Abstract
Abstract Root-knot nematodes (RKN) cause extensive damage to grapevine cultivars. RKN-resistant grapevine rootstocks remain vulnerable to biotic and abiotic stresses. This study aimed to determine the influence of composted animal manures (CAMs) [chicken manure (CM), cow manure (CowM), and sheep manure (SM)] with or without plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on the population of Meloidogyne incognita , free-living nematodes (FLNs) and predaceous nematodes (PNs) residing in the soils of vineyard cultivars (Flame, Superior and Prime). The nematodes were isolated from grapevine roots and rhizosphere soils, then the absolute frequency of occurrence (FO), relative FO, prominence value (PV), and population density (PD) were assessed. The impact of CAMs and PGPR on the growth parameters, fruit output, and quality of three grapevine varieties was subsequently evaluated. Eight treatments included a control without CAMs or PGPR amendments, the CAMs alone, or CAM treatments combined with PGPR. The results showed that FLNs and PNs were more abundant in Prime than Flame or Superior cultivars when poor sandy loam soils were supplied with CAMs. Among all tested manures, CM was the best treatment as a nematicide. This was evident from the decreased numbers of M. incognita and increased numbers of FLNs and PNs in grapevine fields. Compared to the soil-applied oxamyl (a systemic nematicide), which was efficiently suppressive on M. incognita for two months, CM significantly ( P < 0.05) decreased PD of the phytonematodes for five months, improved soil structure and enhanced the soil biological activities. There were significant ( P < 0.05) increases in the number of leaves/vines by 79.9, 78.8, and 73.1%; and total fruit weight/vine by 76.9, 75.0, and 73.0% in Flame, Superior, and Prime varieties, respectively, compared to untreated vines. Regardless of the cultivar, soils amended with CM + PGPR achieved the lowest number of M. incognita among all other treatments, followed by SM + PGPR and CowM + PGPR. It was concluded that CAMs amendment, mainly CM, along with PGPR in poor sandy soils of temperate areas, is considered a sustainable approach for reducing parasitic nematodes and improving agricultural management.
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
Claim · model-written summary
Flame had 79.9% more number of leaves/vines than untreated vines.
- Material
- Flamee0
- Outcome
- number of leaves/vinese0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 79.9e0
- Comparator
- untreated vinese0
VitisNot reportedTreatment
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were significant ( P < 0.05) increases in the number of leaves/vines by 79.9, 78.8, and 73.1%; and total fruit weight/vine by 76.9, 75.0, and 73.0% in Flame, Superior, and Prime varieties, respectively, compared to untreated vines.”
t0“grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Flame had 76.9% more total fruit weight/vine than untreated vines.
- Material
- Flamee0
- Outcome
- total fruit weight/vinee0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 76.9e0
- Comparator
- untreated vinese0
Not reportedTreatment
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were significant ( P < 0.05) increases in the number of leaves/vines by 79.9, 78.8, and 73.1%; and total fruit weight/vine by 76.9, 75.0, and 73.0% in Flame, Superior, and Prime varieties, respectively, compared to untreated vines.”
t0“grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Superior had 78.8% more number of leaves/vines than untreated vines.
- Material
- Superiore0
- Outcome
- number of leaves/vinese0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 78.8e0
- Comparator
- untreated vinese0
Not reportedTreatment
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were significant ( P < 0.05) increases in the number of leaves/vines by 79.9, 78.8, and 73.1%; and total fruit weight/vine by 76.9, 75.0, and 73.0% in Flame, Superior, and Prime varieties, respectively, compared to untreated vines.”
t0“grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Superior had 75.0% more total fruit weight/vine than untreated vines.
- Material
- Superiore0
- Outcome
- total fruit weight/vinee0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 75.0e0
- Comparator
- untreated vinese0
Not reportedTreatment
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were significant ( P < 0.05) increases in the number of leaves/vines by 79.9, 78.8, and 73.1%; and total fruit weight/vine by 76.9, 75.0, and 73.0% in Flame, Superior, and Prime varieties, respectively, compared to untreated vines.”
t0“grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Prime had 73.1% more number of leaves/vines than untreated vines.
- Material
- Primee0
- Outcome
- number of leaves/vinese0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 73.1e0
- Comparator
- untreated vinese0
Not reportedTreatment
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were significant ( P < 0.05) increases in the number of leaves/vines by 79.9, 78.8, and 73.1%; and total fruit weight/vine by 76.9, 75.0, and 73.0% in Flame, Superior, and Prime varieties, respectively, compared to untreated vines.”
t0“grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Prime had 73.0% more total fruit weight/vine than untreated vines.
- Material
- Primee0
- Outcome
- total fruit weight/vinee0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 73.0e0
- Comparator
- untreated vinese0
Not reportedTreatment
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were significant ( P < 0.05) increases in the number of leaves/vines by 79.9, 78.8, and 73.1%; and total fruit weight/vine by 76.9, 75.0, and 73.0% in Flame, Superior, and Prime varieties, respectively, compared to untreated vines.”
t0“grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
With manure, free-living and predaceous nematodes were more abundant in Prime than Flame or Superior.
- Material
- Primee0
- Treatment
- CAMse0
- Outcome
- FLNs and PNse0
- Direction
- more abundante0
- Comparator
- Flame or Superior cultivarse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“FLNs and PNs were more abundant in Prime than Flame or Superior cultivars when poor sandy loam soils were supplied with CAMs.”
t0“grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Chicken manure decreased Meloidogyne incognita numbers.
- Treatment
- CMe1
- Interactor
- M. incognita
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=60)
Meloidogyne incognitae0pathogen - Outcome
- decreased numbers of M. incognitae0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“This was evident from the decreased numbers of M. incognita and increased numbers of FLNs and PNs in grapevine fields.”
e1“Among all tested manures, CM was the best treatment as a nematicide.”
t0“grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Chicken manure increased free-living and predaceous nematode numbers.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This was evident from the decreased numbers of M. incognita and increased numbers of FLNs and PNs in grapevine fields.”
e1“Among all tested manures, CM was the best treatment as a nematicide.”
t0“grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Chicken manure suppressed phytonematode population density for five months.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CM significantly ( P < 0.05) decreased PD of the phytonematodes for five months”
t0“grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Chicken manure improved soil structure and soil biological activities.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“improved soil structure and enhanced the soil biological activities”
e1“CM significantly ( P < 0.05) decreased PD of the phytonematodes for five months”
t0“grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Chicken manure plus PGPR gave the lowest Meloidogyne incognita count across cultivars.
- Treatment
- CM + PGPRe0
- Interactor
- M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae0pathogen
- Second interactor
- PGPRe0biocontrol_agent
- Outcome
- number of M. incognitae0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Comparator
- all other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Regardless of the cultivar, soils amended with CM + PGPR achieved the lowest number of M. incognita among all other treatments, followed by SM + PGPR and CowM + PGPR.”
t0“grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars”
The same questions in other papers
inoculation · Meloidogyne incognita · VitisPositive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →fertilization · pest · VitisPositive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →fertilization · Meloidogyne incognita · VitisResults agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
fertilization · soil: physics · VitisResults agree
6 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 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.