Abstract
A disease assay was optimized for late leaf spot disease of peanut using Cercosporidium per-sonatum in the greenhouse, and this assay was used in attempts to elicit induced systemic resistance using strains of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) and chemical elicitors. Nineteen strains of spore-forming bacilli PGPR, including strains of Paenibacillus macerans, Brevibacillus brevis, Bacillus laterosporus, B. subtilis, B. pumilus, B. amyloliquefaciens, B. sphaericus, B. cereus, and B. pasteurii, which previously elicited systemic disease control activity on other crops, were evaluated in greenhouse assays. Seven PGPR strains elicited significant disease reduction in a single experiment; however, none repeated significant protection achieved in the greenhouse assay, while significant protection consistently occurred with the fungicide chlorothalonil (Bravo). In other greenhouse trials, neither stem injections of C. personatum nor foliar sprays of chemicals, including salicylic acid, sodium salicylate, isonicotinic acid, or benzo[1,2,3]thiadiazole-7-carbothioc acid S-methyl ester (Actigard), which elicit systemic acquired resistance on other crops, elicited significant disease protection. In contrast, foliar sprays with DL-β-amino-n-butyric acid (BABA), which is an elicitor of localized acquired resistance, resulted in significantly less late leaf spot disease in one of two tests. Combination treatments of four PGPR strains with BABA in the greenhouse did not significantly protect peanut from late leaf spot. Field trials conducted over two growing seasons indicated that none of the 19 PGPR strains, applied as seed treatments at two concentrations, significantly reduced late leaf spot disease. The same chemical elicitors tested in the greenhouse, including BABA, did not elicit significant disease protection. Some combinations of four PGPR and BABA significantly reduced the disease at one but not at two sample times. Collectively, these results suggest that late leaf spot resistance in peanut is not systemically inducible in the same manner as is resistance to diseases in other crops by PGPR and chemical inducers.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Seven PGPR strains significantly reduced disease in a single greenhouse experiment.
- Taxon
- Peanut
Arachis hypogaeat0 - Treatment
- PGPR strainse0
- Outcome
- disease reductione0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- Sevene0
- Qualifier
- single experimente0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Seven PGPR strains elicited significant disease reduction in a single experiment”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
No PGPR strain repeated significant protection in greenhouse assays.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- PGPR strainse1
- Outcome
- protectione0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“none repeated significant protection achieved in the greenhouse assay”
t0“Peanut”
e1“Seven PGPR strains elicited significant disease reduction”
Claim · model-written summary
Stem injections of the pathogen did not elicit significant disease protection.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- stem injections of C. personatume0
- Interactor
- C. personatumNothopassalora personatae0pathogen
- Outcome
- disease protectione0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“neither stem injections of C. personatum nor foliar sprays of chemicals, including salicylic acid, sodium salicylate, isonicotinic acid, or benzo[1,2,3]thiadiazole-7-carbothioc acid S-methyl ester (Actigard), which elicit systemic acquired resistance on other crops, elicited significant disease protection”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar chemical elicitors did not elicit significant disease protection.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- foliar sprays of chemicalse0
- Outcome
- disease protectione0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“neither stem injections of C. personatum nor foliar sprays of chemicals, including salicylic acid, sodium salicylate, isonicotinic acid, or benzo[1,2,3]thiadiazole-7-carbothioc acid S-methyl ester (Actigard), which elicit systemic acquired resistance on other crops, elicited significant disease protection”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
BABA sprays significantly reduced late leaf spot in one of two greenhouse tests.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- foliar sprays with DL-β-amino-n-butyric acid (BABA)e0
- Outcome
- late leaf spot diseasee0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Qualifier
- one of two testse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“foliar sprays with DL-β-amino-n-butyric acid (BABA), which is an elicitor of localized acquired resistance, resulted in significantly less late leaf spot disease in one of two tests”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
PGPR plus BABA combinations did not significantly protect peanut in the greenhouse.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- Combination treatments of four PGPR strains with BABAe0
- Outcome
- late leaf spote0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Combination treatments of four PGPR strains with BABA in the greenhouse did not significantly protect peanut from late leaf spot”
Claim · model-written summary
None of 19 PGPR strains significantly reduced field late leaf spot.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- PGPR strains, applied as seed treatments at two concentrationse0
- Outcome
- late leaf spot diseasee0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“none of the 19 PGPR strains, applied as seed treatments at two concentrations, significantly reduced late leaf spot disease”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Field chemical elicitors including BABA did not give significant protection.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- chemical elicitorse0
- Outcome
- disease protectione0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The same chemical elicitors tested in the greenhouse, including BABA, did not elicit significant disease protection”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Some PGPR and BABA combinations significantly reduced disease at one sample time but not two.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- combinations of four PGPR and BABAe0
- Outcome
- diseasee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- at one but not at two sample timese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Some combinations of four PGPR and BABA significantly reduced the disease at one but not at two sample times”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors concluded that peanut late leaf spot resistance is not systemically inducible by these agents as in other crops.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- PGPR and chemical inducerse0
- Outcome
- late leaf spot resistancee0
- Qualifier
- not systemically induciblee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“late leaf spot resistance in peanut is not systemically inducible in the same manner as is resistance to diseases in other crops by PGPR and chemical inducers”
The same questions in other papers
application · control · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →seed treatment · disease · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 41 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 papers →inoculation · disease · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
23 papers in the same direction as this paper · 25 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
45 papers more in this group
See all 49 papers →application · disease · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
47 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
48 papers more in this group
See all 52 papers →inoculation · control · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
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.