Paper · 2014 · Pakistan Journal of Nematology

Protecting cucumber from Meloidogyne incognita using graft onto resistant cucurbit rootstocks and antagonistic marigold as an alternative to nematicide

A. W. Amin; Ammar Mona

11
claims
20
verbatim quotes
4
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The effect of cucumber grafting onto suitable and selected two rootstocks, wax melon, Benincasa hispida (grafted onto Bh) and C. maxima x C. moshata Ercola hybrid 6001 (grafted onto Ercola 6001), marigold (Tagetes spp.) as root antagonistic plant and Rugby as a nematicide (two formulation, Rugby 10G and Rugby 20L) for control of Meloidogyne incognita cucumber root-knot were evaluated in nematode naturally infested soil under greenhouse conditions in two successive spring seasons (2011 and 2012). Cucumber, Cucumis sativus var. Sinai was planted as a scion. Results indicate that cucumber plants grafted onto Ercola hybrid 6001, C. maxima x C. moshata (Ercola 6001) and Bh had highly significant less root galling, number of females and egg-masses than non-grafted and infested one. The reduction in number of galls ranged between Rugby 10G (47%) grafted onto Bh (98.3%) and Rugby 10G (30.2%) grafted onto Ercola 6001 (84.5%), respectively in two seasons followed by grafted onto Ercola 6001 and marigold and finally Rugby 10G. These results indicated that maximum reduction in number of females and egg-masses forming was on cucumber grafting onto resistant plant rootstocks Bh; grafting onto resistant plant rootstocks Ercola 6001, followed by Rugby 20L, marigold and finally Rugby 10G, respectively as compared by nematode infested cucumber. Root-knot nematode (RKN) significantly decreased shoot plant height and leaf area, when they were grown in soil infested by RKN compared to infested plant (check). In addition, RKN infestation alone decreased the plant nematodes, in natural infested soil experiments in both seasons, data was non-significant. Plant and fruit characteristics; cucumber yields (number of days to first flower, fruit characteristics (fruits weight, length and diameter), total early fruits (first four gathering) and total fruit per plant were significantly improved in plant leaves compared with infested cucumber. Consequently, the shoot macro and micro-elements were increased compared with infested cucumber. The macro and micro-elements and chlorophyll contents were recorded but the variation between them were non-significant.

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 11

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Cucumber grafted on Ercola 6001 had significantly fewer root galls, females, and egg masses than nongrafted infested cucumber.

Taxon
cucumberCucumis sativuse0
Treatment
grafted onto Ercola hybrid 6001e0
Interactor
Meloidogyne incognitaMeloidogyne incognitat0pathogen
Outcome
root galling, number of females and egg-massese0
Direction
lesse0
Comparator
non-grafted and infested onee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cucumis sativus
Cucumis sativus · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Meloidogyne incognita
Meloidogyne incognita · InteractorPhoto by William Wergin and Richard Sayre. Colorized by Stephen Ausmus. U.S. Department of Agriculture · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“cucumber plants grafted onto Ercola hybrid 6001, C. maxima x C. moshata (Ercola 6001) and Bh had highly significant less root galling, number of females and egg-masses than non-grafted and infested one”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 584–785 · show in text ↑
t0

“Meloidogyne incognita”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–46 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Cucumber grafted on wax melon Bh had significantly fewer root galls, females, and egg masses than nongrafted infested cucumber.

Taxon
cucumberCucumis sativuse0
Treatment
Bhe0
Interactor
Meloidogyne incognitaMeloidogyne incognitat0pathogen
Outcome
root galling, number of females and egg-massese0
Direction
lesse0
Comparator
non-grafted and infested onee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cucumis sativus
Cucumis sativus · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Meloidogyne incognita
Meloidogyne incognita · InteractorPhoto by William Wergin and Richard Sayre. Colorized by Stephen Ausmus. U.S. Department of Agriculture · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“cucumber plants grafted onto Ercola hybrid 6001, C. maxima x C. moshata (Ercola 6001) and Bh had highly significant less root galling, number of females and egg-masses than non-grafted and infested one”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 584–785 · show in text ↑
t0

“Meloidogyne incognita”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–46 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The reported gall reduction under Rugby 10G ranged from 47% to 30.2% across seasons.

Taxon
cucumberCucumis sativust0
Treatment
Rugby 10Ge0
Outcome
number of gallse0
Direction
reductione0
Value
47%e0
Qualifier
in two seasonse0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cucumis sativus
Cucumis sativus · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The reduction in number of galls ranged between Rugby 10G (47%) grafted onto Bh (98.3%) and Rugby 10G (30.2%) grafted onto Ercola 6001 (84.5%), respectively in two seasons”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 787–958 · show in text ↑
t0

“cucumber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–19 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Grafting onto Bh achieved a 98.3% reduction in gall number in the reported comparison.

Taxon
cucumberCucumis sativust0
Treatment
grafted onto Bhe0
Outcome
number of gallse0
Direction
reductione0
Value
98.3%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cucumis sativus
Cucumis sativus · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The reduction in number of galls ranged between Rugby 10G (47%) grafted onto Bh (98.3%) and Rugby 10G (30.2%) grafted onto Ercola 6001 (84.5%), respectively in two seasons”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 787–958 · show in text ↑
t0

“cucumber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–19 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rugby 10G had a reported 30.2% reduction in gall number in the other season.

Taxon
cucumberCucumis sativust0
Treatment
Rugby 10Ge0
Outcome
number of gallse0
Direction
reductione0
Value
30.2%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cucumis sativus
Cucumis sativus · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The reduction in number of galls ranged between Rugby 10G (47%) grafted onto Bh (98.3%) and Rugby 10G (30.2%) grafted onto Ercola 6001 (84.5%), respectively in two seasons”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 787–958 · show in text ↑
t0

“cucumber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–19 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Grafting onto Ercola 6001 achieved a reported 84.5% gall reduction.

Taxon
cucumberCucumis sativust0
Treatment
grafted onto Ercola 6001e0
Outcome
number of gallse0
Direction
reductione0
Value
84.5%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cucumis sativus
Cucumis sativus · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The reduction in number of galls ranged between Rugby 10G (47%) grafted onto Bh (98.3%) and Rugby 10G (30.2%) grafted onto Ercola 6001 (84.5%), respectively in two seasons”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 787–958 · show in text ↑
t0

“cucumber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–19 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Grafting onto Bh yielded the greatest reduction in nematode females and egg masses.

Taxon
cucumberCucumis sativuse0
Treatment
grafting onto resistant plant rootstocks Bhe0
Outcome
number of females and egg-massese0
Direction
maximum reductione0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cucumis sativus
Cucumis sativus · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“maximum reduction in number of females and egg-masses forming was on cucumber grafting onto resistant plant rootstocks Bh”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1061–1182 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Root-knot nematode infestation significantly reduced cucumber shoot height and leaf area.

Taxon
cucumberCucumis sativust0
Treatment
soil infested by RKNe0
Interactor
Root-knot nematodeMeloidogynee0pathogen
Outcome
shoot plant height and leaf areae0
Direction
decreasede0
Comparator
infested plant (check)e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cucumis sativus
Cucumis sativus · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Meloidogyne
Meloidogyne · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Photo by William Wergin and Richard Sayre. Colorized by Stephen Ausmus. U.S. Department of Agriculture · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Root-knot nematode (RKN) significantly decreased shoot plant height and leaf area, when they were grown in soil infested by RKN compared to infested plant (check)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1349–1511 · show in text ↑
t0

“cucumber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–19 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Cucumber fruit and yield characteristics were reported as significantly improved relative to infested cucumber.

Taxon
cucumberCucumis sativuse0
Outcome
cucumber yieldse0
Direction
improvede0
Comparator
infested cucumbere0

Not reportedTreatment

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cucumis sativus
Cucumis sativus · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“cucumber yields (number of days to first flower, fruit characteristics (fruits weight, length and diameter), total early fruits (first four gathering) and total fruit per plant were significantly improved in plant leaves compared with infested cucumber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1692–1944 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Shoot macro and microelement levels were increased relative to infested cucumber.

Taxon
cucumberCucumis sativust0
Outcome
shoot macro and micro-elementse0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
infested cucumbere0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cucumis sativus
Cucumis sativus · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the shoot macro and micro-elements were increased compared with infested cucumber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1960–2041 · show in text ↑
t0

“cucumber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–19 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Variation in macroelements, microelements, and chlorophyll content was not significant.

Taxon
cucumberCucumis sativust0
Outcome
macro and micro-elements and chlorophyll contentse0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cucumis sativus
Cucumis sativus · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The macro and micro-elements and chlorophyll contents were recorded but the variation between them were non-significant.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2043–2163 · show in text ↑
t0

“cucumber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 11–19 · show in text ↑

Meloidogyne javanica · growth · Cucumis sativus (cucumber)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 1 positive, 4 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

grafting · pest · Cucumis sativus (cucumber)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

infection · growth · Cucumis sativus (cucumber)Positive and negative results

14 papers: 6 positive, 8 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

10 papers more in this group

See all 14 papers →

grafting · Meloidogyne incognita · Cucumis sativus (cucumber)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 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.