Paper · 2014 · Journal of Biological Control

Screening and Identification of Antagonist Bacteria against Phoma foveata on Potato

Chang Ta

7
claims
7
verbatim quotes
2
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The inhibition rate of bacterial ZA1 obtained by dual culture method against potato pathogen Phoma foveata was 71.83%. The strain ZA1 was identified as Bacillus mojavensis based on morphology, physiological and biochemical characters, combined with 16S rDNA and gyrB gene sequence analysis. Inhibition rate of strain ZA1 against Alternaria solani, Stysanus stemonitis, Fusarium oxysporum and Colletotrichum coccodes were 64.30%, 41.05%, 61.42% and 74.92%, respectively. The control efficacy of strain ZA1 against potato gangrene was 64.31% by spraying fermentation broth with diluting for ten times on potato tube in storage period.

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

Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

ZA1 inhibited Phoma foveata by 71.83% in dual culture.

Taxon
Phoma foveataBoeremia foveatae0
Interactor
bacterial ZA1e0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
inhibition ratee0
Value
71.83%e0

Verbatim

e0

“The inhibition rate of bacterial ZA1 obtained by dual culture method against potato pathogen Phoma foveata was 71.83%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–117 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

ZA1 was identified as Bacillus mojavensis.

Taxon
Bacillus mojavensisBacillus mojavensise0
Outcome
identified as Bacillus mojavensise0

Verbatim

e0

“The strain ZA1 was identified as Bacillus mojavensis based on morphology, physiological and biochemical characters, combined with 16S rDNA and gyrB gene sequence analysis”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 119–289 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

ZA1 inhibited Alternaria solani by 64.30%.

Taxon
Alternaria solaniAlternaria solanie0
Interactor
strain ZA1e0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
Inhibition ratee0
Value
64.30%e0

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

Alternaria solani
Alternaria solani · TaxonClemson University - USDA Cooperative Extension Slide Series · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Inhibition rate of strain ZA1 against Alternaria solani, Stysanus stemonitis, Fusarium oxysporum and Colletotrichum coccodes were 64.30%, 41.05%, 61.42% and 74.92%, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 291–468 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

ZA1 inhibited Stysanus stemonitis by 41.05%.

Taxon
Stysanus stemonitisCephalotrichum stemonitise0
Outcome
Inhibition ratee0
Value
41.05%e0

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

Cephalotrichum stemonitis
Cephalotrichum stemonitis · TaxonJerry Cooper · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Inhibition rate of strain ZA1 against Alternaria solani, Stysanus stemonitis, Fusarium oxysporum and Colletotrichum coccodes were 64.30%, 41.05%, 61.42% and 74.92%, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 291–468 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

ZA1 inhibited Fusarium oxysporum by 61.42%.

Taxon
Fusarium oxysporumFusarium oxysporume0
Outcome
Inhibition ratee0
Value
61.42%e0

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

Fusarium oxysporum
Fusarium oxysporum · TaxonClemson University - USDA Cooperative Extension Slide Series · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Inhibition rate of strain ZA1 against Alternaria solani, Stysanus stemonitis, Fusarium oxysporum and Colletotrichum coccodes were 64.30%, 41.05%, 61.42% and 74.92%, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 291–468 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

ZA1 inhibited Colletotrichum coccodes by 74.92%.

Taxon
Colletotrichum coccodesColletotrichum coccodese0
Outcome
Inhibition ratee0
Value
74.92%e0

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

Colletotrichum coccodes
Colletotrichum coccodes · TaxonClemson University - USDA Cooperative Extension Slide Series · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Inhibition rate of strain ZA1 against Alternaria solani, Stysanus stemonitis, Fusarium oxysporum and Colletotrichum coccodes were 64.30%, 41.05%, 61.42% and 74.92%, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 291–468 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Diluted ZA1 broth controlled potato gangrene in storage with 64.31% efficacy.

Treatment
spraying fermentation broth with diluting for ten timese0
Interactor
strain ZA1e0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
control efficacye0
Value
64.31%e0
Setting
storage periode0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The control efficacy of strain ZA1 against potato gangrene was 64.31% by spraying fermentation broth with diluting for ten times on potato tube in storage period”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 470–631 · show in text ↑

application · control · Solanum tuberosum (potato)Positive and negative results

25 papers: 19 positive, 6 negative or no effect

18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

21 papers more in this group

See all 25 papers →

processing · control · Solanum tuberosum (potato)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
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.