4.6 Article

Meloidogyne incognitapopulation control and nutritional status and productivity of Thompson seedless grapevines managed with different treatments

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 15, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239993

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A two-year field trial was conducted in a vineyard (northern Egypt)cultivated with Thompson seedless grapevines to evaluate the effectiveness of four alternative (biological/chemical) treatments,Bacillus megaterium, boric acid, calcium nitrate and chitosan, against the root-knot nematodeMeloidogyne incognita(Mi), compared to that of the nematicide oxamyl. The influence of these treatments on plant nutritional status and fruit yield and quality was also assessed. All treatments significantly inhibitedMireproduction parameters in both seasons, decreasing the numbers of nematode galls and egg masses (roots) and of second-stage juveniles (soil). Oxamyl application resulted in the highest reductions inMi-reproduction parameters, followed by boric acid, which also showed the highest relative nematicidal efficacy (respect to oxamyl). In the 1st season, the highest fruit yield (10.34 kg/grapevine) was recorded from boric acid-treated plants, followed by that from oxamyl-treated plants (7.50 kg/grapevine); in the subsequent season (2019), oxamyl use led to the highest yield, followed by boric acid + chitosan use (10.04 and 8.62 kg/grapevine, respectively). In both seasons, application of boric acid alone and combined with chitosan enhanced the total soluble solids (TSS)/total acidity ratio in grape juice. All treatments led to higher nutrient contents (leaf petioles) and chlorophyll levels (leaves) as well as enhanced fruit size and weight. We conclude that the tested treatments can be safely applied for nematode management in Thompson seedless grapevines, with positive effects on fruit yield and quality.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available