ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Effects of loose kernel smut caused by Sporisorium cruentum onrhizomes of Sorghum halepense
1
Santa Catalina Phytotechnical Institute, Faculty of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences UNLP Calle 60 y 119 (1900) La Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina
2
Morphologic Botany, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences – National University Lomas de Zamora. Ruta Nº 4, km 2 (1836) Llavallol, Buenos Aires, Argentina
3
Phytopathology, CIDEFI, FCAyF-UNLP, CONICET. Calle 60 y 119 (1900) La Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Submission date: 2016-07-13
Acceptance date: 2017-01-17
Corresponding author
Marta Monica Astiz Gassó
Santa Catalina Phytotechnical Institute, Faculty of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences UNLP Calle 60 y 119 (1900) La Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Santa Catalina Phytotechnical Institute, Faculty of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences UNLP Calle 60 y 119 (1900) La Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Journal of Plant Protection Research 2017;57(1):62-71
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
The effect of loose kernel smut fungus Sporisorium cruentum on Sorghum halepense (Johnson grass) was investigated in vitro and in greenhouse experiments. Smut infection induced a decrease in the dry matter of rhizomes and aerial vegetative parts of the plants
evaluated. Moreover, the diseased plants showed a lower height than controls. The infection resulted in multiple smutted buds that caused small panicles infected with the fungus. In addition, changes were observed in the structural morphology of the host. Leaf tissue sections showed hyphae degrading chloroplasts and vascular bundles colonized by the fungus. Subsequently, cells collapsed and widespread necrosis was observed as a symptom of the disease. The pathogen did not colonize the gynoecium of Sorghum plants until the tassel was fully developed. The sporulation process of the fungus led to a total disintegration of anthers and tissues. When panicles were inspected before emergence, fungal hyphae were observed on floral primord. Histological sections of panicles showed fungal hyphae located in the parenchyma tissue and the nodal area. Infection occurred in the floral primordium before the tassel had fully developed and emerged from the flag leaf. Grains were replaced by sori surrounded by a thin membrane that usually was broken before or after the emergence of the panicle. The results, together with the significant decrease of the dry matter of rhizomes and seeds of S. halepense, suggest that S. cruentum could be considered as a potential biocontrol agent in the integrated management of this weed.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors have declared that no conflict of interests exist.
REFERENCES (51)
1.
Acciaresi H.A., Mónaco C. 1999. First report of Bipolaris sorghicola on Johnson grass in Argentina. Plant Disease 83 (10): 965.
2.
Arévalo E., Cabezas, O., Zúñiga L., Chávez M. 2000. Evaluación preliminar sobre el potencial de control del hongo Ustilago sp. sobre la maleza Paspalum virgatum. [Preliminary assessment of the potential control of the fungus Ustilago sp. on weeds Paspalum virgatum]. Abstract XV Congreso Peruano de Fitopatología. Revista de Fitopatología Latinoamericana 35: 11. (in Spanish).
3.
Astiz Gassó M.M. 1988. Efectos del carbón (Ustilago scitaminea Syd) sobre Saccharum offinarum. [Eff ects of smut (Ustilago scitaminea) on Saccharum offinarum]. Fitopatología 23: 37–39. (in Spanish).
4.
Astiz Gassó M.M., Monaco C., Acciaresi H. 2001. Efectividad de tres métodos de inoculaciones de Sporisorium cruentum en sorgo de alepo. [Effectiveness of three inoculations methods of Sporisorium cruentum of Johnson grass]. Brazilian Phytopathogy 26: 466. (in Spanish).
5.
Boguena T. 2003. Epidemiology of Ustilago bullata Berkon Bromus tectorum L. and implications for biological control. Ph. D. dissertation. Brigham Young University Provo UT, 102 pp.
6.
Boguena T., Meyer S.E., Nelson D.L. 2007. Low temperature during infection limits Ustilago bullata (Ustilaginaceae, Ustilaginales) disease incidence on Bromus tectorum (Poa ceae, Cyperales). Biocontrol Science and Technology 17: 33–52.
7.
Bracegirdle B., Miles P. 1975. Atlas de Estructuras Vegetales. [Atlas of Plant Structures]. Editorial Paraninfo, 125 pp. (in Spanish).
8.
BytherR.S., Steiner G.W. 1974. Unusual smut symptoms on sugarcane in Hawaii. Plant Disease Report 58: 401–405.
9.
