Group Title: Mimeo report - University of Florida Everglades Experiment Station ; 67- 8
Title: Sugarcane nematode research
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00067486/00001
 Material Information
Title: Sugarcane nematode research
Series Title: Everglades Station Mimeo Report
Physical Description: 6 p. : ; 29 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Winchester, J. A
Everglades Experiment Station
Publisher: Everglades Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Belle Glade Fla
Publication Date: 1967
 Subjects
Subject: Sugarcane -- Diseases and pests -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Plant nematodes -- Control -- Research -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: J. A. Winchester.
General Note: "May 1967."
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00067486
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 64129890

Full Text
-.100
-I-i
Everglades Station Mimeo Report EES67-8 May 1967


SUGARCANE NEMATODE RESEARCH

J. A. Winchester/ -
HUME LIBRARY
Plant parasitic nematodes have been identified from Florida sugarcane f
many years. The effect of the different nematodes n sugar4e2 gt~ studio d
until recently, however, when it became evident tha economic control might
obtained with some of the new nematocides.
I.F.A.S. Univ. of Florida
In EES Mimeographed Report No. EES65-10 which i_-rep leeby-isepod
the effect of several different nematodes on sugarcane was discussed. Recom-
mendations were also made for their control. This report is a summary of work
since that time on the effect of nematodes on sugarcane, and the results of
several nematocide screening trials..


Nematode Injury to Sugarcane

Root knot nematodes-are among those found on sugarcane most frequently in
Florida. Meloidogyne arnaria thamesi causes relatively large galls on the
roots of cane in sandy soil. These large galls are rarely found on cane in
muck soil. Here the galls are much smaller and the roots appear to be only
slightly swollen and are probably caused by other species of Meloidogyne. In
other plants these galls are known to reduce the uptake of fertilizer elements
and water giving the plants a wilted, nutrient deficient appearance.

Stunt nematodes, Tylenchorhynchus are among the most important and widely
distributed nematode parasites of sugarcane in Florida. They cause small
lesions along the root and severe plant stunting.

The meadow nematode, Pratylenchus spp. lives much of its life within the
cane roots. They cause small lesions along the root starting at the root tip
and may cause severe stunting of.the plant. These are being found in & large
number of sugarcane samples indicating a wide distribution.

In general all nematodes cause chlorotic, stunted areas in the field.
Roots of these plants will also be stunted and possibly have colorless to
brown lesions which begin to break down from the attack of secondary fungi.


Nematodes vs. R.S.D.

In a greenhouse test conducted in 1963-64 with Dr. Ed Todd it was evident
that either nematodes (root knot, sheath, and lance) or RSD alone were injurious
to sugarcane. The combination of the virus and any of these nematodes caused
more severe stunting than either alone.. There was no .indication in that test
that the RSD virus could be transmitted by these nematodes.



SAssistant Nematologist, University of Florida, Everglades Experiment Station,
Belle Glade, Florida.




--2-


Nematodes and Cold Tolerance

It has been evident for several years that nematode injury (stunt and root
knot nematodes) may reduce the tolerance of young sugarcane to frost injury.
Field sampling in areas where frost injury was most severe generally indicated
moderate to high nematode populations. Laboratory experiments are now being
designed to test this.


Nematocide Screening

The following list includes all the nematocidal compounds that have been
tested for use on sugarcane.


Nematocidal Compounds Tested on Sugarcane

1. Cynem American Cyanamid
2. Dasinit (Bay 25141) Chemagro and Dow Chemical Companies
3. DBCP Nemagon or Fumazon Shell and Dow Chemical Companies, respectively.
4. Dichloropropenes DD (Shell Chemical Co.), Telone and Vidden D (Dow
Chemical Co.)
5. Du-Nema (TH 285N) Thompson Hayward Chemical Company.
6. EDB Dow Chemical Company.
7. Furadan (Nia 10242) Niagara Chemical Division, FMC.
8. G35538 Geigy Agricultural Chemical Company.
9. Mocap (VC9-104) Mobil Chemical Company.
10. Penphene Pennsalt Chemical Company.
11. Polycide Vineland Chemical Company.
12. Sarolex Geigy Agricultural Chemical Company.
13. TH336 Thompson Hayward Chemical Company.
14. UC21149 Union Carbide Company.


