Abstract
Root rot and wilt diseases complex have been detected in grapevine (Vitis vinifera) transplant nurseries and new orchards at El-Kharga, Baris, Balate, El-Dakhla and El-Farafrah districts, New Valley governorate, Egypt. Percentages of root rot/wilt diseases of grapevine transplants in surveyed districts differed greatly.The most frequent isolated fungi from rotten roots were Fusarium oxysporum, Rhizoctonia solani and Macrophomin phaseolina. In pathogenicity tests, all isolated fungi were pathogenic on grapevine transplants. Under laboratory conditions, all tested bioagents (Azotobacter sp., Bacillus cereus, B. megatherium, B. subtilis) were able to inhibit the growth of the tested fungi with different levels. The effect of these bio-agents either individually or mixed, when used as soil drench treatment, varied greatly in reducing the severity of root rot/wilt diseases under greenhouse conditions. The mixed bio-agents treatment gave the highest protection against the diseases in concern compared to the used bio-agents individually. All treatments significantly increased plant height, number of transplant-1 leaves, leaf area, fresh and dry weights of transplants-1 compared with control treatment.
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Root rot and wilt were detected in grapevine transplant nurseries and orchards across the named districts.
- Taxon
- grapevine (Vitis vinifera)
Vitis viniferae0 - Outcome
- Root rot and wilt diseases complexe0
- Setting
- New Valley governorate, Egypte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Root rot and wilt diseases complex have been detected in grapevine (Vitis vinifera) transplant nurseries and new orchards at El-Kharga, Baris, Balate, El-Dakhla and El-Farafrah districts, New Valley governorate, Egypt.”
Claim · model-written summary
Grapevine transplant root rot and wilt percentages differed greatly among surveyed districts.
- Outcome
- Percentages of root rot/wilt diseasese0
- Direction
- differed greatlye0
- Setting
- surveyed districtse0
VitisOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Percentages of root rot/wilt diseases of grapevine transplants in surveyed districts differed greatly.”
Claim · model-written summary
Fusarium oxysporum was among the most frequent fungi isolated from rotten grapevine roots.
- Interactor
- Fusarium oxysporum
_(Fusarium_oxysporum_f.sp._batatas)_1234227-PPT-Clemson_University.jpg?width=60)
Fusarium oxysporume0pathogen - Outcome
- most frequent isolated fungi from rotten rootse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_(Fusarium_oxysporum_f.sp._batatas)_1234227-PPT-Clemson_University.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“The most frequent isolated fungi from rotten roots were Fusarium oxysporum, Rhizoctonia solani and Macrophomin phaseolina.”
t0“GRAPEVINE”
Claim · model-written summary
Rhizoctonia solani was among the most frequent fungi isolated from rotten grapevine roots.
- Interactor
- Rhizoctonia solani
Rhizoctonia solanie0pathogen - Outcome
- most frequent isolated fungi from rotten rootse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The most frequent isolated fungi from rotten roots were Fusarium oxysporum, Rhizoctonia solani and Macrophomin phaseolina.”
t0“GRAPEVINE”
Claim · model-written summary
Macrophomin phaseolina was among the most frequent fungi isolated from rotten grapevine roots.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The most frequent isolated fungi from rotten roots were Fusarium oxysporum, Rhizoctonia solani and Macrophomin phaseolina.”
t0“GRAPEVINE”
Claim · model-written summary
All isolated fungi were pathogenic on grapevine transplants in pathogenicity tests.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In pathogenicity tests, all isolated fungi were pathogenic on grapevine transplants.”
Claim · model-written summary
Azotobacter sp. inhibited the growth of tested grapevine pathogens in the laboratory.
- Treatment
- Azotobacter sp.e0
- Interactor
- tested fungie0pathogen
- Second interactor
- Azotobacter sp.
