CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 21Plant Pathogenic Bacteria StudiesPlant Disease Management TechniquesPhytoplasmas and Hemiptera pathogens

Secondary spread of Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis in nurseries and the conditions leading to infection of tomato seedlings

Frenkel, O., Bornestein, M., Shulhani, R., Sharabani, G., Sofer, M., Abo-Moch, F., Lofthouse, M., Manulis-Sasson, S. +1 more·2016·European Journal of Plant Pathology
DOI 10.1007/s10658-015-0795-4
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Frenkel, O., Borenstein, M., Shulhani, R., Sharabani, G., Sofer, M., Abu-Moch, F., Lofthouse, M., Manulis-Sasson, S., and Shtienberg, D. 2015 Secondary spread of Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis in nurseries and the conditions leading to infection of tomato seedlings. European Journal of Plant Pathology XX:XXX-XXX. Infected seedlings are one of the most important primary sources of inoculum of Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis (Cmm), the causal agent of bacterial canker and wilt of tomatoes, in commercial production plots. In this study we tested the hypothesis that a low number of infected source seedlings may give rise to a large number of infected seedlings in the nursery even when careful measures are taken. It was found that the pathogen dispersed spatially from root-inoculated source seedlings and colonized the leaf surfaces of surrounding seedlings to distances of 65–75 cm. A sub-irrigation system reduced, but did not prevent, Cmm dispersal. Infections by epiphytic Cmm populations can occurred under a wide range of temperature conditions, seedling ages and foliar wetness periods. The results emphasize the need to minimize the primary infectious sources as well as developing new strategies to reduce the dispersal during the nursery stage.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10658-015-0795-4

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Disease severity assessed as the number of blisters per plant is a reliable disease severity assessment method.

    “disease severity was evaluated as the number of blisters on each plant which has been shown to be a reliable disease severity assessment method (Frenkel et al., 2016).”

    From Biochar implications for sustainable agriculture and environment: A review (2019) · cites this paper as Frenkel et al., 2016

  • In the nursery tray experiment, disease symptoms were not significantly lower at 3% biochar (6.4 lesions per plant) and 6% biochar (9.4 lesions per plant) compared to the untreated control.

    “were not significantly lower at 3% (6.4 lesions plants -1 ) and 6% biochar (9.4 lesions plants -1 )”

    From Biochar implications for sustainable agriculture and environment: A review (2019) · cites this paper as Frenkel et al., 2016

  • In the nursery tray experiment, disease symptoms in the untreated control averaged 8.6 lesions per plant.

    “the disease symptoms in the untreated control was averaged 8.6 lesions plants -1”

    From Biochar implications for sustainable agriculture and environment: A review (2019) · cites this paper as Frenkel et al., 2016

  • In the nursery tray experiment, no differences were detected in plant biomass.

    “No differences were detected in plant biomass”

    From Biochar implications for sustainable agriculture and environment: A review (2019) · cites this paper as Frenkel et al., 2016

  • In the nursery tray experiment, disease symptoms were significantly higher at 18% biochar (15.1 lesions per plant) compared to the untreated control (8.6 lesions per plant).

    “but were significantly higher at biochar level of 18% (15.1 lesions plants -1 ) compared to the untreated control (8.6 lesions plants -1 )”

    From Biochar implications for sustainable agriculture and environment: A review (2019) · cites this paper as Frenkel et al., 2016

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Frenkel, O., Bornestein, M., Shulhani, R., Sharabani, G., Sofer, M., Abo-Moch, F., Lofthouse, M., Manulis-Sasson, S., & Shtienberg, D.
Affiliations
Agricultural Research Organization (IL)
Corresponding author
Frenkel, O.
ORCID
Frenkel, O.
Venue
European Journal of Plant Pathology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2015-10-16
Volume
144
Issue
3
Pages
569-579
ISSN
  • 0929-1873 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-8469
DOI
10.1007/s10658-015-0795-4
OpenAlex
W2478491494
Cited by
21
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
2.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
European Journal of Plant Pathology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant Pathogenic Bacteria Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant Disease Management Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Phytoplasmas and Hemiptera pathogens
Keywords
Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis, bacterial canker, tomato wilt, secondary spread, nursery seedlings, pathogen dispersal, subirrigation, temperature effects, seedling age, root inoculation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review