CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 42Plant-Microbe Interactions and ImmunityWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologyFungal Plant Pathogen Control

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Utilization of chemical inducers of resistance and Cryptococcus flavescens OH 182.9 to reduce Fusarium head blight under greenhouse conditions

Zhang, Shouan, Schisler, David A., Boehm, Michael J., Slininger, Patricia J.·2007·Biological Control
DOI 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2007.05.020
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Four chemicals [salicylic acid (SA), sodium salt of salicylic acid (NaSA), isonicotinic acid (INA), and DL-β-amino-n-butyric acid (BABA)] and the yeast antagonist Cryptococcus flavescens (=C. nodaensis nomen nudum) OH 182.9 were evaluated separately or together for the ability to reduce Fusarium head blight (FHB) of wheat in the greenhouse. When sprayed onto wheat heads at 3 days prior to pathogen challenge with Gibberella zeae, NaSA and INA at 10 mM significantly reduced FHB severity compared to the non-treated disease control. Applied at concentrations of 1 and 5 mM at 3 days before pathogen challenge, NaSA or INA in combination with OH 182.9 did not significantly reduce FHB severity compared to either treatment alone, though the lowest disease severity values frequently were associated with the combination treatments. When sprayed onto wheat heads just beginning to emerge from boot at 10 days prior to pathogen inoculation, NaSA, INA, and BABA at 1 mM significantly reduced FHB severity indicating that induced systemic resistance was at least partially responsible for the reduction of FHB disease. Induced FHB resistance was achieved by treating wheat with INA at concentrations as low as 0.1 mM. In only one instance was 100-kernel weight affected by any chemical or combination of chemicals with OH 182.9 treatment. Data from our studies in the greenhouse suggest that chemical inducers can induce resistance in wheat against FHB, and that further efforts are warranted to explore the potential of improved control of FHB disease by incorporating chemical inducers with the FHB biocontrol agent OH 182.9.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2007.05.020

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 34 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Fakhouri, 2000, Combination of fluorescent pseudomonads with benzothiadiazole (BTH) effectively controls bacterial and fungal pathogens on tomato and cucumber (Abstr.), Phytopathology, 90, 22A
  2. Schisler, D.A., Boehm, M.J., Hicks, T.E., Lipps, P.E., 2002a. USDA-ARS, Ohio State University cooperative research on biologically controlling Fusarium head blight 2: 2002 field tests of antagonist and antagonist/fungicide mixtures. In: Canty, S.M., Lewis, J., Siler, L., Ward, R.W (Eds.), Proceedings of the National Fusarium Head Blight Forum, 2002 Dec. 7–9, Michigan State University, Erlanger, KY, East Lansing, pp. 119–122.
  3. Slininger, P.J., Schisler, D.A., Bothast, R.J., 1994. Two-dimensional liquid culture focusing: a model of selecting commercially promising microbial isolates with demonstrated biological control capability. In: Ryder, M.N., Stephens, P.M., Bowen, G.C. (Eds.), Improving Plant Productivity with Rhizosphere Bacteria, 3rd Intl., Workshop on Plant-Promoting Rhizobacteria, Graphic Services, CSIRO Division of Soils, Glen Osmond, Adelaide, Australia, pp. 29–32.
  4. Stockwell, 1997, Biocontrol of wheat scab with microbial antagonists (Abstr.), Phytopathology, 87, S94
  5. Wilcoxson, 1996, Fungicides for control of Fusarium head blight, Intl. J. Trop. Plant Dis., 14, 27
  6. Yuen, 2003, Biocontrol of Fusarium head blight in wheat by Lysobacter enzymogenes C3, Phytopathology, 93, S93

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 42

Related

Metadata

Authors
Zhang, S., Schisler, D. A., Boehm, M. J., & Slininger, P. J.
Affiliations
  • Agricultural Research Service (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
Corresponding author
Schisler, David A.
ORCID
Venue
Biological Control
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-09
Volume
42
Issue
3
Pages
308-315
ISSN
1049-9644 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.biocontrol.2007.05.020
OpenAlex
W2060666564
Cited by
42
References
34
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3
FWCI
2.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
Biological Control (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Wheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Fungal Plant Pathogen Control
Keywords
Fusarium head blight, wheat, induced systemic resistance, chemical inducers, salicylic acid, sodium salicylate, isonicotinic acid, BabA, Fusarium graminearum, biological control, disease severity, 100-kernel weight

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