Paper · 2012 · China Forestry Science and Technology

Study on the disease resistance of candidate clones in Pinus massoniana to Bursaphelenchus xylophilus

Hao Yan-ping

6
claims
18
verbatim quotes
9
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

In order to get the Pinus massoniana clones with strong resistance to pine wilt disease,this study conducted the resistance determination for two times by inoculating Bursaphelenchus xylophilus into the clones,which were cultivated by using Pinus massoniana seedlings as scion and Pinus ellittii as rootstock.And the results showed that the survival rate of these clones was higher than loblolly pine.Through the first and second resistance determination,the survival rate of qualified clones over loblolly pine was respectively 77.7% and 66.2%,the average was 81.4% and 94.5%,and the control loblolly pine was 61.3% and 82.1% respectively,and the disease resistance of these clones was improved obviously.

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 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Candidate Pinus clones had higher survival than loblolly pine after inoculation.

Taxon
Pinus massonianaPinus massonianae2
Material
clonese2
Treatment
inoculating Bursaphelenchus xylophiluse1
Interactor
Bursaphelenchus xylophilusBursaphelenchus xylophiluse1pathogen
Outcome
survival ratee0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
loblolly pinee0

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

Pinus massoniana
Pinus massoniana · TaxonDoctoroftcm · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bursaphelenchus xylophilus
Bursaphelenchus xylophilus · InteractorA. Steven Munson, USDA Forest Service, Bugwood.org · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the results showed that the survival rate of these clones was higher than loblolly pine.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 313–401 · show in text ↑
e1

“inoculating Bursaphelenchus xylophilus into the clones”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 155–209 · show in text ↑
e2

“Pinus massoniana clones”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 20–43 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In the first determination, qualified clones had 77.7% survival, versus 61.3% for loblolly pine.

Taxon
Pinus massonianaPinus massonianae1
Material
qualified clonese0
Interactor
Bursaphelenchus xylophilusBursaphelenchus xylophiluse2pathogen
Outcome
survival ratee0
Direction
overe0
Value
77.7%e0
Qualifier
61.3%e0
Comparator
loblolly pinee0

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

Pinus massoniana
Pinus massoniana · TaxonDoctoroftcm · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bursaphelenchus xylophilus
Bursaphelenchus xylophilus · InteractorA. Steven Munson, USDA Forest Service, Bugwood.org · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the survival rate of qualified clones over loblolly pine was respectively 77.7% and 66.2%,the average was 81.4% and 94.5%,and the control loblolly pine was 61.3% and 82.1% respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 455–639 · show in text ↑
e1

“Pinus massoniana clones”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 20–43 · show in text ↑
e2

“inoculating Bursaphelenchus xylophilus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 155–193 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In the second determination, qualified clones had 66.2% survival, versus 82.1% for loblolly pine.

Taxon
Pinus massonianaPinus massonianae1
Material
qualified clonese0
Interactor
Bursaphelenchus xylophilusBursaphelenchus xylophiluse2pathogen
Outcome
survival ratee0
Value
66.2%e0
Qualifier
82.1%e0
Comparator
loblolly pinee0

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

Pinus massoniana
Pinus massoniana · TaxonDoctoroftcm · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bursaphelenchus xylophilus
Bursaphelenchus xylophilus · InteractorA. Steven Munson, USDA Forest Service, Bugwood.org · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the survival rate of qualified clones over loblolly pine was respectively 77.7% and 66.2%,the average was 81.4% and 94.5%,and the control loblolly pine was 61.3% and 82.1% respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 455–639 · show in text ↑
e1

“Pinus massoniana clones”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 20–43 · show in text ↑
e2

“inoculating Bursaphelenchus xylophilus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 155–193 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The average survival was 81.4% in the first determination.

Taxon
Pinus massonianaPinus massonianae1
Interactor
Bursaphelenchus xylophilusBursaphelenchus xylophiluse2pathogen
Outcome
averagee0
Value
81.4%e0

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

Pinus massoniana
Pinus massoniana · TaxonDoctoroftcm · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bursaphelenchus xylophilus
Bursaphelenchus xylophilus · InteractorA. Steven Munson, USDA Forest Service, Bugwood.org · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the average was 81.4% and 94.5%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 545–576 · show in text ↑
e1

“Pinus massoniana clones”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 20–43 · show in text ↑
e2

“inoculating Bursaphelenchus xylophilus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 155–193 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The average survival was 94.5% in the second determination.

Taxon
Pinus massonianaPinus massonianae1
Interactor
Bursaphelenchus xylophilusBursaphelenchus xylophiluse2pathogen
Outcome
averagee0
Value
94.5%e0

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

Pinus massoniana
Pinus massoniana · TaxonDoctoroftcm · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bursaphelenchus xylophilus
Bursaphelenchus xylophilus · InteractorA. Steven Munson, USDA Forest Service, Bugwood.org · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the average was 81.4% and 94.5%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 545–576 · show in text ↑
e1

“Pinus massoniana clones”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 20–43 · show in text ↑
e2

“inoculating Bursaphelenchus xylophilus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 155–193 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The authors report that disease resistance of the clones improved.

Taxon
Pinus massonianaPinus massonianae1
Interactor
Bursaphelenchus xylophilusBursaphelenchus xylophiluse2pathogen
Outcome
disease resistancee0
Direction
improvede0

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

Pinus massoniana
Pinus massoniana · TaxonDoctoroftcm · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bursaphelenchus xylophilus
Bursaphelenchus xylophilus · InteractorA. Steven Munson, USDA Forest Service, Bugwood.org · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the disease resistance of these clones was improved obviously”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 644–705 · show in text ↑
e1

“Pinus massoniana clones”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 20–43 · show in text ↑
e2

“inoculating Bursaphelenchus xylophilus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 155–193 · show in text ↑

Bursaphelenchus · survival · Pinus massoniana (Chinese red pine)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
See all 2 papers →

inoculation · survival · Pinus massoniana (Chinese red pine)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
See all 3 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.