Paper · 2023 · Horticultural Studies

Determination of Phytophthora Species Causing Root and Crown Rot on Tomatoes Grown in Antalya Province and Reactions of Some Tomato Genotypes against Phytophthora nicotianae

Emine GÜMRÜKCÜ; Gürsel KARACA

8
claims
16
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Antalya province is the main center of vegetable production in Türkiye. Tomato comes first in terms of crops cultivated under greenhouse. Phytophthora species causing root and crown rot are among the factors negatively affecting tomato yield and quality. This research aimed to determine the prevalence of root and crown rot of tomatoes grown in Antalya province and to identify Phytophthora species causing disease. During surveys performed in 170 tomato greenhouses, plant and soil samples were taken from the areas where root and crown rot, stem blight, and drying symptoms were observed. Disease prevalence and incidence in the investigated greenhouses were 25.88% and 4.87%, respectively. Phytophthora symptoms were not observed in the greenhouses in Demre and Kepez districts, while the highest disease prevalence was found in Elmalı district with 75%. Eighty of 84 Phytophthora isolates were identified as P. nicotianae and four as P. capsici, according to their cultural, morphological and molecular characterisation. Virulence of 18 selected isolates were determined by using stem inoculation technique and all isolates caused lesions with different lengths on tomato stems. The reactions of 22 tomato genotypes in the gene pool of BATEM against P. nicotianae were also investigated and the genotype DT-15 was found as the most susceptible genotype with the largest lesions, while A-286 was the most resistant genotype. This study formed the basis for further studies on tomato breeding and integrated disease management.

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 8

Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Disease prevalence in surveyed tomato greenhouses was 25.88%.

Outcome
Disease prevalencee0
Value
25.88%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

“Disease prevalence and incidence in the investigated greenhouses were 25.88% and 4.87%, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 592–693 · show in text ↑
t0

“Tomatoes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–76 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Disease incidence was 4.87%.

Outcome
incidencee0
Value
4.87%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

“Disease prevalence and incidence in the investigated greenhouses were 25.88% and 4.87%, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 592–693 · show in text ↑
t0

“Tomatoes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–76 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Elmalı had the highest disease prevalence, 75%.

Outcome
disease prevalencee0
Direction
higheste0
Value
75%e0
Setting
Elmalı districte0

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 disease prevalence was found in Elmalı district with 75%.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 789–858 · show in text ↑
t0

“Tomatoes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–76 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Eighty of 84 isolates were P. nicotianae.

Interactor
P. nicotianaePhytophthora nicotianaee0pathogen
Outcome
Phytophthora isolates were identified as P. nicotianaee0
Value
Eighty of 84e0

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 ↗
Phytophthora nicotianae
Phytophthora nicotianae · InteractorSupattra Intavimolsri Department of Agriculture, Thailand · CC BY 3.0 au · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Eighty of 84 Phytophthora isolates were identified as P. nicotianae and four as P. capsici”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 859–949 · show in text ↑
t0

“Tomatoes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–76 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Four isolates were P. capsici.

Interactor
P. capsiciPhytophthora capsicie0pathogen
Outcome
four as P. capsicie0
Value
foure0

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 ↗
Phytophthora capsici
Phytophthora capsici · InteractorElsa Paderes, Landcare Research NZ Ltd. · CC BY 3.0 nz · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Eighty of 84 Phytophthora isolates were identified as P. nicotianae and four as P. capsici”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 859–949 · show in text ↑
t0

“Tomatoes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–76 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All 18 selected isolates produced lesions on tomato stems.

Treatment
stem inoculatione0
Outcome
lesions with different lengths on tomato stemse0
Value
18 selected isolatese0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

“Virulence of 18 selected isolates were determined by using stem inoculation technique and all isolates caused lesions with different lengths on tomato stems.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1026–1183 · show in text ↑
t0

“Tomatoes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–76 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

DT-15 was the most susceptible tomato genotype.

Material
DT-15e0
Outcome
largest lesionse0
Direction
most susceptiblee0

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 genotype DT-15 was found as the most susceptible genotype with the largest lesions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1296–1382 · show in text ↑
t0

“Tomatoes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–76 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

A-286 was the most resistant tomato genotype.

Material
A-286e0
Outcome
most resistant genotypee0

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

“A-286 was the most resistant genotype.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1390–1428 · show in text ↑
t0

“Tomatoes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–76 · show in text ↑

inoculation · disease · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

266 papers: 136 positive, 130 negative or no effect

129 papers in the same direction as this paper · 136 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

262 papers more in this group

See all 266 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.