Evaluation of nematicides for Meloidogyne enterolobii management in sweetpotato
, , , , , , , e
24 ago 2024
INFORMAZIONI SU QUESTO ARTICOLO
Categoria dell'articolo: Research Paper
Pubblicato online: 24 ago 2024
Ricevuto: 19 mar 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jofnem-2024-0033
Parole chiave
© 2024 Jingwei Chen et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Figure 1:

Control efficiency of four kinds of nematicides on sweetpotatos infected by Meloidogyne enterolobii under greenhouse conditions_
Cyclobutrifluram | 78 ± 5.3 |
13 ± 0.8d | 69 ± 5.0d | 51 ± 1.5c |
Fluopyram | 50 ± 19.5b | 7 ± 2.7d | 64 ± 2.2d | 36 ± 9.6c |
Fluensulfone | 83 ± 0.0ab | 25 ± 1.6c | 157 ± 10.0c | 150 ± 11.0b |
Hymexazol | 100 ± 0.0a | 38 ± 2.4b | 238 ± 21.1b | 238 ± 20.7a |
Control | 100 ± 0.0a | 46 ± 4.2a | 313 ± 19.6a | 256 ± 26.4a |
Toxicity of Cyclobutrifluram, Fluopyram, Fluensulfone, Hymexazol to second stage juveniles of M_ enterolobii (48h)_
Cyclobutrifluram | 0.425+1.137X | 0.144 | 0.423 | 0.318~0.537 | 0.318 | 3.521 |
Fluopyram | 0.76+1.101X | 0.132 | 0.204 | 0.157~0.256 | 0.191 | 4.748 |
Fluensulfone | −1.408+1.044X | 0.189 | 22.335 | 17.393~28.908 | 0.351 | 3.273 |
Hymexazol | −3.664+1.569X | 0.152 | 216.622 | 182.532~259.864 | 0.989 | 0.123 |