Timely Information Agriculture & Natural Resources

Similar documents
Variability in Race Tests with Heterodera glycines

Arkansas Corn and Grain Sorghum Performance Tests

Arkansas Corn and Grain Sorghum Performance Tests

2007 Kentucky Hybrid Corn Performance Test

Recommended Wheat Varieties for Fall Planting,

Turfgrass and Environmental Research Online

Norwest 553. Hard Red Winter Wheat

2007 Iowa Experimental Corn Trials

Variety Trial Results for 2018 and Selection Guide

Comparison of MON76980 (Xtendimax) and Liberty Herbicide Systems for weed control in Soybeans at Rochester, MN in SUMMARY:

2009 Corn and Grain Sorghum Performance Tests

2017 South Dakota Corn Hybrid Trial Results - Volga

2018 Corn Grain Field Crop Trials Results

(12 08 CRRLL-12 BAY DLL Capreno) Site Description Northeast Research & Extension Center

(04 08 CRR-04 DUP USA Prequel North Pivot) Site Description Northeast Research & Extension Center

Report of Progress 895

SOUTHWEST OHIO CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION 2014 CORN HYBRID AND SOYBEAN VARIETY PERFORMANCE TESTS

Trials. Farmers may face many trials

2003 Crop Performance Results

Validation of Biometrical Principles for Genetic Enhancement of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)

Release of 'Norwest 553' Hard Red Winter Wheat

Toward an Outlook for California Agriculture Relevant to GHG Emissions Mitigation. April 30, Daniel A. Sumner

Annual Report Ecology and management of feral hogs on Fort Benning, Georgia.

2005 Iowa Experimental Corn Trials

TOBACCO. Measured Crop Performance. E. L. PRICE, Tobacco Inspector. J. M. KENYON, Insfrudor. N. C. State University. Research Report No.

Animal Science Info Series: AS-B-226 The University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service

This information is presented under authority granted the North Carolina Agricultural Research Service to conduct performance tests, including

The Southeastern Pecan Industry Past, Present, and Future

Triticale and Rye. Tifton, Georgia: Triticale and Rye Grain Performance, Average 2 Average 2 Weight Height Lodging Date

2016 Corn Performance Tests in Texass

Isolation of the rapid blight pathogen Labyrinthula terrestris from Bermudagrasses in Arizona

Field Evaluation of a Novel Lure for Trapping Seedcorn Maggot Adults

CHECKS AND BALANCES. OVERVIEW Students become managers of a herd of animals in a paper-pencil, discussionbased

~ Origin & Goals. Paul Rawson, Dale Leavitt, Dana Morse & Diane Murphy

CHANNEL CATFISH CULTURE IN THE UNITED STATES. Leonard Lovshin Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures Auburn University, AL 36849

Factors Affecting the Reproduction of Bluegill Bream and Largemouth Black Bass in Ponds

(09 SLL-1 Liberty Link SB) Site Description Page 1 of 13 Northeast Research & Extension Center

2015 Corn Performance Tests in Texass

2010 Texas Wheat Variety Results

Peanut Variety Test. C.B. Godsey and W. Vaughan Department of Plant and Soil Sciences progress made possible through OPC and NPB support

2018 Corn Silage Field Crop Trials Results

Ecology and Utilisation of Harpagophytum procumbens (Devil's Claw) in Southern Africa

2017 Cricket Frass as a Potential Nitrogen Fertility Source

Cotton Comments OSU Southwest Oklahoma Research and Extension Center Altus, OK

Table of Contents Page

North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service

Hardy bermudagrasses sought with resistance to spring dead spot

Inheritance of Leaf Shape and Main Vein Color in Caladium 1

Cotton Insect Identification Guide

WILD HOGS IN MISSISSIPPI

Introduction: Methods:

Selective Genotyping for Marker Assisted Selection Strategies for Soybean Yield Improvement. Ben Fallen

P artners in. Peanut Variety Test. rogress. C.B. Godsey, W. Vaughan, and B. Heister Department of Plant and Soil Sciences.

Objective: Experimental Procedures:

2018(?) FARM BILL DISCUSSION

The Science of Maryland Agriculture

2017/18 Soybean Outlook

Soybean, Corn, & Wheat Outlook Middle Tennessee Grain Conference

Soybean, Corn, & Wheat Outlook Middle Tennessee Grain Conference

Where now for slug control without Draza?

