Paper · 2011 · Acta Horticulturae

INCIDENCE OF DRY ROT OF POMEGRANATE IN HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ITS MANAGEMENT

R.L. Sharma; R.K. Tegta

20
claims
36
verbatim quotes
13
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Pomegranate is highly susceptible to dry fruit rot caused by Coniella granati (Sacc.) Petrak and Sydow, and the disease has resulted in substantial losses and is threatening the upcoming pomegranate cultivation in Himachal Pradesh. The disease starts on fruits which are half grown or larger. The rot is characterized by softening of the rind and underneath pulp and seed. Ultimately the entire fruit turns brown to black after complete rotting. An extensive and comprehensive survey of various pomegranate orchards was conducted to record the incidence revealed that incidence of dry fruit rot varied from 0.55 to 22.7% with a mean incidence of 8.38% at various locations in Himachal Pradesh. The incidence was higher in Solan district where the infected fruits were often seen in the form of dark brown to black fruit mummies scattered on the orchard floor. The disease appeared maximum during the first week of August after an extended period of warm and foggy weather. Pre-harvest sprays with Bavistin and Stop among systemic fungicides gave significant control whereas, among non systemics, spray of Indofil M-45 showed some promise. Postharvest efficacy of systemic fungicides was better as protectant (pre-inoculation treatment) rather than eradicant (post-inoculation). Attempts have been made to control fruit rot with eco-friendly methods such as wrappers, fumigants, coatings, antagonists, botanicals which included plant oils and plant extracts. Fumigation with sodium or potassium meta bisulphite was superior in checking the disease. Bavistin wrappers and Nipro Fresh coating exhibited significant protection of pomegranate against dry fruit rot. Fungal antagonists, viz., Trichoderma virens, T. harzianum, T. hamatum and T. polysporium gave maximum inhibition of mycelial growth of C. granati. Antagonist protection was higher when applied at a concentration of 108 spores/ml before inoculation. 100% inhibition of mycelial growth of C. granati was obtained with citronella oil at 1000 ppm. Pre-inoculation treatment with plant extracts of darek (Melia azadirach), dedonia (Dedonia viscosa), lantana (Lantana camara) and pepper mint (Mentha piperita) provided significant control of fruit rot of pomegranate.

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 20

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Dry fruit rot incidence ranged from 0.55 to 22.7% in Himachal Pradesh.

Taxon
POMEGRANATEPunica granatumt0
Outcome
incidence of dry fruit rote0
Value
0.55 to 22.7%e0
Setting
Himachal Pradeshe0

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

Punica granatum
Punica granatum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“POMEGRANATE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–35 · show in text ↑
e0

“incidence of dry fruit rot varied from 0.55 to 22.7% with a mean incidence of 8.38% at various locations in Himachal Pradesh”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 568–692 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mean dry fruit rot incidence was 8.38%.

Taxon
POMEGRANATEPunica granatumt0
Outcome
mean incidencee0
Value
8.38%e0
Setting
Himachal Pradeshe0

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

Punica granatum
Punica granatum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“POMEGRANATE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–35 · show in text ↑
e0

“incidence of dry fruit rot varied from 0.55 to 22.7% with a mean incidence of 8.38% at various locations in Himachal Pradesh”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 568–692 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Incidence was higher in Solan district.

Taxon
POMEGRANATEPunica granatumt0
Outcome
incidencee0
Direction
highere0
Setting
Solan districte0

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

Punica granatum
Punica granatum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“POMEGRANATE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–35 · show in text ↑
e0

“The incidence was higher in Solan district”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 694–736 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Disease occurrence peaked in the first week of August after warm, foggy weather.

Taxon
POMEGRANATEPunica granatumt0
Outcome
diseasee0
Direction
maximume0
Qualifier
first week of August after an extended period of warm and foggy weathere0

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

Punica granatum
Punica granatum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“POMEGRANATE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–35 · show in text ↑
e0

“The disease appeared maximum during the first week of August after an extended period of warm and foggy weather”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 860–971 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Preharvest Bavistin sprays significantly controlled dry fruit rot.

Taxon
POMEGRANATEPunica granatumt0
Treatment
Bavistine0
Outcome
controle0
Direction
controle0

Not reportedComparator

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

Punica granatum
Punica granatum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“POMEGRANATE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–35 · show in text ↑
e0

“Pre-harvest sprays with Bavistin and Stop among systemic fungicides gave significant control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 973–1065 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Preharvest Stop sprays significantly controlled dry fruit rot.

Taxon
POMEGRANATEPunica granatumt0
Treatment
Stope0
Outcome
controle0
Direction
controle0

Not reportedComparator

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

Punica granatum
Punica granatum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“POMEGRANATE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–35 · show in text ↑
e0

“Pre-harvest sprays with Bavistin and Stop among systemic fungicides gave significant control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 973–1065 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Indofil M-45 sprays showed promise for control.

Taxon
POMEGRANATEPunica granatumt0
Treatment
Indofil M-45e0
Outcome
some promisee0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Punica granatum
Punica granatum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“POMEGRANATE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–35 · show in text ↑
e0

“spray of Indofil M-45 showed some promise”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1096–1137 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Postharvest systemic fungicides performed better as protectants than eradicants.

Taxon
POMEGRANATEPunica granatumt0
Treatment
protectant (pre-inoculation treatment)e0
Outcome
Postharvest efficacye0
Direction
bettere0
Comparator
eradicant (post-inoculation)e0

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

Punica granatum
Punica granatum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“POMEGRANATE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–35 · show in text ↑
e0

“Postharvest efficacy of systemic fungicides was better as protectant (pre-inoculation treatment) rather than eradicant (post-inoculation)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1139–1276 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sodium meta bisulphite fumigation was superior in checking disease.

Taxon
POMEGRANATEPunica granatumt0
Treatment
sodiume0
Outcome
checking the diseasee0
Direction
superiore0

Not reportedComparator

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

Punica granatum
Punica granatum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“POMEGRANATE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–35 · show in text ↑
e0

“Fumigation with sodium or potassium meta bisulphite was superior in checking the disease”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1458–1546 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Potassium meta bisulphite fumigation was superior in checking disease.

Taxon
POMEGRANATEPunica granatumt0
Treatment
potassium meta bisulphitee0
Outcome
checking the diseasee0
Direction
superiore0

Not reportedComparator

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

Punica granatum
Punica granatum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“POMEGRANATE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–35 · show in text ↑
e0

“Fumigation with sodium or potassium meta bisulphite was superior in checking the disease”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1458–1546 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Bavistin wrappers significantly protected pomegranate from dry fruit rot.

Taxon
pomegranatePunica granatume0
Treatment
Bavistin wrapperse0
Outcome
protection of pomegranate against dry fruit rote0
Direction
protectione0

Not reportedComparator

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

Punica granatum
Punica granatum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Bavistin wrappers and Nipro Fresh coating exhibited significant protection of pomegranate against dry fruit rot”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1548–1659 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Nipro Fresh coating significantly protected pomegranate from dry fruit rot.

Taxon
pomegranatePunica granatume0
Treatment
Nipro Fresh coatinge0
Outcome
protection of pomegranate against dry fruit rote0
Direction
protectione0

Not reportedComparator

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

Punica granatum
Punica granatum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Bavistin wrappers and Nipro Fresh coating exhibited significant protection of pomegranate against dry fruit rot”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1548–1659 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Trichoderma virens maximally inhibited C. granati mycelial growth.

Taxon
POMEGRANATEPunica granatumt0
Treatment
Trichoderma virense0
Interactor
C. granatiConiella granatie0pathogen
Second interactor
Trichoderma virensTrichoderma virense0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
mycelial growth of C. granatie0
Direction
maximum inhibitione0

Not reportedComparator

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

Punica granatum
Punica granatum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“POMEGRANATE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–35 · show in text ↑
e0

“Trichoderma virens, T. harzianum, T. hamatum and T. polysporium gave maximum inhibition of mycelial growth of C. granati”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1687–1807 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

T. harzianum maximally inhibited C. granati mycelial growth.

Taxon
POMEGRANATEPunica granatumt0
Treatment
T. harzianume0
Interactor
C. granatiConiella granatie0pathogen
Second interactor
T. harzianumTrichoderma harzianume0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
mycelial growth of C. granatie0
Direction
maximum inhibitione0

