Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:36:18.822Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Host status of tropical spiderwort (Commelina benghalensis) for nematodes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

R. F. Davis ,
T. M. Webster  and
T. B. Brenneman
T. M. Webster
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, Crop Protection and Management Research Unit, P.O. Box 748, Tifton, GA 31793
T. B. Brenneman
Affiliation:
University of Georgia, Department of Plant Pathology, P.O. Box 748, Tifton, GA 31793
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Nematodes are the most damaging pathogens of cotton and one of the most important pathogens of peanut. Weeds can support nematode reproduction and reduce the effectiveness of crop rotation as a management tool. This study documents the relative host status of tropical spiderwort for (1) the reniform nematode and the southern and peanut root-knot nematodes and (2) the fungal pathogen southern stem rot. A reproductive factor (RF) was calculated for each nematode (final number divided by initial number). Galling was estimated (0–10 scale) for the root-knot species. The southern root-knot nematode reproduced well on tropical spiderwort, with a gall rating of 3.1 and an RF of 15.5. The peanut root-knot nematode also reproduced well on tropical spiderwort, with a gall rating of 2.1 and an RF of 7.2. Trials with the reniform nematode were analyzed independently. In the first trial with the reniform nematode, the RF was 2.4 on tropical spiderwort and 1.4 on cotton. In the second trial, the RF was 3.6 on tropical spiderwort and 13.5 on cotton. The severity of symptoms caused by southern stem rot was estimated on a scale of 0 to 10. In the first trial, peanut had a disease severity rating of 4.0 and tropical spiderwort had a rating of 1.4, and the fungus could be seen growing on 40% of the tropical spiderwort plants. In the second trial, peanut had a disease severity rating of 10.0 and tropical spiderwort had a rating of 5.0, but the fungus could be seen growing on all of the tropical spiderwort plants. It appears that tropical spiderwort is a sufficiently good host for some of the primary nematode and fungal pathogens of major crops in the southeastern United States that its presence at typical plant population densities will greatly reduce the pathogen-suppressive effects of crop rotation.

Keywords

Tropical spiderwort, Commelina benghalensis L. COMBEcotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.peanut, Arachis hypogaea L.peanut root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne arenaria, reniform nematode, Rotylenchulus reniformissouthern root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognitasouthern stem rot, Sclerotium rolfsiiBenghal dayflowercottonhost statusMeloidogyne arenariaMeloidogyne incognitanematode reproductionpeanutreniform nematoderoot-knot nematodeRotylenchulus reniformis
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 54 , Issue 6 , December 2006 , pp. 1137 - 1141
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

