Skip to main content
Egyptian Journal of Biological Pest Control

Table 3 Changes in tomato plant growth parameters after treatment with abamectin, emmectin benzoate, colocynth, marigold, moringa, rhizobacteria, and Purpureocillium lilacinum in comparison with plants infected with Meloiodogyne incognita under greenhouse conditions

From: Integrated management of Meloidogyne incognita on tomato using combinations of abamectin, Purpureocillium lilacinum, rhizobacteria, and botanicals compared with nematicide

Treatments Fresh root weight (g) (% increase) Fresh shoot weight (g) (% increase) Fresh weight of leaves (g) (% increase) Stem diameter (mm) (% increase) Plant height (cm) (% increase)
Healthy plants 17.16a 21.87a 15.00a 11.71a 29.80a
Positive control infected with RNK M. incognita 14.85e 16.62f 7.80f 8.10e 20.90f
M. incognita + abamectin 16.68b 20.98b 13.80b 11.60a 27.70b
(12.32) (26.23) 76.92 (43.20) (32.53)
M. incognita + emmectin benzoate 15.70c 18.81c 11.80c 10.60bc 27.70b
(5.72) (13.17) 51.28 (30.86) (32.53)
M. incognita + colocynth, Citrullus colocynthis 15.22de 17.15ef 9.00e 8.80d 22.10e
(2.49) (3.18) 15.38 (8.64) (5.74)
M. incognita + marigold, Tagetes erecta 15.18de 17.87d 9.40e 8.80d 23.60e
(2.22) (7.52) 20.51 (8.64) (12.91)
M. incognita + moringa, Moringa oleifera 14.92de 16.80ef 8.60ef 8.50d 21.10f
(0.47) (1.08) 10.25 (4.93) (0.95)
M. incognita + Serratia and Pseudomonas 15.28d 18.34cd 10.60d 10.10c 24.80d
(2.89) (10.34) 35.89 (24.69) (18.66)
M. incognita + Purpureocillium lilacinum 16.84ab 17.65e 13.20b 11.20b 26.40c
(13.40) (6.19) 69.23 (38.27) (26.31)
  1. Each value is the mean of five replicates
  2. Means in each column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different at 5% level of probability according to Duncan’s multiple range test
  3. \( \mathsf{Increase}\kern0.5em \%=\frac{\mathsf{Treated}\kern0.5em -\mathsf{Control}}{\mathsf{Control}}\times \mathsf{100} \)
Back to article page