Abstract
A disease complex involving Meloidogyne incognita and Rhizoctonia solani was associated with stunting of grapevines in a field nursery. Nematode reproduction was occurring on both susceptible and resistant cultivars, and pot experiments were conducted to determine the virulence of this M. incognita population, and of M. javanica and M. hapla populations, to V. vinifera cv. Colombard (susceptible) and to V. champinii cv. Ramsey (regarded locally as highly resistant). The virulence of R. solani isolates obtained from roots of diseased grapevines also was determined both alone and in combination with M. incognita. Ramsey was susceptible to M. incognita (reproduction ratio 9.8 to 18.4 in a shadehouse and heated glasshouse, respectively) but was resistant to M. javanica and M. hapla. Colombard was susceptible to M. incognita (reproduction ratio 24.3 and 41.3, respectively) and M. javanica. Shoot growth was suppressed (by 35%) by M. incognita and, to a lesser extent, by M. hapla. Colombard roots were more severely galled than Ramsey roots by all three species, and nematode reproduction was higher on Colombard. Isolates of R. solani assigned to putative anastomosis groups 2-1 and 4, and an unidentified isolate, colonized and induced rotting of grapevine roots. Ramsey was more susceptible to root rotting than Colombard. Shoot growth was inhibited by up to 15% by several AG 4 isolates and by 20% by the AG 2-1 isolate. AG 4 isolates varied in their virulence. Root rotting was higher when grapevines were inoculated with both M. incognita and R. solani and was highest when nematode inoculation preceded the fungus. Shoot weights were lower when vines were inoculated with the nematode 13 days before the fungus compared with inoculation with both the nematode and the fungus on the same day. It was concluded that both the M. incognita population and some R. solani isolates were virulent against both Colombard and Ramsey, and that measures to prevent spread in nursery stock were therefore important.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 20
Claim · model-written summary
M. incognita and R. solani disease complex was associated with grapevine stunting.
- Interactor
- Meloidogyne incognita
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=60)
Meloidogyne incognitae0pathogen - Second interactor
- Rhizoctonia solani
Rhizoctonia solanie0pathogen - Outcome
- stunting of grapevinese0
- Setting
- field nurserye0
VitisNot reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“A disease complex involving Meloidogyne incognita and Rhizoctonia solani was associated with stunting of grapevines in a field nursery”
Claim · model-written summary
Ramsey was susceptible to M. incognita, with reproduction ratios 9.8 and 18.4.
- Material
- Ramseye0
- Interactor
- M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae0pathogen
- Outcome
- reproduction ratioe0
- Value
- 9.8 to 18.4e0
- Setting
- shadehouse and heated glasshousee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Ramsey was susceptible to M. incognita (reproduction ratio 9.8 to 18.4 in a shadehouse and heated glasshouse, respectively)”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Ramsey resisted M. javanica.
- Material
- Ramseye0
- Interactor
- M. javanicaMeloidogyne javanicae0pathogen
- Outcome
- resistant to M. javanicae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Ramsey was susceptible to M. incognita (reproduction ratio 9.8 to 18.4 in a shadehouse and heated glasshouse, respectively) but was resistant to M. javanica and M. hapla”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Ramsey resisted M. hapla.
- Material
- Ramseye0
- Interactor
- M. hapla
Meloidogyne haplae0pathogen - Outcome
- resistant to M. javanica and M. haplae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Ramsey was susceptible to M. incognita (reproduction ratio 9.8 to 18.4 in a shadehouse and heated glasshouse, respectively) but was resistant to M. javanica and M. hapla”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Colombard was susceptible to M. incognita, with reproduction ratios 24.3 and 41.3.
- Material
- Colombarde0
- Interactor
- M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae0pathogen
- Outcome
- reproduction ratioe0
- Value
- 24.3 and 41.3e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Colombard was susceptible to M. incognita (reproduction ratio 24.3 and 41.3, respectively)”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Colombard was susceptible to M. javanica.
- Material
- Colombarde0
- Interactor
- M. javanicaMeloidogyne javanicae0pathogen
- Outcome
- susceptible to M. incognitae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Colombard was susceptible to M. incognita (reproduction ratio 24.3 and 41.3, respectively) and M. javanica”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
M. incognita suppressed grapevine shoot growth by 35%.
- Treatment
- M. incognitae0
- Interactor
- M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae0pathogen
- Outcome
- Shoot growthe0
- Direction
- suppressede0
- Value
- 35%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Shoot growth was suppressed (by 35%) by M. incognita”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
M. hapla suppressed shoot growth less than M. incognita.
- Treatment
- M. haplae0
- Interactor
- M. haplaMeloidogyne haplae0pathogen
- Outcome
- Shoot growthe0
- Direction
- to a lesser extente0
- Comparator
- M. incognitae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Shoot growth was suppressed (by 35%) by M. incognita and, to a lesser extent, by M. hapla”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Colombard roots were more severely galled than Ramsey roots by all three nematodes.
- Material
- Colombarde0
- Organ / stage
- rootse0
- Outcome
- roots were more severely gallede0
- Direction
- more severelye0
- Comparator
- Ramseye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Colombard roots were more severely galled than Ramsey roots by all three species”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Nematode reproduction was higher on Colombard than Ramsey.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“nematode reproduction was higher on Colombard”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
R. solani isolates colonized and rotted grapevine roots.
- Interactor
- R. solaniRhizoctonia solanie0pathogen
- Outcome
- colonized and induced rotting of grapevine rootse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Isolates of R. solani assigned to putative anastomosis groups 2-1 and 4, and an unidentified isolate, colonized and induced rotting of grapevine roots”
Claim · model-written summary
Ramsey was more susceptible to root rotting than Colombard.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Ramsey was more susceptible to root rotting than Colombard”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Several AG 4 isolates inhibited shoot growth by up to 15%.
- Treatment
- AG 4 isolatese0
- Interactor
- AG 4 isolatese0pathogen
- Outcome
- Shoot growthe0
- Direction
- inhibitede0
- Value
- up to 15%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Shoot growth was inhibited by up to 15% by several AG 4 isolates”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
The AG 2-1 isolate inhibited shoot growth by 20%.
- Treatment
- AG 2-1 isolatee0
- Interactor
- AG 2-1 isolatee0pathogen
- Outcome
- Shoot growthe0
- Direction
- inhibitede0
- Value
- 20%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Shoot growth was inhibited by up to 15% by several AG 4 isolates and by 20% by the AG 2-1 isolate”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
AG 4 isolates varied in virulence.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“AG 4 isolates varied in their virulence”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Joint inoculation with M. incognita and R. solani increased root rotting.
- Treatment
- inoculated with both M. incognita and R. solanie0
- Interactor
- M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae0pathogen
- Second interactor
- R. solaniRhizoctonia solanie0pathogen
- Outcome
- Root rottinge0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Root rotting was higher when grapevines were inoculated with both M. incognita and R. solani”
Claim · model-written summary
Root rotting was highest when nematode inoculation preceded fungal inoculation.
- Treatment
- nematode inoculation preceded the funguse0
- Interactor
- M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae0pathogen
- Second interactor
- R. solaniRhizoctonia solanie0pathogen
- Outcome
- root rottinge0
- Direction
- higheste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“root rotting was higher when grapevines were inoculated with both M. incognita and R. solani and was highest when nematode inoculation preceded the fungus”
Claim · model-written summary
Nematode inoculation 13 days before fungus gave lower shoot weights than same-day inoculation.
Verbatim
e0“Shoot weights were lower when vines were inoculated with the nematode 13 days before the fungus compared with inoculation with both the nematode and the fungus on the same day”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors considered the M. incognita population and some R. solani isolates virulent to both cultivars.
- Interactor
- M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae0pathogen
- Second interactor
- R. solaniRhizoctonia solanie0pathogen
- Outcome
- virulent against both Colombard and Ramseye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“both the M. incognita population and some R. solani isolates were virulent against both Colombard and Ramsey”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommended preventing spread in nursery stock.
- Outcome
- measures to prevent spread in nursery stocke0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“measures to prevent spread in nursery stock were therefore important”
t0“Grapevine”
The same questions in other papers
Meloidogyne incognita · growth · VitisResults agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- no effect
- negative
inoculation · Meloidogyne incognita · VitisPositive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →inoculation · disease · VitisPositive and negative results
47 papers in the same direction as this paper · 19 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
63 papers more in this group
See all 67 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.