Abstract
A range of basidiomycetes including the edible mushroom Pleurotus ostreatus (Po) can suppress plant pathogens such as Fusarium spp. With the current increase in production and consumption of Po in Uganda, the spent Po substrate (SPoS) could be an alternative to manage Fusarium wilt of banana (FWB), caused by the soil borne pathogen Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense, race 1 (Foc). This study determined the potential of SPoS to inhibit Foc in vitro and in potted plants. In vitro studies confirmed suppression of Foc in pure co-culture (Po vs. Foc) assays and media amended with different concentrations (0% to 50% w/v) of un-sterilized SPoS filtrates. Foc growth in the sterile SPoS filtrate was comparable to the water control, suggesting possible roles of biotic or thermolabile components of the SPoS. To further verify the suppressive effects of SPoS, pot experiments were carried out with a resistant (‘Mbwazirume’, AAA) and susceptible (‘Sukali Ndizi’, AAB) banana cultivar using both artificially and naturally infested soils. Independent of the inoculation method, SPoS significantly reduced the severity of FWB in pot experiments. Susceptible cultivar ‘Sukali Ndizi’ growing in substrates amended with SPoS showed lower (1.25) corm damage (Scale 0–5) than the un-amended control (3.75). No corm damage was observed in uninoculated controls. The resistant cultivar ‘Mbwazirume’, showed slight (0.25) corm damage only in the Foc-inoculated plants without SPoS. These findings suggest that SPoS could be used as part of the management practices to reduce the impact of FWB.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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
Pleurotus ostreatus suppressed Foc in pure coculture.
Verbatim
e0“suppression of Foc in pure co-culture (Po vs. Foc) assays”
t0“Banana”
e1“Foc growth in the sterile SPoS filtrate was comparable to the water control”
e2“Susceptible cultivar ‘Sukali Ndizi’ growing in substrates amended with SPoS showed lower (1.25) corm damage (Scale 0–5) than the un-amended control (3.75)”
Claim · model-written summary
Unsterilized SPoS filtrates suppressed Foc growth in vitro.
Verbatim
e0“media amended with different concentrations (0% to 50% w/v) of un-sterilized SPoS filtrates”
t0“Banana”
e1“Foc growth in the sterile SPoS filtrate was comparable to the water control”
e2“Susceptible cultivar ‘Sukali Ndizi’ growing in substrates amended with SPoS showed lower (1.25) corm damage (Scale 0–5) than the un-amended control (3.75)”
e3“suppression of Foc in pure co-culture (Po vs. Foc) assays”
Claim · model-written summary
Foc growth in sterile SPoS filtrate was comparable to water control.
Verbatim
e0“Foc growth in the sterile SPoS filtrate was comparable to the water control”
t0“Banana”
e1“Susceptible cultivar ‘Sukali Ndizi’ growing in substrates amended with SPoS showed lower (1.25) corm damage (Scale 0–5) than the un-amended control (3.75)”
e2“suppression of Foc in pure co-culture (Po vs. Foc) assays”
Claim · model-written summary
SPoS significantly reduced Fusarium wilt severity in pots regardless of inoculation method.
Verbatim
e0“Independent of the inoculation method, SPoS significantly reduced the severity of FWB in pot experiments”
t0“Banana”
e1“Foc growth in the sterile SPoS filtrate was comparable to the water control”
e2“Susceptible cultivar ‘Sukali Ndizi’ growing in substrates amended with SPoS showed lower (1.25) corm damage (Scale 0–5) than the un-amended control (3.75)”
e3“suppression of Foc in pure co-culture (Po vs. Foc) assays”
Claim · model-written summary
Sukali Ndizi had lower corm damage with SPoS, 1.25 versus 3.75.
Verbatim
e0“Susceptible cultivar ‘Sukali Ndizi’ growing in substrates amended with SPoS showed lower (1.25) corm damage (Scale 0–5) than the un-amended control (3.75)”
t0“Banana”
e1“Foc growth in the sterile SPoS filtrate was comparable to the water control”
e2“suppression of Foc in pure co-culture (Po vs. Foc) assays”
Claim · model-written summary
Uninoculated controls had no corm damage.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“No corm damage was observed in uninoculated controls”
t0“Banana”
e1“Foc growth in the sterile SPoS filtrate was comparable to the water control”
e2“Susceptible cultivar ‘Sukali Ndizi’ growing in substrates amended with SPoS showed lower (1.25) corm damage (Scale 0–5) than the un-amended control (3.75)”
e3“suppression of Foc in pure co-culture (Po vs. Foc) assays”
Claim · model-written summary
Mbwazirume had slight corm damage only when inoculated without SPoS.
Verbatim
e0“The resistant cultivar ‘Mbwazirume’, showed slight (0.25) corm damage only in the Foc-inoculated plants without SPoS”
t0“Banana”
e1“Foc growth in the sterile SPoS filtrate was comparable to the water control”
e2“Susceptible cultivar ‘Sukali Ndizi’ growing in substrates amended with SPoS showed lower (1.25) corm damage (Scale 0–5) than the un-amended control (3.75)”
e3“suppression of Foc in pure co-culture (Po vs. Foc) assays”
The same questions in other papers
growing medium · growth · MusaPositive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →growing medium · disease · MusaResults agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- 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.