Paper · 2019 · European Journal of Plant Pathology

Identification of Alternaria spp. as causal agent of dead flower buds disease of pear (Pyrus communis) in the Netherlands and methods for disease control

Marcel Wenneker; Khanh T. K. Pham; Joyce H. C. Woudenberg; et al.

9
claims
18
verbatim quotes
11
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

The occurrence of dead dormant flower buds is a common phenomenon of economic importance in the major pear production areas of Europe. Thus far, the cause of dead flower buds disease remained unknown. Several causes have been proposed, including insufficient tree chilling, unmet dormancy requirements, incompatibility between scion and cultivar, but also various biotic stress agents such as pathogens and pests. In this study, we tested the relationship between reduction of tree growth and dead flower bud incidences, but found no indication that growth regulation can prevent the occurrence of dead flower buds. It has been proposed that the bacterium Pseudomonas syringae pv. s yringae may be the causal agent of dead flower buds of pear. However, although we found the bacterium as epiphyte and even as endophyte on and in flower buds, our findings argue that P. syringae pv. syringae is not the causal agent of dead flower buds disease in the Netherlands. In our research, Alternaria spp. were consistently found in diseased flower buds, and strong correlations between dead dormant flower buds and infection rates of flower buds with Alternaria spp. were recorded. The isolated Alternaria species were identified as A. arborescens SC and A. alternata SC. Field experiments for disease control showed that the disease may be controlled by specific fungicide applications. Thus, we propose that dead flower buds of pear in the Netherlands should be regarded as a fungal disease caused by A. alternata SC and potentially also A. arborescens SC.

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

Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Growth regulation did not indicate prevention of dead flower buds.

Treatment
growth regulatione0
Outcome
dead flower budse0

Not reportedDirection

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“found no indication that growth regulation can prevent the occurrence of dead flower buds”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 525–614 · show in text ↑
t0

“pear (Pyrus communis)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–102 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae occurred on and in flower buds as an epiphyte and endophyte.

Interactor
Pseudomonas syringae pv. s yringaePseudomonas syringaee1pathogen
Outcome
epiphyte and even as endophyte on and in flower budse0

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Pseudomonas syringae
Pseudomonas syringae · InteractorHoward F. Schwartz · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“we found the bacterium as epiphyte and even as endophyte on and in flower buds”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 762–840 · show in text ↑
t0

“pear (Pyrus communis)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–102 · show in text ↑
e1

“Pseudomonas syringae pv. s yringae”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 656–690 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The findings argued against P. syringae pv. syringae as the disease cause in the Netherlands.

Interactor
P. syringae pv. syringaePseudomonas syringae pv. syringaee0pathogen
Outcome
not the causal agent of dead flower buds diseasee0
Setting
the Netherlandse0

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae
Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae · Interactor · picture of the speciesHoward F. Schwartz · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“P. syringae pv. syringae is not the causal agent of dead flower buds disease in the Netherlands”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 866–961 · show in text ↑
t0

“pear (Pyrus communis)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–102 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Alternaria spp. were consistently found in diseased flower buds.

Interactor
Alternaria spp.Alternariae0pathogen
Outcome
consistently found in diseased flower budse0

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Alternaria
Alternaria · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)http://phil.cdc.gov/phil_images/20030612/9/PHIL_3963_lores.jpg · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Alternaria spp. were consistently found in diseased flower buds”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 980–1043 · show in text ↑
t0

“pear (Pyrus communis)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–102 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Alternaria infection rates correlated strongly with dead dormant flower buds.

Interactor
Alternaria spp.Alternariae0pathogen
Outcome
dead dormant flower budse0

Not reportedDirection

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Alternaria
Alternaria · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)http://phil.cdc.gov/phil_images/20030612/9/PHIL_3963_lores.jpg · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“strong correlations between dead dormant flower buds and infection rates of flower buds with Alternaria spp. were recorded”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1049–1171 · show in text ↑
t0

“pear (Pyrus communis)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–102 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The isolated Alternaria species were identified as A. arborescens SC.

Interactor
A. arborescens SCAlternaria arborescense0pathogen
Outcome
A. arborescens SCe0

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The isolated Alternaria species were identified as A. arborescens SC and A. alternata SC”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1173–1261 · show in text ↑
t0

“pear (Pyrus communis)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–102 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The isolated Alternaria species were identified as A. alternata SC.

Interactor
A. alternata SCAlternaria alternatae0pathogen
Outcome
A. alternata SCe0

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Alternaria alternata
Alternaria alternata · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMarta Hiromi Taniwaki, Secretaria de Agricultura e Abastecimento · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The isolated Alternaria species were identified as A. arborescens SC and A. alternata SC”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1173–1261 · show in text ↑
t0

“pear (Pyrus communis)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–102 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Specific fungicide applications may control dead flower bud disease.

Treatment
specific fungicide applicationse0
Outcome
the diseasee0
Direction
controllede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the disease may be controlled by specific fungicide applications”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1313–1377 · show in text ↑
t0

“pear (Pyrus communis)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 81–102 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The authors propose A. alternata SC, potentially with A. arborescens SC, as the cause of dead flower buds disease.

Interactor
A. alternata SCAlternaria alternatae0pathogen
Second interactor
A. arborescens SCAlternaria arborescense0pathogen
Outcome
dead flower budse0
Setting
the Netherlandse0

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

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Alternaria alternata
Alternaria alternata · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMarta Hiromi Taniwaki, Secretaria de Agricultura e Abastecimento · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“dead flower buds of pear in the Netherlands should be regarded as a fungal disease caused by A. alternata SC and potentially also A. arborescens SC”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1401–1548 · show in text ↑

fungicide · disease · Pyrus communis (pear)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 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.