Abstract
Abstract Combined inoculation of grapevine roots with Meloidogyne hapla and Agrobacterium vitis at the level of 10 2–3 bacteria/g of soil resulted in root infestation by A. vitis. When inoculation of M. hapla and A vitis was applied, most of the feeder roots were dead and at points of secondary root branching, dark lesions could be observed. Along the secondary living roots, typical nematode induced galls could be seen. In many cases the infection stopped growth ofthe main or secondary roots. Plants inoculated with A. vitis alone did not show any galls or swellings on roots and its infection did not stop root growth. However in the M. hapla only treatment, small swellings or elongated galls were readily apparent on secondary roots. These galls were always exempt of A. vitis. Xylem sap, collected in spring 2 years after inoculation of A. vitis + M. hapla yielded many A. vitis cells demonstrating that the bacteria became systemic in plant vessels.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Combined nematode and bacterial inoculation caused A. vitis root infestation.
- Treatment
- Combined inoculation of grapevine roots with Meloidogyne hapla and Agrobacterium vitise0
- Interactor
- Agrobacterium vitisGillisella vitise0pathogen
- Second interactor
- Meloidogyne hapla
Meloidogyne haplae0pathogen - Outcome
- root infestation by A. vitise0
VitisNot reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevine Roots”
e0“Combined inoculation of grapevine roots with Meloidogyne hapla and Agrobacterium vitis at the level of 10 2–3 bacteria/g of soil resulted in root infestation by A. vitis.”
Claim · model-written summary
Most feeder roots died and branching points developed dark lesions under combined inoculation.
- Interactor
- M. haplaMeloidogyne haplae0pathogen
- Second interactor
- A vitisGillisella vitise0pathogen
- Outcome
- feeder roots were dead and at points of secondary root branching, dark lesionse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“When inoculation of M. hapla and A vitis was applied, most of the feeder roots were dead and at points of secondary root branching, dark lesions could be observed.”
t0“Grapevine Roots”
Claim · model-written summary
Nematode induced galls appeared along living secondary roots.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Along the secondary living roots, typical nematode induced galls could be seen.”
t0“Grapevine Roots”
Claim · model-written summary
Infection often stopped growth of main or secondary roots.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In many cases the infection stopped growth ofthe main or secondary roots.”
t0“Grapevine Roots”
Claim · model-written summary
A. vitis alone caused no root galls or swelling and did not stop growth.
- Treatment
- inoculated with A. vitis alonee0
- Interactor
- A. vitisGillisella vitise0pathogen
- Outcome
- galls or swellings on rootse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Plants inoculated with A. vitis alone did not show any galls or swellings on roots and its infection did not stop root growth.”
t0“Grapevine Roots”
Claim · model-written summary
M. hapla alone caused small swellings or elongated galls on secondary roots.
- Treatment
- M. hapla only treatmente0
- Interactor
- M. haplaMeloidogyne haplae0pathogen
- Outcome
- small swellings or elongated gallse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in the M. hapla only treatment, small swellings or elongated galls were readily apparent on secondary roots.”
t0“Grapevine Roots”
Claim · model-written summary
Nematode-only galls lacked A. vitis.
- Interactor
- A. vitisGillisella vitise0pathogen
- Second interactor
- M. haplaMeloidogyne haplae1pathogen
- Outcome
- galls were always exempt of A. vitise0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“These galls were always exempt of A. vitis.”
e1“M. hapla only treatment”
t0“Grapevine Roots”
Claim · model-written summary
Xylem sap yielded many A. vitis cells two years after combined inoculation.
- Organ / stage
- Xylem sape0
- Interactor
- A. vitisGillisella vitise0pathogen
- Second interactor
- M. haplaMeloidogyne haplae0pathogen
- Outcome
- many A. vitis cellse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Xylem sap, collected in spring 2 years after inoculation of A. vitis + M. hapla yielded many A. vitis cells”
t0“Grapevine Roots”
The same questions in other papers
Gillisella vitis · pest · VitisPositive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →inoculation · pest · VitisPositive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 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.