Abstract
Management of Meloidogyne incognita (root-knot nematode) in cotton in the United States was substantially affected by the decision to stop production of aldicarb by its principle manufacturer in 2011. The remaining commercially available tools to manage M. incognita included soil fumigation, nematicide seed treatments, postemergence nematicide application, and cultivars partially resistant to M. incognita. Small plot field studies were conducted on a total of nine sites from 2011-2013 to examine the effects of each of these tools alone or in combinations, on early season galling, late-season nematode density in soil, yield, and value ($/ha = lint value minus chemical costs/ha). The use of a partially resistant cultivar resulted in fewer galls/root system at 35 d after planting in eight of nine tests, lower root-knot nematode density late in the growing season for all test sites, higher lint yield in eight of nine sites, and higher value/ha in six of nine sites. Galls per root were reduced by aldicarb in three of nine sites and by 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D) in two of eight sites, relative to the nontreated control (no insecticide or nematicide treatment). Soil fumigation reduced M. incognita density late in the season in three of nine sites. Value/ha was not affected by chemical treatment in four of nine sites, but there was a cultivar × chemical interaction in four of nine sites. When value/ha was affected by chemical treatment, the nontreated control had a similar value to the treatment with the highest value/ha in seven of eight cultivar-site combinations. The next "best" value/ha were associated with seed treatment insecticide (STI) + oxamyl and aldicarb (similar value to the highest value/ha in six of eight cultivar-site combinations). The lowest valued treatment was STI + 1,3-D. In a semi-arid region, where rainfall was low during the spring for all three years, cultivars with partial resistance to M. incognita was the most profitable method of managing root-knot nematode in cotton.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 14
Claim · model-written summary
A partially resistant cultivar reduced galls in eight of nine tests.
- Taxon
- Cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Treatment
- partially resistant cultivare0
- Interactor
- Meloidogyne incognita
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=60)
Meloidogyne incognitat0pathogen - Outcome
- galls/root systeme0
- Direction
- fewere0
- Value
- eight of nine testse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“The use of a partially resistant cultivar resulted in fewer galls/root system at 35 d after planting in eight of nine tests”
t0“Management of Meloidogyne incognita with Chemicals and Cultivars in Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
A partially resistant cultivar lowered late season nematode density at all sites.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- partially resistant cultivare1
- Interactor
- Meloidogyne incognitaMeloidogyne incognitat0pathogen
- Outcome
- root-knot nematode densitye0
- Direction
- lowere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“lower root-knot nematode density late in the growing season for all test sites”
e1“The use of a partially resistant cultivar resulted in fewer galls/root system at 35 d after planting in eight of nine tests, lower root-knot nematode density late in the growing season for all test sites”
t0“Management of Meloidogyne incognita with Chemicals and Cultivars in Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
A partially resistant cultivar raised lint yield at eight of nine sites.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- partially resistant cultivare1
- Outcome
- lint yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- eight of nine sitese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“higher lint yield in eight of nine sites”
e1“The use of a partially resistant cultivar resulted in fewer galls/root system at 35 d after planting in eight of nine tests, lower root-knot nematode density late in the growing season for all test sites, higher lint yield in eight of nine sites”
t0“Management of Meloidogyne incognita with Chemicals and Cultivars in Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
A partially resistant cultivar raised value per hectare at six of nine sites.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- partially resistant cultivare1
- Outcome
- value/hae0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- six of nine sitese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“higher value/ha in six of nine sites”
e1“The use of a partially resistant cultivar resulted in fewer galls/root system at 35 d after planting in eight of nine tests, lower root-knot nematode density late in the growing season for all test sites, higher lint yield in eight of nine sites, and higher value/ha in six of nine sites”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Aldicarb reduced galls in three of nine sites.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- aldicarbe0
- Interactor
- Meloidogyne incognitaMeloidogyne incognitat0pathogen
- Outcome
- Galls per roote0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- three of nine sitese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Galls per root were reduced by aldicarb in three of nine sites”
t0“Management of Meloidogyne incognita with Chemicals and Cultivars in Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
1,3-D reduced galls in two of eight sites against untreated control.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- 1,3-dichloropropenee0
- Interactor
- Meloidogyne incognitaMeloidogyne incognitat0pathogen
- Outcome
- Galls per roote1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Value
- two of eight sitese0
- Comparator
- nontreated controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“by 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D) in two of eight sites, relative to the nontreated control”
e1“Galls per root were reduced by aldicarb in three of nine sites and by 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D) in two of eight sites, relative to the nontreated control”
t0“Management of Meloidogyne incognita with Chemicals and Cultivars in Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil fumigation reduced late season nematode density at three of nine sites.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Soil fumigatione0
- Interactor
- Meloidogyne incognitaMeloidogyne incognitat0pathogen
- Outcome
- M. incognita densitye0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- three of nine sitese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil fumigation reduced M. incognita density late in the season in three of nine sites”
t0“Management of Meloidogyne incognita with Chemicals and Cultivars in Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Chemical treatment did not affect value per hectare at four of nine sites.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- chemical treatmente0
- Outcome
- Value/hae0
- Direction
- not affectede0
- Value
- four of nine sitese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Value/ha was not affected by chemical treatment in four of nine sites”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Cultivar and chemical treatment interacted for value per hectare at four of nine sites.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Material
- cultivare0
- Treatment
- chemicale0
- Outcome
- Value/hae1
- Value
- four of nine sitese0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there was a cultivar × chemical interaction in four of nine sites”
e1“Value/ha was not affected by chemical treatment in four of nine sites, but there was a cultivar × chemical interaction in four of nine sites”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Untreated controls had value similar to the best treatment in seven of eight cultivar site combinations.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- valuee0
- Direction
- similare0
- Value
- seven of eight cultivar-site combinationse0
- Comparator
- treatment with the highest value/hae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the nontreated control had a similar value to the treatment with the highest value/ha in seven of eight cultivar-site combinations”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
STI plus oxamyl had value similar to the highest in six of eight combinations.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- seed treatment insecticide (STI) + oxamyle0
- Outcome
- valuee0
- Direction
- similare0
- Value
- six of eight cultivar-site combinationse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“seed treatment insecticide (STI) + oxamyl and aldicarb (similar value to the highest value/ha in six of eight cultivar-site combinations)”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Aldicarb had value similar to the highest in six of eight combinations.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- aldicarbe0
- Outcome
- valuee0
- Direction
- similare0
- Value
- six of eight cultivar-site combinationse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“aldicarb (similar value to the highest value/ha in six of eight cultivar-site combinations)”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
STI plus 1,3-D had the lowest value.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- STI + 1,3-De0
- Outcome
- valued treatmente0
- Direction
- loweste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The lowest valued treatment was STI + 1,3-D”
t0“Cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Partially resistant cultivars were the most profitable management method in the semi arid region.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Interactor
- M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae0pathogen
- Outcome
- cultivars with partial resistance to M. incognitae0
- Qualifier
- semi-arid regione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cultivars with partial resistance to M. incognita was the most profitable method of managing root-knot nematode in cotton”
e1“In a semi-arid region, where rainfall was low during the spring for all three years”
t0“Cotton”
The same questions in other papers
aldicarb · Meloidogyne incognita · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →solarization · Meloidogyne incognita · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.