| Literature DB >> 33829186 |
Vanessa Alves Gomes1, Fabíola de Jesus Silva2, Eunice Maria Baquião1, Luana Viana Faria1, Júlio César Antunes Ferreira1, Marcio Pozzobon Pedroso3, Fernando Broetto4, Silvia Renata Siciliano Wilcken1.
Abstract
Meloidogyne is a relevant plant-parasitic nematode that causes enormous damage. It is very challenging to control, and there are not many chemicals available on the market for that. As an alternative method of nematode control, biofumigation is increasingly gaining space. This research aimed to study the reaction of Xanthosoma sagittifolium to Meloidogyne enterolobii, M. incognita, and M. javanica and soil biofumigation with X. sagittifolium leaves for M. enterolobii control. The reaction test was performed in the populations 0 (control), 333, 999, 3,000, 9,000, 27,000 eggs and eventual juveniles. X. sagittifolium did not host the Meloidogyne species studied, even in a high population. X. sagittifolium leaves incorporated in soil at concentrations 0 (control), 0.45, 0.9, 1.8, 3.6 g were also studied to control M. enterolobii, and they were able to reduce galls and eggs. The number of galls and egg masses was reduced to a concentration of 1.8 g. In the maximum concentration, the number of galls was less than 15 galls, and the eggs were also reduced to less than 200 eggs. As these macerates emitted nematicidal volatile organic compounds (VOCs) against M. enterolobii, it reduced the infectivity and reproduction of nematodes.Entities:
Keywords: Alternative control; Araceae; Host–parasitic relationship; Resistance; Root-knot nematode; Volatiles
Year: 2020 PMID: 33829186 PMCID: PMC8015332 DOI: 10.21307/jofnem-2020-107
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Nematol ISSN: 0022-300X Impact factor: 1.402
Reaction test on Xanthosoma sagittifolium with Meloidogyne enterolobii under the six treatments and the tomato (indicator plant) showing susceptibility or resistance in the treatments based on the reproduction factor (RF).
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plant | Inoculated eggsa | Galls | Egg mass | Eggs | RFb | Classification |
| 0 | 0b | 0b | 0b | 0b | Resistant | |
| 333 | 0b | 0b | 0b | 0b | ||
| 999 | 0b | 0b | 0b | 0b | ||
| 3,000 | 0b | 0b | 0b | 0b | ||
| 9,000 | 0b | 0b | 316b | 0.03b | ||
| 27,000 | 0b | 0b | 1,076b | 0.04b | ||
| Tomato | 1,000 | 4.80a | 4.80a | 13,876a | 13.9a | Susceptible |
| CV (%) | – | 3.00 | 3.00 | 42.78 | 10.41 | – |
Notes: aNumber of inoculated eggs; bFR = final population/initial population. Plants with FR < 1 are considered resistant and FR ≥ 1 susceptible (Oostenbrink, 1966).
Reaction test on Xanthosoma sagittifolium with Meloidogyne javanica under the six treatments and the tomato (indicator plant) showing susceptibility or resistance in the treatments based on the reproduction factor (RF).
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plant | Inoculated eggsa | Galls | Egg mass | Eggs | RFb | Classification |
| 0 | 0b | 0b | 0b | 0b | Resistant | |
| 333 | 0b | 0b | 0b | 0b | ||
| 999 | 0b | 0b | 240b | 0.24b | ||
| 3,000 | 0b | 0b | 326b | 0.11b | ||
| 9,000 | 0b | 0b | 360b | 0.04b | ||
| 27,000 | 0b | 0b | 582b | 0.02b | ||
| Tomato | 1,000 | 4.80a | 4.80a | 10,592a | 10.6a | Susceptible |
| CV (%) | – | 3.00 | 3.00 | 56.59 | 14.19 | – |
Notes: aNumber of inoculated eggs; bRF = final population/initial population. Plants with FR < 1 are considered resistant and FR ≥ 1 susceptible (Oostenbrink, 1966).
Figure 1:Biofumigation with Xanthosoma sagittifolium leaves macerates against Meloidogyne enterolobii. These experiments were done by incorporating X. sagittifolium leaves at different concentration (g/45 g) along with M. enterolobii eggs and planting tomato after three days of biofumigation. A: Number of galls. B: Number of eggs. C: Reproduction factor. D: Root weight. The experiments were done twice. Quadratic polynomial regression models, p < 0.01.
Volatilome of Xanthosoma sagittifolium leaves by gas chromatography.
| Compounds | RI expa | RI Litb | Intensityc Macerated | Intensityc Water |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ethanol | – | – | XX | XX |
| Acetone | – | – | XX | XX |
| Propanol | – | – | X | X |
| Ethyl acetate | 609 | 628 | X | X |
| 2-methyl-propanol | 615 | 622 | – | X |
| 3-penten-1-ol | 687 | 686 | X | X |
| 3-pentanone | 700 | 696 | X | X |
| Acetoin | 720 | 718 | X | – |
| 3-methyl-butanol | 737 | 734 | XX | XX |
| 2-methyl-butanol | 740 | 738 | X | X |
| 2,3-butanediol | 811 | 811 | X | – |
| Ethyl 2-methyl-butanoate | 849 | 846 | X | – |
| 3-hexen-1-ol | 856 | 857 | XX | XX |
| Hexanol | 871 | 867 | X | X |
| 3-methyl-butyl acetate | 875 | 880 | X | – |
| 3-octanone | 985 | 984 | X | – |
| 2-ethyl-hexanol | 1,033 | 1,029 | X | X |
| Not identified | 1,189 | – | X | – |
| Dodecane | 1,199 | 1,200 | X | – |
Notes: aCalculated retention indices by injecting a homologous series of alkanes; bTheoretical retention index according to the literature (ADAMS, 2007); cX: low intensity; XX: medium to high intensity.
Figure S1:Biofumigation with Xanthosoma sagittifolium leaves macerates against Meloidogyne enterolobii. These experiments were done by incorporating X. sagittifolium leaves at different concentration (g/45 g) along with M. enterolobii eggs and planting tomato after three days of biofumigation. A: Number of galls. B: Number of eggs. C: Reproduction factor. D: Root weight. Experiment two. Quadratic polynomial regression models, p < 0.01.
Reaction test on Xanthosoma sagittifolium with Meloidogyne incognita under the six treatments and the tomato (indicator plant) showing susceptibility or resistance in the treatments based on the reproduction factor (RF).
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plant | Inoculated eggsa | Galls | Egg mass | Eggs | RFb | Classification |
| 0 | 0b | 0b | 0b | 0b | Resistant | |
| 333 | 0b | 0b | 0b | 0b | ||
| 999 | 0b | 0b | 0b | 0b | ||
| 3,000 | 0b | 0b | 0b | 0b | ||
| 9,000 | 0b | 0b | 0b | 0b | ||
| 27,000 | 0b | 0b | 0b | 0b | ||
| Tomato | 1,000 | 4.80a | 4.80a | 12,350a | 12.35a | Susceptible |
| CV (%) | – | 3.00 | 3.00 | 40.86 | 14.86 | – |
Notes: aNumber of inoculated eggs; bRF = final population/initial population. Plants with FR < 1 are considered resistant and FR ≥ 1 susceptible (Oostenbrink, 1966).