Abstract
The disease fusarium wilt is a serious and infectious year-round disease in chickpea-growing areas and causes huge chickpea yield losses. Thus, this research study was initiated with the objective of evaluating different seed-dressing fungicides with different chickpea varieties for the management of fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. ciceris) in Eastern Amhara, Ethiopia. Field experiment was conducted in hot spot areas of two locations using the material: two moderately resistant and one local (susceptible check) chickpea varieties with three commercially available seed-dressing fungicides (Apron Star, Noble, and Thiram). Treatments were arranged factorially in the RCB design with three replications. Results depicted that moderately resistant Mitk variety has significantly reduced disease pressure and gives better yield as compared to Arerti and local chickpea varieties. Even the disease pressure of fusarium wilt was lower in the Mitk variety followed by Arerti, and hence, its incidence and area under the disease progress curve reveal 6.23% and 292.1%-day, which was far apart by 17% and 873%-day, respectively, from Arerti. In case of the local chickpea variety, it was highly infected and its seed yield (0.4 t/ha) was lowered almost by half from the Mitk variety. Despite seed-dressing fungicides showed insignificant difference in both incidence and area under the disease progress curve, Thiram seed-dressing fungicides followed by apron star on Mitk variety indicates reasonable yield increment in both locations. Hence, integration of Mitk chickpea variety with the corresponding Thiram seed-dressing fungicides followed by Apron Star was advisable to manage fusarium wilt disease.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Mitk had significantly lower disease pressure than Arerti and the local variety.
- Taxon
- chickpea
Cicer arietinume1 - Material
- Mitke0
- Outcome
- disease pressuree0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- Arerti and local chickpea varietiese0
Not reportedInteractor
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“moderately resistant Mitk variety has significantly reduced disease pressure and gives better yield as compared to Arerti and local chickpea varieties”
e1“different chickpea varieties”
Claim · model-written summary
Mitk gave better yield than Arerti and the local variety.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Material
- Mitke0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Comparator
- Arerti and local chickpea varietiese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“moderately resistant Mitk variety has significantly reduced disease pressure and gives better yield as compared to Arerti and local chickpea varieties”
Claim · model-written summary
Mitk wilt incidence was 6.23%, compared with 17% for Arerti.
Not reportedMaterialDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“its incidence and area under the disease progress curve reveal 6.23% and 292.1%-day, which was far apart by 17% and 873%-day, respectively, from Arerti”
e1“local chickpea variety”
Claim · model-written summary
Mitk disease-progress area was 292.1%-day, compared with 873%-day for Arerti.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Outcome
- area under the disease progress curvee0
- Value
- 292.1%-daye0
- Qualifier
- 873%-daye0
- Comparator
- Arertie0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“its incidence and area under the disease progress curve reveal 6.23% and 292.1%-day, which was far apart by 17% and 873%-day, respectively, from Arerti”
e1“local chickpea variety”
Claim · model-written summary
Local chickpea was highly infected.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Material
- local chickpea varietye0
- Outcome
- highly infectede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the local chickpea variety, it was highly infected”
Claim · model-written summary
The local chickpea variety yielded 0.4 t/ha, almost half the Mitk yield.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Material
- local chickpea varietye0
- Outcome
- seed yielde0
- Direction
- lowerede0
- Value
- 0.4 t/hae0
- Comparator
- Mitk varietye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“local chickpea variety, it was highly infected and its seed yield (0.4 t/ha) was lowered almost by half from the Mitk variety”
Claim · model-written summary
Seed-dressing fungicides did not differ significantly in wilt incidence.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- seed-dressing fungicidese0
- Outcome
- incidencee0
- Direction
- insignificant differencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“seed-dressing fungicides showed insignificant difference in both incidence and area under the disease progress curve”
e1“different chickpea varieties”
Claim · model-written summary
Seed-dressing fungicides did not differ significantly in disease-progress area.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- seed-dressing fungicidese0
- Outcome
- area under the disease progress curvee0
- Direction
- insignificant differencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“seed-dressing fungicides showed insignificant difference in both incidence and area under the disease progress curve”
e1“different chickpea varieties”
Claim · model-written summary
Thiram dressing on Mitk indicated a yield increment at both locations.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Material
- Mitke0
- Treatment
- Thiram seed-dressing fungicidese0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- incremente0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Thiram seed-dressing fungicides followed by apron star on Mitk variety indicates reasonable yield increment in both locations”
e1“different chickpea varieties”
Claim · model-written summary
Apron Star dressing on Mitk indicated a yield increment at both locations.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Thiram seed-dressing fungicides followed by apron star on Mitk variety indicates reasonable yield increment in both locations”
e1“different chickpea varieties”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors advise Mitk with Thiram followed by Apron Star to manage wilt.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Material
- Mitke0
- Treatment
- Thiram seed-dressing fungicides followed by Apron Stare0
- Outcome
- integration of Mitk chickpea variety with the corresponding Thiram seed-dressing fungicides followed by Apron Stare0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“integration of Mitk chickpea variety with the corresponding Thiram seed-dressing fungicides followed by Apron Star was advisable to manage fusarium wilt disease”
The same questions in other papers
thiram · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
6 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →fungicide · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results differ
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
15 papers more in this group
See all 19 papers →seed treatment · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results differ
81 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- no effect
86 papers more in this group
See all 90 papers →fungicide · disease · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →seed treatment · disease · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 35 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
35 papers more in this group
See all 39 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.