Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:05:32.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Field Studies on Heterodera schachtii Schmidt in relation to the Pathological Condition known as “Potato Sickness”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2009

Herbert W. Miles
Herbert W. Miles
Affiliation:
Adviser in Entomology, Victoria University of Manchester.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Preliminary studies in Lancashire and Cheshire (Smith and Prentice, 1929) have indicated that under certain conditions there is a positive association between the disease known as “potato sickness” and the intensity of root eelworm, Heterodera schachtii Schmidt, as measured by the cyst content of the soil. This association does not appear to be constant, as a moderately high cyst content may occur in the absence of obvious disease. It has also been found (Smith and Miles, 1929) that under conditions prevailing in the North West of England the cyst content of the soil increases only after a crop which is not a total failure.

Type
Research Papers
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , June 1930 , pp. 103 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1930

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

Cheal, W. F., 1929.—“On the Cause of ‘Potato Sickness’,” Gardeners' Chronicle, August 17th.Google Scholar
Edwards, E. E., 1929.—“The Control of a Serious Potato Trouble,” J. Minist. Agric., Vol. XXXVI., pp. 234–242. (W.L. 11365.)Google Scholar
Kemner, N; A., 1929.—“Potatisnematoden eller potatisalen (H. schachtii subsp. rostochicnsis Woll.)” Medd. No. 355, fr. Centralanst. Lant. ent. Av., No. 56, 76 pp.Google Scholar
Morgan, D. O., 1925.—“Investigations on Eelworm in Potatoes in South Lincolnshire,” Journ. Helm., Vol III., pp. 185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, D. O., 1926.—“Some Remarks on the Etiology of Potato Disease in Lincolnshire,” Journ. Helm., Vol. IV., pp. 49–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, D. O., and Peters, B. G., 1929,—“The Potato Eelworm in Lincolnshire,” Journ. Helm., Vol. VII., pp. 63–80.Google Scholar
Peters, B. G.. 1926.—“Heterodera schachlii (Schmidt) and Soil Acidity,” Journ. Helm., Vol. IV., pp. 87–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roebuck, A. 1928.—“Potato Eelworm,” Fruitgrower, January 12th, pp. 51–52.(W.L. 8745.)Google Scholar
Suxtii, A. M., 1929.—“Investigations on H. sckachtii in Lancashire and Cheshire,” Part II, Ann. App. Biol., Vol. XVI., pp. 340–346. (W.L. 1025.)Google Scholar
Smith, A. M., AND Miles, H. W., 1929.—“Investigations on H. schachtti in Lancashire and Cheshire,” Part III., Ann. App. Biol., Vol. XVI., pp. 596–601. (W.L. 1025.)Google Scholar
Smith, A. M., AND Prentice, E. G., 1929.—“Investigations on H. schachlii in Lancashire and Cheshire,” Part I., Ann. App. Biol., Vol. XVI., pp. 324–339. (W.L. 1025.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strachan, J., AND Taylor, T. H., 1926.—“Potato Eelworm,” J. Minist. Agric., Vol. XXXII., pp. 941–947.(W.L. 11365.)Google Scholar
Strubbll, A., 1888.—“Untersuchungen uber den Bau und die Entwtcklung des Rubennematoden H. schachtii,” Zoologica, Stuttgart, Vol. II (W.L. 23820.)Google Scholar
Thorn, G., 1926.—“Control of Sugar–beet Nematode,” U.S. Dept. Agric. Farmers' Bull., 1514, 20 pp.Google Scholar
Wilke, S., 1925.—“Nematodes,” Handbuck der Pflanzenkrankkeilen (Sorauer), Bd. IV., pp. 3–55.Google Scholar