Abstract
Abstract The interactions of Paecilomyces lilacinus strain 251 with the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Glomus intraradices and their significance for the control of Meloidogyne incognita on tomato were investigated in greenhouse experiments. Application of P. lilacinus had no effect on the frequency and intensity of tomato root colonization by G. intraradices. Likewise, the decline of the nematophagous fungus densities after single application in soil was not affected by the presence of the mycorrhizal fungus. Single application of P. lilacinus, as pre-planting soil treatment, resulted in significant reduction of nematode damage. In contrast, mycorrhizal inoculation did not provide sufficient biocontrol. Combined application of the two agents did not enhance root protection compared to single treatments. Double treatment of mycorrhized seedlings with P. lilacinus, as seedling drench and pre-planting soil treatment, 4 and 1 week before transplanting, respectively, resulted in the highest reduction of the nematode damage. These results indicate the potential of the commercial P. lilacinus strain 251 and mycorrhiza for integration in nematode control strategies.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Paecilomyces application did not change the frequency or intensity of tomato root colonization by Glomus.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicume0 - Treatment
- Application of P. lilacinuse0
- Interactor
- G. intraradicesRhizophagus intraradicese0symbiont
- Second interactor
- P. lilacinus
Purpureocillium lilacinume0biocontrol_agent - Outcome
- frequency and intensity of tomato root colonization by G. intraradicese0
- Direction
- no effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of P. lilacinus had no effect on the frequency and intensity of tomato root colonization by G. intraradices”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal presence did not affect the postapplication decline of Paecilomyces density in soil.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- presence of the mycorrhizal funguse0
- Interactor
- nematophagous funguse0biocontrol_agent
- Second interactor
- mycorrhizal funguse0symbiont
- Outcome
- decline of the nematophagous fungus densitiese0
- Direction
- not affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the decline of the nematophagous fungus densities after single application in soil was not affected by the presence of the mycorrhizal fungus”
e1“on tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
A single preplant soil application of Paecilomyces significantly reduced nematode damage to tomato.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- Single application of P. lilacinus, as pre-planting soil treatmente0
- Second interactor
- P. lilacinusPurpureocillium lilacinume0biocontrol_agent
- Outcome
- nematode damagee0
- Direction
- reductione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Single application of P. lilacinus, as pre-planting soil treatment, resulted in significant reduction of nematode damage”
e1“on tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal inoculation did not provide sufficient nematode biocontrol on tomato.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- mycorrhizal inoculatione0
- Interactor
- Meloidogyne incognita
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=60)
Meloidogyne incognitae1pest - Second interactor
- mycorrhizale0symbiont
- Outcome
- biocontrole0
- Direction
- did not provide sufficiente0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“mycorrhizal inoculation did not provide sufficient biocontrol”
e1“Meloidogyne incognita on tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined application did not improve tomato root protection over single treatments.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- Combined application of the two agentse0
- Outcome
- root protectione0
- Direction
- did not enhancee0
- Comparator
- single treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Combined application of the two agents did not enhance root protection compared to single treatments”
e1“on tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Double Paecilomyces treatment of mycorrhized tomato seedlings produced the highest reduction of nematode damage.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- Double treatment of mycorrhized seedlings with P. lilacinuse0
- Second interactor
- P. lilacinusPurpureocillium lilacinume0biocontrol_agent
- Outcome
- nematode damagee0
- Direction
- highest reductione0
- Qualifier
- 4 and 1 week before transplantinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Double treatment of mycorrhized seedlings with P. lilacinus, as seedling drench and pre-planting soil treatment, 4 and 1 week before transplanting, respectively, resulted in the highest reduction of the nematode damage”
e1“on tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest integrating Paecilomyces strain 251 and mycorrhiza in tomato nematode control.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Outcome
- integration in nematode control strategiese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“potential of the commercial P. lilacinus strain 251 and mycorrhiza for integration in nematode control strategies”
e1“on tomato”
The same questions in other papers
Purpureocillium lilacinum · Nematoda · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree
10 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →phosphorus · Rhizophagus intraradices · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
mycorrhiza · Meloidogyne incognita · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
8 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →inoculation · Meloidogyne incognita · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
25 papers in the same direction as this paper · 44 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
66 papers more in this group
See all 70 papers →phosphorus · Nematoda · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- 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.