Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:09:13.045Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Potato Root Eelworm, D-D, and Soil Sterilization, III. Results for 1947

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2009

B. G. Peters
B. G. Peters
Affiliation:
Nematology Department, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Taking into consideration the whole of this experiment, as reported in this and the two preceding papers, the following are the salient conclusions.

1. Of the various plant criteria tested, the height of plants at about the 45th day after planting, and the weight of all tubers produced, are the two most useful criteria. Eelworm criteria are conveniently analysed in logarithmic transformation.

2. In the first season the presence of numerous eysts of Heterodera rostochiensis had no detectable effects on the growth or yield of the potato plants. Plants grown in the same soil without further treatment in the second year both were shorter and produced a much smaller crop than the uninfected.

Type
Research Papers
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 23 , Issue 1-2 , June 1949 , pp. 73 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1949

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

Buckhurst, A. S. and Fryer, J. C. F., 1931.—“The problem of ‘Potato Sickness,’ A report upon certain experiments.” Ann. appl. Biol., 18 (4). 584–601. (W.L. 1025.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, T., 1933.—“A study of the potato eelworm (Heterodera schachtii) in the Irish Free State.” J. Helminth., 11 (3), 137–156. (W.L. 11224b.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. and McMahon, E., 1935.—“Potato eelworm (Heterodera schachtii) investigations.” J. Helminth., 13 (2), 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. and Mcmahon, E., 1937.—“Potato eelworm (Heterodera schachtii):further investigations.” J. Helminth., 15 (1), 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, W., 1943.—“A promising new soil amendment and disinfectant.” Science, 97 (2521), 383–384. (W.L. 19938.)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carter, W., 1945.—“Soil treatments with special reference to fumigation with D-D mixture.” J. earn. Eni., 38 (1), 35–44. (W.L. 11171.)Google Scholar
Hutchinson, H. B. and Miller, N. H. J., 1909.—“Direct assimilation of ammonium salts by plants.” J. agric. Sci., 3 (2), 179–194. (W.L. 10966.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchikson, H. B. and Miller, N. H. J., 1911.—“The direct assimilation of inorganic and organic forms of nitrogen by higher plants.” Zbl. Bakt. 30 (21/24), 513–547. (W.L. 23684.)Google Scholar
Peters, B. G., 1948.—“Potato root eelworm, D-D, and soil sterilization. I. Methods and criteria.” J. Helminth. 22 (3/4), 117–127. (W.L. 11224b.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, B. G., 1948.—“Potato root eelworm, D-D and soil sterilization. II. Results for 1946.” J. Helminth., 22 (3/4). 128–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, E. J. and Buddin, W., 1914.—“The action of antiseptics in increasing the growth of crops in soil.” J. Soc. chem. Ind., Lond., 32 (24). 1136–1142. (W.L. 11539.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tam, R. K., 1945.—“The comparative effects of a 50–50 mixture of 1:3 dichloropropene and 1:2 dichloropropane (D-D mixture) and of chloropicrin on nitrification in soil and on the growth of the pineapple plant.” Soil Sci., 59 (3). 191–205. (W.L. 20327.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar