Paper · 2015 · Science and Technology of Food Industry

Comparison of inhibition on two pathogens of dry rot in potato tubers by chitosan treatments

Lei Yan

9
claims
19
verbatim quotes
2
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Dry rot is an important postharvest disease of potato tubers caused by Fusarium.This study investigated the effects of chitosan at different concentrations against F.sulphureum and F.sambucinum of dry rot pathogens in potato tubers in vitro and in vivo.Results indicated that chitosan significantly inhibited the spore germination of two pathogens.The rate of spore germination of F. sulphureum was 92% lower than the control,and of F.sambucinum was completely inhibited. Chitosan also inhibited the mycelium growth of two pathogens,the mycelium diameter were 7.46% and 8.9% lower than the control at 0.25% of the optimum treatment concentration.Its inhibition showed more effective to F.sambucinum.Chitosan inhibited the lesion diameter of slices inoculated with F.sulphureum and F.sambucinum,and lesion diameters were 45.3% and 34.5% lower than the control at 0.25% of the optimum treatment concentration. Efficacy was not enhanced when the concentration of chitosan was increased. It is proposed that chitosan treatment could directly inhibit pathogen growth and decrease dry rot of potato tubers by induced resistance.

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 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Chitosan lowered F. sulphureum spore germination by 92% versus control.

Taxon
potato tuberst0
Treatment
chitosane0
Interactor
F. sulphureumFusarium sulphureume0pathogen
Outcome
spore germination of F. sulphureume0
Direction
lowere0
Value
92%e0
Comparator
controle0

Verbatim

e0

“chitosan significantly inhibited the spore germination of two pathogens.The rate of spore germination of F. sulphureum was 92% lower than the control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 276–425 · show in text ↑
t0

“potato tubers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–69 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Chitosan completely inhibited F. sambucinum spore germination.

Taxon
potato tuberst0
Treatment
chitosane0
Interactor
F.sambucinumFusarium sambucinume0pathogen
Outcome
spore germinatione0
Direction
completely inhibitede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“chitosan significantly inhibited the spore germination of two pathogens.The rate of spore germination of F. sulphureum was 92% lower than the control,and of F.sambucinum was completely inhibited”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 276–470 · show in text ↑
t0

“potato tubers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–69 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At 0.25% chitosan, F. sulphureum mycelium diameter was 7.46% lower than control.

Taxon
potato tuberst0
Treatment
Chitosane0
Interactor
F. sulphureumFusarium sulphureume1pathogen
Outcome
mycelium diametere0
Direction
lowere0
Value
7.46%e0
Comparator
controle0

Verbatim

e0

“Chitosan also inhibited the mycelium growth of two pathogens,the mycelium diameter were 7.46% and 8.9% lower than the control at 0.25% of the optimum treatment concentration”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 472–645 · show in text ↑
e1

“The rate of spore germination of F. sulphureum was 92% lower than the control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 348–425 · show in text ↑
t0

“potato tubers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–69 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At 0.25% chitosan, F. sambucinum mycelium diameter was 8.9% lower than control.

Taxon
potato tuberst0
Treatment
Chitosane0
Interactor
F.sambucinumFusarium sambucinume1pathogen
Outcome
mycelium diametere0
Direction
lowere0
Value
8.9%e0
Comparator
controle0

Verbatim

e0

“Chitosan also inhibited the mycelium growth of two pathogens,the mycelium diameter were 7.46% and 8.9% lower than the control at 0.25% of the optimum treatment concentration”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 472–645 · show in text ↑
e1

“against F.sulphureum and F.sambucinum of dry rot pathogens”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 156–214 · show in text ↑
t0

“potato tubers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–69 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Chitosan reduced lesions of F. sulphureum inoculated potato slices by 45.3%.

Taxon
potato tuberst0
Treatment
Chitosane0
Interactor
F.sulphureumFusarium sulphureume0pathogen
Outcome
lesion diametere0
Direction
lowere0
Value
45.3%e0
Comparator
controle0

Verbatim

e0

“Chitosan inhibited the lesion diameter of slices inoculated with F.sulphureum and F.sambucinum,and lesion diameters were 45.3% and 34.5% lower than the control at 0.25% of the optimum treatment concentration”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 699–906 · show in text ↑
t0

“potato tubers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–69 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Chitosan reduced lesions of F. sambucinum inoculated potato slices by 34.5%.

Taxon
potato tuberst0
Treatment
Chitosane0
Interactor
F.sambucinumFusarium sambucinume0pathogen
Outcome
lesion diametere0
Direction
lowere0
Value
34.5%e0
Comparator
controle0

Verbatim

e0

“Chitosan inhibited the lesion diameter of slices inoculated with F.sulphureum and F.sambucinum,and lesion diameters were 45.3% and 34.5% lower than the control at 0.25% of the optimum treatment concentration”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 699–906 · show in text ↑
t0

“potato tubers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–69 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Chitosan inhibition was more effective against F. sambucinum.

Taxon
potato tuberst0
Treatment
inhibitione0
Interactor
F.sambucinumFusarium sambucinume0pathogen
Outcome
more effective to F.sambucinume0
Direction
more effectivee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Its inhibition showed more effective to F.sambucinum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 646–698 · show in text ↑
t0

“potato tubers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–69 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Increasing chitosan concentration did not enhance efficacy.

Taxon
potato tuberst0
Treatment
concentration of chitosan was increasede0
Outcome
Efficacye0
Direction
not enhancede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Efficacy was not enhanced when the concentration of chitosan was increased”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 908–982 · show in text ↑
t0

“potato tubers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 56–69 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors propose chitosan treatment to reduce potato tuber dry rot through pathogen inhibition and induced resistance.

Taxon
potato tuberse0
Treatment
chitosan treatmente0
Outcome
dry rote0
Direction
decreasee0
Qualifier
induced resistancee0

Verbatim

e0

“chitosan treatment could directly inhibit pathogen growth and decrease dry rot of potato tubers by induced resistance”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1004–1121 · show in text ↑

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

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

2 in the opposite direction

  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.