Paper · 2014 · Journal of Biological Chemistry and Environmental Sciences

EFFICACY OF SOME BIOTIC AND ABIOTIC AGENTS ON SEED־BORNE FUNGI AND GROWTH CHARACTER OF FORAGE (VIGNA UNGUICULATA (L.) WALP.)

20
claims
33
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

This study was undertaken to study the seed-borne fungi of forage cowpea that attack the plants and reduce their yield in Egypt. The blotter test methods were used surface-sterilized forage cowpea seeds were tested to detect and isolate the associated seed –borne fungi. 6 fungal species belonging to 2 genera was observed and identified Aspergillus flavus (2.6 %), Aspergillus niger (3.2%), Fusarium equiseti (12.4%), Fusarium semitectum (9.5%), Fusarium solani (6.8%) and Fusariurn oxysporum were the most prominent fungi isolated in this study (62.8%).The pathogenicity test revealed that the most commonly isolated fungi were Fusariurn oxysporum. Also, F. oxysporum caused the highest pre-emergence damping–off percentage followed by, F. semitectum, F equiseti and F. solaniTreating forage cowpea seeds (cvs. Local and Upright growth) with Vitavax–T70, Neem leaf extract and Commercial bioagents (Rizo–N and Plant–guard) before sowing significantly increased the shoot, root length, seedling dry weight and decreased significantly the dead plants of the most resulted seedlings at 12 days old compared with the un-treated seeds with both two cvs., under greenhouse. In this respect, the highest increase in the shoot, root length, seedling dry weight and decreased significantly the dead plants of resulted seedlings was in case of treating seeds with vitavax-T70 and Rizo-N in soil infested with F. oxysporum, vitavax-T70 followed by Rizo-N were the best seed treatments in increasing the shoot, root length, seedling dry weight and significantly decreased the dead plants forage cowpea in case of soil infested with F. oxysporum under greenhouse condition.On the other hand, treating forage cowpea seeds with Vitavax–T70, Neem leaf extract and bioagents (Rizo–N and Plant-guard) reduced root rot incidence under field conditions. Vitavax–T70 and Rizo–N followed by Plant–guard were the best effective agents on reducing root–rot incidence of tested forage cowpea plants with both two cultivars, during growing seasons 2012 and 2013. Also, Vitavax–T70 was the best effective agent on reducing root-rot incidence and increasing the survived plants of both forage cowpea cvs during the two growing seasons. Meanwhile, treating forage cowpea seeds with Vitavax–T70, also Neem leaf extract and bioagents (Rizo–N and Plant–guard) before sowing for controlling root rot pathogens increased plant height, number of branches per plant on growing plants, number of leaves per plant, dry leaf / stem ratio per plant , fresh weight per plant (g) , dry weight plant-1, fresh yield (ton fed-1), dry yield (ton fed-1), pod length (cm), pod weight, number of seeds per pod, weight of 100-seeds (g), grain yield (kg / feddan of yielded cowpea of both cowpea cvs, during the two growing seasons comparing with un-treated seeds (control). Generally, Vitavax-T70, Rizo–N and Plant-guard were the best seed treatments in this respect. It is pronounced also that Vitavax–T70 and Rizo-N were more effective than many of tested fungicide as Neem leaf extract and Plant-guard as well as un-treated ones.It is concluded that treating forage cowpea seeds (cvs., Local and Upright growth) with Vitavax-T70 before sowing were the best seed treatment under greenhouse and field conditions to control seed-borne disease compared with Vitavax–T70 and Commercial bioagents (Rizo–N and Plant–guard).

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 20

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Six seedborne fungal species in two genera were identified.

Taxon
VIGNA UNGUICULATA (L.) WALP.t0
Outcome
fungal speciese0
Value
6 fungal speciese0
Qualifier
2 generae0

Verbatim

e0

“6 fungal species belonging to 2 genera was observed and identified”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 271–337 · show in text ↑
t0

“FORAGE (VIGNA UNGUICULATA (L.) WALP.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 87–124 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Aspergillus flavus was isolated at 2.6%.

