The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Mixtures of Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria Enhance Biological Control of Multiple Cucumber Pathogens
Abstract
Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) strains INR7 (Bacillus pumilus), GB03 (Bacillus subtilis), and ME1 (Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens) were tested singly and in combinations for biological control against multiple cucumber pathogens. Investigations under greenhouse conditions were conducted with three cucumber pathogens—Colletotrichum orbiculare (causing anthracnose), Pseudomonas syringae pv. lachrymans (causing angular leaf spot), and Erwinia tracheiphila(causing cucurbit wilt disease)—inoculated singly and in all possible combinations. There was a general trend across all experiments toward greater suppression and enhanced consistency against multiple cucumber pathogens using strain mixtures. The same three PGPR strains were evaluated as seed treatments in two field trials over two seasons, and two strains, IN26 (Burkholderia gladioli) and INR7 also were tested as foliar sprays in one of the trials. In the field trials, the efficacy of induced systemic resistance activity was determined against introduced cucumber pathogens naturally spread within plots through placement of infected plants into the field to provide the pathogen inoculum. PGPR-mediated disease suppression was observed against angular leaf spot in 1996 and against a mixed infection of angular leaf spot and anthracnose in 1997. The three-way mixture of PGPR strains (INR7 plus ME1 plus GB03) as a seed treatment showed intensive plant growth promotion and disease reduction to a level statistically equivalent to the synthetic elicitor Actigard applied as a spray.
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
Cites
Leibinger, W., Breuker, B., Hahn, M., & Mendgen, K. (1997) · Phytopathology® · doi:10.1094/phyto.1997.87.11.1103 · Cited by 192
Cited by
Compant, S., Duffy, B., Nowak, J., Clément, C., & Barka, E. A. (2005) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.71.9.4951-4959.2005 · Cited by 2,640
Microbial interactions and biocontrol in the rhizosphere
Whipps, J. M. (2001) · Journal of Experimental Botany · doi:10.1093/jexbot/52.suppl_1.487 · Cited by 1,934
Bacterial Volatiles Induce Systemic Resistance in Arabidopsis
Ryu, C.-M., Farag, M. A., Hu, C.-H., Reddy, M. S., Kloepper, J. W., & Paré, P. W. (2004) · PLANT PHYSIOLOGY · doi:10.1104/pp.103.026583 · Cited by 1,308
Self-citationBiological control of plant pathogens by Bacillus species
Fira, D., Dimkić, I., Berić, T., Lozo, J., & Stanković, S. (2018) · Journal of Biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.jbiotec.2018.07.044 · Cited by 917
Systemic Acquired Resistance and Induced Systemic Resistance in Conventional Agriculture
Vallad, G. E., & Goodman, R. M. (2004) · Crop Science · doi:10.2135/cropsci2004.1920 · Cited by 819
Metadata
- Authors
- Raupach, G. S., & Kloepper, J. W.
- Venue
- Phytopathology®
- Publisher
- Scientific Societies
- Published
- 1998-11
- Volume
- 88
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1158-1164
- ISSN
- 0031-949X (ISSN-L)
- 1943-7684
- OpenAlex
- W2150151964
- Cited by
- 633
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.17
- 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: Mixtures of Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria Enhance Biological Control of Multiple Cucumber Pathogens. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1094/phyto.1998.88.11.1158
- The paper
- Raupach, G. S., & Kloepper, J. W. (1998). Mixtures of Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria Enhance Biological Control of Multiple Cucumber Pathogens. Phytopathology®. https://doi.org/10.1094/phyto.1998.88.11.1158
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.