Facebook
X (Twitter)
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
Delicious
LinkedIn
StumbleUpon
1,3-dichloropropene and 1,2-dibromoethane compounds: Part II. Organism-dosage-response studies in the laboratory with several nematode species
Authors
I. J. ThomasonM. V. McKenry
Authors Affiliations
I. J. Thomason was Professor of Nematology and Nematologist in the Experiment Station, University of California, Riverside; M. V. McKenry was Assistant Nematologist in the Experiment Station, University of California, Riverside, and is presently stationed at the San Joaquin Valley Research and Extension Center, Parlier.Publication Information
Hilgardia 42(11):422-438. DOI:10.3733/hilg.v42n11p422. May 1974.
PDF of full article, Cite this article
Abstract
Abstract does not appear. First page follows.
Introduction
Concentrations of alkyl halide nematicides in soils can be predicted with some certainty at any given point in the soil profile at any given time. (See Part I in this series.) For the most efficient use of these materials, it is then necessary to determine the relationship of dosage to organism response (dosageresponse) and to establish curves based on these data to coincide with the diffusion gradients. As this organismdosage-response data accumulates, eventually we may be able to answer questions pertaining to (1) the increased growth response of plants; (2) the mode of nematicidal action; and (3) pesticide specificity (Bollen, 1961); (Goring, 1962); (Mankau and Imbriani, 1971); (Martin, Baines, and Erwin, 1957).
In this report, the authors sought to establish the above-mentioned curves for several nematodes under laboratory conditions.
Previous work
Techniques for previous dosage-response studies of the nematicides in question have involved (1) known amounts of toxicant added to sealed jars containing soil and associated organisms (Baines, et al. 1966); (Moje, Martin, and Baines, 1957); (2) toxicants dissolved in the water phase and test organisms immersed in the solution (Evans and Thomason, 1971); and (3) cumulative data of various field experiments used to predict the relative toxicity of various chemicals.
However, several problems are inherent with these techniques: For instance, hydrolysis and sorption effects were not sufficiently known—so that the exact concentration to which the organism was exposed could not be determined. Also, in the experiments where nematodes were placed in a solution, chemical may have been lost due to its sorption onto the various materials used to construct the exposure flasks, or from escape through seals. (This last would be especially true with EDB.) Hydrolysis of some compounds can also occur under these conditions.
This study
For the experiments described here, dosages were accurately determined by monitoring the vapor phase concentrations throughout the exposure period (Kolbezen, personal communication). Knowledge of the vapor-phase concentrations and the value for Henry’s constant permitted us to calculate the water phase concentrations.
Literature Cited
Baines R. C., Klotz L. J., Dewolfe T. A., Small R. H., Turner G. O. Nematocidal and fungicidal properties of some soil fumigants. Phytopathology. 1966. 56:691-98.
Bollen W. B. Pesticide, soil microorganism interactions. Ann. Rev. Microbiology. 1961. 15:69 DOI: 10.1146/annurev.mi.15.100161.000441 [CrossRef]
Busvine J. R. A critical review of the techniques of testing insecticides. 1957. 56:Commonwealth Institute of Entomology. Queen’s Gate, S. W. 7, London
Evans A. A. F. Mass culture of mycophagous nematodes. Journal of Nematology. 1970. 2(1):99-100.
Evans A. A. F., Thomason I. J. Ethylene dibromide toxicity to adults, larvae and moulting stages of Aphelenchus avenae. Nematologica. 1971. 17:243-54. DOI: 10.1163/187529271X00099 [CrossRef]
Goring C. A. I. Theory and principles of soil fumigation. Adv. Pest Cont. Res. 1962. 5:47-84.
Leistra M. Distribution of 1,3-dichloropropene over the phases in soil. Jour. Agr. Food Chem. 1970. 18:1124-26. DOI: 10.1021/jf60172a004 [CrossRef]
Mankau R., Imbriani J. Tolerance and uptake of 1,2-dibromoethane by nematode-trapping fungi. Phytopathology. 1971. 61:1492-97. DOI: 10.1094/Phyto-61-1492 [CrossRef]
Marks C. F., Thomason I. J., Castro C. E. Dynamics of the permeation of nematodes by water, nematicides and other substances. Exper. Parasitol. 1968. 22:321-37. DOI: 10.1016/0014-4894(68)90109-4 [CrossRef]
Martin J. P., Baines R. C., Erwin D. Influence of soil fumigation for citrus replants on the fungus population of the soil. Proc. Soil Sci. 1957. 21:163-66. DOI: 10.2136/sssaj1957.03615995002100020009x [CrossRef]
Moje W. Toxicity of some halogenated hydrocarbon mixtures to larvae of the citrus nematode Tylenchulus semipenetrans. Phytopathology. 1963. 53:423-27.
Moje W., Martin J. P., Baines R. C. Structural effect of some organic compounds on soil organisms and citrus seedlings grown in old citrus soil. Jour. Agr. Food Chem. 1957. 5:32-36. DOI: 10.1021/jf60071a002 [CrossRef]
Munnecke D. E., Wilbur W. D., Kolbezen M. J. Dosage response of Armillaria mellea to methyl bromide. Phytopathology. 1970. 60:992-93. DOI: 10.1094/Phyto-60-992 [CrossRef]
Thomason I. J., Van Gundy S. D., Kirkpatrick J. D. Motility and infectivity of Meloidogyne javanica as affected by storage time and temperature in water. Phytopathology. 1964. 54:192-95.
Van den Brande J. Survey of the results of four years experiments on the chemical control of potato-root eelworm. Nematologica. 1956. 1:81-87. DOI: 10.1163/187529256X00429 [CrossRef]
Van Gundy S. D., Munnecke D., Bricker J., Minteer R. Response of Meloidogyne incognita, Xiphinema index, and Dorylaimus sp. to methyl bromide fumigation. Phytopathology. 1972. 62:191-92. DOI: 10.1094/Phyto-62-191 [CrossRef]
Wensley R. N. Microbiological studies of the action of some selected soil fumigants. Can. Jour. Bot. 1953. 31:277-308. DOI: 10.1139/b53-024 [CrossRef]
Youngson C. R., Goring C. A. I. Nematicidal activity of 1,3-dichloropropene and 1,2-dichloropropane to three types of plant parasitic nematodes. Pl. Dis. Reporter. 1970. 54(3):196-99.