3.8 Article

The Impact of the Ugmax Soil Fertilizer on the Presence of Streptomyces Scabies on Edible Potato Tubers

期刊

JOURNAL OF ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 68-73

出版社

POLISH SOC ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
DOI: 10.12911/22998993/85743

关键词

Solanum tuberosum L.; common scab; microbiological preparation

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Higher Education [214/04/S]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of the three-year-long field experiment was to identify the effect of the UG(max) soil fertilizer (microbiological preparation) on the presence of Streptomyces scabies on tubers of two edible potato cultivars. The experiment was established using the randomized split-block method, in three replications, in central Poland (52 degrees 03'N; 22 degrees 3'E), on the soil consisting of loamy sands, slightly acidic and acidic. The examined factors included: 1st factor: edible potato cultivars (Satina and Typhoon), 2nd factor: doses and dates of application of the UG(max) soil fertilizer (1. control object without UG(max); 2. UG(max) applied to soil before planting tubers at a dose of 1.0 dm(3).ha(-1); 3. UG(max) applied to soil before planting tubers at a dose of 0.5 dm(3).ha(-1), when the height of plants is about 10-15 cm, and in the flower buds making phase at a dose of 0.25 dm(3).ha(-1); 4. UG(max) before planting tubers at a dose of 1.0 dm(3).ha(-1) and when the height of plants is about 10-15 cm, and in the flower buds making phase at a dose of 0.5 dm(3).ha(-1); 5. UG(max) when the height of plants is about 10-15 cm, and in the flower buds making phase at a dose of 0.5 dm(3).ha(-1)). Symptoms of common scab were assessed on a 9-point scale on 100 tubers randomly collected from different experiment objects. As a result of the study, it was demonstrated that treatments with the use of the UG(max) soil fertilizer limited the occurrence of common scab on potato tubers and affected the average level of infestation of the sample and the average level of infestation of infested tubers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据