Abstract
BACKGROUND: Susceptible tomato cv. Durinta, ungrafted or grafted onto cv. Aligator resistant rootstock, both followed by the susceptible melon cv. Paloma, ungrafted or grafted onto Cucumis metuliferus BGV11135, and in the reverse order, were cultivated from 2015 to 2017 in the same plots in a plastic greenhouse, infested or not with Meloidogyne incognita. For each crop, soil nematode densities, galling index, number of eggs per plant and crop yield were determined. Virulence selection was evaluated in pot experiments. RESULTS: In the tomato-melon rotation, nematode densities increased progressively for the grafted tomato, being higher than for ungrafted plants at the end of the study; this was not the case in the melon-tomato rotation. Grafted crops yielded more than ungrafted crops in the infested plots. Virulence against the Mi1.2 gene was detected, but not against C. metuliferus. Reproduction of M. incognita on the resistant tomato was ∼ 120% that on the susceptible cultivar after the first grafted tomato crop, but this decreased to just 25% at the end of the experiment. CONCLUSION: Alternating different resistant plant species suppresses nematode population growth rate and yield losses. Although this strategy does not prevent virulence selection, the level was reduced. © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry.
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
Claim · model-written summary
Nematode densities increased progressively on grafted tomato and were higher than on ungrafted tomato at the end of the study.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicume1 - Treatment
- graftede1
- Interactor
- Meloidogyne incognita
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=60)
Meloidogyne incognitae2pest - Outcome
- nematode densitiese1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Comparator
- ungrafted plantse1
- Setting
- plastic greenhousee3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e1“nematode densities increased progressively for the grafted tomato, being higher than for ungrafted plants at the end of the study”
e2“infested or not with Meloidogyne incognita”
e3“were cultivated from 2015 to 2017 in the same plots in a plastic greenhouse”
Claim · model-written summary
Progressive increase of nematode densities on grafted tomato did not occur in the melon-tomato rotation.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Outcome
- nematode densitiese1
- Qualifier
- this was not the case in the melon-tomato rotatione4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“nematode densities increased progressively for the grafted tomato, being higher than for ungrafted plants at the end of the study”
e4“this was not the case in the melon-tomato rotation”
Claim · model-written summary
Grafted tomato yielded more than ungrafted tomato in infested plots.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- Graftede5
- Interactor
- Meloidogyne incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae2pest
- Outcome
- yielde5
- Direction
- yielded moree5
- Comparator
- ungrafted cropse5
- Setting
- infested plotse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cucumis metuliferus reduces Meloidogyne incognita virulence against the Mi1.2 resistance gene in a tomato–melon rotation sequence”
e2“infested or not with Meloidogyne incognita”
e5“Grafted crops yielded more than ungrafted crops in the infested plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Virulence of Meloidogyne incognita against the Mi1.2 resistance gene was detected.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Interactor
- Meloidogyne incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae2pest
- Gene
- Mi1.2e6
- Outcome
- Virulence against the Mi1.2 genee6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cucumis metuliferus reduces Meloidogyne incognita virulence against the Mi1.2 resistance gene in a tomato–melon rotation sequence”
e2“infested or not with Meloidogyne incognita”
e6“Virulence against the Mi1.2 gene was detected, but not against C. metuliferus”
Claim · model-written summary
No virulence of Meloidogyne incognita against Cucumis metuliferus was detected.
- Taxon
- C. metuliferus
Cucumis metuliferuse6 - Interactor
- Meloidogyne incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae2pest
- Outcome
- Virulencee6
- Qualifier
- but not against C. metuliferuse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cucumis metuliferus reduces Meloidogyne incognita virulence against the Mi1.2 resistance gene in a tomato–melon rotation sequence”
e2“infested or not with Meloidogyne incognita”
e6“Virulence against the Mi1.2 gene was detected, but not against C. metuliferus”
Claim · model-written summary
Reproduction of M. incognita on the resistant tomato was about 120% of that on the susceptible cultivar after the first grafted tomato crop.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume7
- Interactor
- M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae7pest
- Outcome
- Reproductione7
- Value
- ∼ 120%e7
- Qualifier
- after the first grafted tomato crope7
- Comparator
- susceptible cultivare7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cucumis metuliferus reduces Meloidogyne incognita virulence against the Mi1.2 resistance gene in a tomato–melon rotation sequence”
e7“Reproduction of M. incognita on the resistant tomato was ∼ 120% that on the susceptible cultivar after the first grafted tomato crop, but this decreased to just 25% at the end of the experiment”
Claim · model-written summary
Reproduction of M. incognita on the resistant tomato decreased to 25% at the end of the experiment.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume7
- Interactor
- M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae7pest
- Outcome
- Reproductione7
- Direction
- decreasede7
- Value
- 25%e7
- Qualifier
- at the end of the experimente7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cucumis metuliferus reduces Meloidogyne incognita virulence against the Mi1.2 resistance gene in a tomato–melon rotation sequence”
e7“Reproduction of M. incognita on the resistant tomato was ∼ 120% that on the susceptible cultivar after the first grafted tomato crop, but this decreased to just 25% at the end of the experiment”
Claim · model-written summary
Alternating different resistant plant species suppressed nematode population growth rate and yield losses.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- Alternating different resistant plant speciese7
- Outcome
- nematode population growth rate and yield lossese7
- Direction
- suppressese7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cucumis metuliferus reduces Meloidogyne incognita virulence against the Mi1.2 resistance gene in a tomato–melon rotation sequence”
e7“Alternating different resistant plant species suppresses nematode population growth rate and yield losses”
Claim · model-written summary
Alternating resistant plant species reduced the level of virulence selection, although it did not prevent virulence selection.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- this strategye7
- Outcome
- virulence selectione7
- Direction
- reducede7
- Qualifier
- does not prevent virulence selectione7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cucumis metuliferus reduces Meloidogyne incognita virulence against the Mi1.2 resistance gene in a tomato–melon rotation sequence”
e7“Although this strategy does not prevent virulence selection, the level was reduced”
The same questions in other papers
grafting · Meloidogyne incognita · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 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.