Abstract
Microplots 80 x 100 cm, infested with varying initial population densities (P(i)) of Meloidogyne incognita or M. hapla, were planted to tomato at two locations. Experiments were conducted in a sandy loam soil at Fletcher, N. C. (mountains) where the mean temperature for May to September is ca 20.7 C, and in a loamy saml at Clayton, N. C. (coastal plain) where the mean temperature for May to Septemher is ca 24.8 C. In these experimentally infested plots, M. incognita and M. hapla caused maximum yield losses of 20-30%, at lhe mountain site with Pi of 0-12,500 eggs and larvae/500 cm(3) of soil. In the coastal plain, M. incognita suppressed yields up to 85%, and M. hapla suppressed yields up to 50% in comparison with the non infested control. A part of the high losses at this site apparently was due to M. incognita predisposing tomato to the early blight fungus. In a second experiment, in which a nematicide was used to obtain a range of P(i)s (with P(i) as high as 25,000/50 cm(3) of soil) at Fletcher, losses due to M. incognita were as great as 50%, but similar densities of M. hapla suppressed yields by only 10-25%. Approximate threshold densities for both species ranged from 500 to 1,000 larvae and eggs (higher for surviving larvae) for the mountain site, whereas numbers as low as 20 larvae/500 cm(3) of soil of either species caused significant damage in the coastal plain. Chemical soil treatments proved useful in obtaining various initial population densities; however, problems were encountered in measuring effective inoculum after such treatments, especially in the heavier soil.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
M. incognita caused maximum tomato yield losses of 20-30% at the mountain site.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicumt0 - Treatment
- M. incognitae0
- Interactor
- M. incognita
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=60)
Meloidogyne incognitae0pathogen - Outcome
- yield lossese0
- Direction
- lossese0
- Value
- 20-30%e0
- Qualifier
- Pi of 0-12,500 eggs and larvae/500 cm(3) of soile0
- Setting
- mountain sitee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“M. incognita and M. hapla caused maximum yield losses of 20-30%, at lhe mountain site with Pi of 0-12,500 eggs and larvae/500 cm(3) of soil”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
M. hapla caused maximum tomato yield losses of 20-30% at the mountain site.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- M. haplae0
- Interactor
- M. hapla
Meloidogyne haplae0pathogen - Outcome
- yield lossese0
- Direction
- lossese0
- Value
- 20-30%e0
- Setting
- mountain sitee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“M. incognita and M. hapla caused maximum yield losses of 20-30%, at lhe mountain site with Pi of 0-12,500 eggs and larvae/500 cm(3) of soil”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
At the coastal plain site, M. incognita suppressed tomato yields by up to 85% versus non-infested controls.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- M. incognitae0
- Interactor
- M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae0pathogen
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- suppressede0
- Value
- 85%e0
- Comparator
- non infested controle0
- Setting
- coastal plaine0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the coastal plain, M. incognita suppressed yields up to 85%, and M. hapla suppressed yields up to 50% in comparison with the non infested control.”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
At the coastal plain site, M. hapla suppressed tomato yields by up to 50% versus non-infested controls.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- M. haplae0
- Interactor
- M. haplaMeloidogyne haplae0pathogen
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- suppressede0
- Value
- 50%e0
- Comparator
- non infested controle0
- Setting
- coastal plaine0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the coastal plain, M. incognita suppressed yields up to 85%, and M. hapla suppressed yields up to 50% in comparison with the non infested control.”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors attributed part of the high coastal yield loss to M. incognita predisposing tomato to early blight fungus.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Interactor
- M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae0pathogen
- Second interactor
- early blight funguse0pathogen
- Outcome
- high lossese0
- Qualifier
- apparentlye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A part of the high losses at this site apparently was due to M. incognita predisposing tomato to the early blight fungus.”
Claim · model-written summary
In the second Fletcher experiment, M. incognita caused tomato yield losses as high as 50%.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- M. incognitae0
- Interactor
- M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae0pathogen
- Outcome
- lossese0
- Direction
- lossese0
- Value
- 50%e0
- Setting
- Fletchere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“at Fletcher, losses due to M. incognita were as great as 50%”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
At similar densities in the second Fletcher experiment, M. hapla suppressed tomato yields by 10-25%.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- M. haplae0
- Interactor
- M. haplaMeloidogyne haplae0pathogen
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- suppressede0
- Value
- 10-25%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“similar densities of M. hapla suppressed yields by only 10-25%”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Approximate mountain-site damage thresholds for both nematodes were 500 to 1,000 larvae and eggs.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- threshold densitiese0
- Value
- 500 to 1,000 larvae and eggse0
- Qualifier
- higher for surviving larvaee0
- Setting
- mountain sitee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Approximate threshold densities for both species ranged from 500 to 1,000 larvae and eggs (higher for surviving larvae) for the mountain site”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
As few as 20 larvae per 500 cm3 of either nematode caused significant tomato damage in the coastal plain.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- either speciese0
- Outcome
- damagee0
- Value
- 20 larvae/500 cm(3) of soile0
- Setting
- coastal plaine0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“numbers as low as 20 larvae/500 cm(3) of soil of either species caused significant damage in the coastal plain”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Chemical soil treatments were useful for creating different initial nematode densities, although effective inoculum was difficult to measure, especially in heavier soil.
- Outcome
- obtaining various initial population densitiese0
- Qualifier
- problems were encountered in measuring effective inoculum after such treatments, especially in the heavier soile0
Not reportedComparatorValue
Verbatim
e0“Chemical soil treatments proved useful in obtaining various initial population densities; however, problems were encountered in measuring effective inoculum after such treatments, especially in the heavier soil.”
The same questions in other papers
Meloidogyne incognita · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 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.