Paper · 2024 · International Journal of Advanced Biochemistry Research

Eco friendly management of guava wilt complex through frontline demonstration

Raghavendra Yaligar; Jyothi R; Revathi RM; et al.

4
claims
9
verbatim quotes
0
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Guava is a one of the remunerative fruit crop in Koppal district of Karnataka. Roving crop disease survey was conducted in the district and observed that many of guava orchards are wilting up during Rabi season about 12-15 per cent disease incidence was recorded in guava orchards. Farmers spending money for the management by using chemicals without knowing root cause of the disease. Though it is used as raw fruit consumption, chemical spraying may cause health hazards. Bio-control management is an important environment friendly concept in guava wilt complex disease. FLD was conducted for two consecutive years (2019-21) during Rabi-summer season for the variety Tiwan pink at farmer’s field. Application of FYM enriched with Paecilomyces lilacinus, Trichoderma viride, Pseudomonas fluorescens and Arka microbial consortia @ 1 kg/ton of FYM (2Kg/plant) yearly 3 times showed less incidence of wilt disease compare to existing farmer’s practice. After two years of implementation fruit yield increased from 1.36 to 1.82 T/ha and benefit cost ratio was worked out and it is revealed that for every one rupee investment it returns 3.34 rupees in demo plot. Farmers of the district motivated by the Frontline demonstration come forward to adopt the environment friendly technology for guava wilt management to get higher yield.

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 4

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Guava orchard wilt incidence was recorded at 12-15 per cent.

Outcome
disease incidencee0
Value
12-15 per cente0
Setting
Koppal district of Karnatakae1

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

Psidium guajava
Psidium guajava · TaxonFuadsyazwan ( talk ) · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“about 12-15 per cent disease incidence was recorded in guava orchards”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 211–280 · show in text ↑
e1

“Koppal district of Karnataka”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 49–77 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Enriched FYM application reduced wilt incidence compared with farmer practice.

Treatment
FYM enriched with Paecilomyces lilacinus, Trichoderma viride, Pseudomonas fluorescens and Arka microbial consortia @ 1 kg/ton of FYM (2Kg/plant) yearly 3 timese0
Interactor
Paecilomyces lilacinusPurpureocillium lilacinume0biocontrol_agent
Second interactor
Trichoderma virideTrichoderma viridee0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
incidence of wilt diseasee0
Direction
lesse0
Qualifier
Pseudomonas fluorescens and Arka microbial consortiae0
Comparator
existing farmer’s practicee0

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

Psidium guajava
Psidium guajava · TaxonFuadsyazwan ( talk ) · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Purpureocillium lilacinum
Purpureocillium lilacinum · InteractorAuthor not explicitly stated. Article is by Jeanne Carey, Ron D’Amico, Deanna A. Sutton, and Michael G. Rinald · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Trichoderma viride
Trichoderma viride · Second interactorKatja Schulz · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Application of FYM enriched with Paecilomyces lilacinus, Trichoderma viride, Pseudomonas fluorescens and Arka microbial consortia @ 1 kg/ton of FYM (2Kg/plant) yearly 3 times showed less incidence of wilt disease compare to existing farmer’s practice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 699–949 · show in text ↑
e1

“Guava is a one of the remunerative fruit crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–45 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fruit yield increased from 1.36 to 1.82 T/ha after two years.

Treatment
FYM enriched with Paecilomyces lilacinus, Trichoderma viride, Pseudomonas fluorescens and Arka microbial consortiae1
Outcome
fruit yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
1.82 T/hae0
Qualifier
1.36e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Psidium guajava
Psidium guajava · TaxonFuadsyazwan ( talk ) · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“After two years of implementation fruit yield increased from 1.36 to 1.82 T/ha”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 951–1029 · show in text ↑
e1

“Application of FYM enriched with Paecilomyces lilacinus, Trichoderma viride, Pseudomonas fluorescens and Arka microbial consortia”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 699–828 · show in text ↑
e2

“Guava is a one of the remunerative fruit crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–45 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The demonstration returned 3.34 rupees per rupee invested.

Outcome
returnse0
Value
3.34 rupeese0
Setting
demo plote0

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

Psidium guajava
Psidium guajava · TaxonFuadsyazwan ( talk ) · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“for every one rupee investment it returns 3.34 rupees in demo plot”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1092–1158 · show in text ↑
e1

“Guava is a one of the remunerative fruit crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–45 · show in text ↑

inoculation · disease · Psidium guajava (guava)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 2 positive, 6 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

inoculation · yield · Psidium guajava (guava)Positive and negative results

10 papers: 9 positive, 1 negative or no effect

8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 papers →

fertilization · yield · Psidium guajava (guava)Positive and negative results

76 papers: 74 positive, 2 negative or no effect

73 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

72 papers more in this group

See all 76 papers →

fertilization · disease · Psidium guajava (guava)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 →

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.