
==== Front
J Nematol
J Nematol
jofnem
jofnem
Journal of Nematology
0022-300X
2640-396X
Sciendo

38264460
jofnem-2023-0059
10.2478/jofnem-2023-0059
Research Paper
Meloidogyne spp. in Eucalypts - Reproduction and Damage to Seedling Growth
Lopes Vieira José Olívio Júnior
Cunha Pereira Renata
Mangeiro Mariana Zandomênico
Moreira Souza Ricardo ricmsouza@censanet.com.br

Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Universidade Estadual do Norte Fluminense Darcy Ribeiro. Av. Alberto Lamego, 2000, Campos dos Goytacazes, Brazil, 28013-600
This paper was edited by Cynthia Gleason.

23 1 2024
2 2023
55 1 2023005911 5 2023
© 2023 José Olívio Lopes Vieira et al., published by Sciendo
2023
José Olívio Lopes Vieira et al., published by Sciendo
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Abstract

Eucalypts are cultivated worldwide, but little is known about their status as hosts of root-knot nematodes (RKN) (Meloidogyne spp.). Moreover, information is scarce regarding the nature of the damage caused by RKN to eucalypt seedlings and trees. To investigate these aspects, we separately inoculated Meloidogyne enterolobii, M. javanica and M. incognita in seedlings of the world’s most cultivated eucalypts: Eucalyptus dunni, E. grandis, E. cloeziana, E. camaldulensis, E. saligna, Corymbia citriodora, and the hybrid E. grandis × E. urophylla. After six months of greenhouse cultivation, we assessed nematode reproduction and variables that expressed the seedlings’ shoot and root growth. We observed a diverse pattern of host statuses to RKN among the eucalypts, and all three Meloidogyne species reduced (p < 0.05) the root system mass, volume and length of E. grandis, E. saligna and the hybrid E. grandis × E. urophylla. Our results reaffirm previous reports indicating that RKN can delay the growth of seedlings in nurseries, who should thus adopt appropriate sanitary measures to avoid RKN establishment and spread. Moreover, the damage caused by RKN to eucalypts after just six months of cultivation suggests that the growth of eucalypt trees may be affected over the course of several years of cultivation.

Keywords

Corymbia citriodora
Eucalyptus spp.
host-parasitic relationship
nematode damage
resistance
root-knot nematode
==== Body
pmcEucalypts are the most widely cultivated hardwood tree, found in over 100 countries and accounting for about 22 million hectares (Hua et al., 2002). Eucalypts are often cultivated in areas no longer suitable for other crops, in which the soil has low fertility and low levels of organic matter and microorganisms (Zhang et al., 2012). In such areas, eucalypt seedlings can suffer greater damage from plant pathogens (Naidoo et al., 2014). Fungi and bacteria are the main pathogens of eucalypts (Paine et al., 2011), but nematodes are also an emerging concern as parasites of eucalypt trees (Cruz et al., 2003) and seedlings (Khan, 2012; Bellé et al., 2018; Silva et al., 2020; Souza and Inomoto, 2021).

Globally, root-knot nematodes (RKN) (Meloidogyne spp.) are the most damaging nematode group (Perry et al., 2009). In susceptible plants, RKN can induce root galling, cause hormonal and nutritional imbalances, and cause yield losses. Even resistant plants can suffer damage when numerous second-stage juveniles (J2) invade and migrate through their root tissues. Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid and White) Chitwood and M. javanica (Treub) Chitwood occur worldwide, while M. enterolobii (Yang and Eisenback) Rammah and Hirschmann is an emerging concern in several countries (Collett et al., 2021). These RKN are known to interact with soilborne fungi to form disease complexes. For instance, in guava (P. guajava L) a myrtaceae like eucalypts, M. enterolobii interacts with Neocosmospora falciformis (Carrión) L. Lombard and Crous, leading to guava decline (Gomes et al., 2011; Veloso et al., 2021).

Eucalyptus dunni Maiden, E. grandis Hill ex Maiden, C. citriodora Hook and the hybrid E. grandis × E. urophylla ST Blake have all been reported as resistant to M. javanica and M. incognita (Almeida et al., 2012; Silva et al., 2020; Souza and Inomoto, 2021). Nonetheless, the genetic variability of RKN suggests that more eucalypts should be assessed for their resistance/susceptibility to a larger range of Meloidogyne species and populations. Moreover, reports of the effects of RKN on the growth of eucalypt seedlings are scarce (Ferraz and Lordello, 1982; Silva et al., 2020). The growth of RKN-susceptible or RKN-resistant seedlings can be delayed if they are planted in areas previously cultivated with crops that harbored high RKN populations.

Hence, this study aimed i) to assess the host status of the world's most cultivated eucalypts to M. enterolobii, M. javanica, and M. incognita; and ii) to assess the impact of these Meloidogyne species on seedling growth. We hypothesized that a distinct host status (immune, resistant, or susceptible) would be found depending on the eucalypt and the nematode species involved, and that RKN would delay the seedling growth regardless of this host status.

To test these hypotheses, seedlings of six eucalypt species and one hybrid were inoculated with M. enterolobii, M. javanica or M. incognita, and then grown in a greenhouse over a period of six months. Nematode reproduction and variables related to the seedlings’ vegetative growth were assessed, and the data were analyzed.

Materials and Methods

Eucalypt cultivation

Eucalypt seeds were purchased from Caiçara Sementes (Brejo Alegre, Brazil). The substrate for seeding and seedling growth was prepared by mixing washed riverbed sand and soil (1:1). The substrate was disinfested in an Embrapa-type solar collector (Ghini, 2004) for three days under full sun before use. The temperatures that are reached inside the metal containers (60 to 80 °C) are known to eradicate both fungi and nematodes (Martins et al., 2003).

Seeding and seedling growth were conducted in plastic plant growth tubes (280 cm3) in a greenhouse (Supplementary Fig. 1). For each eucalypt species or hybrid, seven seeds were sown per tube, and thinned later to one seedling. The seedlings were irrigated once a day during winter, and twice in the summer. During the assay, the minimum and maximum daily temperatures were recorded locally. These temperatures averaged 17 and 30 ºC, respectively. No diseases or insect pests were observed during the assay.

Experimental design, nematode sources, and inoculation

For each combination of eucalypt species or hybrid and Meloidogyne species, two treatments were assessed: nematode inoculation or no inoculation (control), with 10 replicate seedlings per treatment, for a total of 20 seedlings. The seedlings were arranged randomly in a tray of growth tubes.

Meloidogyne javanica and M. incognita were obtained from pure cultures maintained on tomato plants (Solanum lycopersicum L.) in a greenhouse at the Universidade Federal de Viçosa (Brazil). Meloidogyne enterolobii was obtained from a pure culture maintained on tomato and okra plants (Abelmoschus esculentus L.) in a greenhouse at the Universidade Estadual do Norte Fluminense Darcy Ribeiro (Brazil). The species’ identities were ascertained by morphology and esterase phenotyping (Esbenshade and Triantaphyllou, 1985).

To obtain the nematode inocula, infected tomato or okra roots were cleaned with tap water and submitted to nematode extraction using the method specified by Coolen and D’Herde (1972), but without adding kaolin to the blender. The resulting suspension was passed through 65- and 500-mesh sieves (with 250 and 25-μm openings, respectively). The nematode eggs and J2 retained on the 500-mesh sieve were suspended in water, and three 1-mL aliquots were counted on Peters’ slides under a stereomicroscope. For the three Meloidogyne species, the inoculum was calibrated to 50 eggs + J2/mL of water. The seedlings were inoculated 60 days after sowing, when two 5-cm-deep holes were made in the soil around each seedling, into which 10 mL of the inoculum (500 eggs + J2) was applied.

Evaluation and data analysis

One hundred eighty days after inoculation, the seedlings were removed from the growth tubes and cut at the collar region. The shoot height (SH, in cm), stem diameter at the collar region (SD, in mm) and mass of the leaves after drying at 65 °C for 48 h (ML, in g) were all assessed. The root system was gently washed in tap water, and the following assessments were performed: length (RSL, in cm), measured from the collar until the most distal rootlet; fresh mass (RSM, in g); and volume (RSV, in cm3), measured by inserting the root system in a 50-mL graduated glass tube filled partially with water and measuring the displacement of water.

