Ditylenchus destructor (potato tuber nematode)
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Distribution Table
- Risk of Introduction
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Growth Stages
- List of Symptoms/Signs
- Biology and Ecology
- Natural enemies
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Seedborne Aspects
- Plant Trade
- Detection and Inspection
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.Generate report
IdentityTop of page
Preferred Scientific Name
- Ditylenchus destructor Thorne, 1945
Preferred Common Name
- potato tuber nematode
International Common Names
- English: eelworm, potato; eelworm, potato tuber; potato eelworm; potato rot nematode
- Spanish: anguilulosis de la patata; nematodo de la patata; nematodo de la pudricion de la papa (Mexico)
- French: maladie vermiculaire des pommes de terre
Local Common Names
- Denmark: kartoffelradnematod
- Finland: lahoankeroinen
- Germany: Aelchen, Kartoffelkraetze-; Aelchen, Kraetze-; Aelchen-Kraetze der Kartoffel (Folgeerscheinung); Nematodenfaeule der Kartoffel (Folgeerscheinung)
- Italy: Anguillulosi delle patate
- Netherlands: Destructoraaltje
- Norway: potetratenematode
- Sweden: potatisrötnematod
- DITYDE (Ditylenchus destructor)
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Phylum: Nematoda
- Class: Secernentea
- Order: Tylenchida
- Family: Anguinidae
- Genus: Ditylenchus
- Species: Ditylenchus destructor
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page Thorne (1945) proposed and described D. destructor from potato in Aberdeen, Idaho, USA. Before D. destructor was described in 1945 as a good species, it was regarded for a long time as a strain or race of D. dipsaci. Much of the earlier literature, therefore, provides confused information on the two species, especially in relation to potatoes. D. destructor can easily be differentiated from D. dipsaci in having six incisures in the lateral field (as against four) and a rounded tail terminus (pointed in D. dipsaci).
DescriptionTop of page The morphology of D. destructor is described by Thorne (1945, 1961), Hooper (1973) and Esser and Smart (1977). Wu (1958, 1960) gives more detailed information on the morphology of the reproductive system and oesophageal glands of D. destructor.
Measurements (after Thorne, 1945).
Females: length=0.81-1.4 mm; a=30-35 µm; b=8-10 µm; c=15-20 µm; V=78-83%.
Males: length=0.8-1.3 mm; a=34-40 µm; b=7-8 µm; c=12-16 µm; T=73-80%.
There is considerable morphological variation shown by the adults of this species due to age or feeding on particular hosts. Body slender (a=30-35 µm). Cuticle smooth, marked by faint and fine transverse striae about 1 µm apart; lateral field with six incisures. Cephalic region smooth, low, anteriorly flattened, slightly set off or almost continuous with body contour. Cephalic framework hexa-radiate, moderately developed. Stylet slender, 10-14 µm long, with distinct basal knobs. Median oesophageal bulb fusiform; basal bulb clavate, usually its base overlaps the intestine on the dorsal side for half to one body width. Excretory pore at or just anterior to oesophago-intestinal junction; hemizonid just in front of excretory pore. Tail conoid, slightly arcuate ventrally, with a minutely rounded tip.
Female: vulva a transverse slit, at 78-83% of body length from anterior end. Ovary single, outstretched anteriorly, sometimes reaching the oesophagus; oocytes in double rows in anterior region, then in single file. Spermatheca elongate-oval, often with large sperm arranged in a row. Post-vulval uterine sac about 75% of vulva-anus distance. Tail 3-5 anal body widths long, with a minutely rounded tip.
Male: abundant, similar to female in general appearance. Testis single, outstretched; sperm large-sized, rounded, in 1-2 rows. Spicules large and prominent, ventrally arcuate. Gubernaculum linear. Bursa enveloping about four-fifths of tail.
Juveniles: four juvenile stages, resembling female in general morphology but lacking genital structures; first stage occurring within the egg which is oval, about twice as long as wide.
Anderson and Darling (1964) have given detailed information on reproduction and embryology.
DistributionTop of page
D. destructor is a pest of potatoes mainly in temperate regions: localised areas in North America and many parts of Europe, the mediterranean region and Asia. Pre-1995 records from groundnut and several weeds in South Africa are now considered to be of D. africanus although D. destructor has been validly reported from this country (EPPO, 2014).
Records of D. destructor in New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia (CABI/EPPO, 2001; EPPO, 1996) published in previous versions of the Compendium are erroneous. Recent surveys in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia (e.g., Riley and Kelly, 2002; Walker, 2004; Hay and Pethybridge, 2005; Hall et al., 2007) failed to find any specimens of D. destructor and previous reports in these states were based on erroneous information (Hodda and Nobbs, 2008). D. destructor has been detected in Tasmania in 1961 by Thistlethwayte. This single reference is the last and only known report of the presence of D. destructor in Tasmania.
Records of D. destructor in Guizhou and Yunnan, China (Sun et al., 1994) published in previous versions of the Compendium were included in error and have been removed. Zhao et al. (2010) has since reported D. destructor causing soft rot of Angelica sinensis in Yunnan.
Records of D. destructor in North Carolina and Virginia (CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2009) published in previous versions of the Compendium are now known to be based on erroneous information. There are no published reports of D. destructor in North Carolina and Virginia, and the species has never been detected in these states (North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, personal communication, 2010; Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, personal communication, 2011).
A record of D. destructor in Peru (Jatala et al., 1977) published in previous versions of the Compendium is considered invalid. D. destructor has not been detected or reported in Peru (SENASA, 2012, personal communication).
