Paper · 2004 · Phytopathology

Predictive Factors for the Suppression of Fusarium Wilt of Tomato in Plant Growth Media

Celia Borrero; M. Isabel Trillas; José Ordovás; et al.

10
claims
23
verbatim quotes
198
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

ABSTRACT Fusarium wilts are economically important diseases for which there are no effective chemical control measures. However, biological control and fertility management are becoming efficient alternatives for controlling this disease. Growth media formulated with composts that are able to suppress Fusarium wilt of tomato provide a control system that integrates both strategies. The aim of this study was to predict Fusarium wilt suppression of growth media using abiotic and biotic variables. Grape marc compost was the most effective medium used to suppress Fusarium wilt. Cork compost was intermediate, and light peat and expanded vermiculite were the most conducive growth media. The growth media evaluated were in a pH range of 6.26 to 7.97. Both composts had high beta-glucosidase activity. When pH and beta-glucosidase activity were taken into account as predictive variables, more than 91% of the variation in severity of Fusarium wilt was explained. This relationship illustrates the effect of nutrient availability and the degree of microbiostasis, two key factors in this pathosystem. Microbial populations involved in suppressiveness were cellulolytic and oligotrophic actinomycetes, fungi, and the ratios cellulolytic actinomycetes/cellulolytic bacteria, oligotrophic bacteria/copiotrophic bacteria, and oligotrophic actinomycetes/oligotrophic bacteria. Based on community level physiological profiles, different community structures were evident among growth media evaluated.

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 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Grape marc compost was the most effective growth medium for suppressing Fusarium wilt of tomato.

Treatment
Grape marc composte1
Interactor
FusariumFusariume1pathogen
Outcome
Fusarium wilte1
Direction
most effectivee1

Not reportedComparator

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium
Fusarium · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Suppression of Fusarium Wilt of Tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 27–65 · show in text ↑
e1

“Grape marc compost was the most effective medium used to suppress Fusarium wilt”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 500–579 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cork compost gave intermediate suppression of Fusarium wilt of tomato.

Treatment
Cork composte2
Interactor
FusariumFusariume1pathogen
Outcome
Fusarium wilte1
Direction
intermediatee2

Not reportedComparator

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium
Fusarium · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Suppression of Fusarium Wilt of Tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 27–65 · show in text ↑
e1

“Grape marc compost was the most effective medium used to suppress Fusarium wilt”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 500–579 · show in text ↑
e2

“Cork compost was intermediate, and light peat and expanded vermiculite were the most conducive growth media”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 581–688 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Light peat and expanded vermiculite were the most conducive growth media for Fusarium wilt of tomato.

Treatment
light peat and expanded vermiculitee2
Interactor
FusariumFusariume1pathogen
Outcome
Fusarium wilte1
Direction
most conducivee2

Not reportedComparator

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium
Fusarium · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Suppression of Fusarium Wilt of Tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 27–65 · show in text ↑
e1

“Grape marc compost was the most effective medium used to suppress Fusarium wilt”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 500–579 · show in text ↑
e2

“Cork compost was intermediate, and light peat and expanded vermiculite were the most conducive growth media”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 581–688 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The growth media evaluated had a pH range of 6.26 to 7.97.

Outcome
pHe3
Value
6.26 to 7.97e3

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Suppression of Fusarium Wilt of Tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 27–65 · show in text ↑
e3

“The growth media evaluated were in a pH range of 6.26 to 7.97”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 690–751 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Both composts had high beta-glucosidase activity.

Material
compostse4
Outcome
beta-glucosidase activitye4
Direction
highe4

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Suppression of Fusarium Wilt of Tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 27–65 · show in text ↑
e4

“Both composts had high beta-glucosidase activity”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 753–801 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

pH and beta-glucosidase activity as predictive variables explained more than 91% of the variation in severity of Fusarium wilt.

Interactor
FusariumFusariume5pathogen
Outcome
variation in severity of Fusarium wilte5
Value
more than 91%e5
Qualifier
pH and beta-glucosidase activitye5

Not reportedDirection

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium
Fusarium · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Suppression of Fusarium Wilt of Tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 27–65 · show in text ↑
e5

“When pH and beta-glucosidase activity were taken into account as predictive variables, more than 91% of the variation in severity of Fusarium wilt was explained”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 803–963 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nutrient availability and the degree of microbiostasis are key factors in this tomato Fusarium wilt pathosystem.

Outcome
Fusarium wilte5
Qualifier
nutrient availability and the degree of microbiostasise6

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Suppression of Fusarium Wilt of Tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 27–65 · show in text ↑
e5

“When pH and beta-glucosidase activity were taken into account as predictive variables, more than 91% of the variation in severity of Fusarium wilt was explained”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 803–963 · show in text ↑
e6

“This relationship illustrates the effect of nutrient availability and the degree of microbiostasis, two key factors in this pathosystem”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 965–1100 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cellulolytic and oligotrophic actinomycetes and fungi are microbial populations involved in suppressiveness.

Outcome
cellulolytic and oligotrophic actinomycetes, fungie7
Qualifier
involved in suppressivenesse7

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Suppression of Fusarium Wilt of Tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 27–65 · show in text ↑
e7

“Microbial populations involved in suppressiveness were cellulolytic and oligotrophic actinomycetes, fungi, and the ratios cellulolytic actinomycetes/cellulolytic bacteria, oligotrophic bacteria/copiotrophic bacteria, and oligotrophic actinomycetes/oligotrophic bacteria”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1102–1371 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ratios of cellulolytic actinomycetes to cellulolytic bacteria, oligotrophic bacteria to copiotrophic bacteria, and oligotrophic actinomycetes to oligotrophic bacteria were measured as suppressiveness-related microbial populations.

Outcome
ratios cellulolytic actinomycetes/cellulolytic bacteria, oligotrophic bacteria/copiotrophic bacteria, and oligotrophic actinomycetes/oligotrophic bacteriae7

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Suppression of Fusarium Wilt of Tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 27–65 · show in text ↑
e7

“Microbial populations involved in suppressiveness were cellulolytic and oligotrophic actinomycetes, fungi, and the ratios cellulolytic actinomycetes/cellulolytic bacteria, oligotrophic bacteria/copiotrophic bacteria, and oligotrophic actinomycetes/oligotrophic bacteria”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1102–1371 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Community structures differed among the growth media evaluated, based on community level physiological profiles.

Material
growth mediae7
Outcome
community structurese7
Direction
differente7
Qualifier
Based on community level physiological profilese7

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Suppression of Fusarium Wilt of Tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 27–65 · show in text ↑
e7

“Based on community level physiological profiles, different community structures were evident among growth media evaluated”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1373–1494 · show in text ↑

growing medium · Fusarium · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

3 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

fertilization · Fusarium · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree

7 papers: 7 positive, 0 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 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.