Use of homeopathic preparations in phytopathological ... · 1984. No other review on homeopathy in...
23
ORIGINAL PAPER Use of homeopathic preparations in phytopathological models and in field trials: a critical review Lucietta Betti 1, *, Grazia Trebbi 1 , Vera Majewsky 2,3 , Claudia Scherr 4 , Devika Shah-Rossi 4 , Tim Ja ¨ger 2,3 and Stephan Baumgartner 2,4 1 Department of Agri-Environmental Sciences and Technologies, University of Bologna, Italy 2 Institute of Complementary Medicine KIKOM, University of Bern, Switzerland 3 Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL, Frick, Switzerland 4 Hiscia Institute, Society for Cancer Research, Arlesheim, Switzerland Background: The literature on the applications of homeopathy for controlling plant dis- eases in both plant pathological models and field trials was first reviewed by Scofield in 1984. No other review on homeopathy in plant pathology has been published since, though much new research has subsequently been carried out using more advanced methods. Objectives: To conduct an up-to-date review of the existing literature on basic research in homeopathy using phytopathological models and experiments in the field. Methods: A literature search was carried out on publications from 1969 to 2009, for pa- pers that reported experiments on homeopathy using phytopathological models (in vitro and in planta) and field trials. The selected papers were summarized and analysed on the basis of a Manuscript Information Score (MIS) to identify those that provided sufficient information for proper interpretation (MIS $ 5). These were then evaluated using a Study Methods Evaluation Procedure (SMEP). Results: A total of 44 publications on phytopathological models were identified: 19 pa- pers with statistics, 6 studies with MIS $ 5. Publications on field were 9, 6 with MIS $ 5. In general, significant and reproducible effects with decimal and centesimal potencies were found, including dilution levels beyond the Avogadro’s number. Conclusions: The prospects for homeopathic treatments in agriculture are promising, but much more experimentation is needed, especially at a field level, and on potentisation techniques, effective potency levels and conditions for reproducibility. Phytopathological models may also develop into useful tools to answer pharmaceutical questions. Homeopathy (2009) 98, 244–266. Keywords: Homeopathy; Agriculture; Phytopathological models; Plant disease control; Field trials Introduction In developed countries modern, intensive agriculture has improved crop yields but also, due to its reliance on large amounts of non-renewable energy and raw materials, fre- quently resulted in soil degradation, environmental pollution and damage to wildlife. For this reason, in recent years there has been growing interest in agricultural methods that are *Correspondence: Lucietta Betti, Department of Agro-Environmental Sciences and Technologies, University of Bologna, Viale Fanin 42, 40127 Bologna, Italy. E-mail: [email protected] Received 1 July 2009; revised 17 September 2009; accepted 23 September 2009 Homeopathy (2009) 98, 244–266 Ó 2009 The Faculty of Homeopathy doi:10.1016/j.homp.2009.09.008, available online at http://www.sciencedirect.com
Transcript of Use of homeopathic preparations in phytopathological ... · 1984. No other review on homeopathy in...
Homeopathy (2009) 98, 244–266� 2009 The Faculty of Homeopathy
doi:10.1016/j.homp.2009.09.008, available online at http://www.sciencedirect.com
ORIGINAL PAPER
Use of homeopathic preparations inphytopathological models and in fieldtrials: a critical review
Lucietta Betti1,*, Grazia Trebbi1, Vera Majewsky2,3, Claudia Scherr4, Devika Shah-Rossi4, Tim Jager2,3
and Stephan Baumgartner2,4
1Department of Agri-Environmental Sciences and Technologies, University of Bologna, Italy2Institute of Complementary Medicine KIKOM, University of Bern, Switzerland3Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL, Frick, Switzerland4Hiscia Institute, Society for Cancer Research, Arlesheim, Switzerland
*Corresp40127 BoE-mail: luReceived
Background: The literature on the applications of homeopathy for controlling plant dis-eases in both plant pathological models and field trials was first reviewed by Scofield in1984. No other review on homeopathy in plant pathology has been published since,though much new research has subsequently been carried out using more advancedmethods.Objectives: To conduct an up-to-date review of the existing literature on basic researchin homeopathy using phytopathological models and experiments in the field.Methods: A literature search was carried out on publications from 1969 to 2009, for pa-pers that reported experiments on homeopathy using phytopathological models (in vitroand in planta) and field trials. The selected papers were summarized and analysed on thebasis of a Manuscript Information Score (MIS) to identify those that provided sufficientinformation for proper interpretation (MIS $ 5). These were then evaluated using a StudyMethods Evaluation Procedure (SMEP).Results: A total of 44 publications on phytopathological models were identified: 19 pa-pers with statistics, 6 studies with MIS $ 5. Publications on field were 9, 6 with MIS $ 5. Ingeneral, significant and reproducible effects with decimal and centesimal potencies werefound, including dilution levels beyond the Avogadro’s number.Conclusions: The prospects for homeopathic treatments in agriculture are promising,but much more experimentation is needed, especially at a field level, and on potentisationtechniques, effective potency levels and conditions for reproducibility. Phytopathologicalmodels may also develop into useful tools to answer pharmaceutical questions.Homeopathy (2009) 98, 244–266.
Keywords: Homeopathy; Agriculture; Phytopathological models; Plant diseasecontrol; Field trials
IntroductionIn developed countries modern, intensive agriculture has
improved crop yields but also, due to its reliance on large
ondence: Lucietta Betti, Department of Agro-Environmental Sclogna, [email protected] July 2009; revised 17 September 2009; accepted 23 Septemb
amounts of non-renewable energy and raw materials, fre-quently resulted in soil degradation, environmental pollutionand damage to wildlife. For this reason, in recent years therehas been growing interest in agricultural methods that are
iences and Technologies, University of Bologna, Viale Fanin 42,
er 2009
Homeopathy in phytopathological models and field trialsL Betti et al
245
both environmentally and economically sound. Amongthese, the emerging discipline of ‘agrohomeopathy’ – the ap-plication of homeopathy to agriculture – is currently beingwidely developed.1 The potential benefits are significantbecause homeopathic preparations, due to their ultra high di-lution, are relatively cheap, have few or no ecological side-ef-fects and seem to be, on the whole, harmless.2,3 All theseattributes make homeopathy optimally suited to the holisticapproaches of organic and, above all, biodynamic agriculture,in which plants and their interactions with the environmentare treated as a unified ‘living organism’.4–8 What is more,this novel approach of applying homeopathic principles toagriculture can also be aimed at improving the nutritionalproperties (i.e. the level of compounds inducing physiologi-cal benefits to human health)9 and physiological and qualita-tive characteristics of plants, in addition to their resistance tobiotic (insects and pathogens) and abiotic (physical andchemical damage) stress. Infected plants, being out of equilib-rium, with the innate tendency to return to the equilibriumstate known as health10 may also be useful experimental sys-tems to identify specific effects of homeopathic preparations.This review discusses the experimental evidence relatingto the use of homeopathic preparations in plant pathology,in particular, in both phytopathological models (in vitroand in planta experiments) and field trials (healthy/diseasedcrop experiments), with a view to assessing the potential ofagrohomeopathy. The previous review by Scofield11 did notuse predefined criteria to assess the quality of studies. Thispaper aims to describe and evaluate the current state ofresearch.
MethodsData sources
References were collected from Medline�, from theBasic Research Database of the Karl and Veronica Cars-tens-Foundation, Essen, Germany,12,13 the private libraryof Baumgartner (KIKOM, Bern University) and from the li-brary of the Department of Agri-Environmental Scienceand Technology (Bologna University). All the reviewsand publications obtained from these sources were screenedfor further references. In some cases we also made directcontact with the authors.
Literature review
This review covers papers reporting experiments basedon phytopathological models (plants naturally infected orartificially inoculated with fungi, viruses, bacteria, nema-todes), in vitro spore germination and growth models, andfield trials (agronomical and phytopathological experimen-tations). All languages were included, and all the paperswere analysed using the reviewing procedure describedby Majewsky,14 which comprises statistics, a ManuscriptInformation Score (MIS) and a Study Methods EvaluationProcedure (SMEP). A brief description is given of eachpaper. Substances known as homeopathic remedies arelisted using common abbreviations, and the taxonomy offungi has been updated according to http://www.indexfungorum.org. All the papers were independently
evaluated by two reviewers, with any differences resolvedthrough discussion.
ResultsPhytopathological and in vitro models
A total of 44 publications were found in the literaturesearch,10,15–57 comprising 24 plant/fungus studies, 11plant/virus studies, 6 plant/nematode studies and 3 studieson plant/bacteria interactions. The earliest paper datedfrom 1969,39 while the most recent was published in2009.10 25 were excluded because they did not use statisticalanalysis to evaluate the results, or did not mention the statis-tics in the paper.18,20,26–35,38 The remaining 19 papers (pub-lished from 1976 to 2009) were put through the reviewingprocedure10,15–17,19,21–25,36,37,47–49,54–57: 6 of the 19 publi-cations achieved a MIS of 5 points or more.10,49,54–57 Thepapers were then evaluated for their SMEP (see Methodssection14), which takes into account the use of controls,blinding, randomisation, and the number of independent ex-periments and systematic negative control experiments askey methodological factors.58 The main experimental dataof the publications with MIS < 5 are reported in Table 1(plant/fungus interactions) and Table 2 (plant/virus, bacte-ria, nematode interactions); papers with MIS $ 5 are de-scribed in Table 3.
Plant/fungus models
Most of the studies were conducted by Indian researchersand focused on in vitro fungal spore germination and col-ony growth, and on in vivo fungal disease control followinghomeopathic treatments (Table 1). Khanna and Chandra15–
17 investigated the effectiveness of homeopathic treatmentsin controlling fruit rot caused by the following fungi: Gib-berella zeae (Schwein.) Petch (Syn. = Fusarium roseumLink), Pestalotiopsis psidii (Pat.) Mordue (Syn. = Pestalo-tia psidii Pat.) and Pestalotiopsis mangiferae (Henn.)Steyaert (Syn. = Pestalotia mangiferae Henn.). Afterinitially screening a number of homeopathic treatments(normally used for fungal diseases in humans) in centesimalpotencies (1–200), to determine their effect on fungal sporegermination, those potencies which induced complete inhi-bition were tested in vivo on infected fruits, either before orafter fungus inoculation. The statistical analyses show somesignificant positive results, especially with pre-inoculationtreatments. The same authors18,19 also studied the effectsof some homeopathic treatments on spore germination ofAlternaria alternata (Fr.) Keissl. (a fungus that causesleaf blight of wheat) isolated from citrus (Citrus microcarpa(Bunge) Wijnands), flax (Linum usitatissimum L.), guava(Psidium friedrichsthelianum (O. Berg) Niedenzu) andwheat (Triticum aestivum L.). The potencies found tohave the strongest inhibiting effect were then tested invivo by spraying wheat plants prior to fungus inoculation19:only two of the tested potencies reduced disease intensity(41% and 56% reduction with Arsenicum album 199c andKalium iodatum 200c, respectively). Kehri and Chandra20
reported the results of an in vitro and in vivo evaluation ofsome homeopathic treatments against Lasiodiplodia
Ta
ble
1M
ain
exp
eri
me
nta
lite
ms
of
pa
pe
rso
np
lan
t/fu
ng
us
inte
ractio
n(a
llw
ithM
IS<
5)
Pu
blic
atio
n[r
efe
ren
ce
nu
mb
er]
Ho
st/
Pa
tho
ge
nM
ea
su
red
pa
ram
ete
rsN
um
be
rn
(pe
rtr
ea
tme
nt
an
de
xp
eri
me
nt)
Te
st
su
bsta
nce
*/p
ote
ncy
leve
lsP
ote
ntis
atio
nC
on
tro
lS
tatis
tica
la
na
lysisy
Fin
din
gsz
Ag
ga
rwa
le
ta
l.36
Ta
ro/P
hyto
ph
tora
co
loca
sia
ea
)M
yce
lialg
row
thb
)S
po
ran
gia
lp
rod
uctio
nc)
Pe
cto
lytic
,ce
llulo
lytic
en
zym
ep
rod
uctio
nd
)In
viv
od
ise
ase
co
ntr
ol
a)
No
tre
po
rte
db
,c,
d)
5K
ali-
i,A
rsa
,T
hu
j,B
latt
a3
,3
0,
20
0c
Re
fxN
ot
rep
ort
ed
M,
SE
,P
DI;
AN
OV
A,
Du
nca
n’s
mu
ltip
lera
ng
ete
st
a)
Inh
ibiti
on
**b
ya
llth
etr
ea
tme
nts
b)
Inh
ibiti
on
by
Ka
li-i,
Ars
a3
0,
20
0c
c)
Inh
ibiti
on
by
all
the
tre
atm
en
ts,
esp
ecia
llyK
ali-
i2
00
cd
)D
ise
ase
**co
ntr
olb
yK
ali-
i,A
rsa
20
0c
Ch
au
be
et
al.2
8C
och
liob
olu
sm
iya
be
an
us,
Ha
em
ato
ne
ctr
iah
ae
ma
toco
cca
,P
en
icill
ium
de
cu
mb
en
s
%sp
ore
inh
ibiti
on
3A
pis
,A
rsa
,B
ell,
Bla
tta
,B
ry,
Eu
ph
,L
yc,
Ka
li-i,
Nu
x-v
,P
ho
,S
ulp
h,
Se
p,
Th
uj3
0,
20
0c
No
tre
po
rte
dN
ot
rep
ort
ed
Da
tain
%;
tests
no
tre
po
rte
dIn
hib
itio
nb
yA
pis
,K
al-
i,T
hu
j,S
ulp
h;
stim
ula
tion
by
Bry
,E
up
h3
0,
20
0c
Du
ae
ta
l.34
Alte
rna
ria
so
lan
i,L
asio
dip
lod
iath
eo
bro
ma
e
Dry
myce
lial
we
igh
tN
ot
rep
ort
ed
Ars
a,
Bla
tta
,C
ina
,L
yc,
Th
uj
1,
4,7
,1
3,3
1,
20
1c
Re
fkD
istil
led
wa
ter
Da
tain
%vs.
co
ntr
ol;
tests
no
tre
po
rte
d
Inh
ibiti
on
mo
reth
an
50
%:
for
A.
so
lan
ib
ya
lltr
ea
tme
nts
;fo
rB
.th
oe
bro
ma
eb
yA
rsa
31
,2
01
c,
Bla
tta
7,
13
,3
1c;
Th
uj1
,7
,1
3,
31
,2
01
c
Ke
hri
an
dC
ha
nd
ra2
0G
ua
va
/L
asio
dip
lod
iath
eo
bro
ma
e
a)
Invitr
o:
%sp
ore
ge
rmin
atio
nb
)In
viv
o:%
fru
itro
t
a)
3b
)3
of
10
fru
itsA
rsa
,K
ali-
i,B
latt
a7
,3
1,
20
1,
10
01
c
Re
f{S
teri
lize
dd
istil
led
wa
ter
Da
ta%
vs.
co
ntr
ol;
tests
no
tre
po
rte
da
)T
ota
lin
hib
itio
nb
yA
rsa
;in
cre
ase
by
Ka
li-i,
Bla
tta
b)
Str
on
gfr
uit
rotre
du
ctio
nb
yA
rsa
Kh
an
na
27
Wh
ea
t/F
usa
riu
mo
xysp
oru
ma
)E
xte
rna
la
nd
inte
rna
lse
ed
-bo
rne
myco
flo
rab
)S
pe
rmo
sp
he
rem
yco
flo
rac)
Sp
erm
op
lan
em
yco
flo
ra
4o
f1
00
se
ed
so
r1
00
se
ed
ling
sL
yc,
Th
uj3
,6
x,
30
,2
00
cR
ef{
Ab
so
lute
eth
yl
alc
oh
olin
ste
riliz
ed
dis
tille
dw
ate
r(1
:10
0)
Da
tain
%;
tests
no
tre
po
rte
da
)S
up
pre
ssio
nb
yL
yc
3x,
Th
uj3
0,2
00
c;r
ed
uctio
nb
yL
yc
6x
b)
Su
pp
ressio
nb
yL
yc
30
,2
00
c,
Th
uj3
,6
xa
nd
30
,2
00
c;
red
uctio
nb
yL
yc
6x
c)S
up
pre
ssio
nb
yL
yc
30
c,
Th
uj3
,6
xa
nd
30
,2
00
c
Kh
an
na
an
dC
ha
nd
ra1
8A
ltern
ari
aa
ltern
ata
Invitr
osp
ore
ge
rmin
atio
nN
ot
rep
ort
ed
Ars
a,
Bla
tta
,K
ali-
i,T
hu
j1
-20
0c
Re
f#N
ot
rep
ort
ed
No
tre
po
rte
dN
ot
rep
ort
ed
To
talin
hib
itio
n,
incitr
us
iso
late
,b
yA
rsa
28
,3
8,
14
6c,
Bla
tta
10
6,
13
7,
19
1c,
Ka
li-i9
0,
10
5,
16
4,
19
9c,
Th
uj4
6c;
infla
xis
ola
te,
by
Ars
a2
6,
15
0,
15
5,1
99
c,B
latt
a2
1,2
00
c,
Ka
li-i3
4,
15
5,
77
,1
99
c;
ing
ua
va
iso
late
,b
yA
rsa
35
,8
2,
96
,1
01
c,
Bla
tta
10
6,
13
7,
19
1c,
Ka
li-i9
0,
10
5,
16
4,
19
9c,
Th
uj4
6c;
inw
he
at
iso
late
,b
yA
rsa
82
,9
0,
96
,1
43
,1
99
c,
Ka
li-i
12
9,
14
9,
20
0c,
Th
uj1
52
c
Kh
an
na
an
dC
ha
nd
ra1
5T
om
ato
/G
ibb
ere
llaze
ae
a)
Invitr
o:
%sp
ore
ge
rmin
atio
nb
)In
vitr
op
ath
og
en
gro
wth
c)
Inviv
o:
%fr
uit
infe
cte
da
nd
rot
de
ve
lop
ed
a)
3b
)N
ot
rep
ort
ed
c)
5o
f1
2fr
uits
Ars
a,
Bla
tta
,K
ali-
i,L
yc,
Th
uj,
Ph
o,
Asv
1-2
00
c
Re
f#N
ot
rep
ort
ed
Da
tain
%a
nd
%vs.
