Abstract
Maize bushy stunt phytoplasma (MBSP) and corn stunt spiroplasma (CSS) diseases are widespread in Brazil. The leafhopper Dalbulus maidis is the insect vector for these pathogenic mollicutes. The effects of these diseases on the development of maize plants and the possible interaction of soil water availability on these effects were evaluated in two experiments carried out on potted plants. Experiment 1 was carried out in a 2 × 4 factorial, where factor 1 corresponded to healthy and mollicute-infected plants and factor 2 to the maintenance of 40, 60, 80, and 100% of the total soil water availability. Leafhoppers collected from a field with high incidence of these diseases were used to inoculate plants with mollicutes. There were three treatments in experiment 2: healthy plants, plants infected with phytoplasma, and plants infected with spiroplasma. MBSP was predominant in experiment 1. The infected plants grew less and lowered nutrient uptake, in distinct proportions, indicating a differential effect of mollicutes on nutrient uptake independent of available soil water. Soil water availability did not significantly affect plant growth and nutrient uptake or mollicute infection. The results indicated that plants infected by mollicutes contained less protein than healthy plants. Experiment 2 showed a reduction in growth of plants infected with mollicutes and less nutrient uptake by spiroplasma-infected plants. The results showed a detrimental effect of the spiroplasma on Mg uptake. Both experiments showed more water retention by infected plants than by healthy ones. These experiments clearly demonstrated that reduced plant growth and nutrient uptake are major effects on plants infected with MBSP and CSS.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Mollicute-infected maize plants grew less than healthy plants.
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The infected plants grew less and lowered nutrient uptake, in distinct proportions”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Mollicute-infected plants had lower nutrient uptake.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The infected plants grew less and lowered nutrient uptake, in distinct proportions”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil water availability did not significantly affect plant growth.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil water availability did not significantly affect plant growth and nutrient uptake or mollicute infection”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil water availability did not significantly affect nutrient uptake.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil water availability did not significantly affect plant growth and nutrient uptake or mollicute infection”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil water availability did not significantly affect mollicute infection.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil water availability did not significantly affect plant growth and nutrient uptake or mollicute infection”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Mollicute-infected plants had less protein than healthy plants.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“plants infected by mollicutes contained less protein than healthy plants”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Spiroplasma-infected plants had lower nutrient uptake.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“less nutrient uptake by spiroplasma-infected plants”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Spiroplasma infection impaired magnesium uptake.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“detrimental effect of the spiroplasma on Mg uptake”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Infected plants retained more water than healthy plants.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“more water retention by infected plants than by healthy ones”
t0“Maize”
The same questions in other papers
infection · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →infection · quality: protein · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- no effect
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →soil water · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →soil water · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 19 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
38 papers more in this group
See all 42 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.