Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Waitea circinata: a novel biocontrol agent against Meloidogyne enterolobii on tomato plants Cover

Waitea circinata: a novel biocontrol agent against Meloidogyne enterolobii on tomato plants

Journal of Nematology
Volume 57 (2025): Issue 1 (February 2025)
By:
Open Access
|Mar 2025

Figures & Tables

Figure 1:

Regression analysis for the effect of W. circinata dosages on M.enterolobii nematological variables in tomato plants in experiments 1 and 2. A–C) Polynomial regression curves fitted to the means of the final population (FP), density (DENS) and reproduction factor (RF). The data were obtained 35 DAT, and experiments 1 and 2 occurred independently between December 2022 and April 2023.
Regression analysis for the effect of W. circinata dosages on M.enterolobii nematological variables in tomato plants in experiments 1 and 2. A–C) Polynomial regression curves fitted to the means of the final population (FP), density (DENS) and reproduction factor (RF). The data were obtained 35 DAT, and experiments 1 and 2 occurred independently between December 2022 and April 2023.

Figure 2:

Peroxidase, catalase, and chitinase enzymatic activity analyzed in tomato leaves under different treatments. Negative control (Water), inoculation of 2000 J2 + M.enterolobii eggs (Me), irrigation with W. circinata mycelial suspension 15 g.L−1 (Wc), and treatment with inoculation of 2000 J2 + M.enterolobii eggs and watering of W. circinata mycelial suspension 15 g.L−1 (Wc+Me). Means followed by the same letters in columns were not significantly different according to the Tukey test (p < 0.05). Bars indicate the standard error of the mean. A) For POX, T-test revealed a significant difference between enzyme activity between Water (M = 0.190; SD = 0.26) and Wc (M = 0.533; SD = 0.065) on the third day; t(4) = −8.394, p = 0.001. B) For CAT, the T-test revealed a significant difference between enzyme activity between Water (M = 61.52; SD = 7.69) and Wc (M = 130.74; SD = 15.38) on the third day; t(4) = −6.971, p = 0.002. The T-test revealed a significant difference between enzyme activity between Water (M = 73.06; SD = 3.84) and Wc (M = 28.20; SD = 4.44) on the fifth day; t(4) = 13.229, p = 0.000. C) For CHI, the T-test revealed a significant difference between enzyme activity between Water (M = 63.01; SD = 3.11) and Wc (M = 50.39; SD = 1.51) on the third day; t(4) = 6.314, p = 0.003. The T-test revealed a significant difference between enzyme activity (M = 36.15; SD =1.04) and Wc (M = 29.21.74; SD = 3.914) on the fifth day; t(4) = 2.970, p = 0.041.
Peroxidase, catalase, and chitinase enzymatic activity analyzed in tomato leaves under different treatments. Negative control (Water), inoculation of 2000 J2 + M.enterolobii eggs (Me), irrigation with W. circinata mycelial suspension 15 g.L−1 (Wc), and treatment with inoculation of 2000 J2 + M.enterolobii eggs and watering of W. circinata mycelial suspension 15 g.L−1 (Wc+Me). Means followed by the same letters in columns were not significantly different according to the Tukey test (p < 0.05). Bars indicate the standard error of the mean. A) For POX, T-test revealed a significant difference between enzyme activity between Water (M = 0.190; SD = 0.26) and Wc (M = 0.533; SD = 0.065) on the third day; t(4) = −8.394, p = 0.001. B) For CAT, the T-test revealed a significant difference between enzyme activity between Water (M = 61.52; SD = 7.69) and Wc (M = 130.74; SD = 15.38) on the third day; t(4) = −6.971, p = 0.002. The T-test revealed a significant difference between enzyme activity between Water (M = 73.06; SD = 3.84) and Wc (M = 28.20; SD = 4.44) on the fifth day; t(4) = 13.229, p = 0.000. C) For CHI, the T-test revealed a significant difference between enzyme activity between Water (M = 63.01; SD = 3.11) and Wc (M = 50.39; SD = 1.51) on the third day; t(4) = 6.314, p = 0.003. The T-test revealed a significant difference between enzyme activity (M = 36.15; SD =1.04) and Wc (M = 29.21.74; SD = 3.914) on the fifth day; t(4) = 2.970, p = 0.041.

Figure 3:

PCA plot of individuals with confidence ellipses around treatment categories and their contribution to Principal Components.
PCA plot of individuals with confidence ellipses around treatment categories and their contribution to Principal Components.

Figure 4:

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plot of enzymatic activities and collection day and their contribution to Principal Components.
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plot of enzymatic activities and collection day and their contribution to Principal Components.

ANOVA summary for the polynomial regression model of nematological traits based on mycorrhiza mycelial suspension_

dfSSMSFSignificance F
Experiment 1PFaRegression2666569.667333284.83425.486*0.013
Residual339231.77813077.259
Total5705801.446
DENSaRegression2223.023111.51226.146*0.013
Residual312.7954.265
Total5235.818
FRaRegression20.1660.08325.698*0.013
Residual30.0100.003
Total50.176
Experiment 2PFaRegression2686036.548343018.274833.725*0.000
Residual31234.286411.429
Total5687270.833
DENSaRegression2611.832305.91665.484*0.003
Residual314.0154.672
Total5625.847
FRaRegression20.1710.085888.455*0.000
Residual30.0000.000
Total50.171

Vegetative and nematological traits of the first and second trials, differentiating the application methods of W_ circinata against M_ enterolobii in the Santa Cruz Kada tomato cultivar_

