Abstract
The aim of this trial was to evaluate silicon absorption and the effect of silicate slag application combined with triazole fungicide in control of brown eye leaf spot under greenhouse conditions, using coffee seedlings of the cultivar Catuaí Vermelho 144. A completely randomized 5x2 experimental design was used, with and without application of the fungicide tebuconazole, with eight replications. The mixtures (M) used on the soil were defined as based on the liming needs of the soil: M1- 0% de silicated slag (slag) and 100% limestone (lim); M2- 25% slag and 75% lim; M3-50% slag and 50% lim; M4- 75% slag and 25% lim; M5- 100% slag, with or without application of the fungicide tebuconazole. The fungicide tebuconazole (0.5 g of a.i./L) was applied on coffee seedlings through five pair of leaves. Twenty-four hours after fungicide application, each coffee seedling was inoculated with a conidial suspension of 2.0 x 105 /mL. The severity and the defoliation caused by disease were evaluated every five days from 20 to 45 days after inoculation. With the severity and defoliation data, the area under the brown eye spot disease progress curve (AUCPBES) and the area under the defoliation curve (AUCPDESF) were calculated. The application of increasing doses of silicate slag on the soil did not reduce AUCPBES and AUCPDESF, and no increase in Si content in the root, stem or leaf was observed. Tebuconazole reduced AUCPBES and AUCPDESF.
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 3
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing doses of silicate slag on the soil did not reduce brown eye spot disease progress or defoliation in coffee seedlings.
- Material
- Catuaí Vermelho 144e0
- Treatment
- increasing doses of silicate slag on the soile3
- Outcome
- AUCPBES and AUCPDESFe3
- Direction
- did not reducee3
- Comparator
- 100% limestonee2
- Setting
- greenhouse conditionse1
CoffeaOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“coffee seedlings of the cultivar Catuaí Vermelho 144”
e1“under greenhouse conditions”
e2“M1- 0% de silicated slag (slag) and 100% limestone (lim)”
e3“The application of increasing doses of silicate slag on the soil did not reduce AUCPBES and AUCPDESF”
Claim · model-written summary
Silicate slag application did not increase silicon content in the root, stem or leaf of coffee seedlings.
- Material
- Catuaí Vermelho 144e0
- Organ / stage
- root, stem or leafe4
- Treatment
- increasing doses of silicate slag on the soile3
- Outcome
- Si content in the root, stem or leafe4
- Direction
- no increasee4
- Comparator
- 100% limestonee2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“coffee seedlings of the cultivar Catuaí Vermelho 144”
e2“M1- 0% de silicated slag (slag) and 100% limestone (lim)”
e3“The application of increasing doses of silicate slag on the soil did not reduce AUCPBES and AUCPDESF”
e4“no increase in Si content in the root, stem or leaf was observed”
Claim · model-written summary
Tebuconazole reduced brown eye spot disease progress and defoliation in coffee seedlings under greenhouse conditions.
- Material
- Catuaí Vermelho 144e0
- Treatment
- tebuconazolee5
- Outcome
- AUCPBES and AUCPDESFe5
- Direction
- reducede5
- Comparator
- without application of the fungicidee6
- Setting
- greenhouse conditionse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“coffee seedlings of the cultivar Catuaí Vermelho 144”
e1“under greenhouse conditions”
e5“Tebuconazole reduced AUCPBES and AUCPDESF”
e6“with and without application of the fungicide tebuconazole”
The same questions in other papers
silicate(4-) · nutrient: content · Coffea (coffee)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
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.