Paper · 2019 · Acta Phytopathologica et Entomologica Hungarica

Control of the Root-Knot Nematode Meloidogyne incognita and Weeds in Protected Cucumber with Dimethyl Disulfide (DMDS) over Two Crop Cycles: The First Results in Hungary

F. Tóth; Franciska Tóthné Bogdányi; Renáta Petrikovszki; et al.

6
claims
19
verbatim quotes
11
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

The effectiveness of dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) to control root-knot nematodes ( Meloidogyne spp.) and weeds was tested for the first time in Hungary in two consecutive protected cucumber crops with application made only before the first crop. The treatments were Accolade EC (DMDS 94.1%) at 400 l/ha applied by driplines, Nemathorin 10 G (fosthiazate) at 30 kg/ha, and an untreated control. During the first cucumber cycle vigour-index, yield, root-gall index, Meloidogyne juveniles in the soil and germination of weeds were evaluated. All considered parameters were significantly improved by using DMDS compared respectively to the chemical standard and untreated control: (i) vigour-index of 7.0, 4.3 and 3.6; (ii) cumulative yield/sample of 45.1 kg, 30.9 kg, and 16.6 kg; root-gall index (RGI) of 1.2, 4.9, and 5.9; (iii) M. incognita J2/25 g soil of 0.25, 48.5 and 78.0, and (iv) number of weed seedlings/sample in the 20–30 cm soil profile of 1.1, 2.6, and 4.2. During the second cucumber crop, only root-gall index was evaluated. Results showed that a single DMDS treatment applied before the first crop had a prolonged beneficial effect on the following crop. In the second crop cycle, root gall indices were 5.58, 9.18, and 8.44 for DMDS treated plots, chemical control and untreated control, respectively.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

DMDS improved cucumber vigour index to 7.0 versus 4.3 under fosthiazate and 3.6 untreated.

Taxon
CucumberCucumis sativust0
Treatment
Accolade EC (DMDS 94.1%) at 400 l/ha applied by driplinese1
Outcome
vigour-indexe0
Direction
improvede0
Value
7.0e0
Qualifier
4.3 and 3.6e0
Comparator
Nemathorin 10 G (fosthiazate) at 30 kg/ha, and an untreated controle1

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

“All considered parameters were significantly improved by using DMDS compared respectively to the chemical standard and untreated control: (i) vigour-index of 7.0, 4.3 and 3.6”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 536–710 · show in text ↑
e1

“The treatments were Accolade EC (DMDS 94.1%) at 400 l/ha applied by driplines, Nemathorin 10 G (fosthiazate) at 30 kg/ha, and an untreated control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 243–389 · show in text ↑
t0

“Protected Cucumber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–87 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

DMDS raised first-cycle cumulative cucumber yield to 45.1 kg per sample versus 30.9 and 16.6 kg.

Taxon
CucumberCucumis sativust0
Treatment
Accolade EC (DMDS 94.1%) at 400 l/ha applied by driplinese1
Outcome
cumulative yield/samplee0
Direction
improvede0
Value
45.1 kge0
Qualifier
30.9 kg, and 16.6 kge0
Comparator
Nemathorin 10 G (fosthiazate) at 30 kg/ha, and an untreated controle1

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

“All considered parameters were significantly improved by using DMDS compared respectively to the chemical standard and untreated control: (i) vigour-index of 7.0, 4.3 and 3.6; (ii) cumulative yield/sample of 45.1 kg, 30.9 kg, and 16.6 kg”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 536–773 · show in text ↑
e1

“The treatments were Accolade EC (DMDS 94.1%) at 400 l/ha applied by driplines, Nemathorin 10 G (fosthiazate) at 30 kg/ha, and an untreated control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 243–389 · show in text ↑
t0

“Protected Cucumber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–87 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

DMDS reduced first-cycle cucumber root gall index to 1.2 versus 4.9 and 5.9.

