Otwarty dostęp

Biological control of Meloidogyne spp. in glasshouse-grown chrysanthemum

J. R. De Long
J. R. De Long
, 
M. A. Streminska
M. A. Streminska
, 
A. Persijn
A. Persijn
, 
H. M. I. Huisman
H. M. I. Huisman
 oraz 
C. van der Salm
C. van der Salm
   | 09 sty 2021
Journal of Nematology's Cover Image
O artykule
Poprzedni artykuł
Następny artykuł
Zacytuj
Data publikacji: 09 sty 2021
Zakres stron: 1 - 12
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/jofnem-2020-125
Słowa kluczowe
© 2021 J. R. De Long et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Figure 1:

Aboveground fresh (A) and dry (B) and belowground fresh (C) and dry (D) weight of the chrysanthemums exposed to the different treatments at the end of the experiment. Within each panel, bars with different letters differ statistically significantly from one another (Tukey’s HSD p ≤ 0.05). Data shown are means ± SE.
Aboveground fresh (A) and dry (B) and belowground fresh (C) and dry (D) weight of the chrysanthemums exposed to the different treatments at the end of the experiment. Within each panel, bars with different letters differ statistically significantly from one another (Tukey’s HSD p ≤ 0.05). Data shown are means ± SE.

Figure 2:

The root-knot index show the amount of damage caused by root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.) in the chrysanthemum roots: 0=no root-knots, 10=root entirely covered in knots and plant is dead or dying (A). Total nematodes (B) and Meloidogyne spp. in the ground (C) and Meloidogyne spp. extracted from the roots (D) of the chrysanthemums at the end of the experiment. Within each panel, bars with different letters differ statistically significantly from one another (Tukey’s HSD p ≤ 0.05); no letters indicate no statistically significant differences were detected. Data shown are means ± SE.
The root-knot index show the amount of damage caused by root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.) in the chrysanthemum roots: 0=no root-knots, 10=root entirely covered in knots and plant is dead or dying (A). Total nematodes (B) and Meloidogyne spp. in the ground (C) and Meloidogyne spp. extracted from the roots (D) of the chrysanthemums at the end of the experiment. Within each panel, bars with different letters differ statistically significantly from one another (Tukey’s HSD p ≤ 0.05); no letters indicate no statistically significant differences were detected. Data shown are means ± SE.

Figure 3:

Total plant-feeding (A), bacterial-feeding (B), fungal-feeding (C) and carnivore-omnivore (D) nematodes that were extracted from soils of the chrysanthemums at the end of the experiment. Within each panel, bars with different letters differ statistically significantly from one another (Tukey’s HSD p ≤ 0.05). Data shown are means ± SE.
Total plant-feeding (A), bacterial-feeding (B), fungal-feeding (C) and carnivore-omnivore (D) nematodes that were extracted from soils of the chrysanthemums at the end of the experiment. Within each panel, bars with different letters differ statistically significantly from one another (Tukey’s HSD p ≤ 0.05). Data shown are means ± SE.

Figure 4:

Effect of the treatments on the nematode Maturity Index (A) and the Colonizer-persister Triangle (B). Data shown are means ± SE.
Effect of the treatments on the nematode Maturity Index (A) and the Colonizer-persister Triangle (B). Data shown are means ± SE.

Figure 5:

Effect of the treatments on the nematode Enrichment Index (A), Structure Index (B) and the food web analysis (including interpretation scheme inset) (C). Within A) and B), bars with different letters differ statistically significantly from one another (Tukey’s HSD p ≤ 0.05). Data shown are means ± SE.
Effect of the treatments on the nematode Enrichment Index (A), Structure Index (B) and the food web analysis (including interpretation scheme inset) (C). Within A) and B), bars with different letters differ statistically significantly from one another (Tukey’s HSD p ≤ 0.05). Data shown are means ± SE.

Results of statistical analyses.

Response variable Sum of squares Mean sum of squares Df F-value (p-value)
Aboveground fresh weight 11.6 0.5 24, 961 11.1 (<0.001)
Aboveground dry weight 12.7 0.5 24, 962 10.2 (<0.001)
Belowground fresh weight 18.9 1.0 24, 937 13.3 (<0.001)
Belowground dry weight 25.6 1.1 24, 828 15.2 (<0.001)
Root-knot index 59.3 2.5 24, 952 10.9 (<0.001)
Total nematodes 31.2 1.3 24, 93 1.9 (0.019)
Meloidogyne spp. (soil) 18.4 0.8 24, 100 2.2 (0.004)
Meloidogyne spp. (roots) 57.0 2.4 24, 97 2.8 (<0.001)
Total plant-feeding nematodes 37.9 1.6 24, 100 2.7 (<0.001)
Bacterial-feeding nematodes 33.2 1.4 24, 92 2.1 (0.008)
Fungal-feeding nematodes 13.1 0.6 24, 93 2.4 (0.001)
Carnivore-omnivore nematodes 1.3 0.1 24, 100 2.1 (0.007)
Maturity index 0.5 0.0 24, 95 2.1 (0.005)
Enrichment index 1.0 0.0 24, 97 2.9 (<0.001)
Structure index 53.4 2.3 24, 94 3.5 (<0.001)

Experimental treatments.

Treatment name (product name) Manufacturer Active ingredient(s) Description Application instructions
Sterilized NA NA Soil sterilized with an autoclave (1 hr, 70˚C) NA
Control NA NA Soil infested with Meloidogyne spp.; untreated NA
Oxamyl a (Vydate®) Corteva Oxamyl Commercial chemical nematicide 0.04 g/liter soil/pot/plant; top layer
Garlic extract b Anonymous Allium sativa extract Biological nematicide 0.04 g/liter soil/pot/plant; top layer
Chitosan HCl (DB Chitis 3.0) De Broers Chitin hydrochloride Basic substance 50 ml/liter; 4 ml/plant
Microorganisms (Biovin) Plant Health Cure Microorganisms and micronutrients Biostimulant/fertilizer 40 g/10-liter soil; 1-liter soil/pot/plant
Plant oils Anonymous Plant oils Biostimulant 4 ml/liter; 4 ml/plant
Sea minerals c Anonymous Unprocessed sea minerals Biostimulant/fertilizer 0.5 g/liter; 4 ml/plant; every 3 weeks
Plant extracts (Nemater) Pireco Plant extracts Biostimulant 5 ml/liter; 5 ml/plant
Soldier fly waste (Flytilizer X) Protix Insect skins, frass, food fibers Biostimulant 2 g/liter soil/pot/plant
eISSN:
2640-396X
Język:
Angielski
Częstotliwość wydawania:
Volume Open
Dziedziny czasopisma:
Life Sciences, other
Kanał RSS czasopisma