Abstract
In vitro antifungal activity of crude extracts from Tulbaghia violacea against 6 economically important plant pathogenic fungi was previously reported. The in vivo control of Mycosphaerella pinodes, causative of Ascochyta blight, by different concentrations of a crude aerial part extract of T. violacea was subsequently followed qualitatively and quantitatively in terms of lesions that developed over a 6-day period at 20°C on detached pea (Pisum sativum) leaves. Infection by M. pinodes spores was prevented when the extract was applied both before and after inoculation, confirming complete inhibition of spore germination, whereas no phytotoxic effect was observed on the leaves. Additionally, the control of sorghum covered (Sporisorium sorghi) and loose (S. cruentum) kernel smuts by seed treatment with the crude extract was tested under field conditions. Before planting, different sorghum seed lots were inoculated separately with spores from the 2 pathogens at a rate of 0.5% per kg (w/w), followed by treatment with the crude extract, at a concentration of 2.0 mg/mL, 24 h later. A standard fungicide, Thiram (65 W), was applied as a positive control at a rate of 0.25% per kg (v/w). Disease incidence was quantified during harvest and expressed as percentage infected plants. Seed treatment with the extract significantly (P< 0.05) reduced the incidence of both sorghum loose and covered smut diseases, compared favourably with the standard fungicide, and resulted in significant yield increases compared to the untreated control.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Tulbaghia extract applied before and after inoculation prevented M. pinodes infection on detached pea leaves.
- Taxon
- pea
Lathyrus oleraceuse1 - Treatment
- the extracte0
- Interactor
- M. pinodes
Didymella pinodese0pathogen - Outcome
- Infection by M. pinodes sporese0
- Direction
- preventede0
- Comparator
- inoculatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Infection by M. pinodes spores was prevented when the extract was applied both before and after inoculation”
e1“detached pea (Pisum sativum) leaves”
Claim · model-written summary
Tulbaghia extract completely inhibited M. pinodes spore germination.
- Taxon
- peaLathyrus oleraceuse3
- Treatment
- extracte1
- Interactor
- M. pinodesDidymella pinodese2pathogene0
- Outcome
- spore germinatione0
- Direction
- complete inhibitione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“confirming complete inhibition of spore germination”
e1“the extract was applied both before and after inoculation”
e2“Infection by M. pinodes spores was prevented”
e3“detached pea (Pisum sativum) leaves”
Claim · model-written summary
Tulbaghia extract caused no observed phytotoxicity on pea leaves.
- Taxon
- peaLathyrus oleraceuse2
- Treatment
- extracte1
- Outcome
- phytotoxic effecte0
- Direction
- no phytotoxic effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“whereas no phytotoxic effect was observed on the leaves”
e1“the extract was applied both before and after inoculation”
e2“detached pea (Pisum sativum) leaves”
Claim · model-written summary
Seed treatment with the extract significantly reduced sorghum loose smut incidence.
- Treatment
- Seed treatment with the extracte0
- Interactor
- S. cruentumSporisorium cruentume1pathogene0
- Outcome
- sorghum loosee0
- Direction
- reducede0
SorghumNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Seed treatment with the extract significantly (P< 0.05) reduced the incidence of both sorghum loose and covered smut diseases”
e1“loose (S. cruentum) kernel smuts”
Claim · model-written summary
Seed treatment with the extract significantly reduced sorghum covered smut incidence.
- Treatment
- Seed treatment with the extracte0
- Interactor
- Sporisorium sorghiSporisorium sorghie1pathogene0
- Outcome
- covered smut diseasese0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Seed treatment with the extract significantly (P< 0.05) reduced the incidence of both sorghum loose and covered smut diseases”
e1“sorghum covered (Sporisorium sorghi)”
Claim · model-written summary
Extract seed treatment compared favorably with the standard fungicide.
- Treatment
- extracte1
- Outcome
- compared favourablye0
- Direction
- compared favourablye0
- Comparator
- standard fungicidee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“compared favourably with the standard fungicide”
e1“the extract was applied both before and after inoculation”
e2“both sorghum loose and covered smut diseases”
Claim · model-written summary
Extract seed treatment significantly increased yield relative to untreated control.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“resulted in significant yield increases compared to the untreated control”
e1“the extract was applied both before and after inoculation”
e2“both sorghum loose and covered smut diseases”
The same questions in other papers
botanical · crop injury · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- negative
botanical · yield · SorghumPositive and negative results
21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 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.