Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:06:52.201Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On Heterodera schachtii, with special reference to the Oat race in Britain.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2009

E. E. Edwards
Affiliation:
(Advisory Zoologist, University College, Cardiff; formerly Adviser in Agricultural Zoology, Harper Adams Agricultural College, Newport, Shropshire.)

Extract

In August 1933, Mr. W. Usher, Assistant Agricultural Organiser for Shropshire, called the writer's attention to a partial failure of spring oats at Montford Bridge, Shrewsbury. The Advisors in Agricultural Chemistry and Mycology for the West Midland Province had previously inspected the crop and had failed to find evidence of any manurial deficiency or fungal attack likely to be responsible for the failure. A careful examination of the roots of unthrifty plants by the writer, however, showed that they were heavily attacked by Heterodera schachtii in all stages of development. Further observations revealed that although the cysts of this eelworm were present on the oats over the whole field, very little disease was apparent on the plants except on those growing in certain “sick” areas. The plants in these affected patches were very much stunted, with small ears and shrivelled grain, the foliage was pale in colour and the lower leaves in most cases dead, the roots were excessively branched and rather heavily infested with H. schachtii. It would appear that the infection by the eelworm in the present instance is one of long-standing since cereal crops, particularly oats, had been almost a complete failure for some years in these “sick” areas. It is also significant that the infested areas which were of varying size had in recent years, according to the farmer, greatly increased in extent and that with each successive oat crop new affected patches had made their appearance. In view of this apparent old-standing infection, a special search was made for the presence of H. schachtii on cereal crops in other fields in the neighbourhood. It soon became evident in the course of this preliminary search that H. schachtii was already well established on several farms in the district and that besides oats, wheat and barley were also subject to infestation. The investigation was continued the following year when all cases of failing cereal and other cultivated crops reported in Shropshire were examined. In addition, a thorough examination was also made of the roots of apparently healthy looking crops in the immediate neighbourhood of those failing ones that were found infested with H. schachtii. Later in this paper the general field observations made during this investigation are described, together with an account of some cultural experiments that were carried out with a view of determining whether the race of H. schachtii found parasitic on cereals in Shropshire is capable of attacking other plant species of economic importance and whether this race is distinct from those commonly found in the County on potatoes and peas, respectively.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1935

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

Davidson, J., 1930.—“Eelworms (Heterodera schachtii Schm.) affecting Cereals in South Australia.” J. Dep. Agric. S. Aust., xxxiv, 378385. (W.L. 11154.)Google Scholar
Edwards, E. E., 1933.—Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Monthly Summary of Plant Pests and Diseases, September.Google Scholar
Goodey, T., 1933.—Plant Parasitic Nematodes, pp. 128, 144, 146 and 147.Google Scholar
Hickinbotham, A. R., 1930.—“Eelworm and No-growth Patches.” J. Dep. Agric. S. Aust., xxiv, 386392. (W.L. 11154.)Google Scholar
Kuhn, J., 1874.—“Ueber das Vorkommen von Rübennematoden, an den Wurzeln der Halmfrüchte.” Z. Ver. Rubenzucker Ind. Zollver., xxiv, 149153.Google Scholar
Miles, H. W., 1934.—Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Monthly Summary of Plant Pests and Diseases, August.Google Scholar
Schacht, H., 1859.—“Ueber einige Feinde und Krankheiten der Zuckerrube.” Z. Ver. Rubenzucker Ind. Zollver., ix, 390.Google Scholar
Schmidt, A., 1871.—“Ueber den Rübennematoden (Heterodera schachtii.)Z. Ver. Rubenzucker Ind. Zollver., xxi, 119.Google Scholar
Theobald, F. V., 1908.—“An attack of Heterodera in Oats.” J. S.-E. agric. Coll., Wye., xvii, 150151. (W.L.11557.)Google Scholar
Theobald, F. V., 1909.—“Wheat attacked by Heterodera.” J. S.-E. agric. Coll., Wye., xviii, 142. (W.L. 11557.)Google Scholar
Triffitt, M. J., 1931.—“On the Eelworm Heterodera schachtii attacking Peas in Britain.” J. Helminth., ix, pp. 175177. (W.L. 11224b.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Triffitt, M. J., 1931.—“On the Occurrence of Heterodera radicicola associated with Heterodera schachtii as a Field Parasite in Britain.” J. Helminth., ix, pp. 205208. (W.L. 11224b.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, C. L., Ogilvie, L. and Mulligan, B. O., 1933.—“Observations on the Pea Strain of the Eelworm Heterodera schachtii and its relation to Pea-Sickness.” Long Ashton (Bristol) Ann. Rep., pp. 7485.Google Scholar