WFL Publisher
Science and Technology
Meri-Rastilantie 3 B, FI-00980
Helsinki, Finland
e-mail: [email protected]
Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment Vol.10(1): 251-255. 2012
www.world-food.net
Behavior of coffee plants IPR 100 and IPR 106 in soil infested with Meloidogyne incognita
Cláudia Regina Dias-Arieira *, Simone de Melo Santana, Fernando Marcelo Chiamolera, Fabio Biela,
Tatiana Pagan Loeiro Cunha, Heriksen Higashi Puerari and Lais Fernanda Fontana
Department of Agronomic Science, Umuarama Regional Campus, State University of Maringá, C.P. 65, CEP 87501-970,
Umuarama, P. R, Brazil. *e-mail: [email protected]
Received 26 August 2011, accepted 10 January 2012.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the behavior of new varieties of Coffea arabica in an area naturally infested with Meloidogyne incognita. The
experiment was conducted in a sandy soil area in the north-east of Parana, Brazil, in a randomized complete block design, with ten repetitions per
treatment. Each plot contained four plants per row, 0.75 m apart and four rows 2.7 m apart. The treatments used were the coffee cv. IPR 100 and IPR
106, as well as the non-grafted Iapar 59 (susceptible) and the grafted Apoatã 2258+Iapar 59 (resistant). The planting and execution of the experiment
were carried out following standard cultivation recommendations. Height measurements and nematode population recordings were taken at 17 and 30
months after planting and productivity was evaluated at harvest time. On first evaluation, the cultivars IPR 100 and IPR 106 presented lower
numbers of eggs+J2 per root system when compared to the cultivar Iapar 59. The second evaluation showed improvements in plant size, in which
the cultivars IPR 100 and IPR 106 showed the greatest plant-height and yield, varying between 233 and 347% compared to the susceptible cultivar.
However, the number of eggs+J2 was greater in the IPR cultivars at the second evaluation.
Key words: Coffea arabica, management, resistance, root-knot nematode.
Introduction
Brazil is the main producer and exporter of coffee in the world,
with 39.47 million of 60 kg sacks of coffee produced in the year
2009 and an estimated production of 47 million of sacks for the
2010 harvest 6. Although climate and plant problems are among
the limiting factors in cultivation, susceptibility to root knot
nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.) stand out as a major difficulty 3.
First report on these parasitic coffee nematodes was done in
1878 by Jobert, in the old province of Rio de Janeiro 21. Since then,
at least 17 species of Meloidogyne have been defined as coffee
parasites internationally 3. In Brazil, six species have been
associated with culture parasitism 25, with the most damaging being
cited as Meloidogyne exigua Goeldi due to its large geographic
spread, and M. paranaensis Carneiro, Carneiro Abrantes, Santos
and Almeida and M. incognita (Kofoid and White) Chitwood, for
causing most damage to the culture 4.
Although M. incognita is found in all coffee-producing
countries, the most damaging effects to the cultures have been
found in Brazil. As well as being a particularly virulent species, it
is also able to live off the main root, which affects the crop, reducing
its tolerance to cold and the efficiency in using nutrients 4.
After planting, controlling nematodes in coffee plants is quite
difficult and genetic resistance is the best method for the producer
as it is economically viable and environmentally friendly. Coffee
plants derived from Coffea canephora Pierre were first to show
resistance to root knot nematodes 9, 10, 13 and this gave origin to
the widely-used rootstock named Apoatã 10.
One of the pioneering studies looking for resistant hybrids of
Coffea arabica L. was carried out by Gonçalves and Ferraz 12, in
Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.10 (1), January 2012
which the researchers identified resistance to M. incognita in
Arabica coffee plants from the Sarchimor germplasm (Vila Sarchi x
Timor Hybrid). Sources of resistance to M. incognita were also
seen in ‘Icatu’ plants (C. arabica x C. canephora) 20, 27. Carneiro 4
evaluated the reaction of 61 progenies taken from ‘Icatu’ towards
M. incognita race 2 and observed that none of them showed
immunity, although nine displayed tolerance after three years of
cultivation in the field.
Currently, research is looking for non-grafted cultivars of C.
arabica with resistance to Meloidogyne spp. A genotype of
Catucaí (Iapar Vit. 83) was identified in an area highly infested
with M. paranaensis, whose origin is from the cultivar IPR 100,
with 100% of the plants resistant to this species 19. However,
studies of these cultivars in naturally infested areas are scarce.
Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the reaction of the coffee
cv. IPR 100 and IPR 106 to the nematode M. incognita in a naturally
infested area.
Materials and Methods
This study was conducted in a sandy soil area in Umuarama, a
town in the north-east of Parana, Brazil, in which high nematode
populations occur in several crops 8, 28. The experiment was carried
out in random blocks, with ten repetitions per treatment. Each plot
containing four lines 2.7 m apart with four plants per line at 0.75 m
apart. The treatments were the non-grafted coffee plant cv. IPR
100 and IPR 106, as well as the non-grafted Iapar 59 (susceptible
standard) and the grafted Apoatã 2258+Iapar 59 (resistant
standard).
251
The area in which the experiment was installed had a history of
more than ten years cultivating grafted coffee plants (Apoatã
2258+Iapar 59), which were taken up one month before planting.
During this period the soil was fallow. At the time of setting up the
experiment, soil samples were carried out to determine the starting
population of nematodes. In the laboratory, the soil was subjected
to extraction following the Jenkins method 16.
Soil samples collected in the area were also stored in 4-litre
pots, in which tomato cv. Santa Cruz Kada seedlings were planted.
The tomato plants were grown for 90 days. Afterwards, the plant
root systems were collected for female extraction in order to identify
the species of Meloidogyne. To this end, the isoenzyme
electrophoresis method was used for esterase in polyacrylamide
gel 5, 29.
The cultivar seedlings were produced in the Umuarama
Municipal Nursery and transplanted into the area in August 2007.
The planting and the execution of the experiment were carried out
following the recommendations for culture in the region. Cassava
manipueira (milk extracted by pressing manioc), a subproduct with
nematicidal activity mentioned 22, was used when planting four
plots of each treatment at a 50% concentration (v/v), diluted in
water, at a 6 l/m2 dosage.
During the months of March 2008 and March 2009, Mucuna
pruriens (L.) DC. was sown in holes at a spacing of 0.5 m × 0.2 m
between the lines of coffee plants and cut down after approximately
75 days of cultivation.
Nematode population evaluation was made 17 months (January
2009) and 30 months (February 2010) after the experiment was set
up (four and five months after to start the spring, respectively).
To do this, two plants in the centre of each plot were sampled, and
approximately 200 cm3 soil was collected from the area where the
plants were plucked and 20 g of soil was taken from the roots of
each plant. The height of each sample plant was also determined
from the soil line to the highest tip. In the months of June 2009 and
July 2010, the productivity of the crop was estimated by the harvest
and the weight of grains coffee taken from two plants from each
plot, using a portable set of scales.
The soil samples and the roots were sent to the Phytopathology
Laboratory of the State University of Maringá, Umuarama Regional
Campus. Each soil sample was homogenized, taking an aliquot of
100 cm3, which was subjected to extraction process 16. The roots
were washed in running water and the excess dampness was taken
off with absorbent paper, then they were weighed and submitted
to the extraction process 7. The nematodes were counted under a
microscope, in a Petri slide.
The results were put up for analysis of variance and the
averages were compared by the 5% Tukey’s test. In the first year
of cultivation, the interaction between the cassava manipueira
application and the studied variables was also evaluated.
Results and Discussion
Nematode identification, based on the standard esterase indicated
the presence of M. incognita in the experimental area. The average
nematode population in the soil at the start of the experiment was
51 eggs + second-stage juveniles (J2)/100 cm3 of soil, with no
statistical difference between plots.
At the first evaluation, made in January 2009, there was no
interaction between the cassava manipueira treatment and the
evaluated parameters, which made it possible to study factors
separately. Possibly, high temperature and humidity promoted the
fast decomposition of this organic material. At this stage, no
statistical difference was found between the numbers of J2 in the
soil (Table 1). It was observed that the number of M. incognita
eggs+J2 taken from the root system of the coffee plant in this
evaluation was statistically greater when cultivating the Iapar 59,
regardless of cassava manipueira application (Table 1). While the
cultivars IPR 100 and IPR 106 presented numbers of eggs+J2
varying from 340.0 to 1265.5/g of root, respectively, the numbers
in the cultivar Iapar 59 were greater; up to 2900.0.