Distribution TableTop of page
The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Reference||Notes|
|Azerbaijan||Present||Ismailov, 1976; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Bangladesh||Absent, unreliable record||EPPO, 2014|
|China||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|-Anhui||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|-Guangdong||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|-Hainan||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|-Hebei||Present||Ding and Lin, 1982; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|-Henan||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|-Jiangsu||Present||Ding and Lin, 1982; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|-Liaoning||Present||Ding and Lin, 1982; EPPO, 2014|
|-Shandong||Present||Ding and Lin, 1982; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|India||Absent, unreliable record||EPPO, 2014|
|Iran||Present||Kheiri, 1972; EPPO, 2014|
|Japan||Restricted distribution||Nakanishi, 1979; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|-Honshu||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Kazakhstan||Widespread||German, 1972; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Korea, Republic of||Present||Young and Seung, 1995; EPPO, 2014|
|Kyrgyzstan||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Malaysia||Absent, unreliable record||EPPO, 2014|
|Pakistan||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Saudi Arabia||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Tajikistan||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Turkey||Restricted distribution||197*||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Uzbekistan||Present||Adylova and Vasilevskii, 1983; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|South Africa||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Canada||Present, few occurrences||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|-British Columbia||Absent, invalid record||EPPO, 2014|
|-Ontario||Present, few occurrences||EPPO, 2011; IPPC, 2011; Yu et al., 2012; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|-Prince Edward Island||Eradicated||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Mexico||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|USA||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|-Arkansas||Absent, unreliable record||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|-California||Present||Viglierchio, 1978; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|-Hawaii||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|-Idaho||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|-Indiana||Absent, unreliable record||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|-New Jersey||Absent, unreliable record||USDA-APHIS, personal communication, 2009; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|-North Carolina||Absent, invalid record||USDA-APHIS, personal communication, 2010; EPPO, 2014|
|-Oregon||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|-South Carolina||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|-Virginia||Absent, invalid record||USDA-APHIS, personal communication, 2011; EPPO, 2011; EPPO, 2014|
|-Washington||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|-West Virginia||Absent, reported but not confirmed||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|-Wisconsin||Present||1953||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
Central America and Caribbean
|Haiti||Absent, unreliable record||EPPO, 2014|
|Ecuador||Absent, formerly present||AGROCALIDAD, 2012, personal communication; EPPO, 2014|
|Peru||Absent, invalid record||SENASA, 2012, personal communication; Jatala et al., 1977; EPPO, 2014|
|Albania||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Austria||Restricted distribution||****||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Belarus||Restricted distribution||Ivanova, 1971a; Ivanova, 1971b; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Belgium||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Bulgaria||Restricted distribution||196*||Katalan-Gateva and Konstantinova-Milkova, 1975; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Czech Republic||Present, few occurrences||****||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Estonia||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Finland||Absent, intercepted only||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|France||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Germany||Restricted distribution||****||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Greece||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|-Greece (mainland)||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2013|
|Hungary||Restricted distribution||1954||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Ireland||Present, few occurrences||****||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Italy||Absent, unreliable record||EPPO, 2014|
|Latvia||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Lithuania||Eradicated||Efremenko & Burshtein, 1972; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014; IPPC, 2016|
|Luxembourg||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Moldova||Present||Smirnova and Koev, 1976; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Netherlands||Restricted distribution||NPPO of the Netherlands, 2013; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014||Present, in all parts of the area where host crops are grown.|
|Norway||Present, few occurrences||Stoeen, 1977; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Poland||Restricted distribution||****||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Romania||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Russian Federation||Widespread||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|-Central Russia||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|-Northern Russia||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|-Southern Russia||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Slovakia||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Spain||Absent, formerly present||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|-Spain (mainland)||Absent, invalid record||CABI/EPPO, 2013|
|Sweden||Present, few occurrences||****||Andersson, 1971; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Switzerland||Present, few occurrences||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|UK||Present, few occurrences||EPPO, 2014|
|-England and Wales||Present, few occurrences||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|-Scotland||Present, few occurrences||CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Ukraine||Restricted distribution||Kapitonenko, 1972; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Australia||Absent, invalid record||Biosecurity Australia, 2011, personal communication; IPPC, 2008; EPPO, 2014; IPPC, 2015|
|-New South Wales||Absent, invalid record||IPPC, 2008; EPPO, 2014; IPPC, 2015|
|-South Australia||Absent, invalid record||IPPC, 2008; EPPO, 2014; IPPC, 2015|
|-Tasmania||Absent, invalid record||Biosecurity Australia, 2011, personal communication; Thistlethwayte, 1961; IPPC, 2008; EPPO, 2014; IPPC, 2015|
|-Victoria||Absent, invalid record||IPPC, 2008; EPPO, 2014; IPPC, 2015|
|-Western Australia||Absent, invalid record||IPPC, 2008; EPPO, 2014; IPPC, 2015|
|New Zealand||Restricted distribution||1979||Foot and Wood, 1982; CABI/EPPO, 2013; EPPO, 2014|
Risk of IntroductionTop of page D. destructor is presently targeted in regulatory programmes worldwide (O'Bannon and Esser, 1987). D. destructor was considered to be an EPPO A2 quarantine pest (EPPO, 1978) but was deleted from the quarantine list in 1984 because of its minor importance and very wide distribution throughout the EPPO region, in particular in those areas where it would be likely to cause crop damage. D. destructor is of quarantine significance for the APPPC and COSAVE. It is one of the nematodes that are presently targeted in regulatory programmes in Taiwan (Tsay, 1995).
Seed potatoes carry the infection and spread the disease, and hence must be subject to proper phytosanitary regulations
In Wisconsin, USA, the spread of the pest has been stopped through the elimination of infection sources by fumigation, a strict state quarantine limiting movement of infected tubers, and supervision of the disposition of potatoes from infested fields (Darling et al., 1983).
The requirement of the nematode for high relative humidity means it would be unlikely to become a problem in areas with warm, dry soils; it may therefore be of concern to potato production only in the cooler areas, including northern parts of the EPPO region. However, D. africanus (formerly identified as D. destructor), as a groundnut pathogen in South Africa, has adjusted to different (and normally unfavourable) climatic conditions (De Waele and Wilken, 1990; see data sheet on D. africanus).
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page Potato, sweet potato and bulbous iris are the main hosts of D. destructor; occasionally tulips, gladioli and dahlias become important hosts. Root crops sometimes affected include sugar beet, mangolds (Beta vulgaris) and carrots. Clovers (Trifolium spp.), cultivated mushrooms, onion and garlic are also good hosts. Hooper (1973) states that some 70 crops and weeds and a similar number of fungus species have been recorded as hosts (see Goodey et al., 1965 for most records).
