Paper · 2005 · Plant Pathology

Diversity and population dynamics of Penicillium spp. on apples in pre‐ and postharvest environments: consequences for decay development

A. Amiri; G. Bompeix

16
claims
24
verbatim quotes
100
citations
4
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Isolates of Penicillium spp. were collected regularly from 2001 to 2003 from the surfaces of apple fruit pre‐ and postharvest, and from the atmosphere of orchards and storage rooms in France. Penicillium spp. were not detected from the atmosphere of conventional orchards, while their density did not exceed 50 spores m −3 in the atmosphere of organically managed orchards. Penicillium spp. were seldom detected on apple surfaces in the orchard. The density of Penicillium on apples increased from 10 to 50 spores cm −2 after 1 month in storage to 300–400 spores cm −2 after 6 months. The level of airborne Penicillium increased by up to 2 × 10 4 and 2·5 × 10 3 spores m −3 within nondisinfected and previously disinfected warehouses, respectively. Penicillium expansum (30–62%) and P. solitum (6–45%) were the most prevalent species on apple or in storage rooms. Other species of Penicillium isolated included P. commune , P. verrucosum , P. chrysogenum , P. rugulosum and P. digitatum . Apple fruit were also surveyed for wounds and the number of open lenticels using the sulphur dioxide test. The incidence of wounding at harvest varied from 12 to 36%, depending on cultivar and locality. When apples were inoculated at harvest by either aqueous or aerial inoculum of P. expansum , the decay incidence was constantly higher than the incidence of wounding. The number of open lenticels per cm 2 of apple surface varied from 0·5 on cv. Boskoop to 4·4 on cv. Golden Delicious. An average of 13 and 2·1% of lenticels, respectively, were infected when they were inoculated by P. expansum and P. verrucosum . Cultivars of apple fruit that showed a greater number of open lenticels, combined with a large diameter varying from 100 to 200 µ m, were more susceptible to P. expansum .

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 16

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Airborne Penicillium was absent from conventional orchards.

Interactor
Penicillium spp.Penicilliume0pathogen
Outcome
Penicillium spp.e0
Setting
conventional orchardse0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Penicillium
Penicillium · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMilo Manica · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Penicillium spp. were not detected from the atmosphere of conventional orchards”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 192–271 · show in text ↑
t0

“apples in pre‐ and postharvest environments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–100 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Airborne Penicillium density was at most 50 spores m −3 in organic orchards.

Interactor
Penicillium spp.Penicilliumt0pathogen
Outcome
densitye0
Direction
did not exceede0
Value
50 spores m −3e0
Setting
organically managed orchardse0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Penicillium
Penicillium · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMilo Manica · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“their density did not exceed 50 spores m −3 in the atmosphere of organically managed orchards.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 279–373 · show in text ↑
t0

“Penicillium spp. on apples in pre‐ and postharvest environments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 37–100 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Penicillium was seldom found on orchard apple surfaces.

Interactor
Penicillium spp.Penicilliume0pathogen
Outcome
Penicillium spp.e0
Setting
orcharde0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Penicillium
Penicillium · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMilo Manica · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Penicillium spp. were seldom detected on apple surfaces in the orchard.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 374–445 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Penicillium density on stored apples rose from 10 to 50 spores cm −2 after one month to 300–400 after six months.

Interactor
PenicilliumPenicilliume0pathogen
Outcome
density of Penicillium on applese0
Direction
increasede0
Value
300–400 spores cm −2e0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Penicillium
Penicillium · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMilo Manica · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The density of Penicillium on apples increased from 10 to 50 spores cm −2 after 1 month in storage to 300–400 spores cm −2 after 6 months.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 446–584 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Airborne Penicillium increased up to 2 × 10 4 spores m −3 in nondisinfected warehouses.

Interactor
PenicilliumPenicilliume0pathogen
Outcome
airborne Penicilliume0
Direction
increasede0
Value
2 × 10 4e0
Setting
nondisinfectede0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Penicillium
Penicillium · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMilo Manica · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“airborne Penicillium increased by up to 2 × 10 4 and 2·5 × 10 3 spores m −3 within nondisinfected and previously disinfected warehouses, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 598–748 · show in text ↑
t0

“apples in pre‐ and postharvest environments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–100 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Airborne Penicillium increased up to 2·5 × 10 3 spores m −3 in previously disinfected warehouses.

