Paper · 2005 · Canadian Journal of Botany

Impact of glandular hair exudates on infection of chickpea by Ascochyta rabiei

C Armstrong-Cho; B D Gossen

4
claims
8
verbatim quotes
22
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Ascochyta blight, a fungal disease caused by Ascochyta rabiei (Pass.) Labr. (teleomorph Didymella rabiei (Kovačevski) v. Arx), is a major constraint to chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) production. An unusual feature of chickpea plants is the secretion of a highly acidic fluid from glandular trichomes. This exudate was shown to promote germination of conidia of A. rabiei at low concentrations (0.012 and 0.06 mg·mL –1 ) but to inhibit germination at higher concentrations (0.3 and 1.5 mg·mL –1 ). The removal of exudates from plants prior to inoculation with A. rabiei increased infection and, subsequently, disease development in susceptible cultivars. On partially resistant cultivars, however, the effect of removing exudates on infection was not apparent until early podding, when genetic resistance declines. Simulated rain applied prior to inoculation increased disease severity as the volume of simulated rain increased from 1 to 4 mm. Since rainfall is required for dispersal of conidia, host exudates are likely to have little impact on secondary disease spread under field conditions. Exudates may, however, contribute to variability in disease studies conducted on older chickpea plants, especially in controlled environments.Key words: ascochyta blight, epidemiology, screening, Didymella rabiei, Cicer arietinum.

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 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Removing chickpea exudates before inoculation with A. rabiei increased infection in susceptible cultivars.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Material
susceptible cultivarse1
Treatment
The removal of exudates from plants prior to inoculatione1
Interactor
A. rabieiAscochyta rabieie1pathogen
Outcome
infectione1
Direction
increasede1

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Ascochyta rabiei
Ascochyta rabiei · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDr. Weidong Chen Research Plant Pathologist · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“infection of chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 37–58 · show in text ↑
e1

“The removal of exudates from plants prior to inoculation with A. rabiei increased infection and, subsequently, disease development in susceptible cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 496–651 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Removing chickpea exudates increased disease development in susceptible cultivars.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Material
susceptible cultivarse1
Treatment
The removal of exudates from plants prior to inoculatione1
Interactor
A. rabieiAscochyta rabieie1pathogen
Outcome
disease developmente1
Direction
increasede1

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Ascochyta rabiei
Ascochyta rabiei · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDr. Weidong Chen Research Plant Pathologist · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“infection of chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 37–58 · show in text ↑
e1

“The removal of exudates from plants prior to inoculation with A. rabiei increased infection and, subsequently, disease development in susceptible cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 496–651 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

On partially resistant chickpea cultivars, removing exudates had no apparent effect on infection until early podding.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Material
partially resistant cultivarse2
Organ / stage
early poddinge2
Treatment
removing exudatese2
Outcome
infectione2
Direction
not apparente2

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“infection of chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 37–58 · show in text ↑
e2

“On partially resistant cultivars, however, the effect of removing exudates on infection was not apparent until early podding, when genetic resistance declines”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 653–811 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Simulated rain applied before inoculation increased chickpea disease severity as its volume rose from 1 to 4 mm.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Treatment
Simulated rain applied prior to inoculatione3
Outcome
disease severitye3
Direction
increasede3
Value
1 to 4 mme3

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“infection of chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 37–58 · show in text ↑
e3

“Simulated rain applied prior to inoculation increased disease severity as the volume of simulated rain increased from 1 to 4 mm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 813–940 · show in text ↑

inoculation · Ascochyta rabiei · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

9 papers: 4 positive, 5 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 papers →

inoculation · disease · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

28 papers: 15 positive, 13 negative or no effect

12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

24 papers more in this group

See all 28 papers →

allelopathy · disease · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree

2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. negative
See all 2 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.