Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Evaluating aldicarb and fluazaindolizine for management of Meloidogyne incognita in Arkansas soybean production Cover

Evaluating aldicarb and fluazaindolizine for management of Meloidogyne incognita in Arkansas soybean production

Journal of Nematology
Volume 58 (2026): Issue 1 (February 2026)
By: ,  ,   and    
Open Access
|Oct 2026
Figures & tables

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Nematicide treatments evaluated in each aldicarb and fluazaindolizine experiment in Meloidogyne incognita-infested fields

ExperimentTreatmentsa Application typeRateYears evaluated
AldicarbAbamectinSeed0.15 mg ai/seed2017, 2019, 2022
AldicarbIn-furrow841 g ai/ha2017, 2019, 2022
Bacillus firmus Seed0.13 mg ai/seed2017, 2019, 2022
FluopyramSeed0.15 mg ai/seed2017, 2019, 2022
Abamectin + AldicarbSeed + In-furrow– b 2017, 2019, 2022
Aldicarb + B. firmus In-furrow + Seed—2019, 2022
Aldicarb + FluopyramIn-furrow + Seed—2017, 2019, 2022
Fluopyram + B. firmus Seed + Seed—2017, 2019, 2022
FluazaindolizineAbamectinSeed0.15 mg ai/seed2019, 2020, 2022
FluazaindolizineIn-furrow281 g ai/ha2019, 2020, 2022
FluopyramSeed0.25 mg ai/seed2019, 2020, 2022
OxamylIn-furrow298 g ai/ha2019, 2020

[i] aabamectin = Avicta 500 FS; aldicarb = AgLogic 15 GG; Bacillus firmus = Poncho/Votivo 5.0 FS; fluopyram = Ilevo 600 FS; fluazaindolizine = Salibro 4.17 SC; oxamyl = Vydate 3.77 C-LV.

[ii] bNematicides in combination were applied at the same rate as when applied alone.

Table 2

Experimental characteristics of each aldicarb and fluazaindolizine experimental year in Meloidogyne incognita-infested fields

ExperimentYearPlanting dateHarvest dateTotal rainfall (14 DAP)a Nematode density at harvest b
Aldicarb20179 May2 Oct11.791,628
201928 May4 Nov6.48914
202214 Jun17 Oct0.05125
Fluazaindolizine201928 May4 Nov6.481,019
20202 Jun21 Oct6.35336
202214 Jun17 Oct0.0538

[i] aTotal rainfall up to 14 DAP in cm.

[ii] bSecond-stage juveniles/100 cm3 soil.

Table 3

Effect of cultivar and treatment on percentage of the root system galled, yield, and percent yield change compared to the control in aldicarb experiments in Meloidogyne incognita-infested fields

2017 Experiment2019 Experiment2022 Experiment
% gallYield (kg/ha)% yield changea % gallYield (kg/ha)% yield change% gallYield (kg/ha)% yield change
Cultivarb Susceptible8.7 ac 2,381 b 5.2 a 3,329 b 2.5 a 2,966 b
Moderately resistant1.5 b 4,923 a 106.81.7 b 4,008 a 20.40.5 b 3,847 a 29.7
Treatmente NTC8.3 a 3,6795.3 a 3,450 b 2.6 a 3,416
Abamectin6.13,168−13.99.1 a 3,719 ab 7.81.2 ab 3,4160.0
Aldicarb1.9 d 3,7862.90.8 bc 3,719 ab 7.81.2 bc 3,295−3.5
Bacillus firmus 4.8 b 3,9958.66.9 a 3,410 ab −1.21.9 ab 3,295−3.5
Fluopyram5.6 ab 3,302−10.21.6 bc 3,611 ab 4.70.7 d 3,4300.4
Abamectin + Aldicarb2.5 c 4,07510.81.0 b 3,430 ab −0.61.1 c 3,4160.0
Aldicarb + B. firmus ———1.0 b 3,907 ab 13.21.9 ab 3,389−0.8
Aldicarb + Fluopyram3.5 c 3,450−6.20.44,049 a 17.41.4 ab 3,383−1.0
Fluopyram + B. firmus 8.3 a 3,591−2.44.1 ab 3,901 ab 13.11.0 cd 3,6185.9
P-valueCultivar <0.01 <0.01— <0.01 <0.01— <0.01 <0.01—
Nematicide <0.010.04— <0.01 <0.01— <0.010.41—

