Cited by 15Allelopathy and phytotoxic interactionsEssential Oils and Antimicrobial ActivityFungal Plant Pathogen Control

Antifungal activity of methanolic extracts of Sorghum halepense against Macrophomina phaseolina

Open access
Arshad Javaid,·2012·African Journal of Microbiology Research

Abstract

Macrophomina phaseolina (Tassi) Goid., the cause of charcoal rot disease, is the major biotic factor that limits cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] productivity worldwide. The present study was designed to investigate the antifungal potential of an allelopathic grass Sorghum halepense Pers. for the management of M. phaseolina isolated from charcoal rot infected cowpea plants. In laboratory bioassays, different concentrations (0, 0.5, 1.0,…, 3.0 g/ml) of methanolic extracts of shoot, root and inflorescence of the test allelopathic grass were evaluated for their in vitro antifungal activity against M. phaseolina. Extracts of all the three parts of the grass exhibited variable antifungal activity. Shoot extract was found the most effective where all the extract concentrations significantly reduced the fungal biomass by 14 to 61% over control. Similarly, all concentrations of the root extract except 0.5% significantly suppressed the fungal biomass. Inflorescence extract exhibited the least antifungal activity where only 2% and higher concentrations showed the significant effect. There was 9 to 48% and 4 to 39% reduction in fungal biomass due to various concentrations of methanolic root and inflorescence extracts, respectively.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5897/ajmr12.1577

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Javaid et al. (2012) found that methanolic extracts from shoots, roots, and inflorescences of Sorghum halepense at 0.5-3.0 g/100 mL had antifungal activity against Macrophomina phaseolina, significantly reducing fungal biomass.

    “The authors demonstrated that different concentrations of methanolic extracts (from 0.5 to 3.0 g.100 -1 mL) from shoots, roots, and inflorescences of S. halapense had antifungal activity against M. phaseolina by reducing the fungal biomass significantly.”

    From Does sorghum phenolic extract have antifungal effect? (2024) · cites this paper as [29]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 27 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Arshad Javaid
Venue
African Journal of Microbiology Research
Published
2012-07-26
Volume
6
Issue
28
ISSN
1996-0808 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2135568546
Cited by
15
References
27
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
African Journal of Microbiology Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Allelopathy and phytotoxic interactions
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Essential Oils and Antimicrobial Activity
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Fungal Plant Pathogen Control
Keywords
Sorghum halepense, Macrophomina phaseolina, antifungal activity, methanol extract, charcoal rot, cowpea, allelopathy, plant disease control, root extract, shoot extracts, inflorescence extract

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