Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items for :

  • "in vivo inoculation" x
  • All content x
Clear All
Full access

Weining Wang, Yanhong He, Zhe Cao, and Zhanao Deng

) . Two complementary resistance assays were used: leaf disc assay and in vivo inoculation assay. In the leaf disc assay, mature leaves were harvested from plants grown in the growth room and rinsed with autoclaved deionized water three times under a

Free access

F.A. Bliss, P.L. Schuerman, A.A. Almehdi, A.M. Dandekar, and N. Bellaloui

Crown gall is an important disease of many fruit and nut crops, but little is known about sources of resistance. We screened germplasm from Prunus armeniaca L., P. angustifolia Marsh., P. argentia L., P. avium L., P. besseyi Bailey, P. bokhariensis Schneid., P. brigantica L., P. cerasifera Ehrh., P. cerasus L., P. dulcis (Mill.) D.A. Webb, P. fruiticosa Pall., P. hortulana Bailey, P. insititia L., P. japonica Thunb., P. mahaleb L., P. persica (L.) Batsch, P. serotina Ehrh., P. simonii Carr., P. sogdiana L., and P. webbii (Spach) Vieh. When either main stems or lateral branches of seedlings were inoculated with strains K12 and C58 of Agrobacterium tumefaciens (Smith and Townsend) Conn., the incidence of resistance was less than 10% except in some accessions of P. mahaleb L. where up to 30% of the plants were resistant. Some resistant plants were identified in other species, with P. insititia L. being the most promising. Symptoms based on presence and size of galls should be allowed to develop for up to 90 days after inoculation to reduce the likelihood of misclassifying plants as resistant when they are slightly susceptible.

Free access

Cinta Calvet, Amelia Camprubi, Ana Pérez-Hernández, and Paulo Emilio Lovato

amounts of potential mycorrhizal propagules originated in vivo and in vitro, and inoculation treatments were as follows. In vivo inoculation treatments consisted of: 1) bulk inoculum: 2 mL of substrate (with ≈50% pore space) from the host plant rhizosphere

Free access

Manuela Baietto and A. Dan Wilson

effective indicator of relative decay resistance of wood than in vivo inoculations that often tend to be masked by nonspecific host responses and variable wood-weight changes associated with inoculations and host–wound responses. Results of the present