Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 293

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Improving Biological Control by Combining Biocontrol Agents Each with Several Mechanisms of Disease Suppression

Guetsky, Ruth, Shtienberg, D., Elad, Y., Fischer, E., Dinoor, A.·2002·Phytopathology®

Abstract

Two biocontrol agents, a yeast (Pichia guilermondii) and a bacterium (Bacillus mycoides), were tested separately and together for suppression of Botrytis cinerea on strawberry leaves and plants. Scanning electron microscopy revealed significant inhibition of Botrytis cinerea conidial germination in the presence of Pichia guilermondii, whereas Bacillus mycoides caused breakage and destruction of conidia. When both biocontrol agents were applied in a mixture, conidial destruction was more severe. The modes of action of each of the biocontrol agents were elucidated and the relative quantitative contribution of each mechanism to suppression of Botrytis cinerea was estimated using multiple regression with dummy variables. The improvement in control efficacy achieved by introducing one or more mechanisms at a time was calculated. Pichia guilermondii competed with Botrytis cinerea for glucose, sucrose, adenine, histidine, and folic acid. Viability of the yeast cells played a crucial role in suppression of Botrytis cinerea and they secreted an inhibitory compound that had an acropetal effect and was not volatile. Bacillus mycoides did not compete for any of the sugars, amino acids, or vitamins examined at a level that would affect Botrytis cinerea development. Viable cells and the compounds secreted by them contributed similarly to Botrytis cinerea suppression. The bacteria secreted volatile and non-volatile inhibitory compounds and activated the defense systems of the host. The nonvolatile compounds had both acropetal and basipetal effects. Mixture of Pichia guilermondii and Bacillus mycoides resulted in additive activity compared with their separate application. The combined activity was due to the summation of biocontrol mechanisms of both agents. This work provides a theoretical explanation for our previous findings of reduced disease control variability with a mixture of Pichia guilermondii and Bacillus mycoides.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1094/phyto.2002.92.9.976

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 19 references

Cited by

See all 293

Metadata

Authors
Guetsky, R., Shtienberg, D., Elad, Y., Fischer, E., & Dinoor, A.
Venue
Phytopathology®
Published
2002-09
Volume
92
Issue
9
Pages
976-985
ISSN
  • 0031-949X (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-7684
OpenAlex
W2138442119
Cited by
293
References
19
FWCI
9.00
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: Improving Biological Control by Combining Biocontrol Agents Each with Several Mechanisms of Disease Suppression. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1094/phyto.2002.92.9.976
The paper
Guetsky, R., Shtienberg, D., Elad, Y., Fischer, E., & Dinoor, A. (2002). Improving Biological Control by Combining Biocontrol Agents Each with Several Mechanisms of Disease Suppression. Phytopathology®. https://doi.org/10.1094/phyto.2002.92.9.976

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.