Paper · 2018 · International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences

Role of Meteorological Factors and Relative Impact of Rust Disease Management in Field Peas through Fungicides and Botanicals in Tarai Region of Indo-Gangetic Plains

Shweta Badoni; K.P.S. Kushwaha; Archana Negi

12
claims
23
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-sa

Abstract

In present study, we followed the two strategies for efficient disease management practice to control rust of field peas in the Tarai region of Indo-Gangetic plains of India. This primarily included the assessment of the meteorological factors affecting the disease severity (DS) to assist in designing the superior disease models and simultaneously evaluated the relative impact of effective botanicals with comparison to frequently used extremely harmful fungicides on pea rust severity. The study revealed the high positive correlation between rust DS and average maximum temperature. Conversely, minimum relative humidity (RH) has shown a highest negative correlation with DS, followed by maximum RH, whereas rainfall exerted no effect. Likewise, regression analysis also confirmed the maximum temperature as a most important disease promoting factor followed by minimum temperature and minimum RH. To assess the effective and efficient disease control measures, we evaluated the actual impact of fungicides and botanicals. Among fungicides, propiconazole (tilt) treatment was found most effective among others in reducing the DS (62.27%) and improving the grain yield, whereas in botanicals, neem extract was observed best in minimizing DS (64.26.%) and achieving higher grain yield. In addition, treatment of 10% of botanicals spray was optimized as best optimum concentration for disease control. Thus, the disease model based on studied meteorological factors and use of botanical of environmental friendly and economic properties, could serve as efficient alternatives in pea rust disease management in future.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-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 12

Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rust disease severity correlated positively with average maximum temperature in field peas.

Taxon
Field Peast0
Treatment
average maximum temperaturee1
Interactor
ruste1pathogen
Outcome
DSe1
Direction
positivee1

Verbatim

t0

“Field Peas”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–91 · show in text ↑
e1

“high positive correlation between rust DS and average maximum temperature”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 513–586 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Minimum relative humidity had the highest negative correlation with rust disease severity in field peas.

Taxon
Field Peast0
Treatment
minimum relative humidity (RH)e2
Outcome
DSe2
Direction
negativee2

Verbatim

t0

“Field Peas”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–91 · show in text ↑
e2

“minimum relative humidity (RH) has shown a highest negative correlation with DS, followed by maximum RH, whereas rainfall exerted no effect”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 600–739 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Maximum relative humidity followed minimum relative humidity as a correlate of rust disease severity in field peas.

Taxon
Field Peast0
Treatment
maximum RHe2
Outcome
DSe2

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

t0

“Field Peas”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–91 · show in text ↑
e2

“minimum relative humidity (RH) has shown a highest negative correlation with DS, followed by maximum RH, whereas rainfall exerted no effect”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 600–739 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rainfall had no effect on rust disease severity in field peas.

Taxon
Field Peast0
Treatment
rainfalle2
Outcome
DSe2
Direction
no_changeinferrede2

Verbatim

t0

“Field Peas”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–91 · show in text ↑
e2

“minimum relative humidity (RH) has shown a highest negative correlation with DS, followed by maximum RH, whereas rainfall exerted no effect”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 600–739 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Maximum temperature was the most important disease-promoting factor for rust in field peas by regression.

Taxon
Field Peast0
Treatment
maximum temperaturee3
Outcome
diseasee3
Direction
increaseinferrede3

Verbatim

t0

“Field Peas”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–91 · show in text ↑
e3

“regression analysis also confirmed the maximum temperature as a most important disease promoting factor followed by minimum temperature and minimum RH”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 751–901 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Minimum temperature and minimum relative humidity followed maximum temperature as disease-promoting factors for rust in field peas.

Taxon
Field Peast0
Treatment
minimum temperature and minimum RHe3
Outcome
diseasee3
Direction
increaseinferrede3

Verbatim

t0

“Field Peas”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–91 · show in text ↑
e3

“regression analysis also confirmed the maximum temperature as a most important disease promoting factor followed by minimum temperature and minimum RH”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 751–901 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Propiconazole (tilt) reduced rust disease severity by 62.27% in field peas.

Taxon
Field Peast0
Treatment
propiconazole (tilt) treatmente4
Outcome
DSe4
Direction
reducinge4
Value
62.27%e4
Qualifier
most effective among otherse4

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0

“Field Peas”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–91 · show in text ↑
e4

“propiconazole (tilt) treatment was found most effective among others in reducing the DS (62.27%) and improving the grain yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1046–1172 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Propiconazole (tilt) improved grain yield in field peas.

Taxon
Field Peast0
Treatment
propiconazole (tilt) treatmente4
Outcome
grain yielde4
Direction
improvinge4

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0

“Field Peas”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–91 · show in text ↑
e4

“propiconazole (tilt) treatment was found most effective among others in reducing the DS (62.27%) and improving the grain yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1046–1172 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Neem extract minimized rust disease severity by 64.26% in field peas.

Taxon
Field Peast0
Treatment
neem extracte5
Outcome
DSe5
Direction
minimizinge5
Value
64.26.%e5
Qualifier
observed beste5

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0

“Field Peas”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–91 · show in text ↑
e5

“neem extract was observed best in minimizing DS (64.26.%) and achieving higher grain yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1197–1287 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Neem extract achieved higher grain yield than the other botanicals in field peas.

Taxon
Field Peast0
Treatment
neem extracte5
Outcome
grain yielde5
Direction
highere5

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0

“Field Peas”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–91 · show in text ↑
e5

“neem extract was observed best in minimizing DS (64.26.%) and achieving higher grain yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1197–1287 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

A 10% botanicals spray was the best optimum concentration for disease control in field peas.

Taxon
Field Peast0
Treatment
treatment of 10% of botanicals spraye6
Outcome
disease controle6

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Verbatim

t0

“Field Peas”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–91 · show in text ↑
e6

“treatment of 10% of botanicals spray was optimized as best optimum concentration for disease control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1302–1402 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Botanicals and the disease model could serve as efficient alternatives in pea rust disease management.

Outcome
pea rust disease managemente7

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

Lathyrus oleraceus
Lathyrus oleraceus · TaxonRenee Comet (photographer) AV Number: AV-9400-4164 · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e7

“could serve as efficient alternatives in pea rust disease management in future”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1540–1618 · show in text ↑

propiconazole · disease · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 4 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

Azadirachta indica · yield · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

propiconazole · yield · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Results agree

5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

Azadirachta indica · disease · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Results agree

5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

application · control · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 7 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

botanical · yield · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results

26 papers: 25 positive, 1 negative or no effect

24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

22 papers more in this group

See all 26 papers →

botanical · control · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Results agree

4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

botanical · disease · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Results agree

16 papers: 16 positive, 0 negative or no effect

15 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

12 papers more in this group

See all 16 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.