Abstract
Preplant soil application of a Brassica juncea–Sinapis alba seed meal formulation (SM) at a rate of 6.6 t ha −1 alters composition of the orchard soil microbiome in a manner that yields sustainable long-term suppression of soilborne pathogens in apple production systems. However, the cost of SM amendment has hindered the adoption of this tactic to manage apple replant disease in commercial orchards. Greenhouse trials were conducted to assess the effect of reduced SM application rates in concert with apple rootstock genotype on structure of the rhizosphere microbiome and associated disease control outcomes. At all application rates assessed, SM treatment increased tree growth and reduced disease development relative to the control. In general, total tree biomass and leader shoot length were similar in soils treated with SM at 4.4 or 6.6 t ha −1 regardless of rootstock genotype. Equivalent increase in tree biomass when cultivated in soil treated at the lowest and highest SM amendment rate was attained when used in conjunction with G.41 or G.210 apple rootstocks. Suppression of Pythium spp. or Pratylenchus penetrans root densities was similar at all SM application rates. When cultivated in nontreated replant orchard soil, Geneva rootstocks (G.41 and G.210) exhibited lower levels of Pythium spp. and P. penetrans root colonization relative to Malling rootstocks (M.9 and MM.106). For a given rootstock, structure of the rhizosphere microbiome was similar in soils treated with SM at 4.4 and 6.6 t ha −1 . G.41 and G.210 rootstocks but not M.9 or MM.106 cultivated in soil treated with SM at 2.2 t ha −1 possessed a rhizosphere bacterial community structure that differed significantly from the control. Findings indicate that effective control of apple replant disease may be attained at lower SM amendment rates than employed previously, with lower effective rates possible when integrated with tolerant rootstock genotypes such as G.41 or G.210.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed public-domain. 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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Seed meal increased tree growth at every tested rate.
- Taxon
- Apple
Malus domesticat0 - Treatment
- SM treatmente0
- Outcome
- tree growthe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Apple Rootstock”
e0“At all application rates assessed, SM treatment increased tree growth and reduced disease development relative to the control.”
Claim · model-written summary
Seed meal reduced disease development at every tested rate.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- SM treatmente0
- Outcome
- disease developmente0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Apple Rootstock”
e0“At all application rates assessed, SM treatment increased tree growth and reduced disease development relative to the control.”
Claim · model-written summary
Tree biomass and leader shoot length were generally similar at 4.4 and 6.6 t ha −1.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- SM at 4.4 or 6.6 t ha −1e0
- Outcome
- total tree biomass and leader shoot lengthe0
- Direction
- similare0
- Comparator
- 4.4 or 6.6 t ha −1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Apple Rootstock”
e0“total tree biomass and leader shoot length were similar in soils treated with SM at 4.4 or 6.6 t ha −1 regardless of rootstock genotype.”
Claim · model-written summary
G.41 and G.210 attained equivalent biomass increases at lowest and highest seed meal rates.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Material
- G.41 or G.210e0
- Treatment
- SM amendmente0
- Outcome
- tree biomasse0
- Direction
- Equivalent increasee0
- Comparator
- lowest and highest SM amendment ratee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Apple Rootstock”
e0“Equivalent increase in tree biomass when cultivated in soil treated at the lowest and highest SM amendment rate was attained when used in conjunction with G.41 or G.210 apple rootstocks.”
Claim · model-written summary
Pythium root densities were similarly suppressed across seed meal rates.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- SM application ratese0
- Outcome
- root densitiese0
- Direction
- similare0
- Comparator
- all SM application ratese0
.jpg?width=60){kind=small}
PythiumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
t0“Apple Rootstock”
e0“Suppression of Pythium spp. or Pratylenchus penetrans root densities was similar at all SM application rates.”
Claim · model-written summary
Pratylenchus root densities were similarly suppressed across seed meal rates.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- SM application ratese0
- Interactor
- Pratylenchus penetrans
Pratylenchus penetranse0pathogen - Outcome
- Pratylenchus penetrans root densitiese0
- Direction
- similare0
- Comparator
- all SM application ratese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Apple Rootstock”
e0“Suppression of Pythium spp. or Pratylenchus penetrans root densities was similar at all SM application rates.”
Claim · model-written summary
Geneva rootstocks had lower Pythium colonization than Malling rootstocks in untreated soil.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Material
- Geneva rootstockse0
- Outcome
- root colonizatione0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- Malling rootstockse0
- Setting
- replant orchard soile0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Apple Rootstock”
e0“When cultivated in nontreated replant orchard soil, Geneva rootstocks (G.41 and G.210) exhibited lower levels of Pythium spp. and P. penetrans root colonization relative to Malling rootstocks (M.9 and MM.106).”
Claim · model-written summary
Geneva rootstocks had lower P. penetrans colonization than Malling rootstocks in untreated soil.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Material
- Geneva rootstockse0
- Interactor
- P. penetransPratylenchus penetranse0pathogen
- Outcome
- P. penetrans root colonizatione0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- Malling rootstockse0
- Setting
- replant orchard soile0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Apple Rootstock”
e0“When cultivated in nontreated replant orchard soil, Geneva rootstocks (G.41 and G.210) exhibited lower levels of Pythium spp. and P. penetrans root colonization relative to Malling rootstocks (M.9 and MM.106).”
Claim · model-written summary
Rhizosphere microbiome structure was similar at the two higher seed meal rates.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- SM at 4.4e0
- Outcome
- structure of the rhizosphere microbiomee0
- Direction
- similare0
- Comparator
- 6.6 t ha −1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Apple Rootstock”
e0“For a given rootstock, structure of the rhizosphere microbiome was similar in soils treated with SM at 4.4 and 6.6 t ha −1 .”
Claim · model-written summary
Low seed meal treatment significantly changed bacterial community structure for G.41 and G.210, but not M.9 or MM.106.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Material
- G.41 and G.210e0
- Treatment
- SM at 2.2 t ha −1e0
- Outcome
- rhizosphere bacterial community structuree0
- Direction
- differede0
- Qualifier
- but not M.9 or MM.106e0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Apple Rootstock”
e0“G.41 and G.210 rootstocks but not M.9 or MM.106 cultivated in soil treated with SM at 2.2 t ha −1 possessed a rhizosphere bacterial community structure that differed significantly from the control.”
The same questions in other papers
other · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 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.