Paper · 2016 · Hellenic Plant Protection Journal

Trichoderma viride and Pseudomonas fluorescens CHA0 against Meloidogyne javanica in the rhizosphere of tomato plants

A. Saeedizadeh

4
claims
8
verbatim quotes
10
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-nd

Abstract

Summary Root-knot nematodes are among the most important pests that reduce tomato yield in greenhouses and fields in Iran. The scope of this research was to evaluate the antagonistic effect of Trichoderma viride and Pseudomonas fluorescens CHA0 on the reproduction and galling rate of Meloidogyne javanica in tomato roots. A pot experiment was conducted on seedlings of tomato cultivars Bony best, Falat, Mobile and Walter grown in sterilized sandy loam soil. Inocula used for artificial inoculation were 3 J 2 /g of soil for the nematode, 1×10 6 spores/ml for the fungus and 1×10 9 cfu/ml for the bacterium. The nematicide RUGBY ® 10 G (cadusafos) was used as a reference product at 2g per each pot. Two months after inoculation, the number of knots and egg masses per root in the treatments were (with descending order): control (nematode), nematode+bacterium, nematode+fungus, nematode+fungus+bacterium and nematode+nematicide. The combination fungus+bacterium enhanced the biocontrol effect against M. javanica activity as compared to the fungus and bacterium stand-alone treatments except for the cases of the cultivars Mobile and Bonny best in which the effect was similar to the one by the fungus alone. The fungus + bacterium combined treatment was equally effective to the nematicide treatment for all cultivars. The highest and lowest rate of nematode activity was observed in Walter and Mobile cultivars, respectively.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Root knots and egg masses ranked from greatest in nematode control to least with nematicide.

Treatment
nematode+nematicidee0
Interactor
Meloidogyne javanicaMeloidogyne javanicat0pest
Outcome
number of knots and egg masses per roote0
Direction
descending ordere0
Comparator
control (nematode)e0

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the number of knots and egg masses per root in the treatments were (with descending order): control (nematode), nematode+bacterium, nematode+fungus, nematode+fungus+bacterium and nematode+nematicide”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 731–929 · show in text ↑
t0

“Meloidogyne javanica in the rhizosphere of tomato plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 60–116 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined fungus and bacterium improved biocontrol compared with each alone except in Mobile and Bonny best.

Treatment
combination fungus+bacteriume0
Interactor
M. javanicaMeloidogyne javanicae0pestt0
Outcome
M. javanica activitye0
Direction
enhancede0
Qualifier
except for the cases of the cultivars Mobile and Bonny beste0
Comparator
fungus and bacterium stand-alone treatmentse0

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The combination fungus+bacterium enhanced the biocontrol effect against M. javanica activity as compared to the fungus and bacterium stand-alone treatments except for the cases of the cultivars Mobile and Bonny best in which the effect was similar to the one by the fungus alone.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 931–1210 · show in text ↑
t0

“Meloidogyne javanica in the rhizosphere of tomato plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 60–116 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined fungus and bacterium matched nematicide efficacy for all cultivars.

Treatment
fungus + bacterium combined treatmente0
Interactor
Meloidogyne javanicaMeloidogyne javanicat0pest
Outcome
equally effectivee0
Direction
equally effectivee0
Qualifier
for all cultivarse0
Comparator
nematicide treatmente0

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The fungus + bacterium combined treatment was equally effective to the nematicide treatment for all cultivars.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1211–1321 · show in text ↑
t0

“Meloidogyne javanica in the rhizosphere of tomato plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 60–116 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nematode activity was greatest in Walter and lowest in Mobile.

Material
Walter and Mobile cultivarse0
Interactor
Meloidogyne javanicaMeloidogyne javanicat0pest
Outcome
nematode activitye0
Direction
highest and loweste0

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The highest and lowest rate of nematode activity was observed in Walter and Mobile cultivars, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1322–1429 · show in text ↑
t0

“Meloidogyne javanica in the rhizosphere of tomato plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 60–116 · show in text ↑

insecticide · Meloidogyne javanica · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree

7 papers: 7 positive, 0 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 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.