Abstract
Twenty three lines of Cicer bijugum, five of C. ehorassanieum, three of C. euneatum, four of C. eehinospermum, forty seven of C. judaieum, thirty of C. pinnati!idum, twenty three of C. retieulatum, and two of C. yamashitae, were screened for their reaction to Heterodera eieeri. None of the tested lines was free of nematode attack but 91 % of the C. bijugum lines were rated < 2 on a 0-5 point scale and therefore considered resistant to H. eieeri. All lines of other Cicer spp. were rated susceptible to highly susceptible to H. ciceri.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 3
Claim · model-written summary
No tested wild Cicer line was free of nematode attack.
- Outcome
- nematode attacke0
CicerOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“None of the tested lines was free of nematode attack”
t0“wild Cicer spp. lines”
Claim · model-written summary
Ninety-one percent of C. bijugum lines rated below 2 and were considered resistant to H. eieeri.
- Taxon
- C. bijugumCicer bijugume0
- Interactor
- H. eieerie0pathogen
- Outcome
- resistant to H. eieerie0
- Value
- 91 %e0
Verbatim
e0“91 % of the C. bijugum lines were rated < 2 on a 0-5 point scale and therefore considered resistant to H. eieeri.”
Claim · model-written summary
All lines of other Cicer species were susceptible to highly susceptible to H. ciceri.
- Interactor
- H. ciceriHeterodera cicerie0pathogen
- Outcome
- susceptible to highly susceptible to H. cicerie0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All lines of other Cicer spp. were rated susceptible to highly susceptible to H. ciceri.”