4.5 Article

Investigations into peach seedling stunting caused by a replant soil

期刊

FEMS MICROBIOLOGY ECOLOGY
卷 68, 期 2, 页码 192-200

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2009.00668.x

关键词

pome; Prunus; replant problem; stramenopiles; Nemaguard; peach

资金

  1. Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, US Department of Agriculture [2005-51102-02340]
  2. California Association of Nurseries
  3. Garden Centers
  4. Foundation Plant Materials Service
  5. University of California, Davis
  6. Duarte Nursery, Hughson, CA
  7. US Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Replant diseases often occur when pome and stone fruits are grown in soil that had previously been planted with the same or similar plant species. They typically lead to reductions in plant growth, crop yield and production duration. In this project, greenhouse assays were used to identify a peach orchard soil that caused replant disease symptoms. Biocidal treatments of this soil led to growth increases of Nemaguard peach seedlings. In addition, plants grown in as little as 1% of the replant soil exhibited reduced plant growth. These results suggest that the disease etiology has a biological component. Analysis of roots from plants exhibiting various levels of replant disease symptoms showed little difference in the amounts of PCR-amplified bacterial or fungal rRNA genes. However, analysis using a stramenopile-selective PCR assay showed that rRNA genes from this taxon were generally more abundant in plants with the smallest top weights. Nucleotide sequence analysis of these genes identified several phylotypes belonging to Bacillariophyta, Chrysophyceae, Eustigmatophyceae, Labyrinthulida, Oomycetes, Phaeophyceae and Synurophyceae. Sequence-selective quantitative PCR assays targeting four of the most abundant phylotypes showed that both diatoms (Sellaphora spp.) and an oomycete (Pythium ultimum) were negatively associated with plant top weights.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据