Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:38:49.229Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Responses of the plant parasitic nematodes Rotylenchulus reniformis, Anguina agrostis and Meloidogyne javanica to chemical attractants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

D. L. Riddle  and
A. F. Bird
D. L. Riddle
Affiliation:
CSIRO Institute of Biological Resources, Division of Horticultural Research, G.P.O. Box 350, Adelaide 5001, Australia
A. F. Bird
Affiliation:
CSIRO Institute of Biological Resources, Division of Horticultural Research, G.P.O. Box 350, Adelaide 5001, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Rotylenchulus reniformis, Anguina agrostis and Meloidogyne javanica respond differently to gradients of chemical attractants. In chemotaxis assays performed on agarose plates, R. reniformis L2 larvae oriented their movement to several common inorganic salts, cyclic AMP and AMP, as well as to germinated host plant seeds. M. javanica L2 larvae were attracted to germinated seeds, but not to the salts tested, and A. agrostis dauer larvae were not strongly attracted to any of 12 different tested agents, including host root or shoot tips. Attraction of R. reniformis to salts was measured by comparing different pairwise combinations of ions at equivalent concentrations. The indicated order of attractiveness was: Cl− > Na+ > C2H3O2− > Mg2+, NH4+, SO42−. The least attractive salts, (NH4)2 SO4 and MgSO4, were weakly attractive at an orientation threshold of 1 mm, whereas the most attractive salt, MgCl2, was strongly attractive at a threshold of 0·2 mM Cl−. 3′, 5′ cyclic AMP was strongly attractive at a threshold of 0·05 mM, whereas 5′-AMP was a weak attractant. Some of these responses may affect the distribution of R. reniformis in its natural environment.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 91 , Issue 1 , August 1985 , pp. 185 - 195
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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

REFERENCES

Albert, P. S., Brown, S. J. & Riddle, D. L. (1981). Sensory control of dauer larva formation in Caenorhabditis elegans. Journal of Comparative Neurology 198, 435–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Albert, P. S. & Riddle, D. L. (1983). Developmental alterations in sensory neuroanatomy of the Caenorhabditis elegans dauer larva. Journal of Comparative Neurology 219, 461–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anya, A. L. (1976). Physiological aspects of reproduction in nematodes. Advances in Parasitology 14, 267–351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balan, J., Kirzkova, L., Nemec, P. & Jolozsvary, A. (1976). A qualitative method for detection of nematode attracting substances and proof of production of three different attractants by the fungus Monacrosporium rutgeriensis. Nematologica 22, 306–11.Google Scholar
Bird, A. F. (1962). Orientation of the larvae of Meloidogyne javanica relative to roots. Nematologica 8, 275–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, A. F. (1978). Root-knot nematodes in Australia. Division of Horticultural Research Technical Paper, No. 2. CSIRO, Australia.Google Scholar
Bird, A. F. (1984). Growth and moulting in nematodes: moulting and development of the hatched larva of Rotylenchulus reniformis. Parasitology 89, 107–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, A. F. & Riddle, D. L. (1984). Effect of attachment of Corynebacterium rathayi on movement of Anguina agrostis larvae. International Journal for Parasitology 14, 503–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, A. F. & Stynes, B. A. (1981). The life-cycle of Anguina agrostis: Post-embryonic growth of the second stage larva. International Journal for Parasitology 11, 243–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culotti, J. G. & Russell, R. L. (1978). Osmotic avoidance defective mutants of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 90, 243–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dropkin, V. H. (1980). Introduction to Plant Nematology, pp 210–216. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Dusenbery, D. B. (1974). Analysis of chemotaxis in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans by countercurrent separation. Journal of Experimental Zoology 188, 41–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dusenbery, D. B. (1980). Response of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans to controlled chemical stimulation. Journal of Comparative Physiology 136, 327–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dusenbery, D. B. (1983). Chemotactic behavior of nematodes Journal of Nematology 15, 168–72.Google ScholarPubMed
Golden, J. W. & Riddle, D. L. (1984). The Caenorhabditis elegans dauer larva: developmental effects of pheromone, food, and temperature. Developmental Biology 102, 368–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, C. P. (1971). Mating and host finding behavior of plant nematodes. In Plant Parasitic Nematodes, vol. 2 (ed. Zuckerman, B. M., Mai, W. F. and Rohde, R. A.), pp. 247–66, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hedgecock, E. M. & Russell, R. L. (1975). Normal and mutant thermotaxis in the nematode. C. elegans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 72, 4061–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klinger, J. (1965). On the orientation of plant nematodes and of some other soil animals. Nematologica 11, 4–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linford, M. B. & Oliveira, J. M. (1940). Rotylenchulus reniformis, nov.gen., n.sp., a nematode parasite of roots. Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of Washington 7, 35–42.Google Scholar
Russell, B. W. (1961). Soil conditions and Plant Growth. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Steiner, G. (1925). The problem of host selection and host specialization of certain plant infesting nemas and its application in the study of nemic pests. Phytopathology 15, 499–531.Google Scholar
Stynes, B. A. & Bird, A. F. (1980). Anguina agrostis, the vector of annual rye grass toxicity in Australia. Nematologica 26, 475–90.Google Scholar
Stynes, B. A. & Bird, A. F. (1982). Development of galls induced in Lolium rigidum by Anguina agrostis. Phytopathology 72, 336–46.Google Scholar
Ward, S. (1973). Chemotaxis by the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans: Identification of attractants and analysis of the response by use of mutants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA 70, 817–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, K. A. (1983). Nematode chemosensilla: form and function. Journal of Nematology 15, 151–8.Google ScholarPubMed