Abstract
Meta-analysis was used to compare yield protection and nematode suppression provided by two seed-applied and two soil-applied nematicides against Meloidogyne incognita and Rotylenchulus reniformis on cotton across 3 years and several trial locations in the U.S. Cotton Belt. Nematicides consisted of thiodicarb- and fluopyram-treated seed, aldicarb and fluopyram applied in furrow, and combinations of the seed treatments and soil-applied fluopyram. The nematicides had no effect on nematode reproduction or root infection but had a significant impact on seed cotton yield response ([Formula: see text]), with an average increase of 176 and 197 kg/ha relative to the nontreated control in M. incognita and R. reniformis infested fields, respectively. However, because of significant variation in yield protection and nematode suppression by nematicides, five or six moderator variables (cultivar resistance [M. incognita only], nematode infestation level, nematicide treatment, application method, trial location, and growing season) were used depending on nematode species. In M. incognita-infested fields, greater yield protection was observed with nematicides applied in furrow and with seed-applied + in-furrow than with solo seed-applied nematicide applications. Most notable of these in-furrow nematicides were aldicarb and fluopyram (>131 g/ha) with or without a seed-applied nematicide compared with thiodicarb. In R. reniformis-infested fields, moderator variables provided no further explanation of the variation in yield response produced by nematicides. Furthermore, moderator variables provided little explanation of the variation in nematode suppression by nematicides in M. incognita- and R. reniformis-infested fields. The limited explanation by the moderator variables on the field efficacy of nematicides in M. incognita- and R. reniformis-infested fields demonstrates the difficulty of managing these pathogens with nonfumigant nematicides across the U.S. Cotton Belt.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Nematicides had no effect on nematode reproduction or root infection.
- Taxon
- Cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Treatment
- nematicidese0
- Outcome
- nematode reproduction or root infectione0
- Direction
- no effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The nematicides had no effect on nematode reproduction or root infection”
t0“Cotton Belt”
Claim · model-written summary
Nematicides significantly increased seed cotton yield by an average 176 kg/ha in M. incognita infested fields.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- nematicidese0
- Interactor
- M. incognita
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=60)
Meloidogyne incognitae0pathogen - Outcome
- seed cotton yield responsee0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 176 and 197 kg/hae0
- Comparator
- nontreated 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“The nematicides had no effect on nematode reproduction or root infection but had a significant impact on seed cotton yield response ([Formula: see text]), with an average increase of 176 and 197 kg/ha relative to the nontreated control in M. incognita and R. reniformis infested fields, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Nematicides significantly increased seed cotton yield by an average 197 kg/ha in R. reniformis infested fields.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- nematicidese0
- Interactor
- R. reniformis
Rotylenchulus reniformise0pathogen - Outcome
- seed cotton yield responsee0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 176 and 197 kg/hae0
- Comparator
- nontreated controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The nematicides had no effect on nematode reproduction or root infection but had a significant impact on seed cotton yield response ([Formula: see text]), with an average increase of 176 and 197 kg/ha relative to the nontreated control in M. incognita and R. reniformis infested fields, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
In M. incognita fields, in-furrow nematicides provided greater yield protection than solo seed applications.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- nematicides applied in furrowe0
- Interactor
- M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae0pathogen
- Outcome
- yield protectione0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- solo seed-applied nematicide applicationse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In M. incognita-infested fields, greater yield protection was observed with nematicides applied in furrow and with seed-applied + in-furrow than with solo seed-applied nematicide applications.”
t0“Cotton Belt”
Claim · model-written summary
In M. incognita fields, combined seed and furrow application provided greater yield protection than solo seed application.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- seed-applied + in-furrowe0
- Interactor
- M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae0pathogen
- Outcome
- yield protectione0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- solo seed-applied nematicide applicationse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In M. incognita-infested fields, greater yield protection was observed with nematicides applied in furrow and with seed-applied + in-furrow than with solo seed-applied nematicide applications.”
t0“Cotton Belt”
Claim · model-written summary
Moderators did not further explain nematicide yield-response variation in R. reniformis fields.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- nematicidese0
- Interactor
- R. reniformisRotylenchulus reniformise0pathogen
- Outcome
- variation in yield responsee0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In R. reniformis-infested fields, moderator variables provided no further explanation of the variation in yield response produced by nematicides.”
t0“Cotton Belt”
Claim · model-written summary
Moderators explained little of nematode suppression variation in fields infested with either species.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- nematicidese0
- Outcome
- variation in nematode suppressione0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Furthermore, moderator variables provided little explanation of the variation in nematode suppression by nematicides in M. incognita- and R. reniformis-infested fields.”
t0“Cotton Belt”
The same questions in other papers
insecticide · pest · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 51 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
72 papers more in this group
See all 76 papers →irrigation · Meloidogyne incognita · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
insecticide · Rotylenchulus reniformis · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →insecticide · Meloidogyne incognita · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- 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.