Abstract
Root-knot nematodes (RKNs) are considered a limiting factor for tomato production, causing substantial economic losses. Several control measures have been used to control RKNs in infested areas, such as crop rotation or succession with non-host species, using resistant cultivars, and applying chemical and biological nematicides. Here, we examined the control effect of six microbiological products (Ag109 - Bacillus velezensis , Votivo Prime - B. firmus , Quartzo - B. subtilis and B. licheniformis , Veraneio - B. amyloliquefaciens , Nemat - Purpureocillium lilacinum , and Rizotec - Pochonia chlamydosporia ) against different species of Meloidogyne in tomatoes cultivated in a greenhouse and evaluated these products under field conditions to verify their impact on root-associated nematode populations and agronomic and physicochemical traits of fruits from grafted and non-grafted tomato plants. For the greenhouse studies, higher pathogenicity was observed for tomato with M. javanica and M. enterolobii compared to M. incognita . The microbiological nematicides were more effective in controlling M. javanica and M. enterolobii , while for M. incognita , the evaluated products were ineffective. Regarding the field studies, most of the microbiological nematicides evaluated effectively increased production per plant. However, when analyzing the Meloidogyne population in the field, applying microbiological nematicides showed no nematode control in plants without rootstock. On the other hand, in the grafted plants, the Ag109, Veraneio, Rizotec, and Nemat treatments boosted the reduction in the Meloidogyne population in the roots, with average reductions of 68.47, 57.97, 77.29, and 56.70%, respectively. These results indicate the effectiveness of integrated management of microbiological nematicides and resistant rootstock in tomato. Furthermore, combining these two control measures resulted in no change in the nutritional quality of tomato fruits.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
M. javanica was more pathogenic to tomato than M. incognita in greenhouse studies.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicume0 - Interactor
- M. javanicaMeloidogyne javanicae0pathogen
- Outcome
- pathogenicitye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- M. incognitae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“higher pathogenicity was observed for tomato with M. javanica and M. enterolobii compared to M. incognita .”
Claim · model-written summary
M. enterolobii was more pathogenic to tomato than M. incognita.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Interactor
- M. enterolobii
_5384315.jpg?width=60)
Meloidogyne enterolobiie0pathogen - Outcome
- pathogenicitye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- M. incognitae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_5384315.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“higher pathogenicity was observed for tomato with M. javanica and M. enterolobii compared to M. incognita .”
Claim · model-written summary
Microbiological nematicides more effectively controlled M. javanica.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- microbiological nematicidese0
- Interactor
- M. javanicaMeloidogyne javanicae0pathogen
- Outcome
- controlling M. javanicae0
- Direction
- more effectivee0
- Comparator
- M. incognitae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The microbiological nematicides were more effective in controlling M. javanica and M. enterolobii , while for M. incognita , the evaluated products were ineffective.”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Microbiological nematicides more effectively controlled M. enterolobii.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- microbiological nematicidese0
- Interactor
- M. enterolobiiMeloidogyne enterolobiie0pathogen
- Outcome
- M. enterolobiie0
- Direction
- more effectivee0
- Comparator
- M. incognitae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The microbiological nematicides were more effective in controlling M. javanica and M. enterolobii , while for M. incognita , the evaluated products were ineffective.”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Evaluated products were ineffective against M. incognita.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- evaluated productse0
- Interactor
- M. incognita
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=60)
Meloidogyne incognitae0pathogen - Outcome
- M. incognitae0
- Direction
- ineffectivee0
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“while for M. incognita , the evaluated products were ineffective.”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Most microbiological nematicides increased field production per plant.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- microbiological nematicidese0
- Outcome
- production per plante0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“most of the microbiological nematicides evaluated effectively increased production per plant.”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Microbiological nematicides gave no Meloidogyne control in plants without rootstock.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- applying microbiological nematicidese0
- Outcome
- nematode controle0
- Direction
- no nematode controle0
- Qualifier
- plants without rootstocke0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“applying microbiological nematicides showed no nematode control in plants without rootstock.”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Ag109 reduced root Meloidogyne population by 68.47% in grafted plants.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- Ag109e0
- Interactor
- MeloidogyneMeloidogynee0pathogen
- Outcome
- Meloidogyne population in the rootse0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 68.47e0
- Qualifier
- grafted plantse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in the grafted plants, the Ag109, Veraneio, Rizotec, and Nemat treatments boosted the reduction in the Meloidogyne population in the roots, with average reductions of 68.47, 57.97, 77.29, and 56.70%, respectively.”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Veraneio reduced root Meloidogyne population by 57.97% in grafted plants.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- Veraneioe0
- Interactor
- MeloidogyneMeloidogynee0pathogen
- Outcome
- Meloidogyne population in the rootse0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 57.97e0
- Qualifier
- grafted plantse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in the grafted plants, the Ag109, Veraneio, Rizotec, and Nemat treatments boosted the reduction in the Meloidogyne population in the roots, with average reductions of 68.47, 57.97, 77.29, and 56.70%, respectively.”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Rizotec reduced root Meloidogyne population by 77.29% in grafted plants.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- Rizotece0
- Interactor
- MeloidogyneMeloidogynee0pathogen
- Outcome
- Meloidogyne population in the rootse0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 77.29e0
- Qualifier
- grafted plantse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in the grafted plants, the Ag109, Veraneio, Rizotec, and Nemat treatments boosted the reduction in the Meloidogyne population in the roots, with average reductions of 68.47, 57.97, 77.29, and 56.70%, respectively.”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Nemat reduced root Meloidogyne population by 56.70% in grafted plants.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- Nemate0
- Interactor
- MeloidogyneMeloidogynee0pathogen
- Outcome
- Meloidogyne population in the rootse0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 56.70%e0
- Qualifier
- grafted plantse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in the grafted plants, the Ag109, Veraneio, Rizotec, and Nemat treatments boosted the reduction in the Meloidogyne population in the roots, with average reductions of 68.47, 57.97, 77.29, and 56.70%, respectively.”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Combining nematicides and resistant rootstock did not change tomato fruit nutritional quality.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- combining these two control measurese0
- Outcome
- nutritional quality of tomato fruitse0
- Direction
- no changee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“combining these two control measures resulted in no change in the nutritional quality of tomato fruits.”
t0“tomato”
The same questions in other papers
insecticide · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
25 papers more in this group
See all 29 papers →insecticide · control · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →insecticide · Meloidogyne enterolobii · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
insecticide · Meloidogyne javanica · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree
6 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 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.