Banner
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive

volume 22 issue 2 (june 2001) : 79 - 86

NEMATODE EGG - PARASITIC FUNGUS I PAECILOMYCES LILAC/NUS - A REVIEVJ

I
I. Cannayane
C
C. V. Sivakumar
1Department of Nematology. Tamil Nadu Agricultural University. Coimbatore - 641 003, Indi21

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Cannayane I., Sivakumar V. C. (2025). NEMATODE EGG - PARASITIC FUNGUS I PAECILOMYCES LILAC/NUS - A REVIEVJ. Agricultural Reviews. 22(2): 79 - 86. doi: .

ABSTRACT

The fungal antagonists of nematodes consist of a great variety of organisms belonging to widely divergent orders and families of fungi. They include nematode trapping fungi, endozoic fungi, fungi which produce toxic metabolites and parasites of nematode eggs, cyst and females. Among these groups nematode egg and cyst parasites are considered as important group in reducing several sedentary endoparasitic nematodes. Because the oviposition nature of these nematodes (both in the egg masses and cysts) results in the total exposure of the eggs to fungal attack and once fungal invasion takes place the process is progressive. The discovery of fungill parasites on the eggs of plant parasitic nematode has been very recent. Several organisms have been reported to parasitize eggs and cyst of plant parasitic nematodes. Paecilomyces lilacinus is one of the important nematode egg parasitic fungi reported to parasitize species of Meloidogyne spp., Globodera spp. and Heterodera spp. The importance of nematode egg parasitic fungus, P. lilacinus in soil biology, with special emphasis on their relationship to population of plant parasitic nematodes is reviewed. To date no species has demonstrated for the control of plant nematode pest to a degree achieved with nematicides, but recent studies on egg parasitic fungus, P. lilacinus have provided a much clear concept of possibilities and problems in the applied use of fungal antagonists for the management of plant parasitic nematodes.

