Paper · 2009 · Nematropica

Pathogenicity of Pratylenchus penetrans on onion.

W. Pang; S. L. Hafez; P. Sundararaj; et al.

5
claims
10
verbatim quotes
4
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Pang, W., S. L. Hafez, P. Sundararaj, B. Shafii, and E. Fallah. 2009. Pathogenicity of Pratylenchus penetrans on onion. Nematropica 39:35-46. Pathogenicity of Pratylenchus penetrans on onion was tested both under greenhouse and microplot conditions. For the greenhouse study, seedlings of onion (Allium cepa) cultivar Tioga were inoculated with P. penetrans at 0, 3000, 6000, 9000, or 1200 females + juveniles/ pot. In field microplots, onions were inoculated 0, 26500, 53000, 106000, or 212000 females + juveniles of P. penetrans/ microplot. Cultural practices recommended by onion production in Idaho were carried out and data on fresh and dry weight of the plant top and roots, bulb diameter and weight, and nematode population in roots and soil were collected at harvest. Increasing inoculum levels led to significant reductions in onion growth and increased nematode population at harvest. Significant reduction in plant growth began at 3000 P. penetrans/ pot or 26500/ microplot. Bulb weight reduction ranged from 31.5% to 64.2% at the inoculum level of 26500 and 212000 P. penetrans / microplot, respectively, in field microplots. Maximum reduction in plant total dry weight was 84.2% at 12000 P. penetrans/ pot under greenhouse conditions. This study will help onion growers in Idaho make decisions on whether or not to grow onions in a field with a specific population density of P. penetrans in the soil.

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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Increasing P. penetrans inoculum significantly reduced onion growth

Taxon
onionAllium cepae0
Treatment
Increasing inoculum levelse1
Interactor
Pratylenchus penetransPratylenchus penetranse0pathogen
Outcome
onion growthe1
Direction
significant reductionse1
Setting
greenhouse and microplot conditionse0

Not reportedComparator

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

Allium cepa
Allium cepa · TaxonMehdi · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Pratylenchus penetrans
Pratylenchus penetrans · InteractorUSDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pathogenicity of Pratylenchus penetrans on onion was tested both under greenhouse and microplot conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 142–248 · show in text ↑
e1

“Increasing inoculum levels led to significant reductions in onion growth and increased nematode population at harvest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 776–893 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Increasing P. penetrans inoculum increased the nematode population at harvest

Taxon
onionAllium cepae0
Treatment
Increasing inoculum levelse1
Interactor
Pratylenchus penetransPratylenchus penetranse0pathogen
Outcome
nematode populatione1
Direction
increasede1

Not reportedComparator

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

Allium cepa
Allium cepa · TaxonMehdi · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Pratylenchus penetrans
Pratylenchus penetrans · InteractorUSDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pathogenicity of Pratylenchus penetrans on onion was tested both under greenhouse and microplot conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 142–248 · show in text ↑
e1

“Increasing inoculum levels led to significant reductions in onion growth and increased nematode population at harvest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 776–893 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Significant reduction in onion growth began at 3000 P. penetrans per pot or 26500 per microplot

Taxon
onionAllium cepae0
Treatment
3000 P. penetrans/ pote2
Interactor
P. penetransPratylenchus penetranse2pathogen
Outcome
plant growthe2
Direction
Significant reductione2
Qualifier
began at 3000 P. penetrans/ pot or 26500/ microplote2

Not reportedComparator

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

Allium cepa
Allium cepa · TaxonMehdi · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Pratylenchus penetrans
Pratylenchus penetrans · InteractorUSDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pathogenicity of Pratylenchus penetrans on onion was tested both under greenhouse and microplot conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 142–248 · show in text ↑
e2

“Significant reduction in plant growth began at 3000 P. penetrans/ pot or 26500/ microplot”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 895–984 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bulb weight of onion was reduced by 31.5% to 64.2% at 26500 and 212000 P. penetrans per microplot in field microplots

Taxon
onionAllium cepae0
Treatment
the inoculum level of 26500 and 212000 P. penetrans / microplote3
Interactor
P. penetransPratylenchus penetranse3pathogen
Outcome
Bulb weighte3
Direction
reductione3
Value
31.5% to 64.2%e3
Setting
field microplotse3

Not reportedComparator

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

Allium cepa
Allium cepa · TaxonMehdi · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Pratylenchus penetrans
Pratylenchus penetrans · InteractorUSDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pathogenicity of Pratylenchus penetrans on onion was tested both under greenhouse and microplot conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 142–248 · show in text ↑
e3

“Bulb weight reduction ranged from 31.5% to 64.2% at the inoculum level of 26500 and 212000 P. penetrans / microplot, respectively, in field microplots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 986–1136 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Maximum reduction of onion total dry weight was 84.2% at 12000 P. penetrans per pot in the greenhouse

Taxon
onionAllium cepae0
Treatment
12000 P. penetrans/ pote4
Interactor
P. penetransPratylenchus penetranse4pathogen
Outcome
plant total dry weighte4
Direction
Maximum reductione4
Value
84.2%e4
Setting
greenhouse conditionse4

Not reportedComparator

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

Allium cepa
Allium cepa · TaxonMehdi · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Pratylenchus penetrans
Pratylenchus penetrans · InteractorUSDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pathogenicity of Pratylenchus penetrans on onion was tested both under greenhouse and microplot conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 142–248 · show in text ↑
e4

“Maximum reduction in plant total dry weight was 84.2% at 12000 P. penetrans/ pot under greenhouse conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1138–1246 · show in text ↑

Pratylenchus penetrans · growth · Allium cepa (onion)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 →

inoculation · yield · Allium cepa (onion)Positive and negative results

93 papers: 82 positive, 11 negative or no effect

10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 82 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

89 papers more in this group

See all 93 papers →

inoculation · Pratylenchus penetrans · Allium cepa (onion)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.