Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24170338›Full record

ArticlePlanta2014

Fine-root system development and susceptibility to pathogen colonization.

Bryan Emmett, Eric B Nelson, Andre Kessler, Taryn L Bauerle

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Planta, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Bryan EmmettDepartment of Horticulture, Cornell University, 134A Plant Science Building, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
Eric B Nelson
Andre Kessler
Taryn L Bauerle

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Root development may exert control on plant-pathogen interactions with soil-borne pathogens by shaping the spatial and temporal availability of susceptible tissues and in turn the impact of pathogen colonization on root function. To evaluate the relationship between root development and resistance to apple replant disease (ARD) pathogens, pathogen abundance was compared across root branching orders in a bioassay with two rootstock genotypes, M.26 (highly susceptible) and CG.210 (less susceptible). Root growth, anatomical development and secondary metabolite production were evaluated as tissue resistance mechanisms. ARD pathogens primarily colonized first and second order roots, which corresponded with cortical tissue senescence and loss in second and third order roots. Defense compounds were differentially allocated across root branching orders, while defense induction or stress response was only detected in first order and pioneer roots. Our results suggest disease development is based largely on fine-root tip attrition. In accordance, the less susceptible rootstock supported lower ARD pathogen abundance and altered defense compound production in first order and pioneer roots and maintained higher rates of root growth in both the ARD soil and pasteurized control compared to the more susceptible. Thus, this rootstock's ability to maintain shoot growth in replant soil may be attributable to relative replant pathogen resistance in distal root branches as well as tolerance of infection based on rates of root growth.

Indexed as

Disease ResistanceHost-Parasite InteractionsAscomycotaBiomassMalusModels, BiologicalPlant DiseasesPlant RootsPythiumSoilSoil

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.