co
ntr
ol;
C.D
.a
tp
#0
.05
;te
sts
no
tsp
ecifi
ed
a)
To
talin
hib
itio
nb
yA
rsa
1c,
Ka
li-i1
49
c,
Ph
o3
5c,
Th
uj8
7c
b)
To
talin
hib
itio
nb
yK
ali-
i1
49
c,
Th
uj8
7c
c)
Inh
ibiti
on
by
Ka
li-i1
49
c,
Th
uj8
7c
Kh
an
na
an
dC
ha
nd
ra1
6G
ua
va
/P
esta
lotio
psis
psid
ii
a)
Invitr
o:
%sp
ore
ge
rmin
atio
nb
)In
vitr
o:
pa
tho
ge
ng
row
thc)
Inviv
o:
%ro
td
eve
lop
ed
a)
3b
)N
ot
rep
ort
ed
c)
5o
f1
2fr
uits
Ars
a,
Bla
tta
,K
ali-
i,T
hu
j1
-20
0c
Re
f#S
teri
lize
dd
istil
led
wa
ter
Du
nca
n’s
mu
ltip
lera
ng
ete
st
a)
To
talin
hib
itio
nb
yA
rsa
60
,6
5,1
81
c,K
ali-
i1,2
0,
24
,6
1,
87
cb
)In
hib
itio
nb
yA
rsa
60
c,
Ka
li-i1
,2
0,
24
,6
1c
c)
Inh
ibiti
on
by
Ars
a6
0,
65
,1
81
c,
Ka
li-i1
,2
0,
24
,6
1,
87
c
Kh
an
na
an
dC
ha
nd
ra1
9W
he
at/
Alte
rna
ria
alte
rna
taa
)In
vitr
o:
%sp
ore
ge
rmin
atio
nb
)In
viv
o:
%d
ise
ase
ind
ex
on
lea
ve
s
a)
3b
)5
Ars
a,
Bla
tta
,K
ali-
i,T
hu
j1
-20
0c
Re
f#N
ot
rep
ort
ed
PD
I,S
E,
C.D
.a
tp
#0
.05
;te
sts
no
tsp
ecifi
ed
a)
To
talin
hib
itio
nb
yK
ali-
i1
29
,1
49
,2
00
c,
Ars
a8
2,
90
,9
6,
14
3,
19
9c,
Th
uj
15
2c
b)
Re
du
ctio
nb
yK
ali-
i2
00
c,
Ars
a1
99
c
Kh
an
na
an
dC
ha
nd
ra1
7M
an
go
/P
esta
lotio
psis
ma
ng
ifera
e
a)
Invitr
o:
%sp
ore
ge
rmin
atio
nb
)In
viv
o:
%fr
uit
infe
cte
da
nd
rot
de
ve
lop
ed
a)
3b
)5
of
12
fru
itsA
rsa
,B
latt
a,
Ka
li-i,
Lyc,
Th
uj,
Ph
o,
Asv,
Zin
-s,
Fil-
m,
Ka
li-m
1-2
00
c
Re
f16
Ste
riliz
ed
dis
tille
dw
ate
rA
NO
VA
;D
un
ca
n’s
mu
ltip
lera
ng
ete
st;
C.D
.a
tp
#0
.05
a)
To
talin
hib
itio
nb
yA
rsa
1,
89
,9
0c,
Ph
o5
0c,
Asv
10
0c,
Lyc
19
0c,
Zin
c-s
1,
2c
b)
Inh
ibiti
on
by
Lyc
19
0c
Kh
an
na
an
dC
ha
nd
ra1
7A
ltern
ari
aa
ltern
ata
,C
olle
totr
ich
um
co
cco
de
s,
Gib
be
rella
ze
ae
,G
lom
ere
llacin
gu
lata
,P
esta
lotio
psis
ma
ng
ifera
e,
Pe
sta
lotio
psis
psid
ii
a)
%sp
ore
ge
rmin
atio
nb
)M
yce
lialg
row
tha
nd
sp
oru
latio
n
3A
rsa
,A
sv,
Bla
tta
,F
il-m
,K
ali-
i,K
ali-
m,
Lyc,
Ph
o,
Th
uj,
Zin
-s1
-30
x,
1-2
00
c
Re
f{,1
6S
teri
lize
dd
istil
led
wa
ter
C.D
.a
tp
#0
.05
;r,
t-te
st,
a)
Ge
ne
ralin
hib
itio
n,
with
diff
ere
nt
ran
ge
so
fa
ctio
nb
)G
en
era
lin
hib
itio
n
Kh
an
na
an
dC
ha
nd
ra2
2T
om
ato
/G
ibb
ere
llaze
ae
;M
an
go
/P
esta
lotio
psis
ma
ng
ifera
e;
Gu
ava
/P
esta
lotio
psis
psid
ii
a)
%in
fecte
dfr
uit,
fru
itro
tb
)A
min
oa
cid
s,
am
ide
s,
su
ga
rsa
,o
rga
nic
acid
s,
vita
min
Cc)
Org
an
ole
ptic
tests
d)
Co
st/
be
ne
fit
ratio
3K
ali-
i1
49
,8
7c;
Lyc
19
0c.
Ad
juva
nts
:g
lyce
rol,
ca
sto
ro
il,p
ara
ffin
oil,
so
ap
po
wd
er,
wh
ea
tflo
ur
Re
f16
Th
esa
me
tre
atm
en
tsw
itho
ut
ad
juva
nts
AN
OV
A,
Du
nca
n’s
mu
ltip
lera
ng
ete
st
at
p#
0.0
5
a)
Re
du
ctio
n**
with
so
ap
po
wd
er
b)
n.s
.b
etw
ee
nu
ntr
ea
ted
an
dtr
ea
ted
fru
itsc)
No
ch
an
ge
sin
taste
,p
ala
tab
ility
d)
Tre
atm
en
tsre
su
lte
co
no
mic
al
(co
ntin
ue
do
nn
ext
pa
ge
)
Ta
ble
1(c
onti
nued
)
Pu
blic
atio
n[r
efe
ren
ce
nu
mb
er]
Ho
st/
Pa
tho
ge
nM
ea
su
red
pa
ram
ete
rsN
um
be
rn
(pe
rtr
ea
tme
nt
an
de
xp
eri
me
nt)
Te
st
su
bsta
nce
*/p
ote
ncy
leve
lsP
ote
ntis
atio
nC
on
tro
lS
tatis
tica
la
na
lysisy
Fin
din
gsz
Kh
an
na
an
dC
ha
nd
ra2
5G
ua
va
/L
asio
dip
lod
iath
eo
bro
ma
e,
Ge
otr
ich
um
ca
nd
idu
m
a)
Invitr
o:
%in
hib
itio
no
fp
ath
og
en
gro
wth
b)
Inviv
o:
%in
fecte
dfr
uits
an
dro
ttin
gd
eve
lop
me
nt
a)
No
tre
po
rte
db
)3
of
10
fru
itsB
ry,
Fil-
m,
Fu
c,
Ka
li-i,
Ka
li-b
i,L
yc,
Nu
x-v
,P
ho
,S
po
ng
,S
tict,
Th
uj,
Zin
-s3
,6
x,
30
,2
00
c
Re
f{a
)A
bso
lute
eth
yl
alc
oh
ol
b)
Ste
riliz
ed
dis
tille
dw
ate
r
Da
tain
%,
SE
;C
.D.
at
p#
0.0
5
a)
L.th
eo
bro
ma
ein
hib
itio
nb
yK
ali-
i,P
ho
3x,
Ka
li-b
i2
00
c,
Th
uj6
x;
G.
ca
nd
idu
min
hib
itio
nb
yF
il-m
6x,
30
c,
Ka
li-b
i,N
ux-v
3x,
30
c,
Lyc
30
c;
Sp
on
g6
x;
Th
uj3
xb
)L
.th
eo
bro
ma
ero
tre
du
ctio
nb
yK
ali-
bi2
00
c,
Ka
li-i,
Ph
o3
x;G
.ca
nd
idu
mro
tre
du
ctio
nb
yK
ali-
bi,
Lyc
30
c
Kh
an
na
an
dC
ha
nd
ra2
3A
ltern
ari
aa
ltern
ata
,C
olle
totr
ich
um
co
cco
de
s,
Gib
be
rella
ze
ae
,G
lom
ere
llacin
gu
lata
,P
esta
lotio
psis
ma
ng
ifera
e,
Pe
sta
lotio
psis
psid
ii
a)
Re
sp
ira
tion
rate
of
ge
rmin
atin
gsp
ore
sb
)O
rga
nic
acid
po
ol
No
tre
po
rte
dA
rsa
3x,
1,
60
,6
5,
90
,9
6,
18
1c;
Asv
10
0,
14
0,
20
0c;
Bla
tta
14
8c;
Fil-
m4
0,
13
0,
18
0,
18
4,
19
2c;
Ka
li-i
12
x,
1,
20
,2
4,
50
,6
1,
87
,1
49
c;
Ka
li-m
3,
12
,1
4x,
47
,5
2c;
Lyc
27
,3
9,
50
,1
36
,1
42
,1
86
,1
90
,1
93
,1
99
c;
Ph
o1
8x,
35
,5
0c;
Th
uj8
7c;
Zin
-s2
,3
,4
x,
2,
30
,4
7c
Re
f16
Dis
tille
dw
ate
rC
.D.
at
p#
0.0
5;
r,t-
test
a)
De
cre
ase
**b
ym
ost
of
the
tre
atm
en
tsb
)C
ha
ng
es
de
pe
nd
ing
on
tre
atm
en
t
Kh
an
na
an
dC
ha
nd
ra2
4A
pp
le,
To
ma
to/
Alte
rna
ria
alte
rna
ta;
Ba
na
na
/G
ibb
ere
llaze
ae
;M
an
go
/G
lom
ere
llacin
gu
lata
;G
ua
va
/C
olle
totr
ich
um
co
cco
de
s
a)
%o
ffr
uit
infe
cte
da
nd
fru
itro
tb
)A
dju
va
nt
eff
ect
c)
Am
ino
acid
s,
am
ide
s,
su
ga
rsa
,o
rga
nic
acid
s,
vita
min
Cle
ve
lsd
)O
rga
no
lep
ticte
sts
e)
Co
st/
be
ne
fit
ratio
5o
f1
2fr
uits
Ars
a3
x,
1c;
Asv
20
0c;
Bla
tta
14
8c;
Fil-
m1
80
,1
84
,1
92
c;
Ka
li-i1
2x,
14
9c;
Ka
li-m
3,
14
x,
47
,5
2c;
Lyc
39
,5
0,
13
6,
14
2,
19
9c;
Zin
-s3
,4
x,
2,
30
,4
7c
Ad
juva
nts
:g
lyce
rol,
ca
sto
ro
il,p
ara
ffin
oil,
so
ap
po
wd
er,
wh
ea
tflo
ur
Re
f22
No
tre
po
rte
dC
.D.
at
p#
0.0
5a
)R
ed
uctio
n**
by
Asv
20
0c
ina
pp
le,
tom
ato
;b
yK
ali-
i1
49
cin
ba
na
na
;b
yL
yc
13
6c
ing
ua
va
;b
yL
yc
14
2c
inm
an
go
b)
Effi
ca
cy
en
ha
nce
me
nt
with
so
ap
c)
n.s
d)
No
ch
an
ge
sin
taste
,p
ala
tab
ility
e)
Tre
atm
en
tsre
su
lte
co
no
mic
al
Kh
an
na
et
al.2
6W
he
at
se
ed
s/
Fu
sa
riu
mo
xysp
oru
m,
Alte
rna
ria
alte
rna
ta,
oth
er
se
ed
-bo
rne
fun
gi
a)
%o
ccu
rre
nce
of
exte
rna
la
nd
inte
rna
lm
yco
flo
rab
)S
ee
dg
erm
ina
tion
5o
f1
00
se
ed
sF
il-m
,B
latt
a3
,6
,3
0,
20
0x
Re
f{A
bso
lute
eth
yl
alc
oh
olin
ste
riliz
ed
dis
tille
dw
ate
r(1
:10
0)
Da
tain
%;
tests
no
tre
po
rte
da
)F
.o
xysp
oru
mco
mp
lete
su
pp
ressio
nb
y3
0,2
00
xo
fb
oth
tre
atm
en
ts;
A.
alte
rna
tare
du
ctio
nb
yB
latt
ab
)A
ny
su
bsta
ntia
lva
ria
tion
Ku
ma
ra
nd
Ku
ma
r29
Alte
rna
ria
alte
rna
ta,
Pse
ud
oco
-ch
liob
olu
sp
alle
sce
ns,
Co
ch
liob
olu
sa
ustr
alie
nsis
a)
Invitr
o:
%sp
ore
ge
rmin
atio
nb
)In
vitr
ofu
ng
alco
lon
yd
iam
ete
r
3C
ina
,S
pig
,S
tan
n,
Su
lph
,T
eu
30
,2
00
c
No
tre
po
rte
dA
bso
lute
alc
oh
ol
M;
test
no
tre
po
rte
da
)In
hib
itio
nb
yS
pig
30
c,
Su
lph
30
,2
00
c,
Te
u2
00
cin
all
test
fun
gi
b)
A.
alte
rna
tastim
ula
tion
by
all
the
tre
atm
en
ts;
inD
.a
ustr
alie
nsis
inh
ibiti
on
by
all
the
tre
atm
en
ts
Mis
hra
31
Co
ria
nd
er,
cu
min
/A
sp
erg
illu
sn
ige
r
a)
Invitr
o:
%sp
ore
ge
rmin
atio
nb
)In
vitr
o:
fun
ga
lg
row
thc)
Inviv
o:
%se
ed
de
teri
ora
tion
a)
3b
)N
ot
rep
ort
ed
c)
No
tre
po
rte
d
Ars
a,
An
t-c,
Ca
lc-c
,C
lem
,G
rap
h,
Ph
o,
Sa
rsa
,S
ulp
h,
Sil
30
,2
00
c
No
tre
po
rte
dD
ou
ble
dis
tille
da
nd
ste
riliz
ed
wa
ter
Da
tain
%;
tests
no
tre
po
rte
d
a),
b)
Inh
ibiti
on
by
Ars
a,
Ca
lc-c
,G
rap
h,
Ph
o2
00
cc)
Alm
ost
10
0%
red
uctio
nb
yC
alc
-c2
00
c;
up
to5
0%
red
uctio
nb
yA
rsa
,G
rap
h,
Ph
o2
00
c
Mis
rae
ta
l.30
Asp
erg
illu
sp
ara
siti
cu
sa
)In
vitr
o:
dry
we
igh
tb
)A
fla
toxin
pro
du
ctio
n
a)
3b
)N
ot
rep
ort
ed
Ap
is,
Arn
,A
rsa
,B
ell,
Bla
tta
,B
ry,
Ca
rb,
Cin
a,
Eu
ph
,L
yc,
Nu
x-v
,P
ul,
Se
p,
Th
uj2
00
c
No
tre
po
rte
dN
ot
rep
ort
ed
Da
tain
%vs.
co
ntr
ol;
test
no
tre
po
rte
d
a)
Inh
ibiti
on
mo
reth
an
50
%b
yB
latt
a,
Bry
,S
ep
b)
Inh
ibiti
on
mo
reth
an
50
%b
yA
rn,
Be
ll,B
ry,
Ca
rb,C
ina
,P
ul,
Se
p,T
hu
j;stim
ula
tion
by
Bla
tta
,E
up
h
Riv
as
et
al.3
7T
om
ato
,W
he
at/
Alte
rna
ria
so
lan
i,A
ltern
ari
aa
ltern
ata
a)
Invitr
o:
fun
ga
lsp
ore
ge
rmin
atio
nb
)%
co
nta
min
ate
da
nd
ge
rmin
ate
dse
ed
sc)
Se
ed
ling
gro
wth
a)
4(3
ind
ipe
nd
en
te
xp
eri
me
nts
)b
)N
ot
rep
ort
ed
Ars
a,
Ca
lc-c
,C
up
r,F
err
,L
yc,
Na
t-m
,P
ho
,S
el,
Sil,
Su
lph
31
-33
,2
01
-20
3c
csca
le,
dilu
tion
sin
dis
tille
dw
ate
r
Dyn
am
ize
dw
ate
r(a
);d
istil
led
wa
ter
(b,
c)
a)
Du
nca
nte
st
at
p#
0.0
5b
),c)
no
tre
po
rte
d
a)
To
talin
hib
itio
nb
yS
el
31
c;
de
cre
ase
**b
yC
up
r2
01
,20
3c,N
at2
02
c,S
ulp
h2
02
cb
)n
.s.i
nto
ma
tose
ed
sa
nd
se
ed
ling
s;
incre
ase
of
co
nta
min
ate
dw
he
ats
ee
ds
by
Lyc
20
1c,
Na
t2
02
c,
Su
lph
20
1c
an
dd
ecre
ase
by
Cu
pr
20
3c
c)
Incre
ase
by
Cu
pr
20
2,
20
3c,
Su
lph
20
2c
Ro
lime
ta
l.38
Ap
ple
/P
od
osp
ha
era
leu
co
tric
ha
Dis
ea
se
incid
en
ce
4o
f1
pla
nt
Ka
li-i,
La
ch
,S
tap
h3
0,
10
0c;
Su
lph
30
c;
Oid
10
0c
No
tre
po
rte
dN
ot
rep
ort
ed
Te
sts
no
tsp
ecifi
ed
Re
du
ctio
n**
by
Sta
ph
10
0c
Sa
xe
na
et
al.3
5R
ee
do
kra
/se
ed
-b
orn
efu
ng
ia
)%
occu
rre
nce
of
se
ed
-bo
rne
fun
gi
b)
%se
ed
ge
rmin
atio
na
nd
roo
t-sh
oo
tle
ng
th
5o
f1
0se
ed
sT
hu
jL
M,
30
,2
00
c;
Su
lph
LM
,3
0,
20
0c;
Te
uL
M;
Nit-
ac,
Ca
lc-c
30
,2
00
c
No
tre
po
rte
dA
bso
lute
alc
oh
ol
Da
tain
%vs.
co
ntr
ol;
tests
no
tsp
ecifi
ed
a)
To
talin
hib
itio
nb
yT
hu
j,N
it-a
c,
Su
lph
20
0c;
Nit-
ac
30
c,
Te
uL
Mfa
iled
toco
ntr
olso
me
fun
gi
b)
Incre
ase
**b
ya
llth
etr
ea
tme
nts
(co
ntin
ue
do
nn
ext
pa
ge
)
Ta
ble
1(c
onti
nued
)
Pu
blic
atio
n[r
efe
ren
ce
nu
mb
er]
Ho
st/
Pa
tho
ge
nM
ea
su
red
pa
ram
ete
rsN
um
be
rn
(pe
rtr
ea
tme
nt
an
de
xp
eri
me
nt)
Te
st
su
bsta
nce
*/p
ote
ncy
leve
lsP
ote
ntis
atio
nC
on
tro
lS
tatis
tica
la
na
lysisy
Fin
din
gsz
Sin
gh
33
Na
nn
izia
incu
rva
ta,
Ma
lbra
nch
ea
au
ran
tiaca
,B
otr
yo
tric
hu
mke
ratin
op
hilu
m
a)
Invitr
o:
fun
ga
lco
lon
yd
iam
ete
rb
)In
vitr
o:
dry
myce
lialw
eig
ht
2B
ac,
Se
p3
0,
20
0,
10
00
c;
Fa
g,
Pe
tr6
,2
00
,1
00
0c
csca
lein
ste
rile
do
ub
led
istil
led
wa
ter
Pe
trid
ish
es
with
ou
ta
ny
tre
atm
en
ts
Da
tain
%vs.
co
ntr
ol;
tests
no
tre
po
rte
d
a)
Inh
ibiti
on
mo
reth
an
50
%,
inN
.in
cu
rva
ta,
by
Ba
c1
00
0c,
Fa
g6
,2
00
,1
00
0c,
Pe
tr1
00
0c,
Se
p1
00
0c;
inM
.a
ura
ntia
ca
by
Ba
c,
Se
p3
0,
20
0,
10
00
c,
Fa
g,
Pe
tr1
00
0c;
inB
.ke
ratin
op
hilu
mb
yB
ac
10
00
c,
Fa
g2
00
,1
00
0c,
Se
p1
00
0c
b)
Inh
ibiti
on
mo
reth
an
80
%b
y1
00
0c
of
all
the
tre
atm
en
ts
Sin
gh
et
al.3
2A
ltern
ari
aa
ltern
ata
,C
och
liob
olu
slu
na
tus
Invitr
o:
fun
ga
lco
lon
yd
iam
ete
r2
Ba
c,
Lyc
30
,2
00
,1
00
0c;
Fa
g,
Ust,
Pe
tr,
Me
z6
,2
00
,1
00
0c;
Te
ll,S
ep
30
,2
00
,1
00
0c;
Su
lph
10
00
c;
Su
lph
-i6
,3
0,
10
00
c
csca
lein
do
ub
led
istil
led
wa
ter
Pe
trid
ish
es
with
ou
ta
ny
tre
atm
en
ts
Da
tain
%vs.
co
ntr
ol;
tests
no
tre
po
rte
d
A.
alte
rna
ta:
10
0%
inh
ibiti
on
by
all
po
ten
cie
so
fB
ac,
Pe
tr,
Se
p;
Lyc
20
0c;
Fa
g2
00
,1
00
0c;
Ust
10
00
c;S
ulp
h-i
10
00
c;M
ez
10
00
c;
C.
lun
atu
s:
10
0%
inh
ibiti
on
by
Fa
go
20
0c;
Ust
6c;
Pe
tr2
00
c,
Su
lph
-i6
,1
00
0c
*T
ests
ub
sta
nce
:An
t-c
=A
ntim
on
ium
cru
du
m;A
pis
=A
pis
me
llife
ra;A
rn=
Arn
ica
mo
nta
na
;Ars
a=
Ars
en
icu
ma
lbu
m;A
sv
=A
sva
ga
nd
h;B
ac
=B
acill
inu
m;B
ell
=B
ella
do
nn
a;B
latt
a=
Bla
tta
ori
en
talis
;B
ry=
Bry
on
ia;
Ca
lc-c
=C
alc
are
aca
rbo
nic
a;
Ca
rb=
Ca
rbo
ka
s;
Cle
m=
Cle
ma
tis;
Cu
pr=
Cu
pru
mm
eta
llicu
m;
Eu
ph
=E
up
ho
rbiu
m;
Gra
ph
=G
rap
hite
s;
Fa
g=
Fa
go
pyru
m;
Fe
rr=
Fe
rru
mm
eta
llicu
m;
Fil-
m=
Fili
xm
as;F
uc
=F
ucu
sve
sic
ulo
su
s;
Ka
li-b
i=K
ali
bic
hro
mic
um
;K
ali-
i=K
ali
iod
atu
m;K
ali-
m=
Ka
lim
uri
atic
um
;L
ach
=L
ach
esis
;L
yc
=L
yco
po
diu
m;
Me
z=
Me
ze
riu
m;
Na
t-m
=N
atr
um
mu
ria
ti-cu
m;
Nit-
ac
=N
itric
acid
;N
ux-v
=N
ux
vo
mic
a;
Oid
=O
idiu
mly
co
pe
rsic
i;P
etr
=P
etr
ole
um
;P
ho
=P
ho
sp
ho
rus;
Pu
l=P
uls
atil
la;
Sa
rs=
Sa
rsa
pa
rilla
;S
el=
Se
len
ium
;S
ep
=S
ep
ia;
Sil
=S
ilice
a;
Sp
ig=
Sp
ige
lia;S
po
ng
=S
po
ng
iato
sta
;Sta
nn
=S
tan
nu
m;S
tap
h=
Sta
ph
ysa
gri
a;S
tict=
Stic
tap
ulm
un
ari
a;S
ulp
h=
Su
lph
ur;
Su
lph
-i=
Su
lph
urio
da
tum
;Te
ll=
Te
lluri
um
;Te
u=
Te
ucri
um
;Th
uj=
Th
uja
;U
st=
Ustil
ag
o;
Zin
-s=
Zin
cu
msu
lph
uri
cu
m.
yS
tatis
tica
la
na
lysis
:M
=m
ea
n;
SE
=sta
nd
ard
err
or;
PD
I=p
erc
en
tag
ed
ise
ase
ind
ex;
C.D
.=cri
tica
ld
iffe
ren
ce
;r=
co
effi
cie
nt
of
co
rre
latio
n.
zF
ind
ing
s:
n.s
.=n
osig
nifi
ca
nt
diff
ere
nce
s.
**S
ign
ifica
nt
diff
ere
nce
.x
Bh
att
ach
ary
ae
ta
l.T
he
ho
me
op
ath
icfa
mily
pra
ctic
e,
2n
de
dn
,C
alc
utt
a:
Eco
no
mic
Pre
ss
19
31
.k
Bh
att
ach
ary
ya
et
al.
Ho
me
op
ath
icP
ha
rma
co
po
eia
,C
alc
utt
a,
Ind
ia1
98
0.
{A
no
nym
ou
s.
Ho
mo
eo
pa
thic
Ph
arm
aco
po
eia
,C
alc
utt
a:
M.
Bh
att
ach
ary
ya
&C
o’s
,N
eta
jiS
ub
ba
sR
oa
d1
97
0.
#B
ha
tta
ch
ary
ya
et
al.
Ho
me
op
ath
icP
ha
rma
co
po
eia
,C
alc
utt
a:
M.
B.
an
dC
om
pa
ny
Pri
va
teL
dt.
19
70
.
Ta
ble
2M
ain
exp
eri
me
nta
lite
ms
of
pa
pe
rso
np
lan
t/vir
us,
ba
cte
ria
,n
em
ato
de
inte
ractio
ns
(all
with
MIS
<5
)
Pu
blic
atio
n[r
efe
ren
ce
nu
mb
er]
Ho
st/
pa
tho
ge
n*
Me
asu
red
pa
ram
ete
rsN
um
be
rn
(pe
rtr
ea
tme
nt
an
de
xp
eri
em
en
t)
Te
st
su
bsta
ncey /
po
ten
cy
leve
lsP
ote
ntis
atio
nC
on
tro
lS
tatis
tica
la
na
lysisz
Fin
din
gsx
Ab
idie
ta
l.45
Pa
pa
ya
/PR
SV
a)
Fru
itin
fectio
nb
)S
ym
pto
ma
pp
ea
ran
ce
(in
da
ys)
2C
him
,C
arb
o-v
,L
ach
,R
hu
s-t
,V
ari
olin
um
20
0c
Re
f.to
39
4%
alc
oh
ol
Da
tain
%;
tests
no
tre
po
rte
da
)P
re-i
no
cu
latio
ntr
ea
tme
nt:
de
cre
ase
by
all
tre
atm
en
ts,
esp
ecia
llyb
yC
him
;p
ost-
ino
cu
latio
ntr
ea
tme
nt:
red
uctio
nb
yR
hu
s-t
b)
Pre
-in
ocu
latio
ntr
ea
tme
nt:
am
ark
ed
de
lay
by
all
tre
atm
en
t,e
sp
ecia
llyb
yC
him
;p
ost-
ino
cu
latio
ntr
ea
tme
nt:
no
eff
ects
Ch
ee
ma
et
al.4
7P
ap
aya
/Pa
pM
Va
)M
ea
nd
ise
ase
ind
ex
b)
Ch
loro
ph
yll
co
nte
nt
3o
f1
0p
lan
tsC
arb
-v,
Ce
dr,
Ch
el,
Ch
en
,T
hu
j3
0x
Re
fkN
ot
rep
ort
ed
MD
I,S
E;
C.D
.a
tp
#0
.05
,te
sts
no
tsp
ecifi
ed
a)
De
cre
ase
**b
ya
llth
etr
ea
tme
nts
,e
sp
ecia
llyb
yT
hu
ja
nd
Ce
dr
b)
n.s
.
Ch
ee
ma
et
al.4
8T
om
ato
/TM
Va
)%
me
an
dis
ea
se
incid
en
ce
b)
Yie
ld
3C
ed
r,T
hu
j3
0x;
extr
acts
of
Bo
ug
ain
vill
ea
sp
ecta
bili
s,
Bo
err
ha
via
diff
usa
,C
lero
de
nd
rum
acu
lea
tum
at
10
%in
wa
ter;
Ba
vis
tina
nd
Re
so
rcin
ol
0.0
5%
,M
ala
thio
n0
.1%
No
tre
po
rte
dW
ate
rP
DI,
SE
;C
.D.
at
p#
0.0
5,
tests
no
tsp
ecifi
ed
a)
De
cre
ase
**b
ya
llth
etr
ea
tme
nts
b)
Incre
ase
**b
ya
llth
etr
ea
tme
nts
Ku
ma
ra
nd
Sh
arm
a5
2M
elo
ido
gyn
ein
co
gn
itaL
arv
alh
atc
hin
g3
Cin
a,
Sp
ig,
Sta
nn
,S
up
lh,
Te
u3
0,
20
0c
No
tre
po
rte
dN
ot
rep
ort
ed
Da
tain
%vs.
