Efeito de indutores de resistência sobre Meloidogyne exigua do cafeeiro

Salgado, Sônia Maria de Lima; Resende, Mário Lúcio Vilela de; Campos, Vicente Paulo

doi:10.1590/s1413-70542007000400010

Cited by 17 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the results of our study were not consistent with these findings, since only Experiment 2 showed difference between application times. ASM was not effective in controlling Meloidogyne exigua Goeldi in coffee cultivar Catuaí 144, and no significant difference was observed between the treatments for final population, number of galls and reproduction factor variables 90 days after inoculation (Salgado et al, 2007). Some authors draw attention to the factors that could cause variations in the results obtained for inducing nematode resistance, that includes dosage, treatment timing, application method and cultivar genetic resistance (Owen et al, 1998;Owen et al, 2002;Molinari & Baser, 2010).…”

Section: (Experiments 2)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This may be due to the time required to induce the plant's resistance mechanisms, since various studies have shown that ASM does not affect hatching, survival and nematode penetration of host roots (Chinnasri et al, 2003;Salgado et al, 2007;Molinari & Baser, 2010), but it does impair nematode development and reproduction (Chinnasri et al, 2003;Molinari & Baser, 2010).…”

Section: (Experiments 2)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Chemicals used to activate resistance mechanisms include phosphites, salicylic acid (SA), acetylsalicylic acid, methyl jasmonate and acibenzolar-S-methyl (ASM) (Oostendorp et al, 2001;Walters et al, 2005;Salgado et al, 2007;Dias-Arieira et al, 2012). ASM is one of the most widely researched chemical inducers and is used mainly for inducing plant resistance to fungal, bacterial and viral diseases (Steiner & Schönbeck, 1995;Vallad & Goodman, 2004;Walters et al, 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies on induced resistance to nematodes have tended to appear more frequently over the last few years, investigating elicitors and a range of phytonematodes that attack various crops (Silva et al, 2004;Fabry et al, 2007;Franzener et al, 2007;Salgado et al, 2007;Dias-Arieira et al, 2012). In studies on induced resistance, there are no restrictions, regarding annual or perennial crops, but some factors must be taken into consideration, including the nature of the interaction of the specific pathosystem, the genetics of the host plant, and the need to boost defense mechanisms if the inducing agent has only a temporary effect (Salgado et al, 2007).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In studies on induced resistance, there are no restrictions, regarding annual or perennial crops, but some factors must be taken into consideration, including the nature of the interaction of the specific pathosystem, the genetics of the host plant, and the need to boost defense mechanisms if the inducing agent has only a temporary effect (Salgado et al, 2007).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of acibenzolar-S-methyl for the control of Meloidogyne javanica and effects on the development of susceptible and resistant soybean

Puerari¹,

Dias‐Arieira²,

Dadazio

et al. 2013

Trop. plant pathol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the activity of elicitor, acibenzolar-S-methyl (ASM), in inducing resistance to Meloidogyne javanica in soybean and in enhancing plant development. Plantlets of the soybean susceptible cultivar BRSMT-Pintado and the resistant cultivar MG/BR 46 Conquista were treated with ASM (0.5 g/L) at three different times: seven days before, one day before and seven days after inoculation with 2000 eggs/plant. Untreated inoculated plants and untreated non-inoculated plants were used as controls. Sixty days after inoculation, the number of galls, eggs/g root and vegetative parameters (height, aerial part fresh and dry mass and root fresh mass) were evaluated. The experiments were conducted over two different periods (Experiments 1 and 2). Only in Experiment 2 treatment "seven days before inoculation" reduced the number of eggs/g root, irrespective of the cultivar evaluated, but the number of galls was not affected. Stronger plant development was observed in the susceptible soybean cultivar treated seven days before inoculation in Experiment 2.

show abstract

Section: (Experiments 2)mentioning

confidence: 99%