Paper · 2021 · Indian Journal of Ecology

Response of tomato varieties to the early blight disease caused by Alternaria solani

Amani Hussein Hameed Alabbas; Labeed A. Al-Saad

4
claims
9
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Tomato early blight disease is one of the important, common, and ubiquitous spreading disease that caused by Alternaria solani. This study involved examination of commonly cultivated tomato varieties in Basra (Yasmin, Mubakir and Sultana) to determine the extent of their response to infection by A. solani. Several parameters were considered to determine the response level of each tomato variety to the pathogenic fungus, which included the infection percentage, fruit damage percentage, the length, the wet and dry weight of shoot and root. The varieties (did not differ significantly among each other in the infection percentage (14.35- 24.39%). Furthermore, growth indicators represented non-significant differences between infected and healthy plants, while the dry weight rates of the root system of the infected plants was significantly less than control. Yasmin, Mubakir and Sultana varieties can be considered as a resistant or moderate resistant variety.

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 4

Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Tomato varieties Yasmin, Mubakir and Sultana did not differ significantly in infection percentage by Alternaria solani (14.35-24.39%).

Material
Yasmin, Mubakir and Sultanae1
Interactor
Alternaria solaniAlternaria solanit0pathogen
Outcome
infection percentagee2
Direction
did not differ significantlye2
Value
14.35- 24.39%e2
Setting
Basrae1

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Alternaria solani
Alternaria solani · InteractorClemson University - USDA Cooperative Extension Slide Series · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Response of tomato varieties to the early blight disease caused by Alternaria solani”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–84 · show in text ↑
e1

“This study involved examination of commonly cultivated tomato varieties in Basra (Yasmin, Mubakir and Sultana) to determine the extent of their response to infection by A. solani”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 128–306 · show in text ↑
e2

“The varieties (did not differ significantly among each other in the infection percentage (14.35- 24.39%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 544–648 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Growth indicators did not differ significantly between Alternaria solani-infected and healthy tomato plants.

Treatment
infectede3
Interactor
Alternaria solaniAlternaria solanit0pathogen
Outcome
growth indicatorse3
Direction
non-significant differencese3
Comparator
healthy plantse3

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Alternaria solani
Alternaria solani · InteractorClemson University - USDA Cooperative Extension Slide Series · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Response of tomato varieties to the early blight disease caused by Alternaria solani”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–84 · show in text ↑
e3

“growth indicators represented non-significant differences between infected and healthy plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 663–756 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Root system dry weight of infected tomato plants was significantly lower than the control.

Treatment
infected plantse4
Interactor
Alternaria solaniAlternaria solanit0pathogen
Outcome
dry weight rates of the root systeme4
Direction
lesse4
Comparator
controle4

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Alternaria solani
Alternaria solani · InteractorClemson University - USDA Cooperative Extension Slide Series · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Response of tomato varieties to the early blight disease caused by Alternaria solani”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–84 · show in text ↑
e4

“the dry weight rates of the root system of the infected plants was significantly less than control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 764–862 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Yasmin, Mubakir and Sultana can be considered resistant or moderately resistant tomato varieties (author interpretation).

Material
Yasmin, Mubakir and Sultanae5
Outcome
resistant or moderate resistant varietye5

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Response of tomato varieties to the early blight disease caused by Alternaria solani”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–84 · show in text ↑
e5

“Yasmin, Mubakir and Sultana varieties can be considered as a resistant or moderate resistant variety”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 864–964 · show in text ↑

infection · Alternaria solani · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

2 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  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.