co
ntr
ol;
tests
no
tre
po
rte
d
Inh
ibiti
on
by
Cin
a3
0,2
00
c,
Sp
ig2
00
c;
stim
ula
tion
by
Sta
nn
,S
ulp
h,
Te
ucri
um
30
,2
00
c
Kh
atr
ia
nd
Sin
gh
42
Go
ose
foo
t,to
ma
to/T
MV
Lo
ca
lle
sio
ns
nu
mb
er
No
tre
po
rte
dK
ali-
m,
Ka
li-s,
Ka
li-p
,Ars
a,C
ed
r,C
him
,V
ari
olin
um
6,
30
x
No
tre
po
rte
dN
ot
rep
ort
ed
No
tre
po
rte
dD
ecre
ase
by
6,
30
xA
rsa
,C
ed
r,C
him
,V
ari
olin
um
Kh
ura
na
43
Pa
pa
ya
,to
ba
cco
,g
oo
se
foo
t/P
ap
MV
,P
LD
MV
,P
RS
V
a)
Invitr
o:
an
tivir
al
activ
ityb
)In
viv
o:
syste
mic
infe
ctio
n,
lesio
na
ve
rag
en
um
be
r
1A
pis
,B
ell,
Bry
,E
up
hr,
Su
lph
,T
hu
j3
0c
No
tre
po
rte
dD
istil
led
wa
ter
M,
da
tain
%;
tests
no
tre
po
rte
da
)In
hib
itio
nb
ya
llth
etr
ea
tme
nts
for
PL
DM
V;
by
Bry
,S
ulp
h,
Th
ujfo
rP
ap
MV
;b
yE
up
hr,
Su
lph
,T
hu
jfo
rP
RS
Vb
)In
fectio
nre
du
ctio
nu
po
n8
0%
by
Th
uj,
Su
lph
an
d5
0%
by
Ap
isa
nd
Bry
,in
pa
pa
ya
an
dto
ba
cco
;le
sio
nn
um
be
rre
du
ctio
nb
ya
llth
etr
ea
tme
nts
inC
.a
ma
ran
tico
lor
(co
ntin
ue
do
nn
ext
pa
ge
)
Ta
ble
2(c
onti
nued
)
Pu
blic
atio
n[r
efe
ren
ce
nu
mb
er]
Ho
st/
pa
tho
ge
n*
Me
asu
red
pa
ram
ete
rsN
um
be
rn
(pe
rtr
ea
tme
nt
an
de
xp
eri
em
en
t)
Te
st
su
bsta
ncey /
po
ten
cy
leve
lsP
ote
ntis
atio
nC
on
tro
lS
tatis
tica
la
na
lysisz
Fin
din
gsx
Kh
ura
na
44
To
ba
cco
/TM
V,
tom
ato
/To
MV
,cu
cu
mb
er
or
tob
acco
/CM
V,
tob
acco
or
tho
rna
pp
le/P
VX
,ch
illi/
PV
Y,
ma
ize
/S
CM
V
a)
Invitr
o:
lesio
na
ve
rag
en
um
be
rb
)%
syste
mic
infe
ctio
n
No
ta
va
ilab
leT
hu
j,S
ulp
h,C
he
n,
Ca
rbo
-v,
Ap
is,
Be
ll,B
ry,
Ars
aL
M,
30
,2
00
c
No
ta
va
ilab
leN
ot
ava
ilab
leN
ot
rep
ort
ed
Inh
ibiti
on
mo
re5
0%
into
ba
cco
/TM
V:
a)
an
db
)b
y3
0,
20
0c
Th
uj,
Su
lph
,3
0c
Ch
en
,C
arb
o-v
;in
tom
ato
/T
oM
V:
a)
by
30
,2
00
cS
ulp
h,3
0c
Ch
en
,C
arb
o-v
;in
cu
cu
mb
er
or
tob
acco
/C
MV
:a
)b
y3
0c
Th
uj,
Su
lph
,C
arb
o-v
,3
0,
20
0c
Ch
en
;b
)b
y3
0,2
00
cT
hu
j,C
he
n,3
0c
Su
lph
,C
arb
o-v
;in
tob
acco
or
tho
rna
pp
le/
PV
X:
a)
by
30
cT
hu
j,S
ulp
h,
Ch
en
,C
arb
o-v
,A
pis
;b
)b
y3
0,
20
0c
Th
u,
30
cA
pis
;in
ch
illi/P
VY
:a
)b
y3
0c
Th
uj,
Su
lph
,Ap
is;i
nm
aiz
e/S
CM
V:
b)
by
30
,2
00
cT
hu
j,A
pis
Mo
ren
oa
nd
Alv
are
z5
0P
ine
ap
ple
/b
acte
ria
Ba
cte
ria
lco
nta
min
atio
nin
cid
en
ce
No
tre
po
rte
dC
al,
Sta
ph
30
c;
Ars
a4
0c;O
scill
oc
20
0c
No
tre
po
rte
dD
yn
am
ize
dd
istil
led
wa
ter
No
tre
po
rte
dC
om
ple
tesu
pp
ressio
nb
yO
scill
oc,
Sta
ph
,C
al
Ra
ya
nd
Pra
dh
an
53
Me
loid
og
yn
ein
co
gn
itaIn
vitr
on
em
ato
de
mo
rta
lity
45
%d
ilutio
no
fT
ri,
Co
ff,
Su
lph
,H
yo
s,
Ip,C
ina
,T
eu
,S
en
,N
ux-v
,T
hu
j,A
rsa
,C
occ,B
ell,
Rh
us-t
,A
nt-
t
No
tre
po
rte
dD
istil
led
wa
ter;
5%
dilu
tea
lco
ho
l;1
%F
ura
da
n
Da
tain
%1
00
%m
ort
alit
yb
yA
rsa
,fo
llow
ed
by
Th
uj,
Be
ll,A
nt-
t,R
hu
s-t
,S
ulp
h,
Co
cc
Sh
ukla
an
dJo
sh
i46
So
rgh
um
/SC
MV
Vir
us
inh
ibiti
on
10
pla
nts
(3in
dip
en
de
nt
tria
ls)
Ars
a,
Cro
t-t,
Du
lc,
Gra
ph
,R
hu
s-t
30
,2
00
,1
00
0c
No
tre
po
rte
dN
ot
rep
ort
ed
Da
tain
%vs.
co
ntr
ol;
tests
no
tre
po
rte
d
80
%in
hib
itio
nb
y1
00
0c
Ars
a,
Rh
us-t
;2
00
cD
ulc
;6
0%
by
Du
lc3
0c,
Gra
ph
10
00
c;
50
%b
y2
00
cG
rap
h,
Rh
us-t
Sin
gh
et
al.4
1T
ob
acco
/TM
VN
um
be
ro
flo
ca
lle
sio
ns
No
tre
po
rte
dA
rsa
,T
yro
idin
um
,U
r-n
7x;
Su
lph
10
1c,
Ca
rcin
ocin
10
01
c,
Mo
rga
n3
1c,
Do
l6
c,
Influ
en
zin
um
20
1c,
Va
ccin
inu
m3
1c
No
tre
po
rte
dN
ot
rep
ort
ed
Da
tain
%vs.
co
ntr
ol;
tests
no
tre
po
rte
d
De
cre
ase
by
Ars
a,
Do
l,M
org
an
,Th
yro
idin
um
,Ur-
n
Ve
rma
an
dA
wa
sth
i40
To
ba
cco
or
go
ose
foo
t/T
MV
Nu
mb
er
of
loca
lle
sio
ns
15
lea
ve
sC
alc
-f,
Ca
lc-p
,C
alc
-s,
Fe
rr-p
,K
ali-
m,
Ka
li-p
,K
ali-
s,M
ag
-p,N
at-
m,
Na
t-p
,N
at-
s,
Sil
6x
Re
f{S
teri
lew
ate
rD
ata
in%
vs.
co
ntr
ol;
tests
no
tre
po
rte
d
InN
ico
tian
ata
ba
cu
md
ecre
ase
by
Ca
lc-f
,C
alc
-p
,F
err
-p,
Ka
li-m
,K
ali-
p,
Ka
li-s,
Na
t-m
,N
at-
s;
inN
.g
lutin
osa
de
cre
ase
by
Ca
lc-p
,C
alc
-s,
Ka
li-p
,K
ali-
s,
Na
t-p
,N
at-
s
Ve
rma
et
al.3
9T
ob
acco
/TM
Va
)T
MV
mu
ltip
lica
tion
rate
b)
Nu
mb
er
of
loca
lle
sio
ns
No
tre
po
rte
dA
l,C
hin
,Pu
l,H
yd
r,A
rt,
Vib
,A
co
,B
ell,
Lo
b,
Dig
,E
ch
,B
ap
t2
c;
Ars
a2
,3
1c;T
hu
j,C
ed
r,Ip
,P
yr
7c;
Ch
en
7,
32
x,
31
c;
Ca
rbo
-v,
Va
rio
linu
m7
x,
31
c;
La
ch
7x,
31
,1
00
1c;
Ch
im7
,3
2x,
31
,2
01
,1
00
1c;A
ls,J
al3
1c
Re
f#N
ot
rep
ort
ed
Da
tain
%vs.
co
ntr
ol;
tests
no
tre
po
rte
d
a)
InN
ico
tian
ata
ba
cu
ma
nd
N.
glu
tino
sa
de
cre
ase
by
Ca
rbo
-v,
Ce
dr,
Ch
en
,L
ach
,V
ar
7x,
Ch
im7
x,
31
,1
00
1c;
on
lyin
N.
glu
tino
sa
by
Ars
a2
c,I
p7
x;
on
lyin
N.
tab
acu
mb
yA
rt,
Vib
,B
ell,
Dig
2c;
Ch
im1
00
1c,
Als
31
cb
)In
N.g
lutin
osa
red
uctio
nb
yA
rsa
,C
arb
o-v
31
c,
Ch
en
32
x,
Ch
im7
,3
2x,
10
01
c
Vill
eg
as
et
al.5
1S
ug
arc
an
e/
Xa
nth
om
on
as
alb
ilin
ea
ns
Ba
cte
ria
lco
nta
min
atio
nin
cid
en
ce
No
tre
po
rte
dS
tap
h,
Oscill
oc,
Su
lph
,C
al(5
mlin
1lo
fin
gro
wth
me
diu
m;
po
ten
cy
no
tre
po
rte
d)
No
tre
po
rte
dG
row
thm
ed
ium
No
tre
po
rte
dC
om
ple
tesu
pp
ressio
n
*H
ost/
pa
tho
ge
ns:P
RS
V=
pa
pa
ya
rin
gsp
otvir
us;P
ap
MV
=p
ap
aya
mo
sa
icvir
us;T
MV
=to
ba
cco
mo
sa
icvir
us
PL
DM
V=
pa
pa
ya
lea
fd
isto
rtio
nm
osa
icvir
us;T
oM
V=
tom
ato
mo
sa
icvir
us;C
MV
=cu
-cu
mb
er
mo
sa
icvir
us;
PV
X=
po
tato
vir
us
X;
PV
Y=
po
tato
vir
us
Y;
SC
MV
=su
ga
rca
ne
mo
sa
icvir
us.
yT
estsu
bsta
nce
:A
co
=A
co
nitu
mn
ap
ellu
s;A
l=A
letr
is;
Als
=A
lsto
nia
co
nstr
icta
;A
nt-
t=A
ntim
on
ium
tart
ari
cu
m;A
pis
=A
pis
me
llife
ra;
Ars
a=
Ars
en
icu
ma
lbu
m;A
rt=
Art
em
isia
vu
lga
ris;
Ba
pt=
Ba
p-
tisia
tincto
ria
;Be
ll=
Be
llad
on
na
;Bry
=B
ryo
nia
;Ca
l=C
ale
nd
ula
;Ca
lc-f
=C
alc
are
aflu
ori
ca
;Ca
lc-p
=C
alc
are
ap
ho
sp
ho
rica
;Ca
lc-s
=C
alc
are
asu
lph
uri
ca
;Ca
rbo
-v=
Ca
rbo
ve
ge
tab
ilis;C
ed
r=
Ce
dro
n;
Ch
el=
Ch
elid
on
ium
ma
jus;
Ch
en
=C
he
no
po
diu
m,;
Ch
im=
Ch
ima
ph
illa
;C
hin
=C
hin
a;
Co
cc
=C
occu
lus;
Co
ff=
Co
ffe
acru
da
;C
rot-
t=C
roto
ntig
lium
;D
ig=
Dig
italis
pu
rpu
rea
;D
ol=
Do
lich
os;
Du
lc=
Du
lca
ma
ra;E
ch
=E
ch
ina
ce
aa
ng
ustif
olia
;E
up
hr=
Eu
ph
rasia
;G
rap
h=
Gra
ph
ites;F
err
-p=
Fe
rru
mp
ho
sp
ho
ricu
m;H
yd
r=
Hyd
rastis
ca
na
de
nsis
;H
yo
s=
Hyo
scya
mu
s;Ip
=Ip
eca
cu
an
ha
;Ja
l=Ja
lap
a;
Ka
li-m
=K
ali
mu
ria
ticu
m;
Ka
li-p
=K
ali
ph
osp
ho
ricu
m;
Ka
li-s
=K
ali-
su
lph
uri
cu
m;
La
ch
=L
ach
esis
;L
ob
=L
ob
elia
infla
ta;
Ma
g-p
=M
ag
ne
sia
ph
osp
ho
rica
;N
at-
m=
Na
tru
mm
uri
atic
um
;N
at-
p=
Na
tru
mp
ho
sp
ho
ricu
m;
Na
t-s
=N
atr
um
su
lph
uri
cu
m;
Nu
x-v
=N
ux
vo
mic
a;
Pu
l=P
uls
atil
la;
Pyr=
Pyro
ge
niu
m;
Oscill
oc
=O
scill
oco
ccin
um
;R
hu
s-t
=R
hu
sto
xic
od
en
dro
n;
Se
n=
Se
ne
ga
;S
il=
Sili
ce
a;
Sp
ig=
Sp
ige
lia;
Sta
nn
=S
tan
nu
m;
Sta
ph
=S
tap
hysa
gri
a;
Su
lph
=S
ulp
hu
r;T
eu
=T
eu
cri
um
;T
hu
j=T
hu
ja;
Tri
=T
rilli
um
;U
r-n
=U
ran
ium
nitr
icu
m;
Vib
=V
ibu
rnu
mp
run
ifoliu
m.
zS
tatis
tica
la
na
lysis
:M
=m
ea
n;
SE
=sta
nd
ard
err
or;
MD
I=m
ea
nd
ise
ase
ind
ex;
PD
I=p
erc
en
tag
ed
ise
ase
ind
ex;
C.D
.=cri
tica
ld
iffe
ren
ce
.x
Fin
din
gs:
n.s
.=n
osig
nifi
ca
nt
diff
ere
nce
s.
**S
ign
ifica
nt
diff
ere
nce
.k
An
on
ym
ou
s.
Ho
mo
eo
pa
thic
Ph
arm
aco
po
eia
,C
alc
utt
a:
M.
Bh
att
ach
ary
ya
&C
o’s
,N
eta
jiS
ub
ba
sR
oa
d1
97
0.
{B
ha
tta
ch
ary
ya
et
al.
Ho
me
op
ath
icP
ha
rma
co
po
eia
.C
alc
utt
a:
M.
B.
an
dC
om
pa
ny
Pri
va
teL
dt.
19
70
.#
Bh
att
ach
ary
ae
ta
l.T
he
ho
me
op
ath
icfa
mily
pra
ctic
e,
2n
de
dn
,C
alc
utt
a:
Eco
no
mic
Pre
ss
19
31
.
Ta
ble
3M
ain
exp
eri
me
nta
lite
ms
of
pa
pe
rso
np
hyto
pa
tho
log
ica
lm
od
els
with
MIS
$5
Pu
blic
atio
n[r
efe
ren
ce
nu
mb
er
]
Ho
st/
pa
tho
ge
n*
Me
tho
dsy
Nu
mb
er
n(p
er
tre
atm
en
ta
nd
exp
eri
me
nt)
Nu
mb
er
n(i
nd
ep
en
de
nt
exp
eri
me
nts
)
Me
asu
red
pa
ram
ete
rsT
rea
tme
nt
Te
st
su
bsta
ncez /
po
ten
cy
leve
ls
Po
ten
tisa
tion
Co
ntr
olx
Sta
tistic
al
an
aly
sisk
Fin
din
gs{
Be
ttie
ta
l.49
To
ba
cco
/T
MV
b,
r1
0P
etr
id
ish
es
with
9le
af
dis
ks
for
ea
ch
tre
atm
en
t
3fo
r4
5d
H,
5,
45
cH
po
ten
cie
s;
5fo
r5
dH
po
ten
cy
a)
Hyp
ers
en
siti
ve
lesio
nn
um
be
rp
er
lea
fd
isk
b)
Va
ria
bili
tye
va
lua
tion
Imm
ers
ion
of
lea
fd
isks
Ars
en
ictr
ioxid
e5
,4
5d
H,
cH
dH
,cH
sca
le;
dilu
tion
sin
Me
rck
dis
tille
dw
ate
r.M
ach
ine
su
ccu
ssio
n(v
igo
rou
sh
ittin
g,
70
imp
acts
)
U,
P:
Me
rck
dis
tille
dw
ate
rM
,S
E,
Me
,M
AD
,g
;W
ilco
xo
nru
nk
su
mte
st,
t-te
st
a)
De
cre
ase
**b
ya
lld
Hp
ote
ncie
s,
esp
ecia
llyb
y4
5d
Hb
)D
ecre
ase
of
va
ria
bili
tyb
etw
ee
ne
xp
eri
me
nts
by
all
dH
,cH
po
ten
cie
s
Da
tta
57
Mu
lbe
rry/
Me
loid
og
yn
ein
co
gn
ita
No
tre
po
rte
d3
ba
tch
es
of
20
pla
nts
for
ea
ch
tre
atm
en
t;3
ran
do
msa
mp
les/b
atc
hfo
rle
af
an
dro
ot-
pro
tein
co
nte
nt
3a
)S
ho
ot
len
gth
,fr
esh
we
igh
tb
)R
oo
tle
ng
th,
fre
sh
we
igh
tc)
Nu
mb
er
of
lea
ve
s/p
lan
td
)S
urf
ace
are
ao
fle
ave
se
)G
all
nu
mb
er/
pla
nt
f)N
em
ato
de
po
pu
latio
n/
roo
t,so
ilg
)L
ea
f,ro
ot-
pro
tein
co
nte
nt
h)
An
aly
sis
of
resid
ue
si)
Invitr
om
ort
alit
yte
st
Fo
liar
sp
ray
Cin
aL
M,
20
0c
csca
lein
90
%e
tha
no
l;fin
ald
ilutio
n1
:40
with
dis
tille
dw
ate
rfo
rC
ina
MT
,1
:20
for
Cin
a2
00
c.