[i] aPercent yield change = [(yield of cultivar or treatment – yield of susceptible cultivar or NTC)/(yield of susceptible cultivar or NTC) × 100].

[ii] bCultivars: susceptible = Delta Grow DG4870 RR (2017) and DG4880 GLY (2019, 2022), moderately resistant = DG4940 GLY (all years).

[iii] cAverages followed by the same letter within a column for cultivar and treatment are not significantly different according to Tukey’s HSD at α = 0.05.

[iv] dNTC = non-nematicide treated control; Abamectin = Avicta 500 FS (seed-applied); aldicarb = AgLogic 15 GG (in-furrow); Bacillus firmus = Poncho/Votivo 5.0 FS (seed-applied); fluopyram = Ilevo 600 FS (seed-applied).

Figure 1

Effect of cultivar and nematicide treatment on root galling by Meloidogyne incognita and grain yield in three field experiments. The cultivar by treatment interaction had a significant (p < 0.01) effect on galling, but not yield, in all 3 years. Bars are grain yield (kg/ha), and the dotted line represents percent root system galled. Different letters on the dotted line indicate a significant difference according to Tukey’s HSD at α = 0.05, and error bars represent standard error. (a) 2017 aldicarb experiment, (b) 2019 aldicarb experiment, and (c) 2022 aldicarb experiment.

Table 4

Effect of treatment on percentage of the root system galled, yield, and percent yield change compared to the control in fluazaindolizine experiments in Meloidogyne incognita-infested fields

2019 Experiment2020 Experiment2022 Experiment
% GallYield (kg/ha)% yield changea % GallYield (kg/ha)% yield change% GallYield (kg/ha)% yield change
Treatmentb NTC13.1 ab c 3,3963.3 ab 2,9861.9 a 3,060
Abamectin18.0 a 3,134−7.74.4 a 3,1475.41.3 ab 2,999−2.0
Fluazaindolizine1.0 c 3,4772.42.7 ab 3,29510.31.3 a 2,925−4.4
Fluopyram5.0 bc 3,4301.02.7 ab 2,9930.20.6 b 3,3228.6
Oxamyl5.0 bc 3,268−3.82.2 b 3,2488.8———
P-valueNematicide <0.010.67—0.030.84— <0.010.44—

[i] aPercent yield change = [(yield of treatment – yield of NTC)/(yield of NTC) × 100].

[ii] bNTC = non-nematicide treated control; Abamectin = Avicta 500 FS (seed-applied); fluazaindolizine = Salibro 4.17 SC (in-furrow); fluopyram = Ilevo 600 FS (seed-applied); oxamyl = Vydate 3.77 C-LV (in-furrow).

[iii] cAverages followed by the same letter within a column for treatment are not significantly different according to Tukey’s HSD at α = 0.05.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jofnem-2026-0038 | Journal eISSN: 2640-396X | Journal ISSN: 0022-300X
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 511 - 519
Submitted on: Apr 14, 2026
Accepted on: Jun 8, 2026
Published on: Oct 14, 2026
Published by: Society of Nematologists, Inc.
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
Glycine max,
Southern root-knot nematode
Related subjects:
Life sciences,
Life sciences, other

© 2026 Maxwell R. Sturdivant, Michael J. Emerson, Brandon R. Baker, Travis R. Faske, published by Society of Nematologists, Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Volume 58 (2026): Issue 1 (February 2026)
Previous article
Next article