Paper · 2021 · Crop Protection

Biocontrol agent, biofumigation, and grafting with resistant rootstock suppress soil-borne disease and improve yield of tomato in West Virginia

Mahfuz Rahman; Tofazzal Islam; Lewis Jett; et al.

14
claims
25
verbatim quotes
41
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Organic tomato growers in West Virginia and neighboring states suffer serious economic losses each year due to soil-borne wilt diseases caused by fungal pathogens including Verticillium dahliae. This study determined the efficacies of biological control agents (BCAs – Serenade SOIL and Prestop), bio-fumigants and transplants grafted to a resistant rootstock in suppressing wilt disease in heirloom tomato cv. Mortgage Lifter in a certified organic production system in West Virginia in two consecutive years. Prestop and Serenade treatments resulted in higher seedling vigor at the early stage. However, within 40 days of field set in the fungal pathogen infested soil, grafted transplants (on resistant rootstock Maxifort) had the highest vigor followed by BCA treatments, biofumigation with mustard cover crop and mustard meal and was lowest in nontreated control. All treatments showed significantly lower Verticillium wilt severity index than control except mustard cover crop and Prestop in 2015 and 2016, respectively. Total fruit harvested over a six-week period indicated that yield from all but mustard cover crop treatment were significantly (P < 0.001) higher compared to the nontreated control in 2015. However, results from 2016 indicated that mustard cover crop would work best for both disease suppression and yield enhancement when tissues were well macerated and incorporated immediately in the soil and covered with impervious plastic for up to 10 days. In 2016, all treatments except Prestop produced higher tomato yield than the nontreated control. In general, yield advantage over nontreated were in the order of grafted > bio-fumigation > BCA treatments > nontreated check. Between two BCAs, Bacillus subtilis (Serenade) consistently provided better disease suppression and improved yield compared with Gliocladium catenulatum (Prestop) in both years. Grafted plants produced 9.1 and 10.0 kg tomatoes/plant in 2015 and 2016, respectively, compared with only 5.0 kg in nontreated control. Our results suggest that grafted transplants, biofumigation and selected BCA should be useful for sustainable management of tomato wilt disease in organic production systems. An economic analysis indicated that grafted tomato can provide the greatest net revenue followed by mustard meal biofumigation in farms infested with wilt causing pathogen.

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 14

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Prestop increased early tomato seedling vigor.

Treatment
Prestope0
Outcome
seedling vigore0
Direction
highere0
Qualifier
at the early stagee0

Not reportedComparator

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

“Prestop and Serenade treatments resulted in higher seedling vigor at the early stage.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 511–596 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 120–126 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Serenade increased early tomato seedling vigor.

Treatment
Serenadee0
Outcome
seedling vigore0
Direction
highere0

Not reportedComparator

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

“Prestop and Serenade treatments resulted in higher seedling vigor at the early stage.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 511–596 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 120–126 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Within 40 days of field establishment, Maxifort-grafted tomato transplants had the highest vigor, with the stated descending treatment ranking.

Material
Maxiforte0
Treatment
grafted transplantse0
Outcome
vigore0
Direction
higheste0
Qualifier
followed by BCA treatments, biofumigation with mustard cover crop and mustard meale0
Comparator
nontreated controle0

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

“within 40 days of field set in the fungal pathogen infested soil, grafted transplants (on resistant rootstock Maxifort) had the highest vigor followed by BCA treatments, biofumigation with mustard cover crop and mustard meal and was lowest in nontreated control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 606–868 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 120–126 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Treatments lowered tomato Verticillium wilt severity significantly, except mustard cover crop in 2015 and Prestop in 2016.

Treatment
All treatmentse0
Interactor
VerticilliumVerticilliume0pathogen
Outcome
Verticillium wilt severity indexe0
Direction
lowere0
Qualifier
except mustard cover crop and Prestop in 2015 and 2016, respectivelye0
Comparator
controle0

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

“All treatments showed significantly lower Verticillium wilt severity index than control except mustard cover crop and Prestop in 2015 and 2016, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 869–1026 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 120–126 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

In 2015, all treatments except mustard cover crop significantly increased six-week tomato yield relative to the untreated control.

Treatment
all but mustard cover crop treatmente0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
highere0
Qualifier
in 2015e0
Comparator
nontreated controle0

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

“Total fruit harvested over a six-week period indicated that yield from all but mustard cover crop treatment were significantly (P < 0.001) higher compared to the nontreated control in 2015.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1027–1216 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 120–126 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The 2016 results suggested that well-macerated mustard cover crop incorporated immediately and covered with plastic for up to ten days would perform best for tomato disease suppression and yield enhancement.