Craig J., Fredenksen R.A. 1992. Comparison of Sorghum seedling reactions to Sporisorium reilianum in retation to Sorghum head smut resistance classes. Plant Disease 76 (3): 314–318.
10.
D’Ambrogío Argües A. 1986. Manual de Técnicas en Histología Vegetal. [Manual Techniques in Plant Histology]. Editorial Hemisferio Sur, 83 pp. (in Spanish).
11.
Duran R. 1987. Ustilaginales of México: Taxonomy, Symptomatology, Spore Germination, and Basidial Cytology. Washington State University, USA, 331 pp.
12.
Ghareeb H., Becker T.I., Feussner I., Schirawski J. 2011. Sporisorium reilianum infection changes inflorescence and branching architectures of maize. Plant Physiology 156 (4): 2037–2052.
13.
Ghersa C.M., Satorre E.H. 1981. La dinámica de la población derizomas de sorgo de alepo en relación con los sistemas de control más frecuentes. [The population dynamics of rhizomes Johnson grass in relation to the most common control systems]. Revista Facultad de Agronomía 2: 133–138. (in Spanish).
14.
Edmunds L.K. 1963. Use of sporidial hypodermic infection to test sorghum for head smut resistance. Plant Disease Rep. 47: 903–913.
15.
Fernández J.A., Durán R., Schafer J.F. 1978. Histological aspects of dwarf bunt resistance in wheat. Phytopathology 68: 1417–1421.
16.
Fischer G.W., Holton T.C. 1953. Manual of the North American Smut Fungi. The Ronald Company, New York, 343 pp.
17.
Kosiada T. 2011. In vitro influence of selected fungicides on Sphacelothe careiliana and Ustilago maydis. Journal of Plant Protection Research 51 (4): 342–348.
18.
Hanna W.F. 1929. Studies in the physiologic and cytology of Ustilago zeae and Sporisorium reilianum. Phythopathology 19: 415–444.
19.
Hirschhorn E. 1986. Las Ustilaginales de la fl ora Argentina. [The flora Ustilaginales Argentina]. C.I.C. ed. Comisión de Investigaciones Científi cas de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, 530 pp. (in Spanish).
20.
Holm L.G., Plucknett D.L, Pancho J.V., Herberger J.P. 1977. The World´s Worst Weeds, Distribution and Biology. p. 54–61. University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 609 pp.
21.
Leguizamón E.S. 2012. Sorgo de Alepo: Sorghum halepense (L.) Persoon. Bases para su manejo y control en sistemas de producción. [Sorghum of Aleppo: Sorghum halepense (L.) Persoon. Bases for management and production control systems.]. Ed. REM-AAPRESID Rosario, Santa Fe (Argentine) Vol. II, 38 pp. (in Spanish).
22.
Luttrell E.S., Graigmiles J.P., Harris B.H. 1964. Effect of lose kernel smut on vegetative growth of Johnson grass and Sorghum. Phythopathology 54: 612.
23.
Maddaloni J., Ferrari L. 2001. Forrajeras y pasturas del ecosistema templado húmedo de la Argentina. [Forage and pasture humid temperate ecosystem of Argentina]. Editado por Universidad de Lomas de Zamora Argentina, 520 pp. (in Spanish).
24.
Martinez C., Roux C., Dargen R. 1999. Biotrophic development of Sporisorium reilianum f. sp. zea in vegetative shoot apex of maize. Phytopathology 89: 247–253.
25.
Martinez C., Roux Ch., Jaunean D.R. 2002. The biological cycle of Sporisorium reilianum f. sp. zea: an overview using microscopy. Mycología 94 (3): 505–514.
26.
Matheussen A.M., Morgan P.W., Frederiksen R.A. 1990. Implication of gibberellins in head smut (Sporisorium reilianum) of Sorghum bicolour. Plant Physiolog, 96: 537–544.
27.
Matyac C.A. 1985. Histological development of Sphacalote careiliana on Zea maydis. Phytopathology 75: 924–929.
28.
Matyac C.A., Kommedahal T. 1985. Ocurrence of clorotic spots on corn seedlings infected with Sphacelotheca reiliana and their use in evaluation of head smut resistance. Plant Disease 69: 251–254.
29.
Mc Taggart A.R., Shivas R.G., Geering A.D.W., Vánky K., Scharaschkin T. 2012. Taxonomic revisión of Ustilago, Sporisorium and Macalpinomyces. Persoonia 29: 116–132.
30.
