Abstract
Possibility of V. inaequalis control on apple variety Idared was evaluated by ecologically acceptable products such as inorganic fungicides and acidified clays. The obtained results were compared with common, chemical protection. Year 2009 was one of the unfavorable for V. inaequalis, and 2010 was extremely favorable for apple scab development. Accordingly, in 2009 intensity of infection on apple leaves and fruits in control variant was low (leaves 15,4-34,9%; fruits 0-23,8%). In 2010 infection intensity on leaves and fruits was high (leaves 81,2%; fruits 100%). During period 2009-2010, in these different environmental conditions, common chemical protection showed high efficacy (leaves 96,2-100%; fruits 97,5-100%). High efficacy level in control of V. inaequalis on leaves of 87,4-99,7% was achieved also in variants in which copper products were applied in low concentration of 0,05%. It should be noted that in the most critical period, in April and May of 2010, the treatments were carried out in 5-6 days interval. Copper products showed differing efficacy on fruits (48,5-90,2%). In 2009 which is considered as one of the unfavorable for V. inaequalis development, product Ulmasud B applied alone on leaves was less efficiacy (51,8-58,6%), than on fruits (87,8%). In the same year, efficacy of this product in combination with sulfur, was better (leaves 71,4-76,6%; fruits 86,6). In 2010, which was especially rainy and favourable for spreading the disease, efficiacy of mention combination of products didn,t satisfy (leaves 44,8%; fruits 41,0%). In the system of organic production, during vegetation period, program of apple protection in control of V. inaequalis should be supplemented by use of low concentrations of copper products (0,05%) and by various alternative products of different action mechanisms, such as mineral clays, sulfur products and etc. These researches should be continued.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-sa. 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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Untreated apple leaves had low infection intensity in 2009.
- Taxon
- apple
Malus domesticae0 - Interactor
- V. inaequalis
Venturia inaequalise1pathogene0 - Outcome
- infection on apple leavese0
- Direction
- lowe0
- Value
- 15,4-34,9%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in 2009 intensity of infection on apple leaves and fruits in control variant was low (leaves 15,4-34,9%; fruits 0-23,8%).”
e1“High efficacy level in control of V. inaequalis on leaves of 87,4-99,7% was achieved also in variants in which copper products were applied in low concentration of 0,05%.”
Claim · model-written summary
Untreated apple fruit had low infection intensity in 2009.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Outcome
- infection on apple leaves and fruitse0
- Direction
- lowe0
- Value
- 0-23,8%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in 2009 intensity of infection on apple leaves and fruits in control variant was low (leaves 15,4-34,9%; fruits 0-23,8%).”
Claim · model-written summary
Apple leaf infection was high in 2010.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Outcome
- infection intensity on leavese0
- Direction
- highe0
- Value
- 81,2%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 2010 infection intensity on leaves and fruits was high (leaves 81,2%; fruits 100%).”
t0“apple scab development”
Claim · model-written summary
Apple fruit infection was high in 2010.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Outcome
- infection intensity on leaves and fruitse0
- Direction
- highe0
- Value
- 100%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 2010 infection intensity on leaves and fruits was high (leaves 81,2%; fruits 100%).”
t0“apple scab development”
Claim · model-written summary
Common chemical protection had high efficacy on apple leaves.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- common chemical protectione0
- Outcome
- efficacye0
- Direction
- highe0
- Value
- 96,2-100%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“common chemical protection showed high efficacy (leaves 96,2-100%; fruits 97,5-100%).”
t0“apple scab development”
Claim · model-written summary
Common chemical protection had high efficacy on apple fruit.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- common chemical protectione0
- Outcome
- efficacye0
- Direction
- highe0
- Value
- 97,5-100%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“common chemical protection showed high efficacy (leaves 96,2-100%; fruits 97,5-100%).”
t0“apple scab development”
Claim · model-written summary
Low concentration copper products achieved high leaf control efficacy.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- copper productse0
- Interactor
- V. inaequalisVenturia inaequalise0pathogen
- Outcome
- efficacy level in control of V. inaequalis on leavese0
- Direction
- Highe0
- Value
- 87,4-99,7%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“High efficacy level in control of V. inaequalis on leaves of 87,4-99,7% was achieved also in variants in which copper products were applied in low concentration of 0,05%.”
t0“apple scab development”
Claim · model-written summary
Copper products had variable efficacy on fruit.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- Copper productse0
- Outcome
- efficacy on fruitse0
- Direction
- differinge0
- Value
- 48,5-90,2%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Copper products showed differing efficacy on fruits (48,5-90,2%).”
t0“apple scab development”
Claim · model-written summary
Ulmasud B alone had lower efficacy on leaves than fruit in 2009.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- product Ulmasud Be0
- Outcome
- efficiacye0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Value
- 51,8-58,6%e0
- Comparator
- fruitse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“product Ulmasud B applied alone on leaves was less efficiacy (51,8-58,6%), than on fruits (87,8%).”
t0“apple scab development”
Claim · model-written summary
Ulmasud B alone had 87.8% efficacy on fruit in 2009.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- product Ulmasud Be0
- Outcome
- efficiacye0
- Value
- 87,8%e0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“product Ulmasud B applied alone on leaves was less efficiacy (51,8-58,6%), than on fruits (87,8%).”
t0“apple scab development”
Claim · model-written summary
Adding sulfur improved Ulmasud B leaf efficacy in 2009.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- combination with sulfure0
- Outcome
- efficacye0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Value
- 71,4-76,6%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“efficacy of this product in combination with sulfur, was better (leaves 71,4-76,6%; fruits 86,6).”
t0“apple scab development”
Claim · model-written summary
Ulmasud B with sulfur had 86.6 fruit efficacy in 2009.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- combination with sulfure0
- Outcome
- efficacye0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Value
- 86,6e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“efficacy of this product in combination with sulfur, was better (leaves 71,4-76,6%; fruits 86,6).”
t0“apple scab development”
Claim · model-written summary
The combination had unsatisfactory leaf efficacy in rainy 2010.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- combination of productse0
- Outcome
- efficiacye0
- Value
- 44,8%e0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“efficiacy of mention combination of products didn,t satisfy (leaves 44,8%; fruits 41,0%).”
t0“apple scab development”
Claim · model-written summary
The combination had unsatisfactory fruit efficacy in rainy 2010.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- combination of productse0
- Outcome
- efficiacye0
- Value
- 41,0%e0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“efficiacy of mention combination of products didn,t satisfy (leaves 44,8%; fruits 41,0%).”
t0“apple scab development”
Claim · model-written summary
Organic apple protection should include low concentration copper and alternative products.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Outcome
- should be supplemented by use of low concentrations of copper products (0,05%) and by various alternative productse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“program of apple protection in control of V. inaequalis should be supplemented by use of low concentrations of copper products (0,05%) and by various alternative products of different action mechanisms, such as mineral clays, sulfur products and etc.”
The same questions in other papers
copper atom · Venturia inaequalis · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree
5 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →sulfur atom · control · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree
5 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 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.