Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Only the wheat cultivar with high mycorrhizal compatibility showed a synergistic increase in callose responsiveness after co-inoculation with both microbes.

A claim from The interactive effects of arbuscular mycorrhiza and plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria synergistically enhance host plant defences against pathogens · 2017

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Only the wheat cultivar with high mycorrhizal compatibility showed a synergistic increase in callose responsiveness after co-inoculation with both microbes.

Material
cultivar with high mycorrhizal compatibilitye6
Treatment
co-inoculation with both microbese6
Outcome
callose responsivenesse6
Direction
increasee6
Qualifier
synergistice6

Not reportedGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValue

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“Two wheat cultivars differing in their ability to form mycorrhiza were (co)inoculated with the mycorrhizal fungus Rhizophagus irregularis and the rhizobacterial strain Pseudomonas putida KT2440”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 211–404
e6

“only the cultivar with high mycorrhizal compatibility showed a synergistic increase in callose responsiveness following co-inoculation with both microbes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 976–1129

Title

The interactive effects of arbuscular mycorrhiza and plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria synergistically enhance host plant defences against pathogens

Alejandro Pérez-de-Luque; Stefanie Tille; Irene Johnson; et al. Scientific Reports 2017. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-16697-4

Other claims from this paper (5)

Record rev-294a72ffccb4e05cafb4a317ed33aceaead324f4279dc621f97164d2271ef837 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 5 in the model’s answer

inoculation · molecular: metabolites · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

105 papers: 95 positive, 10 negative or no effect

94 papers in the same direction as this claim · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. negative
  4. no effect
  5. negative
  6. no effect
  7. no effect
  8. negative

96 papers more in this group

See all 105 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.