ArticleScientific reports2026
Growth-promoting rhizobacteria amend the defense of strawberry plants against sequentially attacking herbivores.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- YOLOv8n-DSLW: A Deployment-Oriented AI-Enabled Vision-Sensing Model for Tiny Strawberry Disease and Pest Detection in Greenhouse Images.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Plant defense systems such as induced resistance (IR; induced by herbivores) and induced systemic resistance (ISR; induced by beneficial rhizobacteria) are modulated by overlapping signaling pathways within plants. Both ISR and IR are systemic and may involve the production of toxic, antifeedant and/or repellent compounds, and/or reduce nutrient availability, which may in consequence affect plant usability and palatability for later arriving herbivores. The combined effects of ISR and IR on different herbivores sharing the same plant and plant performance have been rarely addressed. Here, we assessed the effects of three plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR), Azotobacter chroococcum, Azospirillum brasilense and Pseudomonas brassicacearum, on the defense response and physiology of strawberry plants upon sequential attack by two herbivores with different feeding modes, two-spotted spider mites Tetranychus urticae and cotton aphids Aphis gossypii. Attack of strawberry plants by spider mites and aphids adversely affected the abundance of the later arriving herbivore, mediated by the host plant's defense system. First-attacking spider mites exerted much stronger adverse effects on later attacking aphids than first-attacking aphids on later attacking spider mites. In absence of PGPR inoculation, the herbivores, especially first-attacking spider mites, severely impaired host plant physiology and productivity. PGPR inoculation increased the plant`s capacity to mount a stronger phenolic response upon attack by spider mites and aphids, indicating a priming-like enhancement of inducible defense. In consequence, the abundances of both herbivores were lower on PGPR-inoculated plants compared to chemically fertilized and control plants. Overall, our study suggests that PGPR inoculation ameliorates the plant damage caused by sequentially attacking herbivores. Additionally, the PGPRs improve the physiology and productivity, and favorably balance the nutritional state, of strawberry plants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.