ALABAMA HUNTING SURVEY

Tidewater Ag. Res. & Ext. Ctr.

Overview of the U. S. Trout Industry

Progressive Riding Series Unit 2 Novice Directions:

Turfgrass and Environmental Research Online

2018 Cotton Market Outlook: At What Price Should I Get Back Into Cotton?

Canada s Plant Breeders Rights (PBR) Intellectual Property (IP) Framework

Targeted Wild Pig Feeder by WPF, Inc.

Isolation of the rapid blight pathogen, Labyrinthula terrestris, from bermudagrasses in Arizona

SP-472 AUGUST Feral Hog Population Growth, Density and Harvest in Texas

Small Grains Variety Evaluation at Arizona City, Maricopa and Yuma, 2013

Results of a Two-Year Pink Bollworm Survey in the Southern Plains of Texas and New Mexico

The Ahamacave or Mohave The Mohave continue to live in their river valley homelands The Mohave eat many different types of food dammed

Objective: Experimental Procedures:

Economics of Spice Pepper Production in Oklahoma 1

P artners in. Peanut Variety Tests. rogress. C. B. Godsey and W. Vaughan Department of Plant and Soil Sciences. Variety Tests.

Controlling Predators to Increase Quail Populations

, PIl USDA/Sll-B77 CO'T'l'ON', GINNING CIIARGE;S, HARVESTING PRAC'l'ICES, ' AND SELECTED MARKETING COSTS, 19f!2/93 SEASON.

Fish Farming in Arizona: Double Duty From Irrigation Water

Michigan State University participates in the

LSU AgCenter. Water-Seeded Variety Tolerance to Command at PEGGING

Surface Firmness: Can we Manage it? Clint Waltz, Ph.D. Turfgrass Specialist

Blacklands 2005 Uniform Wheat Variety Trials

Steven & Angelia Coy Wiggins, MS

CONTACT: Warren Prescott, President (511) Mike Farina, Golf Sales (561)

Catfish Industry. The Delta. ANS 18 - CATFISH vs BASA 1

021 Deer Management Unit

National Turfgrass Evaluation Program (NTEP) 2008 Bentgrass Green Test Progress Report. J. S. Ebdon, Ph. D., and W. T.

Invasive Species. Grade Levels. Introduction. This activity is intended for grades 9 12.

Development and Management of Bulls 1

Invasive Versus Endemic Species

A Pictorial Guide to Back Plaiting a Lead Rope

State of the Ag Economy

2003 RUTGERS Turfgrass Proceedings

2013 SPRING WHEAT VARIETIES. Performance Evaluation and Recommendations

4-H GOAT KID GIVEAWAY APPLICATION FORM

Farmers perceptions of white-tailed deer damage to row crops in 20 Georgia counties during 2016.

Nechako white sturgeon are an Endangered Species

Objective: Experimental Procedures:

Canola blackleg and sclerotinia*

Transcription:

PLANT PATHOLOGY SERIES Timely Information Agriculture & Natural Resources December 5, 2006 PP-617 Resistance of Field (Dent) s to the Southern (Cotton) Root Knot and Reniform Nematode Kathy S. Lawrence, Austin Hagan, and William S. Gazaway Prior to 1970, corn was considered a non-host of the southern root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne incognita). Even today, reference to corn as an effective rotation alternative for southern (cotton) root-knot nematode (RKN) can be found in extension literature nationwide. Unfortunately, all corn hybrids on the market today apparently are good hosts for southern RKN and will maintain if not increase their populations rather than suppress them. It is believed that resistance to the southern RKN was lost over the years because plant breeders failed to screen corn breeding lines against southern RKN. A southern RKN resistant corn hybrid is badly needed to help avoid aggravating already serious nematode problems in cotton, soybean, and many vegetable crops. For example, cotton production throughout the South is threatened by both the reniform nematode (Rotylenchulus reniformis) and the southern (cotton) RKN. While corn is a non-host for the reniform nematode and can be used successfully as a rotation partner to effectively manage this nematode in a cotton production system. However, cropping corn before cotton can greatly increase the risk of sizable yield losses in cotton due to southern RKN, particularly in fields with lighter soils. The only alternative rotation partner for cotton growers with southern RKN problems is peanut, which is a non-host to both the reniform and southern RKN. However, peanut production is not only limited to certain soils but the availability of costly harvesting equipment, and marketing options. Therefore, peanut is not a viable option for many Alabama cotton producers. This study focused on identifying corn hybrids that are resistant to the reniform () and southern root knot nematode (). Corn hybrids selected were based on availability of those hybrids suitable for cultivation in the south. Materials and Methods Greenhouse evaluation of corn hybrids for resistance to the southern root knot nematode (Meloidogyne incognita race 3) and reniform nematode (Rotylenchulus reniformis) were conducted at the Plant Science Research Center of Auburn University. Ninety-two transgenic and non-transgenic corn hybrids were evaluated for host suitability to both nematodes species and compared to a nematode susceptible cotton standard DPL 555 BG/RR. ALABAMA A&M AND AUBURN UNIVERSITIES, AND TUSKEGEE UNIVERSITY, COUNTY GOVERNING BODIES AND USDA COOPERATING The Alabama Cooperative Extension System offers educational programs, materials, and equal opportunity employment to all people without regard to race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, veteran status, or disability.

Inoculum preparation: Reniform nematodes were collected from various cotton field locations across Alabama and the southern root knot nematode originated from the Auburn University, E. V. Smith Research Center. Reniform and southern root knot nematodes were propagated and increased on cotton (ST 5599BG/RR and DPL 555BG/RR, respectively) in the greenhouse. After sixty days, cotton plants were removed and the each nematode species was extracted separately from the soil by combined gravity screening and sucrose centrifugal floatation. Nematode eggs were collected from the root systems by shaking the excised root systems for 4 minutes in 0.6% NaOCl and sieving. Both nematode species were standardized to 1000 juveniles or vermiform life stage and eggs per 2 ml of water for inoculation. Host suitability: Separate evaluations were conducted for each nematode species. Corn hybrids were grown in 150cm 3 Conetainer filled with a loamy sand soil (72.5% sad, 25% silt, 2.5% clay, ph 6.4). The soil was autoclaved twice at 121 C and 103.4 kpa for two hours on two consecutive days. Seeds were planted and allowed to germinate and grow for five to seven days after which the hybrids were inoculated with the standardized solutions of each nematode species. Greenhouse experiments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with five replications and each test was conducted twice. Sixty days after inoculation, nematodes were extracted from the soil, and eggs were removed from the roots as previously described. After enumeration of reniform vermiform and egg populations, reproductive factor values (Rf = final population / initial population) were determined. Any values over 1 would indicate the nematode species is increasing in population numbers. Nematodes are not reproducing when the values are less than 1. All data was analyzed using general linear model procedures (GLM) of SAS. Means were separated with Fisher s protected least significant difference test (P < 0.05). Results and Discussion We are in the process of screening current and discontinued corn hybrids for signs of RKN resistance in the greenhouse (Table 1). So far, none of the corn hybrids screened exhibit any resistance to southern RKN. Increases in southern RKN populations as well as considerable root galling were noted for all corn hybrids tested. All the corn hybrids screened for resistance to the reniform nematode are resistant to the nematode and do not allow for reproduction of this nematode species. More hybrids are being screened. Until a corn hybrid with good resistance to RKN is identified, corn SHOULD NOT BE grown in fields with established populations of the southern RKN.

Table 1. Corn hybrids evaluated for the reniform nematode (Rotylenchulus reniformis) and southern root knot nematode (Meloidogyne incognita race 3) susceptibility in the greenhouse. Company AgraTech AT 695 RRCRW nt z nt 10.8 5 S AgraTech AT 719 RR CRN 0 y R x nt nt nt AgraTech AT 755 RR 0 R nt nt nt AgraTech AT 755 RRBT CRN 0 R 3.06 5 S AgraTech AT X41655 0 R nt nt nt AgraTech AT X41751 CRN 0 R nt nt nt CG 721 /BT 0 R nt nt nt CG 731 HX/LL 0 R 1.8 5 S CG 751 /BT nt nt 8.46 5 S CG 780 /BT nt nt 2.52 5 S CG 799 nt nt 3.34 5 S CG 823 HX/LL 0.09 R nt nt nt CG 851 /BT 0 R 12.78 5 S CG DS 822 /BT 0.05 R nt nt nt CG DS 830 0 R nt nt nt CG 799 BT 0 R nt nt nt CG 895 BT 0 R 4.5 5 S DKC 57-84 0.03 R nt nt nt DKC 58-80 / 0.03 R nt nt nt DKC 61-22 nt nt 8.46 5 S DKC 61-45 / 0 R 12.78 5 S DKC 61-72 0 R 6.48 5 S DKC 62-31 nt nt 3.96 5 S DKC 63-81 / 0 R 11.34 5 S DKC 64-27 nt nt 5.22 5 S DKC 64-81 nt nt 5.04 5 S DKC 66-21 0 R nt nt nt DKC 66-23 - DKC 67-23 - nt nt 14.4 5 S nt nt 3.24 5 S

