Efficacy of new nematicides for managing Meloidogyne incognita in tomato crop

The last decade has seen a sharp increase in nematicide research in the agricultural industry. As a result, several new synthetic nematicides have become available to growers, and several more are expected in the near future. This new interest in nematicides is directly related to the growing demand for safer and more selective products, and the increasing regulatory pressure on many of the traditional nematicides. This has led to a ban of several widely used fumigant (e.g. methyl bromide) and non-fumigant (e.g. aldicarb) nematicides. The loss of traditional nematicides, combined with a lack of replacement products and awareness of the damage that nematodes can cause, has not only raised concern among growers, but has also created new opportunities for the crop protection industry. Nematicides have become a priority, and many companies are now allocating significant research dollars to discover new nematicides. The new nematicides are very different from previous products: (i) they are more selective, often only targeting nematodes, and (ii) they are less toxic, and safer to use. This review article describes these new developments by discussing the challenges that are associated with finding new nematicides, reviewing the nature, characteristics, and efficacy of new nematicides, and discussing the impact they could have on future nematode management.

Section: Efficacy Of New Chemical Nematicides In Greenhouse and Fieldmentioning

confidence: 90%

New reduced-risk agricultural nematicides - rationale and review

Desaeger

Wram

Zasada

2020

“…In 2014, fluopyram was registered as a seed treatment to control the soybean cyst nematode, Heterodera glycines ( Beeman and Tylka, 2018 ). Currently available studies also demonstrated how fluopyram affects the development of the nematodes species, M. incognita , M. javanica , H. glycines , H. schachtii , and Pratylenchis loosi ( Hurd et al, 2015 ; Kim et al, 2016 ; Beeman and Tylka, 2018 ; Mohotti et al, 2018 ; Dahlin et al, 2019 ; Hajihassani et al, 2019 ; Ji et al, 2019 ; Oka and Saroya, 2019 ; Schleker et al, 2019 ; Silva et al, 2019 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of fluopyram for the control of Ditylenchus dipsaci in sugar beet

Storelli

Keiser

Eder

et al. 2020

Fluopyram, a succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor fungicide, has shown potential in controlling Meloidogyne incognita and Rotylenchus reniformis in tomato. The effectiveness of this compound for the control of Ditylenchus dipsaci in sugar beet was evaluated. In this study, laboratory, growth chamber, glasshouse, and field experiments were conducted. In a motility bioassay, the EC 50 value was determined with 3.00 μ g/ml a.i. after 72 h exposure to fluopyram. The growth chamber experiment did not show any effects on D. dipsaci penetration rate; however, field experiments revealed a positive effect of fluopyram applied at planting in reducing D. dipsaci infectivity. The glasshouse experiment confirmed a limited effect of fluopyram on D. dipsaci population development. Under field conditions, despite a reduction of D. dipsaci penetration rates in spring, fluopyram was not effective in reducing the population development until harvest. Consequently, D. dipsaci densities in plant tissue and soil were high at harvest and not different among treatments. However, root-rot symptoms were significantly reduced at harvest. Fluopyram applied at planting showed good potential to reduce root-rot symptoms caused by D. dipsaci in sugar beet. However, for the long-term reduction of nematode populations in soil, further integrated control measures are needed to reduce the risks of substantial yield losses by D. dipsaci.

“…Fluopyram nematicide was not effective for managing plant-parasitic nematode populations at 50 or more days after planting in this study as it had no effect on ring nematode population density and increased spiral and RN population densities at various times compared with untreated control. Previous studies have found that fluopyram can be effective against other nematodes, including root-knot nematodes on vegetables ( Hajihassani et al, 2019 ; Ji et al, 2019 ; Silva et al, 2019 ) and cotton ( Roper, 2017 ) as well as a mixture of sting nematode ( Belonolaimus longicaudatus ) and spiral nematodes on turfgrass ( Waldo et al, 2019 ). The concentration of fluopyram needed to paralyze nematodes in vitro is greater for RN than M. incognita ( Faske and Hurd, 2015 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While effective in managing Meloidogyne spp. on vegetables in greenhouse and microplot studies ( Hajihassani et al, 2019 ; Silva et al, 2019 ), evaluation of fluopyram effects on other plant-parasitic nematodes is needed in various rotation systems.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Nematicide influence on cotton yield and plant-parasitic nematodes in conventional and sod-based crop rotation

Schumacher

Grabau

Wright

et al. 2020

Plant-parasitic nematodes (Rotylenchulus reniformis (reniform, RN), Helicotylenchus dihystera (spiral), and Mesocriconema ornatum (ring)) and yield were investigated in cotton phases of conventional (peanut-cotton-cotton) and sod-based (bahiagrass-bahiagrasspeanut-cotton) rotations with or without irrigation and fluopyram nematicide at a long-term research site, established in 2000, in Quincy, Florida, USA. Objectives were to determine impacts of nematicide application on cotton yield and evaluate effects of nematicide on plant-parasitic nematodes in these rotations in 2017 and 2018. Reniform nematode population densities were greater in conventional cotton than sod-based cotton. Ring and spiral nematode population densities were greater in sod-based cotton than conventional cotton. Plots receiving nematicide had increased RN population densities in preplant 2018 soil samples and spiral nematode population densities in preplant 2017, harvest 2017, preplant 2018, and harvest 2018 soil samples compared to untreated plots. Cotton seed yield in conventional rotation was increased by 18% following nematicide application in 2017 but decreased by 10% in sod-based rotation in 2018, relative to the untreated control. Sodbased rotation had greater cotton yield than conventional rotation in 2017 and 2018. Nematicide application did not improve cotton yield in sod-based rotation and was inconsistent in conventional rotation.