Paper · 2013 · Phytopathology

Measuring Root Disease Suppression in Response to a Compost Water Extract

Gilberto Curlango-Rivera; Tom Pew; Hans D. VanEtten; et al.

12
claims
16
verbatim quotes
25
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Commercial application of compost to prevent plant disease is hindered by variable performance. Here, we describe the use of a growth pouch assay to measure impact of a compost water extract (CWE) on root infection under controlled conditions. Most pea roots (≥95%) inoculated with Fusarium solani or Phoma pinodella spores rapidly develop a single local lesion in the region of elongation. In the presence of CWE, infection of pea roots grown in pouches was reduced by 93 to 100%. CWE used as a drench on pea seedlings grown in sand also resulted in 100% protection but, in a heavy clay soil, infection was reduced by <50%. CWE filtered to remove microorganisms did not inhibit frequency of F. solani infection, and resulted in increased local lesion development on individual roots. CWE inhibited mycelial growth of both pea- and cucumber-infecting isolates of F. solani in culture but exerted <40% protection against cucumber root infection. CWE treatment of pea but not cucumber was associated with retention of a sheath of border cells interspersed with bacteria covering the region of elongation. Growth pouch assays may provide a system to monitor effects of specific compost mixtures on root-rhizosphere interactions, and to identify variables influencing disease control.

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 12

Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At least 95% of inoculated pea roots rapidly developed a local lesion.

Organ / stage
rootse0
Interactor
Fusarium solaniFusarium solanie0pathogen
Outcome
a single local lesione0
Value
≥95%e0

Not reportedDirection

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

Lathyrus oleraceus
Lathyrus oleraceus · TaxonRenee Comet (photographer) AV Number: AV-9400-4164 · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium solani
Fusarium solani · InteractorFred Brooks from United States University of Hawaii at Manoa · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Most pea roots (≥95%) inoculated with Fusarium solani or Phoma pinodella spores rapidly develop a single local lesion in the region of elongation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 244–389 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Phoma inoculation also produced local lesions in most pea roots.

Organ / stage
rootse0
Interactor
Phoma pinodellaDidymella pinodellae0pathogen
Outcome
a single local lesione0
Value
≥95%e0

Not reportedDirection

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

Lathyrus oleraceus
Lathyrus oleraceus · TaxonRenee Comet (photographer) AV Number: AV-9400-4164 · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Most pea roots (≥95%) inoculated with Fusarium solani or Phoma pinodella spores rapidly develop a single local lesion in the region of elongation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 244–389 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

CWE reduced pea root infection in pouches by 93 to 100%.

Treatment
CWEe0
Outcome
infection of pea rootse0
Direction
reducede0
Value
93 to 100%e0
Setting
pouchese0

Not reportedComparator

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

Lathyrus oleraceus
Lathyrus oleraceus · TaxonRenee Comet (photographer) AV Number: AV-9400-4164 · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In the presence of CWE, infection of pea roots grown in pouches was reduced by 93 to 100%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 391–480 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

CWE drench provided 100% protection to pea seedlings in sand.

Treatment
CWE used as a drenche0
Outcome
protectione0
Value
100%e0
Setting
sande0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Lathyrus oleraceus
Lathyrus oleraceus · TaxonRenee Comet (photographer) AV Number: AV-9400-4164 · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“CWE used as a drench on pea seedlings grown in sand also resulted in 100% protection”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 482–566 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

CWE reduced pea infection by less than 50% in heavy clay soil.

Treatment
CWEe0
Outcome
infectione0
Direction
reducede0
Value
<50%e0
Setting
heavy clay soile0

Not reportedComparator

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

Lathyrus oleraceus
Lathyrus oleraceus · TaxonRenee Comet (photographer) AV Number: AV-9400-4164 · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“CWE used as a drench on pea seedlings grown in sand also resulted in 100% protection but, in a heavy clay soil, infection was reduced by <50%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 482–623 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Microorganism-filtered CWE did not inhibit F. solani infection frequency.

