Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 15

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Antifungal activity of the dill (Anethum graveolens L.) seed essential oil against strawberry anthracnose under in vitro and in vivo conditions

Karimi, Kaivan, Arzanlou, Mahdi, Pertot, Ilaria·2016·Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection
DOI 10.1080/03235408.2016.1243999
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Strawberry anthracnose, caused by Colletotrichum nymphaeae, is mainly controlled by the application of synthetic chemical fungicides. The present study assessed the antimicrobial activity of essential oils (EOs) from dill (Anethum graveolens L.) seed against C. nymphaeae. The antifungal effects of dill seed EO on C. nymphaeae was initially evaluated in vitro and further extended as in vivo condition. The results indicate that in the contact and volatile assays, dill seed EO significantly inhibited mycelial growth of C. nymphaeae at all concentrations tested. Conidia germination was also significantly inhibited at concentrations of 250 – 1000 ppm. Disease incidence and severity of anthracnose on strawberry fruits were significantly reduced compared with infected control, from concentrations of 500 and 50 ppm, respectively. The results confirm the efficacy of dill seed EO against C. nymphaeae, which may represent an alternative to synthetic chemical fungicides to control strawberry anthracnose pre- and post-harvest.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/03235408.2016.1243999

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Asghari Marjanlo A, 2009, J Med Plants, 3, 25
  2. Ayoubi N, 2016, Curr Microbiol, 82, 329
  3. 10.1016/j.fct.2007.09.106 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1371/journal.pone.0129140 · DOI
  5. 10.1002/jsfa.2014.94.issue-12 · DOI
  6. Daugovish O, 2009, HortTechnology, 19, 317, 10.21273/HORTSCI.19.2.317 · DOI
  7. 10.1016/S0168-1605(01)00734-6 · DOI
  8. 10.1080/0972060X.2015.1004120 · DOI
  9. Elgayyar M, 2001, J Food Protect, 64, 1019, 10.4315/0362-028X-64.7.1019 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1094/PDIS.1997.81.7.749 · DOI
  11. 10.12980/APJTB.4.2014C857 · DOI
  12. 10.1094/PDIS-09-15-1016-RE · DOI
  13. Haung R, 2011, Plant Dis, 101, 859
  14. 10.1021/jf030004y · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1007/s10658-016-1009-4 · DOI
  16. 10.1021/jf050709v · DOI
  17. 10.1371/journal.pone.0131733 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Mohammadi S, 2014, J Biol Environ Sci, 8, 1603
  19. Nabigol A, 2011, Afr J Biotech, 10, 9864
  20. 10.1002/ps.v67.3 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/j.foodcont.2005.11.009 · DOI
  22. 10.1016/S0261-2194(01)00054-0 · DOI
  23. 10.1016/S0031-9422(97)00795-4 · DOI
  24. 10.1007/s00572-015-0652-5 · DOI
  25. 10.1016/j.ifset.2004.09.001 · DOI
  26. 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2005.tb07190.x · DOI
  27. Smith BJ, 2008, Hortscience, 43, 69, 10.21273/HORTSCI.43.1.69 · DOI
  28. 10.1007/s11046-005-0206-z · DOI
  29. 10.1016/j.foodcont.2011.05.018 · DOI
  30. 10.1371/journal.pone.0030147 · DOI
  31. 10.1071/EA98164 · DOI
  32. 10.3114/sim0011 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.1111/1750-3841.12242 · DOI

Cited by

See all 15

Metadata

Authors
Karimi, K., Arzanlou, M., & Pertot, I.
Affiliations
  • Department of Plant Protection, Tabriz University, Tabriz, Iran
  • Department of Sustainable Agro-Ecosystems and Bioresources, Research and Innovation Centre, Fondazione Edmund Mach (FEM), San Michele all’Adige, Italy
Venue
Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2016-10-13
Volume
49
Issue
19-20
Pages
554-566
ISSN
  • 0323-5408
  • 1477-2906
DOI
10.1080/03235408.2016.1243999
Cited by
15
References
1
Language
en
Funders
deputy research of Tabriz university

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.