Abstract
Abstract The value of using nonmercury fungicide seed treatments to increase stand and yield of winter and spring wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.), and to control common stinking smut ( Tilletia caries [DC.] Tul.) was investigated. In a greenhouse test using soil from 38 locations in Montana, emergence from seed treated with mercury averaged 91.2% compared to 88.4% from untreated seed. Field tests using both winter and spring wheat which had been treated with various mercury or nonmercury based fungicides, failed to produce any significant increase in stand or yield. Control of common stinking smut in winter wheat with nonmercury seed treatments was accomplished, in some cases at rates lower than the label recommendation. The toxicity of the various nonmercury materials that will control common stinking smut indicates that these compounds should have less deleterious effects upon the environment than the mercury‐based seed treatments.
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 5
Claim · model-written summary
Mercury-treated wheat seed had 91.2% emergence versus 88.4% for untreated seed in greenhouse soil from Montana.
- Taxon
- Wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- treated with mercurye0
- Outcome
- emergencee0
- Direction
- averagede0
- Value
- 91.2%e0
- Comparator
- untreated seede0
- Setting
- Montanae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In a greenhouse test using soil from 38 locations in Montana, emergence from seed treated with mercury averaged 91.2% compared to 88.4% from untreated seed”
t0“Wheat Seed”
Claim · model-written summary
Fungicide treatments did not significantly increase wheat stand in field tests.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- various mercury or nonmercury based fungicidese0
- Outcome
- stande0
- Direction
- failed to produce any significant increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Field tests using both winter and spring wheat which had been treated with various mercury or nonmercury based fungicides, failed to produce any significant increase in stand or yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Fungicide treatments did not significantly increase wheat yield in field tests.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- various mercury or nonmercury based fungicidese0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- failed to produce any significant increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Field tests using both winter and spring wheat which had been treated with various mercury or nonmercury based fungicides, failed to produce any significant increase in stand or yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Nonmercury seed treatments controlled common stinking smut in winter wheat, sometimes below labeled rates.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- nonmercury seed treatmentse0
- Interactor
- common stinking smute0pathogen
- Outcome
- common stinking smute0
- Qualifier
- in some cases at rates lower than the label recommendatione0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Control of common stinking smut in winter wheat with nonmercury seed treatments was accomplished, in some cases at rates lower than the label recommendation”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors judged effective nonmercury treatments less environmentally harmful than mercury seed treatments.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- nonmercury materialse0
- Outcome
- less deleterious effects upon the environmente0
- Comparator
- mercury‐based seed treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The toxicity of the various nonmercury materials that will control common stinking smut indicates that these compounds should have less deleterious effects upon the environment than the mercury‐based seed treatments”
t0“Wheat Seed”
The same questions in other papers
mercury atom · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →mercury atom · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
seed treatment · disease · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
64 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
66 papers more in this group
See all 70 papers →fungicide · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 232 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
258 papers more in this group
See all 262 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.