Abstract
The plant parasitic root-knot nematodes Meloidogyne spp. are a devastating threat to agriculture. The urgent need to search for alternative root-knot nematode control methods that are less environmentally toxic is a demanding challenge to secure the increasing global food demand. Therefore, we combined chemical and biological control strategies to evaluate their management potential on Meloidogyne incognita infested tomatoes. To determine the combined effect of the nematicides Velum and Purpureocillium lilacinum strain 251 formulated as wettable granulate (BioAct WG), we evaluated tomato yield parameters, gall index, soil and root nematode populations. Velum is a chemical nematicide with fluopyram as its active ingredient and BioAct is a biological nematicide based on the egg pathogenic fungus Purpureocillium lilacinum (strain 251). As a single treatment, the nematicide Velum showed better M. incognita reduction at-planting, while BioAct controlled the nematode population throughout the growing season. Greenhouse experiments in two consecutive years, showed that by combining the two nematicides, the M. incognita controlling effect was enhanced and the tomato yield increased compared to single nematicide treatments. The controlling effect of P. lilacinum was lower when M. incognita population increased, presumably based on its limiting ability to parasitize the increasing numbers of nematode eggs. To conclude, we have shown that combining chemical and biological nematicides can successfully control the root-knot nematode M. incognita and increase yields. Velum downregulated the nematode population at-planting and reinforced the biological efficacy of P. lilacinum throughout the growing season.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Velum reduced M. incognita more effectively at planting.
- Taxon
- tomatoes
Solanum lycopersicumt0 - Treatment
- Velume0
- Interactor
- M. incognita
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=60)
Meloidogyne incognitae0pathogen - Outcome
- M. incognita reductione0
- Direction
- bettere0
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
t0“tomatoes”
e0“the nematicide Velum showed better M. incognita reduction at-planting”
Claim · model-written summary
BioAct controlled the nematode population throughout the growing season.
- Taxon
- tomatoesSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- BioActe0
- Interactor
- Meloidogyne incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae1pathogen
- Outcome
- nematode populatione0
- Direction
- controllede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“tomatoes”
e0“BioAct controlled the nematode population throughout the growing season”
e1“Meloidogyne incognita infested tomatoes”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined nematicides enhanced M. incognita control compared with single treatments.
- Taxon
- tomatoesSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- combining the two nematicidese0
- Interactor
- M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae0pathogen
- Second interactor
- Purpureocillium lilacinum strain 251
Purpureocillium lilacinume1biocontrol_agent - Outcome
- M. incognita controlling effecte0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Comparator
- single nematicide treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“tomatoes”
e0“by combining the two nematicides, the M. incognita controlling effect was enhanced and the tomato yield increased compared to single nematicide treatments”
e1“nematicides Velum and Purpureocillium lilacinum strain 251”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined nematicides increased tomato yield compared with single treatments.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- combining the two nematicidese0
- Interactor
- M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae0pathogen
- Second interactor
- Purpureocillium lilacinum strain 251Purpureocillium lilacinume1biocontrol_agent
- Outcome
- tomato yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- single nematicide treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“by combining the two nematicides, the M. incognita controlling effect was enhanced and the tomato yield increased compared to single nematicide treatments”
e1“Purpureocillium lilacinum strain 251”
Claim · model-written summary
P. lilacinum control was weaker at higher M. incognita populations.
- Taxon
- tomatoesSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Interactor
- M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae0pathogen
- Second interactor
- P. lilacinumPurpureocillium lilacinume0biocontrol_agent
- Outcome
- controlling effect of P. lilacinume0
- Direction
- lowere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“tomatoes”
e0“The controlling effect of P. lilacinum was lower when M. incognita population increased”
Claim · model-written summary
Velum reinforced the biological efficacy of P. lilacinum through the growing season.
- Taxon
- tomatoesSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- Velume0
- Interactor
- Meloidogyne incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae1pathogen
- Second interactor
- P. lilacinumPurpureocillium lilacinume0biocontrol_agent
- Outcome
- biological efficacy of P. lilacinume0
- Direction
- reinforcede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“tomatoes”
e0“Velum downregulated the nematode population at-planting and reinforced the biological efficacy of P. lilacinum throughout the growing season”
e1“Meloidogyne incognita infested tomatoes”
The same questions in other papers
insecticide · Meloidogyne incognita · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- positive
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →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.