Identification of Nematodes in Areas Where Nematology is Little Developed

  • Marcelo E. Doucet
Part of the Nato ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 7)


Plant-parasitic nematodes are widely distributed in the world and they cause serious damage to numerous crops of economic importance. The economic losses resulting from their attacks on plants are greater in developing countries than in developed ones, because of a generally more favorable environment (soil and climate). Also, in these countries, agricultural workers and advisors have an insufficient knowledge about these animals; they fail to recognize their attacks, and to take appropriate control measures. Yield losses represent a marked decrease in the value of crops that are usually an important source of food and/or income for the nation (Sasser & Freckman, 1986). In order to solve the economic problems caused by their presence, it is necessary to know the identity of the species involved (Stone, 1984; Mai, 1985).


Survey Program Scottish Crop Research Institute Expert System Technology High Quality Picture Freshwater Nematode 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barker, K.R. & Nusbaum, C.J., 1971. Diagnostic and advisory programs. In: Zuckerman, B.M., Mai, W.F. & Rohde, R.A. (Eds), Plant parasitic nematodes. Volume I. Morphology, anatomy, taxonomy, and ecology. New York, Academic Press: 281–301.Google Scholar
  2. Bergé, J.B. & Dalmasso, A., 1975. Caractéristiques biochimiques de quelques populations de Meloidogyne hapla etMeloidogyne spp. Cah. ORSTOM Sér. Biol., 10: 263–271.Google Scholar
  3. Chitwood, B.G. & Chitwood, M.B., 1974. Introduction to Nematology. Baltimore, London, Tokyo, University Park Press, 334 p.Google Scholar
  4. Chizhov, V.N. & Subbotin, S.A., 1985. [Revision of the family Anguininae (Nematoda, Tylenchida) based on biological characteristics.] Zool. Zh., 64: 1476–1486. (Russian text).Google Scholar
  5. Dickson, D.W. & Meredith, J.A., 1986. Perspectives on Nematology teaching. In: Veech, J.A. & Dickson, D.W. (Eds), Vistas on nematology. Deleon Springs, Florida, E.G. Painter Printing Co.: 22–27Google Scholar
  6. Eisenback, J.D. & Hirschmann, H, 1980. Morphological comparison of Meloidogyne males by scanning electron microscopy. J. Nematol., 12: 23–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Eisenback, J.D. & Hirschmann, H., 1981. Identification of Meloidogyne species on the basis of head shape and stylet morphology of the male. J. Nematol., 13: 513–521.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Fortuner, R. & Wong, Y., 1984. Review of the genusHelicotylenchus Steiner, 1945. 1: A computer program for identification of the species.Revue Nématol., 7: 385–392.Google Scholar
  9. Fortuner, R., 1985. A proposal for better diagnoses. Revue Nématol., 8: 175–177.Google Scholar
  10. Golden, A.M., 1971. Classification of the genera and higher categories of the order Tylenchida (Nematoda). In: Zuckerman, B.M., Mai, W.F. & Rohde, R.A. (Eds), Plant parasitic nematodes. Volume I. Morphology, anatomy, taxonomy, and ecology. New York, Academic Press: 191–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goodey, J.B., 1959. Data to be considered, observed and, where possible, reported upon when presenting descriptions of new species. Nematologica, 4: 211–216.Google Scholar
  12. Goodey, T., 1963.Soil and freshwater nematodes, 2nd ed., revised by J.B. Goodey. London, Methuen & Co., xvi + 544 p.Google Scholar
  13. Harrison, M.B. & Mai, W.F., 1985. An illustrated key to identify 16 genera of plant-parasitic nematodes. In: B. M. Zuckerman, W. F. Mai. & M. B. Harrison, (Eds). Plant Hematology. Amherst, Massachusetts, The University of Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station: 43–66.Google Scholar
  14. Hopper, B.E. & Cairns, E.J., 1959.Taxonomie keys to plant, soil and aquatic nematodes. Alabama Polytechnic Institute, Southern Regional Nematode Project, 176 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Luc, M., Maggenti, A.R., Fortuner, R., Raski D.J. & Geraert, E., 1987. A reappraisal of Tylenchina (Nemata). 1. For a new approach to the taxonomy of Tylenchina. Revue Nématol., 10: 127–134.Google Scholar
  16. Maggenti, A.R., 1981.General Hematology. New York, Springer-Verlag, viii + 372 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mai, W.F. & Lyon, H.H., 1975.Pictorial key to genera of plant-parasitic nematodes. Ithaca, New York, Cornell University Press, 220 p.Google Scholar
  18. Mai, W.F., 1985. The importance of taxonomy to nematode control strategies. PI. Dis., 67: 716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Manuel, J.S., Bendixen, L.E. & Reidel, R.M., 1982. An annotated bibliography of weeds as reservoirs for organisms affecting crops. la. Nematodes. Ohio Agric. Res. Devpt Ctr, Res. Bull., No. 1146, 34 p.Google Scholar
  20. Mulvey, R.H., 1972. Identification ofHeterodera cysts by terminal and cone structures. Can. J. Zool., 50: 1277–1292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nickle, W.R., 1984.Plant and insect nematodes. New York and Basel, Marcel Dekker, Inc., xiv + 925 p.Google Scholar
  22. Petersen, J.J., 1982. Current status of nematode for biological control of insects. Parasitology, 84: 177–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Poinar, G.O. Jr., 1979. Nematodes for biological control of insects. Boca Raton, Florida, CRS Press, 277 p.Google Scholar
  24. Poinar, G.O. Jr., 1984. On the nomenclature of the genus Neoaplectana Steiner, 1929 (Steinernematidae: Rhabditida) and the species N. carpocapsae Weiser, 1955. Revue Nématol., 7: 199–200.Google Scholar
  25. Poinar, G.O. Jr., 1986. Recognition of Neoaplectana species (Steinernematidae: Rhabditida). Proc. helminth. Soc. Wash., 53: 121–129.Google Scholar
  26. Raski, D.J. & Fortuner, R., 1986. Historical perspectives of nematode taxonomy. In: Veech, J.A. & Dickson, D.W. (Eds), Vistas on nematology. Deleon Springs, Florida, E.O. Painter Printing Co.: 329–355.Google Scholar
  27. Rey, J.M., Andres, M.F. & Arias, M., 1988. A computer method for identifying nematode species. 1. Genus Longidorus (Nematoda: Longidoridae). Revue Nématol., 11: 129–135.Google Scholar
  28. Sasser, J.N. & Triantaphyllou, A.C., 1977. Identification ofMeloidogyne species and races. J. Nematol., 9: 283.Google Scholar
  29. Sasser, J.N. & Freckman, D.W., 1986. A world perspective on Nematology: the role of the Society. In: Veech, J.A. & Dickson, D.W. (Eds), Vistas on nematology. Deleon Springs, Florida, E.O. Painter Printing Co.: 7–14.Google Scholar
  30. Siddiqi, M.R., 1986.Tylenchida: parasites of plants and insects. Slough, United Kingdom, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, ix + 645 p.Google Scholar
  31. Stone, A.R., 1984. Changing, approaches in nematode taxonomy. Pi. Dis., 68: 551–554.Google Scholar
  32. Tarjan, A.C., 1987. Lettre ä l’éditeur scientifique. Revue Nématol., 10: 250.Google Scholar
  33. Triantaphyllou, A.C., 1971. Genetics and cytology. In: Zuckerman, B.M., Mai, W.F. & Rohde, R.A. (Eds), Plant parasitic nematodes. Volume II. Cytogenetics, host-parasite interactions, and physiology. New York, Academic Press: 85–109.Google Scholar
  34. Van Gundy, S.D., 1980. Nematology — status and prospects: Let’s take off our blinders and broaden our horizons. J.Nematol., 12: 158–163.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Wouts, W.N., 1985. Phylogenetic classification of the family Heteroderidae (Nematoda: Tylenchida). Syst. Parasitol., 7: 295–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcelo E. Doucet
    • 1
  1. 1.Centro de Zoología AplicadaUniversidad Nacional de CórdobaCórdobaArgentina

Personalised recommendations