Abstract
Abstract We investigated the effect of prior colonization of sterile soils by a range of soil microbes on the growth of Ralstonia solanacearum YUIRif43 in an earlier report (Soil Sci. Plant Nutr., 46, 449–459, 2000). Here, we report the effect of prior colonization of tomato roots, the host plant of the pathogen, by soil microbes on succeeding colonization by the pathogen. When the soil microbial community was introduced onto tomato roots, subsequent colonization by YUIRif431ux, a lux-marked mutant of YUIRif43, was remarkably suppressed compared with that in the absence of microorganisms which had previously colonized roots (hereafter referred to as priorcolonists). Soil bacteria, rather than fungi, were mainly responsible for the suppression. Next, the effect of individual microbial strains on the colonization by YUIRif43lux was examined. Some strains did not show any significant suppressive effect on subsequent colonization by YUIRif43Iux, unlike others. All the R. solanacearum strains used in this study, especially R. solanacearum NPSI (a weakly virulent mutant of YUl), were effective prior colonists against colonization by YUIRif431ux, that is, they markedly suppressed subsequent colonization by YUIRif431ux. Most of the strains that were effective prior colonists in soil in the earlier report were also effective at suppressing the colonization of tomato roots by YUIRif43Iux. YUIRif43lux competed on tomato roots with the strains that did not show previously an effect against colonization by YUIRif431ux, while root colonization by YUlRif43lux was reduced by co-inoculation with the strains that previously showed a colonization effect. These results suggested that soil bacteria were likely to be responsible for the suppression of colonization by YUIRif43lux of tomato roots, and that strains belonging to R. solanacearum among individual microbial strains might be the most effective antagonists against colonization by YUIRif431ux. Using Tn5-induced derivatives of a strain, Pseudomonas fluorescens MelRC2, one of the most effective priorcolonists, the contribution of motility, antibiosis, rhizosphere competence to the suppressiveness of P. fluorescens MelRC2 against colonization by YUIRif43lux were examined. Key Words: biological controlcompetitionprior colonization Pseudomonas fluorescens rhizosphere competence
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
Prior microbial colonization suppressed subsequent pathogen colonization of tomato roots relative to roots without prior colonists.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicume0 - Treatment
- soil microbial communitye0
- Interactor
- YUIRif431uxe0pathogen
- Outcome
- colonization by YUIRif431uxe0
- Direction
- suppressede0
- Comparator
- absence of microorganisms which had previously colonized rootse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“When the soil microbial community was introduced onto tomato roots, subsequent colonization by YUIRif431ux, a lux-marked mutant of YUIRif43, was remarkably suppressed compared with that in the absence of microorganisms which had previously colonized roots”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil bacteria were mainly responsible for suppression of pathogen colonization, compared with fungi.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Interactor
- Soil bacteriae0biocontrol_agent
- Outcome
- suppressione0
- Comparator
- fungie0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil bacteria, rather than fungi, were mainly responsible for the suppression.”
e1“Here, we report the effect of prior colonization of tomato roots”
Claim · model-written summary
Some individual microbial strains showed no significant suppression of subsequent pathogen colonization.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- Some strainse0
- Interactor
- YUIRif43Iuxe0pathogen
- Outcome
- colonization by YUIRif43Iuxe0
- Comparator
- otherse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Some strains did not show any significant suppressive effect on subsequent colonization by YUIRif43Iux, unlike others.”
e1“Here, we report the effect of prior colonization of tomato roots”
Claim · model-written summary
R. solanacearum strains markedly suppressed subsequent colonization by the marked pathogen strain.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- R. solanacearum strainse0
- Interactor
- YUIRif431uxe0pathogen
- Second interactor
- R. solanacearum strains
Ralstonia solanacearume0biocontrol_agent - Outcome
- colonization by YUIRif431uxe0
- Direction
- suppressede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All the R. solanacearum strains used in this study, especially R. solanacearum NPSI (a weakly virulent mutant of YUl), were effective prior colonists against colonization by YUIRif431ux, that is, they markedly suppressed subsequent colonization by YUIRif431ux.”
e1“Here, we report the effect of prior colonization of tomato roots”
Claim · model-written summary
Most strains effective as prior soil colonists also suppressed pathogen colonization of tomato roots.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Interactor
- YUIRif43Iuxe0pathogen
- Outcome
- colonization of tomato roots by YUIRif43Iuxe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Most of the strains that were effective prior colonists in soil in the earlier report were also effective at suppressing the colonization of tomato roots by YUIRif43Iux.”
Claim · model-written summary
The pathogen competed on tomato roots with strains that previously lacked a colonization effect.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Interactor
- YUIRif43luxe0pathogen
- Outcome
- YUIRif43lux competed on tomato rootse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“YUIRif43lux competed on tomato roots with the strains that did not show previously an effect against colonization by YUIRif431ux”
Claim · model-written summary
Co-inoculation with strains previously showing a colonization effect reduced pathogen root colonization.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- co-inoculation with the strains that previously showed a colonization effecte0
- Interactor
- YUlRif43luxe0pathogen
- Outcome
- root colonization by YUlRif43luxe0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“root colonization by YUlRif43lux was reduced by co-inoculation with the strains that previously showed a colonization effect.”
e1“Here, we report the effect of prior colonization of tomato roots”
The same questions in other papers
Ralstonia solanacearum · disease · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →infection · disease · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
28 papers in the same direction as this paper · 27 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
52 papers more in this group
See all 56 papers →inoculation · disease · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
135 papers in the same direction as this paper · 128 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- negative
262 papers more in this group
See all 266 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.