Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-jrqft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T06:32:54.602Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On the Occurrence and Significance of Heterodera schachtii infesting certain Weeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 September 2010

Marjorie J. Triffitt
Affiliation:
(Field Officer, Institute of Agricultural Parasitology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.)

Extract

Since the discovery of the plant-infesting nematode Heterodera schachtii Schmidt, 1871, many infections of this nematode occurring in different countries on a wide range of host-plants have been studied. Owing to the serious agricultural losses occasioned by this pest, efforts have been made, both in Europe and in the United States, to determine the range of plants which are susceptible to infection. Lists of plants susceptible and non-susceptible to attack have been drawn up by various workers, and these have comprised not only plants of economic importance, but also weeds which might serve as an important means of propagating the parasite. The abundance of contradictory evidence which appears in these lists is only explicable by Steiner's (1925) exposition of the hypothesis of biological or physiological strains. This work serves to emphasise the importance of crop rotation as a means of combating the parasite, more particularly when the nematode population constitutes a monophagous strain, i.e., one which has become highly specialised upon a single hostplant and has lost the power of readily attacking other species. Where a polyphagous strain occurs, the range of non-susceptible plants which can be used in the course of the rotation is greatly diminished, and, in such cases, the weeds occurring on the infected land may add an important complicating factor to the problem of eradicating the pest.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1929

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

Cobb, N. A., 1918.—“Estimating the Nema Population of Soil,” Circ. U.S. Bur. Pl. Ind. (W.L. 6348.)Google Scholar
Goffart, H., 1928.—“Verwandtschaftliche Beziehungen zwischen den Ruben- und Kartoffelstamm von Heterodera schachtii Schm.Verh. deuts. zool. Ges., Jahresversammlung, 1928, pp. 238243. (W.L. 22270.)Google Scholar
Morgan, D. O., 1925.—“Investigations on Eelworm in Potatoes in South Lincolnshire,” J. Helm., Vol. iii, No. 5, pp. 185192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, D. O., and Peters, B. G., 1929.—“The Potato-Root Eelworm in Lincolnshire,” J. Helm., Vol. vii., No. 2, pp. 6380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinek, G., 1925.—“The Problem of Host Selection and Host Specialisation of certain plant-infesting Nemas and its Application in the study of Nemic Pests,“Phytopathology, Vol. xv, No. 9, pp. 499534. (W.L. 16273.)Google Scholar
Strubell, A., 1888.—“Untersuchungen über den Bau und die Entwicklung des Rübennematoden ‘Heterodera schachtii,’ Schmidt,” Bibl. zool. (Cassel), Heft 2, pp. 149.Google Scholar
Tarnani, J., 1898.—“Über Vorkommen von Heterodera schachtii, Schmidt und H. radicicola Mull, in Russland,“Zbl. Bakt. Abt. 2, Bd. 4, pp. 8789. (W.L. 23684.)Google Scholar
Triffitt, M. J., 1929.—“Observations on the incidence of Heterodera schachtii at the Ormskirk Potato Testing Station,“J. Helm., Vol. vii, No. 2, pp. 9398.Google Scholar