Have a personal or library account? Click to login

Mixtures of fluopyram and abamectin for management of Meloidogyne incognita in tomato

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

Figures & Tables

Figure 1:

Experiments design of the pot and field trials.
Experiments design of the pot and field trials.

Figure 2:

Control efficacy of the different treatments based on the number of M. incognita in pot trials. DAT was days after transplanting. Data are expressed as the mean ± SE. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05). The abbreviations of the capital letters were the same as those in Table 2.
Control efficacy of the different treatments based on the number of M. incognita in pot trials. DAT was days after transplanting. Data are expressed as the mean ± SE. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05). The abbreviations of the capital letters were the same as those in Table 2.

Figure 3:

Control efficacy of the different treatments based on the root-galling index in pot trials (60 DAT). Data are expressed as the mean ± SE. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05). The abbreviations of the capital letters were the same as those in Table 2.
Control efficacy of the different treatments based on the root-galling index in pot trials (60 DAT). Data are expressed as the mean ± SE. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05). The abbreviations of the capital letters were the same as those in Table 2.

Figure 4:

Root activity of tomato in the different treatments in pot trials. Data are expressed as the mean ± SE. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05). The abbreviations of the capital letters were the same as those in Table 2.
Root activity of tomato in the different treatments in pot trials. Data are expressed as the mean ± SE. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05). The abbreviations of the capital letters were the same as those in Table 2.

Figure 5:

Control efficacy of the different treatments on the root-galling index in field trials (at the end of tomato production, LW 2018 and DY 2019). LW and DY were the area of Laiwu in Jinan City and Daiyue in Tai’an City, Shandong Province, China. Data are expressed as the mean ± SE. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05). The abbreviations of the capital letters were the same as those in Table 3.
Control efficacy of the different treatments on the root-galling index in field trials (at the end of tomato production, LW 2018 and DY 2019). LW and DY were the area of Laiwu in Jinan City and Daiyue in Tai’an City, Shandong Province, China. Data are expressed as the mean ± SE. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05). The abbreviations of the capital letters were the same as those in Table 3.

Figure 6:

Yield of the different treatments in field trials (LW 2018 and DY 2019). LW and DY were the area of Laiwu in Jinan City and Daiyue in Tai’an City, Shandong Province, China. Data are expressed as the mean ± SE. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05). The abbreviations of the capital letters were the same as those in Table 3.
Yield of the different treatments in field trials (LW 2018 and DY 2019). LW and DY were the area of Laiwu in Jinan City and Daiyue in Tai’an City, Shandong Province, China. Data are expressed as the mean ± SE. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05). The abbreviations of the capital letters were the same as those in Table 3.

Effects of the different treatments on the physiological growth indicators of tomato in pot trials (60 DAT)_

Growth rate (%)
CodePlant heightStem diameterFresh root weightFresh shoot weightRoot length
F17.44  ±  5.23 ab9.84  ±  3.24 ab28.71  ±  9.09 ab29.51  ±  10.29 a15.51 ± 6.38 a
A10.62 ± 6.26 ab3.48 ± 9.68 b22.30 ± 4.90 b14.34 ± 8.82 abc11.23 ± 1.91 a
FA18.66 ± 4.35 b2.50 ± 6.63 b7.93 ± 1.77 c8.83 ± 8.39 c5.62 ± 5.11 a
FA213.51 ± 7.34 ab6.71 ± 3.36 ab27.57 ± 9.01 ab24.14 ± 13.95 ab15.51 ± 1.59 a
FA320.84 ± 4.71 a14.89 ± 6.73 a40.30 ± 4.34 a29.78 ± 2.56 a21.57 ± 8.34 a
Ctrl–––––

Toxicities of fluopyram and abamectin against second-stage juveniles (J2) of Meloidogyne incognita (48 h)_

PesticidesMass ratio of active ingredientSlope ± SELC50 (mg/L)95% Confidence limits (mg/L) r p χ 2 CTC
Fluopyram–1.43 ± 0.222.531.41–4.520.960.0082120.28–
Abamectin–1.56 ± 0.141.621.34–1.950.980.001749.69–
Fluopyram:Abamectin1:11.65 ± 0.260.990.71–1.400.960.0084139.20198
1:32.04 ± 0.400.780.50–1.240.950.015092.22227
1:51.29 ± 0.290.640.37–1.120.930.0212321.94268
3:11.89 ± 0.181.991.64–2.420.980.002179.68111
5:11.81 ± 0.223.162.42–4.110.980.0038100.3673

Control efficacy of the different treatments based on the number of Meloidogyne incognita in field soil_

Control efficacy (%)
Site/yearCodeInitial no. of nematodes (nematodes/100 g soil)30 DAT60 DAT
LW/2018F1780.88 ± 203.11 a29.52 ± 1.60 b37.31 ± 7.09 b
A1439.19 ± 201.26 a15.43 ± 3.76 c29.77 ± 1.73 b
FA11520.80 ± 573.47 a12.86 ± 3.04 c17.75 ± 4.75 c
FA21441.61 ± 124.94 a35.12 ± 1.89 b53.19 ± 1.75 a
FA31658.66 ± 277.33 a53.04 ± 5.27 a58.13 ± 3.75 a
Ctrl1638.89 ± 411.11 a––
DY/2019F1288.33 ± 223.45 a31.50 ± 1.80 b38.67 ± 3.79 b
A1457.41 ± 159.75 a14.67 ± 2.51 c30.67 ± 2.52 b
FA11523.16 ± 188.47 a15.70 ± 2.25 c22.46 ± 3.50 c
FA21287.33 ± 182.67 a38.33 ± 2.30 b52.53 ± 4.10 a
FA31461.12 ± 160.25 a57.50 ± 3.61 a59.73 ± 1.60 a
Ctrl1314.16 ± 110.32 a––
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/jofnem-2020-129 | Journal eISSN: 2640-396X | Journal ISSN: 0022-300X
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 1 - 11
Published on: Jan 13, 2021
Published by: Society of Nematologists, Inc.
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 times per year
Keywords:
Abamectin,
Control efficacy,
Fluopyram,
Root-galling index,
Root-knot nematode
Related subjects:
Life sciences,
Life sciences, other

© 2021 Qing-Qing Li, Jing-Jing Li, Qi-Tong Yu, Ze-Yu Shang, Chao-Bin Xue, 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