Ha
nd
su
ccu
ssio
n(1
0p
ow
erf
ul
do
wn
wa
rdstr
oke
s)
P:
1:4
0,
1:2
0a
qu
eo
us
so
lutio
ns
of
90
%e
tha
no
l
M,
SE
;C
.D.
at
p#
0.0
1b
yA
NO
VA
,t-
test
a)
Incre
ase
**b
)In
cre
ase
**c)
Incre
ase
**d
)In
cre
ase
**e
)D
ecre
ase
**f)
De
cre
ase
**in
roo
ts,
incre
ase
**in
so
ilg
)In
cre
ase
**h
)N
oto
xic
resid
ue
si)
No
eff
ect
Sh
ah
-Ro
ssi
et
al.1
0A
rab
ido
psis
tha
lian
a/
Pse
ud
om
on
as
syri
ng
ae
b,
r,s
8–
13
pla
nts
5–
6in
fectio
nra
tein
lea
ve
sP
lun
gin
gu
psid
ed
ow
no
fp
lan
t;d
rop
pin
gin
the
ce
nte
ro
fth
ero
se
tte
;w
ate
rin
g
30
ho
me
op
ath
ictr
ea
tme
nts
;se
lecte
d:
Ca
rbo
-v,
Ma
g-
p,
No
so
de
,B
ipla
nto
l3
0x,
Bip
lan
tol
Po
ten
cie
su
pto
9x
ine
tha
no
l4
3%
,u
pto
30
xin
ste
rile
pu
rifie
dw
ate
r;n
oso
de
po
ten
tiza
tion
inste
rile
pu
rifie
dw
ate
r.H
an
dsu
ccu
ssio
n(1
min
)
S:
ste
rile
pu
rifie
dw
ate
r1
x;
P-C
M,
SD
;t-
test,
on
e-
an
dtw
o-
wa
yA
NO
VA
,Fte
st,
LS
Dte
st
Re
du
ctio
n**
by
Bip
lan
tol
(co
ntin
ue
do
nn
ext
pa
ge
)
Ta
ble
3(C
onti
nued
)
Pu
blic
atio
n[r
efe
ren
ce
nu
mb
er
]
Ho
st/
pa
tho
ge
n*
Me
tho
dsy
Nu
mb
er
n(p
er
tre
atm
en
ta
nd
exp
eri
me
nt)
Nu
mb
er
n(i
nd
ep
en
de
nt
exp
eri
me
nts
)
Me
asu
red
pa
ram
ete
rsT
rea
tme
nt
Te
st
su
bsta
ncez /
po
ten
cy
leve
ls
Po
ten
tisa
tion
Co
ntr
olx
Sta
tistic
al
an
aly
sisk
Fin
din
gs{
Su
ku
la
nd
Su
ku
l54
Co
wp
ea
/M
elo
ido
gyn
ein
co
gn
ita
No
tre
po
rte
d1
0p
lan
tsfo
re
ach
tre
atm
en
t;fo
rto
talro
ot
pro
tein
3ra
nd
om
sa
mp
les
fro
me
ach
gro
up
2a
)S
ho
ot
len
gth
,w
eig
ht
b)
Ro
ot
len
gth
,w
eig
ht
c)
Ro
ot
no
du
led
)G
all
nu
mb
er
e)
Ne
ma
tod
ep
op
ula
tion
/ro
ot,
so
ilf)
To
talro
ot
pro
tein
g)
Ab
so
rptio
nsp
ectr
aC
ina
10
00
vs.
MT
h)
Re
laxa
tion
time
(T1)
Cin
a1
00
0vs.
90
%e
tha
no
l
Fo
liar
sp
ray
Cin
a1
00
0c
csca
lein
90
%e
tha
no
l(p
ote
ntiz
atio
nb
y1
0d
ow
nw
ard
str
oke
s),
imb
ibiti
on
of
su
cro
se
glo
bu
les
the
nso
lute
din
dis
tille
dw
ate
r
U:
aq
ue
ou
sso
lutio
ns
of
glo
bu
les
imb
eb
be
din
90
%e
tha
no
l
M,
SE
;C
.D.
at
p#
0.0
1b
yA
NO
VA
,t-
test
a)
Incre
ase
**b
)In
cre
ase
**in
len
gth
an
dd
ecre
ase
**in
we
igh
tc)
Incre
ase
**d
,e
)R
ed
uctio
n**
f)In
cre
ase
**g
)n
.s.
h)
Re
du
ctio
n**
vs.O
H,
incre
ase
**vs.
CH
2,
CH
3
gro
up
s
Su
ku
le
ta
l.55
To
ma
to/
Me
loid
og
yn
ein
co
gn
ita
No
tre
po
rte
d2
rep
lica
tes
of
10
pla
nts
for
ea
ch
tre
atm
en
t
1a
)S
ho
ot
len
gth
,w
eig
ht
b)
Ro
ot
len
gth
,w
eig
ht
c)
Ga
lln
um
be
rd
)N
em
ato
de
po
pu
latio
n/
roo
t,so
ile
)T
ota
lro
ot
pro
tein
f)A
bso
rptio
nsp
ectr
aC
ina
10
00
vs.
MT
g)
Re
laxa
tion
time
(T1)
Cin
a1
00
0vs.
90
%e
tha
no
l
Fo
liar
sp
ray
Cin
a2
00
,1
00
0c
csca
lein
90
%e
tha
no
l(p
ote
ntiz
atio
nb
y1
0d
ow
nw
ard
str
oke
s),
imb
ibiti
on
of
su
cro
se
glo
bu
les
the
nso
lute
din
dis
tille
dw
ate
r
U:
aq
ue
ou
sso
lutio
ns
of
glo
bu
les
imb
eb
be
din
90
%e
tha
no
l
M,
SE
;C
.D.
at
p#
0.0
1b
yA
NO
VA
,t-
test
a)
Incre
ase
**b
)In
cre
ase
**in
len
gth
by
Cin
a2
00
ca
nd
n.s
.in
we
igh
tc)
Re
du
ctio
n**
d)
Re
du
ctio
n**
e)
n.s
.f)
n.s
.g
)n
.s.
vs.O
H,
incre
ase
**vs.
CH
2,
CH
3
gro
up
s
Su
ku
le
ta
l.56
La
dy’s
fin
ge
r/M
elo
ido
gyn
ein
co
gn
ita
r1
0p
lan
tsfo
re
ach
tre
atm
en
t;fo
rle
af,
roo
tp
rote
ina
nd
roo
tco
nte
nt
5ra
nd
om
sa
mp
les
fro
me
ach
gro
up
2a
)S
ho
ot
len
gth
,w
eig
ht
b)
Ro
ot
len
gth
,w
eig
ht
c)
Le
afn
um
be
rd
)G
all
nu
mb
er
e)
Ro
ot-
ne
ma
tod
ep
op
ula
tion
f)S
oil-
ne
ma
tod
ep
op
ula
tion
Fo
liar
sp
ray
Cin
a,
Sa
nt
30
cc
sca
lein
90
%e
tha
no
l(p
ote
ntiz
atio
nb
y1
0d
ow
nw
ard
str
oke
s),
fin
al
dilu
tion
1:1
00
0w
ithd
istil
led
wa
ter
N:
ino
cu
late
du
ntr
ea
ted
pla
nts
,u
nin
ocu
late
d,
un
tre
ate
dp
lan
ts;
P:
ino
cu
late
dp
lan
tstr
ea
ted
with
Eth
an
ol
30
c
M,
SE
;C
.D.
at
p#
0.0
5b
yo
ne
wa
yA
NO
VA
a)
De
cre
ase
**in
len
gth
by
Sa
nt
b)
De
cre
ase
**in
len
gth
by
all,
inw
eig
ht
by
Cin
a,S
an
tc)
De
cre
ase
**b
yC
ina
(co
ntin
ue
do
nn
ext
pa
ge
)
Ta
ble
3(C
onti
nued
)
Pu
blic
atio
n[r
efe
ren
ce
nu
mb
er
]
Ho
st/
pa
tho
ge
n*
Me
tho
dsy
Nu
mb
er
n(p
er
tre
atm
en
ta
nd
exp
eri
me
nt)
Nu
mb
er
n(i
nd
ep
en
de
nt
exp
eri
me
nts
)
Me
asu
red
pa
ram
ete
rsT
rea
tme
nt
Te
st
su
bsta
ncez /
po
ten
cy
leve
ls
Po
ten
tisa
tion
Co
ntr
olx
Sta
tistic
al
an
aly
sisk
Fin
din
gs{
g)
Le
af,
roo
t-p
rote
inco
nte
nt
h)
Le
af,
roo
tw
ate
rco
nte
nt
d,
e)
De
cre
ase
**b
yC
ina
,Sa
nt
f)In
cre
ase
**b
yC
ina
,Sa
nt
g)
Incre
ase
**b
yC
ina
inle
ave
s,
**d
ecre
ase
by
all
inro
ots
h)
n.s
.in
lea
ve
s,
incre
ase
**b
yC
ina
,d
ecre
ase
**b
yS
an
t
*H
ost/
pa
tho
ge
n:
TM
V=
tob
acco
mo
sa
icvir
us.
yM
eth
od
s:
b=
blin
din
g;
r=
ran
do
mis
atio
n;
s=
syste
ma
ticn
eg
ativ
eco
ntr
ole
xp
eri
me
nts
.z
Te
st
su
bsta
nce
:C
arb
o-v
=C
arb
ove
ge
tab
ilis;
Ma
g-p
=M
ag
ne
sia
ph
osp
ho
rica
;S
an
t=S
an
ton
in.
xC
on
tro
ls:
U=
un
su
ccu
sse
dp
ote
ntis
atio
nm
ed
ium
;S
=su
ccu
sse
dp
ote
ntis
atio
nm
ed
ium
;P
:p
ote
ntis
ed
po
ten
tisa
tion
me
diu
m;
P-C
=p
ositi
ve
co
ntr
ol;
N=
no
tre
atm
en
tg
rou
p.
kS
tatis
tica
la
na
lysis
:M
=m
ea
n;
SE
=sta
nd
ard
err
or;
Me
=m
ed
ian
;M
AD
=m
ea
na
bso
lute
de
via
tion
;C
.D.=
cri
tica
ld
iffe
ren
ce
;g
=P
ea
rso
n’s
ind
ex
of
ske
wn
ess;
r=
co
effi
cie
nt
of
co
rre
latio
n.
{F
ind
ing
s:
n.s
.=n
osig
nifi
ca
nt
diff
ere
nce
s.
**S
ign
ifica
nt
diff
ere
nce
.
Homeopathy in phytopathological models and field trialsL Betti et al
257
theobromae (Pat.) Griffon & Maubl. (Syn. = Botryodiplo-dia theobromae Pat.), a severe pathogen that causes post-harvest rot of guava (Psidium guajava L.): all the tested po-tencies of Arsenicum album were found to completely sup-press in vitro spore germination, while Kali iodatum andBlatta orientalis were always associated with better germi-nation than the control. Arsenic potencies were then testedin vivo as a pre-inoculation dip treatment of guava fruits:a large reduction in fruit rot was observed (1–2% rottingin treated fruits, compared with 76% rotting in the controlseries). Since the treated fruits did not exhibit any phyto-toxic effects, homeopathic arsenic was proposed as a safeand economical treatment for the control of post-harvestrot of guava. Subsequently, the in vitro effects of tenhomeopathic treatments on spore germination, mycelialgrowth and sporulation of fungal pathogens that causepost-harvest fruit rots were reported.21 The pathogens con-sidered were: A. alternata, isolated from apple and tomato;G. zeae, isolated from banana and tomato; Glomerella cin-gulata (Stoneman) Spauld. & H. Schrenk (Syn. = Colleto-trichum gloeosporioides Penz.) isolated from mango; P.mangiferae, isolated from mango; P. psidii and Colletotri-chum coccodes (Wallr.) S. Hughes (Syn. = Gloeosporiumpsidii Delacr.) isolated from guava. Nearly all the treat-ments inhibited spore germination (particularly the centes-imal potencies) with, in some cases, a pathogen-specificaction: for example, Thuja occidentalis and Blatta orienta-lis were effective only against G. zeae, whereas Lycopo-dium clavatum and Zincum sulfuricum showed a verywide range of action. However, the inhibiting effect was re-stricted to specific ranges of potencies (in both the decimaland centesimal scale) and the magnitude of action varied de-pending on the potency. Some treatments were effectiveonly in a single range (i.e. Blatta orientalis inhibited sporegermination of G. zeae only in the range 146–150c), whileothers had a number of effective ranges (i.e. Zincum sulfur-icum was effective against the same pathogen at 1–5,27–32, 45–49c and 1–6x). The potencies that had maximuminhibitory action on spore germination were then furtherevaluated for their effects on growth and sporulation ofthe corresponding pathogens: in some cases the same inhib-itory action was observed on both experimental variables,while in others cases only on growth. A significant correla-tion between inhibition of spore germination and reductionin mycelial yield was found for all the pathogens consideredin the study. The same authors22 further investigated the ef-ficacy of particular potencies, chosen on the basis of previ-ous studies,21 for controlling storage rot of artificiallyinfected fruits: Kali iodatum 149c against G. zeae of tomato(Licopersicon esculentum Karsten ex Farw), Kali iodatum87c against P. psidii of guava and Lycopodium clavatum190c against P. mangiferae of mango (Mangifera indicaL.). In particular, the ability of some adjuvants (soap pow-der, wheat flour, castor oil, paraffin oil and glycerol) to im-prove the efficacy of the treatments was evaluated: onlysoap powder showed highly significant results vs. control(i.e. the same remedy without any adjuvant), in both pre-and post-inoculation treatments, without any damagingeffects on the fruits. The effects of the treatments on thequality and palatability of the treated fruits, and the eco-nomics of their application, were also evaluated: the treat-ments caused a significant reduction in losses duringstorage, and no change in the taste and palatability of thefruit. In an attempt to explore the cause of the above-re-ported inhibition of fungal spore germination,21 the sameteam investigated the effects of the same homeopathic treat-ments on the respiration and organic acid pool of the germi-nating spores.23 Most of the treatments caused a markedreduction in the respiration rate, but with a magnitude of ef-fect that varied depending on the treatment, its potency andthe pathogen. Some of the treatments even brought the res-piration down to zero. There was a significant correlationbetween the inhibition of spore germination and the rateof respiration. Also, quantitative and qualitative differenceswere observed between the organic acid pool of spores ger-minating in homeopathic treatments and that of spores ger-minating in distilled water. In a subsequent paper,24 theauthors report the results of an in vivo evaluation of the ef-ficacy of some homeopathic treatments previously tested invitro21–23 for controlling the afore-mentioned pathogensthat cause post-harvest fruit rots. The experimental protocolwas the same as that of the preceding papers,22 and the re-sults confirm the previous findings: not all the treatments se-lected based on their activity in vitro yielded significantresults when tested in vivo; only a few induced significantreductions in infection and fruit rotting during storage. Inparticular, the untreated guava, mango, tomato and applefruits incurred losses of 67–76%, while the same treatedfruits showed losses of 21–48%; in banana the differencewas likewise significant, with a 60% loss for the treatedfruits compared to a 100% loss for the controls. Moreover,soap powder proved to be highly effective as an adjuvant,enhancing the action of all the efficacious treatments with-out inducing appreciable changes in the nutritional and or-ganoleptic properties. Another study by the same researchteam25 investigated the effects of twelve homeopathic treat-ments in four potencies (3, 6x; 30, 200c) for controlling fruitrot in guava caused by L. theobromae and Geotricum can-didum (Link). Using in vitro tests, an inhibition of mycelialgrowth was obtained with a number of treatments, but tovarying extents depending on the remedy, potency andpathogen: those treatments that induced more than 30% in-hibition are reported in Table 1. The most effective reme-dies were then tested in vivo, as pre- and post-inoculationdip treatments for the fruits. The best results against L. the-obromae were obtained with Kali bichromicum 200c: a sig-nificant reduction of approximately 60–70% relative to thecontrol in the percentage of infected fruits and rot develop-ment was observed for both pre- and post-inoculation treat-ments. The most efficacious treatment against G. candidumwas Lycopodium clavatum 30c, which reduced the percent-age of infected fruits and rot development in both pre- andpost-inoculation treatments by about 70%. Other studies26
investigated the effects of two homeopathic treatments(Filix mas and Blatta orientalis) in different decimal poten-cies (3, 6, 30, 200x) on wheat seed mycoflora (both externaland internal). Although no statistical analysis is presented,some results appear to be interesting: the population of
Homeopathy in phytopathological models and field trialsL Betti et al
258
Fusarium oxysporum Schltdl. was completely suppressedby the 30 and 200x potencies of both treatments, whilethat of A. alternata was reduced by all the tested potenciesof Blatta orientalis. The germination of wheat seeds treatedwith homeopathic preparations did not vary significantlyfrom that of untreated wheat seeds. A more recent paper27reports the effects of two other homeopathic treatments,Lycopodium clavatum and Thuja occidentalis, in differentpotencies (3, 6x and 30, 200c), on wheat seed mycoflora.This study investigated the activity of the treatments onpathogenic F. oxysporum on the general mycoflora of seedsas well as in the spermosphere (i.e. region of the soil influ-enced by germinating seeds) and the spermoplane (i.e. my-coflora associated with germinating seeds). Most of thetested potencies suppressed F. oxysporum populations inquiescent seeds, as well as in the spermosphere and spermo-plane regions: this finding is interesting in light of the severediseases caused by this pathogen. Moreover, all the treat-ments both qualitatively and quantitatively affected the gen-eral mycoflora of the seeds and of the spermosphere andspermoplane, with alterations specific to the potency andfungal form involved.
Other authors28 studied the effect of a number of homeo-pathic treatments in 30 and 200c potencies against Cochlio-bolus miyabeanus (S. Ito & Kurib.) Drechsler ex Dastur(Syn. = Helminthosporium oryzae Breda de Haan), Haema-tonectria haematococca (Berk. & Broome) Samuels &Rossman (Syn. = Fusarium solani (Mart.) Sacc.) and Peni-cillium decumbens Thom. Some of the treatments showedstrong toxicity against the germination of test fungi, whileothers accelerated it.
Another study29 investigated the effects of 30 and 200cpotencies of some preparations on mycelial growth and co-nidial germination of A. alternata, Pseudocochliobolus pal-lescens Tsuda & Ueyama (Syn. = Curvularia pallescensBoedijn) and Cochliobolus australiensis (Tsuda &Ueyama) Alcorn (Syn. = Drechslera australiensis Bugnic.ex Subram. & B.L. Jain). Some potencies were found to in-hibit spore germination and in vitro growth, while others ac-celerated them. The same in vitro growth model was usedby Misra et al.,30 who tested fourteen homeopathic treat-ments in the 200c potency against Aspergillus parasiticusSpeare: two treatments showed a stimulating effect on afla-toxin production, one had no effect, while the remainingtreatments inhibited aflatoxin production by 10–80%.With respect to fungal growth, some potencies induced a re-duction of up to around 65%. Subsequently, Mishra31 testeddifferent remedies on in vitro spore germination and growthof Aspergillus niger Tiegh, which causes storage deteriora-tion of coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.) and cumin (Cu-minum cyminum L.) seeds: the 200c potencies of Arsenicumalbum, Calcarea carbonica, Graphites and Phosphorusinduced an inhibition of more than 90%.
Another team32 screened different homeopathic poten-cies for their inhibitory effect on the growth of A. alter-nata and Cochliobolus lunatus R.R. Nelson & Haasis(Syn. = Curvularia lunata (Wakker) Boedijn), two com-mon leaf spot pathogens that affect economically impor-
tant ornamental and cultivated plants. Most of the testedtreatments caused a significant inhibitory effect, thoughonly a limited number of potencies induced 100% inhibi-tion. The same experimental set-up was also used bySingh33 to assess the effects of some homeopathic treat-ments on three keratinophilic fungi, Nannizzia incurvataStockdale, Malbranchea aurantiaca Sigler & J.W. Car-mich., Botryotrichum keratinophilum Kushwaha & S.C.Agarwal, in terms of radial growth and mycelial weight.Some treatments were found to inhibit in vitro growthof the test fungi, but the work suffers from the same short-comings as the former paper.32
Another team34 tested some remedies on the growth ofAlternaria solani Sorauer and L. theobromae, obtaining an-tifungal effects against both fungi, though with notablevariability.
The effectiveness of some homeopathic treatments on theincidence of seed-borne fungi and seed germination of reedokra (Abelmoschus esculentus L.) was also studied.35 A to-tal of 22 fungal species (not entirely reported by the authors)were isolated from the seeds; Thuja, Nitric acid and Sulphur200c completely checked the growth of all the species,whereas Teucrium mother tincture and Nitric acid 30cfailed to control Aspergillus flavus (Link), A. fumigatus(Fresen.), A. niger, A. alternata, Penicillium oxalicum (Cur-rie & Thom), P. granulatum (Bainier), Rhizopus stolonifer(Ehrenb.) Vuill. (Syn. = Rhizopus nigricans Ehremb.),Mortierella subtilissima (Oudem). A significant increasewas observed in seed germination and root/shoot lengthvs. control for all the treatments.
In another paper,36 the effects of Kali iodatum, Arseni-cum album, Thuja and Blatta orientalis (3, 30, 200c poten-cies) on mycelial growth, sporangial production, andpectolytic and cellulolytic enzyme activity of Phytophtoracolocasiae Racib. were investigated, along with the abilityto control leaf blight and corm rot of taro (Colocasiaesculenta (L.) Schott) caused by the fungus. The 200cpotency of each treatment proved to be the most effective;in particular, in in vitro experiments, Kali iodatum 200cproduced a 90% inhibition of mycelial growth, very poorsporulation, and 65–97% inhibition of all the studiedenzymatic activities (polygalacturonase, poly-methyl-gal-acturonase, pectin-methyl-transeliminase, poly-galacturo-nase-transeliminase, cellulase). Kali iodatum andArsenicum album 200c, which yielded the most interestingresults in vitro, were tested in vivo as a pre-inoculation sprayon leaves of potted plants: both significantly reduced theintensity of disease, by 59 and 45% respectively.
The effects of 10 homeopathic treatments on spore germi-nation of A. solani and on tomato and wheat seed germinationwere studied.37 The most interesting results were obtainedwith Selenium 31c, which caused complete spore inhibition,and Cuprum 201, 203c, which reduced fungal germinationby 40 and 50%, respectively. No effect was observed on to-mato seed germination, but seedling growth was stimulatedby Sulphur 201, 203c. On the other hand, the percentage ofwheat seeds contaminated by A. alternata was increased byLycopodium 201c, Natrum 202c, Sulphur 201c and
Homeopathy in phytopathological models and field trialsL Betti et al
259
decreased by Cuprum 203c, while seedling growth showeda 50% increase with Cuprum 202, 203c and Sulphur 202c.A Brazilian team38 investigated the possibility of usinghomeopathic treatments to control apple tree powdery mil-dew caused by Podosphaera leucotricha (Ellis & Everh.)E. S. Salmon, in line with the principles of organic agricul-ture. Only a short abstract of the work was published:young apple plants var. Fuji, kept in plastic bags, andshowing foliar symptoms of powdery mildew, weresprayed twice (at 12-day intervals) with Kali iodatum,Lachesis trigonocephalus, Staphysagria 30, 100c, Sulphur30c and Oidium lycopersici 100c. The plants were evalu-ated one week after the last treatment, and those treatedwith Staphysagria 100c showed a significant reductionin the incidence of disease.
Plant/virus models
Other studies have looked into the effectiveness of ho-meopathic remedies on plant virus diseases. The paperswith MIS < 5 are summarized in Table 2; most of these ex-periments involve a small number of replicates and data arepresented without statistics.
Indian researchers39 tested several treatments, selectedfrom those used for human viral diseases, on tobacco(Nicotiana tabacum L. and N. glutinosa L.) plants orleaf disks inoculated with tobacco mosaic virus (TMV):an inhibitory effect on virus multiplication rate and locallesion number was observed. The same team40 studiedthe effects of 12 Schussler salts in the 6x potency on to-bacco (N. tabacum, N. glutinosa) and goosefoot (Cheno-podium amaranticolor Coste & A. Reyn.) plantsinoculated with TMV. A reduction in the number of le-sions in N. tabacum and N. glutinosa was obtained withpre- and post-inoculation treatments. Singh et al.41 alsoreport a reduction in the number of TMV lesions in N.glutinosa with post-inoculation sprays of some homeo-pathic treatments. A very short communication,42 de-scribes some remedies showing an inhibitory effectwhen mixed with TMV suspension and used as a spraytreatment on tomato and goosefoot plants.
Khurana43 investigated the in vitro and in vivo effects ofsome homeopathic treatments on papaya (Carica papayaL.), tobacco and goosefoot against three viruses: papayamosaic virus (PapMV), papaya leaf distortion mosaic virus(PLDMV) and papaya ringspot virus (PRSV). A higher de-gree of virus inhibition was observed when the treatmentswere either mixed with infective sap before inoculation oradministered to hosts by root-dip treatment. The treatmentshad more effect on systemic infections than on local lesions.In a subsequent study,44 different plant models were used toassess the antiviral potential of some homeopathic prepara-tions. Certain potencies of different treatments were foundto reduce the average number of lesions and the percentageinfection by more than 50%. Unfortunately, nothing can besaid about the methodology and statistics because some pa-ges of the paper are not available.
The effects of pre- and post-inoculation treatments usingfive different remedies were studied on papaya seedlings in-
fected with PLDMV45: pre-infection treatments appear tobe more effective than post-infection treatments in delayingonset of symptoms and reducing their severity. Shukla andJoshi46 tested some homeopathic treatments on sorghumplants (Sorghum vulgare Pers.) infected with the sugarcanemosaic virus (SCMV), and claim that some of the testedtreatments induced virus inhibition. Several remedies inthe 30x potency were tested47 against PapMV, which iswidespread in India and causes heavy losses in papayaplants. The treatments were prepared in two concentrations(1% or 2% in water) and applied 4 times, at one-week inter-vals, to artificially inoculated seedlings. Visual symptomswere recorded, then the percentage disease control and con-fidence difference were calculated. All the treatments sig-nificantly reduced disease severity, especially Thuja andCedron at 2%, and showed prolonged effects in the treatedplants. The chlorophyll content of infected plants (very lowcompared to healthy plants) was also found to be increasedby most of the treatments, but not to a statistically signifi-cant extent. Subsequently, the same research team48 studiedthe effects of two of the previously tested homeopathictreatments (Thuja and Cedron 30x at 2% in water) in com-parison with three plant extracts and three chemical com-pounds against TMV in tomato. The experimentalprotocol consisted of 7 foliar sprays applied at one-week in-tervals. The same treatments were also tested in a field trial(see ‘Field trials’ section) against cucumber mosaic virus(CMV) in bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria (Molina)Standl.). The appearance of visual symptoms on tomatoplants was recorded periodically and final observationswere taken one month after the last spraying. All the treat-ments induced a significant reduction in the mean incidenceof disease, particularly Thuja 30x and C. aculeatum extract(17.3%, compared to 6.6% for the control), and signifi-cantly enhanced the yield.
A more recent paper,49 with MIS $ 5 (reported inTable 3), investigates the effects of homeopathic arsenictrioxide (As2O3) (Arsenicum album) treatment on tobaccoplant resistance to TMV. N. tabacum plants, cv. Samsun,carrying the TMV resistance gene N, were used for all theexperiments, which were performed in a greenhouse un-der controlled conditions. A purified TMV-type strainsuspension was used for virus inoculation, and the out-come variable was the mean number of hypersensitive le-sions (necrotic spots) on leaf disks obtained frominoculated leaves following a randomized pattern andblind protocol. The remedy was selected on the basis ofthe hypersensitive-like reaction induced by arsenic triox-ide in phytotoxic concentrations on tobacco leaves (prin-ciple of similarity, Figure 1) and treatments were preparedin decimal and centesimal Hahnemannian scales (5 and45 potencies), starting from As2O3 1 mM. Statistical anal-yses showed significant effects for both decimal potenciesvs. controls (unsuccussed and potentized water): in partic-ular, As2O3 45dH induced a highly significant decrease inthe number of lesions (about 21% vs. unsuccussed con-trol, Figure 2), i.e. an improved level of host resistance.A decrease in inter-experiment variability following deci-mal and centesimal treatments was observed.
Figure 1 Principle of similarity in tobacco leaves inoculated with TMV49: hypersensitive lesions induced by TMV (A) and necrotic spotsinduced by As2O3 in phytotoxic concentrations (B).
Homeopathy in phytopathological models and field trialsL Betti et al
260
Plant/bacteria models
Very few studies adopting a homeopathic approach haveinvestigated bacterial infections. In fact, we found only oneshort paper and an abstract of a congress (MIS < 5, Table 2)and a very recent paper (MIS $ 5, Table 3). The first ofthese three50 tested four homeopathic treatments on in vitropineapple plants (Ananas comosus (L.) Merr.) against bac-terial contaminations, using distilled water in the same po-tencies as the control. There is insufficient informationabout the experimental protocol, and no statistical analysis,but the results seem interesting: complete suppression ofbacterial contamination was obtained with Calendula,Staphysagria and Oscillococcinum, while Arsenicum al-bum showed a stimulatory effect on seedling growth. A sen-sitivity of the homeopathic preparations to sunlight was alsoobserved. The congress abstract51 reports positive resultscontrolling Xanthomonas albilineans, associated with sug-arcane in meristematic cultivation, using four homeopathicremedies, but no description is given of the experimentalprotocol.
The only well-structured study is the third,10 which in-vestigates the effects of some homeopathic treatments onArabidopsis thaliana plants infected with Pseudomonas sy-ringae (pv tomato strain DC3000, Figure 3). The experi-mental protocol is fully described and all the mainscientific requirements are satisfied, with 5 or 6 independent
Figure 2 Hypersensitive lesions (necrotic spots) in tobacco leaf disks ino(B)49: homeopathic treatment (B) induces fewer and smaller lesions with
experiments performed. A total of 30 homeopathic prepara-tions (chosen on the basis of different criteria) werescreened, from which five were selected for the main exper-iments. The plants were treated with homeopathic prepara-tions before and after infection: only one homeopathiccomplex remedy (Biplantol SOS in original formulation)induced a significant reduction in the rate of infection inthe leaves. The efficacy of this treatment was about 50%of that obtained with a non-homeopathic plant immunity ac-tivator such as Bion, suggesting that homeopathic formula-tions, if optimized further, might offer potential for treatingbacterial plant diseases.
Plant/nematode models
Some papers on nematode infections have been pub-lished by Indian researchers52,53 (Table 2;54–57 Table 3),all of which investigate the root-knot nematode Meloido-gyne incognita (Kofoid and White) Chitwood. A numberof homeopathic treatments used to treat helminth infec-tions in human beings were tested in the 30 and 200cpotencies measuring in vitro larval hatching52: some treat-ments showed an inhibiting effect, while others had a stim-ulatory effect. Subsequently,53 an in vitro study wascarried out to evaluate the effects of fifteen homeopathictreatments (potencies not specified) on infective second-stage juveniles. Nematode mortalities were recorded 12,
culated with TMV and treated with either water (A) or As2O3 dH 45respect to control (A).
Figure 3 Lesions induced by Pseudomonas syringae in leaves ofArabidopsis thaliana (see arrow).10
Homeopathy in phytopathological models and field trialsL Betti et al
261
24, 36, 48 and 60 h after treatment and converted into per-centages. Arsenicum album was found to be most toxic tothe nematodes, producing approximately 100% mortalityin 36 h, followed by Thuja, Belladonna, Antimonium tar-taricum and Cocculus (26, 12, 11 and 10% mortality, re-spectively), compared to the positive control (Furadan)which induced just 5% mortality. After 48 h, Sulphurand Rhus toxicodendron also induced a higher mortalitythan the positive control.
Cina 1000c was tested on cowpea plants (Vigna unguico-lata (L.) Walp) inoculated with second-stage larvae.54 Theexperimental protocol is fully described, and significantresults are reported in inoculated and treated plants, as com-pared to inoculated and untreated controls. In particular,there was found to be an increase in plant growth (in termsof shoot/root length and weight, and root length), as well asa drastic reduction in the number of root galls and the nem-atode population in the roots and soil. Moreover, root-pro-tein content, significantly reduced in infected plants, wasrestored in the treated group. Homeopathic Cina showeda very similar spectral pattern to that of the mother tinctureof Cina, whereas the spin-lattice relaxation time (T1) wassignificantly reduced for OH and increased for the CH2
and CH3 groups in Cina 1000c as compared to 90% ethanol.The same research group55 studied the effects of Cina 200and 1000c on tomato plants inoculated with M. incognitalarvae. Similar results were obtained, with more pro-nounced treatment effects obtained with Cina 200c than1000c. Further studies have been carried out on inoculatedlady’s finger plants (Hibiscus esculentus L.), treated withCina, Santonin, Ethanol 30c56. A significant reduction innumber of root-galls, root-nematode population and root-protein content was obtained with Cina and Santonin, alongwith a significant increase in the soil-nematode population
as compared to the inoculated and untreated controls. More-over, Santonin significantly reduced root water content,whereas Cina induced an opposite effect.
Finally, the effects of Cina MT and 200c on root-knot disease of mulberry (Morus alba L.) have beeninvestigated57: treatments were applied by foliar spraying(pre- or post-inoculation) on plants infected withM. incognita juveniles. Not only were inoculated andtreated plants significantly less affected by nematodes,but they also showed significantly better growth for allparameters than the uninoculated controls, and improvedleaf number and surface area. It is also interesting thatthe effects of Cina 200c were more pronounced thanthose of Cina MT. Pre-treatment was generally moreeffective than post-treatment.
Field trials
Our literature search found 9 publications describingfield trials: of these, 3 did not include any statistical anal-ysis,48,59,60 and 2 were congress proceedings.61,62 The 6papers with statistics61–66 were evaluated for their MIS,taking into account that the experimental set-up of fieldtrials is different from that of experiments in controlledconditions. Of the MIS parameters, particular attentionwas given to experimental design, which was analysedaccording to the EPPO standards for efficacy evaluationof field trials.67 The evaluated papers achieved scoresof at least 5 points, and are listed in Table 4. A brief de-scription of all the papers reporting field trials is givenbelow.
