Abstract
SUMMARY Control of seed‐borne Septoria nodorum on winter wheat by seed treatment with one of two organomercury compounds at various rates, or with carboxin, maneb, guazatine, quinacetol sulphate or thiabendazole, was investigated in two field experiments in eastern England during 1973–75 and in growth‐room tests. All the non‐mercurial fungicides were as effective as the optimum rates of organomercury compounds in preventing seedling infection. Subsequent development of S. nodorum on the upper leaves, and of mildew, sharp eyespot and eyespot, was not influenced by seed treatment.
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 3
Claim · model-written summary
Non-mercurial fungicides prevented seedling infection as effectively as optimum organomercury rates.
- Taxon
- Winter Wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- non‐mercurial fungicidese0
- Interactor
- Septoria nodorum
Parastagonospora nodorumt0pathogen - Outcome
- seedling infectione0
- Direction
- as effectivee0
- Comparator
- optimum rates of organomercury compoundse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All the non‐mercurial fungicides were as effective as the optimum rates of organomercury compounds in preventing seedling infection.”
t0“Septoria nodorum Infection of Winter Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Seed treatment did not influence subsequent Septoria development on upper leaves.
- Taxon
- Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- seed treatmente0
- Interactor
- S. nodorumParastagonospora nodorume0pathogen
- Outcome
- development of S. nodorum on the upper leavese0
- Direction
- not influencede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Subsequent development of S. nodorum on the upper leaves, and of mildew, sharp eyespot and eyespot, was not influenced by seed treatment.”
t0“Winter Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Seed treatment did not influence subsequent mildew, sharp eyespot, or eyespot.
- Taxon
- Winter WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- seed treatmente0
- Outcome
- mildew, sharp eyespot and eyespote0
- Direction
- not influencede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Subsequent development of S. nodorum on the upper leaves, and of mildew, sharp eyespot and eyespot, was not influenced by seed treatment.”
t0“Winter Wheat”
The same questions in other papers
fungicide · Parastagonospora nodorum · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →seed treatment · disease · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 65 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
66 papers more in this group
See all 70 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.