Company DKC 67-60 0.03 R 17.46 5 S DKC 69-68 - YGRW DKC 69-71 / nt nt 18.9 5 S 0 R 6.3 5 S DKC 69-72 0 R 3.24 5 S Dyna Gro DG 57P12 nt nt 9 5 S Dyna Gro DG 58P59 0.01 R nt nt nt Dyno Gro DG 58K02 nt nt 6.3 5 S Dyna Gro DG 58K22 0.02 R nt nt nt Dyna Gro DG 58K40 0 R 5.22 5 S Dyna Gro DG 58P45 nt nt 2.16 5 S Dyna Gro DG 58P59 nt nt 21.06 5 S Dyna Gro DG CX 04219 0.04 R nt nt nt Dyna Gro DG CX 04319 0 R nt nt nt Dyna Gro DG CX 05415 nt nt 6.84 5 S Dyna Gro DG CX 05516 0 R nt nt nt Dyna Gro DG CX 06319 nt nt 0.9 5 S Garst GARST 8200 0 R nt nt nt Garst GARST 8225 RR 0 R nt nt nt Garst GARST 8246 nt nt 7.92 5 S Garst GARST 8247 YGI nt nt 16.74 5 S Garst GARST 8248 RR nt nt 3.062 5 S Garst GARST 8288 0 R nt nt nt Garst GARST 8292 YGI 0 R nt nt nt Garst GARST 8295 YGI/RR nt nt 14.94 5 S Garst GARST 8350 YGI 0 R nt nt nt Garst GARST 8353 CB/LL nt nt 5.4 5 S Garst GARST 8380 IT nt nt 13.86 5 S Garst GARST 8450 IT 0 R 6.3 5 S PION 31D58 nt nt 10.98 5 S PIONEER 31G66 0 R nt nt nt PIONEER 31G68 PIONEER 31G97 PIONEER 31N26 0 R 4.68 5 S 0 R nt nt nt 0 R 6.12 5 S

Company PIONEER 31N28 nt nt 8.82 5 S PION 31P41 nt nt 1.8 5 S PIONEER 31R87 0 R 6.48 5 S PIONEER 33H25 0.01 R nt nt nt PIONEER 33M54 0.03 R 19.2 5 S PIONEER 33V15 0 R 5.22 5 S PION 33Y45 nt nt 3.96 5 S Southern States SS804 0.03 R 8.1 5 S Southern States SS746 / 0 R nt nt nt Southern States SS842 / 0 R 1.8 5 S Southern States SS 96012 nt nt 4.14 5 S Southern States SS 96013 nt nt 5.94 5 S Terral TV 2160 BT () 0.01 R nt nt nt Terral TV 23R31 (RR) 0 R nt nt nt Terral TV 25BR23 (RR/ ) 0 R 5.22 5 S Terral TV 25R31 (RR) 0 R 8.28 5 S Terral TV 26B82 () 0 R nt nt nt Terral TV 26BR41 (RR/ ) 0 R 3.78 5 S Terral TV 26BR61 nt nt 1.8 5 S Terral TV 27C48 0 R nt nt nt Terral TVX 25BR601 nt nt 2.1 5 S Terral TVX 25 BR602 nt nt 12.78 5 S Vigoro VIGORO V 58YR2 0 R 2.88 3 S Vigoro VIGORO V 59YR52 0.03 R nt nt nt Vigoro VIGORO V56Y51 0 R nt nt nt Vigoro VIGORO V62R66 0 R 24.48 4 S Cotton DPL 555 BGRR 6.6 S 1.26 5 S z nt = not tested. y = numbers over 1 indicate the nematode population is increasing. x S = susceptible, MS = moderately susceptible, MR = moderately resistant, and R = resistant.