KEYWORDS

    REFERENCES

    1. Abu-Laban, A.Z. and Saleh, H.M. (1992). Nematologica. 38: 237-244.
    2. Alexopoulous, c.J. and Mims, C.w.(1979)./ritroductoryMycology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 609 p.
    3. Amoncho, A. and Sasser, J.N. (1995).. Biocont. 1: 51-61.
    4. Bansal, R.K., etal. (1988). Nematol. Medit. 16: 13s,.136.
    5. Cabanillas, '1:. and Barkar, K.R (1989). J. Nematol. 21: 115-120.
    6. Cabanillas. E.. et al. (1988). J. Nematol. 20: 262-265.
    7. Cabilllillas. E. et al. (1989). cI. Nematol. 21: 164-172.
    8. Cal,lro~ ,I.e. eta/. (1989). Rev. Nematol. 12: 331-336.
    9. (·"II"I·alh. AK, et a/. (1986). Nematropica. 16: 153-166.
    10. l.lclckmdri, C. and Nordbring-Hertz, B. (1985). J. Nematol. 17: 50-55.
    11. DilS!Jupta, MK (1998). Phytonematology. Naya Prokash, PIIt. Ltd., Calcutta, India, 846 p.
    12. Dvide. RG. and Zorrilla, RA. (19S:~). Philip. Agric. 66: 397-404.
    13. DaVid\!. RG. and Zorrilla, RA. (1995). Biocon. 1: 63-75.
    14. Uii111l. c., eta/. (1991). Nematologka. 37: 101-142.
    15. DOlllsch. K.H., et al. (1980). Compendium of Soil Fungi Vol. I A:~ddemic Press, New York: 304 p.
    16. Dube, B. and Smart, G.e. (1987). J. Nematol. 19: 222-227.
    17. Dube. H.C. (1983). An Introduction to Fungi. Vikas Publishing House PIIt. Ltd., New Delhi, India: 608 p.
    18. Duddingloll, c.L. (1956). The friendly fungi -A new approach to the eelworm problem. Faber and Faber, London:
    19. lH8 p,
    20. Dunn, M.T.. et al. (1982). Scan. Electron Microscopy. 3: 1351-1357.
    21. Ekanayake, H.M.RK. and Jayasunc!ara, N.J. (1994). Nematol. Medit. 22: 87-88,
    22. Franco, J.. et aI, (1981). J. Nematol.13: 438-439.
    23. Freitas, L.G.. et al. (1995). Nematropica, 25: 109-115.
    24. Gaspard, J.T.. etal. (1990 a). J. Nematol 22:176-181.
    25. Gaspard, J.T., et al. (1990 b). J. Nematol. 22: 207-213.
    26. Godoy. G., etal. (1983). Nematropica. 13: 201-213,
    27. Holland, RJ., eta/. (1999). Nematology. 1 131-139.'.
    28. Ibrahim, I.K.A., et a/. (1987). Nematol. Medit. 15: 265-268.
    29. Jatali!, P. (1986). Ann Rev. Phytopatho/' 24: 453-489.
    30. JII'l, P (198]). In: Proc. 3rd Research Planning Conference on Root-knot Nematodes, Meloidogyne spP. Jakarta
    31. H!qinl1 VI. pp. 228-231.
    32. ,1,11..1", P. et ,rI... (1979). .J. Nelllato/. 11: 303.
    33. ,I,ltillil, P.. et ,Ji (1980). J. Nell7atol. 12: 226-227.
    34. I\~ny. BR.!tal. (192 a). Ann. Appl. BioI. 100: 489-499.
    35. KellV. B.H.. et al. (1982 b). Crop Protec. 1: 99-109.
    36. Lin. M.S.. et ,11. (1993). Chinese J. Bio. Cont. 9: ] 16-118.
    37. LinlOld, M.B. clI1d Yap, F. (1939). Phytopatho/. 29: 596.
    38. . LOpI!Z, M.. et al. (1992). Revista. Protec. Vegetal. 7: 31-33
    39. lvsek, H. (1976). Universitatis Palackianal Olomucensis Facultatis Medicd
    40. Mankclli. R. (1980). Ann. Rev. Phytopatho/. 18: 415-440.
    41. Ml?rll!lls. M.CA and Stirling, G.R. (1993). Nematologica. 39: 400-410.
    42. Mikhcll, D..1., eta/. (1987). J. Nematol. 19: 255-256.
    43. Mor!jan-Jones, G., eta/. (1981). Nematropica. 11: 155-163.
    44. Morgan-Jones, G., eta/. (1984)-,Nematropica. 14: 57-71.
    45. Nigh, EA, et al. (1980). Phytop'athol. 70: 884-889.
    46. 86 AGRICULTURAL REVIEWS
    47. Noe, J.P. and Sasser, J.N. (1995). Biocontrol. 1: 57-67.
    48. Novaretti, W.RT., et iiI. (1986). Nemiitol. Brasi. 10: 133-144.
    49. Owino, O.P. and Waudo, S.w. (1996). Pak. J. Nematol. 13: 119-127.
    50. Patel. RR., etal. (1992). Curr. Nematol. 3: 99-100.
    51. HilO, MS. and Reddy, P. (1994). Nematol. Medit. 22: 265-267.
    52. Heddy, P. and Khiln, R.M. (1988). Nematol. Medit. 16: 113-115.
    53. Heddy. P.. et al. (1996). Pest Mgt. Hort. Ecos. 2: 61-63.
    54. Hiker. A. T. and Riker. A.S. (1936). An Introduction to Research on Plant Disease. Johns. Swill. New York. 117 p.
    55. Rudriguez-Kabana. R, etal. (1984). Nematropica. 14: 155-170.
    56. Sdyre, R.M. (1986). Crop Protect. 5: 268-276.
    57. Shdl'l11il. A. and Trivedi, P.c. (1989). Nematol. Medit. 17: 131-133.
    58. Siddiqui. ZA and Mahmood, I. (1993). J-undam. Appl.Nematol. 16: 215-218.
    59. Siddiqui, Z.A. and Mahmood, I. (1994). Bioresource Tech. 49: 187-189.
    60. Sikora, RA. (1979). In: Root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.) Systematics, Biology and Control, (Lamberti, F and
    61. Taylor,C.C. Eds). Academic Press. New York, USA: pp. 399-404.
    62. Sivakumar, C.v. and Jayaraj, S. (1987). J. BioI. Cont. 1: 150-151.
    63. Sivakumar, C.v., et al. (1993). J. BioI. Cont. 1: 40-45.
    64. Sosamma, V.K and K'hhy, P.K. (1995).lndianJ. Nematol. 25: 16-17.
    65. Stirling, G.R and Mallkau, R (1978). Mycologia. 70: 774-783.
    66. Stirling,G.R. (1991). Biological Control of Plant-Parasitic Nematodes. CAB International Wallingford. 282 p.
    67. Walia, RK, etal. (1991) Nematol. Medit. 19: 247-249.
    68. Walters, SA and Barker, KR (1994). J. Nematol. 26: 600-605.
    69. Zaki, FA (1994). Nematol. Medit. 22: 41-43.
    70. Zaki, F.A. and Bhatti, D.S. (1990). Nematologica. 36: 114-122.
    71. Zaki, FA. and Bhatti, D.S. (1991). Nematol. Medit. 19: 211-212.
    Published In
    Agricultural Reviews
    Article Metrics
    Metrics Icon
    0
    Views
    Citations
    Reviewed By
    Share Article
    Download Article
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)