ارزیابی واکنش یازده هیبرید خیار نسبت به نماتد ریشه گرهی (Meloidogyne incognita) در شرایط گلخانه

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی-فارسی

نویسندگان

1 مربی، گروه گیاه‌پزشکی، دانشکده علوم کشاورزی، دانشگاه گیلان، رشت، ایران

2 استادیار، گروه گیاه‌پزشکی، دانشکده علوم کشاورزی، دانشگاه گیلان، رشت، ایران

3 دانشیار، گروه گیاه‌پزشکی، دانشکده علوم کشاورزی، دانشگاه گیلان، رشت، ایران

4 دانشیار، گروه علوم و مهندسی باغبانی، دانشکده علوم کشاورزی، دانشگاه گیلان، رشت ایران

چکیده

پژوهش حاضر در شرایط گلخانه، با ارزیابی مقاومت یازده هیبرید خیار (3×2، 4×6، 3×7، 5×3، 2×7، 3×4، 4×2، 2×6، 3×6، 7×6) و یک رقم تجاری نگین به‌عنوان شاهد نسبت به نماتد ریشه‌گرهی در قالب طرح کاملا تصادفی با سه تکرار به اجرا در آمد. نماتد روی گوجه‌فرنگی رقم حساس ارلی‌اوربانا خالص‌سازی، تکثیر و با استفاده از خصوصیات ریخت‌شناسی شناسایی گردید. در هر کیلوگرم خاک، گیاهچه‌های خیار با 2000 تخم و لارو سن دوم مایه‌زنی و پس از 10 هفته، شاخص‌های تولیدمثلی نماتد ارزیابی گردیدند. هیبریدها از نظر شاخص بیماریزایی تفاوت معنی‌داری با یکدیگر داشتند. با توجه به رتبه‌بندی تیلور و ساسر، هیبرید 2×6 با شاخص گال چهار، حساس و شاهد نگین، هیبریدهای 3×2، 6×4، 3×7، 5×3، 2×7، 3×4، 4×2، 3×6 و 7×6 با شاخص پنج، بسیار حساس و از نظر شاخص توده ‌تخم، هیبرید‌های 5×3، 2×6 و 3×4 با شاخص سه، دارای مقاومت نسبی و هیبرید‌های نگین، 3×2، 6×4، 3×7، 2×7، 4×2، 3×6 و 7×6 با شاخص چهار، حساس بودند. با در نظر گرفتن فاکتور تولید‌مثل و شاخص گال، تمام هیبریدها حساس ارزیابی شدند. از نظر شاخص مقاومت بین هیبریدها تفاوت معنی‌داری وجود داشت و طبق شاخص مقاومت در روش کوزنبری و همکاران، هیبریدهای 5×3، 2×6 و 3×4 نسبتاً حساس و سایر هیبریدها حساس بودند.‌ وزن تر و خشک اندام هوایی، وزن تر ریشه و حجم ریشه به لحاظ آماری معنی‌دار شدند. هیبریدهای تولیدی نسبت به هیبرید تجاری نگین، از نظر مقاومت به نماتد برتری داشتند که پس از آزمایش‌های تکمیلی می‌توانند به‌عنوان جایگزین، مورد توجه واقع شوند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluation of eleven cucumber hybrid’s reaction to root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne incognita) in greenhouse conditions

نویسندگان [English]

  • F. Ghanbari 1
  • S. Jamali 2
  • J. Olfati 3
  • S. Mousanejad 4
1 Instructor, Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran
3 Associate Professor, Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran
4 Associate Professor, Department of Horticultural Science, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran
چکیده [English]

Background and Objectives

Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) holds significant agricultural importance in Iran, occupying extensive cultivation areas. Greenhouse conditions favor the proliferation of numerous pests and diseases affecting cucumber growth. Root-knot nematodes inflict yearly damage on cucumber farmers and producers, particularly in tropical and subtropical regions. Cucumbers are susceptible to various plant-parasitic nematodes, with Meloidogyne species, notably root-knot nematodes, posing significant threats. Controlling the nematode is challenging due to its wide host range, short life cycle, high reproductive rate, and parasitism. While chemical control remains prevalent for nematode population management, growing public concern over the environmental and human health impacts of nematicides is driving efforts to restrict their usage. Employing resistant varieties either independently or in conjunction with other strategies is increasingly recognized as a highly effective means of nematode control. Resistant plants prevent the need for long-term rotations and are highly suitable for sustainable agriculture. Consequently, the development of new cucumber varieties and hybrids and the assessment of their resistance can be applied in integrated nematode management. Hence, this research aims to evaluate the resistance of cucumber hybrids to root-knot nematodes (M. incognita) under greenhouse conditions.

Materials and Methods

Soil and root sampling was undertaken from cucumber cultivation sites in Guilan province. Egg masses were then introduced to the root systems of tomato seedlings, specifically the Early Urbana variety, at the two to four true leaf stage. Subsequently, these seedlings were nurtured for 45 to 60 days under greenhouse conditions. Identification involved the analysis of perineal patterns alongside morphological and morphometric traits of second-stage juveniles. Staining of female nematodes in root tissue was accomplished using the Hartman and Sasser method. Multiple consecutive inoculation cycles were executed on susceptible tomato plants to cultivate a substantial and uncontaminated nematode population. Seed germination took place in Petri dishes, with transfer to individual pots containing a mix of perlite and coco peat in equal measures after 48 hours. These pots were then randomly distributed within the greenhouse, with subsequent maintenance performed as required. The experiment followed a completely randomized design with three replications. Ten weeks post-inoculation, nematode-related parameters, such as the count of galls and egg masses using the Taylor and Sasser method, alongside the number of second-stage juveniles in the soil using the Barker method, were assessed. Subsequently, statistical analysis was carried out utilizing SAS 9.0 software following data normalization. Mean comparisons were conducted using the Tukey test.

Results

The results showed significant differences in some traits of the hybrids treated with nematodes. Variance analysis revealed no significant differences in specific indicators, including gall count, egg sacs, eggs, second-stage juveniles in the soil, reproduction factor, as well as fresh and dry shoot and root weights across the assessed hybrids. However, significant differences were observed among the growth indices of plants, particularly in fresh and dry shoot weight, fresh root weight, and root volume. The mean weight of the aerial parts in the control was 103.66 g. Hybrid 5×3 exhibited the highest reduction, with a weight of 63.33 g, reflecting a 38.9% decrease compared to the control. Conversely, hybrid 7×6 showed the least disparity, with a weight of 100 g and only a 3.53% reduction. Notably, significant differences were evident in gall index, egg mass index, resistance index, root dry weight, and root length. According to the Taylor and Sasser ranking for determining gall and egg masses indices, hybrid 2×6 exhibited sensitivity, while the remaining hybrids were classified as very sensitive. Regarding the egg masses index, hybrids 5×3, 2×6, and 3×4 displayed relative resistance, whereas the other hybrids were categorized as sensitive. Evaluation based on the reproduction factor and gall index indicated that all hybrids were classified as sensitive.

Discussion

The study concluded that none of the hybrids exhibited significant resistance indices. However, hybrid 2×6 demonstrated statistical significance in gall index, egg masses, and resistance, while hybrid 2×7 displayed superiority over the control variety in terms of larval count, egg count, and dry shoot weight. Consequently, pending further complementary experiments, these hybrids may be regarded as promising replacement candidates.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Cucumber
  • Gall index
  • Resistance
  • Nematode
Abdulahi, M. (2014). Reaction of ten greenhouse cucumber cultivars to root knot nematode. Journal of seedling and seed breeding, 31(1), 55-75. https://doi.org/10.22092/SPIJ.2017.111248
Abootorabi,­ E., & Naraghi, L. (2016). Biological control of tomato root knot nematode, Meloidogyne javanica by Talaromyces flavus and Trichoderma harzianum in the greenhouse condition.‏ Bio­control in plant protection, 4(2), 1-9. https://doi.org/ 10.22092/BCPP.2017.112885
Agrios, G. (2005). Plant Pathology. Elsevier Academic Press.
Ahmad, R., Khan, M. A. Sahi, S. T.­, & Dogar, M. A. (1992). Reaction and development of selected tomato cultivars against root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne javanica Treub.). Pakistan Journal of Phytopathology, 4(1), 37-40.
Akhiani, A., Mojtahedi, H., & Naderi, A. (1986). The hosts of root knot nematode in Iran. Proc. 8th Plant Protection Congress, Isfahan, Iran, pp. 134.
Anwar, S. A., & Khan, M. A.­ (­1992).­ Evaluation of four vegetables against Meloidogyne incognita. Journal of Agricultural Research, 30, 415-421.
Barker, K. R. (1985). Nematode extraction and bioassays.­ In: K. R., Barker, J.­ N., Sasser, & C. C.­ Carter (Eds.), An advanced treatise on Meloidogyne, Vol.II Methodology. North Carolina State University Graphics­ (pp. 19-35). Raleigh NC-USA.
Briar, S. S., Wichman, D.,­ & Reddy, G. V. (2016).­ Plant-parasitic nematode problems in organic agriculture. ­ Springer­ international publisher (pp. 107-122). https://doi.org/: 10.1007/978-3-319-26803- 3-5.
Buttarat, H. S., Sukhjeet, N. k. Dhall,­ R. K., & Sekhon, A. (2020). Identification of resistant sources of cucumber against Meloidogyne incognita. Journal of Entomology and Zoology studies, 8(3),732-735.
Canto-Saenz, M. (1983). The nature­ of resistance to Meloidogyne incognita. In: Proceeding of third Research and Planning Conference on Root-Knot Nematode Meloidogyne spp. C. C.  Carter, (Ed.). 22-26 March. (1982), International Meloidogyne Project, Lima, Peru,160-165.
Eisenback, J. D., & Traintaphyllou, H. (1991). Root-knot nematodes. Meloidogyne species and races. In W. R. Nickle (Ed.), Manual of agricultural nematology (pp. 191-274). New York. https://doi.org/: 10.1201/9781003066576-6.
FAO,­ (2021). Statistical Yearbook of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved from http//www.faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx//
Golzar, R. M. A., Umar, A. U., Shahid, M. & Khan, M. F. (2022). Evaluation of genetic and induced resistance phenomena in cucumbers against the root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne incognita). Journal of Plant Protection Science, 58(4), 338-350.
Hartman, K. M. & Sasser, J. N. (1985). Identification of Meloidogyne species on the basis of differential host test and perineal-pattern morphology­­ ­ In K. R.  Barker, J.­ N. Sasser, & C. C. Carter, (Eds.), An advanced treatise on Meloidogyne, Methodology (2th ed., pp. 69-77). North Carolina State University Graphics, Raleigh NC. USA.­
Hussey, R. S. & Barker, K. R. (1973).­ A comparison of methods of collecting inoculate of Meloidogyne spp., including a new technique. Journal of Plant Disease, 57, 1025-1028.
Ibrahim, H. M., Ahmad, E., Ahmad, M., Martínez-Medina, A., & Aly­, M. A. (2019). Effective approaches to study the plant-root knot nematode interaction. Journal of Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 141, 332-342. https://doi.org/: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2019.06.009.
Khan, H. U., Waqar, A.­, Riaz, A., & Khan, M. A. (2000). Evaluation of resistance in 15 tomato cultivars against the root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne incognita). Pakistan Journal of Phytopathology, 12(1), 50-52.
Kimenju, J. W., Karanja., N. K., & Macharia, F. L. (1999). Plant parasitic nematodes associated with common bean in Kenya and the effect of Meloidogyne infection on bean nodulation. African Crop Science Journal, 7(4), 503-510. https://doi.org/: 10.4314/acsj.v7i4.27744
Mc clure, T., Macharia, A., Kruk, H., & Misaghi, I. (1973). A method for obtaining quantities of clean Meloidogyne eggs. Journal of nematology, 5(3), 230.
Naserinasab, F., Sahebani, N.­, & Etebarian, H. R. (2011).­­ Biological control of Meloidogyne javanica by Trichoderma harzianum BI and salicylic acid on tomato. African Journal of­ Food Science, 5(3), 276-280.
Nasr Esfahani, M., & Ahmadi, A. (2003). The principles of plant nematology. Jihad Daneshgahi Esfahan, Iran. 334 pp. (In Farsi).
Oostenbrink, M.­ (1966). Major characteristics of the relationships between nematodes and plants. Meloidogyne Land blowhole school, 66, 1-46.
Perry, R. N., Mones, M., & Starr, J. L. (2009). Root-knot nematode.­ CAB International Press Wallingford, (pp. 520). https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845934927.0000.
Perry, R.N.,­ Maurice, M., & Starr, J. L.  (2010), Root-knot Nematodes, CABI, 531 pp.
Peyvast, G. A. (2017). Vegetable production. Gahvareh ketab Iran publishers. 416 pp.
Quesenberry, K. H., ­Baltensperger, D. D., Dunn, R. A., Wilcox, C. J., & Hardy, S. R. (1989).­ Selection for tolerance to root-knot nematodes in red clover, Journal of Crop Science, 29, 62-65. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1989.0011183X002900010014x
Southey, J. F. (1970). Ministry of agriculture, fisheries and food. Laboratory methods for work with plant and soil nematodes. London. pp. 115-132.
Starr, J. L., Bridge, J., & Cook, R. (2002). History, current use, and future potential. Plant Resistance to Parasitic Nematodes (pp. 1-22). CAB International Publishing, Wallingford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851994666.0001
Taylor, A. L., & Sasser, J. N. (1978). A Cooperative Publication of the Department of Plant Pathology, Biology, identification and control of root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.), North Carolina State University and The United States Agency for International Development. (pp. 111).  North Carolina State Graphics, Raleigh, N.C.
Tylor, D. P., & Netscher, C. (1974). Nematologica, International Journal of nematological researche, 20, 268-269.
Whitehead, A. G., & Hemming, J. R. (1965). A comparison of some quantitative methods extracting small vermiform nematodes from the soil. Annals of Applied Biology, 55, 25-38.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.1965.tb07864.x.
 © 2024 by the authors. Licensee SCU, Ahvaz, Iran. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0 license) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.