Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T02:38:09.604Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Toxicity Tests with Vinegar Eelworm. I. Counting and Gulturing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2016

B. G. Peters
B. G. Peters
Affiliation:
Nematology Department, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The plant-parasitic nematodes have this in common with their relatives parasitic in animals, that they are unusually resistant to chemical control. It is not merely that substances lethal to the nematode are harmful to the animal or plant, for in both cases there are usually in the nematode’s life cycle free-living stages, and these are also highly resistant. Apparently the nematode cuticle, egg shell, and vitelline membrane are effective barriers to the penetration of many substances which might be expected to be good contact poisons. Several of the best modern insecticides have given disappointing results against plant eelworms (Ellis and Clayton, 1948). On the other hand some of the simpler halogenated hydrocarbons have been fairly effective, against both animal nematodes (CCl4, C2C14) and plant eelworms in the soil (C2H4Br2, C3H4Cl2).

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 26 , Issue 2-3 , June 1952 , pp. 97 - 110
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1952

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Borellus, Petrus, 1656.—“Observationum microscopicarum centuria.” 45 pp. (Hagae-Comitum).Google Scholar
Ellis, D. E. and Clayton, C. N., 1948.—“Soil treatments with new insecticides ineffective in control of root-knot.” Plant Dis. Reptr., 32, 476–477.Google Scholar
Faust, E. C., 1930.—“Human helminthology.” London, 616 pp.Google Scholar
Gordon, H. McL. and Whitlock, H. V., 1939.—“A new technique for counting nematode eggs in sheep faeces.” J. Coun. sci. industr. Res. Aust., 12, 50–52. (W.L. 11140a.)Google Scholar
Goodey, T., 1951.—“Laboratory methods for work with plant and soil nematodes.” Tech. Bull. Minist. Agric, Lona. No. 2, 2nd Edit., 25 pp.Google Scholar
Henneberg, W., 1900.—“Zur Biologie des Essigaales [Anguillula aceti) .” Z. Bakt. (2 Abt.), 6, 180–184. (W.L. 23684.)Google Scholar
Man, J. G. De, 1910.—“Beitrage zur Kenntnis der in dem vveissen Schleimfluss der Eichen lebenden Anguilluliden.” Zool. Jb. Abt. 1, 29, 359–394. (W.L. 23831.)Google Scholar
Peters, B. G., 1927a.—“On the nomenclature of the vinegar eelworm.” J. Helminth., 5, 133–142. (W.L. 112246.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, B. G., 1927b.—“On the anatomy of the vinegar eelworm.” ibid., 5, 183–202.Google Scholar
Peters, B. G., 1928.—“On the bionomics of the vinegar eelworm.” ibid., 6, 1–38.Google Scholar
Peters, B. G., 1935.—“The vinegar eelworm in tan liquor.” ibid., 13, 159–162.Google Scholar
Peters, B. G., 1941.—“Dilution egg-counts and the Poisson series.” ibid., 19, 59–62.Google Scholar