According to Albuquerque et al. 1, C. arabica crops resistant
to M. incognita showed characteristics of hypersensibility
reactions with accumulations of phenolic compounds and necrotic
cells, while in susceptible cultivars, feeding areas showed typical
characteristics, such as the formation of giant cells. The resistance
of coffee plant “Catimor” to M. exigua and M. megadora
Whitehead was also explained by the occurrence of cellular
necrosis around the feeding sites 23. This same mechanism was
also noted in cultivar Iapar 59 after inoculation with M. exigua 2.
Iapar 59 was used in this study as a susceptibility standard,
although it is more important to point out that this same cultivar
presents resistance to M. exigua, with a lesser nematode
reproduction factor of over 93% in controlled conditions 24. In
this genotype, production and vegetative vigor were observed as
being normal in an area naturally infested with this species of root
knot nematodes 19. This result shows the importance of identifying
the species present in the area to be able to choose the correct
genotype for cultivation.
The grafted Apoatã 2258+Iapar 59 treated with cassava
manipueira also presented elevated numbers of eggs+J2 in the
roots (2518.6), making it statistically the same as Iapar 59. On the
Table 1. Number of Meloidogyne incognita second-stage juveniles (J2) in the soil, eggs+J2 in
the roots and the height of different coffee cultivars 17 months after planting and
productivity 22 months from planting.
Treatments
IPR106
IPR106 + Manipueira
IPR 100
IPR 100 + Manipueira
Apoatã 2258+Iapar 59
Apoatã 2258+Iapar 59 +
Manipueira
Iapar 59
Iapar 59 + Manipueira
J2 in 100 cm3 of soil
Eggs+J2 per g of root
Height (m)
110.8ns
99.3
83.5
86.5
111.0
763.5 ab
340.1 a
1265.5 b
438.9 ab
637.2 ab
0.86 ab
0.82 ab
0.78 abc
0.79 abc
0.86 ab
Productivity
(g/plant)
728.00 a
734.25 a
512.50 ab
553.25 ab
209.00 b
121.3
2518.6 c
0.94 a
721.00 a
137.3
157.3
3259.9 c
2920.5 c
0.60 c
0.69 bc
181.25 b
443.75 ab
*ns = Not significant. Measurements followed by the same letter in the column did not differ from the 5% probability Tukey’s test.
252
Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.10 (1), January 2012
other hand, the treatments Apoatã 2258+Iapar 59 without
manipueira did not show any statistical differences compared to
the cultivars IPR 100 and IPR 106 (Table 1).
Less plant development was observed in Iapar 59 (0.60 to 0.69
m). While the grafted Apoatã 2258+Iapar 59 grew the highest (0.86
to 0.94 m), there was no difference between the IPR 100 and IPR
106 cultivars. The IPR 100 displayed intermediate height between
the Iapar 59 and the grafted cultivar, varying between 0.78 and
0.79 m (Table 1). The greatest yield was taken from the IPR 106
treatments, with or without the cassava manipueira application
and from the Apoatã 2258+Iapar 59 with cassava manipueira. With
the exception of the latter, the treatment with cassava manipueira
did not increase its yield.
As observed in the first evaluation, there was no statistical
difference in the number of J2 in the soil 30 months after the
experiment’s installation (Table 2). This can be explained by the
fact that this nematode is a sedentary endoparasite and spends
practically its entire cycle inside the root system, especially when
there are other hosts in the area. As there was no repeat cassava
manipueira treatment, there was no evaluation of the interaction
between this treatment and the parameters studied at this stage of
the study.
It was observed in this evaluation that the number of nematodes
(eggs+J2) in the root system was significantly less for Iapar 59
(284.6/10 g of root), when compared to the other treatments (843.8
to 913.4/10 g of root) (Table 2). In each assessment stage, the
behavior of cultivars IPR 100 and IPR 106 was statistically the
same in all the assessed parameters. However, in another study,
the progenies of cultivar IPR 106 were more resistant to M.
incognita race 2, while those originating from IPR 100 were
classified as average, because they showed greater resistance
than the susceptible standard, although they were less resistant
than IPR 106 15. The authors observed similar behavior toward M.
paranaensis.
When studying the data taken from two assessment periods,
the second experiment showed a decreased number of nematodes,
especially in the soil. The mucuna grown between the rows for
two consecutive years could have contributed to these results,
due to antagonist effect 11, 30.
The height and yield of grafted Apoatã 2258+Iapar 59 was greater
than the other treatments, while the cultivars IPR 100 and IPR 106
displayed the medium performance; being superior to the Iapar
59, but inferior to the non-grafted, with little difference between
them statistically. The average height of the Apoatã 2258+Iapar
59 plants was the same, at 1.26 m, while for IPR 106 and IPR 100, it
was 1.09 m and 0.98 m, respectively. The cultivar Iapar 59 presented
an average plant height of 0.82 m (Table 2). The least development
in cultivar Iapar 59, possibly reflected by a reduction in the root
system, decreased the quantity of roots available for the nematode
to penetrate. Previously, studies confirmed that six progenies of
cultivar IPR 100 showed resistance to M. incognita race 1 17.
Studies carried out with 24 progenies of IPR 100 also showed they
behaved as resistant to M. paranaensis 26. According to the same
authors, because this cultivar is propagated by seeds, the cost of
reproduction is less than rootstock Apoatã, which requires
grafting.
In terms of productivity, the grafted Apoatã 2258+Iapar 59
showed an increase of 448% when compared to Iapar 59. The
grafted plant is cited as one of the most important methods for
coffee production in areas where occur infestations of
Meloidogyne spp., mainly using C. arabica rather than C.
canephora Apoatã 3. The cultivars IPR 100 and IPR 106 also
yielded significantly more than crop Iapar 59, with increases of
233 and 347%, respectively.
When data obtained from two assessment periods was
compared, it was noted that the number of nematodes in the soil
remained practically the same in areas where the cultivar IPR 100
was grown, and presented a marked reduction in the Iapar 59
treatment (Fig. 1A). As for the nematodes in the root system, the
biggest reduction was noted in cultivar Iapar 59 (Fig. 1B). However,
Table 2. Number of Meloidogyne incognita second-stage juveniles (J2) in the soil, eggs+J2
in the roots and the height of different coffee cultivars 30 months after planting and
productivity 34 months from planting.
Cultivars
J2 in 100 cm3 of soil
eggs+J2 per g of root
Height (m)
79.2
94.0
123.8
47.0
843.8 a
913.4 a
909.2 a
284.6 b
1.09 b
0.98 b
1.26 a
0.82 c
Cultivar IPR106
Cultivar IPR 100
Apoatã 2258+Iapar 59
Iapar 59
Productivity
(g/plant)
1,820.00 b
1,223.20 b
2,355.00 a
525.90 c
160
3500
140
3000
120
Eggs+J2 / g of root
J2 in the soil
*ns = Not significant. Measurements followed by the same letter in the column did not differ from the 5% probability Tukey’s test.
100
80
60
40
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
20
0
0
IPR 100
IPR 106
Apoatã+lapar
lapar 59
Treatment
Stage 1
Stage 2
IPR 100
IPR 106
Apoatã+lapar
Treatment
Stage 1
lapar 59
Stage 2
Figure 1. Number of second-stage juveniles (J2) in 100 cm3 of soil (A) and eggs+J2 per 10 g of coffee plant root (B) after 17 (stage 1) and
30 (stage 2) months of transplantation in an area naturally infested with M. incognita.
Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.10 (1), January 2012
253
when analyzing the increase of productivity over two years (Fig.
2), the grafted (406%) showed a greater increase, while cultivars
IPR 106 and IPR 100 demonstrated a productivity increase between
129 and 149%. On the other hand, cultivar Iapar 59 presented the
worst performance over the years, with an increase of 68%.
2500
Weight (g/plant)
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Stage 11
Stage
Stage 22
Stage
IPR
100
IPR 100
Stage11
Stage
Stage22
Stage
IPR
IPR106
106
Stage11
Stage
Stage22
Stage
Apoatã
2258+ 59
Apoatã
2258+Iapar
Stage
Stage 11
Stage22
Stage
Iapar
Iapar59
59
Iapar 59
Treatment
Figure 2. Average weight of coffee beans per plant taken from different
cultivars, after 22 (stage 1) and 34 (stage 2) months of planting in an area
naturally infested with M. incognita.
In Brazil, the susceptibility of coffee (C. arabica and C.
canephora) crops to M. incognita was confirmed by many
researchers 4, 18. In general, the occurrence of this nematode is
associated with galls and necrosis in the root system, leaf loss,
chlorosis and nutrient deficiency symptoms 3. As coffee is
perennial and in some countries favorable conditions for
nematodes last all year, a small initial population is potentially
dangerous, and so it is necessary to plant more resistant cultivars18.
On the other hand, Carneiro 4 points out that, in the case of tolerant
cultivars commercial cultivation is not recommended as nematodes
will continue to reproduce in the root system and the long-term
behavior of the cultivars is still unknown.
Conclusions
Non-grafted C. arabica can be one more alternative for the
integrated management of coffee nematodes, given its vigor and
good development, even when subjected to high nematode
populations. However, further studies are required to complement
and check the behavior of these materials in the field over the
years to come.
References
1
Albuquerque, E. V. S., Carneiro, R. M. D. G., Costa, P. M., Gomes, A.
C. M. M., Santos, M., Pereira, A. A., Nicole, M., Fernandez, D. and
Grossi-de-Sá, M. F. 2010. Resistance to Meloidogyne incognita
expresses a hypersensitive-like response in Coffea arabica. Eur. J.
Plant Pathol. 127:365-373.
2
Anthony, F., Topart, P., Martinez, A., Silva, M. and Nicole, M. 2005.
Hypersensitive-like reaction conferred by the Mex-1 resistance gene
against Meloidogyne exigua in coffee. Plant Pathol. 54:476-482.
3
Campos, V. P. and Villain, L. 2005. Nematode parasites of coffee and
cacao. In Luc, M., Sikora, R. A. and Bridge, J. (eds). Plant Parasitic
Nematodes in Subtropical and Tropical Agriculture. CAB International,
Wallingford, pp. 529-580.
4
Carneiro, R. G. 1995. Reção de progênies de café ‘Icatu’ a Meloidogyne
incognita raça 2, em condições de campo. Nematol. Bras. 19:53-59.
5
Carneiro, R. M. D. G. and Almeida, M. R. A. 2001. Técnica de
254
eletroforese usada no estudo de enzimas dos nematóides de galhas
para identificação de espécies. Nematol. Bras. 25:35-44.
6
CONAB 2010. Acompanhamento da safra brasileira de café: safra 2010,
segunda estimativa, maio/2010. Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento,
Brasília.
7
Coolen, W. A. and D’Herde, C. J. 1972. A Method for the Quantitative
Extraction of Nematodes from Plant Tissue. State Agricultural Research
Centre, Ghent, Belgium, 77 p.
8
Dias-Arieira, C. R., Furlanetto, C., Santana, S. M., Barizão, D. A. O.,
Ribeiro, R. C. F. and Formentini, H. M. 2010. Fitonematoides
associados a frutíferas na região noroeste do Paraná, Brasil. Rev. Bras.
Frutic. 32:1064-1071.
9
Fazuoli, L. C. 1986. Genética e melhoramento do cafeeiro. In Rena, A.
B., Malavolta, E., Rocha, M., and Yamada, T. (eds). Cultura do cafeeiro,
fatores que afetam a produtividade. Associação Brasileira para Pesquisa
da Potassa e do Fosfato, Piracicaba. pp. 87-113.
10
Fazuoli, L. C., Medina Filho, H. P., Gonçalves, W., Guerreiro Filho, O.
and Silvarolla, M. B. 2002. Melhoramento do cafeeiro: variedades tipo
arabica obtidas no Instituto Agronomico de Campinas. In Zambolim,
L. (ed). O estado da arte de tecnologias na produção de café. Editora
UFV, Viçosa, pp. 162-215.
11
Ferraz, S. and Freitas, L. G. 2004. Use of antagonistic plants and natural
products. In Chen, Z., Chen, S. and Dickson, D. W. (eds). NematologyAdvances and Perspectives. Tsinghua University Press & CABI
Publishing, Beijing & Wallingford, 2:931-978.
12
Gonçalves, W. and Ferraz, L. C. C. B. 1987. Resistência do cafeeiro a
nematóides: II., testes de progênies e híbridos para Meloidogyne
incognita raça 3. Nematol. Bras. 11:123-142.
13
Gonçalves, W., Ferraz, L. C. C. B., Lima, M. M. A. and Silvarola, M. B.
1996. Reações de cafeeiros às raças 1, 2 e 3 de Meloidogyne incognita.
Summa Phytopathol. 22:172–177.
14
Gonçalves, W., Ramiro, D. A., Gallo, P. B. and Giomo, G. S. 2004.
Manejo de nematóides na cultura do cafeeiro. Anais da Reunião
Itinerante de Fitossanidade do Instituto Biológico: café. Instituto
Biológico, São Paulo, pp. 48-66.
15
Ito, D. S., Sera, G. H., Sera, T., Santiago, D. C., Kanayama, F. S. and
Grossi, L. D. 2008. Progênies de café com resistência aos nematóides
Meloidogyne paranaensis e raça 2 de Meloidogyne incognita. Coffee
Sci. 3:156-163.
16
Jenkins, W. R. 1964. A rapid centrifugal-flotation technique for separating
nematodes from soil. Plant Dis. Rep. 48:692.
17
Kanayama, F. S., Sera, G. H., Sera, T., Mata, J. S., Ruas, P. M. and Ito,
D. S. 2009. Progênies de Coffea arabica cv. IPR 100 com resistência ao
nematóide Meloidogyne incognita raça 1. Ciênc. e Agrotecnol. 33:13211326.
18
Lordello, R. R. A. and Lordello, A. I. L. 1987. Avaliação da resistência
de cafeeiros às raças de Meloidogyne incognita. Bragantia 46:59-64.
19
Mata, J. S., Sera, T., Azevedo, J. A., Altéia, M. Z., Colombo, L. A.,
Sanches, R. S., Petek, M. R. and Fadelli, S. 2000. Seleção para resistência
ao nematóide Meloidogyne paranaensis EMN-95001: IAPARLN
94066 de “Catuaí x Icatu” em área altamente infestada. Simpósio de
Pesquisa dos Cafés do Brasil. Poços de Caldas - Brasília: Embrapa,
pp. 515-518.
20
Mata, J. S. da, Sera, T., Altéia, M. Z., Azevedo, J. A., Fadelli, S., Petek,
M. R., Triller, C. and Sera, G. H. 2002. Resistência de genótipos de
cafeeiro (Coffea arabica L.) de São Jorge do PatrocÍnio ao nematóide
Meloidogyne paranaensis. SBPN-Sci. J. 6:34-36.
21
Moura, R. M. 1998. Reedição do relatÙrio sobre a moléstia do cafeeiro
na ProvÍncia do Rio de Janeiro, 1887. Emilio Augusto Göeldi. UFRPE,
Recife, 121 p.
22
Nasu, E. G. C., Pires, E., Formentini, H. M. and Furlanetto, C. 2010.
Efeito de manipueira sobre Meloidogyne incognita em ensaios in vitro
e em tomateiros em casa de vegetação. Trop. Plant Pathol. 35:32-36.
23
Rodrigues, A. C. F. O., Abrantes, I. M. O., Melillo, M. T. and
Blevezacheo, T. 2000. Ultrastructural response of coffee roots to rootknot nematodes, Meloidogyne exigua and M. megadora. Nematropica
Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.10 (1), January 2012
30:201-210.
Salgado, S. M. L., Resende, M. L. V. and Campos, V. P. 2005. Reprodução
de Meloidogyne exigua em cultivares de cafeeiros resistentes e
suscetíveis. Fitopatol. Bras. 30:413-415.
25
Santos, J. M. 2001. Os nematóides de galha que infectam o cafeeiro no
Brasil. Reunião itinerante de fitossanidade do Instituto Biológico Encontro sobre doenças e pragas do cafeeiro. Instituto Biológico,
Ribeirão Preto, pp. 10-20.
26
Sera, G. H., Sera, T., Ito, D. S., Mata, J. S., Doi, D. S., Azevedo, J. A.
and Ribeiro Filho, R. 2007. Progênies de Coffea arabica cv. IPR-100
resistentes ao nematóide Meloidogyne paranaensis. Bragantia 66:4349.
27
Sera, T., Mata, J. S., Ito, D. S., Doi, D. S., Sera, G. H., Azevedo, J. A.,
and Cotarelli, V. M. 2004. Identificação de cafeeiros resistentes aos
nematóides Meloidogyne paranaensis e M. incognita raças 2 e 1 em
populaçáes de Icatu (Coffea arabica). SBPN-Sci. J. 8:20.
28
Severino, J. J., Dias-Arieira, C. R. and Tessmann, D. J. 2010. Nematodes
associated with sugarcane in Sandy soils in Paraná, Brazil. Nematropica
40:111-119.
29
Tihohod, D. 1993. Nematologia AgrÍcola Aplicada. Editora FUNEP,
Jaboticabal, 372 p.
30
Weaver, D. B., Rodríguez-Kábana, R. and Carden, E. L. 1998. Velvetbean
and bahiagrass as rotation crops for management of Meloidogyne spp.
and Heterodera glycines in soybean. J. Nematol. 30:563-568.
24
Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.10 (1), January 2012
255