Not reportedComparator

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

Punica granatum
Punica granatum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Trichoderma harzianum
Trichoderma harzianum · Second interactorUS Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Systematic Botany and Mycology Laboratory, [1] · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“POMEGRANATE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–35 · show in text ↑
e0

“Trichoderma virens, T. harzianum, T. hamatum and T. polysporium gave maximum inhibition of mycelial growth of C. granati”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1687–1807 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

T. hamatum maximally inhibited C. granati mycelial growth.

Taxon
POMEGRANATEPunica granatumt0
Treatment
T. hamatume0
Interactor
C. granatiConiella granatie0pathogen
Second interactor
T. hamatumTrichoderma hamatume0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
mycelial growth of C. granatie0
Direction
maximum inhibitione0

Not reportedComparator

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

Punica granatum
Punica granatum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Trichoderma hamatum
Trichoderma hamatum · Second interactorGarrett Taylor · CC0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

t0

“POMEGRANATE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–35 · show in text ↑
e0

“Trichoderma virens, T. harzianum, T. hamatum and T. polysporium gave maximum inhibition of mycelial growth of C. granati”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1687–1807 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

T. polysporium maximally inhibited C. granati mycelial growth.

Taxon
POMEGRANATEPunica granatumt0
Treatment
T. polysporiume0
Interactor
C. granatiConiella granatie0pathogen
Second interactor
T. polysporiume0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
mycelial growth of C. granatie0
Direction
maximum inhibitione0

Not reportedComparator

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

Punica granatum
Punica granatum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“POMEGRANATE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–35 · show in text ↑
e0

“Trichoderma virens, T. harzianum, T. hamatum and T. polysporium gave maximum inhibition of mycelial growth of C. granati”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1687–1807 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Antagonist protection was higher when applied before inoculation at 108 spores/ml.

Taxon
POMEGRANATEPunica granatumt0
Treatment
108 spores/ml before inoculatione0
Outcome
Antagonist protectione0
Direction
highere0

Not reportedComparator

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

Punica granatum
Punica granatum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“POMEGRANATE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–35 · show in text ↑
e0

“Antagonist protection was higher when applied at a concentration of 108 spores/ml before inoculation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1809–1909 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Citronella oil at 1000 ppm completely inhibited C. granati mycelial growth.

Taxon
POMEGRANATEPunica granatumt0
Treatment
citronella oil at 1000 ppme0
Interactor
C. granatiConiella granatie0pathogen
Outcome
mycelial growth of C. granatie0
Direction
inhibitione0
Value
100%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Punica granatum
Punica granatum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“POMEGRANATE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–35 · show in text ↑
e0

“100% inhibition of mycelial growth of C. granati was obtained with citronella oil at 1000 ppm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1911–2004 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Preinoculation plant extracts from darek, dedonia, and lantana significantly controlled fruit rot.

Taxon
pomegranatePunica granatume0
Treatment
plant extracts of darek (Melia azadirach), dedonia (Dedonia viscosa), lantana (Lantana camara)e0
Outcome
fruit rot of pomegranatee0
Direction
controle0

Not reportedComparator

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

Punica granatum
Punica granatum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pre-inoculation treatment with plant extracts of darek (Melia azadirach), dedonia (Dedonia viscosa), lantana (Lantana camara) and pepper mint (Mentha piperita) provided significant control of fruit rot of pomegranate”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2006–2222 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Preinoculation pepper mint extract significantly controlled fruit rot.

Taxon
pomegranatePunica granatume0
Treatment
pepper mint (Mentha piperita)e0
Outcome
fruit rot of pomegranatee0
Direction
controle0

Not reportedComparator

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

Punica granatum
Punica granatum · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pre-inoculation treatment with plant extracts of darek (Melia azadirach), dedonia (Dedonia viscosa), lantana (Lantana camara) and pepper mint (Mentha piperita) provided significant control of fruit rot of pomegranate”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2006–2222 · show in text ↑

carbendazim · control · Punica granatum (pomegranate)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

storage · disease · Punica granatum (pomegranate)Positive and negative results

17 papers: 16 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

13 papers more in this group

See all 17 papers →

botanical · disease · Punica granatum (pomegranate)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.