Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:11:23.031Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Control of the Root Knot Eelworm, Heterodera radicicola Müll

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2009

Herbert W. Miles  and
W. H. Turner
Herbert W. Miles
Affiliation:
(Bristol), N.D.A.
W. H. Turner
Affiliation:
(Sheffield)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Root Knot disease of tomatoes and cucumbers, caused by the attacks of Heterodera radicicola Müll., is of widespread occurrence and under certain conditions, notably in the presence of fungi, may cause serious losses. Under some conditions considerable infestation may be present and yet produce no apparent ill-effects on the plants.

Experiments having indicated that sodium cyanide was beneficial in reducing the amount of eelworm infestation and pot trials having suggested that calcium cyanide might also prove effective, trials with calcium cyanide were carried out at various centres in 1926 and 1927.

Type
Research Papers
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 1928 , pp. 59 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1928

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

[1]Bewley, (1923). — Diseases of Glasshouse Plants. London 72, 69–70.Google Scholar
[2]Bewley, 1924.—10th Ann. Rept. Cheshunt Res. Stn., pp. 58–61.Google Scholar
[3]Bewley, 1926.—Journ. Min. of Agric., vol. XXXIII., p. 297.Google Scholar
[4]Duffield, , 1925.—Ann. appl. Biol., vol. XII., p. 536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Gabriel, , 1926.—C. R. Soc. Biol., vol. XCV., 25, p. 497 (abst. R. A. E., A., vol. XIV., p. 465).Google Scholar
[6]Godfrey, , 1926.—Journ Agric. Res., vol. XXXIII., 3, p. 223.Google Scholar
[7]Hodson, , 1926.—2nd Rept. Plant Path. Dept., Seale Hayne Agric. Coll., p. 5.Google Scholar
[8]Marcinowski, , 1909.—Arb. K. Biol. Anst. Land. u. Forst. 7, pp. 159–171.Google Scholar
[9]Matthews, , 1921.—6th Ann. Rept. Cheshunt Res. Sta., pp. 45–51.Google Scholar
[10]Moore, , 1924.—Journ. Econ. Biol., vol. XVII., p. 104.Google Scholar
[11]Morgan, , 1925.—Journ. Helminthology, vol. III., 5, p. 185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, [12]— 1926.—Journ. Helminthology, vol. IV., 2, p. 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Robson, , 1919.—Journ. R. H. S., vol. XLIV., p. 31.Google Scholar
[14]Russell, and Petherbridge, , 1912.—Journ. Bd. Agri., vol. XVIII., p. 809.Google Scholar
[15]Russell, and Petherbridge, 1913.—Journ. Bd. Agri., vol. XIX., p. 809.Google Scholar
[16]Thorne, , 1926.—U.S. Dept. Agric. Farmers' Bull., 1514, pp. 18–20.Google Scholar
[17]Wilkins, , 1927.—Research and the Land, London, p. 188.Google Scholar