Outcome
mustard cover crope0
Qualifier
when tissues were well macerated and incorporated immediately in the soil and covered with impervious plastic for up to 10 dayse0

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

“results from 2016 indicated that mustard cover crop would work best for both disease suppression and yield enhancement when tissues were well macerated and incorporated immediately in the soil and covered with impervious plastic for up to 10 days.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1226–1473 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 120–126 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All treatments except Prestop increased tomato yield in 2016.

Treatment
all treatments except Prestope0
Outcome
tomato yielde0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
nontreated controle0

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

“In 2016, all treatments except Prestop produced higher tomato yield than the nontreated control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1474–1570 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tomato yield advantage ranked grafting above biofumigation, above biological control treatments, above the untreated check.

Outcome
yield advantagee0
Qualifier
grafted > bio-fumigation > BCA treatments > nontreated checke0

Not reportedDirection

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

“In general, yield advantage over nontreated were in the order of grafted > bio-fumigation > BCA treatments > nontreated check.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1571–1697 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 120–126 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacillus subtilis Serenade provided better tomato disease suppression than Gliocladium catenulatum Prestop in both years.

Treatment
Bacillus subtilis (Serenade)e0
Interactor
Bacillus subtilisBacillus subtilise0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
disease suppressione0
Direction
bettere0
Comparator
Gliocladium catenulatum (Prestop)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 ↗
Bacillus subtilis
Bacillus subtilis · InteractorY tambe (original uploader) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Between two BCAs, Bacillus subtilis (Serenade) consistently provided better disease suppression and improved yield compared with Gliocladium catenulatum (Prestop) in both years.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1698–1875 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 120–126 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacillus subtilis Serenade improved tomato yield compared with Gliocladium catenulatum Prestop in both years.

Treatment
Bacillus subtilis (Serenade)e0
Interactor
Bacillus subtilisBacillus subtilise0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
improvede0
Comparator
Gliocladium catenulatum (Prestop)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 ↗
Bacillus subtilis
Bacillus subtilis · InteractorY tambe (original uploader) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Between two BCAs, Bacillus subtilis (Serenade) consistently provided better disease suppression and improved yield compared with Gliocladium catenulatum (Prestop) in both years.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1698–1875 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 120–126 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Grafted tomato plants yielded 9.1 kg per plant in 2015 compared with 5.0 kg in the untreated control.

Treatment
Grafted plantse0
Outcome
tomatoes/plante0
Direction
higherinferrede0
Value
9.1e0
Qualifier
2015e0
Comparator
nontreated controle0

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

“Grafted plants produced 9.1 and 10.0 kg tomatoes/plant in 2015 and 2016, respectively, compared with only 5.0 kg in nontreated control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1876–2011 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 120–126 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Grafted tomato plants yielded 10.0 kg per plant in 2016 compared with 5.0 kg in the untreated control.

Treatment
Grafted plantse0
Outcome
tomatoes/plante0
Direction
higherinferrede0
Value
10.0 kg tomatoes/plante0
Qualifier
2016e0
Comparator
nontreated controle0

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

“Grafted plants produced 9.1 and 10.0 kg tomatoes/plant in 2015 and 2016, respectively, compared with only 5.0 kg in nontreated control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1876–2011 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 120–126 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend grafted transplants, biofumigation and selected biological control agents for sustainable tomato wilt management in organic production.

Outcome
grafted transplants, biofumigation and selected BCAe0
Setting
organic production systemse0

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

“Our results suggest that grafted transplants, biofumigation and selected BCA should be useful for sustainable management of tomato wilt disease in organic production systems.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2012–2186 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Economic analysis ranked grafted tomato first and mustard meal biofumigation second for net revenue on wilt-infested farms.

Treatment
grafted tomatoe0
Outcome
net revenuee0
Direction
greateste0
Qualifier
followed by mustard meal biofumigatione0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“An economic analysis indicated that grafted tomato can provide the greatest net revenue followed by mustard meal biofumigation in farms infested with wilt causing pathogen.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2187–2359 · show in text ↑

Bacillus subtilis · control · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree

6 papers: 6 positive, 0 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

Bacillus subtilis · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree

19 papers: 19 positive, 0 negative or no effect

18 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

15 papers more in this group

See all 19 papers →

cover crop · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ

32 papers: 19 positive, 13 negative or no effect

18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

28 papers more in this group

See all 32 papers →

transplanting · growth · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

32 papers: 23 positive, 9 negative or no effect

22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

28 papers more in this group

See all 32 papers →

grafting · growth · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

83 papers: 72 positive, 11 negative or no effect

71 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

79 papers more in this group

See all 83 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.