Paper · 2017 · Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section B - Soil & Plant Science

Apple rootstocks may become infected by Neonectria ditissima during propagation

Jorunn Børve; S. A. Kolltveit; V. Talgø; et al.

10
claims
20
verbatim quotes
9
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-nd

Abstract

Introduction and purpose: The ability of apple rootstocks to become infected by Neonectria ditissima, the cause of European canker, was studied over two years.Materials and methods: Rootstocks B9 and M9 with a size suitable for grafting (6-10 mm stem diameter, termed rootstocks), and smaller sized rootstocks (<5 mm stem diameter, termed transplants) of B9, M9, M26, MM106 and Antonovka were inoculated with N. ditissima at different times, either with contaminated map pins or with spore suspensions. In addition, the rootstocks were either defeathered (side shoots removed), topped (top shoot headed) or both, to create wounds that would normally occur during propagation, while wounds on transplants were made by removing leaves.Results and discussion: One month after inoculation, slightly sunken canker lesions had developed around the inoculation points of the map pins or wounds. No lesions developed on the non-inoculated controls. Map pin inoculation resulted in 30% to 89% infection and spore suspension sprayed on wounds from 5% to 45% infection. When the cankered areas were split open, brown lesions with necrotic tissue due to infection by N. ditissima appeared. The transplants of M9, M26 and MM106 inoculated with contaminated map pins in 2014 developed necrosis on 40% to 67% of the plants, but there were no differences in the incidence or severity among the different types. On the transplants of B9, Antonovka and M9 inoculated in 2015, there was more necrosis on B9 (42%) than on Antonovka (11%) and more sporulating lesions on B9 (29%) than on M9 (9%) or on Antonovka (4%).Conclusion: It can be concluded that rootstocks used for apple trees may become infected by N. ditissima, and wounds should thus be protected during propagation.

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 10

Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Inoculated rootstocks developed slightly sunken canker lesions after one month.

Taxon
rootstockst0
Organ / stage
woundse0
Outcome
slightly sunken canker lesionse0

Not reportedMaterialGeneInteractorInteractor roleTreatmentComparatorSettingDirectionValueQualifier

Verbatim

e0

“One month after inoculation, slightly sunken canker lesions had developed around the inoculation points of the map pins or wounds.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 757–887 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple rootstocks”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–16 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Non-inoculated controls developed no lesions.

Outcome
No lesionse0
Comparator
non-inoculated controlse0

Not reportedMaterialGeneOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleTreatmentSettingDirectionValueQualifier

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“No lesions developed on the non-inoculated controls.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 888–940 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple rootstocks”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–16 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Map pin inoculation produced 30% to 89% infection.

Treatment
Map pin inoculatione0
Outcome
infectione0
Value
30% to 89%e0

Not reportedMaterialGeneOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleComparatorSettingDirectionQualifier

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Map pin inoculation resulted in 30% to 89% infection”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 941–993 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple rootstocks”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–16 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spore suspension sprayed on wounds produced 5% to 45% infection.

Treatment
spore suspension sprayed on woundse0
Outcome
infectione0
Value
5% to 45%e0

Not reportedMaterialGeneOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleComparatorSettingDirectionQualifier

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“spore suspension sprayed on wounds from 5% to 45% infection.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 998–1058 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple rootstocks”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–16 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Split cankers showed brown necrotic tissue from N. ditissima infection.

Interactor
N. ditissimaNeonectria ditissimae0pathogen
Outcome
brown lesions with necrotic tissuee0

Not reportedMaterialGeneOrgan / stageTreatmentComparatorSettingDirectionValueQualifier

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Neonectria ditissima
Neonectria ditissima · InteractorAbrahami · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“brown lesions with necrotic tissue due to infection by N. ditissima appeared.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1100–1177 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple rootstocks”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–16 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

M9, M26 and MM106 transplants showed necrosis on 40% to 67% of plants after contaminated map pin inoculation in 2014.

Material
M9, M26 and MM106e0
Treatment
contaminated map pinse0
Outcome
necrosise0
Value
40% to 67%e0

Not reportedGeneOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleComparatorSettingDirectionQualifier

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The transplants of M9, M26 and MM106 inoculated with contaminated map pins in 2014 developed necrosis on 40% to 67% of the plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1178–1307 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple rootstocks”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–16 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Incidence and severity did not differ among the three transplant types.

Outcome
incidence or severitye0
Direction
no differencese0

Not reportedMaterialGeneOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleTreatmentComparatorSettingValueQualifier

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“there were no differences in the incidence or severity among the different types.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1313–1394 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple rootstocks”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–16 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

B9 transplants had more necrosis than Antonovka transplants in 2015.

Material
B9e0
Outcome
necrosise0
Direction
moree0
Value
42%e0
Qualifier
11%e0
Comparator
Antonovkae0

Not reportedGeneOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleTreatmentSetting

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“there was more necrosis on B9 (42%) than on Antonovka (11%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1458–1517 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple rootstocks”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–16 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

B9 transplants had more sporulating lesions than M9 and Antonovka transplants.

Material
B9e0
Outcome
sporulating lesionse0
Direction
moree0
Value
29%e0
Qualifier
9%e0
Comparator
M9e0

Not reportedGeneOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleTreatmentSetting

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“more sporulating lesions on B9 (29%) than on M9 (9%) or on Antonovka (4%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1522–1595 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple rootstocks”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–16 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend protecting wounds during apple rootstock propagation.

Outcome
wounds should thus be protected during propagatione0

Not reportedMaterialGeneOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleTreatmentComparatorSettingDirectionValueQualifier

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“wounds should thus be protected during propagation.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1706–1757 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple rootstocks”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–16 · show in text ↑

mechanical · disease · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

7 papers: 2 positive, 5 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. no effect

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

inoculation · disease · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

63 papers: 23 positive, 40 negative or no effect

39 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

59 papers more in this group

See all 63 papers →

application · disease · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

107 papers: 80 positive, 27 negative or no effect

26 papers in the same direction as this paper · 80 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

103 papers more in this group

See all 107 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.