Preplant Nematocide Trials

A test with four rates of the dichloropropenes was initiated in Everglades
peaty muck on February 20, 1966, two weeks before planting C1.41-223. Part of
the treatments were rototilled to 12 inches deep then rolled after application
while the rest were applied with shank injectors to an 8 inch depth and com-
pacted with a roller.

The treatments and results are given in Table 1.

Table 1.--Nematocidal treatments applied pre-plant to Cl.41-223 and the
resulting plant stand, stalk weight and cane weight per plot at
harvest per 50 foot plot.

Ave. Cane wt.
No. millable Stalk wt. per plot Ave.
Treatment .Gals/acre stalks/. lbs. lbs. brix

1. Check -- 98 4.5 435 20.1
2. Dichloropropenes 20 120 4.9 582 19.7
3. Dichloropropenes 25 91 4.8 455 19.4
4. Dichloropropenes 30 109 4.5 509 19.9
5. Dichloropropenes 35 115 4.7 535 19.7

I/ All data are the average of 3 replications.





-3-


Test 2. Preplant broadcast vs. at-plant row treatments.

A test was initiated in sandy soil near Moore Haven in 1965. The dichloro-
propenes, EDB and Sarolex were compared for wireworm and nematode control and
on initial stand of cane.

Table 2.--Effect of "pre" and "at-plant" nematocide applications on wireworm
and stunt nematode and plant populations 6 weeks after planting.

Stunt
SNematodes Stand
Rate per *Wireworms per 100 ml Count
Treatments Treated acre per row foot soil per 50

1. Dichloropropenes 30 gals.1/ 1.90 3.6 32.7
2. EDB W-85 6 gals./ 2.17 3.3 24.2
3. Sarolex 3 gals./ 0.06 2.0 38.7
4. Dichloropropenes 30 gals.2/ 0.37 3.6 38.3
5. EDB W-85 6 gals.2/ 0.63 4.3 39.9
6. EDB W-85 9 gals.2 0.13 2.3 46.2
7. Check --- 2.40 17.0 22.5


At plant treatments sprayed directly on seed piece in 15 inch band
Applied broadcast 3 weeks before planting.
Counts made by Mr. J. Gifford USDA Entomologist.


at planting.


Test No. 3. Nematocide Screening Trial. This test was initiated on January 17,
1966 at the Everglades Experiment Station on Everglades peaty muck soil. All
treatments listed in Table 1 were applied in the open furrow over the seed pieces
in a band 15 inches wide immediately before the furrow was closed.

Further tests have demonstrated that the dichloropropene materials (treat-
ment 19) are good as a broadcast preplant, as a row "at-plant", or as a sidedress
after planting treatment for sugarcane but that it should not be applied directly
to the seed piece as it was in this test or stunting will occur.











Table 3.--Sugarcane and sugar
January 17, 1966 in


yields as influenced by nematocidal applications at planting of
root knot infested soil. Harvested in January 1967.


C1.41-223 on


Rate a.i./ / Cane wt2/ % increase Sugar wt3 % increase
Treatments Formulation Treated acre- lbs/plot over check lbs/plot over check

1. Check 117.0 0.0 9.59 0.0
2. Sarolex 4 e.c. 12 lbs. 113.9 2.6 9.01 6.0
3. Sarolex 4 e.c. 24 lbs. 149.0 27.3 12.92 34.7
4. Sarolex 4 e.c. 48 lbs. 146.0 24.8 12.56 26.8
5. G35538 6.5 e.c. 30 lbs. 116.4 0.5 9.83 2.5
6. G35538 6.5 e.c. 60 lbs. 144.4 23.4 12.52 30.1
7. Polycide 5% e.c. 1 gal. 110.0 6.0 9.61 0.2
8. Polycide 5% e.c. 2 gal. 103.6 -11.5 8.52 -11.2
9. Polycide 5% e.c. 4 gal. 116.4 0.2 9.51 0.8
10. Du-Nema 40 w.s. 30 lbs. 126.3 7.9 10.37 8.1
11. Du-Nema 50 w.s. 60 lbs. 134.0 14.5 12.44 29.7
12. Dasinit 10% g. 12 Ibs. 127.1 8.5 10.61 10.6
13. Furadan 10% g. 2 lbs. 131.1 12.0 11.47 19.6
14. Furadan 10% g. 4 lbs. 142.8 22.0 12.22 27.4
15. Furadan 10% g. 8 lbs. 159.7 36.5 14.39 50.0
16. Furadan 10% g. 16 lbs. 161.2 37.8 12.98 35.3
17. Mocap 6 e.c. 15 Ibs. 160.1 36.7 13.23 37.9
18. Mocap 6 e.c. 30 lbs. 162.4 38.8 13.66 42.2
19. DD 30 gals. 110.9 5.2 8.75 9.0


Applied in a 15" band over seed piece in furrow
Plots were 10' long. All data are average of 5
Sugar analysis courtesy of Mr. F. le Grand.


at closing.
replications.







