Paper · 1996 · Indian Journal Of Nematology

Influence of mycorrhizal fungus, Glomus fasciculatum spore concentration on Rotylenchulus reniformis population dynamics and cotton growth

K. Sitaramaiah; R. A. Sikora

5
claims
16
verbatim quotes
1
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Green house tests were conducted to evaluate the influence of different spore levels of Glomus fasciculatum on growth of cotton, Gossypium hirsutum cv. ‘Coker Carolins Queenș and mthe population dynamics of Rotylenchulus reniformis. Lower numhers of adult female with eggmasses were recorded on mycorrhizal roots moculatd with a spore concentration of 300 and above when compared to controls. Increasing the spore concentration of the fungus from 300 to 1800/plant reduced soil population ranging from 40 to 80% at low nematode moculum level (100/plant). In general, the nematode did not have any effect on the number of spores produced or root colonization of the fungus. There was a positive vegetative growth response of cotton plants to increased spore concentration of G. fasciculatum. The mycelium and chlamydospores of G. fasciculatum were,consistantly observed in eggmasses of R. reniformis.

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 resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fewer adult female reniform nematodes with egg masses were recorded on cotton roots inoculated with 300 or more G. fasciculatum spores than on controls.

Taxon
Gossypium hirsutumGossypium hirsutume1
Treatment
mycorrhizal roots moculatd with a spore concentration of 300 and abovee0
Interactor
Rotylenchulus reniformisRotylenchulus reniformist0pathogen
Second interactor
Glomus fasciculatumRhizophagus fasciculatust1symbiont
Outcome
numhers of adult female with eggmassese0
Direction
Lowere0
Comparator
controlse0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Rotylenchulus reniformis
Rotylenchulus reniformis · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryScot Nelson · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Lower numhers of adult female with eggmasses were recorded on mycorrhizal roots moculatd with a spore concentration of 300 and above when compared to controls”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 233–391 · show in text ↑
e1

“Gossypium hirsutum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 129–147 · show in text ↑
t0

“Rotylenchulus reniformis”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–100 · show in text ↑
t1

“Glomus fasciculatum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 33–52 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Raising G. fasciculatum spore concentration from 300 to 1800 per plant reduced soil nematode population by 40 to 80% at the low nematode inoculum level (100 per plant).

Taxon
Gossypium hirsutumGossypium hirsutume1
Treatment
Increasing the spore concentration of the fungus from 300 to 1800/plante0
Interactor
Rotylenchulus reniformisRotylenchulus reniformist0pathogen
Second interactor
Glomus fasciculatumRhizophagus fasciculatust1symbiont
Outcome
soil populatione0
Direction
reducede0
Value
40 to 80%e0
Qualifier
low nematode moculum level (100/plant)e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Rotylenchulus reniformis
Rotylenchulus reniformis · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryScot Nelson · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Increasing the spore concentration of the fungus from 300 to 1800/plant reduced soil population ranging from 40 to 80% at low nematode moculum level (100/plant)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 393–553 · show in text ↑
e1

“Gossypium hirsutum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 129–147 · show in text ↑
t0

“Rotylenchulus reniformis”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–100 · show in text ↑
t1

“Glomus fasciculatum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 33–52 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The nematode did not generally affect spore production or root colonization of the fungus.

Taxon
Gossypium hirsutumGossypium hirsutume1
Treatment
nematodee0
Interactor
Glomus fasciculatumRhizophagus fasciculatust1symbiont
Second interactor
Rotylenchulus reniformisRotylenchulus reniformist0pathogen
Outcome
number of spores produced or root colonization of the funguse0
Direction
did not have any effecte0

Not reportedComparator

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Rotylenchulus reniformis
Rotylenchulus reniformis · Second interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryScot Nelson · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the nematode did not have any effect on the number of spores produced or root colonization of the fungus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 567–671 · show in text ↑
e1

“Gossypium hirsutum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 129–147 · show in text ↑
t0

“Rotylenchulus reniformis”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–100 · show in text ↑
t1

“Glomus fasciculatum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 33–52 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton plants showed a positive vegetative growth response to increased G. fasciculatum spore concentration.

Treatment
increased spore concentration of G. fasciculatume0
Interactor
G. fasciculatumRhizophagus fasciculatuse0symbiont
Outcome
vegetative growthe0
Direction
positivee0

Not reportedComparator

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“There was a positive vegetative growth response of cotton plants to increased spore concentration of G. fasciculatum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 673–789 · show in text ↑
t1

“Glomus fasciculatum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 33–52 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mycelium and chlamydospores of G. fasciculatum were consistently observed in R. reniformis egg masses.

Taxon
Gossypium hirsutumGossypium hirsutume1
Interactor
R. reniformisRotylenchulus reniformise0pathogen
Second interactor
G. fasciculatumRhizophagus fasciculatuse0symbiont
Outcome
mycelium and chlamydospores of G. fasciculatum were,consistantly observed in eggmassese0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Rotylenchulus reniformis
Rotylenchulus reniformis · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryScot Nelson · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The mycelium and chlamydospores of G. fasciculatum were,consistantly observed in eggmasses of R. reniformis”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 791–898 · show in text ↑
e1

“Gossypium hirsutum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 129–147 · show in text ↑

Rhizophagus fasciculatus · growth · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 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.