Startseite Lebenswissenschaften Evaluation of 11 potential trap crops for root-knot nematode (RKN) control under glasshouse conditions
Artikel Open Access

Evaluation of 11 potential trap crops for root-knot nematode (RKN) control under glasshouse conditions

  • Rana Samara EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 19. März 2022

Abstract

A preliminary study of the development and growth of lettuce crops trap cropped with 11 trap crops for root-knot nematode (RKN) control was studied under glasshouse conditions in Kadoorie Agriculture Research Centre in Palestine Technical University. Main crop growth parameters were evaluated by measuring the shoot height, lateral root length, wet and dry weight, ash percentage, and chlorophyll content. The total RKNs recovered from both main and trap crops from root systems were counted 6 weeks post RKN artificial inoculation. The first screening of the potential trap crops against RKNs showed a significant reduction in nematode numbers in lettuce and the average number of galls per gram fresh root when trap cropped with canola, B.G. pumpkin, mustard, and vetch cv. 976. No eggs were found by the end of the experiment. These trap crops attracted more nematodes and kept them from infecting the main crop. The effect of these trap crops on the growth and development of the main crop was variable. Trap cropping lettuce with canola, mustard, Armenian cucumber, and bottle gourd pumpkin caused a significant reduction of the total wet weight and dry weight compared with the control. Still, trap cropping did not significantly affect the lateral root length and wet weight. Removing the trap crops from the field after 6–8 weeks could be applied to reduce the competition between the main crop and the trap crops.

1 Introduction

Root-knot nematodes (RKNs) belong to the genus Meloidogyne and are the most economically important obligate polyphagous plant parasites. They cause significant damage worldwide to almost every crop and result in billions of dollars of losses annually [1]. They are also vectors for many fungal, bacterial, or viral diseases [2]. They increase root perfusion, malformations, and galls, affecting microbial communities and activity in the rhizosphere [3]. RKNs are one of the significant problems faced by Palestinian growers and farmers. They cause severe economic losses in most crops, especially tomatoes, cucumbers, beans, and other vegetables. RKN management is challenging; farmers use several control methods such as nematicides, fumigants, crop rotation, solar sterilization, organic amendments, resistant crop cultivars, and biological control. But still, none was proven to be an efficient method to achieve adequate control results [4]. Therefore, integrated pest management, using a combination of nematicides with other control approaches, is highly recommended to reduce potential pesticide residual toxicity to humans and the environment [5].

Trap or cover cropping strategy focuses on using an alternative host crop to either attract, interrupt, or capture targeted pests to reduce their damage to the main crop. The potential use of trap crops grown during the same periods between the main crop plants to suppress RKNs may be a better alternative to chemical control. These crops tend to attract nematodes more than the crop cultivated for production. Lettuce Lactuca sativa L. is one of the most important vegetable crops grown in all temperate regions worldwide, and it is one of the essential salad crops. RKN Meloidogyne hapla Chitwood attacks lettuce roots and causes substantial economic losses in production, reaching up to 60%, reducing plant growth, and producing smaller and unmarketable lettuce heads [6]. This research aimed to monitor the effects of using different trap crops on the growth and development of the main crop and nematode infection.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Crop and trap crop maintenance

11 experiments were carried out using various test plants and isolates of Meloidogyne spp. The plants examined were obtained from Palestine National Research Center (NARC): canola (Brassica napus L. cv. Hyoola 201); bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia L. cv. 1816); mustard (Brassica juncea L.), sesame (Sesamum indicum L. cv. 202); Armenian cucumber (Cucumis melo var. flexuosus L.); bottle gourd pumpkin (Lagenaria siceraria L.); sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.); vetches (Vicia spp. cv. 976); local vetches (Vicia spp.); local coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.) and sesame (Sesamum indicum L. cv. 157). In all experiments, lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. cv. Noga) was used as a nematode-susceptible control. 10 days post sown day, the 11 trap crop seedlings listed above were transferred in 3 kg soil pots. The growing soil was a mixture of peat moss, coconut and compost (1:1:2). The pots were maintained under glasshouse conditions at 25 ± 5°C, 75% R.H. and 18:6 L:D. Seedlings were irrigated every other day and fertilized every other week for 6 weeks after the planting. Then, lettuce seedlings were transplanted to each pot incorporated with a trap crop. Each treatment was replicated four times. When the lettuce was at the four-leaf stage, the seedling was inoculated with eggs and juveniles of Meloidogyne spp.

