Have a personal or library account? Click to login

Biological control of Meloidogyne spp. in glasshouse-grown chrysanthemum

Journal of Nematology
Volume 52 (2020): Issue 1 (January 2020)
By:
Open Access
|Jan 2021

Figures & Tables

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 squaresMean sum of squaresDf F-value (p-value)
Aboveground fresh weight11.60.524, 96111.1 (<0.001)
Aboveground dry weight12.70.524, 96210.2 (<0.001)
Belowground fresh weight18.91.024, 93713.3 (<0.001)
Belowground dry weight25.61.124, 82815.2 (<0.001)
Root-knot index59.32.524, 95210.9 (<0.001)
Total nematodes31.21.324, 931.9 (0.019)
Meloidogyne spp. (soil)18.40.824, 1002.2 (0.004)
Meloidogyne spp. (roots)57.02.424, 972.8 (<0.001)
Total plant-feeding nematodes37.91.624, 1002.7 (<0.001)
Bacterial-feeding nematodes33.21.424, 922.1 (0.008)
Fungal-feeding nematodes13.10.624, 932.4 (0.001)
Carnivore-omnivore nematodes1.30.124, 1002.1 (0.007)
Maturity index0.50.024, 952.1 (0.005)
Enrichment index1.00.024, 972.9 (<0.001)
Structure index53.42.324, 943.5 (<0.001)

Experimental treatments_

Treatment name (product name)ManufacturerActive ingredient(s)DescriptionApplication instructions
SterilizedNANASoil sterilized with an autoclave (1 hr, 70˚C)NA
ControlNANASoil infested with Meloidogyne spp.; untreatedNA
Oxamyl a (Vydate®)CortevaOxamylCommercial chemical nematicide0.04 g/liter soil/pot/plant; top layer
Garlic extract b Anonymous Allium sativa extractBiological nematicide0.04 g/liter soil/pot/plant; top layer
Chitosan HCl (DB Chitis 3.0)De BroersChitin hydrochlorideBasic substance50 ml/liter; 4 ml/plant
Microorganisms (Biovin)Plant Health CureMicroorganisms and micronutrientsBiostimulant/fertilizer40 g/10-liter soil; 1-liter soil/pot/plant
Plant oilsAnonymousPlant oilsBiostimulant4 ml/liter; 4 ml/plant
Sea minerals c AnonymousUnprocessed sea mineralsBiostimulant/fertilizer0.5 g/liter; 4 ml/plant; every 3 weeks
Plant extracts (Nemater)PirecoPlant extractsBiostimulant5 ml/liter; 5 ml/plant
Soldier fly waste (Flytilizer X)ProtixInsect skins, frass, food fibersBiostimulant2 g/liter soil/pot/plant
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/jofnem-2020-125 | Journal eISSN: 2640-396X | Journal ISSN: 0022-300X
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 1 - 12
Published on: Jan 9, 2021
Published by: Society of Nematologists, Inc.
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 times per year
Keywords:
Biological control,
Biostimulant,
Chrysanthemum,
Glasshouse,
Host-parasitic relationship,
Root-knot nematode,
Resistance,
Sustainable horticulture
Related subjects:
Life sciences,
Life sciences, other

© 2021 J. R. De Long, M. A. Streminska, A. Persijn, H. M. I. Huisman, C. van der Salm, 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