Abstract
Abstract The use of zeolite in agriculture as a soil additive has strongly increased in the last decade. However, little experimental evidence exists about the plant protective potential of zeolite and its mode of action. In the present study, we aimed to elucidate the activity of zeolite to control the soil‐borne pathogens Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and Rhizoctonia solani in lettuce. Incorporation of zeolite at a rate of 10% into S. sclerotiorum ‐infested soil resulted in significant plant protection, accompanied by increased growth compared with the control plants, whereas zeolite was not effective against R. solani . The plant protective activity of zeolite was studied in association with its potential to induce systemic resistance. For this purpose, the expression of pathogenesis‐related (PR) gene PR1 , LIPOXYGENASE ( LOX ) and ETHYLENE RESPONSE FACTOR 1 ( ERF1 ), marker genes of the salicylic acid (SA), jasmonate (JA) and ethylene (ET) dependent defence, respectively, was assessed. Upon infection of lettuce with S. sclerotiorum , zeolite induced the accumulation of LOX and ERF1 transcripts with time. Therefore, it is suggested that zeolite primes the ET/JA‐dependent defence against S. sclerotiorum . In contrast, zeolite‐treated plants showed decreasing levels of LOX and ERF1 transcripts in plants infected with R. solani with time. This discrepancy in the regulation of plant defence mechanisms may explain the contrasting plant protective activity of zeolite against S. sclerotiorum and R. solani .
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
Claim · model-written summary
Ten percent zeolite significantly protected lettuce against Sclerotinia sclerotiorum.
- Taxon
- lettuce
Lactuca sativat0 - Treatment
- zeolite at a rate of 10%e0
- Interactor
- S. sclerotiorum
Sclerotinia sclerotiorume0pathogen - Outcome
- plant protectione0
- Direction
- significante0
- Comparator
- control plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Incorporation of zeolite at a rate of 10% into S. sclerotiorum ‐infested soil resulted in significant plant protection, accompanied by increased growth compared with the control plants”
t0“lettuce”
Claim · model-written summary
Ten percent zeolite increased lettuce growth in Sclerotinia-infested soil.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- zeolite at a rate of 10%e0
- Interactor
- S. sclerotiorumSclerotinia sclerotiorume0pathogen
- Outcome
- growthe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- control plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Incorporation of zeolite at a rate of 10% into S. sclerotiorum ‐infested soil resulted in significant plant protection, accompanied by increased growth compared with the control plants”
t0“lettuce”
Claim · model-written summary
Zeolite did not protect lettuce against Rhizoctonia solani.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- zeolitee0
- Interactor
- R. solani
Rhizoctonia solanie0pathogen - Outcome
- effective against R. solanie0
- Direction
- not effectivee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“zeolite was not effective against R. solani”
t0“lettuce”
Claim · model-written summary
Zeolite induced LOX and ERF1 transcript accumulation over time in Sclerotinia-infected lettuce.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativae0
- Treatment
- zeolitee0
- Interactor
- S. sclerotiorumSclerotinia sclerotiorume0pathogen
- Gene
- LOX and ERF1e0
- Outcome
- accumulation of LOX and ERF1 transcriptse0
- Direction
- inducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Upon infection of lettuce with S. sclerotiorum , zeolite induced the accumulation of LOX and ERF1 transcripts with time”
Claim · model-written summary
Zeolite may prime ethylene and jasmonate dependent defense against Sclerotinia.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- zeolitee0
- Interactor
- S. sclerotiorumSclerotinia sclerotiorume0pathogen
- Outcome
- ET/JA‐dependent defencee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it is suggested that zeolite primes the ET/JA‐dependent defence against S. sclerotiorum”
t0“lettuce”
Claim · model-written summary
LOX and ERF1 transcripts declined over time in zeolite-treated lettuce infected with Rhizoctonia.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativat0
- Treatment
- zeolitee0
- Interactor
- R. solaniRhizoctonia solanie0pathogen
- Gene
- LOX and ERF1e0
- Outcome
- levels of LOX and ERF1 transcriptse0
- Direction
- decreasinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“zeolite‐treated plants showed decreasing levels of LOX and ERF1 transcripts in plants infected with R. solani with time”
t0“lettuce”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors propose that differing defense regulation explains zeolite’s contrasting protective effects against the two pathogens.
- Taxon
- lettuceLactuca sativat0
- Interactor
- S. sclerotiorumSclerotinia sclerotiorume0pathogen
- Outcome
- plant protective activity of zeolitee0
- Qualifier
- regulation of plant defence mechanismse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This discrepancy in the regulation of plant defence mechanisms may explain the contrasting plant protective activity of zeolite against S. sclerotiorum and R. solani”
t0“lettuce”
The same questions in other papers
other · Sclerotinia sclerotiorum · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
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.