Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Concurrent or post-morbidity bacterial inoculation had lower inhibition ratios than preinoculation.

A claim from EndophyticBacillus cereusEffectively ControlsMeloidogyne incognitaon Tomato Plants Through Rapid Rhizosphere Occupation and Repellent Action · 2016

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Concurrent or post-morbidity bacterial inoculation had lower inhibition ratios than preinoculation.

Treatment
inoculated endophytic bacteria and M. incognita at the same time or after morbiditye0
Outcome
inhibition ratiose0
Direction
lowere0
Comparator
preinoculated endophytic bacteria experimente0

Not reportedTaxonMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingValueQualifier

Verbatim

e0

“The other two experiments with inoculated endophytic bacteria and M. incognita at the same time or after morbidity had lower inhibition ratios compared with the preinoculated endophytic bacteria experiment.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1082–1288

Title

EndophyticBacillus cereusEffectively ControlsMeloidogyne incognitaon Tomato Plants Through Rapid Rhizosphere Occupation and Repellent Action

Hai-Jing Hu; Ya-Li Chen; Yu-Fang Wang; et al. Plant Disease 2016. doi:10.1094/pdis-06-16-0871-re

Other claims from this paper (7)

Record rev-975b7c15c19eeb82341bfe82f01d0d4d8074aa2ca2dd2feade6b238648f80842 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 6 in the model’s answer

Meloidogyne incognita · disease · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

13 papers: 1 positive, 12 negative or no effect

11 papers in the same direction as this claim · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
    Sequential G. mosseae and Bacillus inoculation produced the lowest disease incidence, 24.5%.

    Influences of Inoculating Time of PGPR and AM Fungi on Tomato Root-knot Nematode Diseases · 2010

    Opposite direction

  2. negative
    M. incognita decreased growth only in susceptible tomato among four tested species.

    Host status differences and their relevance to damage by Meloidogyne incognita · 1999

    Same direction

  3. no effect
    Mi-virulent Meloidogyne incognita lineages showed pathogenicity on susceptible tomatoes not significantly different from the usual level.

    Differential expression of root‐knot nematode resistance genes in tomato and pepper: evidence with Meloidogyne incognita virulent and avirulent near‐isogenic lineages · 1992

    Same direction

  4. negative
    All susceptible tomatoes died of wilt one week earlier with combined bacterium and nematode infestation than with the bacterium alone.

    Influence of root-knot nematode on bacterial wilt severity in tomato. · 1980 · compared with Pseudomonas solanacearum

    Same direction

  5. negative
    Nematode inoculation before Fusarium advanced tomato wilt by a week.

    Management of Meloidogyne incognita and Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. lycopersici wilt complex using antagonistic fungi in tomato · 2006 · compared with nematode inoculation after Fusarium inoculation

    Same direction

  6. negative
    Combined Meloidogyne incognita and Ralstonia solanacearum inoculation had pathogenic effects on tomato greater than the independent effects of either.

    Interaction of Ralstonia solanacearum and Meloidogyne incognita on Tomato (Solanumlyco persicon L.) · 2017 · compared with independent effects of either

    Same direction

  7. negative
    Nematode inoculation before the bacterium produced the reported maximum tomato wilt.

    Interaction of Meloidogyne incognita and Pseudomonas solanacearum on tomato plants · 1987

    Same direction

  8. no effect
    Meloidogyne incognita presence did not affect root colonization.

    Influence of Glomus fasciculatum on Meloidogyne incognita Infected Tomato · 2003

    Same direction

4 papers more in this group

See all 13 papers →

inoculation · disease · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

266 papers: 136 positive, 130 negative or no effect

129 papers in the same direction as this claim · 136 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
    Agricultural plant endophytes conferred disease resistance in tomato.

    Stress tolerance in plants via habitat-adapted symbiosis · 2008

    Opposite direction

  2. positive
    Co-inoculation with 7NSK2-562 restored induced resistance.

    Induction of Systemic Resistance toBotrytis cinereain Tomato byPseudomonas aeruginosa7NSK2: Role of Salicylic Acid, Pyochelin, and Pyocyanin · 2002

    Opposite direction

  3. positive
    Inoculation of donor tomato with Alternaria solani increased disease resistance of healthy receivers connected by Glomus mosseae networks.

    Interplant Communication of Tomato Plants through Underground Common Mycorrhizal Networks · 2010

    Opposite direction

  4. positive
    Inoculation with Streptomyces strain S30 enhanced tomato seedling disease resistance.

    Isolation and characterization of endophytic Streptomyces strains from surface-sterilized tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) roots · 2004

    Opposite direction

  5. positive
    Mixed seed inoculation reduced pathogen rhizosphere population.

    Protection of Tomato Seedlings against Infection by Pseudomonas syringae pv. Tomato by Using the Plant Growth-Promoting Bacterium Azospirillum brasilense · 2002

    Opposite direction

  6. positive
    Azotobacter inoculation enhanced Glomus infection of tomato roots.

    INTERACTION BETWEEN A VA MYCORRHIZA AND AZOTOBACTER AND THEIR EFFECTS ON RHIZOSPHERE MICROFLORA AND PLANT GROWTH · 1978

    Opposite direction

  7. positive
    BHU-AV3 inoculation induces systemic tolerance and whole-plant protection of tomato during salt stress.

    Sphingobacterium sp. BHU-AV3 Induces Salt Tolerance in Tomato by Enhancing Antioxidant Activities and Energy Metabolism · 2020

    Opposite direction

  8. positive
    Mutsumi soil microorganisms significantly reduced tomato bacterial wilt severity.

    Comparison of Bacterial Community Structures in the Rhizoplane of Tomato Plants Grown in Soils Suppressive and Conducive towards Bacterial Wilt · 1999

    Opposite direction

257 papers more in this group

See all 266 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.