Paper · 2010 · HortTechnology

Spraying Leaves of Pear Nursery Trees with Urea and Copper Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid Alters Tree Nitrogen Concentration without Influencing Tree Susceptibility to Phytophthora syringae

S. Laywisadkul; C.F. Scagel; L.H. Fuchigami; et al.

11
claims
22
verbatim quotes
2
citations
4
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Recent field observations by growers suggest that increased nitrogen (N) content in nursery trees resulting from foliar sprays with urea in the autumn increases tree susceptibility to infection by Phytophthora syringae . We investigated the effects of soil N availability and spraying pear ( Pyrus communis ‘OHF 97’) trees with combinations of urea, chelated copper ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (CuEDTA), and phosphonate-containing fungicides on stem N concentration and susceptibility to infection by P. syringae . Increasing soil N availability increased susceptibility to P. syringae and increased N and amino acid concentration in stems. Spraying trees with urea in the autumn increased concentrations of N and amino acids in stems and had no significant effect on tree susceptibility when stems were inoculated with P. syringae before or after urea sprays. Spraying trees with CuEDTA decreased stem N concentrations and had no significant influence on tree susceptibility to P. syringae when stems were inoculated before or after CuEDTA sprays. These results suggest the relationship between tree susceptibility to P. syringae and tree N concentration may be specific to the form of N, delivery method, or timing of N applications. Trees had higher N concentrations in stems in November than in October and were more susceptible to P. syringae when inoculated in November, suggesting that environmental factors and increasing tree dormancy may be responsible for changes in susceptibility to the pathogen. Spraying trees with fungicides containing fosetyl-aluminum in October or November decreased tree susceptibility to P. syringae . The effects of fungicides containing fosetyl-aluminum on susceptibility were similar regardless of whether trees were sprayed or not with urea or CuEDTA, suggesting that these fungicides can be used in combination with urea or CuEDTA sprays for reducing disease severity caused by P. syringae without impacting growers' objective of increasing tree N content with urea or enhancing early defoliation with CuEDTA.

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 11

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

More soil nitrogen increased pear susceptibility to P. syringae.

Treatment
Increasing soil N availabilitye0
Interactor
P. syringaePhytophthora syringaee0pathogen
Outcome
susceptibility to P. syringaee0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Increasing soil N availability increased susceptibility to P. syringae and increased N and amino acid concentration in stems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 519–643 · show in text ↑
e1

“spraying pear ( Pyrus communis ‘OHF 97’) trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 276–322 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

More soil nitrogen increased stem N and amino acid concentration.

Treatment
Increasing soil N availabilitye0
Outcome
N and amino acid concentration in stemse0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Increasing soil N availability increased susceptibility to P. syringae and increased N and amino acid concentration in stems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 519–643 · show in text ↑
e1

“spraying pear ( Pyrus communis ‘OHF 97’) trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 276–322 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Autumn urea sprays increased stem N and amino acids.

Treatment
Spraying trees with urea in the autumne0
Outcome
concentrations of N and amino acids in stemse0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Spraying trees with urea in the autumn increased concentrations of N and amino acids in stems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 645–738 · show in text ↑
e1

“spraying pear ( Pyrus communis ‘OHF 97’) trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 276–322 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Autumn urea sprays did not significantly affect susceptibility to P. syringae before or after inoculation.

Treatment
urea sprayse0
Interactor
P. syringaePhytophthora syringaee0pathogen
Outcome
tree susceptibilitye0
Direction
no significant effecte0

Not reportedComparator

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“had no significant effect on tree susceptibility when stems were inoculated with P. syringae before or after urea sprays”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 743–863 · show in text ↑
e1

“spraying pear ( Pyrus communis ‘OHF 97’) trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 276–322 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

CuEDTA sprays decreased stem N concentrations.

Treatment
CuEDTAe0
Outcome
stem N concentrationse0
Direction
decreasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Spraying trees with CuEDTA decreased stem N concentrations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 865–923 · show in text ↑
e1

“spraying pear ( Pyrus communis ‘OHF 97’) trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 276–322 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

CuEDTA sprays did not significantly influence susceptibility to P. syringae.

Treatment
CuEDTA sprayse0
Interactor
P. syringaePhytophthora syringaee0pathogen
Outcome
tree susceptibility to P. syringaee0
Direction
no significant influencee0

Not reportedComparator

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“had no significant influence on tree susceptibility to P. syringae when stems were inoculated before or after CuEDTA sprays”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 928–1051 · show in text ↑
e1

“spraying pear ( Pyrus communis ‘OHF 97’) trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 276–322 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pear stems had higher N concentrations in November than October.

Outcome
N concentrations in stemse0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
Octobere0
Setting
Novembere0

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Trees had higher N concentrations in stems in November than in October”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1240–1310 · show in text ↑
e1

“spraying pear ( Pyrus communis ‘OHF 97’) trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 276–322 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pear trees were more susceptible to P. syringae when inoculated in November.

Interactor
P. syringaePhytophthora syringaee0pathogen
Outcome
susceptible to P. syringaee0
Direction
moree0
Setting
Novembere0

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“were more susceptible to P. syringae when inoculated in November”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1315–1379 · show in text ↑
e1

“spraying pear ( Pyrus communis ‘OHF 97’) trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 276–322 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fosetyl-aluminum fungicides decreased pear susceptibility to P. syringae.

Treatment
fungicides containing fosetyl-aluminume0
Interactor
P. syringaePhytophthora syringaee0pathogen
Outcome
tree susceptibility to P. syringaee0
Direction
decreasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Spraying trees with fungicides containing fosetyl-aluminum in October or November decreased tree susceptibility to P. syringae”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1514–1640 · show in text ↑
e1

“spraying pear ( Pyrus communis ‘OHF 97’) trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 276–322 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fosetyl-aluminum fungicide efficacy was similar with or without urea or CuEDTA sprays.

Treatment
fungicides containing fosetyl-aluminume0
Outcome
susceptibilitye0
Direction
similare0
Comparator
sprayed or not with urea or CuEDTAe0

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The effects of fungicides containing fosetyl-aluminum on susceptibility were similar regardless of whether trees were sprayed or not with urea or CuEDTA”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1643–1795 · show in text ↑
e1

“spraying pear ( Pyrus communis ‘OHF 97’) trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 276–322 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors suggest combining fosetyl-aluminum fungicides with urea or CuEDTA sprays for disease reduction.

Treatment
fungicidese0
Interactor
P. syringaePhytophthora syringaee0pathogen
Outcome
reducing disease severity caused by P. syringaee0

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“these fungicides can be used in combination with urea or CuEDTA sprays for reducing disease severity caused by P. syringae”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1813–1935 · show in text ↑
e1

“spraying pear ( Pyrus communis ‘OHF 97’) trees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 276–322 · show in text ↑

fungicide · disease · Pyrus communis (pear)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

nitrogen · molecular: metabolites · Pyrus communis (pear)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 3 positive, 2 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

nitrogen · nutrient: content · Pyrus communis (pear)Positive and negative results

6 papers: 4 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

application · molecular: metabolites · Pyrus communis (pear)Positive and negative results

12 papers: 10 positive, 2 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 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.