2.2 Isolation and inoculation of RKNs

Infected tomato plants with RKNs (Figure 1a) were maintained in the Kadoorie Agriculture Research Center’s glasshouse in Palestine Technical University – Kadoorie. The nematode suspension was extracted from infected tomato roots in 0.525% NaOCl following the procedure described by Hussey and Barker [7]. Each replicate received 20 mL of suspension containing ≈6,000 eggs and 400 viable nematodes (Figure 1b). The artificial inoculation was carried out in the trap crops and lettuce after 14 days from the sowing date. After 6 weeks, the number of galls, eggs, and juveniles per seedling was counted as mentioned above. Plant growth parameters were evaluated 6 weeks post artificial infection. When lettuce and trap crops were harvested, the lettuce shoot wet weight, dry weight, and root weight were recorded (Figure 2). Lettuce ash percentage was determined on a sample of 3 g each by igniting in a muffle furnace at 550°C for 8 h (Megatherm high-temperature chamber furnaces with MoSi2 heating elements [1,500–1,750°C]). The number of leaves and root length were recorded by the end of the experiment, while the level of chlorophyll content was monitored weekly for 3 weeks. The chlorophyll content of lettuce leaves was measured using soil plant analysis development (SPAD chlorophyll meter) (SPAD-502 plus, Konica Minolta Co., Ltd, Japan), which measures the radiation transmission within the leaf at the wavelengths between 650 and 940 nm. During this experiment, an average of three readings per leaf was recorded weekly.

Figure 1 
                  Infected tomato root plants with RKNs (a) maintained in the Kadoorie Agriculture Research Center’s glasshouse in Palestine Technical University – Kadoorie. Extracted viable juveniles and eggs (b).
Figure 1

Infected tomato root plants with RKNs (a) maintained in the Kadoorie Agriculture Research Center’s glasshouse in Palestine Technical University – Kadoorie. Extracted viable juveniles and eggs (b).

Figure 2 
                  Comparison of lettuce plants’ vegetative and root growth post-artificially infested with Meloidogyne spp. Lettuce trapped with (a) sorghum (S. bicolor), (b) mustard (B. juncea), and (c) control.
Figure 2

Comparison of lettuce plants’ vegetative and root growth post-artificially infested with Meloidogyne spp. Lettuce trapped with (a) sorghum (S. bicolor), (b) mustard (B. juncea), and (c) control.

2.3 Data collection and analysis

Collected data spreadsheets were analyzed using the analysis of variance test using the general linear model’s procedure. Levels of significance were determined by applying the Student–Newman–Keuls (SNK) method, all statistical analyses were performed using the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) (SAS Institute 2009). Figures and diagrams were carried out using the SigmaPlot 14 system.

3 Results and discussion

Trap cropping lettuce with 11 trap crops pre-artificially inoculated with RKN significantly impacted the lettuce wet weight and dry weight (Figure 3). Trap cropping canola, mustard, Armenian cucumber and bottle gourd pumpkin caused a significant reduction of the wet lettuce weight (34, 36, 44, and 65 g, respectively) at (F = 10.5; P = <0.0001) and the dry weight (5, 4, 4, and 6 g, respectively) at (F = 197.6; P = <0.0001) compared with the control (148 and 17 g). The root wet weight (4, 3, 3, and 4 g, respectively) at (F = 3.7; P = 0.0015) and the root length were not significantly affected with trap cropping (F = 4.0; P = 0.0008) and the artificial inoculation of nematodes (Figure 4). Lettuce growth parameters were measured in an average number of leaves (Figure 5) and ash percentage (Figure 6). The ash percentage measured the total amount of minerals in the main crop after removing water and organic substances. There is no significant effect on viability in the average number of lettuce leaves (F = 3.7; P = 0.0013) trap cropped with the different trap plants. On the other hand, a significant change in the ash percentage (P < 0.0001) for lettuce was recorded. Weekly monitoring of the chlorophyll content of lettuce crops showed no significant differences between treatments (Figure 7).