In southern Sweden, D. destructor parasitizes potatoes and occurs on the weed species Elytrigia repens [Elymus repens], Artemisia vulgaris, Cirsium arvense, Potentilla anserina and Rumex acetosella, which are a source of infection to potatoes. Trifolium pratense, T. repens and T. hybridum are good hosts of D. destructor; Festuca pratensis and Medicago sativa are less good hosts (Andersson, 1971).
D. destructor was reported for the first time from Norway on potatoes and carrots (Stoeen, 1977), on potatoes in Peru (Jatala et al., 1977), on ponderosa pine in California, USA (Viglierchio, 1978) and on Cimicifuga racemosa (Planer, 1972). It occurs in Poland on potato, carrot, beetroot, onion and other crop plants, on ornamentals (hyacinth, crocus) and on several weeds. Outbreaks of disease caused by this nematode are sporadic, but the actual extent of its distribution in Poland is unknown.
It attacks strawberry in Moldavia (Smirnova and Koev, 1976; Efremenko and Burshtein, 1975); potato in Lithuania (Efremenko and Burshtein, 1972); flowering plants (Ladygina and Volodchenko, 1972) and potatoes (Kapitonenko, 1972) in Ukraine; hops (Humulus lupulus) in Bulgaria (Katalan-Gateva and Konstantinova-Milkova, 1975); potato, onion, lupin and other crops in Belorus (Ivanova, 1971a, b). In Russia, D. destructor was found on 11 of 13 species of weed commonly growing in potato fields in the Moscow region. Solanum nigrum, Taraxacum officinale (20%) and Barbarea vulgaris (16%) were the most heavily infected; Fumaria officinalis and Matricaria inodora [Matricaria perforata] also served as hosts for this nematode (Ivanova, 1973).
In Iran, Kheiri (1972) reported D. destructor to be associated with many crop plants, for example potato, wheat, bean, soyabean, aubergine, tomato, tea, maize, orange and alfalfa. It was found parasitizing sweet potato, potato and Mentha in China (Ding and Lin, 1982) and ginseng in Korea (Young and Seung, 1995). This nematode was recorded for the first time in New Zealand as causing damage to hops in South Island (Foot and Wood, 1982). In Japan 18 plant species, including Brassica chinensis, B. oleracea, Capsicum annuum, Chrysanthemum morifolium [Dendranthema morifolium], Cucumis sativus, Cucurbita moschata and Lycopersicon esculentum, are hosts for D. destructor (Nakanishi, 1979).
Growth StagesTop of page Fruiting stage, Post-harvest, Vegetative growing stage
SymptomsTop of page On potatoes
There are, in general, no obvious symptoms in the aerial parts of the plant, although heavily infested tubers give rise to weak plants which usually die. Early infections can be detected by peeling the tuber, which can reveal small, off-white spots in the otherwise healthy flesh. These later enlarge, darken, are woolly in texture and may be slightly hollow at the centre. If stored in moist conditions a general rot may ensue and spread to other tubers. Infested dahlia tubers develop similar syptoms (Myuge, 1957; Hooper, 1973).
On badly affected tubers there are typically slightly sunken areas with cracked and wrinkled skin which is detached in places from the underlying flesh. The flesh has a dry and mealy appearance, varying in colour from greyish to dark brown or black. This discoloration is largely due to secondary invasion of fungi, bacteria and free-living nematodes (the latter are easily confused with D. destructor). In contrast, the skin of potatoes infested with D. dipsaci is not usually cracked, and the rot darkens towards the inside of the tuber. The symptoms are more obvious in the foliage, which is shortened and malformed. Rotting due to D. destructor in storage increased with rising temperature, but there was no evidence of transfer of infestation from diseased to healthy tubers (Andersson, 1971). It spread from infected to healthy potato plants when spaced at 70x20 cm or less in the sod-podzolic soil in the Ukraine (Polozhenets', 1977).
On Iris and tulips
Infestations usually begin at the base and extend up the fleshy scales, causing grey-to-black lesions; roots may be blackened, and leaves poorly developed with yellow tips.
The following symptoms were originally recorded for D. destructor on groundnut; however, the Ditylenchus attacking groundnut has now been shown to be a different species, named D. africanus (Wendt et al., 1995).
D. destructor was reported to occur in large numbers in the hulls and seeds of groundnut. At 85 days after planting, the nematodes were found 3-5 cell layers deep in the exocarp at the base of groundnut pods, near the point of connection with the peg. The nematodes rapidly invaded the developing pods after fruiting pegs had penetrated the soil; very few were found in roots. The surface of the infection site showed brown, spongy cork cells, and from this site the nematodes invaded the pegs. Hulls of groundnuts showed black discoloration which appeared first along the longitudinal veins. The kernels were shrunken. The infected testae were brown to black and the embryo showed a brown discoloration (Jones and De Waele, 1988). Feeding in the parenchyma of the peg caused the cells to collapse. Empty and collapsed cells were pushed aside, creating channels through which the nematodes moved. From the peg, the nematodes further penetrated the exocarp to feed on the parenchymatous cells surrounding the vascular bundles. They also migrated to the base of the mesocarp through the natural opening at the point of peg attachment (Jones and De Waele, 1990). In the testa, the nematode feeding on the tissues near or within the vascular bundles caused discoloration of vascular strands within the seed coat. It aggregated in large numbers near the vascular bundles in the exocarp; these tissues are thought to facilitate migration of the nematode. The nematode did not invade the cotyledons (Jones and De Waele, 1990).
Thorne (1961), Hooper (1973), MAFF (1974), Esser and Smart (1977), Dement'eva, (1980) and Ambrogioni et al. (1995) give general accounts of D. destructor, including its morphology, geographical distribution, symptoms, pathogenicity, transmission and control.
List of Symptoms/SignsTop of page
|Leaves / abnormal colours|
|Leaves / necrotic areas|
|Roots / soft rot of cortex|
|Vegetative organs / internal rotting or discoloration|
|Vegetative organs / surface cracking|
Biology and EcologyTop of page D. destructor is a migratory endoparasite of roots and underground modified plant parts such as potato tubers, bulbous iris and garlic. The nematodes attack the subterranean and only rarely the aerial parts of plants. They enter potato tubers through the lenticels, and then begin to multiply rapidly and invade the whole tuber. They can continue to live and develop within harvested tubers.
