Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 328

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 100 of the 100 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Organic Amendments, Beneficial Microbes, and Soil Microbiota: Toward a Unified Framework for Disease Suppression

Open access
Bonanomi, Giuliano, Lorito, Matteo, Vinale, Francesco, Woo, Sheridan L.·2018·Annual Review of Phytopathology

Abstract

Organic amendments (OAs) and soilborne biocontrol agents or beneficial microbes (BMs) have been extensively studied and applied worldwide in most agriculturally important plant species. However, poor integration of research and technical approaches has limited the development of effective disease management practices based on the combination of these two bio-based strategies. Insights into the importance of the plant-associated microbiome for crop productivity, which can be modified or modulated by introducing OAs and/or BMs, are providing novel opportunities to achieve the goal of long-term disease control. This review discusses novel ways of functionally characterizing OAs and how they may be used to promote the effect of added biocontrol agents and/or beneficial soil microbiota to support natural suppressiveness of plant pathogens.

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 · 10.1146/annurev-phyto-080615-100046

Cites

100 of 100 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 100 references

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Adams PB, 1969, Phytopathology, 59, 135
  2. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.08.157 · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.08.157
  3. Bonanomi G, 2011, J. Plant Pathol., 93, 57
  4. Bonanomi G, 2007, J. Plant Pathol., 89, 311
  5. 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03765.x · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03765.x
  6. Bonanomi G, 2015, J. Plant Pathol., 97, 223
  7. 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01611.x · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01611.x
  8. 10.1371/journal.pone.0152565 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0152565
  9. Elad Y, 2012, Phytopathol. Mediterr., 50, 335
  10. 10.1111/j.1744-7348.1935.tb07157.x · doi:10.1111/j.1744-7348.1935.tb07157.x
  11. 10.1016/S0038-0717(97)00234-4 · doi:10.1016/s0038-0717(97)00234-4
  12. 10.1023/B:PLSO.0000047720.40918.29 · doi:10.1023/b:plso.0000047720.40918.29
  13. 10.1007/s11258-014-0331-1 · doi:10.1007/s11258-014-0331-1
  14. Menzies JD, 1959, Phytopathology, 49, 648
  15. Papavizas GC, 1968, Phytopathology, 58, 421
  16. 10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.10.012 · doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.10.012
  17. Snyder WC, 1959, Phytopathology, 49, 755
  18. 10.1021/jf0625407 · doi:10.1021/jf0625407
  19. 10.1007/1-4020-5020-8_8 · doi:10.1007/1-4020-5020-8_8
  20. Walker JC, 1934, Univ. Wis. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull., 428, 95
  21. Wilhelm S, 1951, Phytopathology, 41, 684
  22. Yang RX, 2014, melonis. Allelopath. J., 33, 175

Cited by

See all 328

Metadata

Authors
Bonanomi, G., Lorito, M., Vinale, F., & Woo, S. L.
Venue
Annual Review of Phytopathology
Published
2018-08-25
Volume
56
Issue
1
Pages
1-20
ISSN
  • 0066-4286 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-2107
OpenAlex
W2803863344
Cited by
328
References
100
FWCI
4.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Organic Amendments, Beneficial Microbes, and Soil Microbiota: Toward a Unified Framework for Disease Suppression. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1146/annurev-phyto-080615-100046
The paper
Bonanomi, G., Lorito, M., Vinale, F., & Woo, S. L. (2018). Organic Amendments, Beneficial Microbes, and Soil Microbiota: Toward a Unified Framework for Disease Suppression. Annual Review of Phytopathology. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-phyto-080615-100046

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.