4.7 Article

Response of Heterodera glycines and soybean cultivar to tillage and row spacing

期刊

PLANT DISEASE
卷 85, 期 3, 页码 311-316

出版社

AMER PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1094/PDIS.2001.85.3.311

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Heterodera glycines, commonly known as the soybean cyst nematode (SCN), has become a major factor in soybean production in the Midwest United States. The influence of five tillage treatments and two treatments of row spacing on SCN population dynamics and yield of SCN-resistant and -susceptible soybean cultivars was investigated in a corn-soybean rotation system in southern Minnesota from 1993 to 1996. No effects of tillage and raw spacing were observed on nematode population density. As expected, the susceptible cultivar Sturdy consistently supported higher nematode densities than did the resistant cultivar Bell in 1993 to 1995 and Freeborn in 1996. Nematode reproduction varied among years. Predicted nematode density at equilibrium was 3,800, 13,000, 12,000, and 27,000 eggs per 100 cm(3) of soil in plots with the susceptible cultivar and 480, 240, 430, and 700 eggs per 100 cm(3) of soil in plots with the resistant cultivars in 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996, respectively. The effects of tillage and row spacing on soybean yield were inconsistent. The resistant cultivars yielded 653, 195, and 435 kg/ha more (P < 0.05) than the susceptible cultivar in 1994, 1995, and 1996, respectively, but no yield difference between susceptible and resistant cultivars was observed in 1993. Planting resistant cv. Bell increased the yield of the following susceptible cv. Sturdy compared with continual planting of the susceptible cultivar. A sequence with continued resistant cultivar or cultivars, however, produced a higher overall yield and lower nematode density at the end of the 4-year rotation cycle than any sequence in which the susceptible cultivar was included. Yield bf resistant and susceptible cultivars was negatively related to the SCN initial population density.

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

4.7
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