Intervention effectmodel-written summary

P. brasilensis - 24 increased colonization by G. etunicatum.

A claim from Triple inoculation with Bradyrhizobium, Glomus and Paenibacillus on cowpea (Vigna unguiculata [L.] walp.) development. · 2011

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

P. brasilensis - 24 increased colonization by G. etunicatum.

Treatment
Inoculation with P. brasilensis - 24e0
Interactor
G. etunicatume0symbiont
Second interactor
P. brasilensis - 24Paenibacillus brasilensise0symbiont
Outcome
colonizatione0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageComparatorSettingValueQualifier

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Inoculation with P. brasilensis - 24 increased colonization by Bradyrhizobium sp. and G. etunicatum and promoted cowpea growth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1051–1177

Title

Triple inoculation with Bradyrhizobium, Glomus and Paenibacillus on cowpea (Vigna unguiculata [L.] walp.) development.

André Suêldo Tavares de Lima; Terezinha Ferreirab Xavier; Cláudia Elizabete Pereira de Lima; et al. PubMed 2011. doi:10.1590/s1517-838220110003000010

Other claims from this paper (5)

Record rev-09e4a83ffbfbbc628acd180aaddb9a4efcdeaa19b08553c79f9e7af73541b285 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 4 in the model’s answer

Paenibacillus brasilensis · disease · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this claim

  1. positive
    Paenibacillus inoculation increased Glomus colonization of cowpea.

    Triple inoculation with Bradyrhizobium, Glomus and Paenibacillus on cowpea (Vigna unguiculata [L.] walp.) development · 2011

    Same direction

See all 2 papers →

inoculation · disease · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results

35 papers: 18 positive, 17 negative or no effect

17 papers in the same direction as this claim · 16 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
    Inoculation at 10 DAP produced significantly higher virus concentration than inoculation at 30 DAP.

    Cowpea viruses: Effect of single and mixed infections on symptomatology and virus concentration · 2007 · compared with inoculated 30 DAP

    Opposite direction

  2. negative
    Mechanical inoculation produced local lesions on Vigna unguiculata seedlings.

    Transmission Studies on Citrus Yellow Vein Clearing Virus · 2011

    Opposite direction

  3. negative
    Earlier virus inoculation produced higher disease severity than later infection.

    Additive interactions of unrelated viruses in mixed infections of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp) · 2015 · compared with late infection

    Opposite direction

  4. negative
    ArMV-positive extracts caused systemic mosaic on cowpea.

    Occurrence and incidence of Prunus necrotic ringspot virus, Arabis mosaic virus , and Apple mosaic virus on oil rose (Rosa damascena) in the Lakes region of Turkey · 2009

    Opposite direction

  5. negative
    ArMV positive extracts caused systemic mosaic on cowpea.

    Occurrence of Prunus necrotic ringspot virus and Arabis mosaic virus on Rose in Iran · 2006

    Opposite direction

  6. negative
    Sap inoculation produced necrotic local lesions in cowpea.

    First report of Groundnut bud necrosis virus infecting pea (Pisum sativum) in India · 2010

    Opposite direction

  7. negative
    Simultaneous inoculation increased wilt symptoms.

    Interactions between Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. tracheiphilum and Meloidogyne spp. in Vigna unguiculata . 3. Pathogenesis by F. o. tracheiphilum as affected by M. javanica and host cultivar · 1991

    Opposite direction

  8. negative
    Sap inoculation produced chlorotic lesions in Coronet cowpea.

    First Report of Cowpea Aphid-Borne Mosaic Potyvirus from Cowpeas Grown Commercially in the U.S. · 1997

    Opposite direction

26 papers more in this group

See all 35 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.