Taxon
VIGNA UNGUICULATA (L.) WALP.t0
Interactor
Aspergillus flavusAspergillus flavuse0pathogen
Outcome
Aspergillus flavuse0
Value
2.6 %e0

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

Aspergillus flavus
Aspergillus flavus · InteractorUS gov · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Aspergillus flavus (2.6 %)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 338–364 · show in text ↑
t0

“FORAGE (VIGNA UNGUICULATA (L.) WALP.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 87–124 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Aspergillus niger was isolated at 3.2%.

Taxon
VIGNA UNGUICULATA (L.) WALP.t0
Interactor
Aspergillus nigerAspergillus nigere0pathogen
Outcome
Aspergillus nigere0
Value
3.2%e0

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

Aspergillus niger
Aspergillus niger · InteractorNo machine-readable author provided. Y tambe assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Aspergillus niger (3.2%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 366–390 · show in text ↑
t0

“FORAGE (VIGNA UNGUICULATA (L.) WALP.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 87–124 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fusarium equiseti was isolated at 12.4%.

Taxon
VIGNA UNGUICULATA (L.) WALP.t0
Interactor
Fusarium equisetiFusarium equisetie0pathogen
Outcome
Fusarium equisetie0
Value
12.4%e0

Verbatim

e0

“Fusarium equiseti (12.4%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 392–417 · show in text ↑
t0

“FORAGE (VIGNA UNGUICULATA (L.) WALP.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 87–124 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fusarium semitectum was isolated at 9.5%.

Taxon
VIGNA UNGUICULATA (L.) WALP.t0
Interactor
Fusarium semitectumFusarium incarnatume0pathogen
Outcome
Fusarium semitectume0
Value
9.5%e0

Verbatim

e0

“Fusarium semitectum (9.5%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 419–445 · show in text ↑
t0

“FORAGE (VIGNA UNGUICULATA (L.) WALP.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 87–124 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fusarium solani was isolated at 6.8%.

Taxon
VIGNA UNGUICULATA (L.) WALP.t0
Interactor
Fusarium solaniFusarium solanie0pathogen
Outcome
Fusarium solanie0
Value
6.8%e0

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

Fusarium solani
Fusarium solani · InteractorFred Brooks from United States University of Hawaii at Manoa · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Fusarium solani (6.8%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 447–469 · show in text ↑
t0

“FORAGE (VIGNA UNGUICULATA (L.) WALP.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 87–124 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fusariurn oxysporum was the most prominent isolate at 62.8%.

Taxon
VIGNA UNGUICULATA (L.) WALP.t0
Interactor
Fusariurn oxysporume0pathogen
Outcome
Fusariurn oxysporume0
Value
62.8%e0

Verbatim

e0

“Fusariurn oxysporum were the most prominent fungi isolated in this study (62.8%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 474–554 · show in text ↑
t0

“FORAGE (VIGNA UNGUICULATA (L.) WALP.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 87–124 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

F. oxysporum caused the highest pre-emergence damping off.

Taxon
VIGNA UNGUICULATA (L.) WALP.t0
Interactor
F. oxysporumFusarium oxysporume0pathogen
Outcome
pre-emergence damping–off percentagee0
Direction
higheste0

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

Fusarium oxysporum
Fusarium oxysporum · InteractorClemson University - USDA Cooperative Extension Slide Series · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“F. oxysporum caused the highest pre-emergence damping–off percentage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 657–725 · show in text ↑
t0

“FORAGE (VIGNA UNGUICULATA (L.) WALP.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 87–124 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The tested seed treatments increased shoot and root length and seedling dry weight at 12 days versus untreated seed.