Azotobactere0biocontrol_agent - Outcome
- growth of the tested fungie0
- Direction
- inhibite0
- Setting
- laboratory conditionse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under laboratory conditions, all tested bioagents (Azotobacter sp., Bacillus cereus, B. megatherium, B. subtilis) were able to inhibit the growth of the tested fungi with different levels.”
t0“GRAPEVINE”
Claim · model-written summary
Bacillus cereus inhibited the growth of tested grapevine pathogens in the laboratory.
- Treatment
- Bacillus cereuse0
- Interactor
- tested fungie0pathogen
- Second interactor
- Bacillus cereus
Bacillus cereuse0biocontrol_agent - Outcome
- growth of the tested fungie0
- Direction
- inhibite0
- Setting
- laboratory conditionse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under laboratory conditions, all tested bioagents (Azotobacter sp., Bacillus cereus, B. megatherium, B. subtilis) were able to inhibit the growth of the tested fungi with different levels.”
t0“GRAPEVINE”
Claim · model-written summary
B. megatherium inhibited the growth of tested grapevine pathogens in the laboratory.
- Treatment
- B. megatheriume0
- Interactor
- tested fungie0pathogen
- Second interactor
- B. megatheriume0biocontrol_agent
- Outcome
- growth of the tested fungie0
- Direction
- inhibite0
- Setting
- laboratory conditionse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under laboratory conditions, all tested bioagents (Azotobacter sp., Bacillus cereus, B. megatherium, B. subtilis) were able to inhibit the growth of the tested fungi with different levels.”
t0“GRAPEVINE”
Claim · model-written summary
B. subtilis inhibited the growth of tested grapevine pathogens in the laboratory.
- Treatment
- B. subtilise0
- Interactor
- tested fungie0pathogen
- Second interactor
- B. subtilis
Bacillus subtilise0biocontrol_agent - Outcome
- growth of the tested fungie0
- Direction
- inhibite0
- Setting
- laboratory conditionse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under laboratory conditions, all tested bioagents (Azotobacter sp., Bacillus cereus, B. megatherium, B. subtilis) were able to inhibit the growth of the tested fungi with different levels.”
t0“GRAPEVINE”
Claim · model-written summary
Individual or mixed bioagent soil drenches varied greatly in reducing grapevine root rot and wilt severity.
- Treatment
- bio-agents either individually or mixed, when used as soil drench treatmente0
- Outcome
- severity of root rot/wilt diseasese0
- Direction
- reducinge0
- Setting
- greenhouse conditionse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The effect of these bio-agents either individually or mixed, when used as soil drench treatment, varied greatly in reducing the severity of root rot/wilt diseases under greenhouse conditions.”
t0“GRAPEVINE”
Claim · model-written summary
Mixed bioagents gave the highest disease protection relative to individual bioagents.
- Treatment
- mixed bio-agents treatmente0
- Outcome
- protection against the diseasese0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Comparator
- used bio-agents individuallye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mixed bio-agents treatment gave the highest protection against the diseases in concern compared to the used bio-agents individually.”
t0“GRAPEVINE”
Claim · model-written summary
All bioagent treatments significantly increased grapevine transplant height, leaf number and leaf area relative to control.
- Treatment
- All treatmentse0
- Outcome
- plant height, number of transplant-1 leaves, leaf areae0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All treatments significantly increased plant height, number of transplant-1 leaves, leaf area, fresh and dry weights of transplants-1 compared with control treatment.”
t0“GRAPEVINE”
Claim · model-written summary
All bioagent treatments significantly increased grapevine transplant fresh and dry weights relative to control.
- Treatment
- All treatmentse0
- Outcome
- fresh and dry weights of transplants-1e0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All treatments significantly increased plant height, number of transplant-1 leaves, leaf area, fresh and dry weights of transplants-1 compared with control treatment.”
t0“GRAPEVINE”
The same questions in other papers
Bacillus subtilis · growth · VitisResults agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
application · disease · VitisPositive and negative results
49 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
52 papers more in this group
See all 56 papers →biocontrol · control · VitisResults agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →biocontrol · disease · VitisResults agree
5 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 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.