Paper · 1999 · Plant Pathology

Indian peanut clump virus (IPCV) infection on wheat and barley: symptoms, yield loss and transmission through seed

Delfosse; Reddy; Legrève; et al.

18
claims
30
verbatim quotes
39
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Wheat and barley crops were shown to be susceptible to Indian peanut clump virus (IPCV) under field conditions. In wheat, the Hyderabad isolate of IPCV (IPCV‐H) induced symptoms resembling the rosette caused by soil‐borne wheat mosaic virus, and these were apparent only three weeks after emergence. Early‐infected plants were severely stunted and dark green, with chlorotic streaks on the youngest leaves, which turned necrotic as the plants aged; most of these plants died. Late‐infected plants were also stunted and were conspicuous in the field because of their dark green appearance as a result of delayed maturity. The virus was detected by ELISA and nucleic acid hybridization in all plants with symptoms. These plants usually produced fewer tillers than healthy ones. Spikes were malformed, often did not emerge from the flag leaf, and they contained few, shrivelled seeds. Grain yield was decreased, on average, by 58%. In barley, IPCV‐H caused severe stunting and general leaf chlorosis. As the plants aged, the leaves became necrotic and the few infected plants that reached maturity produced small spikes. IPCV‐H antigens were detected by ELISA in every wheat seed from infected plants and the virus was transmitted through wheat seed at a frequency of 0.5–1.3%. Storage at 4°C for more than a year did not affect seed transmission frequency. The virus was detected in leaves and roots of seed‐transmitted plants. Seed transmission was not detected in barley. The Durgapura isolate (IPCV‐D) was detected in wheat crops (cv. RR‐21) at 3 different locations in Rajasthan State, India. Infected plants showed reduced growth without any overt symptoms.

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 18

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat and barley were susceptible to IPCV in field conditions.

Interactor
Indian peanut clump virus (IPCV)Indian peanut clump viruse0pathogen
Outcome
susceptiblee0
Setting
field conditionse0

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

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Wheat and barley crops were shown to be susceptible to Indian peanut clump virus (IPCV) under field conditions.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–111 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

IPCV-H induced rosette-like symptoms in wheat three weeks after emergence.

Interactor
IPCV‐He0pathogen
Outcome
symptoms resembling the rosettee0
Qualifier
three weeks after emergencee0

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

e0

“In wheat, the Hyderabad isolate of IPCV (IPCV‐H) induced symptoms resembling the rosette caused by soil‐borne wheat mosaic virus, and these were apparent only three weeks after emergence.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 112–299 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Early infected wheat was stunted, dark green and streaked, and most plants died.

Organ / stage
youngest leavese0
Outcome
severely stunted and dark green, with chlorotic streakse0

Not reportedInteractor

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

e0

“Early‐infected plants were severely stunted and dark green, with chlorotic streaks on the youngest leaves, which turned necrotic as the plants aged; most of these plants died.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 300–475 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–51 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Most early infected wheat plants died.

Outcome
plants diede0

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

e0

“most of these plants died”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 449–474 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–51 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Late infected wheat was stunted and dark green with delayed maturity.

Outcome
stuntede0
Qualifier
delayed maturitye0

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

e0

“Late‐infected plants were also stunted and were conspicuous in the field because of their dark green appearance as a result of delayed maturity.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 476–620 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–51 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The virus was detected in all symptomatic wheat plants.

Outcome
virus was detectede0
Value
all plants with symptomse0

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

e0

“The virus was detected by ELISA and nucleic acid hybridization in all plants with symptoms.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 621–712 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–51 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Symptomatic wheat usually produced fewer tillers than healthy wheat.

Outcome
tillerse0
Direction
fewere0
Comparator
healthy onese0

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

e0

“These plants usually produced fewer tillers than healthy ones.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 713–775 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–51 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Infected wheat had malformed spikes and few shrivelled seeds.

Organ / stage
Spikese0
Outcome
Spikes were malformede0

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

e0

“Spikes were malformed, often did not emerge from the flag leaf, and they contained few, shrivelled seeds.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 776–881 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–51 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat grain yield decreased by an average of 58%.

Outcome
Grain yielde0
Direction
decreasede0
Value
58%e0

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

e0

“Grain yield was decreased, on average, by 58%.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 882–928 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–51 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

IPCV-H caused severe stunting and leaf chlorosis in barley.

Interactor
IPCV‐He0pathogen
Outcome
severe stunting and general leaf chlorosise0

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

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In barley, IPCV‐H caused severe stunting and general leaf chlorosis.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 929–997 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Infected barley leaves became necrotic and survivors had small spikes.

Organ / stage
leavese0
Outcome
leaves became necrotice0

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

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“As the plants aged, the leaves became necrotic and the few infected plants that reached maturity produced small spikes.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 998–1117 · show in text ↑
t0

“barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–62 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

IPCV-H antigens were found in every wheat seed from infected plants.

Organ / stage
seede0
Interactor
IPCV‐He0pathogen
Outcome
IPCV‐H antigens were detectede0
Value
every wheat seede0

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

e0

“IPCV‐H antigens were detected by ELISA in every wheat seed from infected plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1118–1197 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

IPCV-H was transmitted through wheat seed at 0.5–1.3%.

Outcome
virus was transmitted through wheat seede0
Value
0.5–1.3%e0

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

e0

“the virus was transmitted through wheat seed at a frequency of 0.5–1.3%.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1202–1274 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–51 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cold storage for over a year did not affect wheat seed transmission frequency.

Treatment
Storage at 4°C for more than a yeare0
Outcome
seed transmission frequencye0
Direction
did not affecte0

Not reportedComparator

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

e0

“Storage at 4°C for more than a year did not affect seed transmission frequency.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1275–1354 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–51 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Virus was detected in leaves and roots of seed-transmitted wheat.

Organ / stage
leaves and rootse0
Outcome
virus was detectede0

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

e0

“The virus was detected in leaves and roots of seed‐transmitted plants.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1355–1425 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–51 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Seed transmission was not detected in barley.

Outcome
Seed transmission was not detectede0

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

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Seed transmission was not detected in barley.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1426–1471 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

IPCV-D was detected in wheat cv. RR-21 at three Rajasthan locations.

Material
cv. RR‐21e0
Interactor
IPCV‐De0pathogen
Outcome
IPCV‐D) was detectede0
Value
3 different locationse0
Setting
Rajasthan State, Indiae0

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

e0

“The Durgapura isolate (IPCV‐D) was detected in wheat crops (cv. RR‐21) at 3 different locations in Rajasthan State, India.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1472–1594 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

IPCV-D infected wheat showed reduced growth without overt symptoms.

Outcome
growthe0
Direction
reducede0
Qualifier
without any overt symptomse0

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

e0

“Infected plants showed reduced growth without any overt symptoms.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1595–1660 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–51 · show in text ↑

storage · disease · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

13 papers: 2 positive, 11 negative or no effect

10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. no effect

9 papers more in this group

See all 13 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.