Paper · 2022 · Journal of Fungi

Combination of Sodium Bicarbonate (SBC) with Bacterial Antagonists for the Control of Brown Rot Disease of Fruit

Nadia Lyousfi; Chaimaa Letrib; Ikram Legrifi; et al.

12
claims
20
verbatim quotes
27
citations
4
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Simultaneous treatment with antagonistic bacteria Bacillus amylolquefaciens (SF14), Alcaligenes faecalis (ACBC1), and the food additive sodium bicarbonate (SBC) to control post-harvest brown rot disease caused by Monilinia fructigena, and their effect on the post-harvest quality of nectarines were evaluated. Four concentrations of SBC (0.5, 2, 3.5, and 5%) were tested. Results showed that bacterial antagonists displayed remarkable compatibility with different concentrations of SBC and that their viability was not affected. The results obtained in vitro and in vivo bioassays showed a strong inhibitory effect of all treatments. The combination of each bacterial antagonist with SBC revealed a significant improvement in their biocontrol efficacies. The inhibition rates of mycelial growth ranged from 60.97 to 100%. These results also indicated that bacterial antagonists (SF14 or ACBC1) used at 1 × 108 CFU/ mL in combination with 2, 3.5, or 5% SBC significantly improved the control of M. fructigina by inhibiting the germination of spores. Interestingly, disease incidence and lesion diameter in fruits treated with SF14, ACBC1 alone, or in combination with SBC were significantly lower than those in the untreated fruits. In vivo results showed a significant reduction in disease severity ranging from 9.27 to 64.83% compared to the untreated control, while maintaining the appearance, firmness, total soluble solids (TSS), and titratable acidity (TA) of fruits. These results suggested that the improved disease control by the two antagonistic bacteria was more likely due to the additional inhibitory effects of SBC on the mycelial growth and spore germination of the pathogenic fungus. Overall, the combination of both bacteria with SBC provided better control of brown rot disease. Therefore, a mixture of different management strategies can effectively control brown rot decay on fruits.

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 12

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The combination of each bacterial antagonist with sodium bicarbonate significantly improved biocontrol efficacy against brown rot of nectarines.

Treatment
combination of each bacterial antagonist with SBCe0
Outcome
biocontrol efficaciese0
Direction
improvemente0

Not reportedComparator

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

Prunus persica var. nucipersica
Prunus persica var. nucipersica · Taxon · picture of the speciesAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The combination of each bacterial antagonist with SBC revealed a significant improvement in their biocontrol efficacies”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 634–753 · show in text ↑
e1

“nectarines”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 283–293 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Inhibition rates of Monilinia fructigena mycelial growth ranged from 60.97 to 100%.

Taxon
Monilinia fructigenaMonilinia fructigenae1
Interactor
Monilinia fructigenaMonilinia fructigenae1pathogen
Outcome
inhibition rates of mycelial growthe0
Value
60.97 to 100%e0

Not reportedTreatmentComparatorDirection

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

Monilinia fructigena
Monilinia fructigena · TaxonSanja565658 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The inhibition rates of mycelial growth ranged from 60.97 to 100%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 755–820 · show in text ↑
e1

“Monilinia fructigena”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 213–233 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacterial antagonists (SF14 or ACBC1) at 1 x 10^8 CFU/mL combined with 2, 3.5 or 5% SBC significantly improved control of M. fructigina by inhibiting spore germination.

Taxon
M. fructiginae0
Treatment
bacterial antagonists (SF14 or ACBC1) used at 1 × 108 CFU/ mL in combination with 2, 3.5, or 5% SBCe0
Interactor
M. fructiginae0pathogen
Second interactor
bacterial antagonistse0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
germination of sporese0
Direction
inhibitinge0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“bacterial antagonists (SF14 or ACBC1) used at 1 × 108 CFU/ mL in combination with 2, 3.5, or 5% SBC significantly improved the control of M. fructigina by inhibiting the germination of spores”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 856–1047 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Disease incidence and lesion diameter in nectarines treated with SF14, ACBC1 alone or combined with SBC were significantly lower than in untreated fruits.