D. destructor attacked carrots at the base of the lateral roots and tissue breakdown occurred in the cortex. The damaged tissue was discoloured. External lesions subsequently appeared which served as infection sites for other pathogens, including Mycocentrospora acerina (Stoeen, 1977). It was found to attack stems, buds and leaves of Cimicifuga racemosa (Planer, 1972) and roots of ginseng in Korea (Young and Seung, 1995). Stem infestations are rare but have also been reported on potato haulm by Goodey (1951) and on Vicia sativa by Duggan and Moore (1962).
Means of movement/dispersal and survival
The nematodes can move only short distances in the soil and have no natural means of long-range movement. The main means of dispersal is with infested potato tubers or other subterranean organs of host plants, for example bulbs and rhizomes (especially of iris). Transport in infested soil is another important means of spread. Irrigation water can also carry the nematodes. Unlike the closely related species D. dipsaci, D. destructor is unable to withstand excessive desiccation, and for this reason is usually important only in cool, moist soils. Unlike D. dipsaci, it does not form 'eelworm wool'. Without a resistant resting stage, the species overwinters in soil as adults or larvae and may even multiply by feeding on alternative weed hosts (for example Mentha arvensis, Sonchus arvensis) and on fungal mycelia. It may also possibly overwinter as eggs. These hatch in the spring and larvae are immediately able to parasitize hosts. Thorne (1961) suggested that D. destructor overwintered in USA field soil as eggs and coiled adults. In Ireland, its survival in soil is helped by the presence of corn mint and unharvested potato tubers (Anon., 1972).
Interactions with other organisms
Rhizoctonia solani infections of potato tubers (var. Janka and Leda) were highest in pots to which the largest number of D. destructor (136 nematodes per 100 g soil) was added. The results confirmed that mixed infections were more harmful to the potatoes than either infection alone (Janowicz and Mazurkiewicz, 1982).
The damage to potato tubers stored in the dark at 6-15°C was greater (49% compared to 27%) when both the dry rot fusaria (Fusarium solani var. coeruleum, F. culmorum and F. oxysporum) and D. destructor were present, than when only the dry rot fungi were present (Janowicz, 1984).
D. destructor can feed on fungi and hence can easily be cultured on many fungi and on plant callus (Darling et al., 1957; Faulkner and Darling, 1961). It is readily established on laboratory cultures of Alternaria tenuis [A. alternata] and A. solani (Foot and Wood, 1982). D. destructor reproduced well on cultures of A. tenuis on potato glucose agar at 26-27°C (Pupavkina, 1971). It was cultured on ginseng root callus, fungal mycelium (F. solani), carrot discs and radish sprouts (Young and Seung, 1995).
Natural enemiesTop of page
|Natural enemy||Type||Life stages||Specificity||References||Biological control in||Biological control on|
Notes on Natural EnemiesTop of page Thirteen nematophagous fungi attract and feed on D. destructor and Aphelenchoides fragariae (Jansson and Nordbring-Hertz, 1980).
In Germany, the bulb mite Rhizoglyphus echinopus was found to feed on D. destructor. It may be of importance in regulating nematode populations under certain conditions (Sturhan and Hampel, 1977).
Seedborne AspectsTop of page Seed potatoes carry the infection and spread the disease. It is essential, therefore, to use clean seed tubers.
Plant TradeTop of page
|Plant parts liable to carry the pest in trade/transport||Pest stages||Borne internally||Borne externally||Visibility of pest or symptoms|
|Bulbs/Tubers/Corms/Rhizomes||adults; eggs; juveniles||Yes|
|Growing medium accompanying plants||adults; eggs; juveniles||Yes||Pest or symptoms not visible to the naked eye but usually visible under light microscope|
|Seedlings/Micropropagated plants||adults; eggs; juveniles||Yes|
|Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches||adults; eggs; juveniles||Yes|
|Plant parts not known to carry the pest in trade/transport|
|Fruits (inc. pods)|
|True seeds (inc. grain)|
ImpactTop of page In general, D. destructor can become important as a pest of potatoes at temperatures of 15-20°C and at relative humidity above 90%. Healthy seed potatoes planted in infested fields in Sweden gave crops damaged by 0.3-94%: severely infested seed tubers gave external symptoms in 41-70% by weight of the new tubers (Andersson, 1971). The degree of infestation of potato tubers by D. destructor on Estonian farms ranged from 2 to 9%. Up to 80-90% of tubers from some fields became infected during storage (Kikas, 1969).
D. destructor was commonly recorded on seed potatoes from the Ural region, Central Asia (Artem'ev, 1976). It is widespread on potatoes in the Central Chernozem zone of the RSFSR and causes considerable losses (Chukantseva, 1983). In Uzbekistan, D. destructor represented 84.7% of the total nematodes found on potato tubers (Adylova and Vasilevskii, 1983). It is also widespread on potatoes in Kazakhstan (German, 1972) and in Azerbaijan (Ismailov, 1976). Severe infestations of potatoes have been reported in the Samarkand, Tashkent and Fergana regions of Uzbekistan (Usmanova, 1972).
Effect on vertebrates
When animals were fed potato tubers infected with D. destructor or were injected with extracts from such tubers, the intensity of antibody production was reduced by half or more, and the phagocytic activity of leukocytes and the cholesterol content of the blood were also reduced (Savchuk and Savchuk, 1972).
Detection and InspectionTop of page
Prior to planting, soil can be sampled using a standard extraction procedure for nematodes of this size (Hooper, 1986). Microscopic examination of the nematode is necessary for correct identification of the species.
It is difficult to detect the presence of D. destructor on potatoes from external tuber appearance alone. Sample tubers should be cut or peeled to look for the characteristic whitish pockets in which most of the nematodes are found. However, on badly affected potato tubers there are typically slightly sunken areas with cracked and wrinkled skin which is detached in places from the underlying flesh (see Symptoms). The flesh has a dry and mealy appearance, varying in colour from greyish to dark brown or black. External symptoms on iris and tulip include grey-to-black lesions; heavily infested bulbs often have blackened roots and poorly developed, yellow-tipped leaves.
A diagnostic protocol for Ditylenchus destructor is described in EPPO (2008).
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page The Ditylenchus species that attacks groundnut in South Africa has been referred to as D. destructor in the literature, but is now considered a different species, Ditylenchus africanus (Wendt et al., 1995). This species has a high reproductive potential as it completes its life cycle in 6-7 days at 28°C (De Waele et al., 1990). In South Africa, it was found that the optimum temperature for egg hatch was 28°C (De Waele and Wilken, 1990), but this was considered to be an adaptation of the species to different climatic conditions, and it is assumed that temperature requirements are much lower in Europe. Eggs hatch at 28°C, 2 days after egg laying, with an average interval of 4.4 days between egg laying and hatch, and development from egg to adult takes between 6 and 7 days.
D. africanus [=D. destructor of earlier workers] can be confused with another endoparasite of groundnut pods and seeds, Aphelenchoides arachidis, which parasitizes the testa of groundnut (Bos, 1977) and is an important seedborne pest of groundnut (Bridge et al., 1977; Bridge and Hunt, 1985). The histopathology of both these parasites on groundnut is similar (Jones and De Waele, 1990).
Prevention and ControlTop of page
Due to the variable regulations around (de)registration of pesticides, your national list of registered pesticides or relevant authority should be consulted to determine which products are legally allowed for use in your country when considering chemical control. Pesticides should always be used in a lawful manner, consistent with the product's label.
Treatment of Potato Tubers
D. destructor was first found on potatoes in Wisconsin, USA in 1953. Spread of the pest has been stopped through the elimination of infection sources by fumigation and the application of strict state quarantine limiting movement of infected tubers (Darling et al., 1983).
Treatment with soil-applied nematicides can provide a high level of control but can be expensive. Granulated nematicides were reported to be effective against the nematode. Heterophos solutions caused a decrease in the levels of infestation of the new crop, stimulated growth and development of the plant and brought about yield increases of 10-40 centners [1000-4000 kg]/ha in the central Chernozem zone of the RSFSR (Chukantseva, 1983). Heterophos granules applied before planting of D. destructor-infested seed potatoes reduced infestation to 3.8 and 2.7% compared to 25% in untreated controls, and had a positive effect on the number of stems and their height (Vorona, 1984).
Fostil used for soaking potatoes before planting was effective against D. destructor in Russia. Carbathion [metam] was also effective, but phytotoxic (Chukantseva, 1976). Sorting out of 'clean' seed potatoes, or treatment with dimethoate and carbathion [metam], were both effective against D. destructor in Azerbaijan; metam somewhat decreased germination (Ismailov, 1976).
Dipping potato tubers in thionazin (superseded) controlled D. destructor and secured a yield of nematode-free tubers (Wilski, 1972). Ivanova and Bogdan (1983) in Belorussia considered the immersion of potato planting material into an aqueous solution of carbathion [metam] as an effective control method. Treatment of soil with metam reduced infestation from 27.5 to 4% (Adylova and Vasilevskii, 1983); however Chukantseva (1983) found that the treatment with carbathion [metam] was phytotoxic and could not be recommended in the central Chernozem zone of the RSFSR region.
Treatment of Bulbs
Diazinon decreased D. destructor populations by 37-48% (Rasinya and Rasina, 1972).
Infestations in iris bulbs can be controlled by immersion in hot water containing 0.5% formaldehyde, at 43.5°C for 3 h. The bulbs may be soaked for 2.5 h in a solution of thionazin (superseded) plus formaldehyde. Both methods cause some damage to bulbs. In iris (cv. Wedgewood) bulbs infested with D. destructor, effective control resulted from hot-water treatment for 3 h at 43.6°C after warm storage for 7 days at 30°C (ISEHS, 1974). Pre-treatment of iris bulbs for 3-4 weeks at 30°C gave protection against D. destructor (Bulb Research Centre, 1973). With adequate pre-warming of the bulbs, hot-water treatment to control D. destructor is safe and effective and preferable to the use of a toxic chemical. Iris bulbs may be stored at 30°C for 1-2 weeks and then soaked for 3 h in water at 44.4°C to which formalin [formaldehyde] and a non-ionic wetter have been added (MAFF, 1977). Fumigation under vacuum with hydrogen cyanide for 1 h at above 10°C gives good control of the nematode in bulbs, rhizomes and tubers, and especially asparagus roots and strawberry plants. In Japan, infestation in iris bulbs can be controlled by immersion in water containing formaldehyde at 43.5°C for 2-3 h, but some varieties may be injured during this treatment. In garlic bulbs, nematodes were controlled by drying at 34-36°C for 12-17 days (Fujimura et al., 1989). In Korea, D. destructor can be effectively controlled by flooding infested fields (Young and Seung, 1995).
Citrus medica skin extract killed 93.3% (71% after correction for controls) of the adult D. destructor after 72 h, and bacterial toxin of Erwinia nimmipressuralis [Enterobacter nimmipressuralis] strain 437 from beech killed 84.4% (68.8% after correction for controls) of D. destructor in 48 h (Abdel'-Khamed et al., 1977).
Preplanting treatments of potatoes by ultraviolet irradiation (60 times per month, each exposure for 10 min) decreased nematode infection more than 10 times (Bumbu, 1968).
Although Seinhorst (1949), Guskova (1966) and Olefir (1969) found some potato varieties showing resistance, Goodey (1956) and Moore (1971) found no marked resistance in the many commercial potato varies they tested.
In Kazakhstan, all 36 potato varieties tested were susceptible to D. destructor to varying degrees (German, 1970). In Belorussia, most of the varieties of potato tested were susceptible to infestation by D. destructor, but a few foreign varieties (such as Kardia, Patroness and Scutella) were fully resistant (Ivanova, 1983).
In Sweden, of 19 potato varieties studied, resistance was shown by Aquila and Elsa, and King Edward was less sensitive than Bintje (Andersson, 1971). All common commercial varieties of potato in Ireland are susceptible (Bulb Research Centre, 1973). In Ireland, tubers of Golden Wonder potato cultivar showed significantly more external symptoms (skin cracking) than King Edward, but the numbers of King Edward tubers with internal symptoms (sub-cutaneous 'pockets') were greater in 2 of the 3 years, the difference being significant in the third (Moore, 1978).
