Paper · 2025 · Revistas SARC

Assessing Gnomoniopsis castanea spores in two chestnut groves of Trás-os-Montes by air sampling and evaluating the application of cupric fungicides on leaves and burrs to reduce disease inoculum

Coelho, Valentim; Tomás, Andreia; Yussif, Toufiq; et al.

5
claims
14
verbatim quotes
0
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Gnomoniopsis castanea is an emerging pathogen of Castanea species, causing nut rot, bark cankers, and leaf necrosis, while also existing asymptomatically as an endophyte. This study evaluated the presence of G. castanea spores in two chestnut orchards in Trás-os-Montes (Sobreiró, Vinhais) and assessed the effect of copper-based fungicides in reducing inoculum levels in leaves and burrs. Air samples were collected weekly from May to October 2024 at two heights per tree using a SAS air sampler. Colonies identified as G. castanea were isolated and cultured for confirmation. Additionally, symptomatic leaves and burrs were treated with Nordox copper (1 g/L) and incubated in outdoor cages at Instituto Politécnico de Bragança. Air sampling from these cages was conducted between March and June to detect remaining spores. In vitro sensitivity tests were performed using copper sulphate and Copper Nordox at varying concentrations. Airborne spores were detected in both orchards, and a total of 50 G. castanea isolates were obtained, confirming species identity via molecular analysis. The in vitro trials showed increasing inhibition with higher copper concentrations. Copper Nordox was more effective, achieving up to 54.29% inhibition, compared to a maximum of 17.46% with copper sulphate, indicating its potential to reduce disease inoculum in chestnut orchards.

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 5

Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Airborne G. castanea spores were detected in both chestnut orchards.

Taxon
chestnutt0
Interactor
Gnomoniopsis castaneaGnomoniopsis castaneaee1pathogen
Outcome
Airborne sporese0

Verbatim

e0

“Airborne spores were detected in both orchards”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 934–980 · show in text ↑
t0

“chestnut groves”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–61 · show in text ↑
e1

“Gnomoniopsis castanea is an emerging pathogen of Castanea species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–65 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fifty G. castanea isolates were obtained and confirmed molecularly.

Taxon
chestnutt0
Interactor
G. castaneaGnomoniopsis castaneaee0pathogen
Outcome
G. castanea isolatese0
Value
50e0

Verbatim

e0

“a total of 50 G. castanea isolates were obtained, confirming species identity via molecular analysis”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 986–1086 · show in text ↑
t0

“chestnut groves”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–61 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Higher copper concentrations increasingly inhibited G. castanea in vitro.

Taxon
chestnutt0
Treatment
copper concentrationse0
Interactor
Gnomoniopsis castaneaGnomoniopsis castaneaee1pathogen
Outcome
inhibitione0
Direction
increasinge0
Comparator
higher copper concentrationse0

Verbatim

e0

“The in vitro trials showed increasing inhibition with higher copper concentrations.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1088–1171 · show in text ↑
t0

“chestnut groves”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–61 · show in text ↑
e1

“Gnomoniopsis castanea is an emerging pathogen of Castanea species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–65 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Copper Nordox inhibited G. castanea by up to 54.29%.

Taxon
chestnutt0
Treatment
Copper Nordoxe0
Interactor
Gnomoniopsis castaneaGnomoniopsis castaneaee1pathogen
Outcome
inhibitione0
Direction
more effectivee0
Value
54.29%e0
Comparator
copper sulphatee0

Verbatim

e0

“Copper Nordox was more effective, achieving up to 54.29% inhibition, compared to a maximum of 17.46% with copper sulphate”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1172–1293 · show in text ↑
t0

“chestnut groves”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–61 · show in text ↑
e1

“Gnomoniopsis castanea is an emerging pathogen of Castanea species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–65 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Copper sulphate inhibited G. castanea by at most 17.46%.

Taxon
chestnutt0
Treatment
copper sulphatee0
Interactor
Gnomoniopsis castaneaGnomoniopsis castaneaee1pathogen
Outcome
inhibitione0
Direction
maximume0
Value
17.46%e0
Comparator
Copper Nordoxe0

Verbatim

e0

“Copper Nordox was more effective, achieving up to 54.29% inhibition, compared to a maximum of 17.46% with copper sulphate”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1172–1293 · show in text ↑
t0

“chestnut groves”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–61 · show in text ↑
e1

“Gnomoniopsis castanea is an emerging pathogen of Castanea species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–65 · show in text ↑

copper atom · Gnomoniopsis castaneae · CastaneaResults agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

sulfate · Gnomoniopsis castaneae · CastaneaResults agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 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.