Figure 3 
               Effects of artificial inoculation with Meloidogyne spp. and 11 trap crops on shoot fresh and shoot dry weight (g/plant) of lettuce plants (left-axis) and moisture content (g/plant) (right-axis). The standard deviation of the means is designated by the error bar for each mean. Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (SNK, P > 0.05).
Figure 3

Effects of artificial inoculation with Meloidogyne spp. and 11 trap crops on shoot fresh and shoot dry weight (g/plant) of lettuce plants (left-axis) and moisture content (g/plant) (right-axis). The standard deviation of the means is designated by the error bar for each mean. Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (SNK, P > 0.05).

Figure 4 
               Effects of artificial inoculation with Meloidogyne spp. and 11 trap crops on fresh root weight (g/plant) (left-axis) and root length (cm/plant) (right-axis) of lettuce plants. The standard deviation of the means is designated by the error bar for each mean. Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (SNK, P > 0.05).
Figure 4

Effects of artificial inoculation with Meloidogyne spp. and 11 trap crops on fresh root weight (g/plant) (left-axis) and root length (cm/plant) (right-axis) of lettuce plants. The standard deviation of the means is designated by the error bar for each mean. Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (SNK, P > 0.05).

Figure 5 
               Effects of artificial inoculation with Meloidogyne spp. and 11 trap crops on the number of leaves in lettuce plants. The standard deviation of the means is designated by the error bar for each mean. Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (SNK, P > 0.05).
Figure 5

Effects of artificial inoculation with Meloidogyne spp. and 11 trap crops on the number of leaves in lettuce plants. The standard deviation of the means is designated by the error bar for each mean. Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (SNK, P > 0.05).

Figure 6 
               Effects of artificial inoculation with Meloidogyne spp. and 11 trap crops on lettuce ash content by igniting in a muffle furnace at 550°C for 8 h. The standard deviation of the means is designated by the error bar for each mean. Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (SNK, P > 0.05).
Figure 6

Effects of artificial inoculation with Meloidogyne spp. and 11 trap crops on lettuce ash content by igniting in a muffle furnace at 550°C for 8 h. The standard deviation of the means is designated by the error bar for each mean. Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (SNK, P > 0.05).

Figure 7 
               Lettuce chlorophyll content monitored weekly during this study. The standard deviation of the means is designated by the error bar for each mean (SNK, P > 0.05).
Figure 7

Lettuce chlorophyll content monitored weekly during this study. The standard deviation of the means is designated by the error bar for each mean (SNK, P > 0.05).

The trap crop influenced the number of juveniles (Figure 8), and the number of galls per grams of lettuce root (Figure 9) is shown. A significant reduction of juvenile nematode numbers and gall numbers were recorded when lettuce (F = 8.5; P < 0.0001) was trap cropped with canola, B.G. pumpkin, mustard and vetch cv. 976. These trap crops attracted more nematodes and retained them from infecting the main crop. While a significant increase in nematode numbers was recorded in lettuce when trap cropped with sesame cvs. 202 and 157, A. cucumber and sorghum. These results showed that canola, B.G. pumpkin and mustard are good crops associated with lettuce in soils infested with root gall nematodes. The main effect of trap crops showed that canola, vetch cvs. 1,816 and 976, mustard and B.G. pumpkin significantly affected the root and shoot dry weight of the main crop compared with the control in a negative direction. At the same time, they attracted significantly more nematodes and restrained them from the main crop. Thus, growing these trap crops could significantly reduce the number of nematode eggs and juveniles. But this does not compensate for the negative effects of the competition of the trap crop with the cash crop lettuce. Removing these trap crops at an earlier plant growing stage might reduce the competition between them and the main crop. Excluding vetch 976 and sesame 202, most parameters in the other crops were lower than those of the control. This might be due to vetch being a nitrogen fixer.

