Heterodera glycines (soybean cyst nematode)
- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Distribution Table
- Risk of Introduction
- Habitat List
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
- Growth Stages
- List of Symptoms/Signs
- Biology and Ecology
- Natural enemies
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Pathway Causes
- Pathway Vectors
- Plant Trade
- Impact Summary
- Risk and Impact Factors
- Uses List
- 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
PicturesTop of page
IdentityTop of page
Preferred Scientific Name
- Heterodera glycines Ichinohe, 1952
Preferred Common Name
- soybean cyst nematode
International Common Names
- English: soyabean cyst nematode
- Spanish: heterodera de la soja; nematodo de la soya
- French: anguillule à kyste du soja; nématode de la fève soya; nématode du soja
Local Common Names
- Germany: Aelchen, Sojabohnenzysten-; Nematode, Sojabohnenzysten-
- Italy: anguillula de la soia
- Japan: daizu-iwo-byo; daizu-sisuto-sentyu; tsukiyobo
- HETDGL (Heterodera glycines)
Summary of InvasivenessTop of page
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Phylum: Nematoda
- Class: Secernentea
- Order: Tylenchida
- Family: Heteroderidae
- Genus: Heterodera
- Species: Heterodera glycines
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page
Ichinohe (1952) first formally described the species from soyabean, Hokkaido, Japan. In the original description a holotype was not designated, but Ichinohe (1961) rectified this when he selected one of the syntypes. Previous to Ichinohe's description, the nematode had been known for many years, although under the name of Heterodera schachtii. There are no synonyms of this species and it has not been synonymized with any other.
DescriptionTop of page Dimensions (after Ichinohe, 1952, 1955; Hirschmann, 1956; Burrows and Stone, 1985).
Cysts: Japanese population: L = 700±60 µm; maximum width = 490±54 µm; length/width = 1.43 (1.20-1.61). USA population: L = 340-920 µm; length/width = 1.19-2.05; vulval slit = 49.7 (43-56) µm; fenestral length = 53.7 (37-65) µm; fenestral width = 40.5 (33-48) µm.
Second stage juveniles: Japanese population: L = 471 (437-504 ) µm; width = 18.3 (18.0-18.5); stylet = 23.1 µm; tail length = 45.0 (42-47) µm. USA population: L = 440 (375-490) µm; stylet length = 23.0 (22.0-24.0) µm; tail length = 50.4 (42.0-59.4) µm; length hyaline tail terminus = 26.6 (20.0-33.0) µm.
Description (after Burrows and Stone, 1985).
Female: Morphology typical of the genus. Body swollen, lemon-shaped with projecting neck containing the oesophagus and part of the oesophageal glands. Body without annulation or lateral incisures, but covered with reticulate ridges. Females white on emergence from the root cortex, turning pale yellow as eggs develop. Gelatinous matrix or egg sac present containing up to 200 eggs. Sub-crystalline layer prominent. Head skeleton hexaradiate, stylet slender with posteriorly projecting knobs. Median bulb large and subspherical. Vulva and anus carried on an obtuse cone-shaped projection opposite the neck. Vulva a transverse slit on the vulval cone terminus, surrounded dorsally and ventrally by thin walled crescent-shaped areas, the semifenestrae. On death, the female body wall tans to form a brown, tough walled cyst.
Cyst: Lemon shaped with protruding neck and vulval cone. Outer cyst wall with a rugose pattern of zigzag lines. Ambifenestrate. Vulval region may be intact on younger cysts, but in older specimens the thin walled cuticle of the terminal region is lost leaving an open fenestra crossed by the vulval bridge bearing the vulval slit and dividing the fenestra into two semifenestrae. Bullae prominent, elongate, at or just below the level of the well-developed underbridge.
Male: Vermiform with short, bluntly rounded tail region. Cuticle regularly annulated. Lateral field with four incisures. Head offset with 4-5 annules and strong head skeleton. Stylet robust with knobs laterally to anteriorly projecting. Dorsal oesophageal gland opening 4 µm posterior to stylet base. Excretory pore funnel shaped and 14.5 µm from head. Dorsal oesophageal gland lobe overlapping intestine ventrally. Spicules strongly developed; gubernaculum present.
Second stage juvenile: Vermiform with four incisures in the lateral field, the incisures reducing to three anteriorly and posteriorly. Head offset with 3 or 4 annules. Labial disc dumb-bell shaped. Stylet robust with anteriorly directed knobs. Anterior and posterior cephalids located 2nd to 3rd and 7th to 9th annules respectively. Tail tapering uniformly to a finely rounded terminus; hyaline portion about 50% of tail length.
DistributionTop of page
H. glycines probably evolved either in China or Japan and from there has been spread to the New World. It is now widely distributed in the USA, China and Japan, particularly in those areas where soyabean is grown on a commercial scale. H. glycines is still spreading into new areas with recent records from South America, for example. The nematode appears to be widespread in Brazil. Liu et al. (1997) provided a review of the history of the nematode in China. H. glycines has recently been reported from Italy (Manachini, 2000).
A record for Arizona, USA (CABI/EPPO, 2000) cited in previous editions of the Compendium was erroneous and has now been removed.
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.Last updated: 09 Jun 2020
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Reference||Notes|
|Egypt||Absent, Unconfirmed presence record(s)||EPPO (2020); DIAB (1968); CABI and EPPO (2011)|
|China||Present, Localized||Introduced||1938||Nakata and Asuyana (1938); Liu XongHong et al. (1997); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Anhui||Present||Liu XongHong et al. (1997); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Gansu||Present||Peng et al. (2016); EPPO (2020)|
|-Hebei||Present||CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Heilongjiang||Present||Liu XongHong et al. (1997); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Henan||Present||Liu XongHong et al. (1997); CABI and EPPO (2011); Shi and Zheng (2013); EPPO (2020)|
|-Hubei||Present||Liu XongHong et al. (1997); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Inner Mongolia||Present||CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Jiangsu||Present||Liu XongHong et al. (1997); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Jilin||Present||Liu XongHong et al. (1997); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Liaoning||Present||Liu XongHong et al. (1997); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Ningxia||Present||Peng et al. (2016); EPPO (2020)|
|-Shaanxi||Present||CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Shandong||Present||Liu XongHong et al. (1997); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Shanxi||Present||Liu XongHong et al. (1997); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Zhejiang||Present||CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|India||Present, Localized||CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Madhya Pradesh||Present||CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|Indonesia||Present, Localized||Nishizawa (1984); Melton et al. (1985); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Java||Present||Nishizawa (1984); Melton et al. (1985); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|Iran||Present||Maafi et al. (1999); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|Japan||Present, Localized||Introduced||1881||Ichinohe (1952); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Hokkaido||Present||Ichinohe (1952); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Honshu||Present||Sato and Tsuruta (1984); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Kyushu||Present||Nakamura et al. (1982); Iwahori et al. (2010); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|Mongolia||Present||Liu XongHong et al. (1997); CABI and EPPO (2011)|
|North Korea||Present||CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|South Korea||Present||Yokoo (1936); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|Taiwan||Absent, Unconfirmed presence record(s)||Hung (1958); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|Italy||Present, Few occurrences||CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|Russia||Present, Localized||Melton et al. (1985); Kazachenko (1993); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Russian Far East||Present||Kazachenko (1993); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|United Kingdom||Absent, Confirmed absent by survey||EPPO (2020); CABI and EPPO (2011)|
|Canada||Present, Localized||Noel (1992); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Manitoba||Present, Few occurrences||EPPO (2020)|
|-Ontario||Present||Noel (1992); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Quebec||Present||Mimee et al. (2014); EPPO (2020)|
|Puerto Rico||Present, Few occurrences||Introduced||1998||Smith and Chavarría-Carvajal (1999); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|United States||Present, Localized||WINSTEAD et al. (1955); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Alabama||Present||Riggs (1977); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Arizona||Absent, Invalid presence record(s)||CABI and EPPO (2011)|
|-Arkansas||Present||CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Connecticut||Present||CABI and EPPO (2011)|
|-Delaware||Present||Mulrooney (1989); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Florida||Present||Riggs (1977); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Georgia||Present||Motsinger et al. (1976); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Illinois||Present||Riggs (1977); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Indiana||Present||Riggs (1977); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Iowa||Present||Noel (1992); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Kansas||Present||Sim and Todd (1986); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Kentucky||Present||CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Louisiana||Present||Riggs (1977); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Maryland||Present||CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020); CABI (Undated)|
|-Michigan||Present||Warner et al. (1994); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Minnesota||Present||CABI and EPPO (2011); Yan et al. (2017); EPPO (2020); CABI (Undated)|
|-Mississippi||Present||CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Missouri||Present||Hegge (1957); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Nebraska||Present||Powers and Wysong (1987); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-New Jersey||Present||EPPO (2020)|
|-New York||Present||Wang et al. (2017); EPPO (2020)|
|-North Carolina||Present||WINSTEAD et al. (1955); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-North Dakota||Present||CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Ohio||Present||Noel (1992); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Oklahoma||Present||Riggs (1977); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-South Carolina||Present||Riggs (1977); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-South Dakota||Present||Smolik et al. (1996); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Tennessee||Present||Epps (1956); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Texas||Present||CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Virginia||Present||CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020); CABI (Undated)|
|-Wisconsin||Present||Noel (1992); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|Argentina||Present||Wrather et al. (1997); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020); CABI (Undated)|
|Brazil||Present, Localized||Introduced||1991||Lordello et al. (1992); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Bahia||Present||CABI and EPPO (2011)|
|-Goias||Present||Mendes and Dickson (1993); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Maranhao||Present||Cunha et al. (2008); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Mato Grosso||Present||Mendes and Dickson (1993); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Mato Grosso do Sul||Present||Mendes and Dickson (1993); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Minas Gerais||Present||Mendes and Dickson (1993); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Parana||Present||Wain and Silva (1998); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Rio Grande do Sul||Present||Wain and Silva (1998); CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Sao Paulo||Present||CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|-Tocantins||Present||CABI and EPPO (2011)|
|Chile||Absent, Invalid presence record(s)||EPPO (2020)|
|Colombia||Present||CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020); CABI (Undated)|
|Ecuador||Present, Few occurrences||CABI and EPPO (2011); EPPO (2020)|
|Paraguay||Present, Localized||CABI and EPPO (2011); Centurión et al. (2004); EPPO (2020)|
Risk of IntroductionTop of page
The nematode presents a threat to all regions of the world where soyabeans are grown and steps should be taken to prevent introduction in the first instance and to control spread once the nematode is known to be present. The nematode is spread most easily via infested soil and contaminated machinery. Any mechanism that spreads infested soil can be a means of dispersal, including wind, water, migratory birds and peds in seed lots (Riggs and Niblack, 1993). H. glycines is already widespread in most of the countries where soyabean production is a major agricultural activity.
HabitatTop of page
The mature female H. glycines is an obese, sedentary semi-endoparasite of plant roots. Vermiform adult males may be found in the soil. The infective second stage juveniles are found in soil and also within plant roots. The eggs are normally retained in a cyst formed from the cuticle of the dead female. All other stages (i.e. J3 and J4) occur as endoparasites of plant roots.
Habitat ListTop of page
|Terrestrial – Managed||Cultivated / agricultural land||Principal habitat||Natural|
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page
H. glycines attacks a wide range of Fabaceae. Members of Caryophyllaceae and Scrophulariaceae are also hosts. Riggs and Wrather (1992) gives a list of non-fabaceous hosts comprising 63 species in 50 genera from 22 families.
Host Plants and Other Plants AffectedTop of page
|Aeschynomene indica (Indian jointvetch)||Fabaceae||Wild host|
|Beta vulgaris (beetroot)||Chenopodiaceae||Other|
|Cajanus cajan (pigeon pea)||Fabaceae||Other|
|Fabaceae (leguminous plants)||Fabaceae||Wild host|
|Geranium (cranesbill)||Geraniaceae||Wild host|
|Glycine max (soyabean)||Fabaceae||Main|
|Kummerowia striata (Japanese lespedeza)||Fabaceae||Other|
|Lamium amplexicaule (henbit deadnettle)||Lamiaceae||Wild host|
|Lamium purpureum (purple deadnettel)||Lamiaceae||Habitat/association|
|Lespedeza juncea var. sericea (Sericea lespedeza)||Fabaceae||Other|
|Lupinus albus (white lupine)||Fabaceae||Other|
|Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)||Solanaceae||Other|
|Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)||Fabaceae||Other|
|Pisum sativum (pea)||Fabaceae||Other|
|Sesbania exaltata (coffeebean (USA))||Fabaceae||Wild host|
|Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)||Solanaceae||Other|
|Stellaria media (common chickweed)||Caryophyllaceae||Wild host|
|Verbascum thapsus (common mullein)||Scrophulariaceae||Wild host|
|Vicia villosa (hairy vetch)||Fabaceae||Other|
|Vigna aconitifolia (moth bean)||Fabaceae||Other|
|Vigna angularis (adzuki bean)||Fabaceae||Other|
|Vigna mungo (black gram)||Fabaceae||Other|
|Vigna radiata (mung bean)||Fabaceae||Other|
Growth StagesTop of page Flowering stage, Fruiting stage, Vegetative growing stage
SymptomsTop of page
H. glycines typically causes stunting of the host and this may be combined with chlorosis. The nematode causes 'yellow dwarf disease' of soyabean, the symptoms appearing in the field about two months subsequent to sowing. Diseased plants may be stunted with yellowed foliage and have fewer lateral roots than normal. In addition, there can be reduced Rhizobium nodulation. Yield is substantially reduced. In severe cases the plant may die.
List of Symptoms/SignsTop of page
|Fruit / reduced size|
|Leaves / abnormal colours|
|Leaves / yellowed or dead|
|Roots / cysts on root surface|
|Whole plant / dwarfing|
|Whole plant / early senescence|
|Whole plant / plant dead; dieback|
Biology and EcologyTop of page
The life cycle is similar to that of other cyst nematodes. The nematode reproduces amphimictically. Adult females are lemon-shaped and are semi-endoparasites of plant roots. After death, the cuticle tans to form a brown cyst that serves to protect the retained eggs, although numerous eggs are also laid in an external gelatinous matrix. Females may produce up to 600 eggs each, 200 of which may be in the egg sac. Eggs may remain viable in the cyst for up to 11 years. After hatching from the egg, the infective second stage juvenile (J2) seeks out a host root and penetrates the cortex. The vermiform nematode then becomes sedentary and feeds via specialized trophic cells formed by the host in response to secretions from the nematode. The developing nematodes become increasingly obese and moult to the J3. Ultimately, the J4 stage is reached. The J4 either moults to the female which remains in position within the root cortex or moults to the vermiform male which escapes from the J4 cuticle and the root and searches for females to mate with. The nematode may complete 6-7 generations per year in temperate growing areas. Noel (1985) and Riggs and Wrather (1992) provide more detail.
H. glycines exists in a considerable number of races (Riggs and Wrather, 1992) which can be distinguished using differential hosts (soyabean cultivars). Such a differential response to cultivars serves to complicate management strategies involving resistant hosts, particularly if more than one nematode race is present. The two most widely used race classifications are those of Riggs and Schmitt (1988) and Niblack et al. (2002).
Optimum temperature for development is 28-31°C, little development occurring at temperatures below 15°C or above 33°C. The optimum temperature for emergence of the J2 from the egg and for root penetration is reported to be 24°C.
Natural enemiesTop of page
|Natural enemy||Type||Life stages||Specificity||References||Biological control in||Biological control on|
Notes on Natural EnemiesTop of page
Verticillium lecanii is reported to colonize soyabean cyst nematode females and egg masses (Meyer and Wergin, 1998). Pasteuria sp. n. is also reported as naturally infesting J2 H. glycines in the USA (Atibalentja et al., 1998) and Pasteuria nishizawae was reported attacking the nematode in Korea (Lee et al., 1998). Costa et al. (1997) listed species of fungi associated with H. glycines cysts in Brazil. Amongst the fungi isolated were Paecilomyces lilacinus, P. variotti and Dactylaria sp. Nour et al. (2003) investigated bacterial communities associated with nematode cysts and speculated that some may have potential as biocontrol agents.
Pathway CausesTop of page
Pathway VectorsTop of page
|Clothing, footwear and possessions||Cysts in soil.||Yes|
|Containers and packaging - wood||Cysts in soil.||Yes|
|Debris and waste associated with human activities||Yes||Yes|
|Land vehicles||Cysts in soil.||Yes|
|Machinery and equipment||Yes|
|Cysts in soil.||Yes|
|Plants or parts of plants||Cysts in soil.||Yes|
|Soil, sand and gravel||Cysts in soil.||Yes|
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; cysts; juveniles||Yes||Yes||Pest or symptoms not visible to the naked eye but usually visible under light microscope|
|Growing medium accompanying plants||cysts||Yes||Pest or symptoms not visible to the naked eye but usually visible under light microscope|
|Roots||adults; cysts; eggs; juveniles||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye|
|Seedlings/Micropropagated plants||cysts; juveniles||Yes||Yes||Pest or symptoms not visible to the naked eye but usually visible under light microscope|
|Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches||adults; cysts; juveniles||Yes||Yes||Pest or symptoms not visible to the naked eye but usually visible under light microscope|
|True seeds (inc. grain)||cysts||Yes||Pest or symptoms not visible to the naked eye but usually visible under light microscope|
|Plant parts not known to carry the pest in trade/transport|
|Fruits (inc. pods)|
Impact SummaryTop of page
ImpactTop of page
Reported yield losses on soyabean vary from 10-70% in Japan (Ichinohe, 1955; Inagaki, 1977). All soyabean growing areas in the USA are at risk and the nematode is still spreading into previously uninfested areas. Losses in the southeastern USA were estimated at US $88.4 million in 1990 (Sciumbato, 1991). Wrather et al. (1997) provided loss estimates for the top 10 soyabean producing countries and concluded that, worldwide, H. glycines was the most important constraint on yield. Wrather et al. (2003) reported on losses due to H. glycines and other diseases on soybean in the USA and Ontario, Canada from 1999-2002. They found that highest yield losses were caused by H. glycines in both the USA and Canada, the reduction in yield in the USA in 2002 amounting to US $784 million. In the USA yield losses were estimated at 4.2 million tons in 1999 and 3.6 million tons in 2001.
Risk and Impact FactorsTop of page Invasiveness
- Invasive in its native range
- Proved invasive outside its native range
- Highly likely to be transported internationally accidentally
- Difficult to identify/detect as a commodity contaminant
- Difficult to identify/detect in the field
- Difficult/costly to control
Uses ListTop of page
- Research model
DiagnosisTop of page
The presence of the species would normally be done by examination of the cysts once these have been extracted from the soil or removed from the roots. In practical terms, cyst nematodes recovered from fields where soyabeans have been grown are assumed to belong to H. glycines. Molecular probes were developed by Besal et al. (1988) and much work has been done subsequently on the nematode genome for the purpose of diagnostics and understanding nematode virulence and pathogenicity (see Silva et al., 2000; Abdelnoor et al., 2001; Niblack et al., 2006). A diagnostic protocol for Heterodera glycines is described in EPPO (2008).
Detection and InspectionTop of page The nematodes may be recovered from the soil or plant roots using standard nematological techniques. The white or yellow cysts are readily visible protruding from the roots of infected plants.
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page
H. glycines is superficially similar to other members of the genus Heterodera. Species differentiation within this genus can be difficult and is best left to experienced individuals. Characters used include the dimension of the cyst, structure of the vulval cone and its associated features and second stage juvenile morphometrics and morphology.
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.
H. glycines has a relatively limited host range and can thus be managed by appropriate crop rotation with non-hosts. A two year rotation with a non-host is usually sufficient to reduce populations to a non-damaging level. Resistant varieties of soyabean have also been developed and much screening work, both traditional and molecularly based, has been undertaken for resistance within accessions of Glycine max and in related species of the genus. The large number of races exhibited by the soyabean cyst nematode compromises resistance in the field to some extent. Chemical control may not be economically viable as soyabean is a low return crop. The best management strategy involves rotation with non-hosts and use of resistant varieties of soyabean. Schmitt and Noel (1984), Riggs and Niblack (1993), Sikora et al. (2005) and Niblack et al. (2006) provide good overviews of the nematode.
ReferencesTop of page
Abdelnoor RV, Dias WP, Silva JFV, Marin SRR, Kiihl RAde S, 2001. Molecular characterization of soybean cyst nematode populations with different parasitism index to the Hartwig cultivar. (Caracterização molecular de populações do nematóide-de-cisto-da-soja com diferentes índices de parasitismo na cultivar Hartwig.) Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, 36(2):331-337.
Anon., 1961. Soybean cyst nematode progress in research and control. ARS Special Report, 22-72.
Atibalentja N, Noel GR, Liao TF, Gertner GZ, 1998. Population changes in Heterodera glycines and its bacterial parasite Pasteuria sp. in naturally infested soil. Journal of Nematology, 30(1):81-92; 42 ref.
Burrows PR, Stone AR, 1985. Heterodera glycines. CIH Description of Plant-parasitic Nematodes, set 8(No. 118). Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
Cunha RP, Maia GL, Rodacki MEP, Silva GSda, Meyer MC, 2008. Life cycle of the Heterodera glycines race 9 on soybean in Maranhão State, Brazil. (Ciclo de vida de Heterodera glycines raça 9 em soja no Estado do Maranhão.) Summa Phytopathologica, 34(3):262-264. http://www.scielo.br/pdf/sp/v34n3/12.pdf
Diab KA, 1968. Occurrence of Heterodera glycines from the Golden Island, Giza, UAR. Nematologica, 14:148.
