Pratylenchus penetrans reduces the productivity of many forage crops in northern USA and eastern Canada. Our objective was to determine the host suitability of forage grasses and legumes for P. penetrans in greenhouse, growth chamber, and field environments. In the greenhouse and growth chamber environments, P. penetrans reproduced on all forage grasses (17) and legumes (12). Both the legumes and grasses varied (P < 0.05) for numbers of nematodes and eggs in the roots. The most suitable hosts included kura clover (Trifolium ambiguum M. Bieb.), alsike clover (Trifolium hybridum L.), white clover (Trifolium repens L.), oat (Avena sativa L.), and rye (Secale cereale L.). The least suitable hosts included pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.], tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreber), perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.), forage sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench], sudangrass (Sorghum sudanense Pers.), sudex (Sorghum sudanense ✕ S. bicolor), sweetclover (Melilotus alba Desr.), crownvetch (Coronilla varia L.), and MNGRN‐16alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). Twelve legumes and 9 grasses were transplanted into a field infested with P. penetrans and one‐half the plants were treated with carbofuran (2,3‐dihydro‐2,2‐dimethyl‐7‐benzofuranol methylcarbamate). Pratylenchus penetrans reproduced on all entries. Numbers of nematodes per gram fresh root of entries in the greenhouse‐growth chamber and field tests were correlated for both the control (r = 0.60, P< 0.05) and carbofuran treatment (r = 0.48, P < 0.05). We concluded that many forage species are hosts for P. penetrans, but a few legumes and grasses are poor hosts and may be useful in forage rotations to reduce nematode populations.

No abstract

Most forage crops are hosts for the root‐lesion nematode, Pratylenchus penetrans (Cobb) Filipjev & Schur‐Stekhoven. The objective of this research was to compare the preference of P. penetrans for two alfalfas (Medicago sativa L.) and 14 forage grasses or small grains when grown in binary (two species) mixtures. The two alfalfas included the susceptible cultivar Baker, and MNGRN‐16, an experimental population with field resistance to P. penetrans. The grasses included 12 species: barley (Hordeum vulgare L,), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.), smooth bromegrass (Bromus inermis Leyss.), oat (Avena sativa L.), orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.), pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.), perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.), quackgrass [Elytrigia repens (L.) Nevski], reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L.), tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.), timothy (Phleum pratense L.), and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Two seedlings of each grass entry and one alfalfa seedling were planted into a polyethylene tube containing a 1:1 sand/soil mixture. Eight tubes (replicates) were each inoculated with 90 nematodes; non‐inoculated tubes were used as controls. Six weeks after inoculation, fresh root weight and dry shoot weight were recorded and numbers of nematodes in the roots were determined by staining with acid fuchsin. Among the grasses, the oat, reed canarygrass, and quackgrass had the greatest number of nematodes, whereas pearl millet, perennial ryegrass, tall fescue, and timothy had the least. Alfalfa was the preferred host of P. penetrans when grown in combination with grasses. Baker and MNGRN‐16 alfalfa each supported 75% of the total number of nematodes compared with all grass‐alfalfa combinations. These results suggest possibilities for developing cropping systems including forage species that can tolerate or reduce root‐lesion nematode populations.

No abstract

Introduction Clinical presentation of oromandibular dystonia (OMD) is variable that can be further complicated by the presence of temporomandibular disorder (TMD) symptoms. We sought to evaluate variations in the clinical presentation of OMD patients, particularly TMD‐related characteristics, in two clinical settings. Methods In a cross‐sectional study design, a Web‐based data collection survey was provided to eligible patients with OMD from movement disorder (MD) and oro‐facial pain (OFP) clinics. The survey questionnaire was designed to collect information on demographic characteristics, clinical presentation particularly related to TMD, quality of life and treatment outcomes. Validated questionnaires were used when available such as the TMD Pain Screener, EuroQol 5‐Dimensions 5‐Levels (EQ‐5D‐5L), Jaw Functional Limitation Scale and Global Rating of Change Scale. Results Of 53 eligible patients, 31 responded to the survey for a 58% response rate. Forty‐eight per cent of patients in the MD clinic and 60% of patients in the OFP clinic reported jaw pain along with involuntary movements. Of those, 90% from the MD group and 83% from the OFP group screened positive with the TMD Pain Screener at the onset of symptoms based on recall. Positive TMD Pain Screener response was observed in about 40% of patients in both clinics within 30 days of questionnaire response. No statistically significant differences were observed between two groups for any measured variables. Conclusion Patients with OMD have features of TMD, irrespective of the clinical setting in which they seek and receive care. OMD patients from both clinics were similar in terms of clinical presentation, quality of life and treatment outcomes.