Abstract
An increase in the inoculum level of root‐knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita and the reniform nematode, Rotylenchulus reniformis resulted in a relative decrease in plant growth parameters of chickpea. Consequently water absorption capability of roots was impaired. M. incognita caused greater reduction than R. reniformis at the same inoculum level. In concomitant inoculation of M. incognita and R. reniformis there was greater suppression in plant growth of chickpea. The suppression in concomitant inoculations was less than the sum of the suppression caused by the same levels of inoculations of the individual species. The multiplication rate of the nematodes decreased as the inoculum level increased. The results also suggest competition for feeding sites between the two nematode species. The multiplication rate of one species progressively decrease with the increase in the inoculum levels of the other nematode.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing inoculum of Meloidogyne incognita reduced chickpea plant growth parameters.
- Taxon
- chickpea
Cicer arietinume1 - Treatment
- inoculum levele2
- Interactor
- Meloidogyne incognita
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=60)
Meloidogyne incognitae1pest - Outcome
- plant growth parameterse1
- Direction
- relative decreasee1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e1“Meloidogyne incognita and the reniform nematode, Rotylenchulus reniformis resulted in a relative decrease in plant growth parameters of chickpea”
e2“The multiplication rate of the nematodes decreased as the inoculum level increased”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing inoculum of Rotylenchulus reniformis reduced chickpea plant growth parameters.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- inoculum levele2
- Interactor
- Rotylenchulus reniformis
Rotylenchulus reniformise1pest - Outcome
- plant growth parameterse1
- Direction
- relative decreasee1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Meloidogyne incognita and the reniform nematode, Rotylenchulus reniformis resulted in a relative decrease in plant growth parameters of chickpea”
e2“The multiplication rate of the nematodes decreased as the inoculum level increased”
Claim · model-written summary
Meloidogyne incognita caused a greater reduction in chickpea growth than Rotylenchulus reniformis at the same inoculum level.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- inoculum levele3
- Interactor
- M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae3pest
- Second interactor
- R. reniformisRotylenchulus reniformise3pest
- Outcome
- reductione3
- Direction
- greatere3
- Comparator
- R. reniformise3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“resulted in a relative decrease in plant growth parameters of chickpea. Consequently water absorption capability of roots was impaired”
e3“M. incognita caused greater reduction than R. reniformis at the same inoculum level”
Claim · model-written summary
Concomitant inoculation with M. incognita and R. reniformis gave greater suppression of chickpea growth.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- concomitant inoculatione4
- Interactor
- M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae4pest
- Second interactor
- R. reniformisRotylenchulus reniformise4pest
- Outcome
- plant growthe4
- Direction
- greater suppressione4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“resulted in a relative decrease in plant growth parameters of chickpea. Consequently water absorption capability of roots was impaired”
e4“In concomitant inoculation of M. incognita and R. reniformis there was greater suppression in plant growth of chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Suppression in concomitant inoculations was less than the sum of the suppression from the individual species.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- concomitant inoculationse5
- Outcome
- suppressione5
- Direction
- less than the sume5
- Comparator
- the individual speciese5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“resulted in a relative decrease in plant growth parameters of chickpea. Consequently water absorption capability of roots was impaired”
e5“The suppression in concomitant inoculations was less than the sum of the suppression caused by the same levels of inoculations of the individual species”
Claim · model-written summary
Multiplication rate of the nematodes decreased as inoculum level increased.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- inoculum levele2
- Outcome
- multiplication ratee2
- Direction
- decreasede2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“resulted in a relative decrease in plant growth parameters of chickpea. Consequently water absorption capability of roots was impaired”
e2“The multiplication rate of the nematodes decreased as the inoculum level increased”
Claim · model-written summary
Competition for feeding sites between the two nematode species may explain the decline in multiplication rate.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Outcome
- multiplication ratee7
- Qualifier
- competition for feeding sites between the two nematode speciese6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“resulted in a relative decrease in plant growth parameters of chickpea. Consequently water absorption capability of roots was impaired”
e6“The results also suggest competition for feeding sites between the two nematode species”
e7“The multiplication rate of one species progressively decrease with the increase in the inoculum levels of the other nematode”
Claim · model-written summary
Multiplication rate of one nematode species progressively decreased as the inoculum of the other species increased.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- inoculum levels of the other nematodee7
- Outcome
- multiplication ratee7
- Direction
- progressively decreasee7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“resulted in a relative decrease in plant growth parameters of chickpea. Consequently water absorption capability of roots was impaired”
e7“The multiplication rate of one species progressively decrease with the increase in the inoculum levels of the other nematode”
Claim · model-written summary
Nematode inoculation impaired water absorption capability of chickpea roots.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume0
- Treatment
- inoculum levele2
- Outcome
- water absorption capability of rootse0
- Direction
- impairede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“resulted in a relative decrease in plant growth parameters of chickpea. Consequently water absorption capability of roots was impaired”
e2“The multiplication rate of the nematodes decreased as the inoculum level increased”
The same questions in other papers
inoculation · Meloidogyne incognita · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →inoculation · nutrient: content · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 57 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
59 papers more in this group
See all 63 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.