Nematodes: Alternative Controls

  • 2,596 views
Uploaded on

Nematodes: Alternative Controls …

Nematodes: Alternative Controls

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
2,596
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
84
Comments
0
Likes
3

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Nematodes: ATTRA Alternative Controls A Publication of ATTRA - National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service • 1-800-346-9140 • www.attra.ncat.orgBy Martin Guerena This publication provides general information on the tiny worm-like organisms called nematodes. ItNCAT Agriculture contains detailed descriptions of the genera of nematodes that attack plants, as well as various methodsSpecialist to diagnose, discourage, and manage plant parasitic nematodes in a least toxic, sustainable manner.© 2006 NCATContents Introduction NIntroduction ..................... 1 ematodes areSymptoms and tiny, worm-like,Sampling .......................... 4 multicellularPreventing Further animals adapted to liv-Spread ofNematodes ....................... 4 ing in water. The num- ber of nematode speciesManaging SoilBiology ............................... 5 is estimated at half aCrop Rotations and mil lion, many of whichCover Crops ...................... 6 are “free-living” typesBotanical found in the oceans,Nematicides ..................... 9 in freshwater habitats,Biocontrols...................... 10 and in soils. Plant-par-Plant Resistance ............ 11 asitic species form aRed Plastic Mulch ......... 12 smaller group. Nema- www.insectimages.orgSolarization .................... 13 todes are commonFlooding .......................... 13 in soils all over the Root-knot nematode—Meloidogyne brevicauda LoosSummary ......................... 13 world (Dropkin, 1980; ©Jonathan D. Eisenback, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityReferences ..................... 14 Yepsen, 1984). As aFurther Resources ........ 17 commentator in the early twentieth century wrote: genera and species have particu lar soil andWeb Resources .............. 17 climatic requirements. For example, cer-Suppliers.......................... 18 If all the matter in the universe except the tain species do best in sandy soils, while nematodes were swept away, our world would others favor clay soils. Nematode popula- still be dimly recognizable, and if, as disembod- tions are generally denser and more preva- ied spirits, we could investigate it, we should find lent in the world’s warmer regions, whereATTRA—National Sustainable its mountains, hills, valleys, rivers, lakes and longer growing seasons extend feeding peri-Agriculture Information Service oceans represented by a thin film of nematodes. ods and increase reproductive rates (Drop-is managed by the National Cen-ter for Appropriate Technology (Sasser, 1990) kin, 1980). In the southern United States,(NCAT) and is funded under agrant from the United States as many as ten generations are produced inDepartment of Agriculture’s An important part of the soil fauna, nem- one season (Yepsen, 1984).Rural Business-Cooperative Ser-vice. Visit the NCAT Web site atodes live in the maze of interconnected(www.ncat.org/agri. channels—called pores—that are formed Light, sandy soils generally harbor largerhtml) for more informa- by soil processes. They move in the fi lms popu lations of plant-parasitic nematodestion on our sustainableagriculture projects. of water that cling to soil particles. Many than clay soils. This is attributable to
  • 2. more efficient aeration of sandy soil, fewer wide variety of plant-pathogenic fungi and organisms that compete with and prey on bacteria. These microbial infections are nematodes, and the ease with which nem- often more economically damaging than the atodes can move through the root zone. direct effects of nematode feeding. Also, plants grow ing in readily drained soils are more likely to suffer from intermit- tent drought, and are thus more vulnerable Major Plant-Parasitic Nematode to parasitic nematodes. Desert valleys and Genera in the U.S. and Associated tropical sandy soils are particularly chal- Damage to Plants lenged by nematode overpopulation (Drop- kin, 1980). • Root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne species) form galls Plant-parasitic nematodes—the majority of on injured plant tissue. The galls which complete their lifecycles in the root block water and nutrient flow zone and feed upon the roots—are found to the plant, stunting growth, in association with most plants. Some are impairing fruit production, and endoparasitic—living and feeding within causing foliage to yellow and wilt. the tissue of roots, tubers, buds, seeds, etc. Roots become rough and pimpledRelated ATTRA (Sasser, 1990) Others are ectoparasitic, and susceptible to cracking.Publications feeding externally through plant walls. ABiointensive single endoparasitic nematode can kill a • Cyst nematodes (Heterodera plant or reduce its productivity, while sev- species) give plants an unthriftyIntegrated Pest eral hundred ectoparasitic nematodes might or malnourished appearance, andManagement feed on a plant without seriously affecting cause them to produce smaller-Sustainable Soil than-normal tops. Foliage is lia-Management production (Ingham, 1996). A few spe- cies are highly host-specific, such as Het- ble to wilt and curl, while roots become thick and tough and takeSustainable erodera glycines on soybeans and GloboderaManagement of Soil- on a red or brown coloring. rostochiensis on potatoes (Sasser, 1990).Borne Plant Diseases But in general, nematodes have a wide • Sting nematodes (BelonolaimusAlternative Soil host range. species) are found mainly in theAmendments South, especially in sandy soils Endoparasitic root feeders include suchManures for Organic economically important pests as the root- with meager organic-matterCrop Production knot nematodes (Meloidogyne species), content. Areas of stunted plants the cyst nematodes (Heterodera species), are an early indicator. As theseOverview of CoverCrops and Green and the root-lesion nema todes (Prat- areas grow larger and finally meet, the plants that were firstManures ylenchus species). (Sasser, 1990) Important affected will start to die at the ectoparasitic root feeders include: root margins of older leaves. (Paratrichodorus and Trichodorus), dag- ger (Xiphinema), needle (Longidorus, • Root-lesion (Pratylenchus Paralongidorus), ring (Criconemella, Mac- species) cause internal brown- roposthhonia), stunt (Tylenchorhynchus and ing in potato tubers and in the Merlinius), pin (Paratylenchus), and spiral roots of corn, lettuce,peas, carrots, (Helicotylenchus, Rotylenchus, and Scutello- tomatoes, and brassicas. nema) nematodes. Direct feeding nematodes (Yepsen, 1984) can drastically decrease a plant’s uptake of nutrients and water. Nematodes have the greatest impact on crop productivity when they attack the roots of Nematode control is essentially prevention, seedlings immediately after seed germina- because once a plant is parasitized it is tion (Ploeg, 2001). Nematode feeding also impossible to kill the nematode without also creates open wounds that provide entry to a destroying the host. The most sustainablePage 2 ATTRA Nematode: Alternative Controls
  • 3. ©Ulrich Zunke, www.mactode.com ©William Wergin, www.mactode.comSpiral nematode, Helicotylenchus sp. Pratylenchus sp. larva and egg. N ematodes have the greatest impact on crop pro- ductivity when they attack the roots of seedlings immedi- ately after seed germination.©Jonathan Eisenback, www.mactode.com ©Michael McClure, www.mactode.comFace view of lance nematode, Hoplolaimus sp. Sugarbeet cyst nematode juvenile.©Ulrich Zunke, www.mactode.com ©Jonathan Eisenback, www.mactode.comLesion nematodes penetrating a root. Mononchoid nematode feeding on another nematode.www.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 3
  • 4. approach to nematode control integrates type of nematode causing damage, and several tools and strategies, including cover the time of the season. The procedure pre- crops, crop rotation, soil solarization, least- sented here is a generic sampling technique toxic pesticides, and plant varieties resistant for annual crops. Soil samples taken in to nematode damage. These methods work the late summer are best when testing for best in the context of a healthy soil envi- the presence of nematodes. Root-zone soil ronment with sufficient organic matter to samples are best taken immediately after support diverse populations of microorgan- harvest, or just prior to harvest if the crop isms. A balanced soil ecosystem supports a shows signs of damage. First, fields should wide variety of biological control organisms be divided into 20-acre blocks with similar that helps keep nematode pest populations damage, soil texture, or cropping history. in check. From each block take several sub-samples, mixing them well to create a single one- Symptoms and Sampling quart sample for each block. Soil samples should be kept cool, but not frozen. Usually, sampling is done because the grower observes a section of field with Samples for established perennial crops areI t is important to unhealthy plants, or notices an unexplained best taken from the feeder root zone, which yield reduction. Because nematodes dam- is usually located around the canopy drip note that spe- age roots, any condition that stresses the line (Dropkin, 1980). Your county or state cies of nema- plant—such as drought (or even hot spells), Cooperative Extension Ser vice can providetode are present in flooding, nutrient deficiencies, or soil com- names of commercial labs that have nema-all soils. paction—will tend to amplify the damage tode-identification services. symptoms noted above. Failure to respond normally to fertilizers and slower-than-nor- Preventing Further Spread mal recovery from wilting are signs of nem- atode infestation. In the undisturbed soil of Nematodes of groves, turf, and pastures, visible symp- Preventing nematodes from entering unin- toms of nematode injury normally appear as fested areas is important; under their own round, oval, or irregular areas in the plant- steam they can spread across a field at a ing that gradually increase in size year by rate of three feet per year. The following year. In cultivated land, nematode-infesta- measures will help prevent human-assisted tions are often elongated in the direction of spread of nematodes to uninfested fields: cultivation, because nematodes are moved • Use certified planting material by machinery. (Dunn, 1995) • Use soilless growing media in green- It is important to note that species of nem- houses atode are present in all soils; their mere • Clean soil from equipment before presence does not necessarily mean that mov ing between fields (washing they are damaging plants. Harmless or equipment—including tires—with even beneficial species are found in proxim- water is most effective) ity to plants, right along with the parasitic species. Beneficial nematodes feed on such • Keep excess irrigation water in pests as Japanese beetle grubs and plant- a hold ing pond so that any nema- parasitic nematodes, and release nutrients todes present can settle out; pump into the soil by eating bacteria and fungi water from near the surface of the (Ingham, 1996; Horst, 1990). An experi- pond; plan irrigation to minimize enced nematologist can identify species, excess water and determine which, if any, are responsi- • Prevent or reduce animal movement ble for the observed damage. from infested to uninfested fields Nematode sampling techniques vary • Compost manure to kill any nema- depending on the crop, the root depth, the todes that might be present, beforePage 4 ATTRA Nematode: Alternative Controls
  • 5. applying it to fields (Kodira and The food-web’s stability is challenged by Westerdahl, 1995) yearly turning of the soil, which reduces • Eliminate important weed hosts the numbers of organisms that displace or such as crabgrass, ragweed, and prey on plant-parasitic nematodes, while cocklebur (Yepsen, 1984) bringing more nematodes to the surface from deeper soil. If the same host crop is planted year after year, plant-parasitic nem-Managing Soil Biology atodes may increase to damaging levels.The basis of sustainable nematode con- Root-feeding nematodes are very opportu-trol is the maintenance of a healthy soil nistic, and are among the fi rst organismsfood-web. This begins with routine appli- to invade after a disturbance. (Dropkin,cation of organic mat ter. There is substan- 1980; Ingham, 1996)tial evidence that the addition of organicmatter in the form of compost or manure Keeping these facts in mind, it is impor-will decrease nematode pest populations tant to actively manage soil biology usingand associated damage to crops. (Walker, minimum-tillage practices, compost, ani-2004; Oka and Yermiyahu, 2002; Akhtar mal manures, green manures, cover crops,and Alam, 1993; Stirling, 1991) This and crop rotations. These practices helpcould be a result of improved soil struc- promote the growth of beneficial organismsture and fertility, alteration of the level of while suppressing plant parasites. Certainplant resistance, release of nemato-toxins, organisms associated with well-managedor increased populations of fungal and bac- crop soils—e.g., Rhizobacteria and mycor-terial parasites and other nematode-antag- rhizae—may induce systemic host resis-onistic agents. (Akhtar and Malik, 2000) tance to nematodes and to some foliar dis-Reduced nematode damage from increased eases. (Barker andorganic matter in soil is likely a combina- Koenn i ng, 1998 ) Soil Amendments for Nematode Controltion of these interaction. Higher organic For further informa- tion see the ATTRA Some sources of organic matter known tomatter content increases soil’s water-hold- be nematode-suppressive include oilcakes, publications Sustain-ing capacity, and supports thriving com- sawdust, sugarcane bagasse, bone meal, able Management ofmunities of the decomposers and predators horn meal, manures, compost, and certain Soil-borne Plant Dis-that make up the soil’s “digestive system.” green manures. eases and Conserva-Nematodes are important participants in tion Tillage.this underground energy-transfer system. Most nematode species can be signifi-They consume living plant material, fungi, cantly reduced by tilling in chitinous mate-bacteria, mites, insects, and each other, rials such as crushed shells of crusta-and are themselves consumed in turn. ceans (shrimp, crab, etc.). This is effectiveSome fungi, for example, capture nema- because several species of fungi that “feed”todes with traps, sticky knobs, and other on chitin also attack chitin-containing nem-specialized structures. (Dropkin, 1980) atode eggs and nematodes. Increasing theNematodes and protozoa regulate mineral- amount of chitin in the soil also increasesization processes. the population of these fungi. A shrimp-Evidence suggests that between 30 and shell-based fertilizer called Eco Poly 21™50 percent of the nitrogen present in crop micro shrimp fertilizer is available fromplants was made available by the activity of Peaceful Valley Farm Supply. At 2005bacteria-consuming nematodes. (Ingham, catalog prices, it would cost between $871996) Research in Denmark indicates that and $216 to treat an acre with this productnematodes convert about as much energy as (the suggested application rate is 20 to 50earthworms in certain forest soils. (Drop- lbs. per acre). Clandosan™, a nematicidekin, 1980) Don’t forget, the vast majority made of crab shells and agricultural-gradeof nematodes found in the soil are not urea, can be used as a pre-plant treatment.plant parasites. It should not be used on plants becausewww.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 5
  • 6. the amount of urea in it can “burn” or kill tion crop to control peanut root knot nem- them. (Fiola and Lalancettle, 2000) atode (Meloidogyne arenaria) and southern root knot nematode (Meloidogyne incognita). Crop Rotations and Sesame rotation is not effective, however, for the Javanese root knot nematode (Meloido- Cover Crops gyne javanica). (Starr and Black, 1995) Crop rotation to a non-host crop is often ade- Commercial nematode control products quate by itself to prevent nematode popu- derived from sesame include Dragonfi re™ lations from reaching economically damag- (oil), Ontrol™ (seed meal)—both manufac- ing levels. However, positively identify the tured by Poulenger USA—and Nemastop™ nematode species to know which plants are (ground up sesame plant) from Natural its host(s) and non-hosts. A general rule of Organic Products. thumb is to rotate to crops not related to each other. For example, pumpkin and cucum- In South Texas, soybean varieties were bers are closely related and rotating between shown as possible alternatives to grain them would probably not be effective to keep sorghum in cotton cropping sequences. nematode populations down. A pumpkin/ Eighteen soybean varieties of matu-A general rule bell pepper rotation might be more effective. rity group 5, 6, 7, and 8 were tested of thumb is Even better is a rotation from a broadleaf in Rotylenchulus reniformis-infested soil, to rotate to to a grass. Asparagus, corn, onions, garlic, either nonfumigated or fumigated with 1,3- small grains, Cahaba white vetch, and Nova dichloropropene. Reproductive rates ofcrops not related to vetch are good rotation crops to reduce root- R. reniformis were compared in the first year.each other. knot nematode populations. Crotalaria, vel- Both experiments were planted with cotton vet bean, and grasses like rye are usually in the second year to measure the rotational resistant to root-knot nematodes. (Wang, et effects of soybean on cotton yield compared al., 2004; Yepsen, 1984; Peet, 1996) Rota- with grain sorghum and fallow. The high- tions like these not only help prevent nem- yielding soybean cultivars with potential to atode populations from reaching economic suppress reniform nematode were “HY574,” levels, they also help control plant diseases “Padre,” “DP7375RR,” and “NK83-30.” and insect pests. (Westphal and Scott, 2005) Allelochemicals are plant-produced com- A 2000-2002 Maryland study evaluated pounds (other than food compounds) that crop rotations and other cultural practices to affect the behavior of other organisms in the manage southern root-knot nematodes and plant’s environment. For example, sudan- lesion nematodes. Researchers grew nema- grass (and sorghum) contain a chemical, tode-susceptible potatoes and cucumbers, dhurrin, that degrades into hydrogen cya- and compared the effect of several summer nide, a powerful nematicide. (Luna, 1993; rotations on nematode problems. A summer Forge, et al, 1995; Wider and Abawi, 2000) rotation of sorghum sudangrass (Sorghum Some cover crops have exhibited nema- bicolor x Sorghum arundinaceum var. suda- tode suppressive characteristics equivalent nense) reduced the root knot nematode pop- to aldicarb, a synthetic chemical pesticide. ulation as effectively as the control treatment (Grossman, 1990) (soyabean cultivar with no known root-knot Farmers in Alabama have added sesame resistance and one nematicide application). into rotation with cotton, peanuts, and soy- Poultry litter/tillage (Year 1) and fallow beans. Nematode levels are reduced and (Year 2) were equally effective in managing yields significantly increased among those the lesion nematode population. To maintain crops in fields previously planted in ses- the effect, the rotations had to be included ame. Sesame yields averaged 1500 lbs per annually. Either summer or early-autumn acre, well above the world average of 500 to sampling dates were more effective than 600 lbs per acre. (Anon., 1997a) Research midspring to identify threshold levels of the shows that sesame may be an effective rota- pests. (Kratochvil et al., 2004)Page 6 ATTRA Nematode: Alternative Controls
  • 7. of glucosinolates. Cover crop seed for mus- Nematodes and pH tards, rapeseed, and oilseed radish are Cyst nematodes do not hatch well in very acid available from a variety of sources. Several soils (pH 4) or alkaline soils (pH 8). They do best Extension Service bulletins describe the use in soil with a near-neutral pH of 6. This can be of brassica cover crops in greater detail. used to some advantage. For example, potatoes may be safest from nematode damage in an acid soil, while cabbage and beets can be planted in Allelopathic Cover Crops alkaline soil. But most plants do best at the pH that favors nematodes. (Yepsen, 1984) Some plants produce allelochemicals that function as nematode-antagonis- tic compounds, such as polythienyls, glucosinolates, cyanogenic glycosides, alkaloids, lipids, terpenoids, steroids, triterpenoids, and phenolics, amongResearchers have observed that bras- others. When grown as allelopathic cover crops, bioactive compounds fromsicas (e.g., rapeseed, mustard, oilseed these plants—e.g., castor bean, chrysanthemum, partridge pea, velvetbean,radish) have a nematode-suppressive effect sesame, jackbean, crotalaria, sorghum-sudan, indigo, tephrosia—are exudedthat benefits the following crop in a rota- during the growing season or released during green manure decomposition.tion. This “mustard effect” is attributed Sunn hemp, a tropical legume, and sorghum-sudan, a prolific grass plantto glucosinolate compounds contained in grown for its biomass, are popular nematode-suppressive cover crops thatbrassica residues. Toxicity is attributed to produce the allelochemicals known as monocrotaline and dhurrin, respec-enzymatically induced breakdown prod- tively. (Chitwood, 2002; Grossman, 1988; Hackney and Dickerson, 1975; Quar-ucts of glucosinolates, a large class of les, 1993; Wang et al., 2002; Williams and Williams, 1990a, 1990b, 1993)compounds known as isothiocyanates andnitriles that suppress nematodes by inter-fering with their reproductive cycle. These Here are some examples of how bras-glucosinolate breakdown products are sim- sica crops are being used to manageilar to the chemical fumigant VAPAM® nematodes:(metam sodium), which degrades in soil tomethyl isothiocyanate. Glucosinolate com- • Oil radish as a green manure haspounds are also responsible for the pungent dramatically reduced stubby rootflavors and odors of mustards and horse- nematode (Trichodorus) and rootradish. (Brown and Morra, 1997) Jack lesion nematode (Pratylenchus) inBrown, PhD, a plant breeder special- Idaho potato fields. (Anon., 2001)izing in brassicas at the University of • Oil radish used as a “trap crop” forIdaho, has released two biofumigant vari- the sugarbeet cyst nematode exudeseties, “Humus” rapeseed and “IdaGold” from its roots chemicals that stim-mustard, each containing elevated levels ulate hatching of nema- tode eggs. The larvae that emerge are unable to develop into reproduc- tive females, reducing the population densities for the following crop. (Hafez, 1998) • Rape or mustard plant- ings in rotation with st rawber r ies have checked the increase of some nematodes. (Brown and Morra, 1997) • Rapeseed and sudan- Mustard. Photo courtesy of USDA ARS. grass green manureswww.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 7
  • 8. grown prior to potatoes at Prosser, Henry or little marigold (Tagetes minuta) Washington, provided between 72 is sold as the “Nematicidal” marigold, but it and 86 percent control of the root- controls a relatively limited range of nema- knot nematode in that crop. (Stark, tode species and readers should note that 1995) In the same study, on-farm it is classified as a noxious weed in Califor- research in western Idaho showed nia. Tomatoes planted two weeks after Afri- that rapeseed green manures can marigolds (Tagetes erecta) were disked decreased soil populations of root- into the soil showed a 99 percent reduc- lesion nematodes to a greater extent tion in root-lesion nematode damage com- than did sudangrass green manures. pared to a tomato-tomato or fallow-tomato Fall sudangrass should be plowed rotation. (Grossman, 1999) The French down after it is stressed (i.e., the marigold cultivar “Single Gold” provided first frost, stopping irrigation). Win- 99 percent control of nematodes in Dutch ter rapeseed and canola should be tests. (Ogden, 1997) Burpee Seed Co. has incorporated in very early spring. carried a French marigold variety known (Cardwell and Ingham, 1996) as “Nema-gone.” The most effective ma r igold cu lt iva rs a re those that germinate quickly, grow vigorously, and Rotation have deep root penetration. The best rotation to control the Columbia root-knot nematode in potatoes involves planting a summer non-host crop, followed by a winter cover crop (rapeseed) incorporated as a green manure. Non-host crops include super- Allies from the Prairie sweet corn (Crisp and Sweet 710/711), pepper, lima bean, turnip, cowpea, In Ontario, certain prairie species have been muskmelon, watermelon, squash, rapeseed, canola, mustard, and sudan- found to provide excellent nematode control grass (Trudan 8, Sordan 79). (Ingham, 1990) when used as a cover crop, including black- For root lesion nematode control on potatoes, researchers found that forage eyed susan, gaillardia, and switchgrass, pearl millet (Canadian Hybrid 101) and marigold (Crakerjack) as rotation according to Marvin Pritts, PhD, of Cornell Uni- crops with potatoes resulted in fewer root lesion nematodes and increased versity. (Anon., 1996) Another North American potato yields than rotation with rye. (Ball-Coelho et al., 2003) native known as "Indian Blanket” or “Blanket Flower” (Gaillardia pulchella) was effective Marigold (Tagetes species) is one of the most in controlling southern root knot nematode highly studied crops for its ability to sup- (Meloidogyne incognita) on sweet potato. press nematodes with antagonistic phyto- Tissue extracts of Indian Blanket were lethal chemical exudates, namely the polythienyls. to various plant-parasitic nematodes but were Research also demonstrates innocuous to free-living nematodes. Root exu- dates of Indian Blanket were lethal to mobile that rhizobacteria living in juvenals of M. incognita and were inhibitory to association with marigold the hatch of eggs at concentrations of 250 parts roots are suppressive to root per million or higher. Indian Blanket could be lesion and other nematodes. used to manage southern root knot nematode These multiple effect nema- as a rotation crop, a co-planted crop, or a soil tode-control properties can amendment to control root-knot nematode. benefit other crops when (Tsay et al., 2004) marigolds are grown in rota- tion. (Sturz and Kimpinski, 2004) African marigold Cover crops exhibit tremendous variabil- (Tagetes erecta) and French ity in their susceptibility to or suppression marigold (Tagetes patula) of the four major types of plant-parasitic are popular ornamentals in nematodes. For example, cover crops that the horticultural trade with suppress root-knot nematodes may be sus- several nematode-suppres- ceptible to sting nematodes. It is impor- Marigolds. ©2006 clipart.com sive varieties each. (Dover tant to identify the nematode species in the et al., 2003) Muster John field—and know what their plant hosts andPage 8 ATTRA Nematode: Alternative Controls
  • 9. antagonists are—before planning a cover- Botanical Nematicidescropping strategy. Certain plants are able to kill or repelFields left fallow but kept weed-free pests, disrupt their lifecycle, or discouragefor one to two years usually have an them from feed ing. Some of these—mari-80 to 90 percent per-year reduction in golds, sesame, castorbean, and variousroot-knot populations. (Sasser, 1990) This brassicas—have been discussed previouslyhost-free period can be achieved in one as nematode-suppressive cover crops. Inseason, rather than two years, by disk- this section we will look at plants whoseing every ten days all summer. While such extracts or essential oils can be applieddisking offers the added advantage to as nematicides.reduce perennial weeds, it is expensive interms of fuel costs, pos sible erosion, and For hundereds of years, Indian farmers haveloss of organic matter through oxidation. used the neem tree (Azadirachta indica) for(Ingham, 1996). its pesticidal, antifungal, and antifeedant Botanical Nematicides Producers or Distributors Beneficial Nematodes Nitron Industries, Johnny’s Seed, BioLogic, Hydro-Gardens Steinernema species Biocontrol Bacteria Deny, Blue Circle (Burkholderia cepacia) Stine Microbial Products Rincon Vitova Activate (Bacillus chitinosporus) Biocontrol Fungi Valent USA, Peaceful Valley DiTera (Myrothecium verrucaria) Prophyta MeloCon, BioAct (Paecilomyces lilacinus) Chitin ClandoSan Igene Biotech, ARBICO, Peaceful Valley Shrimp Shell meal Botanical Nematacide Nemastop (Organic extracts w/Fatty acids) Soils Technology Corp Dragonfire (sesame oil) Poulenger USA Ontrol (sesame meal) Poulenger USA Nemagard (ground up sesame plant) Natural Organic Products Neem cake Monsoon, Peaceful Valley Armorex (sesame oil, garlic, rosemary Soils Technology Corp eugenol, white pepper) Adapted from Quarles, William. 2005. Directory of least toxic pest control products. The IPM Practitioner, Vol. 26, No. 11/12. p. 17.Nitron Industries Inc. PO Box 1447, Fayetteville, AR 72702; 800-835-0123; Prophyta. Inselstrasse 12, D 23999 Malchow, Poel, Germany;www.nitron.com www.prophyta.comJohnny’s Seed. 184 Foss Hill Rd. Albion, ME 04910; 207-437-4301 Igene (PMG) Biotechology. 9110 Red Branch Rd., Columbia, MD 21045;BioLogic. PO Box 177, Willow Hill, PA 17271; 717-349-2789; 410-997-2599; www.igene.comwww.biologico.com ARBICO. PO Box 8910, Tucson AZ 85738; 800-827-2847; www.arbico.comHydro-Gardens, Inc. PO Box 25845, Colorado Springs, CO 80936; Monsoon Neem Products. PO Box 4558, Petaluma, CA 94955; 707-778-6137800-634-6362; www.hydro-garden.com Soils Technology Corp. 2103 185th St., Fairfield, IA 52556; 800-221-7645Stine Microbial Products. 2225 Laredo Trail, Adel, IA 50003. 515- 677-2605 Poulenger USA. 3705 Century Blvd. #3 Lakeland, FL 33811;Rincon Vitova Inc. PO Box 1555, Ventura, CA 93002; 800-248-2847; 1-866-709-8102www.rinconvitova.com Natural Organic Products. 7105 Rossiter St., Mt. Dora, FL 32757;Valent USA. PO Box 8025, Walnut Creek, CA 94596; 800 624-6094; 325-383-8252www.valent.comPeaceful Valley Farm Supply. PO Box 2209, Grass Valley, CA 95945;888-784-1722; www.groworganic.comwww.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 9
  • 10. properties. In research trials, potting soil vitro against second-stage juveniles (J2 ) of amended with plant parts from the neem the root knot nematode (Meloidogyne incog- tree and Chinaberry tree (Melia azadirach) nita) and pre-adults of the reniform nem- inhibited root-knot nematode development atode (Rotylenchulus reniformis). Complete on tomatoes. (Siddiqui and Alam, 2001) mortality (100 percent) of both nematodes However, no neem products are currently was found in 500 and 250 parts per mil- registered in the U.S. for use against nema- lion concentrations of the essential oil and todes. Margosan-O™, Azatin™, Superneem gradually decreased with lower concentra- 4.5™, Neemix™, and Triact™ are neem tions. (Shakil et al., 2004) products registered as insecticides, fun- gicides, and miticides. Neem cake, made Biocontrols from crushed neem seeds, provides nitrogen Several microbial pathogens have been in a slow-release form in addition to protect- developed into commercial formulations ing plants against parasitic nematodes. It against nematodes. These include the bac- is sold as a fertilizer in the U.S. through teria Pasteuria penetrans (formerly known many farm and garden supply stores. Neem as Bacillus penetrans), Bacillus thuringiensisE cake can be mixed with fertilizers such as (available in insecticidal formulations) and ssential oils composted ma nures, seaweed, and kelp. Burkholderia cepacia. Nematicidal fungi from various Recommended rates are 180 to 360 lbs. include Trichoderma harzianum, Hirsutella plants have per acre or 2 lbs. per 100 to 160 sq. ft. rhossiliensis, Hirsutella minnesotensis, Verti-shown promise as (Anon., 1998) Neem cake is toxic to plant- cillium chlamydosporum, Arthrobotrys dacty-potential sources for parasitic nematodes and is not as detrimen- loides, and Paceilomyces lilacinus. Another tal to beneficial free-living soil organisms. fungus, Myrothecium verrucaria, found tonew nematicides. (Riga and Lazarovits, 2001) In greenhouse be highly effective in the control of nema- trials, 1 percent neem cake (mass/mass todes (Anon., 1997b), is available in a com- soil) caused a 67 to 90 percent reduction mercial formulation, DiTera™, from Abbott in the number of lesion (Pratylenchus pen- Laboratories. Circle One, Inc. offers a etrans) and root-knot (Meloidogyne hapla) combination of several mycorrhizal fungal nematodes in tomato roots grown in three spores in a nematode-control product called different soils. In the field, 1 percent neem Prosper-Nema™. Stein Microbial products cake (mass/mass soil) reduced the number offers the bacterium Burkholderia cepa- of lesion nematodes by 23 percent in corn cia in a product called Deny™ and Blue roots and 70 percent in soil around roots. Circle™. Rincon-Vitova offers a product (Abbasi et al., 2005) called Activate™ whose active ingredient is Essential oils from various plants have the bacterium Bacillus chitinosporus. shown promise as potential sources for (Quarles, 2005) new nematicides. Most of these plants are The insect-attacking nematode Steinernema aromatic and culinary herbs that contain riobravis can provide root-knot nematode the nematicidal compounds carvacrol and control comparable to that achieved with thymol. At very low concentrations (1000 chemical nematicides (Grossman, 1997). micrograms per liter, or .001 gm per liter, Although the exact mecha nisms of control or .0038 gm per gal, or 0.38 gm per 100 are not known, researchers hy pothesize gal) several oils immobilized juvenile root- that an allelochemical is involved (perhaps knot nematodes and some also reduced manufactured by symbiotic bacteria that hatching of eggs. The essential oils from live within S. riobravis) that repels plant- the following plants ranked the highest for parasitic nematodes. Recent research mea- nematicidal activity: caraway, fennel, apple- sured the effect of beneficial nematodes on mint, spearmint, Syrian oregano, and oreg- root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne species) ano. (Oka et al., 2000) The toxicity of the infecting tomatoes and peanuts. In the lab- essential oil from wormwood or Sweet Annie oratory, peanut seedlings treated with the (Artemisia annua) leaves was evaluated in beneficial nematodes Steinernema feltiaePage 10 ATTRA Nematode: Alternative Controls
  • 11. and Steinernema riobrave showed resistance the feeding cells nec-to pest nematodes. In the greenhouse, sci- essary for their sur-entists tested application levels and timing vival fail to develop.on peanut and tomato plants. On peanuts, Many crop cult i-pre- and post-infestation applications of vars—tomatoes andS. feltiae suppressed M. hapla penetration soybeans in particu-but not egg production. Only pre-infesta- lar—have been spe-tion applications of S. riobrave suppressed cif ically bred forM. hapla. The tomatoes were infested with nematode resistance.Meloidogyne incognita eggs and treated with The “N” designation Soybean plants. http://photogallery.nrcs.usda.gov/Steinernema glaseri or Heterorhabditis megi- on tomato seed pack-dis applied at the same times as the tomato ages (usually as part of “VFN”) refers totreatments. The low rate of S. glaseri sup- nematode resistance. A few cultivars of pota-pressed M. incognita penetration into tomato toes are resistant to the golden nematode,roots and the high rate of S. glaseri reduced which is a pest only in a small area of theegg production. (Pérez and Lewis, 2004) northeastern U.S. Although most cultivarsThose interested in using this biocontrol of potatoes are susceptible to infection bywill need to experiment with application nematodes, some varieties tolerate infectionrates and techniques to develop methods better than others. For example, populationbest suited to their operations. Additional densities of root-lesion nematodes (Prat-information on insect parasitic nematodes ylenchus penetrans) that would affect yield inis found on the following web site from Ohio “Superior” are tolerated with little effect byState University: www.oardc.ohio-state.edu/ “Russet Burbank.” (MacGuidwin, 1993)nematodes/ Richard L. Fery, PhD, a geneticist at theA soil-dwelling predatory mite, Hypoaspis USDA’s Agricultural Research Service inmiles, preys primarily on fungus-gnat larvae Charleston, South Carolina, developed twobut will also attack spring tails, thrips, and nematode-resistant varieties of bell pepper,nematodes. (Anon., No date) These mites “Charleston Belle” and “Carolina Wonder,”are available commercially for the control available from commercial seed compa-of fungus gnats in greenhouse production of nies. (Sanchez, 1997) Charleston Belle andtomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, flowers, and its susceptible parent, “Keystone Resistantfoliage plants. The mites are applied to the Giant,” were compared as spring crops toplanting media. manage the southern root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne incognita) in autumn-croppedIt is clear that a wide range of organisms cucumber and squash. Cucumber grown infeed on, kill, or repel nematodes. These plots following Charleston Belle had lowerorganisms are most effective, and are found root gall severity indices than in crops fol-most commonly, in healthy, lowing Keystone Resistant Giant. Cucumberwell-managed soils. yields were 87 percent heavier and num- bers of fruit 85 percent higher in plots pre-Plant Resistance viously planted to Charleston Belle than toGenerally speaking, a Keystone Resistant Giant. Squash grown inresistant cultivar is more plots following Charleston Belle had lowereffective against sedentary endo- root gall severity indices than those follow-parasitic species such as root-knot and cyst ing Keystone Resistant Giant. Squash yieldsnematodes than against “grazing” ectopara- were 55 percent heavier and numbers ofsitic species. Root-knot and cyst nematodes fruit 50 percent higher in plots previouslyspend most of their lifecycle within the root, planted to Charleston Belle than to Key-relying on special ized cells for feeding. stone Resistant Giant.Upon entering the roots of resistant culti- These results demonstrate that root-knotvars, these nematodes become trapped as nematode-resistant bell pepper cultivarswww.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 11
  • 12. such as Charleston Belle are useful tools yield reduction, but more importantly, the to manage M. incognita in double-cropping selective pressure favoring the increase systems with cucurbit crops. (Thies, et al, of the “counter-resistant” bio types is 2004) Nematode-tolerant or resistant culti- removed. As long as the farmer continues vars of snap beans (“Harvester” and “Ala- to alternate susceptible and resistant culti- bama #1”), lima beans (“Nemagreen”), vars (and, better yet, incorporate non-host and sweet potatoes (“Carolina Bunch,” crops into the rotation), the nematodes can “Excel,” “Jewel,” “Regal,” “Nugget,” and be kept at non-damaging levels. “Carver”) also exist and may be used in a similar strategy to reduce nematode levels Transgenic crop resistance to nematodes for crops that follow. and other pests is being developed for The choice of nematode-resistant rootstock numerous crops by various companies for perennial fruit production is important to worldwide. The use of genetically modi- ensure protection of trees and vines against fied organisms is not accepted in organic these unseen pests. Consult with a local production systems. For more information farm advisor to confi rm that the rootstock on this subject see the ATTRA publication you choose is appropriate for the area. Genetic Engineering of Crop Plants. Breeding for nematode resistance in most crops is complicated by the ability of the Red Plastic Mulch nematode species (primarily cyst nema- Springtime field tests at the Agricultural todes and root- knot nematodes) to develop Research Service in Florence, South Caro- races or biotypes that overcome the genetic lina, indicate that red plastic mulch sup- resistance factors in the crop. In order to presses root-knot nematode damage in maintain resistant crop cultivars on farms, tomatoes. According to Michael Kasper- researchers suggest that susceptible and bauer, one of the researchers, “The red resistant cultivars be planted in rotation. mulch reflects wavelengths of light that When a nematode-resistant cultivar is cause the plant to keep more growth above planted, nematode populations generally decrease, but over the course of the grow- ground, which results in greater yield. ing season the few nematodes in a particu- Meanwhile, the plant is putting less energy lar population capable of overcom ing this into its root system—the very food the nem- resistance begin to increase. If in the fol- atodes feed on. So reflection from the red lowing season the farmer plants a suscepti- mulch, in effect, tugs food away from the ble cultivar, the overall nematode numbers nematodes that are trying to draw nutrients will still be low enough to avoid significant from the roots.”Table 1. Nematode-resistant rootstock for perennial fruitFruit RootstockApple No commonly used rootstock is completely resistant (Ohlendorf, 1999)Pears Bartlett, Quince (slight resistance) (Ohlendorf, 1999)Asian Pear Calleryana (Anon., 2002)Citrus Poncirus trifoliate, lime, rough lemon, sour orange (Inserra et al., 1994) Forner-Alcaide 5 (Forner et al., 2003)Grapes Freedom, Harmony, Dog Ridge, Ramsey (Cousins, 1997) VR039-16 (McHenry et al., 2004)Peach & Nectarines Nemaguard, Nemared, Citation, Hansen 536 (Anon., 2004)Plums Myrobalan 29-C, Marianna 2624 (Anon., 2004)Apricots & Almonds Nemaguard, Nemared, Myrobalan, Marianna 2624 (Anon., 2004)Cherries Mazzard, Mahaleb (Anon., 2004)Page 12 ATTRA Nematode: Alternative Controls
  • 13. The research team planted tomatoes in Floodingsterilized soil, mulched them with red or In certain parts of the country (e.g., Tuleblack plastic, and inoculated the roots Lake in California) where water is usuallywith nematodes. Plants inoculated with available and water pumping equipment200,000 nematode eggs and mulched with and dikes already exist, and for certainblack plastic produced 8 pounds of toma-toes, while those mulched with red plas- large-scale monocultures (e.g., potatoes),tic produced 17 pounds. The red mulch flooding is sometimes used as a manage-is available commercially from Ken-Bar, ment tool to control nematodes. But for mostInc., of Reading, Massachusetts. farms, it is probably not an option. Flood- ing the soil for seven to nine months kills nematodes by reducing the amount of oxy-Solarization gen available for respiration and increas-Soil solarization, a method of pasteuriza- ing concentrations of naturally occurringtion, can effectively suppress most spe- substances—such as organic acids, meth-cies of nematode. However, it is consis- ane, and hydrogen sulfide—that are toxic totently effective only where summers are nematodes. (MacGuidwin, 1993) However,predictably sunny and warm. The basic it may take two years to kill all the nema-technique entails laying clear plastic over tode egg masses. (Yepsen, 1984) Floodingtilled, moistened soil for approximately six works best if both soil and air temperaturesto eight weeks. Solar heat is trapped by remain warm. An alternative to continuousthe plastic, raising the soil temperature. flooding is several cycles of flooding (min-The incorporation of poultry litter prior imum two weeks) alternating with dryingto solarization, or use of a second layer of and disking (MacGuidwin, 1993). But noteclear plastic, can reduce effective solariza-tion time to 30 days. (Brown et al., 1989; that insufficient or poorly managed floodingStevens et al., 1990) Brassica residues can make matters worse, as water is also anare also known to increase the solariza- excellent means of nematode dispersal.tion effect, in a process known as biofu-migation. The plastic holds in the gaseous Summarybreakdown products of the brassica crop Each combination of nematode and host is(or food processing wastes), thereby different. As the nematode population den-increasing the fumigation-like effect. (Gam- sity reaches a certain level, the host cropliel and Stapleton, 1993) Large-scale field yield suffers. Some hosts support faster pop-experiments using cabbage residues with ulation increases than others. Environmen-solarization obtained results comparable tal conditions can also affect the relativeto solarization combined with methyl bro- dangers posed by nematode populations.mide (Chellami et al., 1997) (Dropkin, 1980) As we begin to develop aSolarization is well documented as an better understanding of the complex ecol-appropriate technology for control of soil- ogies of soils and agricultural ecosystems,borne pathogens and nematodes, but the more strategies for cultural and biologicaleconomics of purchasing and applying control of nematodes will be developed. Theplastic restrict its use to high-value crops. trick will be fine-tuning these general strat-Further information on solarization is egies to the unique ecology, equipment, andavailable from ATTRA on request. financial situation of each farm. Soil Steaming Steaming the soil suppresses nematodes in a manner similar to solarization. There are prototype steam machines capable of performing field applications, but steaming is probably economical only for green- house operations or small plantings of high-value crops. (Grossman and Liebman, 1995) For more infor- mation on steaming, contact ATTRA.www.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 13
  • 14. References Barker, K.R., and S.R. Koenning. 1998. Developing sustainable systems for nematodeAbbasi, P.A.; E. Riga, K.L. Conn, and G. Lazarovits. management. Annual Review of Phytopathology.2005. Effect of neem cake soil amendment on reduc- Vol. 36. p. 165-205.tion of damping-off severity and population densi- Brown, J.E. , M.G. Patterson, and M.C. Osborn.ties of plant-parasitic nematodes and soilborne plant 1989. Effects of clear plastic solarization and chickenpathogens. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology manure on weed control. p. 76–79. In: Proceedings ofVol. 27, No. 1. pp. 38-45. the 21st National Agricultural Plastics Congress. Nat.Akhtar, A., and A. Malik. 2000. Roles of organic soil Ag. Plastics Assoc., Peoria, IL.amendments and soil organisms in the biological con- Brown, Paul D., and Matthew J. Morra. 1997. Controltrol of plant parasitic nematodes: a review. Biore- of soil-borne plant pests using glucosinolate-contain-source Technology 74. p 35. ing plants. p. 167–215. In: Donald L. Sparks (ed.)Akhtar, M., and M. Mashkoor Alam. 1993. Utiliza- Advances in Agronomy. Vol. 61. Academic Press, Santion of waste materials in nematode control: a review. Diego, CA.Bioresource Technology. Vol. 45. p. 1–7. Cardwell, Derek, and Russ Ingham. 1996. Manage-Anon. 1996. Prairie species control nematodes. ment of practices to suppress Columbia root-knot nem- atode. Pacific Northwest Sustainable Agriculture.The Great Lakes Vegetable Growers News. February. October p. 6.p. 33. Chellami, D.O., S.M. Olson, D. J. Mitchell, I. Secker,Anon. 1997a. Sesame rotation controls nematodes and R. McSorley. 1997. Adaptation of soil solariza-and provides Alabama a new cash crop. Highlights of tion to the integrated management of soilborne pests ofAgricultural Research. Vol. 44, No. 1, Spring 1997. tomato under humid conditions. Phy topathology. Vol.Downloaded May 2005. www.ag.auburn.edu/aaes/ 87. No. 3. pp. 250–258.communications/highlightsonline/spring97/index.html Chitwood, David J. 2002. Phytochemical based strat-Anon. 1997b. DiTera: Controlling nematodes biologi- egies for nematode control. Annual Review of Phyto-cally. Methyl Bromide Alternatives. January. p. 8–9. pathology. Vol. 40. p. 221–249.Anon. 1998. Plasma Neem Cake. Plasma Power web- Cousins, Peter. 1997. Root-knot nematode resistancesite. Downloaded April 2002. in grape rootstocks. Dept. of Viticulture and Enol-www.plasmaneem.com/ neempro.htm ogy, University of California. Downloaded June 2002.Anon. 2001. Oil radish green manure continues http://wineserver.ucdavis.edu/av/AV9708.htmlpromise against nematodes. The Grower. June–July. Dover, K. E., R. McSorley, K., H. Wang. 2003. Mari-p. 7. golds as Cover Crops. Department of Entomology & Nematology, University of Florida. DownloadedAnon. 2002. Burchell Nursery Inc. Web site. November 2005. http://agroecology.ifas.ufl.edu/Downloaded May 2005. marigoldsbackground.htmwww.burchellnursery.com/sections/charts Dropkin, Victor H. 1980. Introduction to Plant Nema-Anon. 2004. Rootstock description. Bay Laurel tology. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. p. 38–44,Nursery Web Page. Downloaded May 2004. 242–246, 256.www.baylaurelnursery.com/order/rootstock_descriptions.html Dunn, Robert A. 1995. Diagnosing Nematode Prob- lems. Florida Agricultural Information Retrieval Sys-Anon. No date. Hypoaspis miles, Agrobiologicals tem (FAIRS) . Document RF-NG006, Departmentproduct page. Downloaded June 2002. of Entomology and Nematology, Florida Cooperativewww.agrobiologicals.com/products/P1698.htm Extension Service, Institute of Food and AgriculturalBall-Coelho, B.; A. J. Bruin; R. C. Roy; E. Riga. Sciences, University of Florida. Reviewed: April 1995.2003. Forage pearl millet and marigold as rotation http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/NG006crops for biological control of root-lesion nematodes in Fiola, J., and N. Lalancettle. 2000. 2000 New Jerseypotato. Agronomy Journal, Vol. 95, No. 2. p. 282-292. Commercial Strawberry Pest Control Recommenda-Page 14 ATTRA Nematode: Alternative Controls
  • 15. tion I. P. 2. In: Rutgers Cooperative Extension Bulletin Inserra, R.N., L.W. Duncan, J.H. O’Bannon, and S.A.FS193. Fuller. 1994. Citrus nematode biotypes and resis- tant citrus rootstocks in Florida. University of FloridaForge, Thomas A., Russell E. Ingham, and DianeKaufman. 1995. Winter cover crops for managing Cooperative Extension Service. Accessed June 2002.root-lesion nematodes affecting small fruit crops in the http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/BODY_CH115Pacific Northwest. Pacific Northwest Sustainable Agri- Kodira, U.C., and B.B. Westerdahl. 1995. Potato Pestculture. March. p. 3. Management Guidelines. UC Statewide IPM. Univer-Forner, J. B., M. A. Forner-Giner, and A. Alcaide. sity of California, Davis, CA. 3 p.2003. Forner-Alcaide 5 and Forner-Alcaide 13: two Kratochvil, R. J.; S. Sardanelli; K. Everts; E.Galla-new citrus rootstocks released in Spain. HortScience, gher. 2004. Evaluation of crop rotation and otherVol. 38, No.4, pp. 629-630. cultural practices for management of root-knot andGamliel, A., and J.J. Stapleton. 1993. Characteriza- lesion nematodes. Agronomy Journal, Vol96, No5.tion of antifungal volatile compounds evolved from pp. 1419-1428.solarized soil amended with cabbage residues. Phyto- Luna, J. 1993. Crop rotation and cover crops suppresspathology. Sept. p. 899–905. nematodes in potatoes. Pacific Northwest SustainableGrossman, Joel. 1988. Research notes: New direc- Agriculture. March. p. 4–5.tions in nematode control. The IPM Practitioner. Feb- MacGuidwin, A.E. 1993. Management of Nematodes.ruary. p. 1–4. p. 159–166. In: Randell C. Rowe (ed.) Potato HealthGrossman, Joel. 1990. New crop rotations foil Management. APS Press, St. Paul, MN.root-knot nematodes. Common Sense Pest Control. McHenry, M. V.; D. Luvisi; S. A. Anwar; P. Schrader;Winter. p. 6. S. Kaku. 2004. Eight-year nematode study from uni-Grossman, Joel. 1997. Root-knot nematode biocontrol. formly designed rootstock trials in fi fteen table grapeThe IPM Practitioner. April. p. 15. vineyards. American Journal of Enology and Viticul- ture, Vol. 55, No 3, pp. 218-227.Grossman, Joel. 1999. ESA and APS joint meeting—part 8. IPM Practitioner. October. p. 13. Ogden, Shepherd. 1997. Marigolds bite back. NationalGrossman, Joel, and Jamie Liebman. 1995. Alterna- Gardening. March–April. p. 21.tives to methyl bromide— steam and solarization in Ohlendorf, Barbara L.P. 1999. Integrated pest man-nursery crops. The IPM Practitioner. July. p. 3. agement for apples and pears. University of CaliforniaHackney, R.W., and O.J. Dickerson. 1975. Mari- Publication No. 3340. p. 198.gold, castor bean, and chrysanthemum as controls of Oka, Y., S. Nacar, E. Putieusky, U. Ravid, Y. Zohara,Meloidogyne incognita and Pratylenchus alleni. Jour- and Y. Spiegal. 2000. Nematicidal activity of essentialnal of Nematology. Vol. 7, No. 1. p. 84–90. oils and their components against the root knot nema-Hafez, Saad L. 1998. Management of Sugarbeet Cyst tode. Phytopathology 90 (7). p. 710–715.Nematode. University of Idaho Cooperative Extension. Oka, Y., and U. Yermiyahu. 2002. Suppressive effectsCIS 1071. p. 2. of composts against the root-knot nematode Meloido-Horst, Kenneth R. 1990. Westcott’s Plant Disease gyne javanica on tomato. Nematology, Vol 4, No 8,Handbook. 5th ed. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp. 891-898.NY. p. 306–307. Peet, Mary. 1996. Sustainable Practices for VegetableIngham, R.E. 1990. Biology and control of root-knot Production in the South. Focus Publishing, Newbury-nematodes of potato—Research report. Proceedings port, MA. p. 75–77.of the Oregon Potato Conference and Trade Show. p. Pérez, E. E. and E. E. Lewis. 2004. Suppression of109–120, 18–36. Meloidogyne incognita and Meloidogyne hapla withIngham, Elaine. 1996. The Soil Foodweb: Its Impor- entomopathogenic nematodes on greenhouse peanutstance in Ecosystem Health. 13 p. and tomatoes. Biological Control, 2004, Vol 30, No. 2.http://rain.org:80/~sals/ingham.html pp. 336-341.www.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 15
  • 16. Ploeg, Antoon. 2001. When nematodes attack is todes in the potato root zone. Plant and Soil, Vol. 262,important. California Grower. October. p. 12-13. No. 1-2, pp. 241-249.Quarles, William. 1993. Rapeseed green manure con- Thies, J. A.; R. F. Davis; J. D. Mueller; R. L Fery;trols nematodes. The IPM Practitioner. April. p. 15. D. B. Langston; G. Miller. 2004. Double-croppingQuarles, William. (ed.). 2005. 2005 directory of least cucumbers and squash after resistant bell peppertoxic pest control products. The IPM Practitioner, Vol. for root-knot nematode management. Plant Disease,26, No. 11/12. p. 17. 2004, Vol88, No6. pp. 589-593.Riga, E., and G. Lazarovits. 2001. Development of Tsay, T. T.; S. T. Wu; Y. Y. Lin. 2004. Evaluation ofan organic pesticide based on neem tree products. Asteraceae plants for control of Meloidogyne incog-American Phytopathological Society/ Mycological Soci- nita. Journal of Nematology, Vol. 36, No1, pp. 36-41.ety of America/ Society of Nematology Joint Meeting Walker, G. E. 2004. Effects of Meloidogyne javanicaAbstracts of Presentations. Salt Lake City, Utah. and organic amendments, inorganic fertilisers andPhytopatology 91: S141.Publication no.P2001-0096- nematicides on carrot growth and nematode abun-SON. dance. Nematologia Mediterranea, Vol. 32, No. 2. pp.Sasser, J. N. 1990. Plant-parasitic Nematodes: The 181-188.Farmer’s Hidden Enemy. North Carolina State Univer- Wang, K. H., R. McSorley, R. N. Gallaher. 2004.sity Press, Raleigh, NC. p. 47–48. Effect of Crotalaria juncea amendment on squashSanchez, Pat. 1997. For pepper growers, built-in nem- infected with Meloidogyne incognita. Journal of Nema-atode resistance. Agricultural Research. October. p. tology, 2004, Vol. 36, No. 3. pp. 290-296.12–13. Wang, K. H., B. S. Sipes, and D. P. Schmitt. 2002.Shakil, N. A.; D. Prasad; D. B. Saxena; A. K Gupta. Suppression of Rotylenchulus reniformis by Crotalaria2004. Nematicidal activity of essential oils of Arte- juncea, Brassica napus, and Target erecta. Nemat-misia annua against root-knot and reniform nema- ropica. Vol. 31. p. 237-251.todes. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences, Vol 12, Westphal, A. and A. W. Scott Jr. 2005. Implementa-No. 2. pp. 403-408. tion of soybean in cotton cropping sequences for man-Siddiqui, M.A. and M.M. Alam. 2001. The IPM Prac- agement of reniform nematode in South Texas. Croptioner. April. p. 9–11. Science, 2005, Vol. 45, No 1. pp. 233-239.Stark, J.C. 1995. Development of Sustainable Potato Wider, T.L., and G.S. Abawi. 2000. Mechanism ofProduction Systems for the Pacific Northwest. SARE suppression of Meloidogyne hapla and its damage by aFinal Report. green manure of Sudan grass. Plant Disease. Vol. 84.Starr J. L. and M. C. Black. 1995. Reproduction of p. 562-568.Meloidogyne arenaria, M. incognita, and M. ]avanica Williams, Greg, and Pat Williams (eds.) 1990a.on Sesame. Supplement to the Journal of Nematology Sesame residues vs. harmful nematodes. HortIdeas.27(4S):624-627. March. p. 35.Stevens, C., V.A. Khan, and A.Y. Tang. 1990. Solar Williams, Greg and Pat Williams (eds.) 1990b.heating of soil with double plastic layers: a potential (Some) plant nutrients repel harmful nematodes.method of pest control. p. 163–68. In: Proceedings of HortIdeas. June. p. 63.the 22nd National Agricultural Plastics Congress. Nat.Ag. Plastics Assoc., Peoria, IL. Williams, Greg, and Pat Williams (eds.) 1993. Wheat vs. nematodes causing peach tree short life. HortId-Stirling, G.R. 1991. Biological Control of Plant Para- eas. July. p. 76.sitic Nematodes. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.275 p. Yepsen, Roger B. Jr. (ed.) 1984. The Encyclopedia of Natural Insect & Disease Control. Rev. ed. RodaleSturz, A. V. and J. Kimpinski. 2004. Endoroot bac- Press, Emmaus, PA. p. 267–271.teria derived from marigolds (Tagetes species) candecrease soil population densities of root-lesion nema-Page 16 ATTRA Nematode: Alternative Controls
  • 17. Further Resources Root and Soil Analyses for Nematodes in CornAgbenin, N. O., A. M. Emechebe, P. S. Marley. University of Nebraska-Lincoln2004. Evaluation of neem seed powder for Fusarium www.ianr.unl.edu/pubs/plantdisease/g702.htmwilt and Meloidogyne control on tomato. Archives of How to Take a Soil Sample for Corn Nematode AssayPhytopathology and Plant Protection, Vol. 37, No. 4. University of Nebraska-Lincolnpp. 319-326 http://ianrpubs.unl.edu/plantdisease/g492.htmBudh Ram, and B. L. Baheti. 2003. Management of Cotton Disease and Nematode Managementreniform nematode, Rotylenchulus reniformis on cow- University of Missouripea through seed treatment with botanicals. Current http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/agguides/crops/Nematology, Vol. 14, No1/2. pp. 27-30. g04261.htmHagan, A. K, W. S. Gazaway, E. J. Sikora. 1994. Detecting and Avoiding Nematode ProblemsNematode suppressive crops. Circular ANR-856, Ala- Michigan State Universitybama A&M and Auburn Universities. Accessed April http://emdc.msue.msu.edu/Bulletin/PDF/E2199.pdf2005. www.aces.edu/department/grain/ANR856.htm Nematode Management, Chapter 8Kiewnick, S, and R. A Sikora. 2004. Optimizing the Vegetable Crop Pest Management, Bulletin E-2160efficacy of Paecilomyces lilacinus (strain 251) for the Michigan State Universitycontrol of root-knot nematodes. Communications in www.pested.msu.edu/Resources/bulletins/pdf/2160/Agricultural and Applied Biological Sciences, 2004, ch8.pdfVol. 69, No. 3, pp. 373-380. Scouting for Corn NematodesKoenning, S. R., Edmisten, K. L., Barker, K. R., Bow- Iowa State Universityman, D. T., and Morrison, D. E. 2003. Effects of rate http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/and time of application of poultry litter on Hoplolai- IPM53S.pdfmus columbus on cotton. Plant Dis. 87:1244-1249. The Soybean Cyst Nematode Management GuideMorris, J. B. and J. T. Walker. 2002. Non-traditional North Central Soybean Research Programlegumes as potential soil amendments for nematode www.planthealth.info/scnguide/index.htmlcontrol. Journal of Nematology, 2002, Vol. 34, No. 4.pp. 358-361. Marigolds as Cover Crops Department of Entomology & Nematology, UniversityTiyagi, S. A. and Ajaz Shamim. 2004. Biological con- of Floridatrol of plant parasitic nematodes associated with chick- http://agroecology.ifas.ufl.edu/marigoldsbackground.htmpea using oil cakes and Paecilomyces lilacinus. IndianJournal of Nematology, Vol. 34, No1, pp. 44-48. Nematode Suppressive Cover Crops Alabama Cooperative ExtensionWeb Resources http://www.aces.edu/pubs/docs/A/ANR-0856/ ANR-0856.pdfNematode Management in Commercial VegetableProduction Nemaplex: The Nematode-Plant Expert InformationUniversity of Florida Systemhttp://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/NG/NG00400.pdf A Virtual Encyclopedia on Soil and Plant NematodesThe Phase out of Methyl Bromide Department of Nematology, University of CaliforniaUS Environmental Protection Agency http://plpnemweb.ucdavis.edu/nemaplex/www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/ *Biological Control of NematodesThe Sting Nematode *Cultural Manipulations for Nematode ManagementKansas State University *Host Plant Resistance (HPR) Against Nematodeswww.oznet.ksu.edu/library/plant2/L817.pdf *Chemical Ecology of NematodesNematodes: Management Guidelines Plant Nematode Problems and their Control in thefor Kansas Crops Near East RegionKansas State University FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper 144www.oznet.ksu.edu/library/plant2/samplers/MF1063.asp www.fao.org/docrep/v9978e/v9978e00.htmwww.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 17
  • 18. Soil Organic Matter, Green Manures and Cover Crops Oregon Cover Crops: Sudangrass and Sorghum-for Nematode Management Sudangrass HybridsUniversity of Florida Oregon State Universityhttp://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/VH/VH03700.pdf http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/edmat/html/EM/Management of Nematodes with Cowpea Cover Crop EM8703/EM8703.htmlUniversity of Florida Columbia Root-Knot Nematode Control in Potatohttp://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/IN516 Using Crop Rotations and Cover CropsNatural Enemies of Nematodes Oregon State UniversityThe Biological Control of Nematodes - Nemabc http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/edmat/html/EM/http://sacs.cpes.peachnet.edu/nemabc/NemaBC.htm EM8740/EM8740.htmlThe Ectoparsitic Nematodes of Illinois Mechanisms of a Sunn Hemp Cover Crop inUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Suppressing Nematodeswww.ag.uiuc.edu/~vista/abstracts/a1106.html University of Florida, Department of EntomologyLesion Nematodes and NematologyUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign http://agroecology.ifas.ufl.edu/cover%20crop%20mechanwww.ag.uiuc.edu/~vista/abstracts/a1103.html isms.htmThe Soybean Cyst Nematode ProblemUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Supplierswww.ag.uiuc.edu/~vista/abstracts/a501.html Peaceful Valley Farm SupplyInsect Parasitic Nematodes P.O. Box 2209,Ohio State University Grass Valley, CA 95945www2.oardc.ohio-state.edu/nematodes/ (888) 784-1722 www.groworganic.comCover Crops: MarigoldOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Jack Brown, PhDAffairs PSES Departmentwww.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/cover_crops01/ University of Idaho,marigold.htm Moscow, ID 83844-2339Oilseed Radish: A New Cover Crop for Michigan (208) 885-6276Michigan State University W. Atlee Burpee & Companyhttp://web4.msue.msu.edu/veginfo/abstract. Garden Rd.,cfm?show=209 Warminster, PA 18077Knowledge Expectations for Pest Control Advisors: (800) 888-1447NematodesDepartment of Nematology, University of California Circle One International, Inc.http://ucdnema.ucdavis.edu/imagemap/nemmap/ 18744 Titus Rd.,Ent156html/kenem/kenem.html Hudson, FL 34667 877-359-6753Take Cover from The Elements: Brassica http://www.circle-one.comCover CropsAmerican Vegetable Grower, March 2004 Michael J. Kasperbauer, ARS Coastal Plains Soil,www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3869/is_200403/ Water, and Plant Research Laboratoryai_n9367877 2611 West Lucas St.,Glucosinolate-Containing Seed Meal as a Soil Amend- Florence, SC 29501-1242ment to Control Plant Pests, 2000-2002 (803) 669-5203University of Idaho for National Renewable Energy (803) 669-6970 (fax)Laboratory Ken-Bar, Inc.www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/35254.pdf 25 Walkers Brook Dr.Oregon Cover Crops: Rapeseed P.O. Box 504,Oregon State University Reading, MA 01867-0704http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/edmat/html/EM/ (617) 944-0003EM8700/EM8700.html (800) 336-8882Page 18 ATTRA Nematode: Alternative Controls
  • 19. Noteswww.attra.ncat.org ATTRA Page 19
  • 20. Nematode: Alternative Controls By Martin Guerena NCAT Agriculture Specialist © 2006 NCAT Paul Driscoll, Editor Amy Smith, Production This publication is available on the Web at: www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/nematode.html or www.attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/nematode.pdf IP 287 Slot 113 Version 041106Page 20 ATTRA