Abstract
Plant-parasitic nematodes are major pests of cotton and soybean in Arkansas, and across the Southern United States. These nematodes cause more than $3 billion worth of crop losses each year, in part due to lack of available control tactics, such as nematicides. Fluopyram has recently been registered as a seed-treatment nematicide in agronomic crops. The toxicity of fluopyram against Meloidogyne incognita infection has been reported, however, information on root protection provided by fluopyram against Meloidogyne incognita is lacking. The first objective of this research was to evaluate the effect seed-applied fluopyram had on nematode development, root galling, and reproduction on cotton and soybean roots. Fluopyram significantly reduced nematode penetration, gall development, and reproduction compared to the non-treated control in both cotton and soybean. This effect in root protection was similar to that of an industry standard nematicide, abamectin. Neither nematicide had an effect on nematode post-infection development in soybean and cotton. The second objective was to evaluate the distance in root protection provided by fluopyram-treated seed. Seed-applied fluopyram suppressed the root penetration of second-stage juveniles inoculated at a 2.5- and 5.0-cm depth in cotton, whereas only those inoculated at 2.5 cm were suppressed in soybean. These data indicate that the extent of root protection provided by seed-applied fluopyram has a greater effect on suppression of second-stage juvenile suppression than post-infection development and that protection is greatest in close proximity to the seed. Overall, the degree of nematode protection provided by seed-applied fluopyram was similar to root protection provided by abamectin.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Fluopyram reduced nematode penetration, galling and reproduction in cotton versus untreated control.
- Taxon
- Cotton
Gossypium hirsutume1 - Treatment
- Fluopyrame0
- Interactor
- Meloidogyne incognita
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=60)
Meloidogyne incognitae1pest - Outcome
- nematode penetration, gall development, and reproductione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- non-treated controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“Fluopyram significantly reduced nematode penetration, gall development, and reproduction compared to the non-treated control in both cotton and soybean”
e1“Meloidogyne incognita on Cotton and Soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Fluopyram reduced nematode penetration, galling and reproduction in soybean versus untreated control.
- Taxon
- Soybean
Glycine maxe1 - Treatment
- Fluopyrame0
- Interactor
- Meloidogyne incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae1pest
- Outcome
- nematode penetration, gall development, and reproductione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- non-treated controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fluopyram significantly reduced nematode penetration, gall development, and reproduction compared to the non-treated control in both cotton and soybean”
e1“Meloidogyne incognita on Cotton and Soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Fluopyram root protection was similar to abamectin.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutume1
- Treatment
- Fluopyrame2
- Outcome
- root protectione0
- Direction
- similare0
- Comparator
- abamectine0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This effect in root protection was similar to that of an industry standard nematicide, abamectin”
e1“Meloidogyne incognita on Cotton and Soybean”
e2“Fluopyram significantly reduced nematode penetration, gall development, and reproduction compared to the non-treated control in both cotton and soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Neither nematicide affected post infection nematode development in soybean.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxe1
- Treatment
- nematicidee0
- Interactor
- Meloidogyne incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae1pest
- Outcome
- nematode post-infection developmente0
- Direction
- Neithere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Neither nematicide had an effect on nematode post-infection development in soybean and cotton”
e1“Meloidogyne incognita on Cotton and Soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Neither nematicide affected post infection nematode development in cotton.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutume1
- Treatment
- nematicidee0
- Interactor
- Meloidogyne incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae1pest
- Outcome
- nematode post-infection developmente0
- Direction
- Neithere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Neither nematicide had an effect on nematode post-infection development in soybean and cotton”
e1“Meloidogyne incognita on Cotton and Soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Seed fluopyram suppressed juvenile root penetration at 2.5 cm in cotton.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutume1
- Treatment
- Seed-applied fluopyrame0
- Interactor
- Meloidogyne incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae1pest
- Outcome
- root penetration of second-stage juvenilese0
- Direction
- suppressede0
- Value
- 2.5-e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Seed-applied fluopyram suppressed the root penetration of second-stage juveniles inoculated at a 2.5- and 5.0-cm depth in cotton”
e1“Meloidogyne incognita on Cotton and Soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Seed fluopyram suppressed juvenile root penetration at 5.0 cm in cotton.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutume1
- Treatment
- Seed-applied fluopyrame0
- Interactor
- Meloidogyne incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae1pest
- Outcome
- root penetration of second-stage juvenilese0
- Direction
- suppressede0
- Qualifier
- 5.0-cm depthe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Seed-applied fluopyram suppressed the root penetration of second-stage juveniles inoculated at a 2.5- and 5.0-cm depth in cotton”
e1“Meloidogyne incognita on Cotton and Soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Seed fluopyram suppressed juvenile penetration at 2.5 cm in soybean.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxe2
- Treatment
- Seed-applied fluopyrame1
- Interactor
- Meloidogyne incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae2pest
- Outcome
- root penetration of second-stage juvenilese1
- Direction
- suppressede0
- Qualifier
- 2.5 cme0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“only those inoculated at 2.5 cm were suppressed in soybean”
e1“Seed-applied fluopyram suppressed the root penetration of second-stage juveniles inoculated at a 2.5- and 5.0-cm depth in cotton”
e2“Meloidogyne incognita on Cotton and Soybean”
The same questions in other papers
fluopyram · Meloidogyne incognita · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
fluopyram · Meloidogyne incognita · Glycine max (soybean)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
insecticide · Meloidogyne incognita · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →insecticide · Meloidogyne incognita · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 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.