Treatment
SF14, ACBC1 alone, or in combination with SBCe0
Outcome
disease incidence and lesion diametere0
Direction
lowere0
Comparator
untreated fruitse0

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

Prunus persica var. nucipersica
Prunus persica var. nucipersica · Taxon · picture of the speciesAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“disease incidence and lesion diameter in fruits treated with SF14, ACBC1 alone, or in combination with SBC were significantly lower than those in the untreated fruits”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1064–1230 · show in text ↑
e1

“nectarines”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 283–293 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

In vivo, disease severity was significantly reduced by 9.27 to 64.83% compared with the untreated control.

Outcome
disease severitye0
Direction
reductione0
Value
9.27 to 64.83%e0
Comparator
untreated controle0

Not reportedTreatment

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

Prunus persica var. nucipersica
Prunus persica var. nucipersica · Taxon · picture of the speciesAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“a significant reduction in disease severity ranging from 9.27 to 64.83% compared to the untreated control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1255–1360 · show in text ↑
e1

“nectarines”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 283–293 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treatments maintained the appearance and firmness of nectarines.

Outcome
appearance, firmnesse0
Direction
maintaininge0

Not reportedTreatmentComparator

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

Prunus persica var. nucipersica
Prunus persica var. nucipersica · Taxon · picture of the speciesAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“maintaining the appearance, firmness”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1368–1404 · show in text ↑
e1

“nectarines”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 283–293 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treatments maintained total soluble solids and titratable acidity of nectarines.

Outcome
total soluble solids (TSS), and titratable acidity (TA)e0
Direction
maintaininge0

Not reportedTreatmentComparator

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

Prunus persica var. nucipersica
Prunus persica var. nucipersica · Taxon · picture of the speciesAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“maintaining the appearance, firmness, total soluble solids (TSS), and titratable acidity (TA)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1368–1461 · show in text ↑
e1

“nectarines”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 283–293 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The bacterial antagonists were compatible with different SBC concentrations and their viability was not affected.

Taxon
bacterial antagonistse0
Outcome
compatibility with different concentrations of SBCe0

Verbatim

e0

“bacterial antagonists displayed remarkable compatibility with different concentrations of SBC and that their viability was not affected”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 392–527 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In vitro and in vivo bioassays showed a strong inhibitory effect of all treatments.

Treatment
all treatmentse0
Outcome
inhibitory effecte0
Direction
inhibitorye0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0

“The results obtained in vitro and in vivo bioassays showed a strong inhibitory effect of all treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 529–632 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The combination of both bacteria with SBC provided better control of brown rot disease on nectarines.

Treatment
combination of both bacteria with SBCe0
Outcome
control of brown rot diseasee0
Direction
bettere0

Not reportedComparator

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

Prunus persica var. nucipersica
Prunus persica var. nucipersica · Taxon · picture of the speciesAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the combination of both bacteria with SBC provided better control of brown rot disease”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1708–1794 · show in text ↑
e1

“nectarines”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 283–293 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The authors suggest improved disease control was more likely due to additional inhibitory effects of SBC on mycelial growth and spore germination of the pathogenic fungus.

Treatment
SBCe0
Outcome
improved disease controle0
Qualifier
inhibitory effects of SBC on the mycelial growth and spore germinatione0

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

Prunus persica var. nucipersica
Prunus persica var. nucipersica · Taxon · picture of the speciesAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the improved disease control by the two antagonistic bacteria was more likely due to the additional inhibitory effects of SBC on the mycelial growth and spore germination of the pathogenic fungus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1502–1697 · show in text ↑
e1

“nectarines”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 283–293 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

A mixture of different management strategies can effectively control brown rot decay on fruits.

Taxon
fruitse0
Outcome
control brown rot decaye0

Verbatim

e0

“a mixture of different management strategies can effectively control brown rot decay on fruits”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1807–1901 · show in text ↑

sodium hydrogencarbonate · disease · Prunus persica (peach)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

inoculation · disease · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results

24 papers: 6 positive, 18 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

20 papers more in this group

See all 24 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.