In Poland, among 186 potato cultivars tested, those found to be very slightly susceptible were Belg, Grom, Pimpernel, Robijn and Rode Star (normally considered resistant) - following cultivation experiments of several years, only 5% of the tubers became infected with tuber surface damage of up to 10%; and those found to be slightly susceptible were Alisma, Altgold, Arnika, Aura, Gracilia, Iduna, Leo, Murmanskij, Scaldia, Stelzner, Topaz and Ultimus - up to 10% surface damage in 10% of tubers. Among the wild potato species, three forms of Solanum commersonii, two of Solanum pinnatisectum and one each of a further seven species were not infected (Stefan, 1980).
Of 508 Ipomoea batatas varieties tested in a field infested with D. destructor in Shandong province of China, 68 varieties were found to have high levels of resistance (Wang et al., 1995). Of 143 accessions of sweet potato germplasm collected in the Yunnan and Guizhou provinces of China, 40 were resistant to D. destructor (Sun et al., 1994).
Control by crop rotation is difficult, as D. destructor is polyphagous. However, alternative non-host crops such as sugar beet can be used to check the nematode populations (Winslow, 1978). It is important to control weeds carefully because of the nematode's polyphagous habit. Populations increase under crops such as clovers and lucerne (Henderson, 1958) and persist in susceptible field weeds (Mentha arvensis, Sonchus arvensis). Crop rotation experiments in Lithuania showed that after monoculture of host plants such as buckwheat, carrot and lupins for 3 years in soil heavily infected with D. destructor, a crop of uninfected potatoes was obtained in the fourth year (Efremenko and Burshtein, 1975). Measures such as careful sorting of seed potatoes and early harvesting of potatoes, the use of rice and lucerne as preceding crops, or winter sowing of rye followed by late spring planting of potatoes, resulted in a considerable reduction of infestation (Adylova and Vasilevskii, 1983). The use of nematode-free seed potatoes is an essential component of any control programme.
In Central Asia, amide forms of nitrogenous fertilizers slightly reduced the prevalence of infection of seed potatoes by D. destructor, whereas ammonium-nitrate fertilizers favoured nematode multiplication (Artem'ev, 1976).
Application of fertilizers on the surface areas of infested potato tubers, at levels of nitrogen 360, phosphorus 240 and potassium 360 over 3 years, showed the lowest loss of tubers during storage. Untreated control tubers had the highest weight losses and the highest respiration rates (Glez, 1973). Solutions of nitrogen, phosphorus and potash fertilizers had an inhibiting and nematicidal effect on adults, larvae and eggs of D. destructor. Ammonium hydroxide, ammonium nitrate, ammonium sulphate and potassium chloride showed greatest activity; superphosphate was less active. Larvae were the most susceptible and eggs the most resistant to inhibition (Sepselev et al., 1973).
ReferencesTop of page
Adylova NA; Vasilevskii VN, 1983. The potato stem nematode at the collective farm "Sokh" in the Fergana valley and its control. (Materialy simpoziuma, Voronezh, 27-29 Sentyabrya 1983 g.). Voronezh, USSR: Vserossiiskii NII Zashchity Rastenii, 59-61.
Anderson RV; Darling HM, 1964. Embryology and reproduction of Ditylenchus destructor Thorne, with emphasis on gonad development. Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of Washington, 31:240-256.
Andersson S, 1971. The Potato Rot Nematode, Ditylenchus destructor Thorne, as a Parasite in Potatoes. Dissertation from the Agricultural College of Uppsala, Sweden.
Anon., 1972. Annual Report 1971-72. Dublin, Ireland: An Foras Taluntais.
APPPC, 1987. Insect pests of economic significance affecting major crops of the countries in Asia and the Pacific region. Technical Document No. 135. Bangkok, Thailand: Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific region (RAPA).
Artem'ev YuM, 1976. Ditylenchus destructor on potatoes in the Ural region and the effect of nitrogenous fertilizers on D. destructor infection of potatoes. Sbornik Nauchnykh Trudov Saratovskogo Sel'skokhozyaistvennogo Instituta, No. 54:30-37
Bridge J; Bos WS; Page LJ; McDonald D, 1977. The biology and possible importance of Aphelenchoides arachidis, a seed-borne endoparasitic nematode of groundnuts from northern Nigeria. Nematologica, 23(2):253-259
Britain; Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. , 1974. Potato tuber eelworm. Advisory Leaflet, Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, No. 372:5pp.
Britain; Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. , 1977. Potato tuber eelworm. Advisory Leaflet, Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food., No. 372 (Revised):5 pp
Bumbu IV, 1968. The responsibility of increasing the resistance of potato to Ditylenchus infection. In: Parasites of Animals and plants. Moscow: "Nauka", No. 4, 215-219.
Chukantseva NK, 1976. Some results of nematicide trials on the control of Ditylenchus destructor on potato. VIII Vsesoyuznoe soveshchanie no nematodnym boleznyam sel'skokhozyaistvennykh kul'tur. Tezisy dokladov i soobshchenii. Izdatel'stvo "Shtiintsa". Kishinev USSR, 89
Chukantseva NK, 1983. Some aspects of the study of the potato stem nematode in the Central Chernozem zone of the RSFSR. (Materialy simpoziuma, Voronezh, 27-29 Sentyabrya 1983 g.). Voronezh, USSR: Vserossiiskii NII Zashchity Rastenii, 11-27.
Darling HM, 1959. Control of the potato rot nematode in Wisconsin. Plant Disease Reporter, 43(2):239-242.
Darling HM; Faulkner LR; Wallendal P, 1957. Culturing the potato rot nematode. Phytopathology, 47:7.
De Waele D; Jones BL; Bolton C; Van den Berg E, 1989. Ditylenchus destructor in hulls and seeds of peanut. Journal of Nematology, 21:10-15.
De Waele D; Jordaan EM; Basson S, 1990. Host status of seven weed species and their effects on Ditylenchus destructor infestation on peanut. Journal of Nematology, 22:292-296.
Duggan JJ; Moore JF, 1962. Host-range of tuber rot eelworm (Ditylenchus destructor). Irish Journal of Agricultural Research, 1:109-114.
