Paper · 1998 · Plant Disease

Evaluation of Simplified Leaf Inoculation Procedures for Identification of Quantitative Resistance to Sclerotinia trifoliorum in Alfalfa Seedlings

R. G. Pratt; D. E. Rowe

7
claims
14
verbatim quotes
6
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Previous studies established that excised leaf tissues of alfalfa can be inoculated with Sclerotinia trifoliorum to select for heritable resistance, but the original procedures were not practical for use in large-scale screening programs. In this study, simplified leaf inoculation procedures for more rapid screening for resistance, based on direct application of leaf tissues to colonies of the pathogen on agar media, were evaluated. Cotyledons, unifoliate leaves, and leaflets of trifoliolate leaves of plants 7 to 21 days old from three relatively susceptible cultivars and one resistant germ plasm were applied, with and without wounding, directly to colony margins of S. trifoliorum on cornmeal agar, V8 juice agar, and water agar. Leaves were scored according to the rate and extent of development of necrosis. Significant differences between alfalfa populations were expressed in unifoliate leaves and trifoliolate leaflets but not in cotyledons. Disease severity in the resistant germ plasm (Mississippi Sclerotinia-Resistant [MSR]) was less than in the three cultivars on all agar media. Wounding of leaf tissues increased disease severity and greatly reduced the incidence of symptomless leaves, which are indicated to be escapes, but wounding generally did not prevent expression of resistance in MSR. Results indicate that initial screening for resistance to S. trifoliorum in alfalfa seedlings may be accomplished by applying wounded unifoliate leaves and leaflets of trifoliolate leaves directly to colonies on cornmeal or V8 juice agars.

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 7

Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Significant differences between alfalfa populations were expressed in unifoliate leaves and trifoliolate leaflets

Taxon
AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
Organ / stage
unifoliate leaves and trifoliolate leafletse1
Outcome
differences between alfalfa populationse1

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

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

t0

“in Alfalfa Seedlings”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 126–146 · show in text ↑
e1

“Significant differences between alfalfa populations were expressed in unifoliate leaves and trifoliolate leaflets but not in cotyledons”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 819–954 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

No significant differences between alfalfa populations were expressed in cotyledons

Taxon
AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
Organ / stage
cotyledonse1
Outcome
differences between alfalfa populationse1

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

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

t0

“in Alfalfa Seedlings”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 126–146 · show in text ↑
e1

“Significant differences between alfalfa populations were expressed in unifoliate leaves and trifoliolate leaflets but not in cotyledons”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 819–954 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Disease severity in the Mississippi Sclerotinia-Resistant germplasm was less than in the three cultivars on all agar media

Taxon
AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
Material
Mississippi Sclerotinia-Resistante3
Outcome
Disease severitye3
Direction
lesse3
Comparator
three cultivarse3
Setting
all agar mediae3

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

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

t0

“in Alfalfa Seedlings”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 126–146 · show in text ↑
e3

“Disease severity in the resistant germ plasm (Mississippi Sclerotinia-Resistant [MSR]) was less than in the three cultivars on all agar media”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 956–1097 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Wounding of leaf tissues increased disease severity in alfalfa leaves

Taxon
AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
Treatment
Wounding of leaf tissuese5
Outcome
disease severitye5
Direction
increasede5

Not reportedComparator

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

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

t0

“in Alfalfa Seedlings”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 126–146 · show in text ↑
e5

“Wounding of leaf tissues increased disease severity and greatly reduced the incidence of symptomless leaves”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1099–1206 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Wounding of leaf tissues greatly reduced the incidence of symptomless leaves

Taxon
AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
Treatment
Wounding of leaf tissuese5
Outcome
incidence of symptomless leavese5
Direction
reducede5

Not reportedComparator

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

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

t0

“in Alfalfa Seedlings”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 126–146 · show in text ↑
e5

“Wounding of leaf tissues increased disease severity and greatly reduced the incidence of symptomless leaves”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1099–1206 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Wounding did not prevent expression of resistance in the MSR germplasm

Taxon
AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
Material
MSRe6
Treatment
woundinge6
Outcome
expression of resistancee6
Direction
no_changeinferrede6

Not reportedComparator

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

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

t0

“in Alfalfa Seedlings”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 126–146 · show in text ↑
e6

“but wounding generally did not prevent expression of resistance in MSR”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1243–1313 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Initial screening for resistance may be done by applying wounded unifoliate leaves and leaflets directly to pathogen colonies on cornmeal or V8 juice agars

Taxon
AlfalfaMedicago sativat0
Outcome
initial screening for resistancee7
Setting
cornmeal or V8 juice agarse7

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

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

t0

“in Alfalfa Seedlings”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 126–146 · show in text ↑
e7

“initial screening for resistance to S. trifoliorum in alfalfa seedlings may be accomplished by applying wounded unifoliate leaves and leaflets of trifoliolate leaves directly to colonies on cornmeal or V8 juice agars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1337–1553 · show in text ↑

mechanical · molecular: expression · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results

7 papers: 4 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 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.