The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Dose-Response Relationships in Biological Control of Fusarium Wilt of Radish by Pseudomonas spp.
Abstract
The dose-response relationships in the suppression of Fusarium wilt of radish by Pseudomonas putida strain WCS358 and P. fluorescens strain WCS374 were investigated. The sole mechanism involved in the suppression of Fusarium wilt of radish by strain WCS358 is siderophore-mediated competition for iron(III), whereas strain WCS374 suppresses this disease by induction of systemic resistance. The efficacy of siderophore-mediated disease suppression and induced resistance was highly dependent on the level of disease incidence. Both mechanisms of biological control were effective over a wide range of disease incidences. The absolute disease reduction reached a maximum of approximately 30% at an average level of disease incidence of 50% for both mechanisms. The rhizosphere population density of strain WCS358 and of strain WCS374 was an important determinant of their efficacy to suppress Fusarium wilt of radish. Regression analysis demonstrated significant nonlinear asymptotic relationships between the rhizosphere population densities of strain WCS358 or strain WCS374 and the level of suppression of Fusarium wilt of radish. At moderate to relatively high levels of disease incidence for both mechanisms, a threshold population density of the bacterial strain of approximately 10 5 CFU per gram of root is required for a significant suppression of Fusarium wilt of radish. When rhizosphere population densities of both strains dropped below this threshold level, a relatively small decline in the population density had a major effect on their efficacy to suppress Fusarium wilt of radish. Increasing the rhizosphere population density of both strains to levels higher than the threshold level did not result in a significant improvement of disease suppression.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The rhizosphere microbiome and plant health
Berendsen, R. L., Pieterse, C. M. J., & Bakker, P. A. H. M. (2012) · Trends in Plant Science · doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2012.04.001 · Cited by 5,347
Induced systemic resistance by beneficial microbes
Pieterse, C. M. J., Zamioudis, C., Berendsen, R. L., Weller, D. M., Van Wees, S. C. M., & Bakker, P. A. H. M. (2014) · Annual Review of Phytopathology · doi:10.1146/annurev-phyto-082712-102340 · Cited by 3,272
SYSTEMIC RESISTANCE INDUCED BY RHIZOSPHERE BACTERIA
van Loon, L. C., Bakker, P. A. H. M., & Pieterse, C. M. J. (1998) · Annual Review of Phytopathology · doi:10.1146/annurev.phyto.36.1.453 · Cited by 2,361
Plant responses to plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria
van Loon, L. C. (2007) · European Journal of Plant Pathology · doi:10.1007/s10658-007-9165-1 · Cited by 913
Ongena, M., Jourdan, E., Adam, A., Paquot, M., Brans, A., Joris, B., Arpigny, J., & Thonart, P. (2007) · Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1111/j.1462-2920.2006.01202.x · Cited by 855
Metadata
- Authors
- Raaijmakers, J. M.
- Venue
- Phytopathology
- Publisher
- Scientific Societies
- Published
- 1995
- Volume
- 85
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1075
- ISSN
- 0031-949X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2081424139
- Cited by
- 332
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Dose-Response Relationships in Biological Control of Fusarium Wilt of Radish by Pseudomonas spp. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1094/phyto-85-1075
- The paper
- Raaijmakers, J. M. (1995). Dose-Response Relationships in Biological Control of Fusarium Wilt of Radish by Pseudomonas spp. Phytopathology. https://doi.org/10.1094/phyto-85-1075
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.