Extraction of potato cyst nematodes from soil samples: Cobb's decanting and sieving method vs. Fenwick's method
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2018 |
Outros Autores: | , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | http://hdl.handle.net/10400.5/18761 |
Resumo: | Potato cyst nematodes are a threat to several agricultural crops around the world with some species considered quarantine pests and subjected to strict regulatory measures in many countries. Usually, cysts nematodes co-exist in the soil with other species of plant-parasitic nematodes, so, a time and cost-efficient extraction technique becomes of primary importance. The ideal extraction method should be able to obtain cysts as well as detecting the presence of other motile plant-parasitic nematodes with a potential impact on potato farming (such as Meloidogyne sp. and Pratylenchus sp.). In recent years, studies have been carried out to test the efficiency of various methods of nematode extraction but few results have been published. Therefore, to test if a method that extracts simultaneously cysts and motile nematodes can be used instead of the reference method that extracts cysts only, the efficiency of Cobb’s decanting and sieving technique was compared to Fenwick’s technique. As a result, in the 74 samples evaluated, a greater number of cysts were extracted from 24 samples using Fenwick’s method and from 11 samples employing Cobb’s decanting and sieving technique. The statistics results showed a significance level of 0,05 using Fenwick’s can allowing to conclude that this method is much more efficient than Cobb’s decanting and sieving technique, and confirming it should not be replaced by alternative methods for cysts extraction |
id |
RCAP_83ed8f2f28054810cdca4027ef6be02e |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:www.repository.utl.pt:10400.5/18761 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
Extraction of potato cyst nematodes from soil samples: Cobb's decanting and sieving method vs. Fenwick's methodExtração de nemátodes de quisto de amostras de solo: método de decantação e crivagem de Cobb vs. método de Fenwickextraction techniquesGlobodera rostochiensisGlobodera pallidanematodesPCNPotato cyst nematodes are a threat to several agricultural crops around the world with some species considered quarantine pests and subjected to strict regulatory measures in many countries. Usually, cysts nematodes co-exist in the soil with other species of plant-parasitic nematodes, so, a time and cost-efficient extraction technique becomes of primary importance. The ideal extraction method should be able to obtain cysts as well as detecting the presence of other motile plant-parasitic nematodes with a potential impact on potato farming (such as Meloidogyne sp. and Pratylenchus sp.). In recent years, studies have been carried out to test the efficiency of various methods of nematode extraction but few results have been published. Therefore, to test if a method that extracts simultaneously cysts and motile nematodes can be used instead of the reference method that extracts cysts only, the efficiency of Cobb’s decanting and sieving technique was compared to Fenwick’s technique. As a result, in the 74 samples evaluated, a greater number of cysts were extracted from 24 samples using Fenwick’s method and from 11 samples employing Cobb’s decanting and sieving technique. The statistics results showed a significance level of 0,05 using Fenwick’s can allowing to conclude that this method is much more efficient than Cobb’s decanting and sieving technique, and confirming it should not be replaced by alternative methods for cysts extractionSCAPRepositório da Universidade de LisboaCamacho, Maria J.Mota, MarianaLima, ArlindoRusinque, LeidyInácio, Maria L.2019-11-19T10:17:03Z20182018-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.5/18761engRevista de Ciências Agrárias, 2018, 41(Especial): 8-14https://doi.org/10.19084/RCA.17061info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-03-06T14:48:19Zoai:www.repository.utl.pt:10400.5/18761Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T17:03:45.780004Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Extraction of potato cyst nematodes from soil samples: Cobb's decanting and sieving method vs. Fenwick's method Extração de nemátodes de quisto de amostras de solo: método de decantação e crivagem de Cobb vs. método de Fenwick |
title |
Extraction of potato cyst nematodes from soil samples: Cobb's decanting and sieving method vs. Fenwick's method |
spellingShingle |
Extraction of potato cyst nematodes from soil samples: Cobb's decanting and sieving method vs. Fenwick's method Camacho, Maria J. extraction techniques Globodera rostochiensis Globodera pallida nematodes PCN |
title_short |
Extraction of potato cyst nematodes from soil samples: Cobb's decanting and sieving method vs. Fenwick's method |
title_full |
Extraction of potato cyst nematodes from soil samples: Cobb's decanting and sieving method vs. Fenwick's method |
title_fullStr |
Extraction of potato cyst nematodes from soil samples: Cobb's decanting and sieving method vs. Fenwick's method |
title_full_unstemmed |
Extraction of potato cyst nematodes from soil samples: Cobb's decanting and sieving method vs. Fenwick's method |
title_sort |
Extraction of potato cyst nematodes from soil samples: Cobb's decanting and sieving method vs. Fenwick's method |
author |
Camacho, Maria J. |
author_facet |
Camacho, Maria J. Mota, Mariana Lima, Arlindo Rusinque, Leidy Inácio, Maria L. |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Mota, Mariana Lima, Arlindo Rusinque, Leidy Inácio, Maria L. |
author2_role |
author author author author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
Repositório da Universidade de Lisboa |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Camacho, Maria J. Mota, Mariana Lima, Arlindo Rusinque, Leidy Inácio, Maria L. |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
extraction techniques Globodera rostochiensis Globodera pallida nematodes PCN |
topic |
extraction techniques Globodera rostochiensis Globodera pallida nematodes PCN |
description |
Potato cyst nematodes are a threat to several agricultural crops around the world with some species considered quarantine pests and subjected to strict regulatory measures in many countries. Usually, cysts nematodes co-exist in the soil with other species of plant-parasitic nematodes, so, a time and cost-efficient extraction technique becomes of primary importance. The ideal extraction method should be able to obtain cysts as well as detecting the presence of other motile plant-parasitic nematodes with a potential impact on potato farming (such as Meloidogyne sp. and Pratylenchus sp.). In recent years, studies have been carried out to test the efficiency of various methods of nematode extraction but few results have been published. Therefore, to test if a method that extracts simultaneously cysts and motile nematodes can be used instead of the reference method that extracts cysts only, the efficiency of Cobb’s decanting and sieving technique was compared to Fenwick’s technique. As a result, in the 74 samples evaluated, a greater number of cysts were extracted from 24 samples using Fenwick’s method and from 11 samples employing Cobb’s decanting and sieving technique. The statistics results showed a significance level of 0,05 using Fenwick’s can allowing to conclude that this method is much more efficient than Cobb’s decanting and sieving technique, and confirming it should not be replaced by alternative methods for cysts extraction |
publishDate |
2018 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2018 2018-01-01T00:00:00Z 2019-11-19T10:17:03Z |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/10400.5/18761 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10400.5/18761 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
Revista de Ciências Agrárias, 2018, 41(Especial): 8-14 https://doi.org/10.19084/RCA.17061 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
SCAP |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
SCAP |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799131129262899200 |