Paper · 2024 · Journal of Scientific Research and Reports

Prospecting Efficacy of Native Bacterial Bioagents against Blast Disease and their Potential for Plant Growth Promotion in Finger Millet

T. M. Hemalatha; L. Madhavilatha; B. Vajantha; et al.

8
claims
15
verbatim quotes
1
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Thirty-seven isolates of pseudomonas and bacillus were isolated from the phylloplane of healthy finger millet leaves. Two of the bacterial isolates showing maximum inhibition against the blast pathogen under invitro conditions were characterized by biochemical test and molecular characterization using 16SrRNA sequencing and also evaluated for hydrolytic enzyme activity under growth promotion activity. The isolates were identified to be Pseudomonas fluorescens (P-9) and Bacillus subtilis (B-10) showing 100% nucleotide similarity with reported strains. Field evaluation with microbial consortium (P-9 & B-10) as talc formulation resulted in significant reduction in leaf blast severity (55.15%), neck blast (44.44 %) and finger blast (46.02 % ) along with a 35.17 % increase in grain yield over control and highest cost benefit ratio of 1: 1.53 over control.

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

Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Thirty-seven pseudomonas and bacillus isolates were obtained from finger millet leaves.

Taxon
finger milletEleusine coracanae0
Organ / stage
leavese0
Outcome
isolates of pseudomonas and bacilluse0
Value
Thirty-sevene0

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

Eleusine coracana
Eleusine coracana · TaxonAgnieszka Kwiecień, Nova · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Thirty-seven isolates of pseudomonas and bacillus were isolated from the phylloplane of healthy finger millet leaves.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–117 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pseudomonas fluorescens (P-9) was identified with 100% nucleotide similarity to reported strains.

Taxon
Finger MilletEleusine coracanat0
Interactor
Pseudomonas fluorescens (P-9)Pseudomonas fluorescense0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
Pseudomonas fluorescens (P-9)e0
Value
100%e0
Comparator
reported strainse0

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

Eleusine coracana
Eleusine coracana · TaxonAgnieszka Kwiecień, Nova · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Pseudomonas fluorescens
Pseudomonas fluorescens · InteractorNinjatacoshell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The isolates were identified to be Pseudomonas fluorescens (P-9) and Bacillus subtilis (B-10) showing 100% nucleotide similarity with reported strains.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 405–556 · show in text ↑
t0

“Finger Millet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 123–136 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacillus subtilis (B-10) was identified with 100% nucleotide similarity to reported strains.

Taxon
Finger MilletEleusine coracanat0
Interactor
Bacillus subtilis (B-10)Bacillus subtilise0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
Bacillus subtilis (B-10)e0
Value
100%e0
Comparator
reported strainse0

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

Eleusine coracana
Eleusine coracana · TaxonAgnieszka Kwiecień, Nova · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bacillus subtilis
Bacillus subtilis · InteractorY tambe (original uploader) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The isolates were identified to be Pseudomonas fluorescens (P-9) and Bacillus subtilis (B-10) showing 100% nucleotide similarity with reported strains.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 405–556 · show in text ↑
t0

“Finger Millet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 123–136 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The P-9 and B-10 consortium reduction in leaf blast severity by 55.15% compared with control.

Taxon
Finger MilletEleusine coracanat0
Treatment
microbial consortium (P-9 & B-10) as talc formulatione0
Outcome
leaf blast severitye0
Direction
reductione0
Value
55.15%e0
Comparator
controle0
Setting
Field evaluatione0

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

Eleusine coracana
Eleusine coracana · TaxonAgnieszka Kwiecień, Nova · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Field evaluation with microbial consortium (P-9 & B-10) as talc formulation resulted in significant reduction in leaf blast severity (55.15%), neck blast (44.44 %) and finger blast (46.02 % ) along with a 35.17 % increase in grain yield over control and highest cost benefit ratio of 1: 1.53 over control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 557–862 · show in text ↑
t0

“Finger Millet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 123–136 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The P-9 and B-10 consortium reduction in neck blast by 44.44 % compared with control.

Taxon
Finger MilletEleusine coracanat0
Treatment
microbial consortium (P-9 & B-10) as talc formulatione0
Outcome
neck blaste0
Direction
reductione0
Value
44.44 %e0
Comparator
controle0
Setting
Field evaluatione0

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

Eleusine coracana
Eleusine coracana · TaxonAgnieszka Kwiecień, Nova · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Field evaluation with microbial consortium (P-9 & B-10) as talc formulation resulted in significant reduction in leaf blast severity (55.15%), neck blast (44.44 %) and finger blast (46.02 % ) along with a 35.17 % increase in grain yield over control and highest cost benefit ratio of 1: 1.53 over control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 557–862 · show in text ↑
t0

“Finger Millet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 123–136 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The P-9 and B-10 consortium reduction in finger blast by 46.02 % compared with control.

Taxon
Finger MilletEleusine coracanat0
Treatment
microbial consortium (P-9 & B-10) as talc formulatione0
Outcome
finger blaste0
Direction
reductione0
Value
46.02 %e0
Comparator
controle0
Setting
Field evaluatione0

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

Eleusine coracana
Eleusine coracana · TaxonAgnieszka Kwiecień, Nova · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Field evaluation with microbial consortium (P-9 & B-10) as talc formulation resulted in significant reduction in leaf blast severity (55.15%), neck blast (44.44 %) and finger blast (46.02 % ) along with a 35.17 % increase in grain yield over control and highest cost benefit ratio of 1: 1.53 over control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 557–862 · show in text ↑
t0

“Finger Millet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 123–136 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The P-9 and B-10 consortium increase in grain yield by 35.17 % compared with control.

Taxon
Finger MilletEleusine coracanat0
Treatment
microbial consortium (P-9 & B-10) as talc formulatione0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
increasee0
Value
35.17 %e0
Comparator
controle0
Setting
Field evaluatione0

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

Eleusine coracana
Eleusine coracana · TaxonAgnieszka Kwiecień, Nova · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Field evaluation with microbial consortium (P-9 & B-10) as talc formulation resulted in significant reduction in leaf blast severity (55.15%), neck blast (44.44 %) and finger blast (46.02 % ) along with a 35.17 % increase in grain yield over control and highest cost benefit ratio of 1: 1.53 over control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 557–862 · show in text ↑
t0

“Finger Millet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 123–136 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The P-9 and B-10 consortium highest in cost benefit ratio by 1: 1.53 compared with control.

Taxon
Finger MilletEleusine coracanat0
Treatment
microbial consortium (P-9 & B-10) as talc formulatione0
Outcome
cost benefit ratioe0
Direction
higheste0
Value
1: 1.53e0
Comparator
controle0
Setting
Field evaluatione0

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

Eleusine coracana
Eleusine coracana · TaxonAgnieszka Kwiecień, Nova · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Field evaluation with microbial consortium (P-9 & B-10) as talc formulation resulted in significant reduction in leaf blast severity (55.15%), neck blast (44.44 %) and finger blast (46.02 % ) along with a 35.17 % increase in grain yield over control and highest cost benefit ratio of 1: 1.53 over control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 557–862 · show in text ↑
t0

“Finger Millet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 123–136 · show in text ↑

inoculation · disease · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 1 positive, 2 negative or no effect

2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
See all 3 papers →

inoculation · yield · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Positive and negative results

16 papers: 13 positive, 3 negative or no effect

12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

12 papers more in this group

See all 16 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.