Reniform Nematode Management Using Winter Crop Rotation and Residue Incorporation Methods in Greenhouse Experiments

Rotylenchulus reniformis (reniform nematode, RN) is an important pathogen in cotton production. Cultural practices such as crop rotation and biofumigation—management of soil pathogens by biocidal compounds from crop residues—may help manage RN. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of winter crops for RN management through combinations of rotation and crop residue incorporation in a cotton greenhouse experiment. A total of 10 treatments were evaluated in soil inoculated with RN: three winter crops (carinata, oat, or hairy vetch) grown in rotation with no shoot organic matter (OM) incorporated (1–3), fresh shoot OM incorporated (4–6), or dry shoot OM incorporated (7–9), and a fallow control (10). Roots were re-incorporated in all treatments except fallow. Subsequently, cotton was grown. Oat and fallow were better rotation crops to lower soil RN abundances at winter crop termination than hairy vetch and carinata. After the OM incorporation treatments and cotton growth, oat was generally more effective at managing RN in cotton than carinata or hairy vetch. Within each crop, incorporation treatment generally did not affect RN management. Cotton growth was not consistently affected by the treatments

Management of Reniform Nematode in Cotton Using Winter Crop Residue Amendments Under Greenhouse Conditions

Rotylenchulus reniformis (reniform nematode, RN) is among the most important nematodes affecting cotton. Cultural practices, such as rotation and soil amendment, are established methods for managing RN. Management may be enhanced if crop residue has biofumigant properties against RN. The objective was to evaluate the efficacy of winter crop amendments for managing RN in the greenhouse. Reniform nematode-infested soil was amended with dry or fresh organic matter (OM, 2% w/w) from winter crops – canola, carinata, hairy vetch, oat, or no crop. Cotton was subsequently grown in this soil. Independent of the crop, dry OM amendments were more effective than no amendment at managing RN, while fresh OM amendments were not. Soil and root RN abundances and reproduction factors were generally lower in Trials 1 and 3 for dry OM than fresh OM amendments or control without OM. In Trial 2, none of the OM treatments reduced RN parameters compared with no OM control. In general, when compared to plants without RN or OM, RN did not produce significant changes in growth parameters but did affect physiology (Soil Plant Analysis Development, or SPAD, values). In conclusion, dry OM amendments can help manage RN, crop growth does not always relate to RN abundances, and SPAD values could help indicate RN presence

Belonolaimus longicaudatus management using metam potassium and fluensulfone in potato

Belonolaimus longicaudatus (sting nematode) is an important pest in Florida potato production and is managed primarily by fumigation using 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D). Other effective nematicides are needed for more flexibility in managing this pest. The objective of this study was to evaluate fluensulfone, metam potassium, and mixtures of the two products, relative to 1,3-D and untreated control, for efficacy at managing sting nematode, and for non-target effects on free-living nematodes in potato. To test this objective, a small-plot field experiment was conducted in northeast Florida in 2020 and repeated in 2021. Metam potassium fumigation (390 kg a.i./treated ha)—with or without fluensulfone—managed sting nematode soil abundances but was phytotoxic to potato. Strategies that mitigate metam potassium phytotoxicity, such as reduced application rates, are needed before efficacy of metam potassium in this system can be determined. As a preplant soil spray, fluensulfone alone (403 g a.i./treated ha) did not manage sting nematode abundances and had an inconsistent effect on yield. Fumigation with 1,3-D (88.3 kg a.i./treated ha) was the only treatment that consistently managed sting nematode and increased potato yield. Nematicides did not consistently affect free-living nematodes