Abstract
The interaction between 10 cultivars ofLolium perenne andTylenchorhynchus dubius was studied to investigate the incidence of tolerance and resistance to ectoparasitic nematodes inL. perenne.
Differences in tolerance were small; the nematode treatments yielded 67 to 76% of the dry shoot mass of the controls. Cultivars with a low leaf weight ratio and a low transpiration coefficient tended to have a somewhat better tolerance. Differences in resistance occurred, but resistance is of minor importance to reduce damage in theL. perenne/T. dubius host-parasite system.
Samenvatting
Om na te gaan of inLolium perenne tolerantie en resistentie t.a.v. ectoparasitaire nematoden voorkomt, werd de interactie tussen 10 cultivars vanL. perenne en de ectoparasitaire nematodeTylenchorhynchus dubius onderzocht.
De verschillen in tolerantie bleken gering. Cultivars met een lage spruit/wortel-verhouding en een lage transpiratiecoëfficiënt waren in het algemeen wat toleranter. Er werden verschillen in resistentie gevonden, maar voor het verminderen van schade in het waardplant/parasiet-systeemL. perenne/T. dubius is resistentie van, weinig belang.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bezooijen, J. van, 1979. Nematodes in grasses. Mededelingen van de Faculteit Landbouwwetenschappen Rijksuniversiteit Gent 44/1:339–349.
Oostenbrink, M., 1972. Evaluation and integration of nematode control methods. In: Webster, J.M. (Ed.), Economic nematology, Academic Press, London, p. 497–514.
Sharma, R.D., 1971. Studies on the plant parasitic nematodeTylenchorhynchus dubius. Mededelingen Landbouwhogeschool Wageningen 71–1.
Toom, A.L. den 1988. Influence of temperature and soil moisture on the relation betweenTylenchorhynchus dubius andLolium perenne. Netherlands Journal of Plant Pathology 94: 33–44.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Den Toom, A.L. Response of ten cultivars of Lolium perenne to the ectoparasitic nematode Tylenchorhynchus dubius. Netherlands Journal of Plant Pathology 94, 105–110 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01998400
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01998400