Nematodes were extracted from the roots and counted as described before. Eggs + J2 constituted the final nematode population (Pf). The nematode reproduction factor (RF) was determined by the Pf/500 ratio. For each combination of eucalypt species or hybrid and Meloidogyne species, the host status was determined according to Oostenbrink (1966), where RF = 0 denotes immunity; RF = 0.1 to 0.99 denotes resistance; and RF > 1 denotes susceptibility.

Data were submitted to the Shapiro-Wilk test to verify the normality of variances. Since the data were not normally distributed (p > 0.05), the treatments’ means were compared using the Mann-Whitney test at 5% significance (Mann and Whitney, 1947). The statistical analyses and graphs were generated using SigmaPlot 12.0 (Systat Software Inc., USA).

Results

Corymbia citriodora, E. cloeziana F. Muell., and E. dunni were resistant to M. enterolobii, M. incognita, and M. javanica, as the RF in these combinations was below 1 (Table 1). Moreover, none of the variables expressing seedling growth were affected by the nematodes (Supplementary Table 1). Eucalyptus grandis was resistant to all three Meloidogyne species, but the species did all have an effect (p < 0.05) on the growth of the seedlings’ root system (Fig. 1). Eucalyptus camaldulensis Dehnh was susceptible to M. javanica only (RF = 1.04), and no damage (p < 0.05) occurred to seedling growth. Eucalyptus saligna Smith was susceptible to M. incognita and M. javanica, but all three Meloidogyne species reduced RSL (p < 0.05) (Fig. 2A). The hybrid E. grandis × E. urophylla was susceptible to M. enterolobii and M. javanica, but all three RKN reduced the seedlings’ RSV and RSL (p < 0.05) (Figs. 2B,C).

Figure 1: Effect of Meloidogyne enterolobii, M. incognita, and M. javanica on root system volume, mass, and length of Eucalyptus grandis seedlings grown in a greenhouse for six months. Values are the mean of 10 seedlings per nematode species. “*” denotes a significant difference relative to the control according to the Mann–Whitney test at 5% significance.

Figure 2: Effect of Meloidogyne enterolobii, M. incognita, and M. javanica on root system length and volume of eucalypt seedlings grown in a greenhouse for six months. A) Eucalyptus saligna. B, C) hybrid E. grandis × E. urophylla. Values are the means of 10 seedlings per eucalypt species or hybrid, per nematode species. “*” denotes a significant difference relative to the control according to the Mann-Whitney test at 5% significance.

Table 1: Reproduction factor and host status of Eucalyptus spp. and Corymbia citriodora to Meloidogyne enterolobii, M. incognita, and M. javanica, after cultivation in greenhouse for six months

Species	M. enterolobii	M. incognita	M. javanica	
E. camaldulensis	0.22a (R)b	0.52 (R)	1.04 (S)	
E. cloeziana	0.60 (R)	0.46 (R)	0.62 (R)	
E. dunni	0.50 (R)	0.82 (R)	0.74 (R)	
E. grandis	0.38 (R)	0.62 (R)	0.42 (R)	
E. saligna	0.94 (R)	4.82 (S)	3.44 (S)	
E. grandis × E. urophylla	1.72 (S)	0.48 (R)	2.46 (S)	
C. citriodora	0.94 (R)	0.90 (R)	0.54 (R)	
a Values are the mean of 10 seedlings per eucalypt species or hybrid, per nematode species.

b R denotes resistance, and S denotes susceptibility according to the criteria of Oostenbrink (1966).

Discussion

This study revealed a diverse pattern of host statuses and pathogenicities across different RKN-eucalypt interactions. With regard to host status, resistance was predominant, with the exception of E. saligna to M. incognita and M. javanica; E. camaldulensis to M. javanica; and the hybrid E. grandis × E. urophylla to M. enterolobii and M. javanica. This is the first report of susceptibility to RKN in E. camaldulensis, the hybrid E. grandis × E. urophylla, and E. saligna. In a previous report of RKN resistance in E. saligna, the relatively short period (90 days) chosen for nematode reproduction may have contributed to a RF < 1 (Ferraz and Lordello, 1982).

Regarding the pathogenicity of RKN, this is the first report of damage by M. incognita and M. enterolobii to E. grandis, and by M. enterolobii, M. incognita, and M. javanica to E. saligna and the hybrid E. grandis × E. urophylla. Meloidogyne incognita has previously been found to be pathogenic to C. citriodora, and M. arenaria, M. javanica, and M. morocciensis to C. citriodora and E. grandis (Ferraz and Lordello, 1982; Silva et al., 2020). Collectively, this indicates that RKN may be pathogenic to eucalypt seedlings regardless of the host status.

