Galling and Reproduction of Different Isolates of on Culinary Herbs.

Diego A H S Leitão, Ana Karina S Oliveira, Janete A Brito, Donald W Dickson
Author Information
  1. Diego A H S Leitão: Entomology and Nematology Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
  2. Ana Karina S Oliveira: Entomology and Nematology Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
  3. Janete A Brito: Division of Plant Industry, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Gainesville, FL 32608, USA.
  4. Donald W Dickson: Entomology and Nematology Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.

Abstract

was first described in Florida, USA, in 2004 but has since been reported in California, South Carolina, and Georgia. Our objective was to determine the galling and reproduction differences between two isolates of , Mf3 and MfGNV14, on culinary herbs. A duplicated study was performed where both isolates were inoculated separately to nine culinary herbs (basil, catnip, chicory, dill, fennel, marjoram, parsley, sage, and thyme). Tomato was used as a susceptible reference. Regardless of the isolate, chicory and marjoram had the lowest gall indices (1.85 and 1.00, respectively) and egg mass indices (1.25 and 0.90, respectively). The reproduction rate of Mf3 was greatest under catnip (959 eggs/g fresh root) and thyme (701 eggs/g fresh root), followed by sage (549 eggs/g fresh root) and parsley (501 eggs/g fresh root). Catnip (2,151 eggs/g fresh root) stood out for number of eggs among all tested herbs, followed by tomato (1,153 eggs/g fresh root) and sage (847 eggs/g fresh root) for MfGNV14. Marjoram was a non-host, chicory, fennel, and thyme were poor hosts, and catnip, parsley, and tomato were good hosts to both isolates. Basil, dill, and sage responses were isolate-specific, i.e., resistant to Mf3 but susceptible to MfGNV14.

Keywords

References

  1. J Nematol. 2019 Sep 17;51: [PMID: 34179807]
  2. Nutr J. 2011 May 16;10:50 [PMID: 21575177]
  3. J Nematol. 2024 Mar 14;56(1):20240004 [PMID: 38495936]
  4. Plant Dis. 2020 Dec 8;: [PMID: 33289414]
  5. Plant Dis. 2023 May;107(5):1522-1528 [PMID: 36350729]
  6. J Nematol. 2020;52:1-6 [PMID: 32692022]
  7. J Nematol. 2007 Dec;39(4):327-32 [PMID: 19259507]
  8. J Nematol. 2002 Jun;34(2):179-81 [PMID: 19265929]
  9. Sci Rep. 2024 Feb 14;14(1):3733 [PMID: 38355886]
  10. Mol Plant Pathol. 2013 Dec;14(9):946-61 [PMID: 23809086]
  11. J Nematol. 2004 Mar;36(1):20-35 [PMID: 19262784]
  12. J Nematol. 2019;51:1-3 [PMID: 31115204]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0eggs/gfreshrootsage1reproductionisolatesMf3MfGNV14herbscatnipchicoryparsleythymeculinarydillfennelmarjoramsusceptibleindicesrespectivelyfollowedtomatohostsfirstdescribedFloridaUSA2004sincereportedCaliforniaSouthCarolinaGeorgiaobjectivedeterminegallingdifferencestwoduplicatedstudyperformedinoculatedseparatelyninebasilTomatousedreferenceRegardlessisolatelowestgall8500eggmass25090rategreatest959701549501Catnip2151stoodnumbereggsamongtested153847Marjoramnon-hostpoorgoodBasilresponsesisolate-specificieresistantGallingReproductionDifferentIsolatesCulinaryHerbsAnethumgraveolensCichoriumintybusFoeniculumvulgareMeloidogynefloridensisNepetacatariaOcimumbasilicumOriganummajoranaPetroselinumcrispumSalviaofficinalisThymusvulgarishoststatuspeachroot-knotnematodefactorsusceptibility

Similar Articles

Cited By