ImmersionDrench
ExperimentTraitaMean±SDMean±SDFp-value
1SL (cm)110.69 ± 20.01107.58 ± 15.811.303b0.257b
RFW(g)40.46 ± 10.1862.26 ± 11.6980.338<0.001*
SFW(g)119.18 ± 29.73113.88 ± 19.290.9290.338
FP1150.00 ± 677.241555.95 ± 1187.651.641b0.208b
DENS29.90 ± 18.0926.06 ± 20.632.468b0.120b
RF0.57 ± 0.330.78 ± 0.591.575b0.213b
2SL (cm)90.33 ± 10.11114.10 ± 8.03100.229b<0.001*b
RFW(g)29.81 ± 5.7735.90 ± 7.0113.596<0.001*
SFW(g)91.96 ± 15.30112.38 ± 7.6753.982b<0.001*b
FP2443.33 ± 797.272248.33 ± 784.380.9390.337
DENS92.00 ± 26.3768.72 ± 23.0514.793<0.001*
RF1.22 ± 0.391.12 ± 0.390.9250.341

Analysis of variance of vegetative and nematological variables from tomato plants inoculated with M_enterolobii and treated with six concentrations of W_circinata, applied as immersion or drench (Experiments 1 and 2)_

Variation SourceDependent VariablesaTrial 1
Trial 2
Fp-valueFp-value
Application MethodSL(cm)1.303b0.257b100.229b<0.001*b
RFW(g)80.338<0.001*13.596<0.001*
SFW(g)0.9290.33853.982b<0.001*b
FP1.641b0.208b0.9390.337
DENS2.468b0.120b14.793<0.001*
RF1.575b0.213b0.9250.341
DosageSL(cm)0.636b0.673b1.110b0.368b
RFW(g)0.1510.9790.1660.973
SFW(g)0.9060.4821.318b0.272b
FP2.957b0.017*b2.2630.063
DENS2.355b0.048*b2.2780.061
RF2.949b0.017*b2.2560.063
Method * DosageSL(cm)0.524b0.757b0.712b0.617b
RFW(g)1.3170.2661.9300.106
SFW(g)0.9600.4481.962b0.101b
FP0.507b0.769b0.1380.982
DENS0.506b0.770b1.0780.384
RF0.510b0.767b0.0810.994

Vegetative and nematological traits of the first and second trials, differentiating the dosages of W_ circinata against M_ enterolobii in the Santa Cruz Kada tomato cultivar_

Control (Water)5 g.L−110 g.L−115 g.L−120 g.L−125 g.L−1
ExperimentTraitaMean±SDMean±SDMean±SDMean±SDMean±SDMean±SDFp-value
1SL (cm)101.83 ± 18.79111.92 ± 13.39108.64 ± 23.33107.28 ± 23.35112.92 ± 13.74112.21 ± 12.680.636b0.673b
RFW(g)51.31 ± 11.1652.84 ± 19.3652.20 ± 17.3550.33 ± 15.5051.74 ± 18.1149.75 ± 12.220.1510.979
SFW(g)110.77 ± 21.76120.73 ± 20.72117.25 ± 28.44110.7 ± 27.76112.88 ± 28.34126.85 ± 22.370.9060.482
FP2053.57 ± 1095.701285.71 ± 644.331171.42 ± 920.43967.85 ± 825.46*1203.57 ± 974.371435.71 ± 1143.442.957b0.017*b
DENS40.59 ± 18.4127.95 ± 17.3726.13 ± 24.5120.23 ± 16.33*24.38 ± 16.2628.60 ± 19.312.355b0.048*b
RF1.02 ± 0.540.64 ± 0.320.58 ± 0.450.48 ± 0.41*0.60 ± 0.480.72 ± 0.572.949b0.017*b
2SL (cm)107.8 ± 16.51103.7 ± 16.49101.1 ± 12.63100.9 ± 17.16100.3 ± 14.6399.5 ± 14.591.110b0.368b
RFW(g)34.27 ± 8.9933.00 ± 8.0432.45 ± 5.9432.10 ± 9.3832.11 ± 5.2033.18 ± 5.270.1660.973
SFW(g)95.77 ± 25.13107.27 ± 11.45106.48 ± 13.21103.02 ± 17.83101.01 ± 12.3899.48 ± 11.201.318b0.272b
FP3015 ± 768.492470 ± 825.692120 ± 753.582035 ± 502.242070 ± 727.702365 ± 841.642.2630.063
DENS95.046 ± 33.3579.43 ± 21.0072.47 ± 23.1267.94 ± 27.7274.39 ± 27.2292.90 ± 23.752.2780.061
RF1.50 ± 0.381.23 ± 0.411.06 ± 0.371.02 ± 0.251.03 ± 0.361.18 ± 0.422.2560.063

Effect of W_ circinata on nematological variables in tomato plants inoculated with M_ enterolobii at 35 days after inoculation_

TreatmentFPaDENSaRFa
Me2944 ± 668,3114,43 ± 28,671,47 ± 0,33
Wc+Me850 ± 463,1*26,38 ± 15,41*0,425 ± 0,23*
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jofnem-2025-0002 | Journal eISSN: 2640-396X | Journal ISSN: 0022-300X
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Submitted on: Jun 17, 2024
Published on: Mar 14, 2025
Published by: Society of Nematologists, Inc.
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 times per year
Keywords:
Biological control,
induced resistance,
sustainability,
root-knot nematode
Related subjects:
Life sciences,
Life sciences, other

© 2025 Gianlucca de Urzêda Alves, CG Felipe, RF Denner, RR Mara, GA Leila, published by Society of Nematologists, Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 57 (2025): Issue 1 (February 2025)Next article