Paper · 2008 · Forest Research Open Access

Study on the Stage of Latent Infection and Regularity of Development of the Pear Ring Rot Disease after Postharvest

Zhao Xiao-fang

6
claims
21
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

In order to make sure the latent infection and rotting stage of the ring rot disease caused by Physalospora piricola,the fruit was bagged and un-bagged at different after blossom,and the smearing and inoculation with Physalospora piricola spore were also conducted regularly during the growth of fruit.The results showed that the main infection time of P.piricola to the pear fruit was from 50 d to 70 d after blossom,the infection was also occurred after 110 d of blossom,but it was not easy to be infected within 50 d after blossom.The pathogen was easily infected the fruit through tiny wound.The rotting fruit was mainly took place at the stage of 40~60 d after harvest at the step-cooling storage condition.The fruit inoculated with spore solution at growth stage was more easily decayed than the control.

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 6

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Main infection occurred 50 d to 70 d after blossom.

Taxon
pear fruitPyrus communise0
Interactor
P.piricolae0pathogen
Outcome
infection time of P.piricola to the pear fruite0
Value
50 d to 70 de0

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 main infection time of P.piricola to the pear fruit was from 50 d to 70 d after blossom”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 326–417 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Infection also occurred after 110 d after blossom.

Interactor
Physalospora piricolae1pathogent1
Outcome
infectione0
Qualifier
after 110 d of blossome0

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 infection was also occurred after 110 d of blossom”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 418–472 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pear Ring Rot Disease”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–97 · show in text ↑
t1

“Study on the Stage of Latent Infection and Regularity of Development of the Pear Ring Rot Disease after Postharvest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–115 · show in text ↑
e1

“the ring rot disease caused by Physalospora piricola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 64–116 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Infection was difficult within 50 d after blossom.

Interactor
Physalospora piricolae1pathogent1
Outcome
not easy to be infectede0
Qualifier
within 50 d after blossome0

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

“it was not easy to be infected within 50 d after blossom”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 477–533 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pear Ring Rot Disease”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–97 · show in text ↑
t1

“Study on the Stage of Latent Infection and Regularity of Development of the Pear Ring Rot Disease after Postharvest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–115 · show in text ↑
e1

“the ring rot disease caused by Physalospora piricola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 64–116 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tiny wounds facilitated pathogen infection of fruit.

Interactor
Physalospora piricolae1pathogent1
Outcome
pathogen was easily infected the fruite0
Qualifier
through tiny wounde0

Not reportedDirection

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 pathogen was easily infected the fruit through tiny wound”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 534–595 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pear Ring Rot Disease”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–97 · show in text ↑
t1

“Study on the Stage of Latent Infection and Regularity of Development of the Pear Ring Rot Disease after Postharvest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–115 · show in text ↑
e1

“the ring rot disease caused by Physalospora piricola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 64–116 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fruit rotting occurred mainly 40~60 d after harvest under step-cooling storage.

Interactor
Physalospora piricolae1pathogent1
Outcome
rotting fruite0
Value
40~60 de0
Qualifier
step-cooling storage conditione0

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 rotting fruit was mainly took place at the stage of 40~60 d after harvest at the step-cooling storage condition”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 596–711 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pear Ring Rot Disease”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–97 · show in text ↑
t1

“Study on the Stage of Latent Infection and Regularity of Development of the Pear Ring Rot Disease after Postharvest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–115 · show in text ↑
e1

“the ring rot disease caused by Physalospora piricola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 64–116 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spore inoculation increased fruit decay relative to control.

Treatment
inoculated with spore solution at growth stagee0
Interactor
Physalospora piricolae1pathogent1
Outcome
fruit inoculated with spore solution at growth stage was more easily decayede0
Direction
more easily decayede0
Comparator
controle0

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 fruit inoculated with spore solution at growth stage was more easily decayed than the control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 712–809 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pear Ring Rot Disease”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 76–97 · show in text ↑
t1

“Study on the Stage of Latent Infection and Regularity of Development of the Pear Ring Rot Disease after Postharvest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–115 · show in text ↑
e1

“the ring rot disease caused by Physalospora piricola”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 64–116 · show in text ↑

stage · growth · Pyrus communis (pear)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

inoculation · growth · Pyrus communis (pear)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 6 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 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.