Abstract
Diseases (rosette virus disease (RVD), Cercospora leaf spot (CLS) and poverty of soils in nutrients are the main causes of groundnut losses (>60%). Among the methods applied in disease management, the biological method is identified as a priority in crop protection research programs. This study was carried out during the 2001 growing season in Yaounde, Cameroon. The aim was to characterize the development of RVD and CLS on A-26 groundnut variety and also to evaluate yield after mycorrhizal inoculation. A randomized block design with four replicates was used, with two applications of mycorrhizal inoculum. The inoculum contained spores of Glomus sp. and Gigaspora sp. in concentration of 2.103 spores.g-¹. A urea treatment and an absolute control were also used. The number of nodules per plant, the root colonization rate (RCR), disease severity and yield were assessed. Results show that RCR was very low in control and urea plots compared to mycorrhizal inoculated plots. Mycorrhizal applications reduced disease infection up to 38.8 and 54.4% respectively, for RVD and CLS. However, plants issued from urea treatment were more stressed and infected. A higher number of nodules (459.1) were recorded on roots of mycorrhizal inoculated plants compared to control and urea treatments which were 218.8 and 237.5 nodules per plant. Mycorrhization of groundnut plants led to a yield increased of up to 628% for dry pods of healthy plants compared to uninoculated plants in control samples. No yield was recorded on infected plants from control and urea treatments, whereas plants infected by RVD and inoculated with mycorrhiza yielded 177.2 Kg.ha-1 of dry pods. The mains results of this study show that mycorrhizal symbiosis with groundnut roots increased the resistance of plants to RVD and CLS, and positively influenced the physiology of groundnut plants infected by RVD.
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
Mycorrhizal applications reduced rosette virus disease infection by 38.8%.
- Taxon
- groundnut
Arachis hypogaeat0 - Treatment
- Mycorrhizal applicationse1
- Interactor
- rosette viruse2pathogen
- Second interactor
- Glomus sp. and Gigaspora sp.
Gigaspora
Glomus sp.e3symbiont - Outcome
- disease infectione1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Value
- 38.8e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“groundnut crops”
e1“Mycorrhizal applications reduced disease infection up to 38.8 and 54.4% respectively, for RVD and CLS”
e2“rosette virus disease (RVD), Cercospora leaf spot (CLS)”
e3“The inoculum contained spores of Glomus sp. and Gigaspora sp.”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal applications reduced Cercospora leaf spot infection by 54.4%.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- Mycorrhizal applicationse1
- Interactor
- Cercospora
Cercosporae2pathogen - Second interactor
- Glomus sp. and Gigaspora sp.GigasporaGlomus sp.e3symbiont
- Outcome
- disease infectione1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Value
- 54.4%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“groundnut crops”
e1“Mycorrhizal applications reduced disease infection up to 38.8 and 54.4% respectively, for RVD and CLS”
e2“rosette virus disease (RVD), Cercospora leaf spot (CLS)”
e3“The inoculum contained spores of Glomus sp. and Gigaspora sp.”
Claim · model-written summary
Root colonization rate was very low in control and urea plots compared with mycorrhizal inoculated plots.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- mycorrhizal inoculated plotse4
- Outcome
- RCRe4
- Direction
- very lowe4
- Comparator
- control and urea plotse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“groundnut crops”
e4“RCR was very low in control and urea plots compared to mycorrhizal inoculated plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal inoculated plants had a higher number of nodules (459.1) than control and urea treatments.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- mycorrhizal inoculated plantse5
- Outcome
- number of nodulese5
- Direction
- highere5
- Value
- 459.1e5
- Comparator
- control and urea treatmentse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“groundnut crops”
e5“A higher number of nodules (459.1) were recorded on roots of mycorrhizal inoculated plants compared to control and urea treatments which were 218.8 and 237.5 nodules per plant”
Claim · model-written summary
Plants under urea treatment were more stressed and infected.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- urea treatmente6
- Outcome
- stressed and infectede6
- Direction
- moree6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“groundnut crops”
e6“plants issued from urea treatment were more stressed and infected”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhization increased dry pod yield by up to 628% compared with uninoculated plants.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Organ / stage
- dry podse7
- Treatment
- Mycorrhizatione7
- Outcome
- yielde7
- Direction
- increasede7
- Value
- 628%e7
- Comparator
- uninoculated plantse7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“groundnut crops”
e7“Mycorrhization of groundnut plants led to a yield increased of up to 628% for dry pods of healthy plants compared to uninoculated plants in control samples”
Claim · model-written summary
RVD-infected plants inoculated with mycorrhiza yielded 177.2 kg/ha dry pods, whereas infected control and urea plots yielded none.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- inoculated with mycorrhizae3
- Interactor
- rosette viruse2pathogen
- Outcome
- dry podse3
- Direction
- yieldede3
- Value
- 177.2 Kg.ha-1e3
- Comparator
- control and urea treatmentse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“groundnut crops”
e2“rosette virus disease (RVD), Cercospora leaf spot (CLS)”
e3“plants infected by RVD and inoculated with mycorrhiza yielded 177.2 Kg.ha-1 of dry pods”
e4“No yield was recorded on infected plants from control and urea treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal symbiosis with groundnut roots increased plant resistance to RVD and CLS.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- mycorrhizal symbiosis with groundnut rootse3
- Outcome
- resistance of plantse3
- Direction
- increasede3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“groundnut crops”
e3“mycorrhizal symbiosis with groundnut roots increased the resistance of plants to RVD and CLS”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal symbiosis positively influenced the physiology of RVD-infected groundnut plants.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- mycorrhizal symbiosise3
- Outcome
- physiology of groundnut plantse4
- Direction
- positively influencede4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“groundnut crops”
e3“mycorrhizal symbiosis with groundnut roots increased the resistance of plants to RVD and CLS”
e4“positively influenced the physiology of groundnut plants infected by RVD”
The same questions in other papers
mycorrhiza · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
26 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- no effect
25 papers more in this group
See all 29 papers →mycorrhiza · disease · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results agree
6 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 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.