Treatment
CWE filtered to remove microorganismse0
Interactor
F. solaniFusarium solanie0pathogen
Outcome
frequency of F. solani infectione0
Direction
did not inhibite0

Not reportedComparator

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

Lathyrus oleraceus
Lathyrus oleraceus · TaxonRenee Comet (photographer) AV Number: AV-9400-4164 · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium solani
Fusarium solani · InteractorFred Brooks from United States University of Hawaii at Manoa · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“CWE filtered to remove microorganisms did not inhibit frequency of F. solani infection”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 625–711 · show in text ↑
t0

“Most pea roots (≥95%) inoculated with Fusarium solani or Phoma pinodella spores”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 244–323 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Filtered CWE increased local lesion development on individual roots.

Treatment
CWE filtered to remove microorganismse0
Outcome
local lesion development on individual rootse0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Lathyrus oleraceus
Lathyrus oleraceus · TaxonRenee Comet (photographer) AV Number: AV-9400-4164 · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“CWE filtered to remove microorganisms did not inhibit frequency of F. solani infection, and resulted in increased local lesion development on individual roots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 625–783 · show in text ↑
t0

“Most pea roots (≥95%) inoculated with Fusarium solani or Phoma pinodella spores”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 244–323 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

CWE inhibited pea-infecting F. solani mycelial growth in culture.

Treatment
CWEe0
Interactor
F. solaniFusarium solanie0pathogen
Outcome
mycelial growth of both pea- and cucumber-infecting isolates of F. solanie0
Direction
inhibitede0
Setting
culturee0

Not reportedComparator

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

Lathyrus oleraceus
Lathyrus oleraceus · TaxonRenee Comet (photographer) AV Number: AV-9400-4164 · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium solani
Fusarium solani · InteractorFred Brooks from United States University of Hawaii at Manoa · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“CWE inhibited mycelial growth of both pea- and cucumber-infecting isolates of F. solani in culture”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 785–883 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

CWE provided less than 40% protection against cucumber root infection.

Taxon
cucumberCucumis sativuse0
Treatment
CWEt0
Outcome
cucumber root infectione0
Value
<40%e0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Cucumis sativus
Cucumis sativus · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“exerted <40% protection against cucumber root infection”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 888–943 · show in text ↑
t0

“CWE inhibited mycelial growth of both pea- and cucumber-infecting isolates of F. solani in culture but exerted <40% protection against cucumber root infection”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 785–943 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

CWE treatment of pea was associated with a border-cell sheath with bacteria.

Organ / stage
region of elongatione0
Treatment
CWE treatmente0
Outcome
retention of a sheath of border cells interspersed with bacteriae0

Not reportedDirection

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

Lathyrus oleraceus
Lathyrus oleraceus · TaxonRenee Comet (photographer) AV Number: AV-9400-4164 · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“CWE treatment of pea but not cucumber was associated with retention of a sheath of border cells interspersed with bacteria covering the region of elongation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 945–1101 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cucumber did not retain that border-cell sheath after CWE treatment.

Taxon
cucumberCucumis sativuse0
Treatment
CWE treatmente0
Outcome
retention of a sheath of border cells interspersed with bacteriae0

Not reportedDirection

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

Cucumis sativus
Cucumis sativus · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“CWE treatment of pea but not cucumber was associated with retention of a sheath of border cells interspersed with bacteria covering the region of elongation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 945–1101 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Authors proposed growth pouch assays for monitoring compost effects and disease-control variables.

Outcome
monitor effects of specific compost mixtures on root-rhizosphere interactions, and to identify variables influencing disease controle0

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

Lathyrus oleraceus
Lathyrus oleraceus · TaxonRenee Comet (photographer) AV Number: AV-9400-4164 · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Growth pouch assays may provide a system to monitor effects of specific compost mixtures on root-rhizosphere interactions, and to identify variables influencing disease control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1103–1279 · show in text ↑
t0

“infection of pea roots grown in pouches”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 415–454 · show in text ↑

botanical · organism · Cucumis sativus (cucumber)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 6 positive, 2 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

application · control · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 7 positive, 1 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

fertilization · organism · Cucumis sativus (cucumber)Positive and negative results

25 papers: 23 positive, 2 negative or no effect

22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

21 papers more in this group

See all 25 papers →

inoculation · disease · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results

42 papers: 18 positive, 24 negative or no effect

23 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

38 papers more in this group

See all 42 papers →

fertilization · Fusarium solani · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)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 →

fertilization · control · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

botanical · Fusarium solani · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

botanical · control · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Results agree

4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

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

8 of 10 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.

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.