Paper · 2022 · BioControl

Cross-protection of oilseed rape against Verticillium longisporum by the non-aggressive lineage A1/D2

Marta Vega-Marin; Andreas von Tiedemann

4
claims
8
verbatim quotes
2
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Abstract Verticillium longisporum is a soil-borne vascular pathogen of oilseed rape and other Brassica crops. The limited availability of chemical control measures against vascular pathogens calls for the exploration of control alternatives. Cross-protection may be conveyed by the use of non-pathogenic or non-aggressive isolates of potential pathogens as biocontrol agents. V. longisporum consists of three lineages that originated from three independent hybridization events of four haploid Verticillium parents. Previous pathogenicity tests in the greenhouse have shown that lineage A1/D2 is non-pathogenic or non-aggressive on different Brassica and non- Brassica hosts. Thus, the cross-protection potential of the A1/D2 lineage against an aggressive V. longisporum isolate in oilseed rape was tested. With root-dip inoculation, A1/D2 reduced disease symptoms when applied before or at the same time as the aggressive isolate. The induction of salicylic acid, a signal known to play a role in basal and cultivar-related resistance, was not involved in the biocontrol mechanism. The most practical and best feasible method of application as a seed coat failed to confirm the biocontrol effect of A1/D2 observed with root-dip inoculation. Confocal microscopy analysis revealed that seed coating led to insufficient A1/D2 hyphal establishment on the roots compared to root-dip inoculation, which may explain the lack of a biocontrol effect after seed coating and illustrates the importance of the application method for efficacy of a cross-protective biocontrol agent.

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 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Root-dip A1/D2 before or with the aggressive isolate reduced oilseed rape disease symptoms.

Taxon
oilseed rapeBrassica napust0
Treatment
root-dip inoculatione0
Interactor
aggressive isolatee0pathogen
Second interactor
A1/D2e0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
disease symptomse0
Direction
reducede0
Comparator
the aggressive isolatee0

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

Brassica napus
Brassica napus · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“With root-dip inoculation, A1/D2 reduced disease symptoms when applied before or at the same time as the aggressive isolate.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 807–931 · show in text ↑
t0

“oilseed rape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 20–32 · show in text ↑
Mechanismobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Salicylic acid induction was not involved in A1/D2 biocontrol.

Taxon
oilseed rapeBrassica napust0
Compound
salicylic acide0
Outcome
biocontrol mechanisme0
Qualifier
was not involvede0

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

Brassica napus
Brassica napus · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The induction of salicylic acid, a signal known to play a role in basal and cultivar-related resistance, was not involved in the biocontrol mechanism.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 932–1082 · show in text ↑
t0

“oilseed rape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 20–32 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

A1/D2 seed coating failed to confirm the biocontrol effect seen with root-dip inoculation.

Taxon
oilseed rapeBrassica napust0
Treatment
seed coate0
Interactor
A1/D2e0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
biocontrol effecte0
Direction
failed to confirme0
Comparator
root-dip inoculatione0

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

Brassica napus
Brassica napus · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The most practical and best feasible method of application as a seed coat failed to confirm the biocontrol effect of A1/D2 observed with root-dip inoculation.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1083–1241 · show in text ↑
t0

“oilseed rape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 20–32 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Seed coating gave insufficient A1/D2 hyphal establishment on roots compared with root-dip inoculation.

Taxon
oilseed rapeBrassica napust0
Treatment
seed coatinge0
Interactor
A1/D2e0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
A1/D2 hyphal establishment on the rootse0
Direction
insufficiente0
Comparator
root-dip inoculatione0

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

Brassica napus
Brassica napus · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“seed coating led to insufficient A1/D2 hyphal establishment on the roots compared to root-dip inoculation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1285–1390 · show in text ↑
t0

“oilseed rape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 20–32 · show in text ↑

seed treatment · growth · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Results differ

70 papers: 64 positive, 6 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 64 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

66 papers more in this group

See all 70 papers →

inoculation · disease · Brassica napus (oilseed rape)Positive and negative results

20 papers: 7 positive, 13 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

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.