EPPO, 2014. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm
Epps JM, 1956. Soybean cyst nematode found in Tennessee. Plant Disease Reporter, 42:594-595.
Hegge AH, 1957. Soybean cyst nematode, Heterodera glycines, in Missouri. Plant Disease Reporter, 41:201.
Hirschmann H, 1956. Comparative morphological studies on the soybean cyst nematode, Heterodera glycines and the clover cyst nematode, H. trifolii (Nematoda: Heteroderidae). Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of Washington, 23:140-151.
Hung Y, 1958. A preliminary report on the plant-parasitic nematodes of soybean crop of the Pingtung district, Taiwan, China. Agricultural Pest News, 5:1-5.
Ichinohe M, 1952. On the soy bean nematode, Heterodera glycines n. sp., from Japan. Oyo-Dobutsugaku-Zasshi, 17:4pp.
Ichinohe M, 1955. Studies on the morphology and ecology of the soy bean cyst nematode, Heterodera glycines, in Japan. Report of the Hokkaido National Agricultural Experimental Station, No. 48:59-64.
Ichinohe M, 1961. Studies on the soybean cyst nematode, Heterodera glycines. Report of the Hokkaido National Agricultural Experimental Station, No. 56:80pp.
Kazachenko IP, 1993. Cyst-forming nematodes of the Russian Far East and measures for their control. Dal'nevostochnoe Otdelenie, Akademiya Nauk SSSR:Vladivostock, Russia.
Lee YoungKee, Kim DongGeun, Lee JaeKook, Lee SuHeon, Choi YongChul, 1998. First report of Pasteuria nishizawae Sayre, Wergin, & Nishizawa attacking Heterodera glycines in Korea. Korean Journal of Plant Pathology, 14(6):714-719; 22 ref.
Liu XongHong, Li JianQiang, Zhang DongShen, 1997. History and status of soybean cyst nematode in China. International Journal of Nematology, 7:18-25.
Lordello AIL, Lordello RRA, Quaggio JA, 1992. Occurrence of Heterodera glycines on soyabean in Brazil. Revista de Agricultura (Piracicaba), 67(3):223-225; [paper presented at the 16th Brazilian Congress of Nematology, held at Lavras, MG, Brazil from 24 to 28 Feb. 1992]; 4 ref.
Mimee B, Peng H, Popovic V, Yu Q, Duceppe MO, Tétreault MP, Belair G, 2014. First report of soybean cyst nematode (Heterodera glycines Ichinohe) on soybean in the province of Quebec, Canada. Plant Disease, 98(3):429. http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/abs/10.1094/PDIS-07-13-0782-PDN
Nakamura S, Sano Z, Ohba T, Araki M, Kakasono K, 1982. Occurrence of Heterodera glycines and its pathogenicity to soybean plants in a plain of Kyushu region, Japan. Japanese Journal of Nematology, 11:46.
Nakata K, Asuyana H, 1938. Survey of the principal diseases of crops in Manchuria. Bureau Industry Report, 32: 166.
Niblack TL, Arelli PR, Noel GR, Opperman CH, Orf JH, Schmitt DP, Shannon JG, Tylka GL, 2002. A revised classification scheme for genetically diverse populations of Heterodera glycines. Journal of Nematology, 34(4):279-288.
Niblack TL, Lambert KN, Tylka GL, 2006. A model plant pathogen from the Kingdom Animalia: Heterodera glycines, the soybean cyst nematode. Annual Review of Phytopathology, 44:283-303. http://www.annualreviews.org
Nishizawa T, 1984. The cyst nematode occurring in soybean fields in the tropics, Java Island. Proceedings of the Sixth Biennial Cyst Nematode Workshop, College Park, Maryland, USA.
Noel GR, 1985. The soybean cyst nematode. In: Lamberti and Taylor (eds), Cyst nematodes. Plenum Press: New York, USA.
Noel GR, 1992. History, distribution and economics. In: Riggs and Wrather (eds), Biology and management of the soybean cyst nematode. American Phytopathological Society: St Paul, USA.
Nour SM, Lawrence JR, Zhu Hong, Swerhone GDW, Welsh M, Welacky TW, Topp E, 2003. Bacteria associated with cysts of the soybean cyst nematode (Heterodera glycines). Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 69(1):607-615.
Peng DL, Peng H, Wu DQ, Huang WK, Ye WX, Cui JK, 2016. First report of soybean cyst nematode (Heterodera glycines) on soybean from Gansu and Ningxia China. Plant Disease, 100(1):229. http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/loi/pdis
Powers TO, Wysong DS, 1987. First report of soybean cyst nematode (Heterodera glycines) in Nebraska. Plant Disease, 71:1146.
Quintero J, Rebell=n A, Agudelo FVde, 1988. Distribution and identification of host species of Heterodera glycines Ichinohe race 3 in the Cauca valley. Acta Agrono^acute~mica, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, 38(1):41-52; 15 ref.
Riggs RD, Niblack TL, 1993. Nematode pests of oilseed crops and grain legumes. In: Evans, Trudgill and Webster (eds) Plant parasitic nematodes in temperate agriculture. CAB International: Wallingford, UK.
Riggs RD, Wrather JA, eds, 1992. Biology and management of the soybean cyst nematode. American Phytopathological Press: St Paul, USA.
Schmitt DP, Noel GR, 1984. Nematode parasites of soybeans. In: Nickle (ed.), Plant and insect nematodes. Marcel Dekker Inc.: New York, USA.
Sciumbato GL, 1991. Southern United States soybean disease loss estimate for 1990. Proceedings of the Southern Soybean Disease Workers 1991, 32-38.
Sikora RA, Greco N, Silva JFV, 2005. Nematode parasites of food legumes. In: Plant parasitic nematodes in subtropical and tropical agriculture [ed. by Luc M, Sikora RA, Bridge J] Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing, 259-318.
Silva ATda, Penna JCV, Goulart LR, Santos MAdos, Arantes NE, 2000. Genetic variability among and within races of Heterodera glycines Ichinohe assessed by RAPD markers. Genetics and Molecular Biology, 23(2):323-329.
Sim T, Todd TC, 1986. First field observation of the soybean cyst nematode in Kansas. Plant Disease, 70:603.
Spears JF, 1957. Review of soybean cyst nematode situation for presentation at public hearing on the need for a Federal Domestic Plant Quarantine, July 24, 1957.
Wang D, Zhu XF, Wang YY, Luo X, Song P, Zhu F, Wang F, Chen JS, Chen LJ, Duan YX, 2014. A reassessment of virulence phenotypes of soybean cyst nematode (Heterodera glycines) in China with HG typing method. Plant Disease, 98(5):702-703. http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/loi/pdis
Wang, X., Bergstrom, G. C., Chen, S., Thurston, D. M., Cummings, J. A., Handoo, Z. A., Hult, M. N., Skantar, A. M., 2017. First report of the soybean cyst nematode, Heterodera glycines, in New York., 101(11), 1957-1958. http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/loi/pdis doi: 10.1094/PDIS-06-17-0803-PDN
Warner F, Mather R, Bird G, Davenport J, 1994. Nematodes in Michigan 1. Distribution of Heterodera glycines and other plant-parasitic nematodes in soybean. Journal of Nematology, 26(4 Supp.):720-726; 10 ref.
Winstead NN, Skotland CB, Sasser JN, 1955. Soybean cyst nematode in North Carolina. Plant Disease Reporter, 39:9-11.
Wrather JA, Anderson TR, Arsyad DM, Gai J, Ploper LD, Porta-Puglia A, Ram HH, Yorinori JT, 1997. Soybean disease loss estimates for the top 10 soybean producing countries in 1994. Plant Disease, 81(1):107-110; 7 ref.
Wrather JA, Koenning SR, Anderson TR, 2003. Effect of diseases on soybean yields in the United States and Ontario (1999 to 2002). Plant Health Progress, March:0-16. http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/php/review/2003/soybean/
Yan GP, Plaisance A, Chowdhury I, Baidoo R, Upadhaya A, Pasche J, Markell S, Nelson B, Chen S, 2017. First report of the soybean cyst nematode Heterodera glycines infecting dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in a commercial field in Minnesota. Plant Disease, 101(2):391. http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/loi/pdis
Yokoo T, 1936. Host plants of Heterodera schachtii Schmidt and some instructions. Korea Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin, 8:47-174.
CABI, Undated. Compendium record. Wallingford, UK: CABI
CABI, Undated a. CABI Compendium: Status as determined by CABI editor. Wallingford, UK: CABI
Cunha R P, Maia G L, Rodacki M E P, Silva G S da, Meyer M C, 2008. Life cycle of the Heterodera glycines race 9 on soybean in Maranhão State, Brazil. (Ciclo de vida de Heterodera glycines raça 9 em soja no Estado do Maranhão.). Summa Phytopathologica. 34 (3), 262-264. http://www.scielo.br/pdf/sp/v34n3/12.pdf DOI:10.1590/S0100-54052008000300012
Epps JM, 1956. Soybean cyst nematode found in Tennessee. In: Plant Disease Reporter, 42 594-595.
Hegge AH, 1957. Soybean cyst nematode, Heterodera glycines, in Missouri. In: Plant Disease Reporter, 41 201.
Hung Y, 1958. A preliminary report on the plant-parasitic nematodes of soybean crop of the Pingtung district, Taiwan, China. In: Agricultural Pest News, 5 1-5.
Kazachenko IP, 1993. Cyst-forming nematodes of the Russian Far East and measures for their control., Vladivostock, Russia: Dal'nevostochnoe Otdelenie, Akademiya Nauk SSSR.
Lordello A I L, Lordello R R A, Quaggio J A, 1992. Occurrence of Heterodera glycines on soyabean in Brazil. (Ocorrência do nematóide de cisto da soja (Heterodera glycines) no Brasil.). Revista de Agricultura (Piracicaba). 67 (3), 223-225.
Melton T A, Noel G R, Jacobsen B J, Hagedorn D J, 1985. Comparative host suitabilities of snap beans to the soybean cyst nematode (Heterodera glycines). Plant Disease. 69 (2), 119-122. DOI:10.1094/PD-69-119
Mimee B, Peng H, Popovic V, Yu Q, Duceppe M O, Tétreault M P, Belair G, 2014. First report of soybean cyst nematode (Heterodera glycines Ichinohe) on soybean in the province of Quebec, Canada. Plant Disease. 98 (3), 429. http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/abs/10.1094/PDIS-07-13-0782-PDN DOI:10.1094/PDIS-07-13-0782-PDN
Nakamura S, Sano Z, Ohba T, Araki M, Kakasono K, 1982. Occurrence of Heterodera glycines and its pathogenicity to soybean plants in a plain of Kyushu region, Japan. In: Japanese Journal of Nematology, 11 46.
Nishizawa T, 1984. The cyst nematode occurring in soybean fields in the tropics, Java Island. [Proceedings of the Sixth Biennial Cyst Nematode Workshop, College Park, Maryland, USA],
Noel G R, 1992. History, distribution, and economics. In: Biology and management of the soybean cyst nematode. [ed. by Riggs R D, Wrather J A]. St. Paul, Minnesota, USA: American Phytopathological Society. 1-13.
Peng D L, Peng H, Wu D Q, Huang W K, Ye W X, Cui J K, 2016. First report of soybean cyst nematode (Heterodera glycines) on soybean from Gansu and Ningxia China. Plant Disease. 100 (1), 229. http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/loi/pdis DOI:10.1094/PDIS-04-15-0451-PDN
Shi H, Zheng J, 2013. First report of soybean cyst nematode (Heterodera glycines) on tobacco in Henan, central China. Plant Disease. 97 (6), 852. http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/loi/pdis DOI:10.1094/PDIS-10-12-0926-PDN
Wang X, Bergstrom G C, Chen S, Thurston D M, Cummings J A, Handoo Z A, Hult M N, Skantar A M, 2017. First report of the soybean cyst nematode, Heterodera glycines, in New York. Plant Disease. 101 (11), 1957-1958. http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/loi/pdis DOI:10.1094/PDIS-06-17-0803-PDN
Warner F, Mather R, Bird G, Davenport J, 1994. Nematodes in Michigan 1. Distribution of Heterodera glycines and other plant-parasitic nematodes in soybean. Journal of Nematology. 26 (4 Supp.), 720-726.
Wrather J A, Anderson T R, Arsyad D M, Gai J, Ploper L D, Porta-Puglia A, Ram H H, Yorinori J T, 1997. Soybean disease loss estimates for the top 10 soybean producing countries in 1994. Plant Disease. 81 (1), 107-110. DOI:10.1094/PDIS.19184.108.40.206
Yan G P, Plaisance A, Chowdhury I, Baidoo R, Upadhaya A, Pasche J, Markell S, Nelson B, Chen S, 2017. First report of the soybean cyst nematode Heterodera glycines infecting dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in a commercial field in Minnesota. Plant Disease. 101 (2), 391. http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/loi/pdis DOI:10.1094/PDIS-09-16-1257-PDN
ContributorsTop of page
11/12/2008 Updated by:
David Hunt, CAB Europe - UK, Bakeham Lane, Egham, Surrey TW20 9TY, UK
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/