Figure 8 
               The total number of RKN juveniles per gram fresh root in the root systems of the host plant lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) planted with 11 local non-host crops as trap plants. The standard deviation of the means is designated by the error bar for each mean. Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (SNK, P > 0.05).
Figure 8

The total number of RKN juveniles per gram fresh root in the root systems of the host plant lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) planted with 11 local non-host crops as trap plants. The standard deviation of the means is designated by the error bar for each mean. Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (SNK, P > 0.05).

Figure 9 
               The total number of RKN galls per gram fresh root in the root systems of the host plant lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) planted with 11 local non-host crops as trap plants. The standard deviation of the means is designated by the error bar for each mean. Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (SNK, P > 0.05).
Figure 9

The total number of RKN galls per gram fresh root in the root systems of the host plant lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) planted with 11 local non-host crops as trap plants. The standard deviation of the means is designated by the error bar for each mean. Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (SNK, P > 0.05).

The mechanism of the trap crop used to manage nematodes was reported by many researchers. Trap crops attract parasitic nematodes away from the main crop, thus, by removing these crops from the field, nematodes would be removed before they complete their life cycle [8]. Meanwhile some trap crops would perform as non- or poor-host [9], while others would release a toxic or allelopathic chemical that prevents nematode development or kill them [10]. Other may produce secondary metabolites that have nematicidal activities [11], or are considered as “dead-end” trap crop, where nematode eggs are triggered to hatch, then the juveniles would starve due to lack of a suitable host to parasitize on [12], and a few would create the non-favorable environmental condition by breaking down organic matters and increasing soil acidity [13].

Many researchers investigated the effectiveness of trap crops belonging to the family Brassicaceae, Fabaceae, Linaceae, and Poaceae on different root nematodes. Crimson clover, hairy vetch, white lupine, red clover, sweet clover, field pea and camelina cultivars were highly effective trap crops [14]. Mojtahed et al. [15] found that trap cropping in soil heavily infested with RKNs with rapeseed plants reduced the nematode population. Similar results were found when cropping canola and vetch with squash [16], Solanum sisymbriifolium and S. nigrum for potato cyst nematodes [17]. This could be attributed to the expanded root system of the trap crops, which could stimulate and promote more hatching of nematodes due to deeper extension of the root in the soil layers [18].

On the other hand, canola and other Brassica crops were reported to have phytotoxic effects on crops such as sunflowers, soybean, barley, and many soil-borne diseases and nematodes [19]. Cruciferous and cucurbit crops produce secondary metabolites such as triterpenoids and alkaloids with nematicidal activities [11,20]. Cruciferous secondary metabolites are glucosinolates [11], while cucurbit produces tetracyclic triterpenoids, cucurbitacin B, saponins sterols and a non-proteic amino acid [20]. Moreover, it was reported that grafting cucumber on B.G. pumpkin as rootstocks reduced the damage caused by Meloidogyne incognita [21].

4 Conclusion

Trap cropping lettuce crops with 11 trap crops pre-artificially inoculated with RKNs significantly affected the main crop size and weight, and this might be resolved by removing the trap crops from the field after 6–8 weeks, which will reduce the competition between the crops and at the same time it will decrease the number of viable RKNs in the soil. Canola, bottle gourd pumpkin, mustard, and vetch lured nematodes away from the main crop. At the same time, trap cropping with sesame, Armenian cucumber and sorghum resulted in more nematodes in the main crop. These results found in this research presented essential information on suitable trap crops such as non-hosts and or poor hosts for RKNs. Further studies on these crops for reducing the RKN population under field conditions could provide more insight into the best alternatives to control RKNs with trap crops and their cost-benefit analysis or alternatives for bio-solarization or anaerobic soil disinfestation or chemical control.

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to the National Research Center (NARC) for providing the plant seeds. The author thanks the capable students, Mr Alyat, Mr Nawahda and laboratory technicians for the technical assistance, support and culture maintenances.

  1. Funding information: The scientific work was funded by Palestine Technical University-Kadoorie (PTUK).

  2. Conflict of interest: The author states no conflict of interest.

  3. Data availability statement: All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

References

[1] Koenning SR, Overstreet C, Noling JW, Donald PA, Becker JO, Fortnum BA. Survey of crop losses in response to phytoparasitic nematodes in the United States for 1994. J Nematology. 1999 Dec 31;4S:587.Suche in Google Scholar

[2] Walia RK. Introduction to plant parasitic nematodes. Research methods in plant sciences: allelopathy. Plant Prot. 2004;2:151–4.Suche in Google Scholar

[3] Desaeger JA, Eger Jr JE, Csinos AS, Gilreath JP, Olson SM, Webster TM. Movement and biological activity of drip-applied 1, 3-dichloropropene and chloropicrin in raised mulched beds in the southeastern USA. Pest Manag Sci Pest Sci. 2004 Dec;60(12):1220–30.10.1002/ps.950Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[4] Randhawa N, Sakhuja PK, Singh I. Management of root knot nematode Meloidogyne incognita in tomato with organic amendments. Plant Dis Res Ludhiana. 2001;16(2):274–6.Suche in Google Scholar

[5] Faria JM, Sena I, Maleita CM, Da Silva IV, Ascensao L, Abrantes I, et al. In vitro co-culture of Solanum tuberosum hairy roots with Meloidogyne chitwoodi: structure, growth and production of volatiles. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult (PCTOC). 2014 Sep;118(3):519–30.10.1007/s11240-014-0504-6Suche in Google Scholar

[6] Viaene NM, Abawi GS. Damage threshold of Meloidogyne hapla to lettuce in organic soil. J Nematol. 1996;28(4):537.Suche in Google Scholar

[7] Hussey RS. A comparison of methods of collecting inocula of Meloidogyne spp., including a new technique. Plant Dis Rep. 1973;57:1025–8.Suche in Google Scholar

[8] Harbach CJ, Wlezien E, Tylka GL. A mechanistic approach to assessing the potential for cover crops to serve as trap crops for the soybean cyst nematode. Plant Dis. 2021 Apr 16;105(4):1136–42.10.1094/PDIS-05-20-0964-RESuche in Google Scholar PubMed

[9] Vestergård M. Trap crops for Meloidogyne hapla management and its integration with supplementary strategies. Appl Soil Ecol. 2019 Feb 1;134:105–10.10.1016/j.apsoil.2018.10.012Suche in Google Scholar

[10] Hooks CR, Wang KH, Ploeg A, McSorley R. Using marigold (Tagetes spp.) as a cover crop to protect crops from plant-parasitic nematodes. Appl Soil Ecol. 2010 Nov 1;46(3):307–20.10.1016/j.apsoil.2010.09.005Suche in Google Scholar

[11] Park W, Lee YH, Kim KS, Cha YL, Moon YH, Song YS, et al. The optimal mixing ratio of Brassica napus and Brassica juncea meal improve nematode Meloidogyne hapla effects. Plant Signal Behav. 2019 Dec 2;14(12):1678369.10.1080/15592324.2019.1678369Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[12] Pudasaini M, Viaene N, Moens M. Effect of marigold (Tagetes patula) on population dynamics of Pratylenchus penetrans in a field. Nematology. 2006 Jan 1;8(4):477–84.10.1163/156854106778613930Suche in Google Scholar

[13] Simmons CW, Higgins B, Staley S, Joh LD, Simmons BA, Singer SW, et al. The role of organic matter amendment level on soil heating, organic acid accumulation, and development of bacterial communities in solarized soil. Appl Soil Ecol. 2016 Oct 1;106:37–46.10.1016/j.apsoil.2016.04.018Suche in Google Scholar

[14] Acharya K, Yan G, Plaisance A. Effects of cover crops on population reduction of soybean cyst nematode (Heterodera glycines). Plant Dis. 2021 Apr 16;105(4):764–9.10.1094/PDIS-08-20-1778-RESuche in Google Scholar PubMed

[15] Mojtahedi H, Santo GS, Hang AN, Wilson J. Suppression of root-knot nematode populations with selected rapeseed cultivars as green manure. J nematology. 1991 Apr;23(2):170.Suche in Google Scholar

[16] Johnson AW, Golden AM, Auld DL, Sumner DR. Effects of rapeseed and vetch as green manure crops and fallow on nematodes and soil-borne pathogens. J Nematology. 1992 Mar;24(1):117.Suche in Google Scholar

[17] Scholte K, Vos J. Effects of potential trap crops and planting date on soil infestation with potato cyst nematodes and root-knot nematodes. Ann Appl Biol. 2000 Oct;137(2):153–64.10.1111/j.1744-7348.2000.tb00047.xSuche in Google Scholar

[18] Scholte K. Growth and development of plants with potential for use as trap crops for potato cyst nematodes and their effects on the numbers of juveniles in cysts. Ann Appl Biol. 2000 Aug;137(1):31–42.10.1111/j.1744-7348.2000.tb00054.xSuche in Google Scholar

[19] Yasumoto S, Matsuzaki M, Hirokane H, Okada K. Glucosinolate content in rapeseed in relation to suppression of subsequent crop. Plant Prod Sci. 2010 Jan 1;13(2):150–5.10.1626/pps.13.150Suche in Google Scholar

[20] Rekha K, Thiruvengadam M. Secondary metabolite production in transgenic hairy root cultures of cucurbits. Transgenesis and Secondary Metabolism. 2017;267–93.10.1007/978-3-319-28669-3_6Suche in Google Scholar

[21] Suárez-Hernández ÁM, Grimaldo-Juárez O, Ceceña-Durán C, Bazante-González I, Núñez-Ramirez F, González-Mendoza D. Plant growth and quality of cucumber grafted with Lagenaria siceraria in soil infested with nematodes. Emirates J Food Agric. 2021;33(1):67–72.10.9755/ejfa.2021.v33.i1.2565Suche in Google Scholar

Received: 2021-10-30
Revised: 2022-02-21
Accepted: 2022-02-22
Published Online: 2022-03-19

© 2022 Rana Samara, published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Regular Articles
  2. Foliar application of boron positively affects the growth, yield, and oil content of sesame (Sesamum indicum L.)
  3. Impacts of adopting specialized agricultural programs relying on “good practice” – Empirical evidence from fruit growers in Vietnam
  4. Evaluation of 11 potential trap crops for root-knot nematode (RKN) control under glasshouse conditions
  5. Technical efficiency of resource-poor maize farmers in northern Ghana
  6. Bulk density: An index for measuring critical soil compaction levels for groundnut cultivation
  7. Efficiency of the European Union farm types: Scenarios with and without the 2013 CAP measures
  8. Participatory validation and optimization of the Triple S method for sweetpotato planting material conservation in southern Ethiopia
  9. Selection of high-yield maize hybrid under different cropping systems based on stability and adaptability parameters
  10. Soil test-based phosphorus fertilizer recommendation for malting barley production on Nitisols
  11. Effects of domestication and temperature on the growth and survival of the giant freshwater prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii) postlarvae
  12. Influence of irrigation regime on gas exchange, growth, and oil quality of field grown, Texas (USA) olive trees
  13. Present status and prospects of value addition industry for agricultural produce – A review
  14. Competitiveness and impact of government policy on chili in Indonesia
  15. Growth of Rucola on Mars soil simulant under the influence of pig slurry and earthworms
  16. Effect of potassium fertilizer application in teff yield and nutrient uptake on Vertisols in the central highlands of Ethiopia
  17. Dissection of social interaction and community engagement of smallholder oil palm in reducing conflict using soft system methodology
  18. Farmers’ perception, awareness, and constraints of organic rice farming in Indonesia
  19. Improving the capacity of local food network through local food hubs’ development
  20. Quality evaluation of gluten-free biscuits prepared with algarrobo flour as a partial sugar replacer
  21. Effect of pre-slaughter weight on morphological composition of pig carcasses
  22. Study of the impact of increasing the highest retail price of subsidized fertilizer on rice production in Indonesia
  23. Agrobiodiversity and perceived climatic change effect on family farming systems in semiarid tropics of Kenya
  24. Influences of inter- and intra-row spacing on the growth and head yield of cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata) in western Amhara, Ethiopia
  25. The supply chain and its development concept of fresh mulberry fruit in Thailand: Observations in Nan Province, the largest production area
  26. Toward achieving sustainable development agenda: Nexus between agriculture, trade openness, and oil rents in Nigeria
  27. Phenotyping cowpea accessions at the seedling stage for drought tolerance in controlled environments
  28. Apparent nutrient utilization and metabolic growth rate of Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus, cultured in recirculating aquaculture and biofloc systems
  29. Influence of season and rangeland-type on serum biochemistry of indigenous Zulu sheep
  30. Meta-analysis of responses of broiler chickens to Bacillus supplementation: Intestinal histomorphometry and blood immunoglobulin
  31. Weed composition and maize yield in a former tin-mining area: A case study in Malim Nawar, Malaysia
  32. Strategies for overcoming farmers’ lives in volcano-prone areas: A case study in Mount Semeru, Indonesia
  33. Principal component and cluster analyses based characterization of maize fields in southern central Rift Valley of Ethiopia
  34. Profitability and financial performance of European Union farms: An analysis at both regional and national levels
  35. Analysis of trends and variability of climatic parameters in Teff growing belts of Ethiopia
  36. Farmers’ food security in the volcanic area: A case in Mount Merapi, Indonesia
  37. Strategy to improve the sustainability of “porang” (Amorphophallus muelleri Blume) farming in support of the triple export movement policy in Indonesia
  38. Agrarian contracts, relations between agents, and perception on energy crops in the sugarcane supply chain: The Peruvian case
  39. Factors influencing the adoption of conservation agriculture by smallholder farmers in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
  40. Meta-analysis of zinc feed additive on enhancement of semen quality, fertility and hatchability performance in breeder chickens
  41. Meta-analysis of the potential of dietary Bacillus spp. in improving growth performance traits in broiler chickens
  42. Biocomposites from agricultural wastes and mycelia of a local mushroom, Lentinus squarrosulus (Mont.) Singer
  43. Cross transferability of barley nuclear SSRs to pearl millet genome provides new molecular tools for genetic analyses and marker assisted selection
  44. Detection of encapsulant addition in butterfly-pea (Clitoria ternatea L.) extract powder using visible–near-infrared spectroscopy and chemometrics analysis
