Abstract
Rhizoctonia root rot, caused by Rhizoctonia solani Kühn AG‐8 (Anastomosis Group 8), is a yield limiting disease of direct‐seeded cereal grains. The objectives of this study were to (i) determine whether spring wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes vary in susceptibility to Rhizoctonia root rot in inoculated field trials; and (ii) evaluate whether disease ratings obtained by controlled environment (CE) analyses are predictive of disease ratings or genotype performance in the field. Twenty‐one spring wheat genotypes were evaluated for two crop years in a split‐plot field study with high and low levels of disease pressure. The high‐inoculum (high) treatment consisted of plots planted the previous fall with a 3:1 mixture of winter wheat and oat ( Avena sativa L.) grains colonized by the pathogen. The low‐inoculum (low) treatment was neither inoculated nor planted with a green bridge host the previous fall. Genotypes also were assayed for disease reaction in controlled environment (CE) assays. Average disease ratings of field entries in the high treatment were 2.1 times greater than those from the low treatment ( P < 0.05). The yield average of entries in the high treatment was 87% of that of entries in the low treatment ( P < 0.001). Adult plant heights also were 5 cm shorter ( P < 0.001), heading date was slightly delayed ( P < 0.05), and grain protein content decreased slightly ( P < 0.05) in the high compared with the low treatment. Test weight was not affected by inoculum level. A statistically significant, negative association ( P < 0.0001) between disease rating and grain yield was detected, and variation for reaction to R. solani was detected among genotypes. Disease reaction differences were not detected among genotypes in CE assays, and field and CE disease ratings were not correlated ( P = 0.32), indicating that growth chamber assays were not prognostic of genotype performance in response to pressure from Rhizoctonia root rot in the field.
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
Claim · model-written summary
High inoculum increased field disease ratings 2.1-fold relative to low inoculum.
- Taxon
- Spring Wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- high treatmente0
- Outcome
- disease ratingse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 2.1 timese0
- Comparator
- low treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Average disease ratings of field entries in the high treatment were 2.1 times greater than those from the low treatment ( P < 0.05).”
t0“Spring Wheat Genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield under high inoculum was 87% of yield under low inoculum.
- Taxon
- Spring WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- high treatmente0
- Outcome
- yield averagee0
- Value
- 87%e0
- Comparator
- low treatmente0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The yield average of entries in the high treatment was 87% of that of entries in the low treatment ( P < 0.001).”
t0“Spring Wheat Genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
High inoculum shortened adult plant height by 5 cm.
- Taxon
- Spring WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- highe0
- Outcome
- Adult plant heightse0
- Direction
- shortere0
- Value
- 5 cme0
- Comparator
- low treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Adult plant heights also were 5 cm shorter ( P < 0.001), heading date was slightly delayed ( P < 0.05), and grain protein content decreased slightly ( P < 0.05) in the high compared with the low treatment.”
t0“Spring Wheat Genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
High inoculum slightly delayed heading date.
- Taxon
- Spring WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- highe0
- Outcome
- heading datee0
- Direction
- delayede0
- Qualifier
- slightlye0
- Comparator
- low treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“heading date was slightly delayed ( P < 0.05), and grain protein content decreased slightly ( P < 0.05) in the high compared with the low treatment.”
t0“Spring Wheat Genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
High inoculum slightly decreased grain protein content.
- Taxon
- Spring WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- highe0
- Outcome
- grain protein contente0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Qualifier
- slightlye0
- Comparator
- low treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain protein content decreased slightly ( P < 0.05) in the high compared with the low treatment.”
t0“Spring Wheat Genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Test weight was not affected by inoculum level.
- Taxon
- Spring WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- inoculum levele0
- Outcome
- Test weighte0
- Direction
- not affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Test weight was not affected by inoculum level.”
t0“Spring Wheat Genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Disease rating was negatively associated with grain yield.
- Taxon
- Spring WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- negativee0
- Comparator
- disease ratinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A statistically significant, negative association ( P < 0.0001) between disease rating and grain yield was detected”
t0“Spring Wheat Genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Genotypes varied in reaction to Rhizoctonia solani in the field.
- Taxon
- Spring WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Interactor
- R. solani
Rhizoctonia solanie0pathogen - Outcome
- variation for reaction to R. solanie0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“variation for reaction to R. solani was detected among genotypes”
e1“Rhizoctonia root rot, caused by Rhizoctonia solani Kühn AG‐8”
t0“Spring Wheat Genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Controlled environment assays found no genotype differences in disease reaction.
- Taxon
- Spring WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- Disease reaction differencese0
- Direction
- not detectede0
- Setting
- CE assayse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Disease reaction differences were not detected among genotypes in CE assays”
t0“Spring Wheat Genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Field and controlled environment disease ratings were not correlated.
- Taxon
- Spring WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- field and CE disease ratingse0
- Direction
- not correlatede0
- Setting
- field and CEe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“field and CE disease ratings were not correlated ( P = 0.32)”
t0“Spring Wheat Genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Growth chamber assays were not prognostic of wheat genotype performance under field Rhizoctonia root rot pressure.
- Taxon
- Spring WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- genotype performancee0
- Direction
- not prognostice0
- Comparator
- fielde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“growth chamber assays were not prognostic of genotype performance in response to pressure from Rhizoctonia root rot in the field”
t0“Spring Wheat Genotypes”
The same questions in other papers
inoculation · quality: grain · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 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.