Paper · 2026 · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)

Data and scripts related to manuscript entitled: The effects of root amendment with Sphingomonas strains on apple (Malus domestica) rootstock physiology and associated microbiota

Papp-Rupar, Matevž

14
claims
32
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

This repository contains the data used in statistical analysis and the analaysis scripts for the publication described below. Abstract of the manuscript: Background European apple canker, caused by Neonectria ditissima, remains a major constraint to sustainable apple production, with limited chemical control options and no microbiome-based solutions currently available. Recent correlative studies link high relative abundance of Sphingomonas taxa in leaf scar tissues with reduced canker severity, suggesting a potential role for targeted microbiome manipulation. However, whether Sphingomonas can establish in planta, affect plant growth and influence resident microbial communities across plant compartments remains unresolved. Results Apple ‘M9’ rootstocks were inoculated at planting with consortia of apple-derived Sphingomonas strains, and effects on plant growth and microbial communities in roots, rhizosphere, and leaf scars were assessed. Inoculation did not enhance plant growth (height, girth, biomass) nor increase the relative abundance of Sphingomonas in any compartment. Nevertheless, significant shifts in microbial alpha diversity were observed, particularly in root and rhizosphere communities, indicating a measurable impact on community structure despite the lack of detectable inoculant establishment. These changes occurred without significant effects on beta diversity or on the relative abundance of taxa belowground. In contrast, root inoculation significantly altered fungal community composition in leaf scar tissues, reducing the relative abundance of several genera containing known plant pathogens, including Gnomoniopsis, Phomopsis, Ilyonectria robusta, Neofabraea actinidiae, and Perenniporia fraxinea. Marked differences between younger and older leaf scar tissues further indicated a strong influence of external inoculum sources on aboveground microbiota. Conclusions This study demonstrates that root-applied microbiome amendments can exert cross-compartment effects on aboveground fungal communities in a perennial crop, even in the absence of sustained colonisation by the inoculated taxa. The observed reduction in potential pathogens in leaf scars provides a plausible mechanistic link to previously reported associations between Sphingomonas abundance and reduced apple canker severity. More broadly, the results reveal a decoupling between inoculant persistence and microbiome restructuring, highlighting a new possibility for microbiome engineering in woody hosts. Optimising delivery strategies and understanding temporal colonisation dynamics will be critical for translating microbiome-based interventions into effective disease management tools.

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 resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Inoculation with apple-derived Sphingomonas strains did not enhance growth (height, girth, biomass) of M9 rootstocks.

Taxon
Malus domesticaMalus domesticat0
Material
M9e0
Treatment
consortia of apple-derived Sphingomonas strainse0
Interactor
SphingomonasSphingomonase0symbiont
Outcome
plant growth (height, girth, biomass)e1
Direction
did not enhancee1

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Sphingomonas
Sphingomonas · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Alan Rockefeller · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“apple (Malus domestica) rootstock”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 108–141 · show in text ↑
e0

“Apple ‘M9’ rootstocks were inoculated at planting with consortia of apple-derived Sphingomonas strains”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 741–843 · show in text ↑
e1

“Inoculation did not enhance plant growth (height, girth, biomass) nor increase the relative abundance of Sphingomonas in any compartment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 952–1088 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Inoculation did not increase the relative abundance of Sphingomonas in any compartment.

Taxon
Malus domesticaMalus domesticat0
Treatment
Inoculatione1
Interactor
SphingomonasSphingomonase1symbiont
Outcome
relative abundance of Sphingomonase1
Direction
nor increasee1
Qualifier
in any compartmente1

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Sphingomonas
Sphingomonas · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Alan Rockefeller · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“apple (Malus domestica) rootstock”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 108–141 · show in text ↑
e1

“Inoculation did not enhance plant growth (height, girth, biomass) nor increase the relative abundance of Sphingomonas in any compartment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 952–1088 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Inoculation significantly shifted microbial alpha diversity, particularly in root and rhizosphere communities.

Taxon
Malus domesticaMalus domesticat0
Organ / stage
root and rhizosphere communitiese2
Treatment
consortia of apple-derived Sphingomonas strainse0
Outcome
microbial alpha diversitye2

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“apple (Malus domestica) rootstock”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 108–141 · show in text ↑
e0

“Apple ‘M9’ rootstocks were inoculated at planting with consortia of apple-derived Sphingomonas strains”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 741–843 · show in text ↑
e2

“Nevertheless, significant shifts in microbial alpha diversity were observed, particularly in root and rhizosphere communities”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1090–1215 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Inoculation had no significant effect on beta diversity.

Taxon
Malus domesticaMalus domesticat0
Treatment
consortia of apple-derived Sphingomonas strainse0
Outcome
beta diversitye3
Direction
without significant effectse3

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“apple (Malus domestica) rootstock”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 108–141 · show in text ↑
e0

“Apple ‘M9’ rootstocks were inoculated at planting with consortia of apple-derived Sphingomonas strains”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 741–843 · show in text ↑
e3

“These changes occurred without significant effects on beta diversity or on the relative abundance of taxa belowground”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1327–1444 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Inoculation had no significant effect on the relative abundance of taxa belowground.

Taxon
Malus domesticaMalus domesticat0
Treatment
consortia of apple-derived Sphingomonas strainse0
Outcome
relative abundance of taxa belowgrounde3
Direction
without significant effectse3

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“apple (Malus domestica) rootstock”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 108–141 · show in text ↑
e0

“Apple ‘M9’ rootstocks were inoculated at planting with consortia of apple-derived Sphingomonas strains”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 741–843 · show in text ↑
e3

“These changes occurred without significant effects on beta diversity or on the relative abundance of taxa belowground”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1327–1444 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Root inoculation significantly altered fungal community composition in leaf scar tissues.