Méndez Fernández H., Ghersa C.M., Satorre E.H. 1983. El comportamiento de las semillas de Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers enrelación con la población de rizomas. [The behavior of the seeds of Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. in relation to the population of rhizomes]. Revista de la Facultad de Agronomía 3: 227–231. (in Spanish).
31.
Meyer S.E, Nelson D.L., Clement S.E. 2001. Evidence for resistance in the Bromus tectorum-Ustilago bullata pathosystem: implications for control. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology 23: 19–27.
32.
Millhollon R. 2000. Loose kernel smut for biocontrol of Sorghum halepense in Saccharum sp. hybrids. Weed Science 48 (5): 645–652.
33.
Mitidieri A. 1984. Sorgo de Alepo: importancia, biología y aspectos básicos para su control. [Sorghum of Aleppo: importance, biology and basic aspects for its control]. Biokemia 4: 25–36. (in Spanish).
34.
Moharam M.H.A., Leclerque A., Koch E. 2012. Cultural characteristics of Sporisorium sorghi and detection of the pathogen in plant tissue by microcopy and polymerase chain reaction. Phytoparasitica 40 (5): 475–483.
35.
Nasr I.A. 1976. Association of unusual symptoms with smut of sugarcane in the Sudan. Sugarcane Pathology 15.
36.
O’Brien T.P., Mc Cully M.E. 1981. The study of plant structure (principles and selected ethods). Melbourne: Termarcarphi Pty Ltd., Australia, 357 pp.
37.
Osorio J.A., Frederiksen R.A. 1998. Development of an infection assay for Sporisorium reilianum, the head smut pathogen on sorghum. Plant Disease 82: 1232–1236.
38.
Piper C.V. 1928. Cultivated grasses of secondary importance. U.S. Department of Agriculture Farmers Bulletin 1433.
39.
Reynolds E.S. 1963. The use of lead citrate at high pH as an electron-opaque stain in electron microscopy. Journals Cell Biology 55: 541–552.
40.
SAS. 1989. SAS User’s guide-release 6.03. SAS Institute Inc. (Cary, USA), 123 pp.
41.
Satorre E.H., Ghersa C.M., Soriano A. 1981. Dinámica de la población de rizomasde sorgo de alepo. Efecto del cultivo de avena y del corte. [Population dynamics of rhizomes Johnson grass. Effect of growing oats and cutting]. Revista de la Facultad de Agronomía 2:115-123. (in Spanish).
42.
Sharma R.L. 1956. Morphological modifi cations in sugarcane plant by systemic infection of smut (Ustilago scitaminea Syd.). Int. Soc. Sugar Technology 9: 1134–1168.
43.
Sinha O.K., Singh K., Misra S.R. 1982. Stain technique for detection of smut hyphae in nodal buds of sugarcane. Plant Disease 66: 932–933.
44.
Smith M.C., Holt J. 1997. Analytical models of weed biocontrol with sterilizing fungi: the consequences of differences in weed and pathogen life-histories. Plant Pathology 46: 306–319.
45.
Snetselaar K.M., Mims Ch.W. 1994. Light and electron microscopy of Ustilago maydis hyphae in maize. Mycological Research 98 (3): 347–355.
46.
Spurr A.R. 1969. A low-viscosity epoxy resin embedding medium for electron microscopy. Journal Ultrastruct Research 26 (1–2): 31–43.
47.
Vánky K. 1985. Carpathian Ustilaginales. Usppsala, Almqvist & Wiksell International Stockholm, New York, 309 pp.
48.
Verdejo J., Della Penna A., Madia M. 1995. Agentes fúngicos identifi cados en plantas de malezas. [Fungal agents identified in weel plants]. Proceedings of XII Congreso Latinoamericano de Malezas. Uruguay, 113–115. (in Spanish).
49.
Ward K.J., Klepper B., Rickmann R.P., Allmaras R.R. 1978. Quantitative estimation of living wheat-root lengths in soil cores. Agronomy Journal 70: 675–677.
50.
Williams R.D., Igber B.F. 1977. The effect of intraspecific competition on the growth and development of Johnson grass under greenhouse conditions. Weed Science 25 (4): 477–481.
51.
Wilson J.M, Frederiksen R.A. 1970. Histopatology of resistance in the Sorghum bicolor-Sphacelotheca reiliana interaction. Phytopathology 60: 828–932.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 1899-007X |
| ISSN: | 1427-4345 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
