Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-72csx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T06:15:07.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Stem Eelworm, Tylenchus dipsaci (Kühn, 1858): Observations on its attacks on Potatoes and Mangolds with a Host-list of plants parasitized by it.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 September 2010

T. Goodey
T. Goodey
Affiliation:
(Principal Research Assistant, Institute of Agricultural Parasitology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The nematode has been known as a serious parasite of potatoes for a number of years. The disease produced by it was first described in Germany by Kühn (1888) under the name of Wurmfäule. Shortly after this Ritzema Bos (1892) confirmed and amplified Kühn's account and carried out an experimental investigation on the disease. The present writer Goodey (1923) gave a short résumé of this earlier work and an account of the occurrence of the disease on potatoes in the Holbeach area of Lincolnshire. Buckhurst (1925) also reported the results of certain successful pot experiments in which potatoes were infected by growing in soil containing diseased tuber material. Finally, an important paper by Quanjer (1927) has appeared in which he deals with the occurrence of the disease on potatoes at Wageningen, Holland, and shows that the physiological race of worms attacking potatoes there occurs naturally on certain wild plants in the pastures and is capable of attacking a wide range of host plants both cultivated and wild. He also discusses the mode of entry of the parasite into the host and the nature of its action on the plant tissues.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , December 1929 , pp. 183 - 200
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

Amos, A., 1919.—“The Difficulties of Growing Red Clover, Clover Sickness and other Causes of Failure,” J. R. Agric. Soc., Vol. 79, pp. 68–88. (W.L. 10969).Google Scholar
Bastian, H. C., 1865.—“Monograph of the Anguillulidæ,” Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. Zool., Vol. xxv., p. 125. (W.L. 21543).Google Scholar
Bkijerinck, M. W., 1883.—“De oorzak der Krœfziekte van jonge ajuinplanten, Maandbl. Holl. Maatsch. Landbouw, No. 9.Google Scholar
Bos, J. Ritzema, 1888–92.—“L'Anguillulc de la Tige (Tylenchus devastatrix Kühn) et les maladies des plantes dues à ce Nématode,” Arch. Mus Teyler, Scr. II, T. 3, pp. 161–348 and 545–588. (W.L. 1874).Google Scholar
Bos, J. Ritzema, 1899.—“Twee tot dus onbekende zielcten in Phlox decussata,” Tijdschr. Plantenziekt., v, pp. 29–32. (W.L. 21280).Google Scholar
Bos, J. Ritzema, 1903.—“Drei bis jetzt unbekannte, von Tylenchus devastalrix verursachte Pflanzenkrankeiten,” Z. PflKrankh., xiii, p. 193. (W.L. 23540).Google Scholar
Bos, J. Ritzema, 1904.—“Weitere Bemcrkungen über von Tylenchus devastatrix verursachte Pflanzenkrankheiten,” Z. PflKrankh., xiv, p. 145.Google Scholar
Bos, J. Ritzema, 1904a.—Tijdschr. Plantenziekt., x, p. 45.Google Scholar
Bos, J. Ritzema, 1906.— Tijdschr. Plantenziekt., xii, p. 183.Google Scholar
Bos, J. Ritzema, 1908.—“Het stengelaaltje (Tylenchus devastatrix) oorzaak van ‘Rot’ in de bieten,” Tijdschr. Plantenziekt., xiv, p. 65.Google Scholar
Bos, J. Ritzema, 1912.—Instituut voor Phytopathologic te Wageningen : Verslag over onderzoekingen, gedaan in-en over inlichtgen gegeven wanwege bovengenocmd instituut in bet jaar 1909. Wageningen. Reprinted from Meded. LandbHoogesch. Wageningen, v. (W.L. 12948).Google Scholar
Bos, J. Ritzema, 1913.—Report for year 1911, Wageningen, vi.Google Scholar
Bos, J. Ritzema, 1917.—“Het stengelaaltje (Tylenchus devastatrix) en de Tengenwoordig in de Blœmbollenstreek heerschende aaltjesziekte der Narcissen,” Tijdschr. Plantenziekt., xxiii, p. 99.Google Scholar
Bos, J. Ritzema, 1922.—“Het stengellaltje (Tylenchus devastatrix Kühn), excursie to Maiden,” Tijdschr. Plantenziekt., xxviii, p. 159.Google Scholar
Buckhurst, A. S., 1925.—“Notes on Bulb Mites and Eelworm,” J. Minist. Agric., Vol. xxxii. No. 8, pp. 734–738. (W.L. 11365).Google Scholar
Carré, M. H. and Horne, A. S., 1927.—“An Investigation of the Behaviour of Pectic Materials in Apples and other Plant Tissues,” Ann. Bot., Oxford, Vol. xli, No. 162, pp. 193–237. (W.L. 1032).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darboux, G. and Houard, G., 1901.—“Catalogue Systematique des Zoocécidies de l'Europe et du bassin méditerranéen.”Google Scholar
Gibson, G. W., 1929.—Minist. Agric., Plant Path. Lab. Monthly Summary, January.Google Scholar
Godfrey, G. H., 1924.—“Dissemination of the Stem and Bulb infesting Nematode Tylenchus dipsaci in the seeds of certain Composites,” J. Agric. Res., Vol. 28, No. 5, pp. 473–478. (W.L. 10965).Google Scholar
Goodey, T., 1923.—“Eelworm Disease of Potatoes caused by Tylenchns dipsaci.” J Helm., Vol. I, pp. 197–204.Google Scholar
Hall, C. J. J. van and Bijlevelt, M. W. W. van, 1902.—“Het ‘Spaansch Grœn ’ (Anagallis arvensis), ecn onkruid gevaarlijk voor de teelt van gewassen, die aangetast worden door het stengelaalte (Tylenchus devastatrix),” Tijdschr. Planttnziekt., viii, pp. 144–149.Google Scholar
Havenstein, , 1880.—“Die Wurm-oder Stockkrankheit, ihre Verbreitung und-Bekāmpfung.”Google Scholar
Honson, W. E. H., 1926.—“Observations on the Biology of Tylenchus dipsaci (Kühn) and on the Occurrence of Biologic Strains of the Nematode,” Ann. Appl. Biol., xiii, No. 2, p. 227. (W.L. 1025).Google Scholar
Honson, W. E. H., 1929.—“The Occurrence of Tylenchus dipsaci Kühn, in Wild Host Plants in South-west England. J. Helm., Vol. vii., No. 3, pp. 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houard, C., 1903–13.—“Les Zoocécidies des plantes d'Europe et du bassin de la Méditerranée,” T. 2–3.Google Scholar
Kamrodt, , 1867.—Z. landw. Ver. Rheinpreuss. No. 6, p. 251. (W.L. 23489).Google Scholar
Kieffer, J. J., 1902.—“Synopsis des Zoocécidies d'Europe,” Ann. Soc. ent. Fr., lxx. (W.L. 937).Google Scholar
Kühn, J., 1858.—“Über das Vorkommen von Anguillula in erkrankten Blutenkōpfen von Dipsacus fullonum L.,” Z. wiss. Zool., ix, pp. 129–137. (W.L. 23635).Google Scholar
Kühn, J., 1867.—“Die Wurmkrankheit des Roggens,” Z. landw. CentVer. Sachsen, pp. 99–100.Google Scholar
Kühn, J., 1868.—“Über die Wurmkrankheit des Roggens und über die Ubereinstimmung der Anguillulen des Roggens mit denen der Weberkarde,” SitzBer. naturf, Ges. Halle, pp. 19–26.Google Scholar
Kühn, J., 1881.—“Das Luzernälchen (Tylenchus Havensteinii),” Deuts. landw. Pr., viii, p. 32. (W.L. 7262).Google Scholar
Kühn, J., 1888.—“Die Wurmfäule, eine neue Erkrankungsform der Kartoffel,” Z. SpiritInd., No. 44, p. 335. (W.L. 23581).Google Scholar
Kühn, J., 1891.—Mitt. Ver. Moork. Berl., ix, No. 7, p. 113. (W.L. 14180).Google Scholar
Lagerheim, G., 1900.—Bih. svensk. Vetenskdkad. Handl., Bd. 26, pp. 15–20. (W.L. 2948).Google Scholar
Lebour, M. V. and Taylor, T. H., 1914.—“Means of Collecting Eelworms,” Nature, Lond., Vol. xcii, May 7th, p. 242. (W.L. 14900).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcinowski, K., 1909.—“Parasitisch und semiparasitisch an Pflanzen lebende Nematoden,” Arb. biol. Anst. Land-n Forstw., Bd. 7, H. 1. (W.L. 1628).Google Scholar
Maige, , 1906.—“Un nouvel hôte du Tylenchus devastatrix,” Bull. Soc. bol. Fr. (ser. 4, t. 6) 53 (Sess. Extr.) : Ixxv-lxxvii. (W.L. 4999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer Gmelin, H., 1906.—“Over het voorkomen van Tylenchus devastatrix in lupinen en de daarint voor de landbouwpraktijh te trekken conclusies,” Tijdschr. Plantenziekt., xii, p. 93.Google Scholar
McKay, M. B., 1922.—“Distribution of Tylenchus dipsaci on Wild Strawberry in Oregon,” Phytopathology, Vol. 12, p. 445. (W.L. 16273).Google Scholar
Millard, W. A., 1924.—“Crown Rot of Rhubarb,” Univ. Leeds aud Yorks Council Agric. Educ., No. 134.Google Scholar
Osterwalder, A., 1901.—“Nematoden als Feinde des Gartenbaus,” Garfenflora, 50 Jahrg., pp. 337–346. (W.L. 8845).Google Scholar
Osterwalder, A., 1902.—“Nematoden an Freilandpflanzen,” Z. PflKrankh., xii, pp. 338–342.Google Scholar
Percival, J., 1895.—J. S.-E. Agric. Coll. Wye, No. 1. p. 7. (W.L. 11557).Google Scholar
Prillieux, E., 1881.—“La maladie vermiculaire des jacinthes,” J. Soc. nat. Hort. Fr., 3 ser., iii, pp. 253–260. (W.L. 11533).Google Scholar
Quanjer, H. M., 1927.—“Een aaltjeszickte van de Aardappelplant, de Aantastingswikze en de Herkomst van haar Oorzaak, Tylenchus dipsaci Kühn,” Tijdschr. Plantenziekt., xxxiii, pp. 137–172.Google Scholar
Ramsbottom, J. K., 1918.—“Investigations on the: Narcissus Disease,” J. R. Hert Soc., Vol. xliii., p. 54. (W.L. 11230).Google Scholar
Schœvers, T. A. C., 1919.—“Het stengelaaltje als Tabaksvijand,” Tijdschr. Plantenziekt, xxiii, pp. 167–180.Google Scholar
Slogteren, E. van, 1920.—“Bestrijding in de Blœmbollenstreek,” Tijdschr. Plantenziekt., xxvi, p. 126.Google Scholar
Stepani Perez, T. de, 1912.—“Alenne nota su variicecidii,” Boll. Orto bot. Pulerino 11, pp. 61–74.Google Scholar
Steiner, G., 1927.—“Tylenchus pratensis and various other nematodes attacking plants,” J. Agric. Res., Vol. 35, No. 11, p. 975.Google Scholar
Theobald, F. V., 1912.—J. S.-E. Agric. Coll. Wye. No. 21, p. 173.Google Scholar
Theobald, F. V., 1913,—J. S.-E. Agric. Coll. Wye., No. 22, p. 289.Google Scholar
Theobald, F. V., 1924–25.—Rep. S.-E. Agric. Coll., Wye, p. 10.Google Scholar
Triffitt, M. J., 1928.—“On the Morphology of Heterodera schachtii with special reference to the Potato Strain,” J. Helm., Vol. vi, No. 1, pp. 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanha, J. and Stoklasa, J., 1896.—“Die Rüben-Nematoden,” Berlin.Google Scholar
Vries, H. de, 1882.—“Het ringziek der Hyacinth,” Algem. Vereeniging Blœmbollencultur.Google Scholar
Wakker, J. H., 1883.—“Onderzœk der ziekten van hyacinthen en andere bol.—en knolgewassen,” Algem. Vereeniging Blœmbollencultur.Google Scholar