Efremenko VP; Burshtein KhS, 1972. Potato tuber nematode and its control in the Lithuanian SSR. Nematodnye bolezni sel'skokhozyaistvennykh kul'tur i mery bor'by s nimi. Tezisy soveshchaniya. Moskva, dekabr' 1972. VASHNIL. Moscow USSR, 97-99
Efremenko VP; Burshtein KhS, 1975. Penetration routes of Ditylenchus destructor Thorne, 1945, into potatoes and agro-technical control of this infection. Byulleten' Vsesoyuznogo Instituta Gel'mintologii im. K.I. Skryabina, No. 15:47-51
EPPO, 1978. Data sheets on quarantine organisms No. 123, Ditylenchus destructor. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 8 (2).
EPPO, 2011. EPPO Reporting Service. EPPO Reporting Service. Paris, France: EPPO. http://archives.eppo.org/EPPOReporting/Reporting_Archives.htm
EPPO, 2014. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm
Esser RP; Smart GCJr, 1977. Potato rot nematode Ditylenchus destructor Thorne, 1945. Nematology Circular, Division of Plant Industry, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service, No. 28:2 pp.
Faulkner LR; Darling HM, 1961. Pathological history, hosts, and culture of the potato rot nematode. Phytopathology, 51:778-786.
Fujimura T; Ichita T; Kimura T, 1989. Occurrence of potato-rot nematode, Ditylenchus destructor Thorne, in garlic and control. 1. Evaluation of treatments applied before planting and after harvest for control. Japanese Journal of Nematology, 18:22-29.
German EV, 1970. Study of varietal resistance of potato to the stem nematode. Materialy II nauchnoi konferentsii molodykh spetsialistov i aspirantov. (Tezisy dokladov). Kazakhskii Nauchno-Issledovatel'skii Institut Zashchity Rastenii. Alma-Ata USSR, 50-51
Goodey JB, 1951. The potato tuber nematode, Ditylenchus destructor Thorne, 1945; the cause of eelworm disease in bulbous iris. Annals of Applied Biology, 38(1):79-90.
Goodey JB, 1952. The influence of the host on the dimensions of the plant parasitic nematode Ditylenchus destructor. Annals of Applied Biology, 39:1468-474.
Goodey JB, 1956. The susceptibility of potato varieties to infestation by the eelworms Ditylenchus destructor and D. dipsaci. Annals of Applied Biology, 44:16-24.
Guskova LA, 1966. [Distribution, pathogenicity and control of nematode diseases of potato in the Byelorussian SSR.] 'L'Kartofel', 122-126.
Hay FS; Pethybridge SJ, 2005. Nematodes associated with carrot production in Tasmania, Australia, and the effect of Pratylenchus crenatus on yield and quality of Kuroda-type carrot. Plant Disease, 89(11):1175-1180. HTTP://www.apsnet.org
Henderson VE, 1958. Relationship between some clovers and Ditylenchus destructor Thorne, 1945. Nature, London, 181:59-60.
Hodda M; Nobbs J, 2008. A review of current knowledge on particular taxonomic features of the Australasian nematode fauna, with special emphasis on plant feeders. Australasian Plant Pathology, 37(3):308-317. http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/39/paper/AP08024.htm
Hooper DJ, 1973. Ditylenchus destructor. C.I.H. Descriptions of Plant-parasitic Nematodes, Set 2(No. 21):3 pp.
Hooper DJ, 1986. Extraction of free-living stages from soil. In: Southey JF, ed. Laboratory Methods for work with Plant and Soil Nematodes. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Reference Book No. 402. London, UK: HMSO, 5-30.
IPPC, 2011. Potato rot nematode. IPPC Official Pest Report, No. CAN-10/1. Rome, Italy: FAO. https://www.ippc.int/
IPPC, 2015. Absence of Ditylenchus destructor in Australia. IPPC Official Pest Report, No. AUS-11/2. Rome, Italy: FAO. https://www.ippc.int/
IPPC, 2016. Information on Pest Status in the Republic of Lithuania in 2015. IPPC Official Pest Report, No. LTU-01/2. Rome, Italy: FAO. https://www.ippc.int/
ISEHS, 1974. Twentieth Annual Report 1974. Camborne, UK: Rosewarne, Ellbridge and Isles of Scilly Experimental Horticulture Stations. Plant Nematology, 44-49.
Ismailov GM, 1976. Ditylenchus destructor on potato and its control in the Azerbaidzhan SSR. VIII Vsesoyuznoe soveshchanie no nematodnym boleznyam sel'skokhozyaistvennykh kul'tur. Tezisy dokladov i soobshchenii. Izdatel'stvo "Shtiintsa". Kishinev USSR, 76
Ivanova BP, 1971. D. destructor in the soil in Byelorussia. Byulleten' Vsesoyuznogo Instituta Gel'mintologii im. K. I. Skryabina, 6:23-26.
Ivanova BP, 1971. The role of selection in disinfection of potato from Ditylenchus destructor. Byulleten' Vsesoyuznogo Instituta Gel'mintologii im. K.I. Skryabina, 6:27-31.
Ivanova BP, 1983. The Potato Stem Nematode in Belorussia. Voronezh, USSR: Vserossiiskii NII Zashchity Rastenii, 27-33.
Ivanova BP; Bogdan VA, 1983. Distribution of Ditylenchus destructor on zonal potato varieties. Minsk, USSR: Zashchita Rastenii, 8:40-44.
Jatala P; Arens ML; Pretel L, 1977. The first record of the potato-root nematode Ditylenchus destructor in Peru. Nematropica, 7(2):11
Jones BL; De Waele D, 1988. First report of Ditylenchus destructor in pods and seeds of peanut. Plant Disease, 72:453.
Kapitonenko S, 1972. Agricultural technology in the control of the potato stem nematode (Ditylenchus destructor). Problemy parazitologii. Trudy VII Nauchnoi Konferentsii Parazitologov USSR. Part 1. Izdatel'stvo "Naukova Dumka". Kiev, USSR, 333-335
Katalan-Gateva Sh; Konstantinova-Milkova M, 1975. Two species of parasitic nematodes on hop in Bulgaria. 1. Godishnik na Sofiiskiya Universitet, Biologicheskie Fakultet, year 1973/74-1974/75, Kniga 1, Zoologiya, 68:49-56
Ladygina NM; Volodchenko ZG, 1972. Nematode Fauna of Flower Crops in the Town of Khar'kov (Ukraine). Kiev, USSR: Izdatel'stvo "Naukova Dumka".
Maggenti AR; Hart WH, 1975. Carbamate and phosphate nematicidal granules, drenches and dips for the control of Ditylenchus destructor on bulbous iris, variety Wedgewood. Plant Disease Reporter, 59(3):233-235
Moore JF, 1971. Potato varieties susceptible to Ditylenchus destructor, the potato tuber nematode. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research, 10:239-240.
Myuge SG, 1957. On the trophic characteristics of the potato stem nematode. Izvestiya Akademii Nauk SSSR (ser. biol.), Year 1957, No. 3:357-359.
Nagva Abdel' Khamed; Shapoval NM, 1977. Nematicidal properties of some phytoncides (plant extracts). Nauchnye Trudy Ukrainskoi Sel'skokhozyaistvennoi Akademii (Zashchita rastenii ot vreditelei i boleznei), No.200:46-48
O'Bannon JH; Esser RP, 1987. Regulatory perspectives in Nematology, pp. 38-46. In: Veech JA, Dickson DW, eds. Vistas in Nematology. Hyattsville, USA: Society of Nematologists.
Olefir VV, 1969. [Resistance to Ditylenchus destructor of some potatoes from a collection from the Ustimov Research Station]. Problemy Parazit., Part II, 320-322.
Planer FR, 1972. Above ground stem infection caused by Ditylenchus destructor. Nematologica, 18:417.
Pupavkina GM, 1971. Increase of Ditylenchus destructor on cultures of fungi. Byulleten' Vsesoyuznogo Instituta Gel'mintologii im. K. I. Skryabina, 6:73-75.
Rasinya BP, 1972. Results of Basudin and Zinophos treatments in controlling nematodes of the potato. Kratkie doklady po voprosam zashchity rastenii. (VIII Pribaltiiskaya konferentsiya po zashchite rastenii. Part II). Litovskii Nauchno-Issledovatel'skii Institut Zemledeliya. Kaunas USSR, 92-94
Savchuk NA; Savchuk OE, 1972. The effect of damage to agricultural produce by plant nematodes on the physiological condition of animals. Nematodnye bolezni sel'skokhozyaistvennykh kul'tur i mery bor'by s nimi. Tezisy soveshchaniya. Moskva, dekabr' 1972. VASHNIL. Moscow USSR, 31
Seinhorst JW, 1949. Stengelaaltjes enknollenaaltjes bij aardappelen. Landbouwk. Tijdschr., 61:638-641.
Smirnova NS; Koev GV, 1976. Some control techniques for Ditylenchus destructor on strawberry seed beds in the Moldavian SSR. VIII Vsesoyuznoe soveshchanie no nematodnym boleznyam sel'skokhozyaistvennykh kul'tur. Tezisy dokladov i soobshchenii. Izdatel'stvo "Shtiintsa". Kishinev USSR, 86-87
Thistlethwayte B, 1961. ===. Australian Plant Disease Recorder, 13(2).
Thorne G, 1945. Ditylenchus destructor, n.sp., the potato rot nematode, and Ditylenchus dipsaci (Kühn, 1857) Filipjev, 1936, the teasel nematode (Nematoda: Tylenchidae). Proceedings Helminthological Society of Washington, 12:27-34.
Thorne G, 1961. Principles of Nematology. London, UK: McGraw Hill.
Tsay TT, 1995. Quarantine of plant-parasitic nematodes. Plant Pathology Bulletin, 4(2):43-59.
Usmanova AZ, 1972. Ditylenchus destructor, a serious parasite of potatoes. Gel'minty pishchevykh produktov. Tezisy dokladov mezhrespublikanskoi nauchnoi konferentsii, 22-25 Dekabrya 1972 goda. Samarkandskii Kooperativnyi Institut im. V.V. Kuibysheva. Samarkand USSR, 69-70
Van der Walt; De Waele D, 1989. Mass culture of the potato rot nematode Ditylenchus destructor on groundnut callus tissue. Phytophylactica, 21:79-80.
Viglierchio DR, 1978. Stylet-bearing nemas and growth of ponderosa pine seedlings. Forest Science, 24:222-227.
Vorona VF, 1984. Trials with heterophos against the potato stem nematode. Byulleten' Vsessoyuznogo Instituta Gel'mintologii im. K.L. Skryabina, 34: 69-70.
Waele Dde; Walt PCWvan der; Wilken R; Basson S; Jordaan EM, 1990. In vitro embryo explant cultures of peanut to evaluate resistance to Ditylenchus destructor. Journal of Nematology, 22(3):321-326; 22 ref.
Wendt KR; Swart A; Vrain TC; Webster JM, 1995. Ditylenchus africanus sp. n. from South Africa; a morphological and molecular characterization. Fundamental and Applied Nematology, 18(3):241-250; 12 ref.
Wilski A, 1972. The control of potato rot eelworm, Ditylenchus destructor Thorne, in potato tubers by dipping in Nemafos. Biuletyn Instytutu Ochrony Roslin, 54:191-197.
Winslow RD, 1978. An overview of the important nematode pests of potato. International Potato Center. Report of the 2nd planning conference on the developments in the control of nematode pests of potatoes, Lima, Peru, 13-17 November 1978. Lima, Peru: CIP, 16-30.
Wu LY, 1958. Morphology of Ditylenchus destructor Thorne, 1945 (Nematoda: Tylenchidae) from a pure culture, with special reference to reproductive systems and esophageal glands. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 36:569-576.
Wu LY, 1960. Further observations on the morphology of Ditylenchus destructor Thorne, 1945 (Nematoda: Tylenchidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 38:47-49.
Young HK; Seung HO, 1995. In vitro culture and factors affecting population changes of Ditylenchus destructor of ginseng. Korean Journal of Plant Pathology, 11:39-46.
Yu Q; Zaida MA; Hughes B; Celetti M, 2012. Discovery of potato rot nematode, Ditylenchus destructor, infesting garlic in Ontario, Canada. Plant Disease, 96(2):297. http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/loi/pdis
Distribution MapsTop of page
Unsupported Web Browser:
One or more of the features that are needed to show you the maps functionality are not available in the web browser that you are using.
Please consider upgrading your browser to the latest version or installing a new browser.
More information about modern web browsers can be found at http://browsehappy.com/