Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Artificial inoculation with R. solani alone caused more damage to muskmelon seedlings than inoculation with P. aphanidermatum or M. cannonballus alone.

A claim from Effect of rootstock on muskmelon cultivar reaction to vine decline disease and yield under arid conditions · 2016

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Artificial inoculation with R. solani alone caused more damage to muskmelon seedlings than inoculation with P. aphanidermatum or M. cannonballus alone.

Taxon
muskmelonCucumis meloe3
Organ / stage
10 day old Palmira seedlingse3
Treatment
artificial inoculation with R. solani pathogen alonee3
Interactor
R. solaniRhizoctonia solanie3pathogen
Outcome
damagee3
Direction
more damagee3
Comparator
P. aphanidermatum and M. cannonballuse3

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingValueQualifier

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

Cucumis melo
Cucumis melo · TaxonUSDA photo by Scott Bauer. Image Number K7355-11. · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Rhizoctonia solani
Rhizoctonia solani · Interactoranonimowy, niektóre prawa zastrzeżone (CC BY) · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Effect of rootstock on muskmelon cultivar reaction to vine decline disease and yield under arid conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–106
e3

“The response of 10 day old Palmira seedlings to artificial inoculation with R. solani pathogen alone revealed more damage to muskmelon seedling whereas P. aphanidermatum and M. cannonballus caused less damage when inoculated singly but more disease severity index when combined with R. solani”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 306–598

Title

Effect of rootstock on muskmelon cultivar reaction to vine decline disease and yield under arid conditions

Q.S. Al Mawaali; A.M. Al-Sadi; F.A. Al-Said; et al. Journal of Agricultural and Marine Sciences [JAMS] 2016. doi:10.24200/jams.vol21iss0pp47-56

Other claims from this paper (16)

Record rev-22fffa6ec08d74ea14e39ef295447b3151f3af504f734f9067b688ca8c253b15 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 15 in the model’s answer

inoculation · pest · Cucumis melo (muskmelon)Results agree

2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this claim

  1. negative
See all 2 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.