Meloidogyne partityla
species of worm
Meloidogyne partityla is a plant pathogenic nematode infecting pecan. One of the first described cases of this nematode where noted in pecan trees in South Africa by Brito et al. (2013). It is thought to have been introduced into South Africa by pecan seedlings that came from the United States (Eisenback, 2015). Today, this nematode is seen infecting pecan trees in Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas (Eisenback, 2015). They not only infect pecans, but they also infect the California black walnut, English walnut, shagbark hickory, and laurel oak (Eisenback, 2015). The first report in the US, was reported in South Carolina in which it infected laurel oaks but later started infecting neighboring pecan trees in the shared orchards (Eisenback, 2015).
The health of infested trees continue to decline every year (Eisenback, 2015).
See also
List of pecan diseases
References
Brito, J. A., Han, H., Stanley, J. D., Hao, M., & Dickson, D. W. (2013). First Report of Laurel Oak as a Host for the Pecan Root-Knot Nematode, Meloidogyne partityla, in Florida.
“Meloidogyne partityla” enters the record as species of worm. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Meloidogyne, partityla and species can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Meloidogyne partityla” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Meloidogyne, partityla and species provides the most credible route into that argument.
The date and method of observation matter as much as the stated conclusion, especially where classification or consensus has changed. The source revision retrieved here is dated Dec 26, 2023. The linked authority identifier is Q6813521. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2013 and 2015.
A general summary may omit uncertainty, sample limits or methodological disagreement that is explicit in the technical record. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Check terminology, classification and the date of the cited evidence. Scientific names and technical consensus can change while older records retain historical value.
- Current terminology
- Classification context
- Finding cited technical literature
Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Meloidogyne partityla”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Meloidogyne partityla primary sources, Meloidogyne partityla archive and Meloidogyne research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Meloidogyne partityla”?
- Is the terminology current, historical or disputed?
- Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Meloidogyne partityla” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.