Research Paper (Host Resistance : Fungi & Nematodes) ( : )
!" '( % & $ /#
2 ! 1 1 1 1 1 . (2) (1)
)* ! " ! # $ % .2010 . ! 0 ! ! * . " & 0 1 /- )*+ , # & & & # ' ( .61248 :28 ( " # $ % &' ! / / & ) *2005 2003 1 '0 . *%70.9 56.8 + , % &' ! & ) * &
* ( < : (8 * 9 : & $ . . *3.0 1.2 6 5 3 34 % *%57.2 4.9 2 3 6 %100 84.4 1 $ = * > * *' &/ : 8 * / = > ? "% *1 2 .%44.9 41.7 1 ( % = 9 / @ 9 : & $ *1 6 %66.7 35.4 1 * $ *Meloidogyne arenaria A 9 ( , % &' $ % & 9 . , % $ ? 5 , < 9 E 2 F 0 . B 3 C' D @ 9 1 % *%100 70.9 1 M. Javanica M. incognita (& ( 9 G& % &' % 2 3 . 5 2 # . $ 9 .
.M. hapla ( , ( 6 &% * 6& 9 . = 9 > * F 0 *Pyrenochaeta lycopersici 1 & (%100) E 3 "% 1 2 9 6#> ( (& ( $ = . < F< G = 9 < 9 1 % * $ 1 C 1 6 , % . B
.Pyrenochaeta lycopersici *Meloidogyne spp. *Fusarium oxysporum * / * * > :
"" -Meloidogynidae "" -Meloidogyne 5(""1)
"! " ( " +( D $ = @ (Tylenchida < C C ' ""( /%& "" & "" "" !"" "" #"" $ F" "( .(38 -27 -19) ( E >( " " "+&( ( .) 9 .(34 -20) 0 ( %& & ( 8 (4 $= 9 1; Lycopersicon esculentum Mill -2006 % 72210 0 , - "+&( %& & ( 3 B1 @ > : ( <1 " 2 " 1 3" 4 5 "& & 6 ( 1 ( ( 2 (= H .(3) 1999 % ' < G @ " ' ( / %& & 8 (4 14 9 .(35) %88.3 " $ G Meloidogyne 5(1 % " " "(& 433260 "" ( 3"" "" ( <1"" ""9 -(14 -1) "" @ "" .(35) %90.5 ( 5 & & 6 0 ( ( -2006 Meloidogyne : " 2 "(G " " %& & /' ( " 1; "0 ( < < %& & /' ( ( : M. javanica -M. incognita Kef. et White -arenaria Neal. "&> @" A " B"1 @ > : ? - > = " < $ % .(21 -4) M. hapla Chitw. -Treub. ) " ! &( 3 Pyrenochaeta lycopersici R. W. Schneid. & Gerlach #"""""C - """"" - -(6 -5) " G " " 9 %$ -(13 -7) Pleosporales Incertae sedis B1 + ( -( 9 - 1 ( A(1 < 5 > Ascomycota Dothideomycetes
(2010) 1 28 48 % > 6 G $& (5 – 0) $ Q .(18 9) 8) %> % # > E 2 4 2 2 $%& % % ' ! "# %> 4 I G GP (12 % # / , - .(19 14) &* +& : # $ 2 + / 1 2 0 26 25 4) % 4 5 4# +& Σ(a×b) = N % 4%# 9%& % - 1 6 7+ 8 8 .(37
" × " " ! = Σ (a×b) : < %2 % % + % : 4# ; * = N # $ & ' % $% 2 > 4 +& $& : + =
. # ? # @ + > # 2 % % $%& 4 &R G : #
Σ (SP) = (%) 20 - + , -/ 01 S ! " ! "14 3 - " 1" "! = Σ(SP) : 2 3 - " 1 = S (%) # $ &2- ( 6) 5 & % % $%& %> % # > $ .1 (²6) 1 14 $%& % % # 7 + + $& A
% % ! % + B < >C D > % $%& 4 &R I G GP = + Enza Zaden %G H % 6 E ) :E 2 : # % : ( H % I $ + E > ) $ + ( :
Σ(a×b) = 20 - J% $%& $% 2 %> > # D +
N : %2 % < 15 × 15 × 18 8 # A
14 3 - ! = Σ (a×b) : $> > @ + Dº 26K24 + "+ 14 * = N # $ & ' × ²6 400 * 14 1 $, $ 1 - 7 8 9 . L + 1 + J 5 $& : E 5 # $ .5 + # $& (J 5 ) M
(! # $ % & ' & . E E :G $ + # > 1 Galls N' E % % % (' * ) * ) 9G% # 7 + # : $& > 2 %8 # % A J% $%& # $& 5 .2002 / 5 E G / ! :G A % % = < 6.5 × 6 × 5 %> E 2 4 > # &* G $ .2 60 × 40 %8 # E 4 + $& ( # ) 5 9 % ' $ 1 A & 146 138 $& $%& % 12 S 2 1 + O " = < 18 × % & % E O 20 # D @& + $& 2 E % A U .D º 24 + & T @ = % = %+ .2005 K 2003 E A A @ %2+ 9 % ( 3K2) B A S E 2 2 / 2 2 ( I 7 +) 6 %" %- < E O 2> E = / 1 % A & % $%& > E 2 4 > # . > + O & E = $%& %: $& I G G P : 6 G - . ; - :
% 5 % % " n × 100 = (%) < %"6 Dº 24 + & T @ + 5 N
2 S % %# / D % 12000K10000 O 16 . = N = n :
%# - . = % / E :T < : $- < U
49 Arab J. Pl. Prot. Vol. 28, No. 1 (2010) 144 48 1 ( "/= ) , , & ) +0 $+0) $ +0 #L 8 , . + 0 $ 0.5 ! ! " # # " # ! ! $0 0 = " * + $ +0 @ / 7 0 (1 # " ! ! ! *+ $# . % & '( $ ) <1 ; < C) & ( " % ) , - / " & ! - # = 9 23 ' 1 20 + ( <8, / $ . $+0 1 , 2 3 # , 435 2 6 , , & ) +0 M .2004 < 7 8" $ ) 0! ' . + 0 48 ( "/= ) 1 = 9 $ ) : ' ; <$ 2–1.5 2 0 () $ ! $ +0 +0 . ! $ 0.5 + <1 9 ' A $ 2–1.0 1 @ 0 & (= ) < / $0 0 = " - N )" 2003 ! " $# . : ! 1 - / : ! $ C (2010) 1 28 50 ( % - 68 - B Tm . - ToMV) / 2005 -F I - Tomato mosaic virus C >0 A ! " " # $ % $ . $ Enza Zaden 9 < > " , -+ - + .-' -$ ) *+ $ & '( ! G > 1F :(L. esculentum) HE-MAN B * ! 0 56 .( ! 1 ) 2005 0 .' 1 : - * -'( & - M -8 -F * 3) 3 89- #- 8 -0 ( 4) 4 1 .' 7 . $ Syngenta seeds 9 I > TmVF2C5FrNk - ! - * ) 2 89 *+ # 8 0 ( G > 1F :(L. esculentum) VIGOMAX B -0 4 - 1 * - 0 56 < .( ! : ; : - * '( & M 8 F * ! .-' 89 *+ # 8 10 6 ! * . $ De Ruiter Seed 9 I > TmkNVF2 $ 9 > .' " 1 * < . =7 6+ G > 1F :(L. esculentum) BEAUFORT B 1 .' 1 / ? : - * '( & M 8 F * ! - @ - $ " # $ ! .De Ruiter Seed 9 I > TmkNVF2Fr .' ! 1 * (C º 2B) # 8 A > ! % $ 8 * '( & M 8 : * :Wild ! B - 1 .' 7 * ! 0 56 < . @D 6+ + 1+ 1 O F @ P9 6+ @ N F -0 ( > - ) 2 89 # 8 0 ( 4) 4 .G + - : ; - - ! - * ) 2 89 *+ # 8 * 0 4 " 1 * 0 56 .( ! % % " # $ .=7 6+ .' 89 *+ # 8 8 6 ! > : & M 8 : & '/ B TmVF2 Stella Dima .Enza Zaden 9 I I > TmVF2 : & M 8 :Gironda # B :(Lycopersicon esculentum) ELDORADO B .Enza Zaden 9 * -'E -8 -F * ! G > 1F >- TmNVF2 : - * '( & M 8 :Amal $ B B Ma % - 68 - B N) 1 8! : .Enza Zaden 9 I 2005 -! Meloidogyne arenaria . . 6 1 & 6 8 : F :Hindi ! # B - B Mj M. incognita - . B Mi . ' ! : F * 9 I > - -1 I > ! (M. Javanica . -8 - : P9- - 6+ @ :Landrace *+ B >-0 A - ( % 68 B Fr . B For) . 8 * '( & M Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. radicis lycopersici - -1 >6 1 8! D A A + 1 0 -- -- -- Jaruis & Shoemaker * - * -! -1 J-60 D 9 9Q $ 9 ( % - 68 - B F2 FF . B Fol: 0, 1) #-6< - 0 $ .' $ ! : ! F. oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici (Sacc.) >0 A - ! 7 ' > R 0 A 1 * 66 -- -- Snyder & Hansen race 0 and 1 . 8 *? ! . 6 1 1 8! J-60 ? 6 B Vd Va % 68 V) & - -'( -! # " 8 Verticillium albo-atrum Reinke & Berthold > -- : ! -1 ( . - J60 & 6 > V. dahliae Kleb. (% 68 B k . B Pt) Corky root . 6 100 × (IISt–IISc) = (%) / K #-8 >0 A IISc Pyrenochaeta lycopersici -- >--0 A -- ( -- -- – C5) -- $ " " # " / ! " = IISc : " /'* & = IISt L Cladosporium fulvum Cooke races: a, b, c, d, e. . 51 Arab J. Pl. Prot. Vol. 28, No. 1 (2010) B @ I@ G(# *H &+ 7" " )0 F 9 . )0 2" $ % "# 2003 ! 3 )& * "+ *( / & & ' #(# 1 * ) ,# & - . )0 3 " ) ( / & 2 )0 ' &6 5 4 2 7 " 2004 1 ! 3 . ! 2 ! E &. & !J D" 9 ": & # * # 2 . ! #; < & 7 % ) !& 0 ( !& ! ) 2"2 7" "2 .(13 2 . & ! 1 ?! + ! 2005 2003 % )( + ! 3 ) ?+( ) 3.02 ; & D" *%4.91 57.24 )( 2 "" 2 @ 2 "0 B 0 ( !&" 3 D" *1.17 & * A & $ ? + # $ : B # .(2 1 & ) 7" *%56.8 70.9 ! )@ C + & 5 7 D @ 0& & 7 . & &: "2 E 3 ! 5 2 1984 "+ . ! 7" &. ) % A % 2 (P. lycopersici) 7" "2 E 6 .+( & &0 *(21) * ' $ % ' .(4 *2) 2 . ! . ' $ % F ) ! 2 ! / 3 )& *2003 G + + ! " # $% & $ ' (! / .1 .2005–2003 Table 1. Survey of root-knot nematodes on tomato and pepper plants under plastic houses in Tartous governorate during the 2003-2005 period. " $ " Number of plastic houses $ $' (%) & # Mean of (%) # ! Infection disease Mean Infested with severity spread infected root- knot index (%) plants (%) nematodes Surveyed Location 3.80 76.0 95.0 12 15 Al-Khrab, Al-junaeneih $ *) " 4.73 94.0 94.0 13 13 Al-Khrab-Dahr Safra +, *) " 4.82 94.0 94.0 24 24 Hosain Al-Bahr & - & 4.17 85.0 85.0 16 16 Markeih $ 0 0.65 5.0 5.0 15 15 Al-Matin - 0.88 4.5 6.0 12 16 Al-Sawaki 0 ( 0.33 1.4 20.0 2 28 Mafraq Al-Sauda ( 1 4.81 98.0 98.0 11 11 Al-Jamaseih $( 105 138 Total 2 3.02 57.24 59.8 Mean ( (2010) 1 28 52 ! "!# $ %& ' % ( )" / .2 .2005–2003 Table 2. Survey of corky root disease on tomato and pepper plants under plastic houses in Tartous governorate during the 2003-2005 period. ! $ $& $ " ! " Number of plastic houses #' (%) (%) # Infection Mean of Mean severity disease spread infected Infested with index (%) plants (%) corky root disease Surveyed Location 1.15 1.33 2.0 8 12 Al-junaeneih % 1.29 2.15 7 4 13 .0 Dahr Safra *+ 1.42 9.00 12 18 24 .0 Hosain Al-Bahr ' ' 0.53 0 50 1 9 18 . .0 Markeih % , 0.89 1.80 3 9 15 .0 Al-Matin 1.53 6.88 10 11 16 .0 Al-Sawaki , ) 0.48 1.29 3 9 21 .0 Mafraq Al-Sauda ) - 2.59 20.46 25 9 11 .0 Al-Jamaseih %) 0.68 0.75 2 6 16 .0 Trabulus street $ - 83 146 Total . 1 17 4.91 7.0 . Mean ) $ $ & ! 4 # " 4 % / . " # %35.4 41.7 ! / / ) Graft-compatibility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rab J. Pl. Prot. Vol. 28, No. 1 (2010) * 2005 " - ' & ' " 140 ' ' = .' G F 5 ! @ Varieties 120 Dima/Stella Gironda Landrace / /0 ' # / ' , ' * E 4 @ 8 100 # & 2005 - ' ' , ' 1 80 1.75 %86.7 < & * 8 ' + * * 8 $ ' D; HA . , 60 @ - ' ! % 'C ' , @ A ! B 40 % & & 8 * , ' & % grafts Successful 20 ( ' * E $) # / % , ' 0 He-Man Eldorado Vigomax Beaufort Wild G ! " + 4 ' ! , ,C / @ A Rootstocks I . . C # $ D; ' * ; + ' ' JC B 2+ # ' .1 , - - * * 8 $ * , ' & ' % ! " # $ 20 .2003 ) & ' ( , # $ K-& ' ? @G + , ? K-& Figure 1. Average rate of grafting success of some tomato K * ; .(36 31) ' A ! ' varieties onto local and imported tested tomato rootstocks, $ K-& : G ' - - $ 20 days after grafting under growth chamber conditions, C. annuum AR-96023 2003. ' + E , M. incognita K .(28) * E Celica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igure 2. Symptoms of tomato plant infection with root- knot nematode (A), corcky root (B), in comparison with healthy roots (C). 55 Arab J. Pl. Prot. Vol. 28, No. 1 (2010) %# 2 3 0 2- ! 1 ,- 5 # %# A !6 & ,- 0 # % " * 0A4 ! 4 .(3 ) / , - ( # < + 8 # M ) #- ! " ! # $ % # & ' * * 5 2 # , - ; ;- '? . 3 : 3 ! * + ,- 0# - 12 - 0 ,- F <2 % # & 64 4 5 2 # 0 $ + 6 $ 7 8 ! / 6 $ 1 ,- 5 # # ,- # 9 * # 9 & # ; %# # < ; * & F4 "@ ?$ F4 D , M. hapla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eloidogyne 1 ! # * # < $ 5 0 2 ., 3 , - 8 # %# # # J .(39 !38 !25) % = #= # 9 " = 0 ,- ,4 ! / # 2 M. incognita K * ; , - < # ,- 0A4 D # < 4 +# 8 $ * 1º 30L27 64 * # %# # # G # 8 ; 33.3 !%50 60.0 2004 2003 , * # , - % # < ; I * 4 !0.65 1.47 !0.4 0.33 !0.4 0.6 %70 100 !%45 .(39 !38) 8 " = / 0 $ 5 0 ? . , 64 0 # < 0 0 7# M EC 0 < # ,- , 4 #< +# % = #= , 4 ! / # > # 9 " = %80 !0.85 %74 0 A4 !2005 GD ,- Meloidogyne : I & 1 # ,- 7 8 0 $ 0A4 !, 64 !0.85 H 3 I 2 !M. incognita !M. javanica arenaria # # ,- % = #= # 9 " = ,- 2 ! %# 0 2 ,- (%86.7) = "#32* 4 +# 0 $ . , 64 !1.0 %85 (2005) 2 . 8 2 %6.7 4 ! , 3 & H , # ,- ( # 9 " = ) * 0 64 # < , 0 # < 0 7# M EC 0 .2005 1 ; 5 # # ,- " = , 4 0 # & * 5 2 # 0 2 6 4 0 2 ,- M. hapla I # = 3 ; , - # < 4 +# 8 4 D ,- ,4 / # < M - EC 0 2 2 !%100 * * %# 2< & 5 2 # 0 2 !2003 # I 4 G 43 #= 3 3 ; # = 8 $ 5 0A4 ! 4 D "#32* # $ & 64 6 4 !%2.0 !98.0 83 5 0 A4 !M. incognita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able 3. Influence of some combinations of tomato varieties grafted onto imported tomato rootstocks on infection severity index of grafted plants with root-knot nematode, Al-Khrab, Banias, 2004. Values between brackets represent ratios of efficacy of varieties/scions onto rootstocks combinations. Cultivars and number of scions on one plant Amal Stella/Dima / Two scions One scion Two scions One scion Rootstock (%34.1) 0.58 fg (%46.6) 0.47 gh (%59.9) 0.95 ef (%97.1) 0.7 h Eldorado (%0.0) 1.50 cd (%0.0) 1.30 de (%46.0) 1.30 de (%50.0) 1.2de Heman 3 (%0.0) 1.90 bc (%0.0) 2.20 ab (%1.7) 2.30 ab (%20.8) 1.9 bc Vigomax ,) (%0.0) 2.50 a (%0.0) 2.40 a (%0.0) 2.60 a (%8.3) 2.2ab Beaufort 0.9 ef 2.4 a Check/scion & / LSD at 0.05 = 0.447, CV= 16.4% %16.4 = 0.447 = %5 57 Arab J. Pl. Prot. Vol. 28, No. 1 (2010) .2004 () * ( *+ ( ! " #$ %& ' .4 .2 , / , ! - / ' ) 0, 1 2 Table 4. Influence of combinations of tomato varieties grafted onto imported tomato rootstocks on plants infection with corky root disease, Al-Khrab, Banias, 2004. (Values between brackets represent ratios of efficacies of varieties/scions onto rootstocks combinations Cultivars and number of scions on one plant Amal Stella/Dima / Two scions ! One scion Two scions ! One scion Rootstock (%0.0) 0.42 de (%0.0) 2.3 a (%16.4) 0.56 cd (%0.0) 1.87 b Eldorado & & " (%100.0) 0.0 h (%100.0) 0.0 h (%85.1) 0.1 fgh (%100.0) 0.0 h He-man 7 (%57.7) 0.11 fgh (%100.0) 0.0 h (%89.6) 0.07 gh (%100.0) 0.0 h Vigomax ) $ (%69.2) 0.2 fg *(%100.0) 0.0 h (%100.0) 0.0 h (%100.0) 0.0 h Beaufort ! $ 0.26 ef 0.67 c Check/Scion /&7 LSD at 0.05 = 0.185 0.185 = %5 5 0 -. & 0 + ' & ) ? C 0 $ % ! ) & 0 + ' @ - 0 % ! " # $ % & ' () $ * + , -. $ > ( ' $* 8 . 5 0 -. @ - . /%0 %0 ( %# % -. " 1 @ -. " 40 * 5 0 -. & ' $ %50 ( %0 &2 3) ) $ * 4 ' 5 %0 &E 0 0 / @ - %0 0 F * 3 0 & * %# $ * ( ) 6 0 %0 > ( / @ - $ 1 0 # G & 2 0 /%0 + , - 3) ) 4 7 $ .(5 ) ) 3 0 & $ % ( 6 % 0 # %6 ( -. % 8 3) ) 6 ' - > &9 5 0 J > 6?8 9 %0 + , - : ) )' 6 0 ; Fusarium 6 * @ - 5 0 -. & 0 $ .%( 3 . & * ) ' $ 6 ' - &9 &' 0 /oxysporum F. oxysporum $ ' $ 0 1%> - 1 #0 * & 0 > &9 ' * .F. solani (Mart) App. et Wr. % $ * % 8 ) ) , -. $ 6 ' - B &)*8 )2 . $ >'8 8 0 0 ( 6 * % A ! & > /&9 K 0 + ' - %#0 % & ) & 0 $ Fusarium oxysporum ( $ %A % B . % ( * ( 1 # 9 & ) / . 0 $ * .(22 /17 /16) %> - + ' 0 & 00 B A -. ) 0 ) 0 &9 F % A 3 )# # $ * 0 > ' $ * 8 . 1 # 9 : $ @ - 5 0 * + ((A) - .3 "# ( ) & ! & 2 ) / ' $ (PDA) B E &0 + ' Pyrenochaeta lycopersici B Figure 3. Roots deriving from scion (A), and penetration of ! ) ( ( 5 0 ) ) ,) $ -. scion root in the main root of rootstock and galls formed on ! ( 7 / ) ) ) 3 0 @ -. $ them (B). + ' %#0 @ -. : * $ F * 1 A 8 % % -= %> : * & 0 + ' ? 7 > ' B &#( /2003 ' %0 ( ) ) , -. @ -. -. $ ) & 0 + ' 9 3 0 @ -. 0 -. + ' 9 K K '8 6? " K + , % A B9) 2003 ' 3 > %0 ( % ! $ $* .( 3 0 @ -. " 40 * 8 ) ) ) , > 8 > ( $' : 0 0 0 6 0 -, (2010) 1 28 58 7# - % - >' 9 ' 5 1 * $. 8 $ . # ? >(32 >30 >27 >11) $. ! " # $%& ' ( ) ( ' ' %& - # .(24) # & & * + " ' , -. ) " / ' 0% ' 5 ' ( . ' 5 5 * .Fusarium solani * 1 # 2 ( > ' 1 % * ' ) 6 1 -&% $" >' " ! '% $. " * ) # 4 $. 4#* & ' .' 4 5 6 / ) ( 7 4 8 ) $ ' ' 5 - .(27) ' .9 '&. $. ' " :& " ;< = ' * / '&. ' 5 5 & ' . > " -. > $ %* 5 # ? ) " ' , '. , ' ' 5 .(32 >29 >15 >10) (9 A& 4 , 7 @ #? >23) ' 5 A ' ( #? ' & ' 5 % ' $. @ ) % /. & ' ' 0 $" .(32 7 ' 5 1 , *( > -. " / #& $. ( 7 >' $. ' & < % $ ' & $. & -. " / ' 8 1#* - $ . ' 5 " ( # > ' '5 ( # .(28) ' 8 . 1 ' 5 ( # .M. hapla ) $ . ' < & 8 ' < & 1 ' 5 !" ! " # ! (%) .5 2003 #& $ Table 5. Percentage of roots or stems of tomato grafted or un-grafted plants from which Fusarium spp. were isolated, Al- Jimaseih Research station,Tartous, 2003. Varieties / / Check/Ungrafted Landrace Stella/Dima Gironda rootstock Stems Roots Stems Roots Stems Roots Stems Roots Rootstock 27.0 49.0 0.0 48.8 0.0 44.4 33.3 55.5 Wild ' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 He-man * + 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 11.1 0.0 11.1 Eldorado , , - 33.3 55.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $ $ Check/Scion / ,+ . Abstract Al-Chaabi, S., O. Koutifani, M. H. Safeih, S. Al-Arabi, L. Matrod and J. Asmar. 2010. Performance of Resistant Rootstocks for Controlling some Soil Borne Pathogenic Fungi and Root-Knot Nematodes in Tomato Grown Under Plastic Houses. Arab Journal for Plant Protection, 28: 48-61. Corky root disease and root-knot nematodes caused severe damage on tomato and pepper plants grown under plastic houses in Tartous governorate in Syria. During 2003-2005, the percentage of infested plastic houses with disease and nematodes were 56.8 and 70.9%, respectively. The averages of their spread were 4.6 and 52.5%, and their infection severity indexes were 1.2 and 3.0, respectively. The compatibility percentages (CPs) between some used rootstocks, such as: Eldorado, He-man, Beaufort and Vigomax and some common tomato cultivars, such as: Dima, Stella, Gironda, Amal and local landrace ranged between 84.4% and 100% by using one scion per plant, and between 35.4 and 66.7% by using two scions, whereas CPs of wild tomato rootstock with previous tomato cultivars ranged between 41.7 and 47.9%. The efficacies of cultivars grafted onto imported rootstocks against Meloidogyne arenaria, M. incognita and M. javanica under plastic house fluctuated between 70.9 and 100%, meanwhile the wild rootstock was susceptible. In general, the resistance of those rootstocks was decreased with scions number increase per one rootstock. The infection syndrome on check plants was absent, however, four seasons later the resistance of those rootstocks was broken, when they were cultivated in infested soil with M. hapla. Beaufort He-man and Vigomax rootstocks exhibited high level of resistance against corky root disease (100%) caused by Pyrenochaeta lycopersici, while their efficacies were decreased by using two scions per one rootstock plant instead of one. The Eldorado rootstock and grafted CVs. on it, and tomato landrace were moderately susceptible to the disease. Keywords: Fusarium oxysporum, Grafting, Lycopersicon esculentum, Meloidogyne spp, Pyrenochaeta lycopersici, resistant rootstocks. Corresponding author: Salah Al-Chaabi, General Commission for Agricultural Scientific Research (GCSAR), Damascus, Douma P.O. Box 113, Syria. E-mail: [email protected] 59 Arab J. Pl. Prot. Vol. 28, No. 1 (2010) References 10. Augustin, B., V. Graf and N. Laun. 2002. Einfluss .2004 . .1 der temperature auf die effizienz von 22 . tomatenveredlung gegenuber wurzelgallenalchen .22 1 :(1) Meloidogyne arenaria ( ) und der korkwurzelkrankheit ! .2005 . .2 (Pyrenochaeta lycopersici). Zeitschrift fur pflanzenkrankheit und pflanzenschutz, 109: 371-383. Pyrenochaeta lycopersici Shneider et " # 11. AVRDC. 2003. Grafting tomatoes for production in & #' "' . $ % Grrlach, the hot-wet season. International Cooperator's Guide. .( ) # * + Pages 1-6. . 135 : , # * % 12. Barker, K.R., C.C. Carter and J.N. Sasser. 1985. ! .1999 . .3 An Advanced treatise on Meloidogyne, Vol. II, , & #' "' . methodology. North Carolina State University # * + % , Graphics, Raleigh. 223 pp. 13. Besri, M. 1997. Alternatives to methyl bromide for . 44 . / - replant protected cultivation of vegetables in the ! ! " # $ ! # % & .4 Mediterranean developing countries. Pages 15-21. In: 0 % .2006 . # ' Proceeding of the International Research Conference , 4 / ," " 1 # 0 ! 2 on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions % . ' 0 & 2 1 # , " 0 Reductions, November 3-5, 1997, San Diego, . , 5 6 7 4 California. 14. Besri, M. 1999. Alternatives to methyl bromide for 6 2006 / 8 - 23 19 the Southern European Countries. Heraklion, Greece, =/ > % 4 ? < : #9 ;- 7-10 December 1999. 3 pp. , @ 2 ' - 15. Besri, M. 2002. Tomato grafting as an alternative to , A4 # * 7 B + methyl bromide in Morocco. Institut Agronomieque et .A-119 :N 21 Veterinaire Hasan II. Morocco: 2 pp. .2007 . * * * ' % & .5 16. Biles, C.L. and R.D. Martyn. 1989. Local and systemic resistance induced in watermelons by Rhizoctonia ) ," " / " 0 ! % formae speciales of Fusarium oxysporum. Trichoderma koningii " , 4 (solani Kühn Phytopathology, 79: 856-860. . & 8 C % & D Oudem. 17. Elias, K.S., R.W. Schneider and M.M. Lear. 1991. .27 15 :25 Analysis of vegetative compatibility groups in % , 0 .1994 . & % .6 nonpathogenic populations of Fusarium oxysporum 4 % . E " isolated from symptomless tomato roots. Canadian Journal of Botany, 69: 2089-2094. - 27 . , C 4 6 18. Haleemah, S. and W. Abu-Gharbieh. 1998. – C 1994 / & 2 % 2– / 8 Effectiveness of soil solarization against Meloidogyne .113 . F javanica and heterodera schachtii in the Jordan B " 4 .1997 . * + * .7 Valley. Pages 291-300. In: Soil solarization and 4 . G ' 8%' &B 1 9 : 4 , 4 D integrated management of soilborne pests. FAO, Plant Production and Protection Paper, No. 147. J.J. 31–27 , C 6 7 Stapleton, J.E. De Vay and C.L. Elmore (eds.). ? 4 < #9 – 1997 %'/ & 2 - Proceedings of the Second International Conference .24 :S2 # , on soil solarization and Integrated Management of 8. Abou-Shaar, M. 1988. Untersuchungen zur Soilborne Pests. Aleppo, Syria, 16-21 March, 1997. bekampfung der tomatenkorkw-urzelkrankheit 657 pp. (Pyrenochaeta lycopersici) durch mikrobielle 19. Hasna, M.K., A. Martensson, P. Persson and B. antagonisten und erhohung der pflanzenresistenz. Ramert. 2007. Use of composts to manage corky root Ph.D. Thesis. Hum. University of Berlin. 177 pp. disease in organic tomato production. Annals of 9. Al-Chaabi, S. and L. Matrod. 1998. Solarization for Applied Biology, 151: 381-390. controlling soilborne fungi in plastic houses. Pages 20. Kacjan Marsic, N. and J. Osvald. 2004. The 569–577. In: Soil solarization and integrated influence of grafting on yield of two tomato cultivars management of soilborne pests. FAO, Plant (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) grown in plastic Production and Protection Paper, No. 147. J.J. house. Acta Agricultuae Slovenica, 83-2: 243-249. Stapleton, J.E. De Vay and C.L. Elmore (eds.). 21. Lamberti, F. 1984. Nematode problems of the Proceedings of the Second International Conference mediterranean coastal stripe in the Syrian Arab on soil solarization and Integrated Management of Republic. Nematologia Mediterranea, 12: 53-64. Soilborne Pests. Aleppo, Syria, 16-21 March, 1997. 657 pp. (2010) 1 28 60 32. Rivard, C.L. 2006. Grafting tomato to manage 22. Larkin, R.P., D.L. Hopkins and F.N. Martin. 1996. soilborne diseases and improve yield in organic Suppression of Fusarium wilt of watermelon by production systems. MSc thesis, Graduate Faculty of nonpathogenic Fusarium oxysporum and other North Carolina State University, Plant Pathology, microorganisms recovered from a disease-suppressive Raleigh, North Carolina. 112 pp. soil. Phytopathology, 86: 812-819. 33. Ros, C., M.M. Guerrero, P. Guirao, A. Lacasa, 23. Lee, J.M. and M. Oda. 2003. Grafting of herbaceous M.A. Martinez, J. Torres, N. Barcelo and A. vegetable and ornamental crops. Horticultural Gonzalez. 2002. Response of pepper stocks to Review, 28: 61-124. Meloidogyne incognita in glasshouses in the southeast 24. Leonardi, C. and D. Romano. 2004. Recent issues of Spain. Journal of Nematology, 4: 237 (Abstract). on vegetable grafting. Acta Horticulturae, 631: 163- 34. Sasser, J.N. 1977. Worldwide dissemination and 174. importance of the root-knot nematodes, Meloidogyne 25. Lopez-Perez, J.A., M. Le Strange, I. Kaloshian and spp. Journal of Nematology, 9: 26-29. A.T. Ploeg. 2006. Differential response of Mi gene- 35. The Annual agricultural statistical abstract. 2006. resistant tomato rootstocks to root-knot nematodes Area, production and yield of tomato planted in the (Meloidogyne incognita). Crop Protection, 25: 382- green houses. S.A.R. Ministry of Agriculture and 388. Agrarian Reform, Department of Planning and 26. Miguel, A. 1997. Grafting for the control of soilborne Statistics. 60 pp. pathogens. Pages 85-87. In: Alternatives to methyl 36. Thies, J.A. and R.L. Fery. 2000. Heat stability of bromide for the southern European countries, graficas resistance to Meloidogyne incognita in Scotch Bonnet Papallona S. C. V. Valencia, Spain. A. Bello, J.A. peppers (Capsicum chinense Jacq.) Journal of Gonzales, M. Arias and R. Rodrigues-kabana (eds.). Nematology, 32: 356-361. 27. Oda, M. 1999. Grafting of vegetables to improve 37. Tzortzakakis, E.A. 2007. A case of infection on the greenhouse production. Extention Bulletin scion of grafted tomatoes by the root-knot nematode (December). College of Agriculture, Osaka Prefecture Meloidogyne javanica. Acta Agriculturae Slovenica, University. Japan: Osaka, 8 pp. 89-1: 103-106. 28. Oka, Y., R. Offenbach and S. Pivonia. 2004. Pepper 38. Tzortzakakis, E.A., M.A.M. Adam, V.C. Blod, C. rootstock graft compatibility and response to Paraskevopoulos and K. Bourtzis. 2005. Meloidogyne javanica and M. incognita. Journal of Occurrence of resistant breaking populations of root- Nematology, 36 (2): 137-141. knot nematodes on tomato in Greece. European 29. Poffley, M. 2003. Grafting tomatoes for bacterial wilt Journal of Plant Pathology, 113: 101-105. control. Agnote, 603, No. B40. 39. Tzortzakakis, E.A., V.C. Blok, M.S. Phillips and 30. Pogonyi, A., Z. Pek, L. Helyes and A. Lugasi. 2005. D.L. Trudgill. 1999. Variation in root-knot nematode Effect of grafting on the tomato's yield, quality and (Meloidogyne spp.) in Crete in relation to control with main fruit components in spring forcing. Acta resistant tomato and pepper. Journal of Nematology, Alimentaria, 34: 453-462. 1: 499-506. 31. Reist, A., J.M. Gillioz and R. Corbaz. 1996. 40. Zheng Chang Ying, Cao ZhiPing and Chen Comparison between grafted and nongrafted tomato GuoKang. 2004. Effect of rootstock on tomato plants in soilless cultivation with inoculated growth and yield. China Vegetables, 4: 37-38. pathogens. Revue Suisse de Viticulture, d'Arboriculture et d'Horticulture, 28: 327-331. Received: July 27, 2009; Accepted: September 6, 2009 2009/9/6 : 2009/7/27 : 61 Arab J. Pl. Prot. Vol. 28, No. 1 (2010)