Outline Roger P. Quilantang

APPROVAL SHEET
The thesis outline attached hereto, entitled “EFFICACY EVALUATION OF FLUOPYRAM AND
BACILLUS SUBTILIS QST 713 AGAINST BURROWING NEMATODE RADOPHOLUS
SIMILIS AND OTHER PLANT PARASITIC NEMATODES ATT ACKING LOWLAND
WILLIAMS CAVENDISH BANANA”, prepared and submitted by ROGER P. QUILANTANG, in
partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Agriculture (Crop
Protection), is hereby accepted:
BELLY T. DIONIO CATHERINE C. QUISADO

Panel Member Panel Member
________________ ________________
Date Signed Date Signed
CECIRLY G. PUIG, Ph.D.

Adviser
_________________
Date Signed
Accepted as partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF

SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE (Crop Protection).
HYDE D. NADELA, Ph.D.

Program Head, GS-CARS
__________________
Date Signed
CESAR A. LIMBAGA, JR. Ph.D.

Dean, CARS
__________________
Date Signed
“EFFICACY EVALUATION OF FLUOPYRAM AND BACILLUS SUBTILIS QST 713
AGAINST BURROWING NEMATODE RADOPHOLUS SIMILIS AND
OTHER PLANT PARASITIC NEMATODES ATTACKING
LOWLAND WILLIAMS CAVENDISH BANANA”
ROGER P. QUILANTANG
THESIS OUTLINE SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT,

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND RELATED SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF
SOUTHEASTERN PHILIPPINES, TAGUM-MABINI
CAMPUS, MABINI, COMPOSTELA VALLEY PROVINCE
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE

(Crop Protection)
SEPTEMBER 2018
INTRODUCTION
Fresh banana were the fifth top export of the country valued at $146.41 million
with a 2.5-percent share to the total export receipt in May 2018. Banana exports from
the Philippines to Japan reached 679,967 metric tons from January to May 2018,
growing 7% from 634,191 MT recorded during the same period last year based on
published by Philippine Statistic Authority published on July 10, 2018 (Colina, 2018).
However, banana is at risk posing a major issue on several problems on nematodes,
vascular, foliar and pre-harvest diseases.
On the other hand, banana nematodes cause yield losses due to root damage
which reduces the supply of water and nutrients. This slows down plant growth,
lengthen the time to fruiting, reduce bunch weight, and decrease the productive life of
the farm. Top-heavy plants may fall over due to the loss of anchoring roots (Brooks,
2004). A complex of root-parasitic nematodes and banana weevil (Cosmopolites
sordidus) destroyed the root and vascular system (Gold et al, 2001).
Early studies of nematode control in banana mainly focused on the use of
nematicides as they are more effective and practical to use in large-scale plantations.
There are several nematicide products tested which were applied three to four times a
year significantly controlled the nematodes (Boncato and Davide 1980). Historically,
successful chemical nematicides have lost registration due to environmental and human
health risks. As a result, growers often are faced with a need for safe but effective
chemical control method for plant-parasitic nematodes but few available options
(Heiken, 2017).
The government has placed all nematicide in the country for institutional use
only, where plantation companies exercise close supervision of nematicide applicators
(Villanueva, 2005). However, the use of highly toxic nematicides has been criticized by
the public due to potential risk to human health and environmental concerns. Thus, a
pesticide with lower risk to human health and environmental impact is desirable (Birkett,
2013).
Currently, one such pesticide being evaluated for its effect on plant parasitic
nematode is Fluopyram. It is a succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor (SDHI) fungicide and
the first “green label” – lowest toxicological classification chemicals reported to suppress
nematode for the protection of banana and plantain roots (Faske and Hurd, 2015).
On the other hand, Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 as an active ingredient is a
biological control agent for use to treat a variety of plant diseases and fungal pathogens.
It is known to be antagonistic toward many fungal plant pathogens and has been shown
to induce plants natural systemic resistance or systemic acquired resistance (USEPA,
2016).
Due to hazardous effects of nematicides, searches for appropriate application
procedures and the integration of biological control agents have become necessary.
Thus, the Fluopyram and Bacillus subtilis QST 713 will be tested their synergism to
highly Radopholus similis and other plant parasitic nematodes infested lowland
Cavendish banana.
Objectives of the Study:
1. To evaluate the efficacy of Fluopyram against Radopholus similis and

other plant parasitic nematodes attacking Cavendish banana.
2. To establish the potential of using Floupyram and with Bacillus subtilis

QST 713 by converting its synergistic effect to yield of Cavendish banana.
3. To evaluate the overall effect of Floupyram and with Bacillus subtilis QST
713 in terms of plant vigor and root status of Cavendish banana.
4. To compare the cost benefit of Fluopyram with the commercial

nematicide.
5. To determine the residue detection of Fluopyram to 9th week old fruit three
months (12 weeks) after application.
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Nematodes are microscopic roundworms that can live freely in many different
environmental or as parasites of animal or plants host. Plant-parasitic nematodes are
significant pest, resulting in an estimated US$ 100 billion annual global crop losses
(Heiken, 2017). Radopholus similis also known as the “burrowing nematode” is what is
making life difficult for banana plant. Once a banana plant has been severely affected, it
is difficult to treat. And without the nutrients they need, banana trees grows slowly and
are late producing fruit, which furthermore often ends up being smaller than usual
(Calvo, 2012).
Fluopyram is succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor (SDHI) fungicide that is being
evaluated as seed treatment and in-furrow spray at planting or row crops for
management of fungal diseases and its effect on plant parasitic nematodes (Faske and
Hurdy, 2015).
Fluopyram provides both preventive and curative control of numerous endo- and
ecto-parasitic nematodes including sting, root-knot, ring and stunt nematode. It is a
contact nematicide with acropital systemicity (upward) in turf grass (Throssell, 2016).
Based on nematode motility assay, 78% of Meloidogyne incognita was immotile
after 2 hours of continuous exposure at 10.0 µg/ml fluopyram while 48% of
Rotylenchulus reniformis were immotile (Faske and Hurd, 2015).
On the other hand, Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 as an active ingredient is a
biological control agent for use on several minor crops to treat a variety of plant
diseases and fungal pathogens. It is registered as microbial pesticides (USEPA, 2006).
Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 is falls within the category of Plant Growth Promoting
Rhizobacteria. This class of organisms aggressively colonizes plant roots, bestowing an
array of benefits to plants. These benefits may include improved plant growth and
induced systemic resistance to plant pathogens. This beneficial bacterium is essential to
deliver to the root zone. Methods of application are quite flexible. It is compatible with a
wide range of pesticides and fertilizers. Safe to handlers and to non-target organisms
and has direct activity on soil borne pathogens (Warkentin. D. 2012).
The QST 713 strain of B. subtilis a naturally occurring bacterial strain and has
been shown to possess significant efficacy against a broad spectrum of economically
important diseases in fruit, vegetable and ornamental production (Edgecomb, D.W. and
D. Manker. 2006).
A combination of modern chemical and biological treatments will be the most
successful approach to effective nematode control and will become the comer stone of
integrated pest management strategies for many crops (Hartwig, 2012)

MATERIALS AND METHODS
1. Experimental Lay-out
This study will be conducted in an area identified with high Radophulos similis
and other nematode population count in Farm-1, Tagnanan Carp Beneficiaries
Cooperative (TCBC), Brgy. Tagnanan, Mabini, Compostela Valley Province.
The experiments will be laid-out in a Randomized Completely Block Design (RCBD).
Data will be analysed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). There will be ten (10)
sample plants per treatment replicated into six times. Data will be transformed using
square-roots transformation before analysis of variance if zero values will be obtained.
Means will be compared using Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference (HSD) when
variances are significant (Gomez and Gomez, 1983). The experimental treatments will
be as follows.
Rate Vol. Method of

Treatments Description
Delivery Application
1 Fluopyram alone 5.0 ml/L 100 Spray once

ml/plant
2 Fluopyram + 5.0 ml/L 100 Spray once

B. subtilis QST 713 75 ml/L ml/plant 3X Spray
pure See Psuedostem

3 Oxamyl 240 SL procedure injection
once
4 Untreated Control N/A N/A
The area to be used will be 9 x 100 meters/replication. There will be six areas as
replication was identified below such as Line 7A, 8A, 13C, 14C, 15C and 16C
respectively.
Proposed Experimental Area for Nematode Control

Experimental Lay-out:
Location Treatments / Replication
Block 13C T4 R1 T3 R1 T2 R1 T1 R1
Block 7A T3 R5 T4 R5 T2 R5 T1 R5
Block 8A T1 R6 T2 R6 T3 R6 T4 R6
The baseline data to be gathered will be as follows:
1. Plant Height (m) and Girth (cm) of Recently Shooting Plants (RSP)
The measuring of plant height and girt will be done using tape measure and
improvised meter stick (3 meters long). Height will be measured starting from the base
up to the tip of the leaf axils while girth will be measured on the middle of the
pseudostem of the seedling plant.
2. Functional leaves at recently shoot plants and 9th week old harvestable fruits
3. Packability data such as bunch weight (kg), box stem ratio (BSR) and calibration
4. Nematode Counts of Radopholus, Helicotylenchus, Meloidogyne and other parasitic
nematodes
5. Root Status such based on criteria: Very Poor, Poor, Fair and Good
6. Number of blown down case due to nematode (by examining the roots)
7. Corm weevil population by trapping (log-type trap using newly harvested
pseudostem). Monitor 24 hours after installation.
Root Sampling
There will be ten (10) tagged plants per treatment per replication or a total of
sixty plants per treatment will be sampled for baseline and final data. Then, second root
sampling will be done six month after application.
Succeeding root sampling for nematode population count will take place before
scheduled application of treatment. It obtained from 20 x 20 x 20 cm3, 25 cm away from
the base of data plant. The sequence of sampling started from the left (initial) to right,
center and back to the left facing the sucker and or follower regardless of the plant
stage (Davide, 2003).
Additional root sampling to those untagged plants with the area after treatment
application will be done every four weeks within the area up to six months.
Root sampling will be executed following the procedures:
a. Prepare materials as follows:
Spade/hand trowel, Knife, Pails, Rubber bands, Plastic bags/net bags,
Sacks, Ice box.
b. Prepare disinfectant solutions every sampling day. Fresh disinfectant
solution is recommended. Mixing preparation of disinfectants are will be 10

ml/L for Dialkyl Dimethyl Ammonium Chloride + Alkyl Dimethyl Benzyl
Ammonium Chloride
c. Disinfect all tools (knife, spade and hand trowel) before sampling and every
after sampling from mat-to-mat to avoid contamination and spread of any
fungal and bacterial diseases in the area.
d. Dig a hole of 20 cm x 20 cm x 20 cm 3 extending outward from the corm of
the plant. Avoid hitting the corm (about 25 cm away from the base of the
mother plant).
e. Collect about approximately 100 grams root per mat. Include tertiary or
feeder roots and dead roots found in a hole of 20 cm x 20 cm x 20 cm 3 dug
out soil. Gather all the roots from the plants, making sure not to collect the
roots of the adjacent plants. Put the roots inside the plastic bag/ net bag.
f. Return back the soil to the hole after getting all the roots and compact the
soil by stomping it.
g. Label the samples according to its treatment and replication and date of
sampling.
h. Bundle all the plastic bags with the root samples and place inside the ice box
to prevent the root samples from rapid drying.
i. Strictly implement quarantine measure by spraying or dipping all shoes with
disinfectant solution before and after sampling.
j. Send the root samples to the BRS Nematology laboratory within 24 hours
(maximum 48 hours) for processing.

NOTE: If the root samples could not be sent to the BRS laboratory immediately
after sampling, place them in a refrigerator or air-conditioned room (10-15 ˚C) up
to 48 hours long only to ensure root freshness and to prevent nematode
bodies/cuticles from shrinking the upon dying. More so, this is done for more
efficient identification of nematodes.
Nematode Laboratory Processing of Root Samples
a. Prepare a fresh disinfectant solution in the plastic basin. The recommended rates
will be 10 ml/L of Dialkyl Dimethyl Ammonium Chloride + Alkyl Dimethyl Benzyl
Ammonium Chloride.
NOTE: For a maximum of 60 root samples, 40 liters disinfectant solution is
required.
b. Prepare two (2) plastic basins filled with 40 liters of tap water.
c. Disinfect the root samples by dipping them in the 40 liters disinfectant solution to
avoid spread of any fungal and bacterial diseases.
d. Rinse the roots gently into the two (2) plastic basins filled with 40 liters of tap
water.
e. Wash the root samples using a pressurized tap water system to further remove
the soil particles.
f. Classify the roots according to the following:
Code Description
A Functional Roots
B 50% Infected Roots
C Dead roots
g. Weigh (grams) each classified roots.
h. Cut the roots into pieces (1-2 cm) and take a sub sample of 25 grams. Place
them in a blending jar containing 100 ml water. Run the motor for 10 to 20
seconds intermittently for 3 times. The time and frequency will vary according to
the amount and kind of materials being processed.
i. Pour the mixture to pass on 60, 200, 325, and 400 mesh sieves.
j. Wash gently with a stream of water.
k. Discard the material on the 60 and 200 mesh sieves and collect the nematode
suspension from the 325 and 400 mesh sieves into a 250 ml beaker capacity.
Add water to fill up 250 ml and this suspension will be used for nematode
identification and counting.
Assessment of the Nematode Population
a. Using the 250 ml nematode suspension, aerate it using the aquarium pump to
homogenize the suspension.
b. Take a volume of 5 ml using a pipette and put into the counting dish with cover.
c. Identify the genus and count the population of nematodes under the upright
compound microscope.
d. Calculate the final nematode population per root unit using its corresponding
correction factor (CF).

CF = 100 g roots X 250 ml suspension = 200 nematodes
25 roots 5 ml suspension
Assessment of the Root Status
Assess the root quality by calculating the proportions of functional root, 50%
infected root, and dead root. Evaluate the tabulated proportion of the functional roots
based on the following classifications:
Classification Percent Functional Root
Very Poor (VP) Below 50 %
Poor (P) 50-64 %
Fair (F) 65-74 %
Good (G) 75 and up
Treatment Application
Treatment application will be done four weeks after baseline root sampling and
after sucker pruning cycle with enough water (51 to 60 mm) fed by rain.
There will be one application only for Fluopyram (T1 & T2) and while the (Bacillus
subtilis QST 713” in T2 will be having three applications at eight weeks interval for the
whole duration of the study.
Application of Fluopyram and Bacillus subtilis QST 713 mixed solution will be
sprayed around the base of the follower using motorized calibrated sprayer.
Treatment Oxamyl will be injected using calibrated drencher with improvised
injection needle at the rates of:

 10 ml for non-bearing plant (2 meters tall and before shooting)
 7.5 ml for follower plant (1 to 2 meters tall)
 2.5 ml for sucker (0.5 to 1.0 meter tall)
Injection to pseudostem will be position downward (45 0 angle) stroke in opposing
outer leaflets, 0.2 and 0.5 meter high from the ground (Araya, 2004). Treatment 4 will be
left untreated.
Injection or Soil Spray Application Program on Experimental Area (TCBC)
Treatments 1st Appl’n. 2nd Appl;n. 3rd Appl’n.

4 weeks (8 weeks after (8 weeks after
after
1st appl’n.) 2nd appl’n.)
baseline root
sampling
 X X
T1- Fluopyram alone
 X X
T2- Fluopyram and
B. subtillis QST 713   
 X X
T3-Oxamyl 240 SL
X X X
T4-Untreated Control
Phytotoxicity Monitoring
Phytotoxicity (i.e. chlorosis, necrosis and stunting) and other adverse effect on
plant growth will be assessed using the following rating scale below at 15 and 30 days
after treatment application (FPA Guidelines, 2000).

Rating Percent Crop Injury Based on Untreated
Control
1 None
3 1 – 10%
5 11 – 20%
7 21 – 30%
9 >30%
Fruit Sampling Procedure for Residue Test of Fluopyram
A fruit sample for residue analysis will be taken from Treatment-1 Fluopyram alone nine
weeks after application to 9th week old harvestable fruit bunch. Sampling will be done as
follows:
1.) Extract sample first from untreated (Treatment-4) before treated fruits.
2.) Pick one fingers each from top, middle and lower hand from three (3) 9th week old
harvestable bunches equivalent to 1.5 kilograms per hand or average of 166.7
grams per finger.
3.) Samples will be placed in paper bag inside plastic bag indicating the following
information:
a. Trial site : TCBC, Farm-1
b. Date of Submission :____________
c. Treatment name : T2-Fluopyram or Untreated
d. Test for :Fluopyram

4.) Samples will be immediately transported in less than 24 hours from Experimental
Area in TCBC, Mabini, Compostela Valley to Jefcor Laboratories Davao Office,
Lanang, Davao City.
Meteorological data
Rainfall (mm), raindays and temperature (0C) throughout the duration of the
study.
Photo documentations
Treatment applications, root collection, processing and others.
Appendices
Appendix A. Plant height (m) of Recently Shot Plants (RSP) as affected by application
of Fluopyram and Bacillus subtilis QST 713. Data gathering will be taken
four weeks before and six months thereafter treatment application.
Plant Height (m) Total Mean
Treatments
I II III IV V VI
Fluopyram alone
Fluopyram +
B. subtillis QST 713
Oxamyl 240 SL
Untreated Control
C.V. %
Tukey’s HSD (0.05)
Appendix B. Analysis of Variance of Plant Height (m) of Recently Shot Plants (RSP) as
affected by application of Fluopyram and Bacillus subtilis QST 713. Data
gathering will be taken four weeks before and six months thereafter
treatment application.
Source of Degree of Sum of Mean of Computed Tabular F

Variance Freedom Squares Squares F 5% 1%
Replication
Treatments
Experimental
error
Total
C.V. = (%)
Tukey’s HSD = (0.05)
Appendix C. Plant girth (cm) of Recently Shot Plants (RSP) as affected by application of
Fluopyram and Bacillus subtilis QST 713. Data gathering will be taken four
weeks before and six months thereafter treatment application.
Plant Girth (cm) Total Mean
Treatments
I II III IV V VI
Fluopyram alone
Fluopyram +
Oxamyl 240 SL
Untreated Control
C.V. %
Appendix D. Analysis of Variance of Plant Girth (cm) of Recently Shot Plants (RSP) as
Replication
Treatments
Experimental
error
Total
C.V. = (%)
Appendix E. Functional leaves of Recently Shot Plants (RSP) as affected by application

Functional Leaves at Shooting Total Mean
Treatments
I II III IV V VI
Fluopyram alone
Fluopyram +
Oxamyl 240 SL
Untreated Control
C.V. %
Appendix F. Analysis of Variance of Functional Leaves of Recently Shot Plants (RSP)

as affected by application of Fluopyram and Bacillus subtilis QST 713. Data
Replication
Treatments
Experimental
error
Total
C.V. = (%)
Appendix G. Functional leaves of 9th week old fruits as affected by application of

Functional Leaves at 9th Week old fruit Total Mean
Treatments
I II III IV V VI
Fluopyram alone
Fluopyram +
Oxamyl 240 SL
Untreated Control
C.V. %
Appendix H. Analysis of Variance of Functional Leaves of 9th Week Old Fruits as

Replication
Treatments
Experimental
error
Total
C.V. = (%)
Appendix I. Bunch weight (kg) as affected by application of Fluopyram and Bacillus

subtilis QST 713. Data gathering will be taken four weeks before and six
months thereafter treatment application.
Bunch weight (kg) Total Mean
Treatments
I II III IV V VI
Fluopyram alone
Fluopyram +
Oxamyl 240 SL
Untreated Control
C.V. %
Appendix J. Analysis of Variance of Bunch Weight (kg) of Recently Shot Plants (RSP)
as affected by application of Fluopyram and Bacillus subtilis QST 713. Data
Replication
Treatments
Experimental
error
Total
C.V. = (%)
Appendix K. Box stem ratio (BSR) as affected by application of Fluopyram and Bacillus
Box Stem Ratio Total Mean
Treatments
I II III IV V VI
Fluopyram alone
Fluopyram +
Oxamyl 240 SL
Untreated Control
C.V. %
Appendix L. Analysis of Variance of Box Stem Ratio (BSR) of Recently Shot Plants
(RSP) as affected by application of Fluopyram and Bacillus subtilis QST
713. Data gathering will be taken four weeks before and six months
thereafter treatment application.

Replication
Treatments
Experimental
error
Total
C.V. = (%)
Appendix M. Calibration as affected by application of Fluopyram and Bacillus subtilis

QST 713. Data gathering will be taken four weeks before and six months
thereafter treatment application.
Calibration Total Mean
Treatments
I II III IV V VI
Fluopyram alone
Fluopyram +
Oxamyl 240 SL
Untreated Control
C.V. %
Appendix N. Analysis of Variance of Calibration as affected by application of Fluopyram
and Bacillus subtilis QST 713. Data gathering will be taken four weeks
before and six months thereafter treatment application.

Replication
Treatments
Experimental
error
Total
C.V. = (%)
Appendix O. Radopholus similis Count /200g roots as affected by application of

R. similis Count / 200g Total Mean
Treatments
I II III IV V VI
Fluopyram alone
Fluopyram +
Oxamyl 240 SL
Untreated Control
C.V. %
Appendix P. Analysis of Variance of R. similis Count /200g roots as affected by

application of Fluopyram and Bacillus subtilis QST 713. Data gathering will
be taken four weeks before and six months thereafter treatment
application.

Replication
Treatments
Experimental
error
Total
C.V. = (%)
Appendix Q. Helicotylenchus Count /200g roots as affected by application of Fluopyram

and Bacillus subtilis QST 713. Data gathering will be taken four weeks
before and six months thereafter treatment application.
Helicotylenchus Count /200g Total Mean
Treatments
I II III IV V VI
Fluopyram alone
Fluopyram +
Oxamyl 240 SL
Untreated Control
C.V. %
Appendix R. Analysis of Variance of Helicotylenchus Count /200g roots as affected by
application.

Replication
Treatments
Experimental
error
Total
C.V. = (%)
Appendix S. Meloidogyne incognita Count /200g roots as affected by application of

M. incognita Count /200g Total Mean
Treatments
I II III IV V VI
Fluopyram alone
Fluopyram +
Oxamyl 240 SL
Untreated Control
C.V. %
Appendix T. Analysis of Variance of M. incognita Count /200g roots as affected by
application.

Replication
Treatments
Experimental
error
Total
C.V. = (%)
Appendix U. Functional roots (wt.) as affected by application of Fluopyram and Bacillus

Functional Roots (wt.) Total Mean
Treatments
I II III IV V VI
Fluopyram alone
Fluopyram +
Oxamyl 240 SL
Untreated Control
C.V. %
Appendix V. Analysis of Variance of Functional roots (wt.) as affected by application of

Replication
Treatments
Experimental
error
Total
C.V. = (%)
Appendix W. 50% Infected roots (wt.) as affected by application of Fluopyram and

Bacillus subtilis QST 713. Data gathering will be taken four weeks before
and six months thereafter treatment application.
50% Infected Roots (wt.) Total Mean
Treatments
I II III IV V VI
Fluopyram alone
Fluopyram +
Oxamyl 240 SL
Untreated Control
C.V. %
Appendix X. Analysis of Variance of 50% Infected roots (wt.) as affected by application

Replication
Treatments
Experimental
error
Total
C.V. = (%)
Appendix Y. Dead roots (wt.) as affected by application of Fluopyram and Bacillus

Dead Roots (wt.) Total Mean
Treatments
I II III IV V VI
Fluopyram alone
Fluopyram +
Oxamyl 240 SL
Untreated Control
C.V. %
Appendix Z. Analysis of Variance of Dead roots (wt.) as affected by application of

Replication
Treatments
Experimental
error
Total
C.V. = (%)
Appendix a1. Number of blown down case due to nematodes as affected by application
No. of Blown down Case Total Mean
Treatments
I II III IV V VI
Fluopyram alone
Fluopyram +
Oxamyl 240 SL
Untreated Control
C.V. %
Appendix a2. Analysis of Variance of No. of blown down case due to nematodes as

Replication
Treatments
Experimental
error
Total
C.V. = (%)
Appendix b1. Corm weevil population as affected by application of Fluopyram and

Bacillus subtilis QST 713. Data gathering will be taken four weeks before
and six months thereafter treatment application.
Corm weevil population Total Mean
Treatments
I II III IV V VI
Fluopyram alone
Fluopyram +
Oxamyl 240 SL
Untreated Control
C.V. %
Appendix b2. Analysis of Variance of Corm weevil population as affected by application

Replication
Treatments
Experimental
error
Total
C.V. = (%)
Literature Cited
Araya, M. 2004. Injection of Vydate® and Nemacur® into the banana (Musa AAA)
follower sucker pseudostem for nematode control. Journal CORBANA 2004 Vol.
30 No. 57 pp. 59-75.
Birkett. R. 2013. Bayer debuts Fluopyram Nematicide in Hundoras.
robert.birkitt@informa.com
Boncato A.A. and R.G. Davide. 1980. Radopholus similis on Cavendish banana in
Davao del Norte: Laboratory and field evaluation of nematodes for R. similis
control. Phil. Agr. 63:120-125.

Brooks, J. 2004. Banana Nematodes Pests and Diseases of American Samoa Number
9 American Samoa Community College Community & Natural Resources
Cooperative Research & Extension . Hawaii
Calvo, A.L. 2012. Harvest Losses Threat in the Existence of both Big Farms and
Smallholding Worldwide. www.research.bayer.com
Colina, A.L. IV, 2018. MindaNews. August 14, 2018. www. mindanews.com
Davide R.G. 2003. Nematode survey and collection of sample. Toward management of
Musa nematode in Asia and the Pacific. Inibap Training Manual. University of the
Philippines, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines.pp.41
Edgecomb, D.W. and D. Manker. 2006. Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 Bacterial
Disease Control in Fruit, Vegtable and Ornamental Production. researchgate.net
Faske, T.R. and K. Hurd. 2015 Sensitivity of Meloidogyne incognita and Rotylenchulus
reniformis to Fluopyram. https:/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority, 2000. FPA Pesticide Regulatory Policies and
Implementing Guidelines. 2nd Edition, Chapter 2. pp.107
Gold, C.S., Pena, J.E. and Karamura, E.B. 2001. Biology and Integrated Pest
Management for the banana weevil Cosmopolites sordidus Integ. Pest Manag.
Rev. 6(2), 79-155 https://doi/org/10.1023/A:1023330900707
Gomez K.A. and A.A. Gomez. 1983. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research.
2nd Edition. Los Banos, Laguna, hilippines.
Throssell, C. 2016. Closer Look: Indimnify, a New Nematode Control Product.
www.golfdom.com.
USEPA, 2006. Decision PC Code 006479. Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention
Division, Office of Pesticide Programs
Villanueva, L.M.2005. Status of nematode problem affecting banana in the Philippines.
Toward management of Musa nematode in Asia and the Pacific. Inibap Training
Manual. University of the Philippines, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines.
www.musalit.com
Warkentin, D., Walgenbach, P., Whitson, R., Manker, D. and M. Guilhabert, 2012.
Serenade® Soil (Bacillus subtilis, QST 713): Technology and Performance

Outline Roger P. Quilantang

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Outline Roger P. Quilantang

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

APPROVAL SHEET

BELLY T. DIONIO CATHERINE C. QUISADO

CECIRLY G. PUIG, Ph.D.

Accepted as partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF

HYDE D. NADELA, Ph.D.

CESAR A. LIMBAGA, JR. Ph.D.

THESIS OUTLINE SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT,

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE

However, banana is at risk posing a major issue on several problems on nematodes,

vascular, foliar and pre-harvest diseases.

2004). A complex of root-parasitic nematodes and banana weevil (Cosmopolites

Early studies of nematode control in banana mainly focused on the use of

only, where plantation companies exercise close supervision of nematicide applicators

nematode is Fluopyram. It is a succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor (SDHI) fungicide and

to induce plants natural systemic resistance or systemic acquired resistance (USEPA,

Due to hazardous effects of nematicides, searches for appropriate application

1. To evaluate the efficacy of Fluopyram against Radopholus similis and

2. To establish the potential of using Floupyram and with Bacillus subtilis

4. To compare the cost benefit of Fluopyram with the commercial

environmental or as parasites of animal or plants host. Plant-parasitic nematodes are

Fluopyram is succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor (SDHI) fungicide that is being

ecto-parasitic nematodes including sting, root-knot, ring and stunt nematode. It is a

Based on nematode motility assay, 78% of Meloidogyne incognita was immotile

after 2 hours of continuous exposure at 10.0 µg/ml fluopyram while 48% of

Rotylenchulus reniformis were immotile (Faske and Hurd, 2015).

Rhizobacteria. This class of organisms aggressively colonizes plant roots, bestowing an

induced systemic resistance to plant pathogens. This beneficial bacterium is essential to

and has direct activity on soil borne pathogens (Warkentin. D. 2012).

been shown to possess significant efficacy against a broad spectrum of economically

A combination of modern chemical and biological treatments will be the most

integrated pest management strategies for many crops (Hartwig, 2012)

and other nematode population count in Farm-1, Tagnanan Carp Beneficiaries

Cooperative (TCBC), Brgy. Tagnanan, Mabini, Compostela Valley Province.

The experiments will be laid-out in a Randomized Completely Block Design (RCBD).

square-roots transformation before analysis of variance if zero values will be obtained.

Rate Vol. Method of

1 Fluopyram alone 5.0 ml/L 100 Spray once

2 Fluopyram + 5.0 ml/L 100 Spray once

pure See Psuedostem

4 Untreated Control N/A N/A

Proposed Experimental Area for Nematode Control

Location Treatments / Replication

The baseline data to be gathered will be as follows:

pseudostem of the seedling plant.

4. Nematode Counts of Radopholus, Helicotylenchus, Meloidogyne and other parasitic

7. Corm weevil population by trapping (log-type trap using newly harvested

pseudostem). Monitor 24 hours after installation.

sampling will be done six month after application.

scheduled application of treatment. It obtained from 20 x 20 x 20 cm3, 25 cm away from

stage (Davide, 2003).

Root sampling will be executed following the procedures:

a. Prepare materials as follows:

Spade/hand trowel, Knife, Pails, Rubber bands, Plastic bags/net bags,

Sacks, Ice box.

b. Prepare disinfectant solutions every sampling day. Fresh disinfectant

solution is recommended. Mixing preparation of disinfectants are will be 10

after sampling from mat-to-mat to avoid contamination and spread of any

fungal and bacterial diseases in the area.

d. Dig a hole of 20 cm x 20 cm x 20 cm 3 extending outward from the corm of

feeder roots and dead roots found in a hole of 20 cm x 20 cm x 20 cm 3 dug

soil by stomping it.

to prevent the root samples from rapid drying.

i. Strictly implement quarantine measure by spraying or dipping all shoes with

disinfectant solution before and after sampling.