Paper · 2024 · Asian Journal of Dairy and Food Research

Effect of Bacterial Consortium and Rice Husk Charcoal to Control Downy Mildew in Corn (Zea mays L.)

H. Sukorini; Y. Santoso; W.H. Prasetyo; et al.

4
claims
8
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Background: The purpose of applying bacterial consortium and rice husk charcoal to corn plants is to determine the effect of the combination and whether it can control the intensity of downy mildew attacks and increase corn plant growth. Methods: This research was conducted at the experimental farm of the University of Muhammadiyah Malang. This research was conducted using two factors: the dose of rice husk charcoal application and the application of bacterial consortium with three replications using a randomized block design. The treatments were Charcoal husk (H): H5 = Charcoal husk @5 tons/ha, H10= Charcoal husk @10 tons, H15 Charcoal husk @15 tons/ha, Bacterial consortium (W): W0= without bacteria, WL = bacterial consortium 10 cc/l via foliar spraying, WS = bacterial consortium 10cc/l through soil, WLS = bacterial consortium 10cc/l through soil and foliar spraying Result: The results showed that the intensity of downy mildew attack on the combined application of the bacterial consortium and rice husk charcoal was lower than that of the no-combination treatment. The length and diameter of the plants that were treated with rice husk charcoal had a significant effect. Still, the application of the bacterial consortium had no effectand the number of leaves was not affected by the treatment.

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 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined bacterial consortium and rice husk charcoal lowered downy mildew attack intensity relative to no combination.

Treatment
combined application of the bacterial consortium and rice husk charcoale0
Outcome
intensity of downy mildew attacke0
Direction
lowere0
Comparator
no-combination treatmente0

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the intensity of downy mildew attack on the combined application of the bacterial consortium and rice husk charcoal was lower than that of the no-combination treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 912–1079 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–99 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Rice husk charcoal significantly affected plant length and diameter, with direction unspecified.

Treatment
rice husk charcoale0
Outcome
length and diametere0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The length and diameter of the plants that were treated with rice husk charcoal had a significant effect”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1081–1185 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–99 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacterial consortium had no reported effect on plant length and diameter.

Treatment
bacterial consortiume0
Outcome
effectande0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Still, the application of the bacterial consortium had no effectand the number of leaves was not affected by the treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1187–1309 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–99 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Leaf number was not affected by treatment.

Treatment
the treatmente0
Outcome
number of leavese0
Direction
not affectede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the number of leaves was not affected by the treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1255–1309 · show in text ↑
t0

“Corn (Zea mays L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–99 · show in text ↑

charcoal · disease · Zea mays (maize)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 →

Oryza sativa · disease · Zea mays (maize)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 →

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.