Evalution of Bionematicides and Chemical Nematicides in Controlling Meloidogyne incognita on Grape, with Estimating Ethoprophos and Fenamiphos Residues and Chlorophyll Degree
Mohamed Adam1*, Hassan Sobhy2, Mohamed Abouzid3, Dalia Elhafny4 and El-Desouki Ibrahim5
1Department of Zoology and Nematology, Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University, Egypt; 2Animal Resources, Faculty of African Post Graduate Studies, Cairo University, Egypt; 3Green Egypt Copmany Agriculture, Egypt; 4Pesticides Residues and Environmental Pollution Deptartment, Central Agricultural Pesticides Laboratory, Agricultural Research Center, Giza, Egypt; 5Department of Economic Entomology and Pesticides, Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo, Egypt.
*Correspondence | Mohamed Adam, Department of Zoology and Nematology, Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University, Egypt; Email:
[email protected]
Figure 1:
Structure of Ethoprophos.
Figure 2:
Structure of Fenamiphos.
Figure 3:
Effect of bionematicides and nematicides on population densities of Meloidogyne incognita on grape in 2016. All tested products were applied as soil drench. Nematode population densities were estimated 1 and 2 months after nematicide application. Different lowercase within each block indicate significant differences at P ≤ 0.05 according to Tukey’s test (n = 4). Error bars represent standard deviations.
Figure 5:
Dissipation of fenamiphos and ethoprophos nematicides in soils.
Figure 4:
Effect of bionematicides and nematicides on population density of M. incognita on grape in 2017. All tested products were applied as soil drench. Nematode population densities were estimated 1 and 2 months after nematicide application. Different lowercase within each block indicate significant differences at P ≤ 0.05 according to Tukey’s test (n = 4). Error bars represent standard deviations.