Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Evaluation of fluopyram for the control of Ditylenchus dipsaci in sugar beet Cover

Evaluation of fluopyram for the control of Ditylenchus dipsaci in sugar beet

Journal of Nematology
Volume 52 (2020): Issue 1 (January 2020)
By: Alan Storelli,  Andreas Keiser,  Reinhard Eder,  Samuel Jenni and  Sebastian Kiewnick  
Open Access
|Jul 2020

Figures & Tables

Figure 1:

Dose-response curves for immotile Ditylenchus dipsaci (%) after 24, 48, 72, and 96 h exposure to concentrations of 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 30, and 50 µg a.i./ml of fluopyram. Recovery of motility was determined by rinsing the a.i. of nematodes from the 72 h treatment and after further incubation for 24 h in water (= 72 hr + rinsed).
Dose-response curves for immotile Ditylenchus dipsaci (%) after 24, 48, 72, and 96 h exposure to concentrations of 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 30, and 50 µg a.i./ml of fluopyram. Recovery of motility was determined by rinsing the a.i. of nematodes from the 72 h treatment and after further incubation for 24 h in water (= 72 hr + rinsed).

Figure 2:

Effect of different fluopyram concentrations (0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 5.0, 10.0 µg/ml) applied either at planting or at BBCH 10 (cotyledons horizontally unfolded) on the number of Ditylenchus dipsaci per seedling (BBCH 11, first pair of leaves visible - not yet unfolded) seven days post-inoculation. Different letters over bars indicate significant differences at α =0 .05, according to the Tukey multiple comparisons of means.
Effect of different fluopyram concentrations (0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 5.0, 10.0 µg/ml) applied either at planting or at BBCH 10 (cotyledons horizontally unfolded) on the number of Ditylenchus dipsaci per seedling (BBCH 11, first pair of leaves visible - not yet unfolded) seven days post-inoculation. Different letters over bars indicate significant differences at α =0 .05, according to the Tukey multiple comparisons of means.

Figure 3:

Effect of fluopyram applied in-furrow at planting at 250 g a.i./ha, or in-band at BBCH 12 (two leaves unfolded) at either 125 or 250 g a.i./ha in the 2016 field trials at Bargen and Kappelen on the number of Ditylenchus dipsaci per plant 62 days post-planting. Different letters over bars indicate significant differences at α = 0.05 according to the Tukey multiple comparisons of means (n = 4). Field locations were not compared to each other.
Effect of fluopyram applied in-furrow at planting at 250 g a.i./ha, or in-band at BBCH 12 (two leaves unfolded) at either 125 or 250 g a.i./ha in the 2016 field trials at Bargen and Kappelen on the number of Ditylenchus dipsaci per plant 62 days post-planting. Different letters over bars indicate significant differences at α = 0.05 according to the Tukey multiple comparisons of means (n = 4). Field locations were not compared to each other.

Figure 4:

Effect of fluopyram applied in-furrow at planting at 250 g a.i./ha, or in-band at BBCH 12 (two leaves unfolded) at either 125 or 250 g a.i./ha in the 2016 field trials at Bargen and Kappelen on the rotting severity of the sugar beet root. Rotting index: 0 = no rot visible; 1 = ≤ 10% of rotten root; 2 = 11 to 33% of rotten root; 3 = 34 to 66% of rotten root; 4 = ≥ 67% of rotten root based on total root volume. Different letters over bars within a location indicate significant differences at α = 0.05 according to the Tukey multiple comparisons of means (n = 4). Field locations were not compared to each other.
Effect of fluopyram applied in-furrow at planting at 250 g a.i./ha, or in-band at BBCH 12 (two leaves unfolded) at either 125 or 250 g a.i./ha in the 2016 field trials at Bargen and Kappelen on the rotting severity of the sugar beet root. Rotting index: 0 = no rot visible; 1 = ≤ 10% of rotten root; 2 = 11 to 33% of rotten root; 3 = 34 to 66% of rotten root; 4 = ≥ 67% of rotten root based on total root volume. Different letters over bars within a location indicate significant differences at α = 0.05 according to the Tukey multiple comparisons of means (n = 4). Field locations were not compared to each other.

Effect of fluopyram applied in-furrow at planting at 250 g a_i_/ha, or in-band at BBCH 12 (two leaves unfolded) at either 125 or 250 g a_i_/ha in the 2016 field trials at Bargen and Kappelen on the number of Ditylenchus dipsaci (± SE) per plant 27 days post-planting and 1 day before the post-planting application (BBCH 12) compared to untreated plants_

Treatment/siteBargenKappelen
Untreated control4.4 ± 3.728.8 ± 11.3
125 g a.i./ha BBCH 124.6 ± 2.122.0 ± 6.8
250 g a.i./ha BBCH 124.4 ± 3.529.0 ± 9.9
250 g a.i./ha at planting1.0 ± 0.21.8 ± 1.7a**
ns

Estimated parameters for non-linear regression of the parameter inactive Ditylenchus dipsaci at different fluopyram exposure times (y) and concentrations (± SE)_

Parameter
Exposure time (y) b EC50 (µg/ml)a c d
24 h−1.17 ± 0.6546.73 ± 88.193.54 ± 3.19108.50 ± 119.46
48 h−1.68 ± 0.689.32 ± 2.275.11 ±  4.7096.03 ± 12.80
72 h−2.43 ± 0.483.98 ± 0.337.62 ± 3.52101.52 ± 4.01
96 h−2.27 ± 0.342.02 ± 0.165.56 ± 3.73101.68 ± 3.23
72 h + rinsed−2.11 ± 0.273.00 ± 0.224.98 ± 2.96101.96 ± 3.53

Effect of fluopyram applied at-planting or at BBCH 12 (two leaves unfolded) at concentrations of 0_0, 0_5, 1_0, and 5_0 µg/ml on the number of Ditylenchus dipsaci (± SE) per sugar beet plant 50 days post-planting in the glasshouse_

Fluopyram application
Fluopyram concentration (a.i.)at plantingBBCH 12
0.0 (µg/ml)27,681 ± 34,20812,344 ± 18,727
0.5 (µg/ml)16,782 ± 28,52113,750 ± 22,242
1.0 (µg/ml)23,901 ± 37,0668,596 ± 7,637
5.0 (µg/ml)20,315 ± 22,76514,126 ± 22,566
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/jofnem-2020-071 | Journal eISSN: 2640-396X | Journal ISSN: 0022-300X
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 1 - 10
Published on: Jul 28, 2020
Published by: Society of Nematologists, Inc.
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
Fluopyram,
Management,
Nematicide,
Nematode control,
Plant-parasitic nematode,
Sugar beet
Related subjects:
Life sciences,
Life sciences, other

© 2020 Alan Storelli, Andreas Keiser, Reinhard Eder, Samuel Jenni, Sebastian Kiewnick, published by Society of Nematologists, Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 52 (2020): Issue 1 (January 2020)Next article