Paper · 1988 · Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science

Inhibitors as a Possible Basis for Grape Replant Problem

A.M. Brinker; L.L. Creasy

4
claims
5
verbatim quotes
8
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-nd

Abstract

Abstract To determine whether grape ( Vitis sp.) replant problem might be an example of autotoxicity, soil samples from fields that had or had not been replanted with grape cuttings were extracted with a neutral solution of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and by leaching with half-strength Hoagland's solution. Rooted grape cuttings growing in sand also were leached. Fractions of the leachates and extracts were assayed for toxicity using lettuce seedlings. Grape roots and replant soil yielded a toxic substance not present, or possibly present only at low levels, in non-replant soil. The replant soil extract inhibited phenylalanine ammonia-lyase activity in grape roots more than did the non-replant soil extract. The toxic substance in the replant soil extract was partially purified and a 1 H nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectrum taken, but the substance has not been identified. Thus, grape roots appear to be the source of at least one compound that is toxic to plants and accumulates in the soil in which grapes are grown.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

A toxic substance was present in grape roots and replant soil but not, or only at low levels, in non-replant soil.

Taxon
grapee0
Outcome
toxic substancee0
Qualifier
not present, or possibly present only at low levelse0
Comparator
non-replant soile0

Verbatim

e0

“Grape roots and replant soil yielded a toxic substance not present, or possibly present only at low levels, in non-replant soil”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 467–594 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The replant soil extract inhibited phenylalanine ammonia-lyase activity in grape roots more than the non-replant soil extract did.

Taxon
grapee1
Treatment
replant soil extracte1
Gene
phenylalanine ammonia-lyasee1
Outcome
phenylalanine ammonia-lyase activitye1
Direction
inhibitede1
Comparator
non-replant soil extracte1

Verbatim

e1

“The replant soil extract inhibited phenylalanine ammonia-lyase activity in grape roots more than did the non-replant soil extract”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 596–725 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The toxic substance was partially purified and an NMR spectrum was taken, but the substance has not been identified.

Taxon
grapee0
Outcome
toxic substancee2
Qualifier
the substance has not been identifiede2

Verbatim

e0

“Grape roots and replant soil yielded a toxic substance not present, or possibly present only at low levels, in non-replant soil”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 467–594 · show in text ↑
e2

“The toxic substance in the replant soil extract was partially purified and a 1 H nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectrum taken, but the substance has not been identified”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 727–898 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Grape roots appear to be the source of at least one compound that is toxic to plants and accumulates in the soil where grapes are grown.

Taxon
grapee3
Compound
at least one compound that is toxic to plantse3
Outcome
accumulates in the soile3

Verbatim

e3

“grape roots appear to be the source of at least one compound that is toxic to plants and accumulates in the soil in which grapes are grown”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 906–1044 · show in text ↑

botanical · physiology: antioxidant enzymes · VitisPositive and negative results

5 papers: 4 positive, 1 negative or no effect

4 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 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.