Abstract
Root diseases caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. phaseoli are major limiting factors for grain production of common beans in Brazil. The use of antagonistic bacteria can inhibit and reduce the incidence of the disease. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of co‐inoculating with Rhizobium tropici and Azospirillum brasilense on the severity of Fusarium wilt in five common bean cultivars. Three field experiments were conducted with five common bean cultivars (Pérola, BRS Estilo, BRS Notável, BRS FC402, and BRS FC104) and three nitrogen sources (coinoculation, nitrogen fertilization, and absolute control), arranged in a randomized complete block design with a 5 × 3 factorial arrangement and four replications. The inclusion of various N sources, such as mineral fertilizer and biological fixation, was crucial to understanding how nitrogen availability and form influence plant resistance, rhizosphere interactions, and grain yield (GY) under Fusarium pressure. Fusarium wilt severity was determined throughout the growth cycle, and GY was determined at physiological maturity. Pérola and BRS FC402 were more resistant to Fusarium wilt than BRS Estilo and BRS FC104. Coinoculation improved resistance by 5% compared to nitrogen fertilization and by 10% compared to the control. The coinoculated cultivars were capable of maintaining yields comparable to nitrogen fertilization. Thus, the severity of Fusarium wilt in common bean is influenced by a combination of cultivar resistance, nitrogen fertilization, and coinoculation of beneficial microorganisms that can provide GY similar to the N‐fertilized condition. In addition, the results demonstrate that coinoculation with Rhizobia and Azospirilla can reduce the severity of Fusarium wilt in common beans, suggesting an ecological and sustainable alternative to chemical control, while promoting plant growth and nitrogen fixation.
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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Pérola was more resistant to Fusarium wilt than BRS Estilo and BRS FC104.
- Taxon
- Common Beans
Phaseolus vulgarist0 - Material
- Pérolae0
- Outcome
- resistant to Fusarium wilte0
- Direction
- more resistante0
- Comparator
- BRS Estilo and BRS FC104e0
FusariumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Pérola and BRS FC402 were more resistant to Fusarium wilt than BRS Estilo and BRS FC104.”
t0“Common Beans ( Phaseolus vulgaris L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
BRS FC402 was more resistant to Fusarium wilt than BRS Estilo and BRS FC104.
- Taxon
- Common BeansPhaseolus vulgarist0
- Material
- BRS FC402e0
- Outcome
- resistant to Fusarium wilte0
- Direction
- more resistante0
- Comparator
- BRS Estilo and BRS FC104e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Pérola and BRS FC402 were more resistant to Fusarium wilt than BRS Estilo and BRS FC104.”
t0“Common Beans ( Phaseolus vulgaris L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Coinoculation improved common bean resistance by 5% compared with nitrogen fertilization.
- Taxon
- Common BeansPhaseolus vulgarist0
- Treatment
- Coinoculatione0
- Interactor
- Rhizobium tropici
Martinezella tropicie1symbiont - Second interactor
- Azospirillum brasilense
Azospirillum brasilensee1symbiont - Outcome
- resistancee0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Value
- 5%e0
- Comparator
- nitrogen fertilizatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Coinoculation improved resistance by 5% compared to nitrogen fertilization”
t0“Common Beans ( Phaseolus vulgaris L.)”
e1“Rhizobium tropici and Azospirillum brasilense”
Claim · model-written summary
Coinoculation improved common bean resistance by 10% compared with control.
- Taxon
- Common BeansPhaseolus vulgarist0
- Treatment
- Coinoculatione1
- Outcome
- resistancee1
- Direction
- improvede1
- Value
- 10%e0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“and by 10% compared to the control.”
t0“Common Beans ( Phaseolus vulgaris L.)”
e1“Coinoculation improved resistance by 5% compared to nitrogen fertilization and by 10% compared to the control.”
Claim · model-written summary
Coinoculated common bean cultivars maintained yields comparable to nitrogen fertilization.
- Taxon
- Common BeansPhaseolus vulgarist0
- Treatment
- coinoculatede0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- comparablee0
- Comparator
- nitrogen fertilizatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The coinoculated cultivars were capable of maintaining yields comparable to nitrogen fertilization.”
t0“Common Beans ( Phaseolus vulgaris L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors propose bacterial coinoculation as a sustainable alternative for reducing Fusarium wilt severity in common beans.
- Taxon
- common beansPhaseolus vulgarise0
- Outcome
- ecological and sustainable alternative to chemical controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“coinoculation with Rhizobia and Azospirilla can reduce the severity of Fusarium wilt in common beans, suggesting an ecological and sustainable alternative to chemical control”
The same questions in other papers
inoculation · Martinezella tropici · Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →inoculation · disease · Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Positive and negative results
27 papers in the same direction as this paper · 39 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
64 papers more in this group
See all 68 papers →inoculation · yield · Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Positive and negative results
152 papers in the same direction as this paper · 36 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- no effect
191 papers more in this group
See all 195 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.