The oldest work59 studied the effect of Tabacum 30c onpapaya plants affected by PapMV: the treatment was cho-sen on the basis of the principle of similarity, and an atten-uation of symptomatology was observed. In McIvor,60 fruittrees showing leaf curl symptoms were reportedly success-fully treated with an isopathic 6c potency. In a field crop ofbottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria (Molina) Standl.) in-fected with CMV, two homeopathic treatments (Thujaand Cedron 30x at 2% in water), previously tested in vitro(Table 2), were evaluated in comparison with three plant ex-tracts and three chemical compounds.48 Seedlings weresprayed 7 times at one-week intervals: the final observationfound a reduction in the mean incidence of disease and anenhancement in yield.
Kayne63 reports the results of a trial on rye grass (Loliumperenne L.) treated with Sulphur 6c and a mixture of Sul-phur, Silicea and Carbo vegetabilis 6c (chosen on the basisof the remedy picture for Sulphur reported in the MateriaMedica). The choice of potency and dosage were arbitrary,and no significant effects on plant growth were found; nev-ertheless the work provides some useful methodological in-sights (i.e. importance of the choice of remedy, potency andfrequency of application) for testing homeopathic treat-ments. In a more recent paper,64 an isopathic treatment(from infected tomato leaves) at 30c potency was testedfor controlling tomato late blight caused by Phytophthorainfestans (Mont.) de Bary, but no significant effect vs. con-trol was observed. Another study instead found an increase
Ta
ble
4M
ain
exp
eri
me
nta
lite
ms
of
pa
pe
rso
nfie
ldtr
ials
with
MIS
$5
Pu
blic
atio
n[r
efe
ren
ce
nu
mb
er]
Cro
p/p
ath
og
en
Cro
pT
ria
lde
sig
n/n
um
be
rn
(pe
rtr
ea
tme
nta
nd
exp
)/m
eth
od
s*
Me
asu
red
pa
ram
ete
rsT
est
su
bsta
ncey /
po
ten
cy
leve
lsP
ote
ntis
atio
n/
do
sa
ge
Co
ntr
olz
Sta
tistic
ala
na
lysisx
Fin
din
gsk
Bo
ffe
ta
l.61
Tri
al1
:p
ota
to(C
atu
ch
a,
Ep
ag
ri,
Mo
na
lisa
,A
ga
ta,
Pa
nd
ag
en
oty
pe
s)/
Ph
yto
ph
tora
infe
sta
ns,A
ltern
ari
aso
lan
i,D
iab
rotic
asp
ecio
sa
Tri
al2
:p
ota
to(M
on
alis
a,C
atu
ch
a,
Ep
ag
rig
en
oty
pe
s)/
Ph
yto
ph
tora
infe
sta
ns,A
ltern
ari
aso
lan
i,D
iab
rotic
asp
ecio
sa
Tri
al1
:ra
nd
om
ize
db
lock
with
4re
plic
ate
sT
ria
l2:s
plit
plo
twith
ran
do
miz
ed
blo
ck
with
4re
plic
ate
s
Tri
als
1a
nd
2:
yie
ld(T
ha�
1),
dis
ea
se
inte
nsity
,p
est
inte
nsity
Tri
al1
:S
il6
0cH
Tri
al2
:C
ha
m,
Sil,
Ka
li,T
hu
j,P
hyto
ph
tora
infe
sta
ns
60
cH
,p
rop
olis
extr
act
0.5
%
Re
f.{ ;
do
sa
ge
:1
2m
l/lH
2O
;a
pp
lica
tion
at
2w
ee
kin
terv
als
,1
5d
ays
aft
er
em
erg
en
ce
un
tilflo
we
rin
g
Tri
al2
:N
:u
ntr
ea
ted
pla
nts
;P
:wa
ter6
0cH
;P-C
:B
ord
ea
ux
mix
ture
0.3
%
p<
0.0
5,
test
no
tsp
ecifi
ed
Tri
al1
:h
igh
estyie
ldin
Ca
tuch
a,
low
est
inA
ga
tag
en
oty
pe
sT
ria
l2
:n
.s.
Din
ize
ta
l.64
To
ma
to/
Ph
yto
ph
tora
infe
sta
ns
Ra
nd
om
ize
db
lock
de
sig
nw
ith5
rep
lica
tes
Dis
ea
se
se
ve
rity
No
so
de
(in
fecte
dtis
su
e)
30
c,
wa
ter-
eth
an
ol7
0%
mix
ture
,B
ord
ea
ux
mix
ture
2%
Re
f.#;
do
sa
ge
:1
0m
l/lH
2O
;d
aily
sp
ray
fro
mso
win
gu
pto
tra
nsp
lan
ting
(45
time
s)
N:
un
tre
ate
dp
lan
ts;
P-C
:m
eta
laxil
M,
SE
;A
NO
VA
,F
ish
er
test
at
p<
0.0
5
n.s
.w
ithn
oso
de
Ka
yn
e6
3R
ye
gra
ss
Ra
nd
om
ize
dsp
litp
lot
de
sig
nw
ith2
rep
lica
tes
Yie
ld(d
rym
att
er
Th
a�
1)
Su
lph
6c,m
ixtu
reo
fS
ulp
h,
Sil,
Ca
rbo
-v6
c
Po
ten
tisa
tion
no
tre
po
rte
d;
folia
rsp
ray
at
the
sta
rta
nd
aft
erth
efirs
tcu
t
N:
un
tre
ate
dp
lan
tsM
,S
E;
test
no
tsp
ecifi
ed
n.s
.
Ro
ssie
ta
l.65
Le
ttu
ce
Ra
nd
om
ize
db
lock
de
sig
nw
ith5
rep
lica
tes
Su
rviv
alo
ftr
an
sp
lan
ted
pla
nts
Ca
rbo
-v6
,1
2,
30
,1
00
,2
00
cH
Ha
hn
em
an
nia
nce
nte
sim
al
dyn
am
iza
tion
ina
lco
ho
l7
0%
;fin
al
dilu
tion
ind
istil
led
wa
ter;
do
sa
ge
:0
.5m
l/l;
folia
rsp
ray
un
tilru
no
ffb
efo
retr
an
sp
lan
tatio
n
U:
alc
oh
ol7
0%
;N
:u
ntr
ea
ted
pla
nts
M,A
NO
VA
,Du
nn
ett
test
at
p<
0.0
5S
urv
iva
l**
incre
ase
by
Ca
rbo
-v1
00
cH
Su
ku
le
ta
l.66
Mu
lbe
rry
Blo
ck
de
sig
n(f
ou
rp
lot
with
25
pla
nts
ea
ch
);b
Mo
rph
om
etr
ic(p
lan
th
eig
ht,
tota
lsh
oo
tle
ng
th,
nu
mb
er
of
bra
nch
es,
we
igh
to
f1
00
ma
ture
lea
ve
s,
lea
fyie
ld);
ph
ysio
log
ica
lg
as
exch
an
ge
(ne
tp
ho
tosyn
the
sis
,sto
ma
tal
co
nd
ucta
nce
,tr
an
sp
ira
tion
,p
hysio
log
ica
lw
ate
ru
se
effi
cie
ncy);
wa
ter
sta
tus
(%re
lativ
ele
af
wa
ter
co
nte
nt)
Cin
a,
CC
C,
DM
CU
30
cD
ilutio
n1
:10
0in
90
%e
tha
no
l,d
yn
am
iza
tion
with
so
nic
atio
na
t2
0kH
zfo
r3
0s;
do
sa
ge
:1
:50
0w
ithd
istil
led
wa
ter;
2fo
liar
sp
rays
at
a1
5d
ays
inte
rva
l
P:
eth
an
ol3
0c
M,
SE
,A
NO
VA
at
p<
0.0
5G
row
th**
incre
ase
Incre
ase
**o
fp
hysio
log
ica
lg
as
exch
an
ge
Incre
ase
**o
fle
af
wa
ter
co
nte
nt
Tre
bb
ie
ta
l.62
Ca
ulifl
ow
er/
Alte
rna
ria
bra
ssic
ico
la
Ra
nd
om
ize
db
lock
de
sig
nw
ith4
rep
lica
tes;
b
Me
an
infe
ctio
nle
ve
lA
rse
nic
trio
xid
e3
5d
H,
be
nto
nite
10
g/l
Ha
hn
em
an
nia
nd
ecim
al
dyn
am
iza
tion
;d
osa
ge
:w
ee
kly
folia
rsp
ray,
3tim
es
be
fore
an
d4
time
sa
fte
rfu
ng
al
ino
cu
latio
n
U:
tap
wa
ter
P-C
:co
pp
er
oxic
loru
re(0
.3,
1,
3g
/l)
AN
OV
A,
Du
nn
ett
test
at
p<
0.0
5D
ecre
ase
**b
yb
oth
the
tre
atm
en
ts
*M
eth
od
s:
b=
blin
din
g.
yT
est
su
bsta
nce
:C
arb
o-v
=C
arb
ove
ge
tab
ilis;
CC
C=
(2-c
hlo
roe
thyl)
trim
eth
yl
am
mo
niu
mch
lori
de
;C
ha
m=
Ch
am
om
illa
;D
MC
U=
3(3
,4
-dic
hlo
rop
he
nyl)
-l,
1-d
ime
thylu
rea
;S
il=
Sili
ce
a;
Su
lph
=S
ulp
hu
r;T
hu
j=T
hu
ja.
zC
on
tro
ls:
U=
un
su
ccu
sse
dp
ote
ntis
atio
nm
ed
ium
;P
=p
on
ten
tise
dp
ote
ntis
atio
nm
ed
ium
;P
-C=
po
siti
ve
co
ntr
ol;
N=
no
tre
atm
en
tg
rou
p.
xS
tatis
tica
la
na
lysis
:M
=m
ea
n;
SE
=sta
nd
ard
err
or.
kF
ind
ing
s:
n.s
.=n
osig
nifi
ca
nt
diff
ere
nce
s.
**S
ign
ifica
nt
diff
ere
nce
.{
Fa
rma
co
pe
iaH
om
eo
pa
tica
Bra
sile
ira
II.
Sa
oP
au
lo:
Ath
en
eu
Pre
ss
19
97
:1
18
.#
Pra
do
Ne
toJA
.F
arm
aco
tecn
ica
Ho
me
op
atic
a,
Vo
lI.
Sa
oP
au
lo:
Myth
os
Pre
ss
19
97
.
Homeopathy in phytopathological models and field trialsL Betti et al
263
in lettuce seedling survival in a field trial that tested differ-ent potencies of Carbo vegetabilis, achieving statisticallysignificant levels with the 100cH potency.65Indian researchers66 tested 30c potencies of Cina and oftwo plant growth retardants (selected by the principle ofsimilarity) on growth, physiological gas exchange andwater status of mulberry: a significant enhancement of allparameters relative to the controls was observed.
Two field experiments were performed by a Brazilianteam61 to study the efficacy of homeopathic preparationsfor managing pests and diseases in organic farming systemsof potato crops. In the first experiment, different genotypeswere sprayed equally with Silicea 60c to evaluate yield andspecific responses to pathogens (Alternaria solani, P. infes-tans) and pests (Diabrotica speciosa Germar.); in the sec-ond experiment, potatoes were sprayed with differenttreatments (homeopathic potencies or propolis extract)and evaluated for yield and intensity of pests and diseasewith respect to controls. Thuja 60c gave the best results,but no preparation significantly differed from another. Nev-ertheless, the homeopathic treatments were found to be asgood, in an organic farming system, as the standard Bor-deaux mixture, and without any residual effect.
Finally, a field trial on the biological control of dark leafspot caused by Alternaria brassicicola (Schw.) Wiltshire incauliflower (Brassica oleracea L.) was carried out.62 Thiswork investigated the effects of arsenic trioxide 35H (cho-sen by the principle of similarity) and of a mineral treatmentcompared to controls. Both treatments were found to signif-icantly reduce infection level relative to an unsuccussed wa-ter control, while no significant differences were found vs.a positive control (copper oxychloride). These are theonly significant results obtained in phytopathological fieldtrials. They doubtless call for further investigation, but doseem to support the possibility of using potentized prepara-tions in agriculture. What is more, since the arsenic wasdiluted above the Avogadro limit, it could be used in agri-cultural practice without introducing poisonous moleculesinto the environment.
DiscussionConsidering all the above described papers, about half of
them do not provide sufficient information to be interpretedproperly; in particular, the statistical analysis is inadequateor entirely absent, the number of replicates is not specified,and the experimental methodology is often poor. Moreover,none of the studies was performed blind. The results pre-sented in them are therefore not fully reliable, but theycan still provide a starting point for more comprehensiveand better controlled trials in future.
The papers with a MIS < 5 included all those investigat-ing fungal diseases. Most of the studies were carried out byIndian researchers, and though they did yield insights con-cerning the specific ranges of action of homeopathic poten-cies21 and the control of fruit storage diseases,22,24,25 theresearch can only be considered preliminary.
Out of the few studies with MIS $ 5 (Table 3), those car-ried out by Indian researchers on root-knot diseases caused
Homeopathy in phytopathological models and field trialsL Betti et al
264
by Meloidogyne incognita54–57 gave significant and repro-ducible results. In particular, significant effects in differenthost plants (mulberry, cowpea, tomato, lady’s finger) wereconsistently obtained with ultra high potencies of Cina,supporting the possibility of the application of homeopathyin agriculture. As far as viral and bacterial diseases are con-cerned, there were only two valid papers10,49: these yieldedsome significant results, but further research is needed.With respect to field trials (Table 4), a number of resultswere reported. In some cases no significant effect wasobserved in the control of plant disease61,64 or on plantgrowth63; in others, the efficacy of certain homeopathicsubstances was verified.62,65,66
The mechanism of action by which homeopathic treat-ments control plant diseases remains unknown, but someconjectures can be made. The likeliest way is by strengthen-ing plants’ resistance to pathogens,11,49,55 maybe throughsecondary metabolism pathways. In particular, in cauli-flower plants, levels of glucosinolates, a class of plant sec-ondary metabolites typical of Brassicacae and involved inthe plant resistance mechanisms,68 were modified followinghomeopathic treatments.62,69 Furthermore, alterations tocell membrane proteins have been suggested56,66: duringfoliar spray, homeopathic treatments come in contact withthe water covering the cell membrane and may bring abouta change in the water structure, influencing the passage ofwater through the aquaporins and the function of other inte-gral membrane proteins.
In general, the following aspects need to be carefullyconsidered:
Selection of homeopathic substances
In phytopathology, there is as yet no equivalent of theMateria Medica (i.e. a ‘‘Materia Phytoiatrica’’), and thusselecting the correct remedy demands much thought and in-tuition, unless one resorts to isopathic treatments (nosodes).Since there are no standard criteria to guide the choice ofsubstance, different approaches can be applied. For exam-ple, in some cases49,62 treatments were selected accordingto the principle of similarity (hypersensitive-like reactioninduced by arsenic trioxide in phytotoxic concentrations).In Shah-Rossi et al.,10 four different approaches wereused: a) adaptation to plant models of the criteria used inclassical homeopathy, and selection of remedies as listedin the Materia Medica by extrapolating from human symp-toms and organs to those of plants; b) testing of a known po-tentized substance as an inducer of systemic acquiredresistance (SAR70); c) use of a potentized extract of infectedtissue (nosode); d) testing of different metals, since theyplay an important role in plant nutrition and disease resis-tance. Approach a) was also adopted by other authors(Kayne, Rossi et al.)63,65, whereas Diniz’s group64 followedapproach b). In Sukul54–56,66 and Datta,57 homeopathicsubstances were selected on the basis of their nematotoxiceffect in ponderal concentrations against plant parasiticnematodes. It would thus be very desirable to have a reper-tory of plant diseases describing the main symptoms toassist in remedy selection, in addition to a ‘‘Materia Phy-toiatrica’’ based on provings on healthy plants.
Choice of dilution scale
Significant effects on disease control were obtainedwith dilutions both above and below the Avogadro limit,and with both the decimal10,49,62 and centesimalscales,54–57,61,63–66 but the authors give no explanationof the selection criteria. What is more, the conventionin human homeopathy is that low potencies are usedfor acute conditions, while higher potencies are usuallyused to treat chronic long-standing conditions; we donot know if a similar approach could be applied in phy-topathology, and specific studies and experiments on thisneed to be carried out in future.