Interactor
PenicilliumPenicilliume0pathogen
Outcome
airborne Penicilliume0
Direction
increasede0
Value
2·5 × 10 3 spores m −3e0
Setting
previously disinfected warehousese0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Penicillium
Penicillium · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMilo Manica · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“airborne Penicillium increased by up to 2 × 10 4 and 2·5 × 10 3 spores m −3 within nondisinfected and previously disinfected warehouses, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 598–748 · show in text ↑
t0

“apples in pre‐ and postharvest environments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–100 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

P. expansum was among the most prevalent species, at 30–62%.

Interactor
Penicillium expansumPenicillium expansume0pathogen
Outcome
most prevalent speciese0
Value
30–62%e0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Penicillium expansum
Penicillium expansum · InteractorH.J. Larsen, Bugwood.org · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Penicillium expansum (30–62%) and P. solitum (6–45%) were the most prevalent species on apple or in storage rooms.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 749–863 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

P. solitum was among the most prevalent species, at 6–45%.

Interactor
P. solitumPenicillium solitume0pathogen
Outcome
most prevalent speciese0
Value
6–45%e0

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“Penicillium expansum (30–62%) and P. solitum (6–45%) were the most prevalent species on apple or in storage rooms.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 749–863 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Other Penicillium species were also isolated.

Interactor
PenicilliumPenicilliume0pathogen
Outcome
Other species of Penicillium isolatede0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Penicillium
Penicillium · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMilo Manica · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Other species of Penicillium isolated included P. commune , P. verrucosum , P. chrysogenum , P. rugulosum and P. digitatum .”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 864–988 · show in text ↑
t0

“apples in pre‐ and postharvest environments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–100 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Apple wounding incidence at harvest varied from 12 to 36% by cultivar and locality.

Outcome
incidence of wounding at harveste0
Direction
variede0
Value
12 to 36%e0
Qualifier
depending on cultivar and localitye0

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“The incidence of wounding at harvest varied from 12 to 36%, depending on cultivar and locality.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1096–1191 · show in text ↑
t0

“apples in pre‐ and postharvest environments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–100 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

After inoculation with P. expansum, decay incidence exceeded wounding incidence.

Treatment
inoculated at harvest by either aqueous or aerial inoculum of P. expansume0
Interactor
P. expansumPenicillium expansume0pathogen
Outcome
decay incidencee0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
incidence of woundinge0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Penicillium expansum
Penicillium expansum · InteractorH.J. Larsen, Bugwood.org · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“When apples were inoculated at harvest by either aqueous or aerial inoculum of P. expansum , the decay incidence was constantly higher than the incidence of wounding.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1192–1358 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Boskoop apples had 0·5 open lenticels per cm 2.

Material
cv. Boskoope0
Outcome
number of open lenticels per cm 2 of apple surfacee0
Value
0·5e0

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“The number of open lenticels per cm 2 of apple surface varied from 0·5 on cv. Boskoop to 4·4 on cv. Golden Delicious.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1359–1476 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Golden Delicious apples had 4·4 open lenticels per cm 2.

Material
cv. Golden Deliciouse0
Outcome
number of open lenticels per cm 2 of apple surfacee0
Value
4·4e0

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

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

Verbatim

e0

“The number of open lenticels per cm 2 of apple surface varied from 0·5 on cv. Boskoop to 4·4 on cv. Golden Delicious.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1359–1476 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

P. expansum inoculation infected an average 13% of lenticels.

Treatment
inoculated by P. expansume0
Interactor
P. expansumPenicillium expansume0pathogen
Outcome
lenticels, respectively, were infectede0
Value
13e0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Penicillium expansum
Penicillium expansum · InteractorH.J. Larsen, Bugwood.org · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“An average of 13 and 2·1% of lenticels, respectively, were infected when they were inoculated by P. expansum and P. verrucosum .”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1477–1605 · show in text ↑
t0

“apples in pre‐ and postharvest environments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–100 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

P. verrucosum inoculation infected an average 2·1% of lenticels.

Treatment
inoculatede0
Interactor
P. verrucosumPenicillium verrucosume0pathogen
Outcome
lenticels, respectively, were infectede0
Value
2·1%e0

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

e0

“An average of 13 and 2·1% of lenticels, respectively, were infected when they were inoculated by P. expansum and P. verrucosum .”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1477–1605 · show in text ↑
t0

“apples in pre‐ and postharvest environments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–100 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cultivars with more and larger open lenticels were more susceptible to P. expansum.

Organ / stage
open lenticelse0
Interactor
P. expansumPenicillium expansume0pathogen
Outcome
susceptible to P. expansume0
Direction
more susceptiblee0
Value
100 to 200 µ me0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Penicillium expansum
Penicillium expansum · InteractorH.J. Larsen, Bugwood.org · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Cultivars of apple fruit that showed a greater number of open lenticels, combined with a large diameter varying from 100 to 200 µ m, were more susceptible to P. expansum .”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1606–1777 · show in text ↑

Penicillium expansum · disease · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 2 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. negative
See all 4 papers →

inoculation · disease · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

63 papers: 23 positive, 40 negative or no effect

39 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

59 papers more in this group

See all 63 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.