Taxon
forage cowpeae0
Treatment
Vitavax–T70, Neem leaf extract and Commercial bioagents (Rizo–N and Plant–guard)e0
Outcome
shoot, root length, seedling dry weighte0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
un-treated seedse0
Setting
greenhousee0

Verbatim

e0

“Treating forage cowpea seeds (cvs. Local and Upright growth) with Vitavax–T70, Neem leaf extract and Commercial bioagents (Rizo–N and Plant–guard) before sowing significantly increased the shoot, root length, seedling dry weight and decreased significantly the dead plants of the most resulted seedlings at 12 days old compared with the un-treated seeds with both two cvs., under greenhouse.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 778–1169 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The tested seed treatments decreased dead seedlings at 12 days versus untreated seed.

Taxon
forage cowpeae0
Treatment
Vitavax–T70, Neem leaf extract and Commercial bioagents (Rizo–N and Plant–guard)e0
Outcome
dead plantse0
Direction
decreasede0
Comparator
un-treated seedse0
Setting
greenhousee0

Verbatim

e0

“Treating forage cowpea seeds (cvs. Local and Upright growth) with Vitavax–T70, Neem leaf extract and Commercial bioagents (Rizo–N and Plant–guard) before sowing significantly increased the shoot, root length, seedling dry weight and decreased significantly the dead plants of the most resulted seedlings at 12 days old compared with the un-treated seeds with both two cvs., under greenhouse.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 778–1169 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Vitavax T70 and Rizo N had the greatest greenhouse growth improvement and reduction of dead seedlings in infested soil.

Taxon
VIGNA UNGUICULATA (L.) WALP.t0
Treatment
vitavax-T70 and Rizo-Ne0
Interactor
F. oxysporumFusarium oxysporume0pathogen
Outcome
shoot, root length, seedling dry weighte0
Direction
highest increasee0

Not reportedComparator

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

Fusarium oxysporum
Fusarium oxysporum · InteractorClemson University - USDA Cooperative Extension Slide Series · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the highest increase in the shoot, root length, seedling dry weight and decreased significantly the dead plants of resulted seedlings was in case of treating seeds with vitavax-T70 and Rizo-N in soil infested with F. oxysporum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1187–1413 · show in text ↑
t0

“FORAGE (VIGNA UNGUICULATA (L.) WALP.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 87–124 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The seed treatments reduced root rot incidence under field conditions.

Taxon
forage cowpeae0
Treatment
Vitavax–T70, Neem leaf extract and bioagents (Rizo–N and Plant-guard)e0
Outcome
root rot incidencee0
Direction
reducede0
Setting
field conditionse0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“treating forage cowpea seeds with Vitavax–T70, Neem leaf extract and bioagents (Rizo–N and Plant-guard) reduced root rot incidence under field conditions.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1681–1835 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Vitavax T70 and Rizo N, followed by Plant guard, were most effective against root rot in both cultivars in 2012 and 2013.

Taxon
forage cowpeae0
Treatment
Vitavax–T70 and Rizo–Ne0
Outcome
root–rot incidencee0
Direction
reducinge0
Qualifier
growing seasons 2012 and 2013e0
Comparator
Plant–guarde0

Verbatim

e0

“Vitavax–T70 and Rizo–N followed by Plant–guard were the best effective agents on reducing root–rot incidence of tested forage cowpea plants with both two cultivars, during growing seasons 2012 and 2013.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1836–2038 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Vitavax T70 best reduced root rot and increased surviving plants across two seasons.

Taxon
forage cowpeae0
Treatment
Vitavax–T70e0
Outcome
root-rot incidencee0
Direction
reducinge0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Vitavax–T70 was the best effective agent on reducing root-rot incidence and increasing the survived plants of both forage cowpea cvs during the two growing seasons.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2045–2209 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The treatments increased plant height, branching and leaf number relative to untreated seed.

Taxon
forage cowpeae0
Treatment
Vitavax–T70, also Neem leaf extract and bioagents (Rizo–N and Plant–guard)e0
Outcome
plant height, number of branches per plant on growing plants, number of leaves per plante0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“treating forage cowpea seeds with Vitavax–T70, also Neem leaf extract and bioagents (Rizo–N and Plant–guard) before sowing for controlling root rot pathogens increased plant height, number of branches per plant on growing plants, number of leaves per plant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2221–2477 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The treatments increased fresh and dry biomass measures and leaf to stem ratio.

