Paper · 2011 · Pest Management Science

Evaluation of plant‐growth‐promoting rhizobacteria, acibenzolar‐ S ‐methyl and hymexazol for integrated control of Fusarium crown and root rot on tomato

Charalampos K Myresiotis; George S Karaoglanidis; Zisis Vryzas; et al.

11
claims
21
verbatim quotes
88
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) can be potential agents for biological control of plant pathogens, while their combined use with conventional pesticides may increase their efficacy and broaden the disease control spectrum. The effect of four different Bacillus sp. PGPR strains (B. subtilis GB03 and FZB24, B. amyloliquefaciens IN937a and B. pumilus SE34) applied individually and in mixtures, as well as in combined use with acibezolar-S-methyl (ASM) and hymexazol, on plant growth promotion and on the control of Fusarium crown and root rot (FCRR) of tomato was evaluated. RESULTS: All PGPR strains promoted the tested plant growth characteristics significantly. A higher promoting effect was provided by SE34. Experiments on population dynamics of PGPR strains revealed that, after 28 days of incubation, populations of strain SE34 remained stable, while the remaining bacterial strains showed a slight decline in their population densities. The GB03 and FZB24 strains provided a higher disease suppression when applied individually. However, application of IN937a in a mixture with GB03 provided a higher control efficacy of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. radicis-lycopersici (Forl). Treatment of tomato plants with ASM resulted in a small reduction in disease index, while application of hymexazol provided significantly higher control efficacy. Combined applications of the four PGPR strains with either ASM or hymexazol were significantly more effective. CONCLUSION: The results of the study indicate that, when bacilli PGPR strains were combined with pesticides, there was an increased suppression of Forl on tomato plants, and thus they may prove to be important components in FCRR integrated management.

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 11

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

All four PGPR strains significantly promoted tested tomato growth characteristics.

Treatment
PGPR strainse0
Interactor
PGPR strainse0symbiont
Outcome
plant growth characteristicse0
Direction
promotede0

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 ↗

Verbatim

e0

“All PGPR strains promoted the tested plant growth characteristics significantly.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 608–688 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 146–152 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

SE34 had a higher growth promoting effect on tomato.

Treatment
SE34e0
Interactor
SE34e0symbiont
Outcome
promoting effecte0
Direction
highere0

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 ↗

Verbatim

e0

“A higher promoting effect was provided by SE34.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 689–736 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 146–152 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

SE34 populations remained stable after 28 days of incubation in the tomato study.

Interactor
SE34e0symbiont
Outcome
populations of strain SE34e0
Direction
remained stablee0
Value
28 dayse0

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

e0

“after 28 days of incubation, populations of strain SE34 remained stable”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 803–874 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 146–152 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The other PGPR strains declined slightly in population density after incubation.

Interactor
bacterial strainse0symbiont
Outcome
population densitiese0
Direction
slight declinee0

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

e0

“the remaining bacterial strains showed a slight decline in their population densities”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 882–967 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 146–152 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

GB03 individually provided higher tomato disease suppression.

Treatment
GB03e0
Interactor
GB03e0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
disease suppressione0
Direction
highere0

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 ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The GB03 and FZB24 strains provided a higher disease suppression when applied individually.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 969–1060 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 146–152 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

FZB24 individually provided higher tomato disease suppression.

Treatment
FZB24e0
Interactor
FZB24e0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
disease suppressione0
Direction
highere0

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 ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The GB03 and FZB24 strains provided a higher disease suppression when applied individually.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 969–1060 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 146–152 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

IN937a mixed with GB03 provided higher control efficacy against F. oxysporum f. sp. radicis-lycopersici on tomato.

Treatment
IN937a in a mixture with GB03e0
Interactor
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. radicis-lycopersiciFusarium oxysporum f. sp. radicis-lycopersicie0pathogen
Second interactor
IN937ae0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
control efficacy of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. radicis-lycopersicie0
Direction
highere0

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 oxysporum f. sp. radicis-lycopersici
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. radicis-lycopersici · Interactor · picture of its genus (no picture of exactly this name)Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“application of IN937a in a mixture with GB03 provided a higher control efficacy of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. radicis-lycopersici (Forl)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1070–1205 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 146–152 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

ASM caused a small reduction in tomato disease index.

Treatment
ASMe0
Interactor
FusariumFusariumt0pathogene0
Outcome
disease indexe0
Direction
reductione0

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

e0

“Treatment of tomato plants with ASM resulted in a small reduction in disease index”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1207–1289 · show in text ↑
t0

“Fusarium crown and root rot on tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 115–152 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Hymexazol provided significantly higher control efficacy against tomato Fusarium crown and root rot.

Treatment
hymexazole0
Outcome
control efficacye0
Direction
highere0

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 ↗

Verbatim

e0

“application of hymexazol provided significantly higher control efficacy”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1297–1368 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 146–152 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Combining PGPR strains with ASM was significantly more effective against tomato disease.

Treatment
four PGPR strains with either ASM or hymexazole0
Outcome
more effectivee0
Direction
more effectivee0

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 ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Combined applications of the four PGPR strains with either ASM or hymexazol were significantly more effective.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1370–1480 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 146–152 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combining bacilli PGPR strains with pesticides increased suppression of Forl on tomato plants.

Treatment
bacilli PGPR strains were combined with pesticidese0
Interactor
Forle0pathogen
Second interactor
bacilli PGPR strainse0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
suppression of Forle0
Direction
increasede0

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 ↗

Verbatim

e0

“when bacilli PGPR strains were combined with pesticides, there was an increased suppression of Forl on tomato plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1533–1649 · show in text ↑

acibenzolar-S-methyl · Fusarium · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

insecticide · control · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

11 papers: 8 positive, 3 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

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

24 papers: 22 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. negative

20 papers more in this group

See all 24 papers →

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

441 papers: 387 positive, 54 negative or no effect

386 papers in the same direction as this paper · 53 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

437 papers more in this group

See all 441 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.