Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T14:48:18.429Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The monoxenic culture of beet eelworm (Heterodera schachtii Schm.) on excised roots of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

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

Extract

A method is described for obtaining sterile second-instar larvae of beet eelworm, Heterodera schachtii Schm., and culturing them to the adult stage on sterile excised roots of sugar beet, Beta vulgaris L. It was shown that beet eelworm is a primary pathogen, for sound uninjured radicles were invaded by larvae, and normal development of adult males and females followed. No females were fertilized, and no eggs were produced, which suggested that parthenogenesis cannot occur. Eelworm development stimulated the production of lateral roots. More adult females developed on radicles inoculated 24 hr. after excision than on radicles inoculated 72 hr. after excision, which may be related to the occurrence of maximum root extension during the first few days after excision. It is suggested that there are two parts in root tissue reactions: a thickening of cell walls as a wound reaction to mechanical injury, and formation of a syncytium in response to a chemical stimulus from the eelworm.

I thank my wife for assistance with this work, which was financed by the Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , May 1964 , pp. 289 - 293
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1964

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

Berliner, E. & Busch, K. (1914). Über die Züchtung des Rübennematoden (Heterodera schachtii) Schmidt auf Agar. Biol. Zbl. 34, 349–56.Google Scholar
Bird, A. F. (1962). The inducement of giant cells by Meloidogyne javanica. Nematologica, 8, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crosse, J. E. & Pitcher, R. S. (1953). A preliminary note on methods for obtaining bacteria-free eelworms. Rep. E. Malling Res. Sta. for 1952, pp. 138–40.Google Scholar
Dickinson, S. (1959). The behaviour of larvae of Heterodera schachtii on nitrocellulose membranes. Nematologica, 4, 60–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodey, J. B. (1957). Laboratory methods for work with plant and soil nematodes. Tech. Bull. Minist. Agric. Lond. no. 2 (3rd edn.).Google Scholar
Johansen, D. A. (1940). Plant Microtechnique, pp. 523 + xi. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Mankau, R. & Linford, M. B. (1960). Host-parasite relationships of the clover cyst nematode Heterodera trifolii Goffart. Bull. Univ. Ill. agric. Exp. Stn, no. 667, 50 pp.Google Scholar
Moriarty, F. (1963). A nylon sieve for hatching Heterodera larvae. Nematologica, 9 (in the Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mountain, W. B. (1955). A method of culturing plant parasitic nematodes under sterile conditions. Proc. helm. Soc. Wash. 22, 49–52.Google Scholar
Nemec, B. (1911). Über die Nematodenkrankheit der Zuckerr¨be. Z. PflKrankh. 21, 1–10.Google Scholar
Raski, D. J. (1950). The life history and morphology of the sugar-beet nematode, Heterodera schachtii Schmidt. Phytopathology, 40, 135–52.Google Scholar
Strubell, A. (1888). Untersuchungen über den Bau und die Entwicklung des Rübennematoden Heterodera schachtii Schmidt. Bibl. Zool., Cassel, no. 2, 52 pp.Google Scholar
White, P. R. (1937). Separation from yeast of materials essential for growth of excised tomato roots. Plant Physiol. 12, 777–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed