© Benaki Phytopathological Institute
Ansari
et al.
8
le
L. Koch (lovage) (Apiaeae),
Echinops adeno-
caulos
Boiss. (thistle) (Asteraceae) and
Stachys
pilifera
Benth. (woundwort) (Lamiaceae) were
sown in plastic pots (13 cm diameter and 10
cm height) containing 1.5 kg steam-sterilized
sandy loam soil. After 45 days, each plant was
inoculated with 5000 eggs + second stage ju-
veniles (J
2
) of
M. javanica
as the initial popu-
lation (Pi). Inoculation was done by pipetting
the egg + J
2
suspension into 3 holes around
the plant root system. The experiment was
conducted in a completely randomized de-
sign with four replications. The plants were
watered daily and were harvested 60 days af-
ter inoculation.
The roots were gently washed with tap
water and number of eggs in one gram of
root were counted according to the pro-
cedure developed by Hussey and Barker
(1973). One gram of root was stained with
acid fuchsine according to the procedure
developed by Byrd
et al.
(1983). The total
number of eggs, galls and egg-masses per
plant root system was determined by mul-
tiplying with the root weight per plant. The
number of second stage juveniles (J
2
)/100
cm
3
of soil was counted after extraction us-
ing the modified Baermann pie-pan meth-
od (Coyne
et al.,
2014) and the total num-
ber of nematodes in soil was computed by
extrapolating the number in 100 cm
3
to the
volume of soil (1.5 kg).
The final nematode population (Pf) per
pot (the total number of nematodes per
plant root and the number of J
2
in soil per
pot) were computed and finally, the repro-
ductive factor (RF) of nematode was calcu-
lated by dividing the Pf by Pi (5,000 eggs +
J
2
). Gall index (GI) was estimated on a scale
of 0 to 5, where 0 = no galls; 1 = 1 to 2 galls; 2
= 3 to 10 galls; 3 = 11 to 30 galls; 4 = 31 to 100
galls; and 5 = more than 100 galls in the root
system (Taylor and Sasser 1978). The degree
of resistance of medicinal plant species was
allocated according to the modified scheme
of Canto-Saenz (Sasser
et al.,
1984), which is
based on GI and RF as follows: resistant (GI
≤ 2, RF ≤ 1); tolerant (GI ≤ 2, RF > 1); hyper-
susceptible (GI > 2, RF ≤ 1); susceptible (GI >
2, RF > 1).
Statistical analysis
The SAS system V9.1 (SAS Institute Inc.,
Cary, NC, USA) was used for statistical anal-
yses. Statistical analyses were performed
using a one-way analysis of variance ANO-
VA and the significant difference between
means was determined by Duncan’s multi-
ple range test (DMRT) (p
<
0.1).
Results and Discussion
Sorrel andhorehoundhad significantly high-
er number of galls and egg-masses, than
the other plant species (p
<
0.01) (Table 2).
The lowest number of galls and egg-masses
were recorded in chamomile, garden anchu-
sa and thistle, being significantly lower than
those on other plants (p
<
0.01). The num-
ber of eggs in the sorrel root system and
the number of J
2
per pot of garden anchu-
sa were significantly higher than those on
the other tested plants. Reproduction fac-
tor ranged from 0.05 (in chamomile) to 39.61
(in sorrel) but there was no significant dif-
ference among the RFs of chamomile and
thistle, lovage, woundwort, english plantain
and chamomile (p
<
0.01) (Tables 2 and 3).
Therefore, according to our results in Table
3, the resistance of tested medicinal plants
to infection by
M. javanica
can be ranked
as follows, according to the Canto-Saenz’s
scheme (Sasser
et al.,
1984): thistle (
E. ade-
nocaulos
), lovage (
L. officinale
)
and chamo-
mile
(
M. chamomilla
) are classified as hyper-
susceptible, showing significant damage (GI
> 2) while the RF remains below 1. Garden
anchusa (
A. italica
), fennel
(
F. vulgare
)
,
hore-
hound
(
M. vulgare
), alkakengy (
P. alkeken-
gi
)
,
english plantain
(
P. lanceolata
)
,
wound-
wort
(
S. pilifera
)
and
sorrel
(
R. acetosella
) are
ranked as susceptible, with heavy galling (GI
= 5) and high reproduction factors (RF > 2).
Sorrel and horehound are the most suscep-
tible hosts with high reproduction factors
(RF = 39.61 and 20.08, respectively).
Our findings on chamomile,
M. chamo-
milla,
to
M. javanica
(hyper-susceptible host)
were similar to those by Baida
et al.
(2011) on
susceptibility of
Matricaria recutita
L
.
, while
