Agronomic characterization of cotton genotypes susceptible and resistant to reniform nematode in the United States Midsouth

Abstract

Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) genotypes resistant to reniform nematode (RN) (Rotylenchulus reniformis Linford and Oliveira) have been recently developed to reduce yield losses from RN, yet little is known of their agronomic responses under field conditions. This research was conducted to determine if RN population vary cotton growth and development and yield among RN resistant (G. barbadense introgressions; 08SS110-NE06.OP and 08SS100) and susceptible cotton genotypes (Deltapine 16 and PHY 490 W3FE) in environments infested with RN. The study was conducted over 2 yr (2017 and 2018) in field plots naturally infested with RN population. Growth analysis was conducted at 1-or 2-wk intervals starting from 4 wk after planting (WAP) to 12 WAP. Soil samples were taken from the top 40-cm soil depth before planting and after harvesting to determine RN populations. The three-parameter sigmoidal functions best described (r 2 = .95-.99) growth of cotton genotypes along the season, but no differences were observed for maximum growth rates among genotypes. Post-harvest RN populations significantly increased in plots grown with susceptible cotton genotypes, while RN reproduction was inhibited resulting in a fewer number of RN in the resistant genotypes-grown soils. 08SS110-NE06.OP exhibited greater vigor than PHY 490 W3FE in the later part of season. PHY 490 W3FE showed comparable yields with 08SS110-NE06.OP despite differing in RN suppression and vigor in the later season. The information in this study could be useful to select resistant lines superior in yields and RN suppression as a parent for the development of RN resistant cultivars in cotton. INTRODUCTIONCotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) and reniform nematode (RN) (Rotylenchulus reniformis Linford and Oliveira) share a long history in Mississippi, where cotton has been cultivated since

Early Season Growth Responses of Resistant and Susceptible Cotton Genotypes to Reniform Nematode and Soil Potassium Application

“…This would suggest that the variables of growth we studied may not be strong indices of tolerance during early season growth. Thus, the supposition is supported by a related study that showed comparable early season growth and development among susceptible checks and resistant lines (i.e., sowing to 7 weeks after sowing) under RN infested field conditions [51].…”

Reniform nematode impact on cotton growth and management strategies: A review

“…In the recent field study conducted over 2 years (2017 and 2018) of emergence through physiological maturity under infested field conditions. The study revealed overall 29% reduction in main stem length, 11% reduction in the number of nodes on the main stem, 50% reduction in canopy leaf area, and 29% reduction in canopy biomass in the susceptible cultivar PHY 490 W3FE due to reniform nematode infestation compared to resistant cotton line 08SS110-NE06.OP (Figure 3; Singh et al, 2021).…”

“…However, results of early growth in the greenhouse may not mimic to field Source: http://www.cotton.org/beltwide/proceedings/ outcomes. For instance, cotton plants showed smaller and darker green leaves, and subsequently higher leaf water content and light attenuation through the plant canopy as a tolerance response to reniform nematode under greenhouse conditions (Agudelo et al, 2005;Gausman et al, 1975;Lambe & Horne, 1963;Moore & Lawrence, 2013) but CGR of the cotton canopy in field slow under reniform nematode pressure (Singh et al, 2021). The slow CGR may lead to lower yield (up to 35%) and decrease in yield components such as boll weight (21% lower) and seed weight (23% lower) (Jones et al, 1959;Koenning et al, 2004;Singh et al, 2021).…”

“…In the recent field study conducted over 2 years (2017 and 2018) in Mississippi Delta, Singh et al. (2021) compared agronomic growth, development, and yield characteristics of novel reniform nematode‐resistant upland cotton lines ( Gossypium barbadense introgressions; 08SS110‐NE06.OP and 08SS100) with susceptible upland cotton commercial cultivars (Deltapine 16 and PHY 490 W3FE) from time of emergence through physiological maturity under infested field conditions. The study revealed overall 29% reduction in main stem length, 11% reduction in the number of nodes on the main stem, 50% reduction in canopy leaf area, and 29% reduction in canopy biomass in the susceptible cultivar PHY 490 W3FE due to reniform nematode infestation compared to resistant cotton line 08SS110‐NE06.OP (Figure 3; Singh et al., 2021).…”

“…(2017) reported >50% inhibition of reniform nematode reproduction in plots where G. barbadense accessions, including TAM RKRNR‐9 (PI 662039), TAM RKRNR‐9 (PI 662040) (Starr et al., 2011), GB‐713 (PI 608139) (Robinson et al., 2004) were planted. In the recent evaluation of G. barbadense introgressions, 08SS110‐NE06.OP and 08SS100, 08SS110‐NE06.OP showed significantly greater agronomic and physiological performance than commercial susceptible cultivars PHY 490 W3FE in reniform nematode‐infested fields (Singh et al., 2021) (Figure 3).…”