Abstract
The interaction between Meloidogyne incognita and Criconemella xenoplax on nematode reproduction and growth of Lovell peach was studied in field microlots and the greenhouse. Meloidogyne incognita suppressed reproduction of C. xenoplax in both field and greenhouse experiments. Tree growth, as measured by trunk diameter, was reduced (P </= 0.05) in the presence of M. incognita as compared with C. xenoplax of the uninoculated control trees 26 months following inoculation. A similar response regarding dry root weight was also detected in greenhouse-grown seedlings after 5 months. The presence of C. xenoplax did not affect Lovell tree growth. A synergistic effect causing a reduction (P </= 0.05) in tree growth was recorded 26 and 38 months following inoculation. The presence of M. incognita increased levels of malonyl-1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid content in leaves of trees grown in field microplots 19 months after inoculaoon. Meloidogyne incognita appears to be a more dominant parasite than C. xenoplax on Lovell peach.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Meloidogyne incognita suppressed reproduction of Criconemella xenoplax in field and greenhouse experiments.
- Taxon
- Peach
Prunus persicat0 - Treatment
- Meloidogyne incognitae1
- Interactor
- Criconemella xenoplaxMesocriconema xenoplaxe0pest
- Second interactor
- Meloidogyne incognita
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=60)
Meloidogyne incognitae1pest - Outcome
- reproduction of C. xenoplaxe1
- Direction
- suppressede1
- Setting
- field and greenhouse experimentse1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
t0“Peach”
e0“The interaction between Meloidogyne incognita and Criconemella xenoplax on nematode reproduction and growth of Lovell peach was studied in field microlots and the greenhouse”
e1“Meloidogyne incognita suppressed reproduction of C. xenoplax in both field and greenhouse experiments”
Claim · model-written summary
Meloidogyne incognita reduced tree growth (trunk diameter) relative to Criconemella xenoplax-inoculated trees 26 months after inoculation.
- Taxon
- PeachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- presence of M. incognitae2
- Interactor
- M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae2pest
- Second interactor
- C. xenoplaxe2pest
- Outcome
- Tree growthe2
- Direction
- reducede2
- Qualifier
- 26 months following inoculatione2
- Comparator
- C. xenoplaxe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Peach”
e2“Tree growth, as measured by trunk diameter, was reduced (P </= 0.05) in the presence of M. incognita as compared with C. xenoplax of the uninoculated control trees 26 months following inoculation”
Claim · model-written summary
Dry root weight of greenhouse-grown seedlings responded similarly to the reduced tree growth after 5 months.
- Taxon
- PeachPrunus persicat0
- Outcome
- dry root weighte3
- Qualifier
- after 5 monthse3
- Setting
- greenhouse-grown seedlingse3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Peach”
e3“A similar response regarding dry root weight was also detected in greenhouse-grown seedlings after 5 months”
Claim · model-written summary
The presence of Criconemella xenoplax did not affect Lovell peach tree growth.
- Taxon
- PeachPrunus persicat0
- Material
- Lovelle4
- Treatment
- presence of C. xenoplaxe4
- Interactor
- C. xenoplaxe4pest
- Outcome
- tree growthe4
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Peach”
e4“The presence of C. xenoplax did not affect Lovell tree growth”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined inoculation with both nematodes had a synergistic effect reducing tree growth 26 and 38 months after inoculation.
- Taxon
- PeachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- inoculatione5
- Outcome
- tree growthe5
- Direction
- reductione5
- Qualifier
- synergistic effecte5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Peach”
e5“A synergistic effect causing a reduction (P </= 0.05) in tree growth was recorded 26 and 38 months following inoculation”
Claim · model-written summary
The presence of M. incognita increased malonyl-1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid content in leaves of trees in field microplots 19 months after inoculation.
- Taxon
- PeachPrunus persicat0
- Organ / stage
- leavese6
- Treatment
- presence of M. incognitae6
- Interactor
- M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae6pest
- Outcome
- malonyl-1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid contente6
- Direction
- increasede6
- Setting
- field microplotse6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Peach”
e6“The presence of M. incognita increased levels of malonyl-1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid content in leaves of trees grown in field microplots 19 months after inoculaoon”
Claim · model-written summary
Meloidogyne incognita appears to be a more dominant parasite than Criconemella xenoplax on peach.
- Taxon
- PeachPrunus persicat0
- Interactor
- Meloidogyne incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae7parasite
- Second interactor
- C. xenoplaxe7parasite
- Outcome
- dominant parasitee7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Peach”
e7“Meloidogyne incognita appears to be a more dominant parasite than C. xenoplax on Lovell peach”
The same questions in other papers
Meloidogyne incognita · growth · Prunus persica (peach)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- negative
inoculation · growth · Prunus persica (peach)Results differ
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 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.