Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:23:07.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The development of the beet eelworm Heterodera schachtii Schm. in monoxenic culture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2015

F. Moriarty
F. Moriarty*
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The rate of development of sterile 2nd-instar beet eelworm (Heterodera schachtii Schm.) larvae to the adult stage on excised sterile roots of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) was studied.

Culture methods were as previously described (Moriarty, 1964). Sterile excised sugar-beet roots were placed on White's medium gelled with 0·75 % agar, inoculated with about 0·1 ml of an aqueous suspension containing several hundred sterile 2nd-instar eelworm larvae, and kept at 25 ± 0·5 °C. After 24 h the roots were transferred to liquid White's medium. Two roots were stained in acid fuchsin lactophenol (Goodey, 1963) every 24 h, for 19 days. Later, the length of main root axis and total length of laterals were measured, the number of laterals counted, the eelworms dissected out and the larval instars identified (Raski, 1950).

When roots were removed for staining, the liquid medium was examined for eelworms. Only adult males were ever found, and these are included in the counts in Table 1.

The rate of development of larvae varied greatly, about half did not develop beyond the 2nd instar (Table 1) and from the fifth day onwards some atrophied. One root in which many adults developed was kept 41 days before killing and staining: there were still some 2nd-instar larval cuticles, devoid of contents except for the buccal stylet, and presumably dead. The average number of all instars found per root did not decline during the 19 days of observations: therefore few of the atrophying larvae could have been missed. The percentage of larvae that entered the roots was variable and small.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 55 , Issue 4 , November 1965 , pp. 719 - 722
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1965

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

REFERENCES

Apel, A. & Kämpfe, L. (1957 a). Beziehungen zwischen Wirt und Parasit im Infektionsverlauf von Heterodera schachtii Schmidt in kurzfristigen Topfversuchen. I. Infektionsgang bei verschiedenen Wirtspflanzen. Nematologica, 2, 131–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apel, A. & Kämpfe, L. (1957 b). Beziehungen zwischen Wirt und Parasit im Infektionsverlauf von Heterodera schachtii Schmidt in kurzfristigen Topfversuchen. II. Haupt- und Nebenwurzelbefall, Geschlechtsverhältnis der Adulten und Lagerichtung der Larven. Nematologica, 2, 215–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodey, J. B. (1963). Laboratory methods for work with plant and soil nematodes. Tech. Bull. Minist. Agric. Fish. Fd. no. 2 (4th ed.).Google Scholar
Jones, F. G. W. (1956). Soil populations of beet eelworm (Heterodera schachtii Sehm.) in relation to cropping. Ann. appl. Biol. 44, 25–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moriarty, F. (1964). The monoxenic culture of beet eelworm (Heterodera schachtii Schm.) on excised roots of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Parasitology, 54, 289–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raski, D. J. (1950). The life history and morphology of the sugar-beet nematode, Heterodera schachtii Schmidt. Phytopathology, 40, 135–52.Google Scholar
Shepherd, A. M. (1958). Experimental methods in testing for resistance to beet eelworm, Heterodera schachtii Schmidt. Nematologica, 3, 127–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar