Paper · 2021 · The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences

Effect of mycorrhizal fungi in combination with botanicals, fungicides and bio-agents in ameliorating Fusarium wilt management in chickpea (Cicer arietinum)

ANNIE KHANNA; KUSHAL RAJ; PANKAJ KUMAR

9
claims
19
verbatim quotes
1
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-sa

Abstract

Fusarium wilt incited by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris causes substantial economic losses in chickpea. Tostudy the effect of mycorrhizal inoculation in combination with different bio-agents, fungicides and botanicals onthe Fusarium wilt incidence and yield of chickpea, field trials were conducted during 2019–20 at the research field ofCCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar. Mycorrhizal fungi were found to be beneficial in alleviating chickpeawilt incidence and upsurging the yield components of chickpea. The mycorrhizal fungus Glomus mosseae performed better than Glomus hoi, evincing the importance of mycorrhizal species. Seed soaking provided more disease control in comparison to soil drenching of plant extracts, bio-agents and fungicides except azoxystrobin 23% SC in variety JG 62 in which mode of application of fungicide had no significant effect on disease incidence. Amongst mycorrhiza × treatment interaction, carbendazim 50% WP provided utmost disease control (>80%) in the soil pre-inoculated with G. mosseae and Glomus hoi, followed by azoxystrobin 23% SC and Trichoderma viride, while aqueous extract of datura leaves was the least effective in both chickpea varieties JG 62 and C 235.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-sa. 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 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mycorrhizal fungi alleviated Fusarium wilt incidence in chickpea.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
Mycorrhizal fungie1
Interactor
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cicerisFusarium oxysporum f. sp. cicerise0pathogen
Second interactor
Mycorrhizal fungie1symbiont
Outcome
wilt incidencee1
Direction
alleviatinge1

Not reportedComparator

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris · Interactor · picture of its genus (no picture of exactly this name)Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“management in chickpea (Cicer arietinum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 116–156 · show in text ↑
e0

“Fusarium wilt incited by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris causes substantial economic losses in chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–105 · show in text ↑
e1

“Mycorrhizal fungi were found to be beneficial in alleviating chickpea wilt incidence and upsurging the yield components of chickpea”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · abstract, characters 385–515 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mycorrhizal fungi increased the yield components of chickpea.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
Mycorrhizal fungie1
Outcome
yield componentse1
Direction
upsurginge1

Not reportedComparator

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“management in chickpea (Cicer arietinum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 116–156 · show in text ↑
e1

“Mycorrhizal fungi were found to be beneficial in alleviating chickpea wilt incidence and upsurging the yield components of chickpea”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · abstract, characters 385–515 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The mycorrhizal fungus Glomus mosseae performed better than Glomus hoi.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
Glomus mosseaee2
Interactor
Glomus mosseaeFunneliformis mosseaee2symbiont
Outcome
performede2
Direction
bettere2
Comparator
Glomus hoie2

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Funneliformis mosseae
Funneliformis mosseae · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categorySamson90 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“management in chickpea (Cicer arietinum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 116–156 · show in text ↑
e2

“The mycorrhizal fungus Glomus mosseae performed better than Glomus hoi, evincing the importance of mycorrhizal species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 517–635 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Seed soaking gave more disease control than soil drenching with plant extracts, bio-agents and fungicides.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
Seed soakinge3
Outcome
disease controle3
Direction
moree3
Comparator
soil drenchinge3

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“management in chickpea (Cicer arietinum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 116–156 · show in text ↑
e3

“Seed soaking provided more disease control in comparison to soil drenching of plant extracts, bio-agents and fungicides except azoxystrobin 23% SC in variety JG 62 in which mode of application of fungicide had no significant effect on disease incidence”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 637–889 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

In variety JG 62, the mode of fungicide application had no significant effect on disease incidence (azoxystrobin 23% SC).

