Abstract
Abstract The biocontrol potential of Gliocladium virens (G1 and G2) and Trichodenma longibrachiatum (T1 and T2) against groundnut root and stem rot diseases, their survival patterns and effects on the pathogen survivability have been investigated. Isolates G1 and T1, delivered as a wheat bran‐sawdust (WBSD) preparation gave significant protection (65–74%) against root rot incited by Rhizoctonia solani. A linear correlation was obtained between the dosage (g/kg soil) of antagonists and their disease control efficacy. Seed coating with spore suspension (1 × 109spores/ml) also considerably reduced the root rot incidence but to a lesser degree than the WBSD preparation. On the other hand, only moderate protection (21–36%) against stem rot caused by Sclerotium rolfsii was recorded with either of the antagonists. The antagonists applied to soil, despite a sharp decrease by the 7th day, gradually increased in their population density over a period of time. G1 exerted a 65% reduction in R. solani viability followed by T1 (59.7%), T2 (46.9%) and G2 (21.6%); survival of S. rolfsii was reduced by 30–40%. The results are discussed in relation to the mechanisms underlying the biocontrol potential of these antagonists.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Isolates G1 and T1 delivered as a wheat bran-sawdust preparation gave significant 65-74% protection against groundnut root rot caused by Rhizoctonia solani.
- Taxon
- groundnut
Arachis hypogaeat0 - Treatment
- Isolates G1 and T1e0
- Interactor
- Rhizoctonia solani
Rhizoctonia solanie1pathogen - Second interactor
- G1 and T1e0biocontrol_agent
- Outcome
- root rote1
- Direction
- protectione1
- Value
- 65–74%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“groundnut”
e0“Isolates G1 and T1”
e1“gave significant protection (65–74%) against root rot incited by Rhizoctonia solani”
Claim · model-written summary
Disease control efficacy on groundnut correlated linearly with the dosage of antagonists.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- dosage (g/kg soil) of antagonistse0
- Outcome
- disease control efficacye0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“groundnut”
e0“A linear correlation was obtained between the dosage (g/kg soil) of antagonists and their disease control efficacy”
Claim · model-written summary
Seed coating with a spore suspension reduced groundnut root rot incidence, but less than the WBSD preparation.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- Seed coating with spore suspension (1 × 109spores/ml)e0
- Outcome
- root rot incidencee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- WBSD preparatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“groundnut”
e0“Seed coating with spore suspension (1 × 109spores/ml) also considerably reduced the root rot incidence but to a lesser degree than the WBSD preparation”
Claim · model-written summary
Antagonists gave only moderate 21-36% protection against groundnut stem rot caused by Sclerotium rolfsii.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- antagonistse0
- Interactor
- Sclerotium rolfsii
Agroathelia rolfsiie0pathogen - Second interactor
- antagonistse0biocontrol_agent
- Outcome
- stem rote0
- Direction
- protectione0
- Value
- 21–36%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“groundnut”
e0“only moderate protection (21–36%) against stem rot caused by Sclerotium rolfsii was recorded with either of the antagonists”
Claim · model-written summary
Antagonists applied to soil declined sharply by day 7 but then gradually increased in population density.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- antagonists applied to soile0
- Outcome
- population densitye0
- Direction
- increasede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“groundnut”
e0“The antagonists applied to soil, despite a sharp decrease by the 7th day, gradually increased in their population density over a period of time”
Claim · model-written summary
Isolate G1 reduced Rhizoctonia solani viability by 65%.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- G1e0
- Interactor
- R. solaniRhizoctonia solanie0pathogen
- Second interactor
- G1e0biocontrol_agent
- Outcome
- R. solani viabilitye0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 65%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“groundnut”
e0“G1 exerted a 65% reduction in R. solani viability followed by T1 (59.7%), T2 (46.9%) and G2 (21.6%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Isolate T1 reduced Rhizoctonia solani viability by 59.7%.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- T1e0
- Interactor
- R. solaniRhizoctonia solanie0pathogen
- Second interactor
- T1e0biocontrol_agent
- Outcome
- R. solani viabilitye0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 59.7%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“groundnut”
e0“G1 exerted a 65% reduction in R. solani viability followed by T1 (59.7%), T2 (46.9%) and G2 (21.6%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Isolate T2 reduced Rhizoctonia solani viability by 46.9%.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- T2e0
- Interactor
- R. solaniRhizoctonia solanie0pathogen
- Second interactor
- T2e0biocontrol_agent
- Outcome
- R. solani viabilitye0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 46.9%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“groundnut”
e0“G1 exerted a 65% reduction in R. solani viability followed by T1 (59.7%), T2 (46.9%) and G2 (21.6%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Isolate G2 reduced Rhizoctonia solani viability by 21.6%.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- G2e0
- Interactor
- R. solaniRhizoctonia solanie0pathogen
- Second interactor
- G2e0biocontrol_agent
- Outcome
- R. solani viabilitye0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 21.6%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“groundnut”
e0“G1 exerted a 65% reduction in R. solani viability followed by T1 (59.7%), T2 (46.9%) and G2 (21.6%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Survival of Sclerotium rolfsii was reduced by 30-40%.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Interactor
- S. rolfsiiAgroathelia rolfsiie0pathogen
- Outcome
- survival of S. rolfsiie0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 30–40%e0
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“groundnut”
e0“survival of S. rolfsii was reduced by 30–40%”
The same questions in other papers
seed treatment · disease · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
40 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 papers →biocontrol · Agroathelia rolfsii · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
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.