Paper · 2019 · Notulae Scientia Biologicae

Apple Scab Disease Severity in the Sais Region of Morocco and its Sensitivity to Three Commercial Fungicides

Rachid LAHLALI; Alieu MOININA; Said EZRARI; et al.

14
claims
28
verbatim quotes
8
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Apple scab, Venturia inaequalis (Cooke) G. Winter, results in numerous fungicide applications in the Sais region of Morocco. We conducted the study to determine the susceptibility of cultivars through field survey and to evaluate the sensitivity of V. inaequalis to three fungicides using both in vitro and in vivo methods. We surveyed 100 apple orchards and collected two samples. Disease survey showed that the cultivars were highly susceptible to apple scab (grand mean of leaf scab: Golden Delicious, 40.31%; Starking Delicious, 20.45%; and Gala, 18.92%). Results underlined no significant differences between isolates in term of inhibition rate of mycelial growth and averaged disease severity. However, both treatment and concentration were statistically significant. EC50 values ranged from 2.33 µg/ml to 7.40 µg/ml and resistance factor (RF) values of 0.55, 1.02 and 1.79 were obtained for difenoconazole, trifloxystrobin and thiophanate-methyl, respectively. In vivo tests at a concentration of 10 µg/ml on the isolate ViIF using a curative method showed a high efficacy of trifloxystrobin (96.38%), and low efficacy of thiophanate-methyl (29.65%) and difenoconazole (24.62%). V. inaequalis was most sensitive to trifloxystrobin followed by difenoconazole and thiophanate-methyl, respectively. From this work, it was recommended testing more isolates and contact fungicides in order to develop a baseline sensitivity of the pathogen population against commonly used fungicides to treat the disease, as continued usage over time and the introduction of new fungal races may result in a decrease in fungicide efficacy.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 14

Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Golden Delicious had mean leaf scab severity of 40.31%.

Material
Golden Deliciouse0
Outcome
leaf scabe0
Value
40.31%e0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“grand mean of leaf scab: Golden Delicious, 40.31%; Starking Delicious, 20.45%; and Gala, 18.92%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 462–557 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–5 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Starking Delicious had mean leaf scab severity of 20.45%.

Material
Starking Deliciouse0
Outcome
leaf scabe0
Value
20.45%e0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“grand mean of leaf scab: Golden Delicious, 40.31%; Starking Delicious, 20.45%; and Gala, 18.92%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 462–557 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–5 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Gala had mean leaf scab severity of 18.92%.

Material
Galae0
Outcome
leaf scabe0
Value
18.92%e0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“grand mean of leaf scab: Golden Delicious, 40.31%; Starking Delicious, 20.45%; and Gala, 18.92%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 462–557 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–5 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Isolates did not differ significantly in mycelial growth inhibition or disease severity.

Outcome
inhibition rate of mycelial growth and averaged disease severitye0
Direction
no significant differencese0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“no significant differences between isolates in term of inhibition rate of mycelial growth and averaged disease severity”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 579–698 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–5 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Treatment and concentration effects were statistically significant.

Outcome
treatment and concentratione0

Not reportedDirection

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“both treatment and concentration were statistically significant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 709–772 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–5 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

EC50 values ranged from 2.33 to 7.40 µg/ml.

Outcome
EC50 valuese0
Value
2.33 µg/ml to 7.40 µg/mle0

Not reportedDirection

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“EC50 values ranged from 2.33 µg/ml to 7.40 µg/ml”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 774–822 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–5 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Difenoconazole resistance factor was 0.55.

Treatment
difenoconazolee0
Outcome
resistance factor (RF) valuese0
Value
0.55e0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“resistance factor (RF) values of 0.55, 1.02 and 1.79 were obtained for difenoconazole, trifloxystrobin and thiophanate-methyl, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 827–966 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–5 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Trifloxystrobin resistance factor was 1.02.

Treatment
trifloxystrobine0
Outcome
resistance factor (RF) valuese0
Value
1.02e0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“resistance factor (RF) values of 0.55, 1.02 and 1.79 were obtained for difenoconazole, trifloxystrobin and thiophanate-methyl, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 827–966 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–5 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Thiophanate-methyl resistance factor was 1.79.

Treatment
thiophanate-methyle0
Outcome
resistance factor (RF) valuese0
Value
1.79e0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“resistance factor (RF) values of 0.55, 1.02 and 1.79 were obtained for difenoconazole, trifloxystrobin and thiophanate-methyl, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 827–966 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–5 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Trifloxystrobin showed 96.38% curative efficacy against isolate ViIF.

Treatment
trifloxystrobine0
Outcome
efficacye0
Direction
highe0
Value
96.38%e0
Qualifier
10 µg/ml on the isolate ViIFe0

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In vivo tests at a concentration of 10 µg/ml on the isolate ViIF using a curative method showed a high efficacy of trifloxystrobin (96.38%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 968–1107 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–5 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Thiophanate-methyl showed 29.65% curative efficacy.

Treatment
thiophanate-methyle0
Outcome
efficacye0
Direction
lowe0
Value
29.65%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“low efficacy of thiophanate-methyl (29.65%) and difenoconazole (24.62%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1113–1184 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–5 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Difenoconazole showed 24.62% curative efficacy.

Treatment
difenoconazolee0
Outcome
efficacye0
Direction
lowe0
Value
24.62%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“low efficacy of thiophanate-methyl (29.65%) and difenoconazole (24.62%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1113–1184 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–5 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

V. inaequalis was most sensitive to trifloxystrobin, then difenoconazole, then thiophanate-methyl.

Interactor
V. inaequalisVenturia inaequalise0pathogen
Outcome
V. inaequalis was most sensitive to trifloxystrobin followed by difenoconazole and thiophanate-methyle0
Direction
most sensitivee0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Venturia inaequalis
Venturia inaequalis · InteractorPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“V. inaequalis was most sensitive to trifloxystrobin followed by difenoconazole and thiophanate-methyl, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1186–1301 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–5 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommended testing more isolates and contact fungicides to establish baseline sensitivity.

Outcome
testing more isolates and contact fungicidese0
Qualifier
develop a baseline sensitivity of the pathogen populatione0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“recommended testing more isolates and contact fungicides in order to develop a baseline sensitivity of the pathogen population”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1326–1452 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–5 · show in text ↑

thiophanate-methyl · control · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

difenoconazole · control · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

3 in the opposite direction

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

trifloxystrobin · control · Malus domestica (apple)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 →

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.