Potentisation and dose levels
Different potentisation techniques were used by differentresearch groups: for example, succussion was performedusing a specifically designed machine49,62 or by hand, with-out any hard surface to assist the process.10 There was con-siderable variations in the timing and amplitude: in somecases, 10 powerful downward strokes were performed be-tween each dilution54–57; in others49,65 70 strokes were per-formed in 1 min, whereas in Shah-Rossi et al.10 the numberof strokes is not specified. Sukul’s group66 used a differentpotentisation technique: sonication at 20 kHz for 30 s ateach dilution step. To our knowledge, no specific studieshave been carried out on the effects of different potentisa-tion methods on phytopathological models, and it wouldbe interesting to evaluate the effects of the same potencyprepared following different potentisation methods.
As far as the dilution medium is concerned, water and/oralcohol were used. In particular, water was the potentisationmedium cited in Betti et al.,49 whereas the Shah-Rossigroup10 used ethanol at the beginning and then water, dueto the phytotoxicity of alcohol: in both studies, the homeo-pathic treatments, once prepared, were used without anyfurther dilution. Otherwise, in all the studies dealing withnematodes, ethanol was used up to the final potency, whichwas then applied to plants after further dilution in wa-ter.56,57,65,66 It is noteworthy that this last dilution, withoutany succussion, differed (1:40 or 1:1000) from those usedfor preparing the potencies (1:100). Another manner of ap-plying the treatments was by means of sucrose globulessoaked in the homeopathic liquid and then dissolved in wa-ter.54,55 For what concerns the frequency of application,there are no standard guidelines for the treatment calendar;generally, foliar sprays were used, but the frequency ofapplication differed.
Controls, blinding, randomisation
In order to identify studies that provide evidence for spe-cific effects of homeopathic remedies (effects related to thediluted mother tincture and implying some sort of ‘memory’of the carrier substance, e.g. water), it is important to dem-onstrate the absence of false-positive effects arising fromthe influence of laboratory or ambient conditions. For thisreason, it is necessary to perform systematic negative con-trol experiments.14,58 Among the papers with MIS > 5,only one10 documented the stability of the experimental
Homeopathy in phytopathological models and field trialsL Betti et al
265
set-up by publishing data of systematic negative controlexperiments. Four studies were performed blind,10,49,62,66and a randomized experimental set-up was generallyapplied.10,49,56,61–65
ConclusionsPhytopathological models seem to be a useful tool for
investigating the possibility of applying homeopathy inagriculture. However the results obtained must be investi-gated further before any real and measurable effect of thehomeopathic treatments can be confirmed, as opposed toa significant effect due to chance. To this end, future studiesshould use with high quality set-ups which include system-atic negative control experiments, blinding, randomisation,adequate statistical analysis, and appropriate controls toidentify specific remedy effects. It would also be advisableto perform investigations into the potentisation process it-self, and to adopt standardised potentisation techniques topermit comparisons between different studies. In general,the prospects for agrohomeopathy can be considered prom-ising, but much more experimental work is needed, espe-cially field trials. The results of such studies, whethersuccessful or not, should be widely disseminated so thatothers can learn from them, avoiding duplication and inef-ficiency. Replications and multicentre trials should be car-ried out and published in international journals with widecirculation, to gain credibility and facilitate funding.
AcknowledgementsThe authors thank Laboratoires Boiron for its collabora-
tion and for the grant awarded to one of the Authors (DrGrazia Trebbi). In particular, the authors wish to thank DrSilvia Nencioni and Dr Luigi Marrari for their advice andcooperation. The sponsors had no influence whatsoeverupon design, conduct, evaluation, and publication of this lit-erature review.
References
1 Betti L, Lazzarato L, Trebbi G, Nani D. The potential and need
for homeopathy research in horticulture and agriculture. In: Pro-
ceeding of the International Conference ‘‘Improving the Success
of Homeopathy: a Global Perspective’’. London, 26–27 January
2006, pp 64–68.
2 Elmaz O, Cerit H, Ozcelik M, Ulas S. Impact of organic agriculture
on the environment. Fresen Environ Bull 2004; 13: 1072–1078.
3 Lotter DW. Organic agriculture. J Sust Agric 2003; 21: 59–128.
4 Carpenter-Boggs L, Reganold JP, Kennedy AC. Biodynamic prepa-
rations; short-term effects on crops, soils and weed populations. Am JAlternative Agr 2000; 15: 110–118.
5 Carpenter-Boggs L, Kennedy AC, Reganold JP. Organic and biody-
namic management: effect on soil biology. Soil Sci Soc Am J 2000;
64: 1651–1658.
6 Heimler D, Isolani L, Vignolini P, Romani A. Polyphenol content
and antiradical activity of Cichorium intybus L. from biodynamic
and conventional farming. Food Chem 2009; 114: 765–770.
7 Reeve JR, Carpenter-Boggs L, Reganold JP, York AI,
McGourthy G, McCloskey IP. Soil and winegrape quality in biodi-
namically and organically managed vineyards. Am J Enol Viticult2005; 56: 367–376.
8 Reganold JP. Soil quality and profitability of biodynamic and con-
ventional farming system: a review. Am J Alternative Agr 1995;
10: 36–45.
9 Marques Fonseca MC, Dias Casali VW, Cecon PR. Efeito de aplicao
unica dos prepatarados homeopaticos calcarea carbonica, kaliunphosphoricum, magnesium carbonicum, natrium muriaticum e sili-cea terra no teor de tanino em Porophyllum ruderale (Jacq.) Cassini.
Cultura Homeopatica 2006; 14: 6–8.
10 Shah-Rossi D, Heusser P, Baumgartner S. Homeopathic treatment of
Arabidopsis thaliana plants infected with Pseudomonas syringae.
SWJ 2009; doi:10.1100/tsw.2009.38.
11 Scofield A. Homeopathy and its potential role in agriculture, a critical
review. Biol Agric Hort 1984; 2: 1–50.
12 Albrecht H, Van Wijk R, Dittloff S. A new database on basic
research in homeopathy. Homeopathy 2002; 91: 162–165.
13 Karl and Veronica Carstens-Foundation. The HomBRex—Data-
base, www.carstens-stiftung.de/hombrex; 2005.
14 Majewsky V, Heuwieser, Shah D, et al. Use of homeopathic prepa-
rations in experimental studies with healthy plants. Homeopathy2009. in the present volume.
15 Khanna KK, Chandra S. Control of tomato fruit rot caused by Fusariumroseum with homeopathic drugs. Indian Phytopath 1976b; 29: 269–272.
16 Khanna KK, Chandra S. Control of guava fruit rot caused by Pesta-lotia psidii with homeopathic drugs. Plant Dis Rep 1977a; 61:
362–366.
17 Khanna KK, Chandra S. A homeopathic drug controls mango fruit
rot caused by Pestalotia magnifaere Henn. Experientia 1978; 34:
1167–1168.
18 Khanna KK, Chandra S. Effect of some homeopathic drugs on the
spore germination of four isolates of Alternaria alternata. IndianPhytopath 1976; 29: 195–197.
19 Khanna KK, Chandra S. Control of leaf blight of wheat caused by
Alternaria alternata with homeopathic drugs. Indian Phytopath1977; 30: 320–322.
20 Kehri KH, Chandra S. Control of Botryodiplodia rot of guava with
a homeopathic drug. Natl Acad Sci Lett 1986; 9: 301–302.
21 Khanna KK, Chandra S. Spore germination, growth and sporulation
of certain fruit-rot pathogens as affected by homeopathic drugs. ProcNatl Acad Sci India 1987; 57: 160–170.
22 Khanna KK, Chandra S. Further investigations on the control of stor-
age rot of mango, guava and tomato fruits with homeopathic drugs.
Indian Phytopath 1989; 42: 436–440.
23 Khanna KK, Chandra S. Effect of homoeopathic drugs on respiration
of germinating fungal spores. Indian Phytopath 1992; 45: 348–353.
24 Khanna R, Chandra S. Homoeopathic drugs in the control of some
post-harvest diseases of fruits. J Indian Bot Soc 1997; 76: 169–172.
25 Khanna R, Chandra S. Homoeopathic drugs in the control of fruit
rots of guava. Proc Natl Acad Sci Lett 1990; 60: 345–348.
26 Khanna R, Khanna KK, Chandra S. Effect of homoeopathic drugs on
seed mycoflora of wheat. Natl Acad Sci Lett 1989; 12: 39–41.
27 Khanna KK. Suppression of Fusarium oxysporum Schlecht., a path-
ogen causing seedling blight and foot rot of wheat, with homoeo-
pathic drugs. Proc Natl Acad Sci Lett 1993; 63: 353–360.
28 Chaube KMR, Dixit SN, Tripathi SC. Effect of some homeopathic
drugs on spore germination of certain fungi. Natl Acad Sci Lett1978; 1: 355–356.
29 Kumar R, Kumar S. Effect of certain homoeopathic medicines and
fungal growth and conidial germination. Indian Phytopath 1980;
33: 620–621.
30 Mishra RS, Sinha KK, Singh P. Evaluation of some homeopathic
drugs against aflatoxin production and growth of Aspergillus para-siticus. Natl Acad Sci Lett 1980; 3: 289–290.
31 Mishra N. Inhibition of Aspergillus niger van Tiegh. by homeo-
pathic drugs causing deterioration od coriander and cumin seeds in
storage. Natl Acad Sci Lett 1983; 6: 139–141.
Homeopathy in phytopathological models and field trialsL Betti et al
266
32 Singh BS, Gupta G. Effect of homeopathic drugs on the growth ofAlternaria tenuis Auct and Corvularia lunata (wakker) Boeidjn, the
common leaf spot pathogens of ornamental and cultivated plants.
Adv Homeopath 1981;117–121.
33 Singh BG. Sensitivity of keratinophilic fungi to some homeopathic
medicines. Hahnemannian Gleanings 1983; 50: 154–156.
34 Dua VK, Atri DC. Effect of homoeopathic drugs on the growth of
two plant pathogens. Hahnemannian Gleanings 1983; 50: 411–413.
35 Saxena A, Pandey ML, Gupta RC. Effect of certain homeopathic
drugs on incidence of seed-borne fungi and seed germination of
Abelmoschus esculentus. Indian J Mycol Plant Pathol 1987; 17:
191–192.
36 Aggarwal A, Kamlesh T, Mehrotra RS. Control of taro blight and
corm rot caused by Phytophtora colocasiae homeopathic drugs.
Plant Dis Rep 1992; 8: 94–101.
37 Rivas E, Cecena C, Guajardo G. Accion de 9 farmacos homeopaticos
sobre la germinacion de esporas de Alternaria Solani y semillas de
trigo y tomate. Boletin Mexicano de Homeopatia 1996; 29: 44–46.
38 Rolim PRR, Brignani Neto F, Silva JM. Controle de oıdio da ma-
cieira por preparacoes homeopaticas. Fit Bras 2001; 26: 435–436.
39 Verma HN, Verma GS, Verma VK, Krishna R, Srivastava KM.
Homeopathic and pharmacopoeial drugs as inhibitors of tobacco
mosaic virus. Indian Phytopathol 1969; 22: 188–193.
40 Verma HN, Awasthi LP. Effect of biochemic drugs on the infection
of TMV. Geobios 1978; 5: 84–86.
41 Singh BP, Gupta G, Srivasta KM. Homeopathic drugs as inhibitors
of tobacco mosaic virus. Indian J Homeopath 1980; 4: 301–303.
42 Khatri HL, Singh I. Biochemic salts and homeopathic drugs as
inhibitors of a TMV-isolate from tomato. Ind J Mycol Pl Pathol1975. S: 29.
43 Khurana SMP. Effect of homeopathic drugs on plant viruses. PlantaMed 1971; 20: 142–146.
44 Khurana SMP. Chemotherapeutic potential of homeopathic drugs
against plant viruses. In: Proceedings of S. Hahnemanns birthday
and annual function, HMAI, 11th April in Lucknow 1980, pp 29–35.
45 Abidi SMH, Srivasta KM, Gupta RP, Singh BP. Effects of some
medical drugs on distortion ring spot virus of papaya. New Botanist1977; 4: 12–14.
46 Shukla K, Joshi RD. Inhibition by some homeopathic drugs of sug-
arcane mosaic virus in sorghum. Sugarcane Pathol New 1982; 29:
48–50.
47 Cheema SS, Reddy RS, Kapur SP, Bansal RD. Comparative efficacy
of homeopathic drugs against papaya mosaic virus (PapMV) as
foliar spray. Indian J Virol 1986; 2: 132–135.
48 Cheema SS, Kapila S, Kumar A. Efficacy of various bio-products
and chemical against tobacco mosaic virus in tomato and cucumber
mosaic virus in bottle gourd. Plant Dis Res 1992; 8: 110–114.
49 Betti L, Lazzarato L, Trebbi G, et al. Effects of homeopathic arsenic
on tobacco plant resistance to tobacco mosaic virus. Theoretical sug-
gestions about system variability, based on a large experimental data
set. Homeopathy 2003; 92: 195–202.
50 Moreno NM, Alvarez LRG. Accion de 4 farmacos homeopathicos
en el control de la contaminacion por bacteria. La homeopatıa deMexico 2003; 622: 11–12.
51 Villegas AD, Gonzales LR, Rodriguez AA, et al. Utilizacion de la
homeopathia en el saneamiento de la escaldadura foliar en cana
de azucar a traves del cultivo de meristemo. In: Proceedings of
‘‘Nosodes 2008’’ Congress, 10–12 December 2008, La Habana
(Cuba), p 35.
52 Kumar R, Sharma RK. Effect of certain homeopathic medicine on
larval hatching of Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid & White) chit-
wood. J Sci Res Plant Med 1979; 1: 15–16.
53 Ray S, Pradhan AK. Homeo-drugs show nematicidal properties
against tomato root-knot nematode in vitro. Hahnemann Gleanings1985;447–449.
54 Sukul NC, Sukul A. Potentized Cina reduced root-knot disease of
cowpeas. Enviroment Ecol 1999; 17: 269–273.
55 Sukul NC, Sinhababu SP, Datta SC, Nandi B, Sukul A. Nematotoxic
effect of Acacia auriculiformis and Artemisia nilagirica against root-
knot nematodes. Allelopathy J 2001; 8: 65–72.
56 Sukul NC, Ghosh S, Sukul A, Sinhababu SP. Amelioration of
root-knot disease of Lady’s finger plants by potentized Cina and
Santonin. Homeopathy 2006; 95: 144–147.
57 Datta SC. Effects of Cina on root-knot disease of mulberry. Home-opathy 2006; 95: 98–102.
58 Baumgartner S, Heusser P, Thurneysen S. Methodological standards
and problems in preclinical homeopathic potency research. ForschKomplementmed 1998; 5: 27–32.
59 Sinha E. Agro-Homeopathy. J Am Inst Hom 1976; 68: 37–40.
60 McIvor G. Letters to the Editor. J Am Inst Hom 1980; 73:
43–48.
61 Boff P, Madruga E, Zanelato M, Boff MIC. Pest and disease man-
agement of potato crops with homeopathic preparations and germo-
plasm variability. In: Proceeding of 16th IFOAM Organic World
Congress, Modena, Italy, 2008, pp 544–547.
62 Trebbi G, Fantino MG, Dinelli G, et al. Effects of homeopathic and
mineral treatments on dark leaf spot caused by Alternaria brassici-
cola on cauliflower. In: Proceeding of 16th IFOAM Organic World
Congress, Modena, Italy, 2008, pp 448–451.
63 Kayne S. An agricultural application of homeopathy. Br Hom J1991; 80: 157–160.
64 Diniz LP, Maffia LA, Dhingra OD, Casali VWD, Santos RH,
Mizubuti ESG. Avaliacao de produtos alternativos para controle
da requeima do tomateiro. Fit Bras 2006; 31: 171–179.
65 Rossi F, Tavares Melo PC, Ambrosano EJ, Guiraao N,
Schaminass EA. Aplicacao do medicamento homeopatico Carbo
vegetabilis e desenvolvimento das mudas de alface. Int J HighDilution Res 2006; 5: 4–7.
66 Sukul NC, Chattopadhyay S, Das C, Sukul A, Ghosh S, Sinha
Babu SP. Enhancement of photosynthesis and plant growth by
potentized drugs. Environ Ecol 2007; 25S: 520–524.
67 European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. Design
and analysis of efficacy evaluation trials. Bulletin OEPP/EPPOBulletin 2007; 37: 11–24.
68 Menard R, Larue J-P, Silue D, Thouvenot D. Glucosinolates in
cauliflower as biochemical markers for resistance against downy
mildew. Phytochemistry 1999; 52: 29–35.
69 Betti L, Trebbi G, Marotti I, et al. Cavolfiore (Brassica oleracea L.)
coltivato in regime biologico: valutazione fitopatologia e nutraceu-
tica. In: Proceeding of XXXVIII National Congress of Italian
Society for Agronomy, Firenze, Italy, 2009, pp 423–424.
70 Kiraly L, Barna B, Kiraly Z. Plant resistance to pathogen infection:
forms and mechanisms of innate and acquired resistance. J Phytopa-thol 2007; 155: 385–396.
