Paper · 2004 · Phytopathology

Integrated Management of Fusarium Wilt of Chickpea with Sowing Date, Host Resistance, and Biological Control

Blanca B. Landa; Juan A. Navas-Cortés; Rafael M. Jiménez-Díaz

12
claims
18
verbatim quotes
135
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

ABSTRACT A 3-year experiment was conducted in field microplots infested with Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris race 5 at Córdoba, Spain, in order to assess efficacy of an integrated management strategy for Fusarium wilt of chickpea that combined the choice of sowing date, use of partially resistant chickpea genotypes, and seed and soil treatments with biocontrol agents Bacillus megaterium RGAF 51, B. subtilis GB03, nonpathogenic F. oxysporum Fo 90105, and Pseudomonas fluorescens RG 26. Advancing the sowing date from early spring to winter significantly delayed disease onset, reduced the final disease intensity (amount of disease in a microplot that combines disease incidence and severity, expressed as a percentage of the maximum possible amount of disease in that microplot), and increased chickpea seed yield. A significant linear relationship was found between disease development over time and weather variables at the experimental site, with epidemics developing earlier and faster as mean temperature increased and accumulated rainfall decreased. Under conditions highly conducive for Fusarium wilt development, the degree of disease control depended primarily on choice of sowing date, and to a lesser extent on level of resistance of chickpea genotypes to F. oxysporum f. sp. ciceris race 5, and the biocontrol treatments. The main effects of sowing date, partially resistant genotypes, and biocontrol agents were a reduction in the rate of epidemic development over time, a reduction of disease intensity, and an increase in chickpea seedling emergence, respectively. Chickpea seed yield was influenced by all three factors in the study. The increase in chickpea seed yield was the most consistent effect of the biocontrol agents. However, that effect was primarily influenced by sowing date, which also determined disease development. Effectiveness of biocontrol treatments in disease management was lowest in January sowings, which were least favorable for Fusarium wilt. Sowing in February, which was moderately favorable for wilt development, resulted in the greatest increase in seed yield by the biocontrol agents. In March sowings, which were most conducive for the disease, the biocontrol agents delayed disease onset and increased seedling emergence. B. subtilis GB03 and P. fluorescens RG 26, applied either alone or each in combination with nonpathogenic F. oxysporum Fo 90105, were the most effective treatments at suppressing Fusarium wilt, or delaying disease onset and increasing seed yield, respectively. The importance of integrating existing control practices, partially effective by themselves, with other control measures to achieve appropriate management of Fusarium wilt and increase of seed yield in chickpea in Mediterranean-type environments is demonstrated by the results of this study.

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 12

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Winter rather than early-spring sowing delayed chickpea wilt onset, reduced disease intensity and increased seed yield.

Taxon
ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
wintere0
Outcome
disease onset, reduced the final disease intensitye0
Direction
delayede0
Comparator
early springe0

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Advancing the sowing date from early spring to winter significantly delayed disease onset, reduced the final disease intensity (amount of disease in a microplot that combines disease incidence and severity, expressed as a percentage of the maximum possible amount of disease in that microplot), and increased chickpea seed yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 491–819 · show in text ↑
t0

“Fusarium Wilt of Chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–50 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmixedsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Wilt epidemic development was linearly related to weather, occurring earlier and faster with higher temperature and lower rainfall.

Taxon
ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Outcome
disease development over timee0
Direction
earlier and fastere0
Setting
experimental sitee0

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“A significant linear relationship was found between disease development over time and weather variables at the experimental site, with epidemics developing earlier and faster as mean temperature increased and accumulated rainfall decreased”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 821–1060 · show in text ↑
t0

“Fusarium Wilt of Chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–50 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sowing date reduced the rate of wilt epidemic development.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Treatment
sowing datee0
Outcome
rate of epidemic development over timee0
Direction
reductione0

Not reportedComparator

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The main effects of sowing date, partially resistant genotypes, and biocontrol agents were a reduction in the rate of epidemic development over time, a reduction of disease intensity, and an increase in chickpea seedling emergence, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1340–1584 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Partially resistant genotypes reduced wilt disease intensity.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Treatment
partially resistant genotypese0
Outcome
disease intensitye0
Direction
reductione0

