Uneingeschränkter Zugang

Meloidogyne incognita management by nematicides in tomato production

Zane J. Grabau
Zane J. Grabau
, 
Chang Liu
Chang Liu
 und 
Rebeca Sandoval-Ruiz
Rebeca Sandoval-Ruiz
   | 19. Juli 2021
Journal of Nematology's Cover Image
Über diesen Artikel
Vorheriger Artikel
Nächster Artikel
Zitieren
Online veröffentlicht: 19. Juli 2021
Seitenbereich: 1 - 12
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/jofnem-2021-055
Schlüsselwörter
© 2021 Zane J. Grabau et al., published by Sciendo.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Figure 1:

Nematicide effects on root galling at harvest (A) and tomato yields (B-E) in 2018 trial. Within each subfigure, means with different letters are significantly different (P  <  0.05) based on Fisher’s protected LSD. “1,3-D + Fluop.” indicates preplant 1,3-D followed by fluopyram (237 g a.i./ha) at 3 weeks after planting. “Fluop. single” indicates a single fluopyram chemigation (237 g a.i./ha) at transplanting. “Fluop. split” indicates split fluopyram chemigation with 118.5 g a.i./ha each applied at transplanting and 3 weeks after transplanting.
Nematicide effects on root galling at harvest (A) and tomato yields (B-E) in 2018 trial. Within each subfigure, means with different letters are significantly different (P  <  0.05) based on Fisher’s protected LSD. “1,3-D + Fluop.” indicates preplant 1,3-D followed by fluopyram (237 g a.i./ha) at 3 weeks after planting. “Fluop. single” indicates a single fluopyram chemigation (237 g a.i./ha) at transplanting. “Fluop. split” indicates split fluopyram chemigation with 118.5 g a.i./ha each applied at transplanting and 3 weeks after transplanting.

Figure 2:

Nematicide effects on Meloidogyne incognita J2 soil abundances and root galling at harvest in 2019 and 2020 trials. Within each subfigure, means with different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05) based on Fisher’s protected LSD.
Nematicide effects on Meloidogyne incognita J2 soil abundances and root galling at harvest in 2019 and 2020 trials. Within each subfigure, means with different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05) based on Fisher’s protected LSD.

Figure 3:

Nematicide effects on free-living nematode soil abundances in 2019 and 2020 trials. Within each subfigure, means with different letters are significantly different (P  <  0.05) based on Fisher’s protected LSD.
Nematicide effects on free-living nematode soil abundances in 2019 and 2020 trials. Within each subfigure, means with different letters are significantly different (P  <  0.05) based on Fisher’s protected LSD.

Figure 4:

Nematicide effects on marketable yield, crop value, and net income in 2019 and 2020 trials. USD is United States dollars. Net income is crop value minus nematicide product cost, not including any labor or equipment costs. Within each subfigure, means with different letters are significantly different (P  <  0.05) based on Fisher’s protected LSD.
Nematicide effects on marketable yield, crop value, and net income in 2019 and 2020 trials. USD is United States dollars. Net income is crop value minus nematicide product cost, not including any labor or equipment costs. Within each subfigure, means with different letters are significantly different (P  <  0.05) based on Fisher’s protected LSD.

Nematicide treatments in 2018–2020 trials.

Treatment Active ingredient Product Total product broadcast rate a Total a.i. broadcast rate Timing/method

2018

1

Untreated control

2

1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D)

Telone II

140 liters/ha

166 kg/ha

Preplant shank fumigation

3

1,3-D

Telone II

140 liters/ha

166 kg/ha

Preplant shank fumigation

Fluopyram

Velum Prime

474 mL/ha

237 g/ha

Single chemigation 21 DAP

4

Fluopyram

Velum Prime

474 mL/ha

237 g/ha

Single chemigation at planting

5

Fluopyram

Velum Prime

474 mL/ha

237 g/ha

Chemigation (1) at planting and (2) 21 DAP

2019 and 2020

1

Untreated control

2

1,3-D

Telone II

140 liters/ha

166 kg/ha

Preplant shank fumigation

3

1,3-D

Telone II

140 liters/ha

166 kg/ha

Preplant shank fumigation

Fluopyram

Velum Prime

474 mL/ha

237 g/ha

Single chemigation at planting

4

Fluopyram

Velum Prime

474 mL/ha

237 g/ha

Single chemigation at planting

5

Oxamyl

Vydate L

3.10 liters/ha

750 g/ha

Chemigation (1) at planting and (2) 10-12 DAP

Schedule for data collection. Numbers in parentheses are days before transplanting (DBP) or days after transplanting (DAP).

Item 2018 2019 2020
Preplant soil samples

30 July (23 DBP)

30 July (44 DBP)

27 July (43 DBP)

Preplant M. incognita J2/100 cm3 soil

30

45

14

Soil fumigation

1 August (22 DBP)

30 July (44 DBP)

27 July (43 DBP)

Date planted

23 August

5 September

8 September

Tomato variety

Grand Marshall

BHN 602

BHN 602

Postplant fluopyam injection

13 September (21 DAP)

17 September (12 DAP)

18 September (10 DAP)

Harvest date(s)

9 November (78 DAP)

4 December (90 DAP)

2 December (87 DAP)

20 November (89 DAP)

29 November (98 DAP)

Soil sampling/root rating

29 November (98 DAP)

4 December (90 DAP)

3 December (88 DAP)

Tomato yield (Mg/ha) in different size categories as affected by nematicide treatments in 2019 and 2020.

Treatment Cull a Small b Medium Large Total

2019

Untreated control

4.3

4.2a

2.2

0.7

11.4b

1,3-D

6.6

7.0b

4.2

1.4

19.2a

1,3-D+Fluopyram

5.4

5.2ab

2.9

1.0

14.4ab

Fluopyram

4.6

3.7b

1.6

0.6

10.5b

Oxamyl

6.1

5.4ab

2.4

0.8

14.8ab

2020

Untreated control

11.6

15.1

12.2

6.1

45.0

1,3-D

12.3

15.0

12.9

8.2

48.4

1,3-D+Fluopyram

12.3

16.5

12.5

7.0

48.3

Fluopyram

12.7

16.1

11.5

5.9

46.2

Oxamyl

12.7

15.8

12.4

7.1

47.9
eISSN:
2640-396X
Sprache:
Englisch
Zeitrahmen der Veröffentlichung:
Volume Open
Fachgebiete der Zeitschrift:
Biologie, andere
Zeitschrift RSS Feed