Taxon
Malus domesticaMalus domesticat0
Organ / stage
leaf scar tissuese4
Treatment
root inoculatione4
Outcome
fungal community compositione4
Direction
significantly alterede4

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“apple (Malus domestica) rootstock”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 108–141 · show in text ↑
e4

“root inoculation significantly altered fungal community composition in leaf scar tissues, reducing the relative abundance of several genera containing known plant pathogens, including Gnomoniopsis, Phomopsis, Ilyonectria robusta, Neofabraea actinidiae, and Perenniporia fraxinea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1459–1737 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Root inoculation reduced the relative abundance of Gnomoniopsis.

Taxon
Malus domesticaMalus domesticat0
Treatment
root inoculatione4
Interactor
GnomoniopsisGnomoniopsise4pathogen
Outcome
relative abundance of several genera containing known plant pathogense4
Direction
reducinge4

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Gnomoniopsis
Gnomoniopsis · InteractorJerry Cooper · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

t0

“apple (Malus domestica) rootstock”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 108–141 · show in text ↑
e4

“root inoculation significantly altered fungal community composition in leaf scar tissues, reducing the relative abundance of several genera containing known plant pathogens, including Gnomoniopsis, Phomopsis, Ilyonectria robusta, Neofabraea actinidiae, and Perenniporia fraxinea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1459–1737 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Root inoculation reduced the relative abundance of Phomopsis.

Taxon
Malus domesticaMalus domesticat0
Treatment
root inoculatione4
Interactor
PhomopsisPhomopsise4pathogen
Outcome
relative abundance of several genera containing known plant pathogense4
Direction
reducinge4

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Phomopsis
Phomopsis · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Scott Bauer · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“apple (Malus domestica) rootstock”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 108–141 · show in text ↑
e4

“root inoculation significantly altered fungal community composition in leaf scar tissues, reducing the relative abundance of several genera containing known plant pathogens, including Gnomoniopsis, Phomopsis, Ilyonectria robusta, Neofabraea actinidiae, and Perenniporia fraxinea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1459–1737 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Root inoculation reduced the relative abundance of Ilyonectria robusta.

Taxon
Malus domesticaMalus domesticat0
Treatment
root inoculatione4
Interactor
Ilyonectria robustaIlyonectria robustae4pathogen
Outcome
relative abundance of several genera containing known plant pathogense4
Direction
reducinge4

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“apple (Malus domestica) rootstock”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 108–141 · show in text ↑
e4

“root inoculation significantly altered fungal community composition in leaf scar tissues, reducing the relative abundance of several genera containing known plant pathogens, including Gnomoniopsis, Phomopsis, Ilyonectria robusta, Neofabraea actinidiae, and Perenniporia fraxinea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1459–1737 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Root inoculation reduced the relative abundance of Neofabraea actinidiae.

Taxon
Malus domesticaMalus domesticat0
Treatment
root inoculatione4
Interactor
Neofabraea actinidiaeNeofabraea actinidiaee4pathogen
Outcome
relative abundance of several genera containing known plant pathogense4
Direction
reducinge4

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“apple (Malus domestica) rootstock”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 108–141 · show in text ↑
e4

“root inoculation significantly altered fungal community composition in leaf scar tissues, reducing the relative abundance of several genera containing known plant pathogens, including Gnomoniopsis, Phomopsis, Ilyonectria robusta, Neofabraea actinidiae, and Perenniporia fraxinea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1459–1737 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Root inoculation reduced the relative abundance of Perenniporia fraxinea.

Taxon
Malus domesticaMalus domesticat0
Treatment
root inoculatione4
Interactor
Perenniporia fraxineaPerenniporia fraxineae4pathogen
Outcome
relative abundance of several genera containing known plant pathogense4
Direction
reducinge4

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Perenniporia fraxinea
Perenniporia fraxinea · InteractorDragonòt · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“apple (Malus domestica) rootstock”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 108–141 · show in text ↑
e4

“root inoculation significantly altered fungal community composition in leaf scar tissues, reducing the relative abundance of several genera containing known plant pathogens, including Gnomoniopsis, Phomopsis, Ilyonectria robusta, Neofabraea actinidiae, and Perenniporia fraxinea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1459–1737 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Leaf scar tissues showed marked differences between younger and older tissues in aboveground microbiota.

Taxon
Malus domesticaMalus domesticat0
Organ / stage
leaf scar tissuese5
Outcome
differences between younger and older leaf scar tissuese5

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“apple (Malus domestica) rootstock”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 108–141 · show in text ↑
e5

“Marked differences between younger and older leaf scar tissues further indicated a strong influence of external inoculum sources on aboveground microbiota”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1739–1893 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The reduction in potential pathogens in leaf scars is a plausible mechanistic link to reduced apple canker severity.

Taxon
Malus domesticaMalus domesticat0
Organ / stage
leaf scarse6
Outcome
reduction in potential pathogens in leaf scarse6
Qualifier
plausible mechanistic linke6

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“apple (Malus domestica) rootstock”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 108–141 · show in text ↑
e6

“The observed reduction in potential pathogens in leaf scars provides a plausible mechanistic link to previously reported associations between Sphingomonas abundance and reduced apple canker severity”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2132–2330 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Inoculant persistence was decoupled from microbiome restructuring.

Taxon
Malus domesticaMalus domesticat0
Outcome
a decoupling between inoculant persistence and microbiome restructuringe7

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“apple (Malus domestica) rootstock”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 108–141 · show in text ↑
e7

“the results reveal a decoupling between inoculant persistence and microbiome restructuring”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2346–2436 · show in text ↑

inoculation · Sphingomonas · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree

2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. no effect
See all 2 papers →

inoculation · Gnomoniopsis · Malus domestica (apple)Results 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.