Iniciar sesión
Registrarse
Restablecer contraseña
Publicar y Distribuir
Soluciones de Publicación
Soluciones de Distribución
Temas
Arquitectura y diseño
Artes
Ciencias Sociales
Ciencias de la Información y Bibliotecas, Estudios del Libro
Ciencias de la vida
Ciencias de los materiales
Deporte y tiempo libre
Estudios clásicos y del Cercano Oriente antiguo
Estudios culturales
Estudios judíos
Farmacia
Filosofía
Física
Geociencias
Historia
Informática
Ingeniería
Interés general
Ley
Lingüística y semiótica
Literatura
Matemáticas
Medicina
Música
Negocios y Economía
Química
Química industrial
Teología y religión
Publicaciones
Revistas
Libros
Actas
Editoriales
Blog
Contacto
Buscar
EUR
USD
GBP
Español
English
Deutsch
Polski
Español
Français
Italiano
Carrito
Home
Revistas
Journal of Nematology
Volumen 54 (2022): Edición 1 (February 2022)
Acceso abierto
Meloidogyne Haplanaria
: an Emerging Threat to Tomato Production in Florida
Lisbeth Espinoza-Lozano
Lisbeth Espinoza-Lozano
,
S. Joseph
S. Joseph
,
W. T. Crow
W. T. Crow
,
J. Noling
J. Noling
y
T. Mekete
T. Mekete
| 30 sept 2022
Journal of Nematology
Volumen 54 (2022): Edición 1 (February 2022)
Acerca de este artículo
Artículo anterior
Artículo siguiente
Resumen
Artículo
Figuras y tablas
Referencias
Autores
Artículos en este número
Vista previa
PDF
Cite
Compartir
Article Category:
Research paper
Publicado en línea:
30 sept 2022
Páginas:
-
Recibido:
10 ene 2022
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2478/jofnem-2022-0032
Palabras clave
interaction
,
gene
,
resistance
,
tomato
© 2022 Espinoza-Lozano et al. published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Figure 1
Regression of (A) total eggs and (B) egg masses on the initial population density of Meloidogyne haplanaria for tomato cultivars Rutgers (susceptible) and Sanibel (resistant), 60 days after inoculation with 0, 0.25, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, or 64 eggs and J2/g of soil under greenhouse conditions.
Figure 2
Regression of (A) GI and (B) eggs per gram of roots on the initial population density of Meloidogyne haplanaria for tomato cultivars Rutgers (susceptible) and Sanibel (resistant), 60 days after inoculation of 0, 0.25, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, or 64 eggs and J2/g of soil in greenhouse conditions. GI, gall index.
Figure 3
Regression of reproductive factor on the initial population density of Meloidogyne haplanaria for tomato cultivars Rutgers and Sanibel, 60 days after inoculation of 0, 0.25, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, or 64 eggs and J2/g of soil in greenhouse conditions.
Figure 4
Relationship between the initial population density (Pi) of Meloidogyne haplanaria and (A) shoot fresh weight, (B) shoot height (cm), and (C) root length on tomato cultivars “Rutgers” and “Sanibel”. Plants were harvested after 60 days, and each point in the graph represents a mean of 16 replications, and the line is the predicted function obtained when the data were fitted to the Seinhorst model. The parameters obtained for were (A) for Rutgers: Y = 64.65; m = 0.15; T = 7.9; and for Sanibel Y = 66.27; m = 0.83; T = 0.64, (B) for Rutgers: Y = 64.64; m = 0.14; T = 3.25; and for Sanibel Y = 66.27; m = 0.83; T = 3.14, (C) for Rutgers: Y = 24.02; m = 14.55; T = 0.9; and for Sanibel Y = 24.86; m = 13.74; T = 1.2.
Figure 5
Effects of temperature on (A) total number of eggs, (B) eggs per gram of root, (C) GI, and (D) total egg masses on tomato varieties Rutgers and Sanibel inoculated with Meloidogyne enterolobii (Me), M. haplanaria (Mh), or M. incognita (Mi) 40 days after inoculation in growth chambers maintained at 24°C, 28°C, and 32°C. Columns within the same cultivar and at the same temperature with common letters are not different (P ≤ 0.05) according to Tukey’s test. GI, gall index.
Figure 6
Effect of temperature on the total number of J2s/g of root observed within tomato roots of cultivars “Rutgers” and “Sanibel” 40 days after inoculation with (A) Meloidogyne enterolobii, (B) M. haplanaria or, and (C) M. incognita in a growth chamber maintained at 24°C, 28°C, and 32°C. Columns within the same cultivar with common letters are not different (P ≤ 0.05) according to Tukey’s test.
Figure 7
Effects of Meloidogyne enterolobii (Me), M. haplanaria (Mh), and M. incognita (Mi) on the number of (A) egg masses and (B) total eggs on the tomato cultivars “Amelia”, “Estamino”, “Maxifort”, “Monica”, “Rutgers”, and “Sanibel” 60 days after inoculation under greenhouse conditions. Columns within the same cultivar with common letters are not different (P ≤ 0.05) according to Tukey’s test.
Figure 8
Effect of Meloidogyne enterolobii (Me), M. haplanaria (Mh), and M. incognita (Mi) on the number of (A) GI and (B) eggs per gram of root in the tomato cultivars “Amelia”, “Estamino”, “Maxifort”, “Monica”, “Rutgers”, and “Sanibel” 60 days after under greenhouse conditions. Columns within the same cultivar with common letters are not different (P ≤ 0.05) according to Tukey’s test. GI, gall index.
Vista previa