Taxon
CucumberCucumis sativust0
Treatment
Accolade EC (DMDS 94.1%) at 400 l/ha applied by driplinese1
Interactor
Meloidogyne spp.Meloidogynee2pathogen
Outcome
root-gall index (RGI)e0
Direction
improvede0
Value
1.2e0
Qualifier
4.9, and 5.9e0
Comparator
Nemathorin 10 G (fosthiazate) at 30 kg/ha, and an untreated controle1

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

“All considered parameters were significantly improved by using DMDS compared respectively to the chemical standard and untreated control: (i) vigour-index of 7.0, 4.3 and 3.6; (ii) cumulative yield/sample of 45.1 kg, 30.9 kg, and 16.6 kg; root-gall index (RGI) of 1.2, 4.9, and 5.9”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 536–817 · show in text ↑
e1

“The treatments were Accolade EC (DMDS 94.1%) at 400 l/ha applied by driplines, Nemathorin 10 G (fosthiazate) at 30 kg/ha, and an untreated control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 243–389 · show in text ↑
t0

“Protected Cucumber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–87 · show in text ↑
e2

“root-knot nematodes ( Meloidogyne spp.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 58–97 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

DMDS reduced soil M. incognita juveniles to 0.25 per 25 g versus 48.5 and 78.0.

Taxon
CucumberCucumis sativust0
Treatment
Accolade EC (DMDS 94.1%) at 400 l/ha applied by driplinese1
Interactor
M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae0pathogen
Outcome
M. incognita J2/25 g soile0
Direction
improvede0
Value
0.25e0
Qualifier
48.5 and 78.0e0
Comparator
Nemathorin 10 G (fosthiazate) at 30 kg/ha, and an untreated controle1

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

“All considered parameters were significantly improved by using DMDS compared respectively to the chemical standard and untreated control: (i) vigour-index of 7.0, 4.3 and 3.6; (ii) cumulative yield/sample of 45.1 kg, 30.9 kg, and 16.6 kg; root-gall index (RGI) of 1.2, 4.9, and 5.9; (iii) M. incognita J2/25 g soil of 0.25, 48.5 and 78.0”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 536–873 · show in text ↑
e1

“The treatments were Accolade EC (DMDS 94.1%) at 400 l/ha applied by driplines, Nemathorin 10 G (fosthiazate) at 30 kg/ha, and an untreated control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 243–389 · show in text ↑
t0

“Protected Cucumber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–87 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

DMDS reduced weed seedlings per sample to 1.1 versus 2.6 and 4.2.

Taxon
CucumberCucumis sativust0
Treatment
Accolade EC (DMDS 94.1%) at 400 l/ha applied by driplinese1
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
number of weed seedlings/samplee0
Direction
improvede0
Value
1.1e0
Qualifier
2.6, and 4.2e0
Comparator
Nemathorin 10 G (fosthiazate) at 30 kg/ha, and an untreated controle1

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

“All considered parameters were significantly improved by using DMDS compared respectively to the chemical standard and untreated control: (i) vigour-index of 7.0, 4.3 and 3.6; (ii) cumulative yield/sample of 45.1 kg, 30.9 kg, and 16.6 kg; root-gall index (RGI) of 1.2, 4.9, and 5.9; (iii) M. incognita J2/25 g soil of 0.25, 48.5 and 78.0, and (iv) number of weed seedlings/sample in the 20–30 cm soil profile of 1.1, 2.6, and 4.2”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 536–965 · show in text ↑
e1

“The treatments were Accolade EC (DMDS 94.1%) at 400 l/ha applied by driplines, Nemathorin 10 G (fosthiazate) at 30 kg/ha, and an untreated control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 243–389 · show in text ↑
t0

“Protected Cucumber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–87 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

One pre-crop DMDS application lowered second-cycle cucumber root gall index to 5.58 versus 9.18 and 8.44.

Taxon
CucumberCucumis sativust0
Treatment
a single DMDS treatment applied before the first crope0
Interactor
Meloidogyne spp.Meloidogynee1pathogen
Outcome
root gall indicese0
Direction
beneficial effecte0
Value
5.58e0
Qualifier
9.18, and 8.44e0
Comparator
chemical control and untreated controle0

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

“a single DMDS treatment applied before the first crop had a prolonged beneficial effect on the following crop. In the second crop cycle, root gall indices were 5.58, 9.18, and 8.44 for DMDS treated plots, chemical control and untreated control, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1056–1313 · show in text ↑
t0

“Protected Cucumber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–87 · show in text ↑
e1

“root-knot nematodes ( Meloidogyne spp.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 58–97 · show in text ↑

dimethyl disulfide · Meloidogyne · 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 →

dimethyl disulfide · yield · Cucumis sativus (cucumber)Results agree

4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 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.