage efficacy, vitality and quality of wheat seed”
Claim · model-written summary
Copper nanoparticle seed treatment was the best for 1000-seed weight of wheat seed.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume2
- Treatment
- copper nanoparticlese1
- Outcome
- 1000-seed weighte1
- Direction
- beste1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Seed treated with copper nanoparticles were the best in germination percentage, electrical conductivity, acidity, protein percentage, carbohydrate percentage, relative density and 1000-seed weight”
e2“Increasing storage periods of wheat seed up to months significantly affected storage efficacy, vitality and quality of wheat seed”
Claim · model-written summary
Malathion was the best treatment for acidity, relative density and 1000-seed weight of wheat seed.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume2
- Treatment
- malathione1
- Outcome
- acidity, relative density, 1000-seed weighte1
- Direction
- beste1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The best treatment for acidity, relative density, 1000-seed weight, and insect infestation rate was malathion”
e2“Increasing storage periods of wheat seed up to months significantly affected storage efficacy, vitality and quality of wheat seed”
Claim · model-written summary
Malathion was the best treatment for insect infestation rate of stored wheat seed.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume2
- Treatment
- malathione1
- Outcome
- insect infestation ratee1
- Direction
- beste1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The best treatment for acidity, relative density, 1000-seed weight, and insect infestation rate was malathion”
e2“Increasing storage periods of wheat seed up to months significantly affected storage efficacy, vitality and quality of wheat seed”
Claim · model-written summary
Phosphine performed best for moisture percentage, insect infestation and weight loss of stored wheat seed.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume2
- Treatment
- phosphinee1
- Outcome
- moisture percentage, insect infestation %, and weight loss percentagee1
- Direction
- performed beste1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“In terms of moisture percentage, insect infestation %, and weight loss percentage, phosphine performed best”
e2“Increasing storage periods of wheat seed up to months significantly affected storage efficacy, vitality and quality of wheat seed”
Claim · model-written summary
Storage in polyethylene packages gave the best storage efficacy of wheat seed, compared with jute packages.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- polyethylene packagese1
- Outcome
- storage efficacye1
- Direction
- best resultse1
- Comparator
- jute packagese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The best results of storage efficacy of wheat recorded when seed stored in polyethylene packages, followed by seed stored in jute packages and lastly stored in plastic packages”
Claim · model-written summary
Storage in polyethylene packages gave the best storage efficacy of wheat seed, compared with plastic packages.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- polyethylene packagese1
- Outcome
- storage efficacye1
- Direction
- best resultse1
- Comparator
- plastic packagese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The best results of storage efficacy of wheat recorded when seed stored in polyethylene packages, followed by seed stored in jute packages and lastly stored in plastic packages”
The same questions in other papers
copper atom · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →copper atom · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
62 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
71 papers more in this group
See all 75 papers →copper atom · quality: sugar starch · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →malathion · pest · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →phosphine · pest · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
storage · control · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
nanoparticle · quality: sugar starch · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →nanoparticle · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
39 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 papers →8 of 9 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.