Paper · 2011 · South Asian Journal of Experimental Biology

Compatibility of Pasteuria penetrans with fungal parasite Paecilomyces lilacinus against root knot nematode on Chilli (Capsicum annuum L.)

K.K. Chaudhary; R. K. Kaul

8
claims
15
verbatim quotes
8
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Chilli (Capsicum annuum L.) crop is highly susceptible for the root knot nematode Meloidogyne incognita and every year this nematode causes great loss to the crop. The present study investigated the cumulative effect of two biocontrol agents viz. Pasteuria penetrans and Paecilomyces lilacinus against M. incognita. Two doses of P. penetrans i.e. 50g/Kg and 100g/Kg infested soil were applied either alone or in combination with two doses of P. lilacinus i.e. 4g spore culture/Kg and 6g spore culture/Kg of soil. Application of P. penetrans with P. lilacinus resulted into relatively better improvement in various growth attributes of chilli when compared with the individual application. Amongst the various treatments tested combined application with the higher dose of both bioagents (i.e. 100g P. penetrans infested soil with 6g of P. lilacinus/Kg) showed maximum improvement in fresh and dry weight of shoot and root over the nematode check and it was almost at par with that of the absolute check. The combined application of both the bioagents at higher dose resulted in 139 and 84% increase in dry weight of shoot and root over the nematode check respectively. The combined application of both the bioagents was also observed to cause higher reduction in gall number and nematode population than their individual application except for the treatment having lower dose of the P. penetrans with P. lilacinus where reduction in both the parameters was observed to be at par with that of the either dose of P. penetrans or higher dose of P. lilacinus. Combined application with higher dose of P. penetrans and P. lilacinus showed maximum reduction of 62.6 and 82.2% in gall numbers and nematode population over the nematode check.

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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined agents improved chilli growth attributes more than individual applications.

Taxon
chillie0
Treatment
P. penetrans with P. lilacinuse0
Interactor
P. penetransPasteuria penetranse0biocontrol_agent
Second interactor
P. lilacinusPurpureocillium lilacinume0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
growth attributes of chillie0
Direction
better improvemente0
Comparator
individual applicatione0

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

Purpureocillium lilacinum
Purpureocillium lilacinum · Second interactorAuthor not explicitly stated. Article is by Jeanne Carey, Ron D’Amico, Deanna A. Sutton, and Michael G. Rinald · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Application of P. penetrans with P. lilacinus resulted into relatively better improvement in various growth attributes of chilli when compared with the individual application.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 513–688 · show in text ↑
e1

“Pasteuria penetrans and Paecilomyces lilacinus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 247–293 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

High-dose combined treatment maximally improved shoot fresh and dry weight versus nematode check.

Treatment
100g P. penetrans infested soil with 6g of P. lilacinus/Kge0
Interactor
P. penetransPasteuria penetranse0biocontrol_agent
Second interactor
P. lilacinusPurpureocillium lilacinume0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
fresh and dry weight of shoot and roote0
Direction
maximum improvemente0
Comparator
nematode checke0

Not reportedTaxon

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

Purpureocillium lilacinum
Purpureocillium lilacinum · Second interactorAuthor not explicitly stated. Article is by Jeanne Carey, Ron D’Amico, Deanna A. Sutton, and Michael G. Rinald · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“combined application with the higher dose of both bioagents (i.e. 100g P. penetrans infested soil with 6g of P. lilacinus/Kg) showed maximum improvement in fresh and dry weight of shoot and root over the nematode check”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 727–945 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

High-dose combined treatment increased shoot dry weight by 139% versus nematode check.

Taxon
Chillit0
Treatment
combined application of both the bioagents at higher dosee0
Outcome
dry weight of shoote0
Direction
increasee0
Value
139e0
Comparator
nematode checke0

Verbatim

e0

“combined application of both the bioagents at higher dose resulted in 139 and 84% increase in dry weight of shoot and root over the nematode check respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1008–1168 · show in text ↑
t0

“Chilli (Capsicum annuum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 111–138 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

High-dose combined treatment increased root dry weight by 84% versus nematode check.

Taxon
Chillit0
Treatment
combined application of both the bioagents at higher dosee0
Outcome
dry weight of shoot and roote0
Direction
increasee0
Value
84%e0
Comparator
nematode checke0

Verbatim

e0

“combined application of both the bioagents at higher dose resulted in 139 and 84% increase in dry weight of shoot and root over the nematode check respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1008–1168 · show in text ↑
t0

“Chilli (Capsicum annuum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 111–138 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined agents reduced gall number more than individual applications, except the low-dose combination.

Taxon
Chillit0
Treatment
combined application of both the bioagentse0
Outcome
gall numbere0
Direction
higher reductione0
Qualifier
except for the treatment having lower dosee0
Comparator
individual applicatione0

Verbatim

e0

“combined application of both the bioagents was also observed to cause higher reduction in gall number and nematode population than their individual application except for the treatment having lower dose of the P. penetrans with P. lilacinus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1173–1413 · show in text ↑
t0

“Chilli (Capsicum annuum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 111–138 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined agents reduced nematode population more than individual applications, except the low-dose combination.

Taxon
Chillit0
Treatment
combined application of both the bioagentse0
Outcome
nematode populatione0
Direction
higher reductione0
Comparator
individual applicatione0

Verbatim

e0

“combined application of both the bioagents was also observed to cause higher reduction in gall number and nematode population than their individual application except for the treatment having lower dose of the P. penetrans with P. lilacinus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1173–1413 · show in text ↑
t0

“Chilli (Capsicum annuum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 111–138 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The high-dose combination reduced gall numbers by 62.6% versus nematode check.

Taxon
Chillit0
Treatment
higher dose of P. penetrans and P. lilacinuse0
Outcome
gall numberse0
Direction
maximum reductione0
Value
62.6e0
Comparator
nematode checke0

Verbatim

e0

“Combined application with higher dose of P. penetrans and P. lilacinus showed maximum reduction of 62.6 and 82.2% in gall numbers and nematode population over the nematode check.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1556–1734 · show in text ↑
t0

“Chilli (Capsicum annuum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 111–138 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The high-dose combination reduced nematode population by 82.2% versus nematode check.

Taxon
Chillit0
Treatment
higher dose of P. penetrans and P. lilacinuse0
Outcome
nematode populatione0
Direction
maximum reductione0
Value
82.2%e0
Comparator
nematode checke0

Verbatim

e0

“Combined application with higher dose of P. penetrans and P. lilacinus showed maximum reduction of 62.6 and 82.2% in gall numbers and nematode population over the nematode check.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1556–1734 · show in text ↑
t0

“Chilli (Capsicum annuum L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 111–138 · show in text ↑

Purpureocillium lilacinum · growth · Capsicum (peppers)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 →

Pasteuria penetrans · pest · Capsicum (peppers)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 →

Purpureocillium lilacinum · pest · Capsicum (peppers)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 →

biocontrol · pest · Capsicum (peppers)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 →

biocontrol · growth · Capsicum (peppers)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 →

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.