4.6 Article

Greenhouse biofumigation with Melia azedarach controls Meloidogyne spp. and enhances soil biological activity

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEST SCIENCE
卷 91, 期 1, 页码 29-40

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10340-017-0909-1

关键词

Free-living nematodes; Plant-based pesticide; Phospholipid; Root-knot nematode; Soil food web

资金

  1. Research Committee of the University of Thessaly

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The need for environmentally friendly agricultural practices has led to the development of plant-based nematicides for root-knot nematode control. The efficacy of these botanicals has been tested primarily under laboratory and rarely under actual field conditions. Moreover, any side effects on non-target soil organisms that support soil biological activity are usually ignored. Herein, we evaluate the efficacy of Melia azedarach preparations against Meloidogyne spp. in a tomato greenhouse, by root gall examination and soil J2 enumeration. We also assessed side effects on soil microbes through PLFA analysis and microbivorous nematodes, and we quantified several plant growth parameters (e.g., fruit number and weight, root weight). Different treatments within the greenhouse included M. azedarach ripe fruit powder (MFP), ripe fruit water extract (MWE) and furfural, one of the principal active ingredients of M. azedarach and previously known to exhibit fumigant nematicidal activity. Results were compared to those obtained with the commercial nematicide oxamyl (Vydate(A (R)) 10 SL) and an untreated control. All treatments were repeated every 20 days throughout the cultivation period. MFP and MWE suppressed Meloidogyne spp. often at the same levels obtained by furfural and oxamyl treatments and enhanced soil biological activity, as indicated by the proliferation of soil microbes and microbial feeding nematodes. Furfural and oxamyl adversely affected the soil community, especially the free-living nematodes. Moreover, furfural was phytotoxic to tomato plants in spite of its natural origin.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据