Paper · 2014 · Journal of progressive agriculture

Effect of resource conservation practices and conventional practice on population of (Meloidogyne graminicola) affecting different plant growth parameters in rice

Vinod Upadhyay; S. S. Vaish; Nitish Rattan Bhardwaj

9
claims
9
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Conducted to study the effect of resource conservation practices and conventional practice on population of Meloidogyne graminicola affecting different plant growth parameters in rice revealed that higher populations of second stage juvenile was obtained from fields with intervention of zero tillage. However, conventional practice and zero tillage rice-zero tillage wheat with sesbania had considerably low populations. Maximum stunting was found in case of zero tillage rice-zero tillage wheat with residue whereas soil of conventional tilled transplanted puddle rice-conventional tilled broadcasted wheat with and without residues showed minimum reduction in plant height. Decline of shoot weight was found associated with advancement of stunting in most of the cases. Advancement in stunting was also found associated with root knot index which was 5.0 in case of different resource conservation practices as compare to zero tillage rice-zero tillage wheat with sesbania and conventional practice which was less than 3.0. It was found that initial population of nematode, stunting, and shoot weight reduction is much higher in resource conservation practices as compare to conventional practice whereas sesbania incorporation in resource conservation practices was found as a better option for the management of M.graminicola.

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 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Zero tillage fields had higher second-stage juvenile populations.

Treatment
zero tillagee0
Outcome
populations of second stage juvenilee0
Direction
highere0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0

“higher populations of second stage juvenile was obtained from fields with intervention of zero tillage.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 198–301 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Conventional practice and zero tillage with sesbania had low juvenile populations.

Treatment
zero tillage rice-zero tillage wheat with sesbaniae0
Outcome
populationse0
Direction
lowe0

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“conventional practice and zero tillage rice-zero tillage wheat with sesbania had considerably low populations.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 311–421 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Zero tillage rice and wheat with residue produced maximum stunting.

Treatment
zero tillage rice-zero tillage wheat with residuee0
Outcome
stuntinge0
Direction
Maximume0

Not reportedComparator

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Maximum stunting was found in case of zero tillage rice-zero tillage wheat with residue”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 422–509 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Conventional tillage treatments had minimum plant height reduction.

Treatment
conventional tilled transplanted puddle rice-conventional tilled broadcasted wheat with and without residuese0
Outcome
plant heighte0
Direction
minimum reductione0

Not reportedComparator

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“soil of conventional tilled transplanted puddle rice-conventional tilled broadcasted wheat with and without residues showed minimum reduction in plant height.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 518–676 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Shoot-weight decline was associated with increasing stunting.

Organ / stage
shoote0
Outcome
shoot weighte0
Direction
Declinee0
Qualifier
advancement of stuntinge0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“Decline of shoot weight was found associated with advancement of stunting in most of the cases.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 677–772 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Stunting increased with root knot index, which reached 5.0 under conservation practices versus less than 3.0 for sesbania and conventional practices.

Treatment
different resource conservation practicese0
Outcome
root knot indexe0
Value
5.0e0
Qualifier
less than 3.0e0
Comparator
zero tillage rice-zero tillage wheat with sesbania and conventional practicee0

Not reportedDirection

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

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Advancement in stunting was also found associated with root knot index which was 5.0 in case of different resource conservation practices as compare to zero tillage rice-zero tillage wheat with sesbania and conventional practice which was less than 3.0.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 773–1026 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Conservation practices had higher initial nematode populations than conventional practice.

Treatment
resource conservation practicese0
Outcome
initial population of nematodee0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
conventional practicee0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“initial population of nematode, stunting, and shoot weight reduction is much higher in resource conservation practices as compare to conventional practice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1045–1199 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Conservation practices caused higher stunting and shoot-weight reduction than conventional practice.

Treatment
resource conservation practicese0
Outcome
stunting, and shoot weight reductione0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
conventional practicee0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“initial population of nematode, stunting, and shoot weight reduction is much higher in resource conservation practices as compare to conventional practice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1045–1199 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Sesbania incorporation was judged a better option for managing M. graminicola.

Interactor
M.graminicolaMeloidogyne graminicolae0pathogen
Outcome
sesbania incorporation in resource conservation practicese0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“sesbania incorporation in resource conservation practices was found as a better option for the management of M.graminicola.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1208–1331 · show in text ↑

Triticum aestivum · growth · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

26 papers: 16 positive, 10 negative or no effect

15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

22 papers more in this group

See all 26 papers →

tillage · pest · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

28 papers: 20 positive, 8 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

24 papers more in this group

See all 28 papers →

tillage · growth · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

149 papers: 116 positive, 33 negative or no effect

115 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

145 papers more in this group

See all 149 papers →

transplanting · growth · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

227 papers: 190 positive, 37 negative or no effect

189 papers in the same direction as this paper · 32 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

223 papers more in this group

See all 227 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.