Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Galling and Reproduction of Different Isolates of Meloidogyne floridensis on Culinary Herbs Cover

Galling and Reproduction of Different Isolates of Meloidogyne floridensis on Culinary Herbs

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

Figures & Tables

Figure 1:

Egg mass index (0 to 5 scale) of different culinary herbs and tomato (susceptible reference) after inoculation with two isolates of Meloidogyne floridensis. Bars represent the average of pooled data across isolates and experimental repeats (n = 20), and error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals. Significant differences among culinary herbs are shown by different letters (P < 0.05, Tukey’s HSD test). The egg mass index scale is based on the number of egg masses present in the root system (Taylor and Sasser, 1978): 0 = no egg masses, 1 = 1 to 2 egg masses, 2 = 3 to 10 egg masses, 3 = 11 to 30 egg masses, 4 = 31 to 100 egg masses, and 5 = more than 100 egg masses.
Egg mass index (0 to 5 scale) of different culinary herbs and tomato (susceptible reference) after inoculation with two isolates of Meloidogyne floridensis. Bars represent the average of pooled data across isolates and experimental repeats (n = 20), and error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals. Significant differences among culinary herbs are shown by different letters (P < 0.05, Tukey’s HSD test). The egg mass index scale is based on the number of egg masses present in the root system (Taylor and Sasser, 1978): 0 = no egg masses, 1 = 1 to 2 egg masses, 2 = 3 to 10 egg masses, 3 = 11 to 30 egg masses, 4 = 31 to 100 egg masses, and 5 = more than 100 egg masses.

Figure 2:

Number of eggs/g fresh root (Eggs/g fresh root) at 60 days from nine culinary herbs and tomato (susceptible reference) after inoculation with two isolates of Meloidogyne floridensis, Mf3 and MfGNV14. Bars represent the average of pooled data across experimental repeats (n = 10), and error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals. Different uppercase and lowercase letters determine significant differences among culinary herbs for Mf3 and MfGNV14, respectively (P < 0.05, Tukey’s HSD test). The white asterisks at the bottom of the bars indicate differences between M. floridensis isolates (Mf3 and MfGNV14) within the same crop (P < 0.05, Tukey’s HSD test).
Number of eggs/g fresh root (Eggs/g fresh root) at 60 days from nine culinary herbs and tomato (susceptible reference) after inoculation with two isolates of Meloidogyne floridensis, Mf3 and MfGNV14. Bars represent the average of pooled data across experimental repeats (n = 10), and error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals. Different uppercase and lowercase letters determine significant differences among culinary herbs for Mf3 and MfGNV14, respectively (P < 0.05, Tukey’s HSD test). The white asterisks at the bottom of the bars indicate differences between M. floridensis isolates (Mf3 and MfGNV14) within the same crop (P < 0.05, Tukey’s HSD test).

Reproduction factor (RF) means (± standard deviation) and host status of different culinary herbs and tomato (susceptible reference) 60 days after inoculation with two Meloidogyne floridensis isolates, Mf3 and MfGNV14_

CropBotanical nameRFaHost statusc
Mf3bMfGNV14bMf3MfGNV14
BasilOcimum basilicum0.72 ± 0.96 BCa1.09 ± 1.27 BCDaPHGH
CatnipNepeta cataria5.65 ± 4.02 Aa10.20 ± 5.41 AaGHGH
ChicoryCichorium intybus0.22 ± 0.24 BCa0.11 ± 0.17 CDaPHPH
DillAnethum graveolens0.70 ± 0.56 BCb2.36 ± 1.16 ABaPHGH
FennelFoeniculum vulgare0.85 ± 0.56 BCa0.97 ± 0.82 BCDaPHPH
MarjoramOriganum majorana0.01 ± 0.02 Ca0.02 ± 0.04 DaNHNH
ParsleyPetroselinum crispum1.36 ± 1.00 ABa2.17 ± 2.07 BaGHGH
SageSalvia officinalis0.83 ± 1.21 BCa1.64 ± 1.17 BCaPHGH
ThymeThymus vulgaris0.32 ± 0.14 BCa0.72 ± 0.74 BCDaPHPH
TomatoSolanum lycopersicum1.87 ± 2.81 ABa3.81 ± 3.61 ABaGHGH

Gall index (GI) means (± standard deviation) and the reaction of different culinary herbs and tomato (susceptible reference) 60 days after inoculation with two Meloidogyne floridensis isolates, Mf3 and MfGNV14_

CropBotanical nameGIaReaction
Mf3bMfGNV14bAverage
BasilOcimum basilicum2.67 ± 1.222.80 ± 1.402.74CS
CatnipNepeta cataria5.00 ± 0.005.00 ± 0.005.00AS
ChicoryCichorium intybus1.90 ± 1.371.80 ± 1.551.85CDR
DillAnethum graveolens5.00 ± 0.005.00 ± 0.005.00AS
FennelFoeniculum vulgare4.40 ± 0.973.80 ± 2.104.10ABS
MarjoramOriganum majorana1.20 ± 0.790.80 ± 0.921.00DR
ParsleyPetroselinum crispum4.70 ± 0.484.80 ± 0.424.75ABS
SageSalvia officinalis4.20 ± 1.034.60 ± 0.524.40ABS
ThymeThymus vulgaris3.80 ± 0.634.10 ± 1.203.95BS
TomatoSolanum lycopersicum4.80 ± 0.424.90 ± 0.324.85ABS
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jofnem-2025-0006 | Journal eISSN: 2640-396X | Journal ISSN: 0022-300X
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Submitted on: Aug 28, 2024
Published on: Mar 19, 2025
Published by: Society of Nematologists, Inc.
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 times per year
Keywords:
host status,
peach root-knot nematode,
reproduction factor,
susceptibility
Related subjects:
Life sciences,
Life sciences, other

© 2025 Diego A. H. S. Leitão, Ana Karina S. Oliveira, Janete A. Brito, Donald W. Dickson, 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