Paper · 2009 · Mailei zuowu xuebao

Control Effect of Several Agrochemicals on Wheat Yellow Dwarf

Wenbin Zhang; Ren Xiang-hui; AN De-rong; et al.

5
claims
9
verbatim quotes
0
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The efficacy trial was conducted in the field with wheat variety Shanken 9740,inoculating strain GAV of barley yellow dwarf virus(BYDV) with Schizaphis graminum were conducted at wheat setting up stage.Agrochemicals combination of pesticide 2.5% imidacloprid wettable power at a dilution of 2000 and plant virus inhibitors(20% Virus A wettable power at a dilution of 500,3.95% Bilken virucide wettable power at a dilution of 500,5% Junduqing aqueous solution at a dilution of 500 and 2% Ningnanmycin aqueous solution at a dilution of 300) were sprayed,incidence and disease index of wheat yellow dwarf as well as the number of yellowing leaf were investigated at flowering stage,the results showed that all combinations have preventive and control effect on accidence and development of wheat yellow dwarf,and the preventive effect is superior to the control effect.Among the above combinations,the effect of the combination of Bilken viruaside and imidacloprid was the best,and the average preventive and control effect were 58.08% and 53.03%,respectively.Then,chlorophyll in wheat leaves,extracted by mixed soak with analytically pure acetone and analytically pure ethanol(2∶1),were measured to test which wheat yellow dwarf was controlled by 3.95% Bilken virucide wettable power at a dilution of 500 in laboratory,the result indicated that Bilken viruaside could inhibit BYDV from the harm of chlorophyll to relieve the damage.

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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All chemical combinations prevented and controlled wheat yellow dwarf.

Treatment
all combinationse0
Interactor
wheat yellow dwarfe0pathogen
Outcome
accidence and development of wheat yellow dwarfe0
Direction
preventive and control effecte0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“all combinations have preventive and control effect on accidence and development of wheat yellow dwarf,and the preventive effect is superior to the control effect.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 703–866 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Preventive effects exceeded control effects.

Outcome
preventive effecte0
Direction
superiore0
Comparator
control effecte0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the preventive effect is superior to the control effect.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 810–866 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 43–48 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bilken plus imidacloprid was the best combination, with average preventive effect 58.08%.

Treatment
combination of Bilken viruaside and imidaclopride0
Outcome
preventivee0
Direction
beste0
Value
58.08%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the effect of the combination of Bilken viruaside and imidacloprid was the best,and the average preventive and control effect were 58.08% and 53.03%,respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 895–1057 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 43–48 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bilken plus imidacloprid had average control effect of 53.03%.

Treatment
combination of Bilken viruaside and imidaclopride0
Outcome
control effecte0
Direction
beste0
Value
53.03%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the effect of the combination of Bilken viruaside and imidacloprid was the best,and the average preventive and control effect were 58.08% and 53.03%,respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 895–1057 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 43–48 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bilken inhibited BYDV damage to wheat chlorophyll.

Treatment
Bilken viruasidee0
Interactor
BYDVBarley yellow dwarf viruse0pathogen
Outcome
harm of chlorophylle0
Direction
inhibite0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Barley yellow dwarf virus
Barley yellow dwarf virus · InteractorPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Bilken viruaside could inhibit BYDV from the harm of chlorophyll to relieve the damage.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1343–1430 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 43–48 · show in text ↑

imidacloprid · control · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

10 papers: 8 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. positive

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 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.