Taxon
forage cowpeae1
Treatment
Vitavax–T70e1
Outcome
dry leaf / stem ratio per plant , fresh weight per plant (g) , dry weight plant-1e0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Schema note from the model: Treatment refers to the beginning of the sentence.

Verbatim

e0

“increased plant height, number of branches per plant on growing plants, number of leaves per plant, dry leaf / stem ratio per plant , fresh weight per plant (g) , dry weight plant-1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2379–2560 · show in text ↑
e1

“treating forage cowpea seeds with Vitavax–T70, also Neem leaf extract and bioagents (Rizo–N and Plant–guard)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2221–2329 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The treatments increased fresh and dry forage yield.

Taxon
forage cowpeae1
Treatment
Vitavax–T70e1
Outcome
fresh yield (ton fed-1), dry yield (ton fed-1)e0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Schema note from the model: Increase is stated earlier in the sentence.

Verbatim

e0

“fresh yield (ton fed-1), dry yield (ton fed-1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2562–2608 · show in text ↑
e1

“treating forage cowpea seeds with Vitavax–T70, also Neem leaf extract and bioagents (Rizo–N and Plant–guard)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2221–2329 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The treatments increased pod length, pod weight and seeds per pod.

Taxon
forage cowpeae1
Treatment
Vitavax–T70e1
Outcome
pod length (cm), pod weight, number of seeds per pode0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Schema note from the model: Increase is stated earlier in the sentence.

Verbatim

e0

“pod length (cm), pod weight, number of seeds per pod”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2610–2662 · show in text ↑
e1

“treating forage cowpea seeds with Vitavax–T70, also Neem leaf extract and bioagents (Rizo–N and Plant–guard)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2221–2329 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The treatments increased 100 seed weight and grain yield.

Taxon
forage cowpeae1
Treatment
Vitavax–T70e1
Outcome
weight of 100-seeds (g), grain yield (kg / feddane0
Comparator
un-treated seeds (control)e0

Not reportedDirection

Schema note from the model: Increase is stated earlier in the sentence.

Verbatim

e0

“weight of 100-seeds (g), grain yield (kg / feddan of yielded cowpea of both cowpea cvs, during the two growing seasons comparing with un-treated seeds (control).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2664–2825 · show in text ↑
e1

“treating forage cowpea seeds with Vitavax–T70, also Neem leaf extract and bioagents (Rizo–N and Plant–guard)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2221–2329 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Authors recommend Vitavax T70 before sowing as the best treatment for seedborne disease control.

Taxon
forage cowpeae0
Treatment
Vitavax-T70e0
Outcome
best seed treatment under greenhouse and field conditions to control seed-borne diseasee0

Verbatim

e0

“It is concluded that treating forage cowpea seeds (cvs., Local and Upright growth) with Vitavax-T70 before sowing were the best seed treatment under greenhouse and field conditions to control seed-borne disease”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3084–3294 · show in text ↑

Azadirachta indica · yield · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results

17 papers: 16 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

13 papers more in this group

See all 17 papers →

Azadirachta indica · growth · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)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 →

Azadirachta indica · disease · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Results agree

7 papers: 7 positive, 0 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

botanical · disease · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results

40 papers: 34 positive, 6 negative or no effect

33 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

36 papers more in this group

See all 40 papers →

botanical · yield · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results

80 papers: 78 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. positive

76 papers more in this group

See all 80 papers →

botanical · growth · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results

105 papers: 60 positive, 45 negative or no effect

59 papers in the same direction as this paper · 44 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

101 papers more in this group

See all 105 papers →

biocontrol · growth · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)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 →

biocontrol · disease · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Results agree

5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 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.