Post-plant Nematode Control: A test was initiated at the Sugarcane Growers
Co-op. mill about six weeks after the Cl.41-223 was planted. Nematocidal
treatments listed in Table 4 were applied as a sidedress application with 2
shanks, one 6 inches on each side of the row.

Table 4.--Effect of nematocidal treatments on sugarcane growing in stunt nema-
tode infested soil.

Rate per Millable stalks Ave. Stalk Ave. brix
Treatments treated acre per plot wt. lbs. at harvest
1. Dichloropropenes 20 gals. 215 5.2 18.5
2. Dichloropropenes 30 gals. 232 4.6 17.8
3. EDB W-85 ....12 gals. 268 5.1 17.6
4. DBCP 70E 6 gals. 304 5.0 17.4
5. Mocap 12 lbs. 195 4.7 17.4
6. Check 272 4.9 16.7


Stubble Application Test: A field of C1.41-223 infested by stunt nematodes in
which the yield had been rather low was treated soon after harvest. Treatments
1-6 were applied as a sidedress application with a shank on each side of the
row. Treatments 7-10 were applied in a band on the surfact and watered in.

Table 5.--Effect of nematocidal treatments on stubble cane.

Ave. stalk Ave. stalks
Treatments Rate a.i./acre wt. per plot Ave. Brix
1. Telane 25 gals. 5.0 98 16.3
2. Telane 30 gals. 5.0 98 16.2
3. Telane 35 gals. 5.2 109 15.7
4. Telane 40 gals. 5.0 103 15.1
5. DD 37.5 gals. 4.7 113 15.2
6. DD 50 gals. 4.8 115 15.3
7. Zinophos 4 e.c. 4 lbs. 4.8 116 15.7
8. Zinophos 4 e.c. 8 Ibs. 4.4 114 16.7
9. Zinophos 10 g. 4 lbs. 4.5 111 15.7
10. Zinophos 10 g. 8 lbs. 4.8 114 16.0
11. Check 4.8 110 15.6




-6-


Conclusions

1. Nematodes caused a high degree of stunting and a reduction in yield
of sugar in the untreated plots in this test.

2. Sarolex (-2) was included to determine how low the effective rate might
be. This was only half the recommended application rate for Diazinon for
wireworms (same as No. 3).

3. Sarolex, Du-Nema, Furadan and Mocap increased yields of sugarcane and
sugar in this test.


Sugarcane Nematode Control Recommendations

1. Only the dichloropropene type materials can be recommended at this
time because of label clearance.

2. The broadcast preplant application of the dichloropropene materials
appears to be of greater value than row "at-plant" or sidedress applications.
For stubble cane the sidedress application is the only practical method of
application.

3. The Diazinon materials including Sarolex have given good cane responses,
wireworm and nematode control. Diazinon is the only one of these that can be
recommended at this time. It has been used as a band application in the furrow
at planting but its use on stubble cane has presented a problem.' Diazinon is
not a fumigant type material and consequently it does not move through the soil
as the dichloropropene materials do. In tests now in progress Sarolex was applied
in a band 15 inches wide over the plant row when stubble regrowth is 8 to 12
inches tall. Soil was then formed in a slight bed 1 to 2 inches high and 15
inches wide to cover the treated area. This treatment looks very satisfactory
but its effectiveness should be greatest when the soil moisture is good and if
a quarter to one-half inch of rain occurs soon after treatment to move the
material into the root zone.

4. A number of other nematocidal compounds have been tested and the data
suggest that when they are cleared for use on sugarcane they should be tested
by the grower. These include Furadan, Mocap, Du-Nema, G35538 and Dasinit.
Their use will probably be similar to Diazinon and the comments in No. 3 above
apply to each of these.










EES67-8
400 copies




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs