Comparison of extraction techniques and augers of different size.

T G van Galen-van Beers, E Brommer, L P G Molendijk
{"title":"Comparison of extraction techniques and augers of different size.","authors":"T G van Galen-van Beers,&nbsp;E Brommer,&nbsp;L P G Molendijk","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Because of differences in winter survival of Pratylenchus penetrans after different host plants, concern arose about traditional extraction and soil sampling techniques. Possible bottlenecks are a too short incubation period of the root material for the time of year, or an auger size to small to pick up tough, fresh, root material. Two experiments were carried out to compare different auger sizes and variations on the standard Oostenbrink elutriation technique with additional filter-incubation of the organic material left on the top sieve (180 microns) of the elutriator. The hypothesis that soil sampling in a green crop results in more root material with a 2.5-cm auger, compared to a 1.3 cm auger, proved to be right. Since there was no effect on the number of P. penetrans recovered, the 1.3 cm auger is preferred because with this auger more cores are taken to gather the same amount of soil, resulting in a better estimation of the population. It appeared that highest yields are accomplished with the standard extraction-plus incubation-method described above. Every methodical effort to improve the extraction effectivity, caused only loss of nematodes. An incubation period of two weeks came out to be minimum. After this period, another 15 to 20% of nematodes could be harvested.</p>","PeriodicalId":85134,"journal":{"name":"Mededelingen (Rijksuniversiteit te Gent. Fakulteit van de Landbouwkundige en Toegepaste Biologische Wetenschappen)","volume":"67 3","pages":"691-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mededelingen (Rijksuniversiteit te Gent. Fakulteit van de Landbouwkundige en Toegepaste Biologische Wetenschappen)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Because of differences in winter survival of Pratylenchus penetrans after different host plants, concern arose about traditional extraction and soil sampling techniques. Possible bottlenecks are a too short incubation period of the root material for the time of year, or an auger size to small to pick up tough, fresh, root material. Two experiments were carried out to compare different auger sizes and variations on the standard Oostenbrink elutriation technique with additional filter-incubation of the organic material left on the top sieve (180 microns) of the elutriator. The hypothesis that soil sampling in a green crop results in more root material with a 2.5-cm auger, compared to a 1.3 cm auger, proved to be right. Since there was no effect on the number of P. penetrans recovered, the 1.3 cm auger is preferred because with this auger more cores are taken to gather the same amount of soil, resulting in a better estimation of the population. It appeared that highest yields are accomplished with the standard extraction-plus incubation-method described above. Every methodical effort to improve the extraction effectivity, caused only loss of nematodes. An incubation period of two weeks came out to be minimum. After this period, another 15 to 20% of nematodes could be harvested.

不同尺寸的螺旋钻和提取技术的比较。
由于不同寄主植物对穿山甲冬季存活率的影响,传统的提取和土壤取样技术引起了人们的关注。可能的瓶颈是根材料的孵化期在一年中的时间太短,或者螺旋钻尺寸太小,无法采摘坚韧,新鲜的根材料。在标准的Oostenbrink洗脱技术上进行了两项实验,比较了不同尺寸的螺旋钻和变化,并对留在洗脱器顶部(180微米)的有机物质进行了额外的过滤孵育。绿色作物土壤取样中,2.5厘米的螺旋钻比1.3厘米的螺旋钻能获得更多的根系物质,这一假设被证明是正确的。由于对采收的穿山虫数量没有影响,所以首选1.3厘米的螺旋钻,因为用这种螺旋钻取更多的岩心来收集相同数量的土壤,从而更好地估计种群数量。用上述标准的萃取加孵育方法可以获得最高的收率。每一次有条不紊的努力提高提取效率,只造成线虫的损失。两周的潜伏期是最短的。在此之后,可以再收获15%至20%的线虫。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信