Not reportedComparator

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The main effects of sowing date, partially resistant genotypes, and biocontrol agents were a reduction in the rate of epidemic development over time, a reduction of disease intensity, and an increase in chickpea seedling emergence, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1340–1584 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Biocontrol agents increased chickpea seedling emergence.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Treatment
biocontrol agentse0
Outcome
seedling emergencee0
Direction
increasee0

Not reportedComparator

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The main effects of sowing date, partially resistant genotypes, and biocontrol agents were a reduction in the rate of epidemic development over time, a reduction of disease intensity, and an increase in chickpea seedling emergence, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1340–1584 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sowing date, genotype resistance and biocontrol all influenced chickpea seed yield.

Taxon
ChickpeaCicer arietinume0
Outcome
seed yielde0

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Chickpea seed yield was influenced by all three factors in the study”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1586–1654 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Biocontrol agents most consistently increased chickpea seed yield.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Treatment
biocontrol agentse0
Outcome
seed yielde0
Direction
increasee0

Not reportedComparator

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The increase in chickpea seed yield was the most consistent effect of the biocontrol agents”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1656–1747 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Biocontrol treatments had their lowest disease-management effectiveness in January sowings.

Taxon
ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
biocontrol treatmentse0
Outcome
Effectivenesse0
Direction
loweste0
Qualifier
January sowingse0

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Effectiveness of biocontrol treatments in disease management was lowest in January sowings”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1854–1944 · show in text ↑
t0

“Fusarium Wilt of Chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–50 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

February sowing yielded the greatest seed-yield increase from biocontrol agents.

Taxon
ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
biocontrol agentse0
Outcome
seed yielde0
Direction
greatest increasee0
Qualifier
Sowing in Februarye0

Not reportedComparator

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Sowing in February, which was moderately favorable for wilt development, resulted in the greatest increase in seed yield by the biocontrol agents”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1992–2137 · show in text ↑
t0

“Fusarium Wilt of Chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–50 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In March sowings biocontrol delayed wilt onset and increased emergence.

Taxon
ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
biocontrol agentse0
Outcome
disease onset and increased seedling emergencee0
Direction
delayede0
Qualifier
March sowingse0

Not reportedComparator

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In March sowings, which were most conducive for the disease, the biocontrol agents delayed disease onset and increased seedling emergence”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2139–2276 · show in text ↑
t0

“Fusarium Wilt of Chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–50 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

B. subtilis GB03 and P. fluorescens RG 26, alone or with nonpathogenic F. oxysporum Fo 90105, were most effective at suppressing wilt or delaying onset and increasing seed yield.

Taxon
ChickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Interactor
B. subtilis GB03Bacillus subtilise0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
Fusarium wilte0
Direction
suppressinge0

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bacillus subtilis
Bacillus subtilis · InteractorY tambe (original uploader) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“B. subtilis GB03 and P. fluorescens RG 26, applied either alone or each in combination with nonpathogenic F. oxysporum Fo 90105, were the most effective treatments at suppressing Fusarium wilt, or delaying disease onset and increasing seed yield, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2278–2537 · show in text ↑
t0

“Chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 42–50 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors conclude that integrating partly effective controls can manage chickpea wilt and increase yield in Mediterranean-type environments.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Outcome
management of Fusarium wilt and increase of seed yielde0
Setting
Mediterranean-type environmentse0

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“integrating existing control practices, partially effective by themselves, with other control measures to achieve appropriate management of Fusarium wilt and increase of seed yield in chickpea in Mediterranean-type environments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2557–2784 · show in text ↑

biocontrol · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 7 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

sowing time · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

21 papers: 18 positive, 3 negative or no effect

17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

17 papers more in this group

See all 21 papers →

biocontrol · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree

13 papers: 13 positive, 0 negative or no effect

12 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

9 papers more in this group

See all 13 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.