Paper · 2025 · South Asian Journal of Agricultural Sciences

Management of powdery mildew of greengram by using new fungicide molecules, botanicals and bioagents

MH Basavaraja; P Nagaraju; Balol G; et al.

7
claims
14
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Powdery mildew caused by Erysiphe polygoni DC is a major constraint in greengram (Vigna radiata L.) production. A field experiment was conducted during Rabi 2024-25 at Main Agricultural Research Station, Dharwad, to evaluate the efficacy of newer fungicide molecules, botanicals and bioagents for effective disease management. The study comprised 16 treatments arranged in a randomized block design with three replications. Disease severity was assessed using Percent Disease Index (PDI) and yield and economic analysis were carried out. Among all treatments, T₁ (Azoxystrobin 8.3% + Tebuconazole 9.1% + Prochloraz 18.2% W/W EC @ 2.5 ml/l) significantly reduced disease severity (17.31%) with a 75.94% reduction over control and recorded the highest yield (9.86 q/ha) and benefit-cost ratio (2.31). Treatments T₂ and T₈ also performed effectively. Although botanicals and bioagents were less effective, they may serve as components in integrated disease management. The results suggest that T₁ is the most effective and economically viable treatment for the management of powdery mildew in greengram under field conditions.

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 7

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

T₁ significantly reduced greengram powdery mildew severity to 17.31%, a 75.94% reduction over control.

Treatment
T₁ (Azoxystrobin 8.3% + Tebuconazole 9.1% + Prochloraz 18.2% W/W EC @ 2.5 ml/l)e0
Outcome
disease severitye0
Direction
reducede0
Value
17.31%e0
Qualifier
75.94% reduction over controle0
Comparator
controle0

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“T₁ (Azoxystrobin 8.3% + Tebuconazole 9.1% + Prochloraz 18.2% W/W EC @ 2.5 ml/l) significantly reduced disease severity (17.31%) with a 75.94% reduction over control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 560–724 · show in text ↑
t0

“greengram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 32–41 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

T₁ produced the highest greengram yield, 9.86 q/ha.

Treatment
T₁ (Azoxystrobin 8.3% + Tebuconazole 9.1% + Prochloraz 18.2% W/W EC @ 2.5 ml/l)e0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
higheste0
Value
9.86 q/hae0
Comparator
controle0

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“T₁ (Azoxystrobin 8.3% + Tebuconazole 9.1% + Prochloraz 18.2% W/W EC @ 2.5 ml/l) significantly reduced disease severity (17.31%) with a 75.94% reduction over control and recorded the highest yield (9.86 q/ha)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 560–767 · show in text ↑
t0

“greengram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 32–41 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

T₁ recorded the highest benefit-cost ratio, 2.31.

Outcome
benefit-cost ratioe0
Direction
higheste0
Value
2.31e0

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“recorded the highest yield (9.86 q/ha) and benefit-cost ratio (2.31)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 729–797 · show in text ↑
t0

“greengram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 32–41 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treatment T₂ also performed effectively in the greengram trial.

Treatment
T₂e0
Outcome
performed effectivelye0

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Treatments T₂ and T₈ also performed effectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 799–846 · show in text ↑
t0

“greengram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 32–41 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treatment T₈ also performed effectively in the greengram trial.

Treatment
T₈e0
Outcome
performed effectivelye0

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Treatments T₂ and T₈ also performed effectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 799–846 · show in text ↑
t0

“greengram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 32–41 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Botanicals and bioagents were less effective.

Outcome
less effectivee0

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Although botanicals and bioagents were less effective”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 848–901 · show in text ↑
t0

“greengram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 32–41 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors suggest T₁ as the most effective and economically viable field treatment for greengram powdery mildew.

Outcome
most effective and economically viable treatment for the management of powdery mildewe0
Setting
field conditionse0

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“T₁ is the most effective and economically viable treatment for the management of powdery mildew in greengram under field conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 991–1122 · show in text ↑
t0

“greengram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 32–41 · show in text ↑

tebuconazole · yield · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

azoxystrobin · yield · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

azoxystrobin · disease · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

tebuconazole · disease · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Results agree

4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 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.