Paper · 2018 · Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica

Effect of soil sterilisation on biological control of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici and Meloidogyne javanica by antagonistic fungi and organic amendment in tomato crop Section B Soil and plant science

Margaret Mwangi; W. M. Muiru; R. D. Narla; et al.

6
claims
16
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

One of the major challenges in the application of biological control agents into the soil is their inability to withstand competition from natural microflora. In this study a management programme involving fungal biological control agents Trichoderma harzianum (TH) and Purpureocillium lilacinium (PL), and the organic amendment neem was carried out for the control of Meloidogyne javanica and Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici (FOL). The experiment was carried out in sterile and non-sterile soil in order to test the efficacy of biological control in natural soil conditions. This experiment was repeated twice. A Wilcoxon's Signed-Rank test indicated there were no significant (P < 0.05) differences in fusarium wilt control in sterile and non sterile soils in the treatments PL neem and TH neem, but there was significantly (P < 0.05) higher control of M. javanica in the same treatments in sterile soils compared to non sterile soils. The combinations of fungal antagonists and neem were effective in non sterile as in sterile soils in the control of fusarium wilt, while being less effective in the control of M. javanica. Thus the biological control agents can be very effective in the control of fusarium wilt in natural conditions where the soil is not sterilised, but be less effective in the control of M. javanica in the same conditions. There is therefore potential of integrated management of fusarium wilt and root-knot nematodes (RKN) by these biological control agents in natural soil field conditions as an alternative to using chemicals.

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 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

PL and neem showed no significant difference in Fusarium wilt control between sterile and non-sterile soil.

Treatment
PL neeme0
Interactor
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersiciFusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersicit0pathogen
Second interactor
Purpureocillium lilaciniume1biocontrol_agent
Outcome
fusarium wilt controle0
Direction
no significante0
Comparator
sterile and non sterile soilse0

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici · Interactor · picture of its genus (no picture of exactly this name)Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Schema note from the model: Abbreviated treatment and full organism name span different evidence.

Verbatim

e0

“no significant (P < 0.05) differences in fusarium wilt control in sterile and non sterile soils in the treatments PL neem and TH neem”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 669–802 · show in text ↑
e1

“Purpureocillium lilacinium (PL)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 270–301 · show in text ↑
t0

“Effect of soil sterilisation on biological control of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici and Meloidogyne javanica by antagonistic fungi and organic amendment in tomato crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–175 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

TH and neem showed no significant difference in Fusarium wilt control between sterile and non-sterile soil.

Treatment
TH neeme0
Interactor
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersiciFusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersicit0pathogen
Outcome
fusarium wilt controle0
Direction
no significante0
Comparator
sterile and non sterile soilse0

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici · Interactor · picture of its genus (no picture of exactly this name)Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“no significant (P < 0.05) differences in fusarium wilt control in sterile and non sterile soils in the treatments PL neem and TH neem”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 669–802 · show in text ↑
t0

“Effect of soil sterilisation on biological control of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici and Meloidogyne javanica by antagonistic fungi and organic amendment in tomato crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–175 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

PL and neem gave significantly higher M. javanica control in sterile than non-sterile soil.

Treatment
PL neeme1
Interactor
M. javanicaMeloidogyne javanicae0pathogen
Outcome
control of M. javanicae0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
non sterile soilse0

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“significantly (P < 0.05) higher control of M. javanica in the same treatments in sterile soils compared to non sterile soils”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 818–942 · show in text ↑
e1

“treatments PL neem and TH neem”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 772–802 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 164–175 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

TH and neem gave significantly higher M. javanica control in sterile than non-sterile soil.

Treatment
TH neeme1
Interactor
M. javanicaMeloidogyne javanicae0pathogen
Outcome
control of M. javanicae0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
non sterile soilse0

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“significantly (P < 0.05) higher control of M. javanica in the same treatments in sterile soils compared to non sterile soils”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 818–942 · show in text ↑
e1

“treatments PL neem and TH neem”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 772–802 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 164–175 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fungal antagonists combined with neem controlled Fusarium wilt as effectively in non-sterile as sterile soil.

Treatment
combinations of fungal antagonists and neeme0
Interactor
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersiciFusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersicit0pathogen
Outcome
control of fusarium wilte0
Direction
effectivee0
Comparator
sterile soilse0

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici · Interactor · picture of its genus (no picture of exactly this name)Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Schema note from the model: Combined antagonists cannot fit two interactor slots.

Verbatim

e0

“The combinations of fungal antagonists and neem were effective in non sterile as in sterile soils in the control of fusarium wilt”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 944–1073 · show in text ↑
t0

“Effect of soil sterilisation on biological control of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici and Meloidogyne javanica by antagonistic fungi and organic amendment in tomato crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–175 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fungal antagonists combined with neem were less effective against M. javanica in non-sterile soil.

Treatment
combinations of fungal antagonists and neeme1
Interactor
M. javanicaMeloidogyne javanicae0pathogen
Outcome
control of M. javanicae0
Direction
less effectivee0
Comparator
sterile soilse1

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“while being less effective in the control of M. javanica”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1075–1131 · show in text ↑
e1

“The combinations of fungal antagonists and neem were effective in non sterile as in sterile soils”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 944–1041 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 164–175 · show in text ↑

Trichoderma harzianum · Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

10 papers: 8 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 papers →

Purpureocillium · Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree

2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. no effect
See all 2 papers →

Purpureocillium · Meloidogyne javanica · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)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 →

Trichoderma harzianum · Meloidogyne javanica · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree

11 papers: 11 positive, 0 negative or no effect

10 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

biocontrol · Meloidogyne javanica · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 6 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

botanical · Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

15 papers: 14 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

11 papers more in this group

See all 15 papers →

botanical · Meloidogyne javanica · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

36 papers: 35 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

32 papers more in this group

See all 36 papers →

biocontrol · Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)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.