Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T08:21:10.561Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Pathogenicity of Heterodera schachtii to Potatoes and Mangolds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2009

Marjorie J. Triffitt
Marjorie J. Triffitt
Affiliation:
Field Officer, Institute of Agricultural Parasitology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1925, Morgan, in recording field observations on Heterodera schachtii in the Kirton district, pointed out that cysts were frequently as abundant in certain areas of infected fields where the yield was satisfactory, as in “bad patches” where the plants showed every manifestation of eelworm disease, and where the crop was a failure. In a further publication (1926) he again emphasized the lack of correlation between cyst content of the soil and the incidence of “potato-sickness.” One field on which detailed observations were carried out, although the worst case of eelworm infestation examined in the district, was found to give a satisfactory crop—average yield eight tons ware per acre—after only a four year rotation. In summing up these observations, Morgan says: “While it is not suggested that the eelworm had no influence on the yield in this instance, the success of the crop in spite of the pest lends support to the view that the problem is primarily one of obtaining more suitable conditions for plant growth by more judicious manuring and a system of rotation.”

Type
Research Papers
Information
Journal of Helminthology , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , February 1931 , pp. 1 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1931

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

Bedford, Duke of, and Pickering S. V.,, 1911.—Thirteenth Report of the Woburn Experimental Fruit Farm.Google Scholar
Miles, H. W., 1930.—“Field Studies on Heterodera schachtii Schmidt in relation, to the Pathological condition known as ‘Potato Sickness,’” J. Helm. Vol. VIII., pp. 103–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, D. O., 1925.—“Investigations on Eelworm in Potatoes in South Lincolnshire,” J. Helm., Vol. III., pp. 185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, D. O., 1926.—“Some Remarks on the Etiology of Potato Disease in Lincolnshire,” J. Helm., Vol. IV., pp. 49–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. M., and Miles, H. W., 1929.—“Investigations on H. schachtii in Lancashire and Cheshire,” Part III., Ann. App. Biol., Vol. XVI., pp. 596–601 (W.L. 1025.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. M., and Prentice, E. G., 1929.—“Investigations on H. schachtii in Lancashire and Cheshire,” Part I., Ann. App. Biol., Vol. XVI., pp. 324–339. (W.L. 1025.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemec, B., 1910.—“Das Problem der Befruchtungsvorgänge und andere Zytologische Fragen,” Berlin, p. 532.Google Scholar
Nemec, B., 1911.—“Über die Nematodenkrankheit der Zuckerrube,” Z. PflKrankh. Bd. 21, Heft 1–2, pp. 1–10. (W.L. 23540A.)Google Scholar