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

Literature Cited

Baird, R. E., Davis, R. F., Alt, P. J., Mullinix, B. G., and Padgett, G. B. 1996. Frequency and geographical distribution of plant-parasitic nematodes on cotton in Georgia. J. Nematol. 28: (Suppl.). 661–667.Google Scholar
Bélair, G. and Benoit, D. L. 1996. Host suitability of 32 common weeds to Meloidogyne hapla in organic soils of southwestern Quebec. J. Nematol. 28: (Suppl.). 643–647.Google ScholarPubMed
Blasingame, D. and Patel, M. V. 2003. Cotton disease loss estimate committee report. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 2003:252–253.Google Scholar
Brenneman, T. B., Sumner, D. R., Baird, R. E., Burton, G. W., and Minton, N. A. 1995. Suppression of foliar and soilborne peanut diseases in bahiagrass rotations. Phytopathology. 85:948–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridges, D. C. 1992. Crop Losses Due to Weeds in the United States. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. 403 p.Google Scholar
Davidson, T. R. and Townshend, J. L. 1967. Some weed hosts of the southern root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita . Nematology. 13:452–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, R. F., Koenning, S. R., Kemerait, R. C., Cummings, T. D., and Shurley, W. D. 2003. Rotylenchulus reniformis management in cotton with crop rotation. J. Nematol. 35:58–64.Google Scholar
Davis, R. F. and Timper, P. 2000. Resistance in selected corn hybrids to Meloidogyne arenaria and M. incognita . J. Nematol. 32:633–640.Google ScholarPubMed
Davis, R. F. and Webster, T. M. 2005. Relative host status of selected weeds and crops for Meloidogyne incognita and Rotylenchulus reniformis . J. Cotton Sci. 9:41–46.Google Scholar
Desaeger, J. and Rao, M. R. 2000. Parasitic nematode populations in natural fallows and improved cover crops and their effects on subsequent crops in Kenya. Field Crops Res. 65:41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, D. W. 1998. Peanut. Pages 523–566 in Barker, K. R., Pederson, G. A., and Windham, G. L. eds. Plant Nematode Interactions. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Edmunds, J. E. 1971. Association of Rotylenchulus reniformis with ‘Robusta’ banana and Commelina sp. roots in the Windward Islands. Trop. Agric. (Trinidad) 48:55–61.Google Scholar
Faden, R. B. 1993. The misconstrued and rare species of Commelina (Commelinaceae) in the eastern United States. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 80:208–218.Google Scholar
Gast, R. E., Wilson, R. G., and Kerr, E. D. 1984. Lesion nematode (Pratylenchus spp.) infection of weed species and fieldbeans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 32:616–620.Google Scholar
Gaur, H. S. and Haque, M. M. 1987. Effect of irrigation and stage of moisture stress on the growth of nematode populations under pea. Indian J. Nematol. 17:189–192.Google Scholar
Gaur, H. S. and Perry, R. N. 1991. The biology of the plant parasitic nematode Rotylenchulus reniformis . Agric. Zool. Rev. 4:177–212.Google Scholar
Griffin, G. D. 1982. Differences in the response of certain weed host populations to Heterodera schachtii . J. Nematol. 14:174–182.Google ScholarPubMed
Hussey, R. S. and Barker, K. R. 1973. A comparison of methods of collecting inocula of Meloidogyne spp., including a new technique. Plant Dis. Rep. 57:1025–1028.Google Scholar
Jordaan, E. M. and De Waele, D. 1988. Host status of five weed species and their effects on Pratylenchus zaea infestation of maize. J. Nematol. 21:620–624.Google Scholar
Kasasian, L. 1971. Weed control in the tropics. London: Leonard Hill. 307 p.Google Scholar
Koenning, S. R., Overstreet, C., Noling, J. W., Donald, P. A., Becker, J. O., and Fortnum, B. A. 1999. Survey of crop losses in response to phytoparasitic nematodes in the United States for 1994. J. Nematol. 31: (Suppl.). 587–618.Google Scholar
Koenning, S. R., Walters, S. A., and Barker, K. R. 1996. Impact of soil texture on the reproductive and damage potentials of Rotylenchulus reniformis and Meloidogyne incognita on cotton. J. Nematol. 28:527–536.Google Scholar
Krings, A., Burton, M. G., and York, A. C. 2002. Commelina benghalensis (Commelinaceae) new to North Carolina and an updated key to Carolina congeners. Sida. 20:419–422.Google Scholar
Mbwana, A. S. S., Waudo, S. W., and Seshu-Reddy, K. V. 1995. Host-range of the lesion nematode, Pratylenchus goodeyi, commonly found in highland bananas of East Africa. Int. J. Pestic. Manag. 41:46–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prostko, E. P. 2005. After five years of on-farm testing, have we learned how to manage tropical spiderwort? Proceedings of the Symposium on Tropical Spiderwort. http://www.cropsoil.uga.edu/weedsci/tsw2005/index.html.Google Scholar
Queneherve, P., Drob, F., and Topart, P. 1995. Host status of some weeds to Meloidogyne spp., Pratylenchus spp., Helicotylenchus spp, and Rotylenchulus reniformis associated with vegetables cultivated in polytunnels in Martinique. Nematropica. 25:149–157.Google Scholar
Tedford, E. C. and Fortnum, B. A. 1988. Weed hosts of Meloidogyne arenaria and M. incognita common in tobacco fields in South Carolina. Ann. Appl. Nematol. (J. Nematol. 20, Suppl.) 2:102–105.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. D. and Allen, C. M. 1993. Commelina benghalensis L. (Commelinaceae), Carex hyaline Boott (Cyperaceae), and Chloris subdolichostachya C. Muell. (Poaceae): new to Louisiana. Phytologia. 75:336–338.Google Scholar
Valdez, R. B. 1968. Survey, identification and host–parasite relationships of root-knot nematodes occurring in some parts of the Philippines. Philippine Agric. 51:802–824.Google Scholar
Venkatesh, R., Harrison, S. K., and Riedel, R. M. 2000. Weed hosts of soybean cyst nematode (Heterodera glycines) in Ohio. Weed Technol. 14:156–160.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2004. Weed survey—southern states: grass crop subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 57:404–426.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2005. Weed survey—southern states: broadleaf crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 58:291–306.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M., Burton, M. G., Culpepper, A. S., Flanders, J. T., Grey, T. L., and York, A. C. 2006. Tropical spiderwort (Commelina benghalensis) control and emergence patterns in preemergence herbicide systems. J. Cotton Sci. 10:68–75.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M., Burton, M. G., Culpepper, A. S., York, A. C., and Prostko, E. P. 2005. Tropical spiderwort (Commelina benghalensis): a tropical invader threatens agroecosystems of the southern United States. Weed Technol. 19:501–508.Google Scholar