Accesso libero

Meloidogyne Haplanaria: an Emerging Threat to Tomato Production in Florida

Lisbeth Espinoza-Lozano

Lisbeth Espinoza-Lozano

Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral, ESPOL, Facultad de Ciencias de la Vida Campus Gustavo Galindo KmGuayaquil, Ecuador
Cerca questo autore su
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Espinoza-Lozano, Lisbeth
, 
S. Joseph

S. Joseph

Entomology and Nematology Department, University of FloridaGainesville, US
Cerca questo autore su
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Joseph, S.
, 
W. T. Crow

W. T. Crow

Entomology and Nematology Department, University of FloridaGainesville, US
Cerca questo autore su
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Crow, W. T.
, 
J. Noling

J. Noling

Citrus Research and Educational Center, University of FloridaLake Alfred, US
Cerca questo autore su
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Noling, J.
 e 
T. Mekete

T. Mekete

Entomology and Nematology Department, University of FloridaGainesville, US
Cerca questo autore su
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Mekete, T.
  
30 set 2022
Meloidogyne Haplanaria: an Emerging Threat to Tomato Production in Florida's Cover Image
INFORMAZIONI SU QUESTO ARTICOLO
Articolo precedente
Articolo Successivo
Cita
Scarica la copertina
Categoria dell'articolo: Research paper
Pubblicato online: 30 set 2022
Ricevuto: 10 gen 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jofnem-2022-0032
Parole chiave
© 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lingua:
Inglese
Frequenza di pubblicazione:
1 volte all'anno
Argomenti della rivista:
Scienze biologiche, Scienze della vita, altro
Feed RSS della rivista