Taken together, our results on host status and pathogenicity suggest that in certain RKN-eucalypt interactions there may be tolerance (the ability to withstand growth despite susceptibility) or intolerance (sustaining damage despite being resistant). Nonetheless, it seems premature to assign such terms to RKN-eucalypt interactions. For a crop that may stand in the field for a dozen years, it seems advisable to carry out an additional field assay (1 to 2 years) to clarify this issue.

Presumably, the damage we observed to the seedlings’ root growth have consequences in the field. Indeed, the eucalypt root system, which can reach up to 60 meters deep, is crucial to sustaining the tree’s rapid growth (Whitehead and Beadle, 2004). It is plausible to think that planting eucalypt seedlings infected with RKN, or cultivating eucalypts in RKN-infested fields, may delay their growth, and years later reduce their productivity of wood, charcoal or other products.

In conclusion, our results highlight the need for more studies on the pathogenicity of RKN to eucalypts, particularly several months after the seedlings are transplanted to the field. Greater attention should be paid to the phytosanitary management of eucalypt nurseries, and the sampling of areas intended for eucalypt cultivation, in order to detect and quantify RKN.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Figure 1: A) Eucalypt seedlings cultivated in a greenhouse for assessment of host status to and damage by Meloidogyne incognita, M. javanica, and M. enterolobii. B) Corymbia citriodora. C) Eucalyptus saligna. D) Hybrid E. grandis × E. urophylla. E) E. grandis. F) E. dunni. G) E. cloeziana. H) E. camaldulensis.

Supplementary Table 1: Mean ± error of shoot height (SH), stem diameter (SD), dry mass of leaves (ML), root-system mass (RSM), root system volume (RSV), and root-system length (RSL) of seedlings of Eucalyptus spp. and Corymbia citriodora when inoculated with Meloidogyne enterolobii, M. incognita or M. javanica, and cultivated in a greenhouse for six months.

Treatments	SH (cm)	SD (mm)	ML (g)	RSM (g)	RSV (cm3)	RSL (cm)	
Eucalyptus camaldulensis	
Meloidogyne enterolobii	37.40 ± 0.72a	3.38 ± 0.10	0.76 ± 0.10	3.06 ± 0.44	4.0 ± 0.25	21.4 ± 0.78	
Meloidogyne incognita	37.20 ± 0.79	3.62 ± 0.12	0.89 ± 0.11	2.99 ± 0.24	2.9 ± 0.37	21.2 ± 0.84	
Meloidogyne javanica	34.50 ± 0.57	3.52 ± 0.11	0.89 ± 0.11	3.32 ± 0.31	2.8 ± 0.55	20.20 ± 0.42	
Control	39.01 ± 0.88	3.39 ± 0.10	0.92 ± 0.14	3.06 ± 0.23	4.2 ± 0.41	21.4 ± 0.55	
Corymbia citriodora	
Meloidogyne enterolobii	33.30 ± 0.53	3.01 ± 0.07	0.81 ± 0.07	4.23 ± 0.15	4.0 ± 0.33	20.0 ± 0.59	
Meloidogyne incognita	34.06 ± 0.42	3.03 ± 0.09	0.70 ± 0.11	2.53 ± 0.17	3.8 ± 0.35	20.5 ± 0.22	
Meloidogyne javanica	30.60 ± 0.69	2.90 ± 0.08	0.69 ± 0.06	4.13 ± 0.19	3.1 ± 0.31	20.0 ± 0.47	
Control	33.33 ± 0.53	3.26 ± 0.08	0.81 ± 0.07	4.15 ± 0.14	4.5 ± 0.34	20.9 ± 0.48	
Eucalyptus cloeziana	
Meloidogyne enterolobii	28.61 ± 0.93	3.26 ± 0.08	1.00 ± 0.14	2.98 ± 0.12	3.6 ± 0.55	18.8 ± 0.28	
Meloidogyne incognita	27.90 ± 0.97	3.30 ± 0.11	1.10 ± 0.26	3.26 ± 0.22	3.4 ± 0.39	19.2 ± 0.38	
Meloidogyne javanica	28.70 ± 0.97	3.25 ± 0.12	1.07 ± 0.14	4.98 ± 0.13	4.9 ± 0.50	18.8 ± 0.32	
Control	32.50 ± 1.00	3.48 ± 0.09	1.26 ± 0.12	4.38 ± 0.14	3.8 ± 0.47	19.2 ± 0.24	
Eucalyptus dunni	
Meloidogyne enterolobii	38.51 ± 0.76	4.18 ± 0.14	1.2 ± 0.16	2.72 ± 0.42	3.6 ± 0.38	18.8 ± 0.23	
Meloidogyne incognita	37.17 ± 0.84	4.24 ± 0.12	0.96 ± 0.15	3.45 ± 0.47	3.2 ± 0.39	20.3 ± 0.38	
Meloidogyne javanica	41.00 ± 0.81	4.27 ± 0.13	1.0 ± 0.11	3.07 ± 0.49	3.0 ± 0.51	18.8 ± 0.33	
Control	41.20 ± 0.70	4.12 ± 0.12	1.23 ± 0.11	4.99 ± 0.44	4.6 ± 0.39	19.7 ± 0.39	
Eucalyptus grandis	
Meloidogyne enterolobii	34.28 ± 0.78	3.44 ± 0.13	0.48 ± 0.07	2.89 ± 0.37*	2.50 ± 0.40*	19.3 ± 0.49*	
Meloidogyne incognita	36.78 ± 0.69	3.81 ± 0.10	0.83 ± 0.09	4.96 ± 0.64	3.40 ± 0.43*	20.0 ± 0.29*	
Meloidogyne javanica	36.56 ± 0.78	3.97 ± 0.11	0.45 ± 0.05	3.08 ± 0.45*	2.60 ± 0.39*	19.8 ± 0.39*	
Control	36.52 ± 0.92	3.84 ± 0.12	0.60 ± 0.07	5.14 ± 0.78	4.40 ± 0.49	21.5 ± 0.41	
Eucalyptus saligna	
Meloidogyne enterolobii	24.13 ± 0.62	3.75 ± 0.11	1.3 ± 0.16	4.86 ± 0.94	2.3 ± 0.61	19.0 ± 0.63*	
Meloidogyne incognita	24.18 ± 0.65	3.82 ± 0.11	1.37 ± 0.13	7.87 ± 1.23	3.9 ± 0.76	20.8 ± 0.45*	
Meloidogyne javanica	24.85 ± 0.59	3.49 ± 0.10	1.05 ± 0.14	5.73 ± 1.13	2.4 ± 0.57	20.3 ± 0.61*	
Control	27.52 ± 0.54	3.58 ± 0.53	1.25 ± 0.15	6.74 ± 1.08	3.1 ± 0.49	22.5 ± 0.67	
Eucalyptus grandis × Eucalyptus urophylla	
Meloidogyne enterolobii	20.30 ± 0.89	3.60 ± 0.10	1.06 ± 0.09	3.43 ± 0.5	1.20 ± 0.13*	20.3 ± 1.01*	
Meloidogyne incognita	20.60 ± 0.59	3.75 ± 0.10	1.07 ± 0.17	2.41 ± 0.44	1.30 ± 0.15*	20.6 ± 0.63*	
Meloidogyne javanica	24.26 ± 0.58	4.19 ± 0.27	1.32 ± 0.15	3.16 ± 0.46	1.30 ± 0.19*	24.2 ± 0.53	
Control	27.67 ± 0.84	3.54 ± 0.42	1.19 ± 0.16	3.74 ± 0.39	2.01 ± 0.20	24.0 ± 0.66	
a Values are the mean of 10 seedlings per eucalypt species or hybrid, per nematode species.

“*” Denotes a significant difference in relation to the control according to the Mann–Whitney test at 5% significance.
==== Refs
Literature Cited

Almeida E. J. Paes V. D. S. Barbosa B. F. dos Santos J. M. Soares P. L. 2012 Eucalyptus clones reaction to Meloidogyne enterolobii Nematologia Brasileira 36 80 82
Bellé C. Groth M. Z. Kaspary T. E. Khun P. R. Kulczynski S. M. 2018 Reprodução de Pratylenchus spp. em espécies de eucalipto (Eucalyptus spp.) Nematropica 48 45 49
Collett R. L. Marais M. Daneel M. Rashidifard M. Fourie H. 2021 Meloidogyne enterolobii, a threat to crop production with particular reference to sub-Saharan Africa: an extensive, critical and updated review Nematology 23 247 285 https://doi.org/10.1163/15685411-bja10076.
Coolen W. A. D’Herde C. J. 1972 A method for the quantitative extraction of nematodes from plant tissue Belgium State Agricultural Research Centre
Cruz M. C. Otoboni C. E. M. Ferreira R. V. Goulart S. L. 2003 Ocorrência de nematoides em genótipos de Eucalyptus e Pinus caribaea Revista Científica Eletrônica de Agronomia 2 1 3
Esbenshade P. R. Triantaphyllou A. C. 1985 Use of enzyme phenotypes for identification of Meloidogyne species Journal of Nematology 17 6 19294051
Ferraz L. C. C. B. Lordello L. G. E. 1982 Suscetibilidade e danos causados a espécies de Eucalyptus e Pinus por nematoides das galhas no estado de São Paulo Brazilian Journal of Agriculture 57 67 75
Ghini R. 2004 Coletor Solar para Desinfestação de Substratos para Produção de Mudas Sadias Brasília Circular Técnica EMBRAPA
Gomes V. M. Souza R. M. Mussi-Dias V. Silveira S. F. D. Dolinski C. 2011 Guava decline: a complex disease involving Meloidogyne mayaguensis and Fusarium solani Journal of Phytopathology 159 45 50 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0434.2010.01711.x.
Hua L. S. Chen L. W. Antov P. Kristak L. Tahir P. M. 2022 Engineering Wood Products from Eucalyptus spp Advances in Materials Science and Engineering 8000780 1 14 https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/8000780.
Khan M. R. 2012 Nematodes, an emerging threat to global forests: Assessment and management Plant Pathology Journal 11 99 113 https://doi.org/10.3923/ppj.2012.99.113.
Mann H. B. Whitney D. R. 1947 On a test of whether one of 2 random variables is stochastically larger than the other Annals of Mathematical Statistics 18 50 60
Martins M. V. V. Silveira S. F. D. Carvalho A. J. C. D. Souza E. F. D. 2003 Erradicação de escleródios de Sclerotium rolfsii em substratos tratados em coletores solares, em Campos dos Goytacazes-RJ Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura 25 421 424 https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-29452003000300015.
Naidoo S. Kulheim C. Zwart L. 2014 Uncovering the defence responses of Eucalyptus to pests and pathogens in the genomics age Tree Physiology 34 931 43 https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpu075. 25261123
Oostenbrink M. 1966 Major characteristics of the relation between nematodes and plants Wageningen Landbouwhogeschool Wageningen
Paine T. D. Steinbauer M. J. Lawson S. A. 2011 Native and exotic pests of Eucalyptus: a worldwide perspective Annual Review of Entomology 56 181 201 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-120709-144817.
Perry R. N. Moens M. Starr J. L. 2009 Root-knot nematodes Wallingford CAB International
Silva V. A. Kulczynski S. M. Bisognin A. C. Kirsch V. G. Gabriel M. Muraro D. S. 2020 Hospedabilidade de espécies de eucalipto a nematoides das galhas Agrotrópica 32 37 42 http://dx.doi.org/10.21757/0103-3816.2020v32n1p37-42.
Souza V. H. M. D. Inomoto M. M. 2021 Host status of eucalypt species to Pratylenchus brachyurus and Meloidogyne incognita Arquivos do Instituto Biológico 88 1 8 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1808-1657000302020.
Veloso J. S. Câmara M. P. Souza R. M. 2021 Guava decline: updating its etiology from “Fusarium solani” to Neocosmospora falciformis European Journal of Plant Pathology 159 455 460 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10658-020-02161-z.
Whitehead D. Beadle C. L. 2004 Physiological regulation of productivity and water use in Eucalyptus: a review Forest Ecology and Management 193 113 140 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.01.026.
Zhang D. Zhang J. Yang W. Wu F. 2012 Effects of afforestation with Eucalyptus grandis on soil physicochemical and microbiological properties Soil Research 50 167 176 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/SR11104.
