BIOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT OF Pratylenchus brachyurus IN SOYBEAN CROPS

Abstract

The efficiency of biological products combined with biological fertilization for controlling Pratylenchus brachyurus in soybean crops, and effects of these treatments on soybean crops were evaluate. A greenhouse experiment was conducted at the Mato Grosso State University, in Brazil, using a randomized block design with a 10×2 factorial arrangement, and four replications. The treatments consisted of Trichoderma asperellum, B. subtilis, Purpureocillium lilacinum, B. subtilis + T. asperellum, B. subtilis + P. lilacinum, T. asperellum + P. lilacinum, B. subtilis + T. asperellum + P. lilacinum and abamectin, and Controls with, and without nematodes. Nematode population, plant height, stem base diameter, and soil microbiological characteristics (at 60 and 120 days after sowing - DAS), shoot dry weight (60 DAS), and number of pods per plant, and grain yield (120 DAS) were evaluated. The treatments were efficient for the control of phytonematodes at 60 DAS; the efficiency of treatments with biological products increased when combined with biological fertilization. The biological products were more efficient for controlling the nematodes than abamectin at 120 DAS; and the percentage of control were higher when they were combined with biological fertilization, in both growing periods. The biological treatments resulted in better agronomic characteristics, and higher number of pods per plant, and grain yield, affecting the plants in the first growing period, and significant interaction with the biological fertilizer for these variables in the second growing period. The interaction between treatments and biological fertilization was significant for soil microbiological characteristics in the second growing period.

Consortium of endophytic bacteria and rhizobacteria effectively suppresses the population of Pratylenchus coffeae and promotes the growth of Robusta coffee

“…Various studies revealed that one of the promising control for P. coffeae is biological control (Munif and Giyanto 2015;Gunasekaran et al 2018). Prospective biological agents used as biological control of P. coffeae generally come from the endophytic bacteria and rhizobacteria (Oliveira et al 2019).…”

The Fight against Plant-Parasitic Nematodes: Current Status of Bacterial and Fungal Biocontrol Agents

“…Bacterial species from Bacillus , Pseudomonas , and Streptomyces were the most analyzed against Pratylenchus spp., while the most common fungal biocontrol agents were AMF (specifically from the Glomus genus) and Trichoderma spp. Promising results were obtained for P. brachyurus using different fungal species in corn and soybean [ 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 ]. Dias-Arieira et al [ 97 ] compared the single application with the combined activity of P. lilacinum and T. harzianum in soybean crops, denoting that both fungi were more effective when applied independently.…”

“…All combinations were efficient in controlling this RLN, outperforming the chemical nematicide abamectin, 120 days after sowing. The reproduction factor (Rf) of P. brachyurus was lower (Rf = 0.4) in the treatment combining B. subtilis and P. lilacinum in the crop season, while in the fallow season, the treatment with P. lilacinum alone resulted in the most significant reduction (Rf = 0.6) [ 98 ]. Pacheco et al [ 96 ] showed that P. chlamydosporia Pc-3, Pc-10, Pc-35, and Trichoderma sp.…”

Distribuição populacional do nematoide das lesões radiculares no estado de Mato Grosso, Brasil

“…São parasitas obrigatórios de órgãos vegetais subterrâneos, migradores, penetram e se movimentam no interior do tecido por via inter ou intracelular através de ações mecânicas e enzimáticas (Ferraz, 1999), possuem ampla distribuição geográfica e são polífagos (Gardiano-Link et al, 2022). Sua importância se justifica pelo alto custo econômico e ambiental envolvidos em seu controle, a sua erradicação é praticamente impossível e as medidas de controle somente reduzirão a população do solo, estas medidas são onerosas ao produtor e ao solo quando utilizado produtos químicos, desequilibrando a microfauna do solo (Oliveira et al, 2019).…”