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Material
JG 62e3
Treatment
mode of application of fungicidee3
Outcome
disease incidencee3
Direction
had no significant effecte3

Not reportedComparator

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“management in chickpea (Cicer arietinum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 116–156 · show in text ↑
e3

“Seed soaking provided more disease control in comparison to soil drenching of plant extracts, bio-agents and fungicides except azoxystrobin 23% SC in variety JG 62 in which mode of application of fungicide had no significant effect on disease incidence”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 637–889 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Carbendazim 50% WP gave the utmost disease control, above 80%, in soil pre-inoculated with mycorrhizal fungi.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
carbendazim 50% WPe4
Interactor
G. mosseaeFunneliformis mosseaee4symbiont
Second interactor
Glomus hoiGlomus hoie4symbiont
Outcome
disease controle4
Direction
utmoste4
Value
>80%e4
Qualifier
in the soil pre-inoculated with G. mosseae and Glomus hoie4
Comparator
azoxystrobin 23% SCe4

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Funneliformis mosseae
Funneliformis mosseae · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categorySamson90 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“management in chickpea (Cicer arietinum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 116–156 · show in text ↑
e4

“Amongst mycorrhiza × treatment interaction, carbendazim 50% WP provided utmost disease control (>80%) in the soil pre-inoculated with G. mosseae and Glomus hoi, followed by azoxystrobin 23% SC and Trichoderma viride, while aqueous extract of datura leaves was the least effective in both chickpea varieties JG 62 and C 235”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 891–1213 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Aqueous extract of datura leaves was the least effective treatment for disease control in chickpea varieties JG 62 and C 235.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Material
JG 62e4
Treatment
aqueous extract of datura leavese4
Outcome
disease controle4
Direction
least effectivee4

Not reportedComparator

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“management in chickpea (Cicer arietinum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 116–156 · show in text ↑
e4

“Amongst mycorrhiza × treatment interaction, carbendazim 50% WP provided utmost disease control (>80%) in the soil pre-inoculated with G. mosseae and Glomus hoi, followed by azoxystrobin 23% SC and Trichoderma viride, while aqueous extract of datura leaves was the least effective in both chickpea varieties JG 62 and C 235”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 891–1213 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Azoxystrobin 23% SC gave lower disease control than carbendazim 50% WP in the mycorrhizal soil.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
azoxystrobin 23% SCe4
Outcome
disease controle4
Direction
lowerinferrede4
Comparator
carbendazim 50% WPe4

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“management in chickpea (Cicer arietinum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 116–156 · show in text ↑
e4

“Amongst mycorrhiza × treatment interaction, carbendazim 50% WP provided utmost disease control (>80%) in the soil pre-inoculated with G. mosseae and Glomus hoi, followed by azoxystrobin 23% SC and Trichoderma viride, while aqueous extract of datura leaves was the least effective in both chickpea varieties JG 62 and C 235”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 891–1213 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Trichoderma viride gave lower disease control than carbendazim 50% WP in the mycorrhizal soil.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
Trichoderma viridee4
Interactor
Trichoderma virideTrichoderma viridee4biocontrol_agent
Outcome
disease controle4
Direction
lowerinferrede4
Comparator
carbendazim 50% WPe4

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Trichoderma viride
Trichoderma viride · InteractorKatja Schulz · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

t0

“management in chickpea (Cicer arietinum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 116–156 · show in text ↑
e4

“Amongst mycorrhiza × treatment interaction, carbendazim 50% WP provided utmost disease control (>80%) in the soil pre-inoculated with G. mosseae and Glomus hoi, followed by azoxystrobin 23% SC and Trichoderma viride, while aqueous extract of datura leaves was the least effective in both chickpea varieties JG 62 and C 235”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 891–1213 · show in text ↑

Trichoderma viride · control · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)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 →

mycorrhiza · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results differ

27 papers: 26 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

23 papers more in this group

See all 27 papers →

botanical · control · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 3 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

fungicide · disease · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

14 papers: 10 positive, 4 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

10 papers more in this group

See all 14 papers →

seed treatment · control · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree

8 papers: 8 positive, 0 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 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.