Have a personal or library account? Click to login

Reduced Sensitivity to Fluopyram in Meloidogyne graminis following Long-Term Exposure in Golf Turf

Journal of Nematology
Volume 55 (2023): Issue 1 (February 2023)
By:
Open Access
|Nov 2023

Figures & Tables

Figure 1:

AMS sediment sampler slide hammer (AMS, Idaho) used to collect soil cores used in the enhanced degradation experiment. Shown with cylindrical plastic liners and the steel sampler which threads to the end of the hammer.
AMS sediment sampler slide hammer (AMS, Idaho) used to collect soil cores used in the enhanced degradation experiment. Shown with cylindrical plastic liners and the steel sampler which threads to the end of the hammer.

Figure 2:

Custom-made 15.2-cm-diam. PVC tubes which housed soil cores prior to the planting of a tomato plant and inoculation with Meloidogyne spp. eggs.
Custom-made 15.2-cm-diam. PVC tubes which housed soil cores prior to the planting of a tomato plant and inoculation with Meloidogyne spp. eggs.

Figure 3:

Response of Meloidogyne incognita galls on tomato roots to increasing rates of fluopyram 30, 60, and 180 days after fluopyram application to soil collected from small plots with different previous fluopyram application histories in the first repetition (A) and second repetition (B) of the enhanced degradation bioassay experiment. Treatment refers to the fluopyram history of the plots: Treatment A had a four year history and B had a one year history of four applications of 500 g fluopyram/ha per year. U had no previous fluopyram history. *,**Different from treatment U at the specified fluopyram rate P ≤ 0.10, P ≤ 0.05, respectively.
Response of Meloidogyne incognita galls on tomato roots to increasing rates of fluopyram 30, 60, and 180 days after fluopyram application to soil collected from small plots with different previous fluopyram application histories in the first repetition (A) and second repetition (B) of the enhanced degradation bioassay experiment. Treatment refers to the fluopyram history of the plots: Treatment A had a four year history and B had a one year history of four applications of 500 g fluopyram/ha per year. U had no previous fluopyram history. *,**Different from treatment U at the specified fluopyram rate P ≤ 0.10, P ≤ 0.05, respectively.

Figure 4:

Response of Meloidogyne enterolobii galls on tomato roots to increasing rates of fluopyram 30, 60, and 180 days after fluopyram application to soil with different previous fluopyram application histories collected from commercial turf fields in the enhanced degradation bioassay experiment. *,**Different from no history at the specified fluopyram rate P ≤ 0.10, P ≤ 0.05, respectively.
Response of Meloidogyne enterolobii galls on tomato roots to increasing rates of fluopyram 30, 60, and 180 days after fluopyram application to soil with different previous fluopyram application histories collected from commercial turf fields in the enhanced degradation bioassay experiment. *,**Different from no history at the specified fluopyram rate P ≤ 0.10, P ≤ 0.05, respectively.

Figure 5:

Effects of 24 hours and 72 hours of in-vitro exposure to fluopyram concentrations rate of 8 ppm and 16 ppm on motility of Meloidogyne graminis J2 from small plots with different fluopyram use histories (A) first repetition (B) second repetition. Treatment refers to the fluopyram history of the plots: Treatment A had a four year history and B had a one year history of four applications of 500 g fluopyram/ha per year, U had no previous fluopyram history. *,**Different from treatment U at the specified fluopyram rate P ≤ 0.10, P ≤ 0.05.
Effects of 24 hours and 72 hours of in-vitro exposure to fluopyram concentrations rate of 8 ppm and 16 ppm on motility of Meloidogyne graminis J2 from small plots with different fluopyram use histories (A) first repetition (B) second repetition. Treatment refers to the fluopyram history of the plots: Treatment A had a four year history and B had a one year history of four applications of 500 g fluopyram/ha per year, U had no previous fluopyram history. *,**Different from treatment U at the specified fluopyram rate P ≤ 0.10, P ≤ 0.05.

Figure 6:

Effects of 24 hours and 72 hours of in-vitro exposure to fluopyram concentrations rate of 8 ppm and 16 ppm on motility of Meloidogyne graminis J2 from commercial turf fields that either applied fluopyram often or that never used fluopyram. “Yes” indicates history of fluopyram use and “no” indicates no history of fluopyram use. *,**Different from no history at the specified fluopyram rate P ≤ 0.10, P ≤ 0.05, respectively.
Effects of 24 hours and 72 hours of in-vitro exposure to fluopyram concentrations rate of 8 ppm and 16 ppm on motility of Meloidogyne graminis J2 from commercial turf fields that either applied fluopyram often or that never used fluopyram. “Yes” indicates history of fluopyram use and “no” indicates no history of fluopyram use. *,**Different from no history at the specified fluopyram rate P ≤ 0.10, P ≤ 0.05, respectively.

Figure 7:

Effects of 24 hours and 72 hours of in-vitro exposure to fluopyram concentrations rate of 8 ppm and 16 ppm on motility of Meloidogyne graminis J2 from either commercial turf fields that had applied fluopyram often or from an unexposed greenhouse population. “Yes” indicates history of fluopyram use and “no” indicates no history of fluopyram use. *,**Different from no history at the specified fluopyram rate P ≤ 0.10, P ≤ 0.05, respectively.
Effects of 24 hours and 72 hours of in-vitro exposure to fluopyram concentrations rate of 8 ppm and 16 ppm on motility of Meloidogyne graminis J2 from either commercial turf fields that had applied fluopyram often or from an unexposed greenhouse population. “Yes” indicates history of fluopyram use and “no” indicates no history of fluopyram use. *,**Different from no history at the specified fluopyram rate P ≤ 0.10, P ≤ 0.05, respectively.

Response of Meloidogyne enterolobii galls on tomato transplanted 30, 60, or 180 days after application (DAA) of fluopyram treatments at rates of 0, 250, 500, and 1000 g/ha (Rate) to soil collected from commercial turf fields with different histories of fluopyram use (History)_ Data were subjected to analysis of variance; predictor variables were Rate and History_

Predictor Variable30 DAA60 DAA180 DAA
Rate0.131a0.0330.820
History0.1460.0020.278
Rate×History0.8930.0060.603

Response of Meloidogyne incognita galls and egg masses on tomato transplanted 30, 60, or 180 days after application (DAA) of fluopyram treatments at rates of 0, 250, 500, and 1000 g/ha (Rate) to soil collected from small plots with different histories of fluopyram use (History)_ Data were subjected to analysis of variance, predictor variables were Rate and History_

Predictor Variable30 DAA60 DAA180 DAA
Repetition 1
Rate0.202a0.6120.065
History< 0.00010.0020.04
Rate×History0.0620.9080.65
Repetition 2
Rate0.0310.4870.032
History0.8170.6120.143
Rate×History0.0320.0860.387
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jofnem-2023-0048 | Journal eISSN: 2640-396X | Journal ISSN: 0022-300X
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Submitted on: Feb 16, 2023
Published on: Nov 15, 2023
Published by: Society of Nematologists, Inc.
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
Management,
nematicide,
nematode,
resistance,
turfgrass
Related subjects:
Life sciences,
Life sciences, other

© 2023 Christian L. Kammerer, Philip F. Harmon, William T. Crow, published by Society of Nematologists, Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 55 (2023): Issue 1 (February 2023)Next article