Movement of seed- and soil-applied fluopyram in soil columns

Abstract

The movement of seed-and soil-applied fluopyram was evaluated in soil columns. The nematicide was sampled at three soil depths and used in a nematode motility bioassay. Based on Meloidogyne incognita mortality, the downward movement of soil-applied fluopyram was affected by soil type and application method. No nematode-toxic levels of soil-applied fluopyram were detected past 5 cm depth in sandy loam soil compared to 10 cm depth in sandy soil. A slower rate of water infiltration had little impact on the movement of soilapplied fluopyram in sandy soil, but did affect the movement of soilapplied abamectin. In the seed-applied nematicide experiments, a greater effect on nematode mortality was observed at the 0 to 5 cm depth in sandy soil with fluopyram-than abamectin-treated cotton seed, whereas a similar effect was observed with soybean seed. No effect on nematode motility was observed with other seed-applied nematicides, thiodicarb, and Bacillus firmus. Overall, soil-applied fluopyram had a greater effect on M. incognita mortality at 10 cm depth in sandy soil than seed-applied fluopyram. These data provide a better understanding as to the movement of fluopyram as affected by soil type, water infiltration rates, and application methods.

Fluopyram Controls Shoot-galling Caused by Pacific Shoot-gall Nematode and Improves Turf Quality in Annual Bluegrass Putting Greens

“…In the California trials, fluopyram applications were most likely not able to move past the putting greens' thatch layer and into the soil to significantly influence the plant-parasitic nematode populations. This is supported by research on the limited soil mobility of fluopyram that was influenced by soil physical characteristics (Faske and Brown, 2019). It can be hypothesized that most of the effective fluopyram applications remained on top of the thatch layer, covering the annual bluegrass grass stolons, flowers, and shoot bases.…”

“…In southern root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne incognita) infested field trials with fresh market carrot (Daucus carota), fluopyram achieved good protection efficacy but only to the shallow depth of mechanical incorporation (Becker et al, 2019). In soil column experiments, limited downward mobility was influenced by soil type and application method (Faske and Brown, 2019).…”

The relationship between commercial cotton cultivars with varying Meloidogyne incognita resistance genes and yield

“…The results presented here clearly show the benefits in terms of yield and reduction of M. incognita density of currently available cultivars with at least partial resistance to M. incognita. The HR-PHY resistance, which involves two well described resistance genes (RK1 and RK2) (Da Silva et al, 2019;Gutiérrez et al, 2010;Wubben et al, 2020), in commercial cultivars was superior to commercial cultivars with partial resistance or the DeltaPine source(s) of resistance. The first developed germplasm with high levels of M. incognita resistance in agronomically advanced cotton was Auburn 623 RNR (Shepherd, 1974).…”

“…While the type and consistency of M. incognita resistance genes did not appear to affect tolerance in resistant cultivars (partial resistant versus highly resistant cultivars could yield well), they did affect M. incognita density. The synergism that is expected when both the M. incognita resistant genes are present (Da Silva et al, 2019) would describe the low M. incognita densities found with HR-PHY group. The next level of M. incognita resistance was found with PR-PHY and NR-DP.…”

“…It has been demonstrated that there are two genes associated with the root-knot nematode resistance in Auburn 623 RNR (Gutiérrez et al, 2010). One gene which is located on chromosome 11 is associated with a reduction in the number of galls and it is involved with a delay or reduction in sedentary second-stage juveniles (J2) which develop in later life stages (Da Silva et al, 2019;Wubben et al, 2020). The second gene, which is located on the small arm of chromosome 14, is associated with a reduction in M. incognita reproduction rate, by reducing the total number of females and compromised egg production in females (Da Silva et al, 2019;Wubben et al, 2020).…”