  45. The willingness of farmers to preserve sustainable food agricultural land in Yogyakarta, Indonesia
  46. Transparent conductive far-infrared radiative film based on polyvinyl alcohol with carbon fiber apply in agriculture greenhouse
  47. Grain yield stability of black soybean lines across three agroecosystems in West Java, Indonesia
  48. Forms of land access in the sugarcane agroindustry: A comparison of Brazilian and Peruvian cases
  49. Assessment of the factors contributing to the lack of agricultural mechanization in Jiroft, Iran
  50. Do poor farmers have entrepreneurship skill, intention, and competence? Lessons from transmigration program in rural Gorontalo Province, Indonesia
  51. Communication networks used by smallholder livestock farmers during disease outbreaks: Case study in the Free State, South Africa
  52. Sustainability of Arabica coffee business in West Java, Indonesia: A multidimensional scaling approach
  53. Farmers’ perspectives on the adoption of smart farming technology to support food farming in Aceh Province, Indonesia
  54. Rice yield grown in different fertilizer combination and planting methods: Case study in Buru Island, Indonesia
  55. Paclobutrazol and benzylaminopurine improve potato yield grown under high temperatures in lowland and medium land
  56. Agricultural sciences publication activity in Russia and the impact of the national project “Science.” A bibliometric analysis
  57. Storage conditions and postharvest practices lead to aflatoxin contamination in maize in two counties (Makueni and Baringo) in Kenya
  58. Relationship of potato yield and factors of influence on the background of herbological protection
  59. Biology and life cycle Of Diatraea busckella (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) under simulated altitudinal profile in controlled conditions
  60. Evaluation of combustion characteristics performances and emissions of a diesel engine using diesel and biodiesel fuel blends containing graphene oxide nanoparticles
  61. Effect of various varieties and dosage of potassium fertilizer on growth, yield, and quality of red chili (Capsicum annuum L.)
  62. Review Articles
  63. Germination ecology of three Asteraceae annuals Arctotis hirsuta, Oncosiphon suffruticosum, and Cotula duckittiae in the winter-rainfall region of South Africa: A review
  64. Animal waste antibiotic residues and resistance genes: A review
  65. A brief and comprehensive history of the development and use of feed analysis: A review
  66. The evolving state of food security in Nigeria amidst the COVID-19 pandemic – A review
  67. Short Communication
  68. Response of cannabidiol hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) varieties grown in the southeastern United States to nitrogen fertilization
  69. Special Issue on the International Conference on Multidisciplinary Research – Agrarian Sciences
  70. Special issue on the International Conference on Multidisciplinary Research – Agrarian Sciences: Message from the editor
  71. Maritime pine land use environmental impact evolution in the context of life cycle assessment
  72. Influence of different parameters on the characteristics of hazelnut (var. Grada de Viseu) grown in Portugal
  73. Organic food consumption and eating habit in Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown
  74. Customer knowledge and behavior on the use of food refrigerated display cabinets: A Portuguese case
  75. Perceptions and knowledge regarding quality and safety of plastic materials used for food packaging
  76. Understanding the role of media and food labels to disseminate food related information in Lebanon
  77. Liquefaction and chemical composition of walnut shells
  78. Validation of an analytical methodology to determine humic substances using low-volume toxic reagents
  79. Special Issue on the International Conference on Agribusiness and Rural Development – IConARD 2020
  80. Behavioral response of breeder toward development program of Ongole crossbred cattle in Yogyakarta Special Region, Indonesia
  81. Special Issue on the 2nd ICSARD 2020
  82. Perceived attributes driving the adoption of system of rice intensification: The Indonesian farmers’ view
  83. Value-added analysis of Lactobacillus acidophilus cell encapsulation using Eucheuma cottonii by freeze-drying and spray-drying
  84. Investigating the elicited emotion of single-origin chocolate towards sustainable chocolate production in Indonesia
  85. Temperature and duration of vernalization effect on the vegetative growth of garlic (Allium sativum L.) clones in Indonesia
  86. Special Issue on Agriculture, Climate Change, Information Technology, Food and Animal (ACIFAS 2020)
  87. Prediction model for agro-tourism development using adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system method
  88. Special Issue of International Web Conference on Food Choice and Eating Motivation
  89. Can ingredients and information interventions affect the hedonic level and (emo-sensory) perceptions of the milk chocolate and cocoa drink’s consumers?
Heruntergeladen am 20.12.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/opag-2022-0074/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen