ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Influence of selected Rhizoctonia solani isolates on sugar beet seedlings
1
Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute – National Research Institute, Research Division in Bydgoszcz, Powstańców Wlkp. 10, 85-090 Bydgoszcz, Poland
2
Institute of Plant Protection – National Research Institute, Regional Experimental Station Toruń, Pigwowa 16, 87-100 Toruń, Poland
Submission date: 2015-12-18
Acceptance date: 2016-04-13
Corresponding author
Paweł Skonieczek
Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute – National Research Institute, Research Division in Bydgoszcz, Powstańców Wlkp. 10, 85-090 Bydgoszcz, Poland
Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute – National Research Institute, Research Division in Bydgoszcz, Powstańców Wlkp. 10, 85-090 Bydgoszcz, Poland
Journal of Plant Protection Research 2016;56(2):116-121
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
From 2008 to 2010 the levels of sugar beet seedlings infection caused by Rhizoctonia solani were compared in laboratory tests. Seven sugar beet lines were tested: H56, H66, S2, S3, S4, S5 and S6 as well as three control cultivars: Carlos, Esperanza and Janosik. Sugar beet lines with tolerance to rhizoctoniosis and cultivars without tolerance were infected artificially by R. solani isolates: R1, R28a and R28b. These isolates belong to the second anastomosis group (AG), which is usually highly pathogenic to beet roots. The aim of the experiment was to test whether the tolerance of sugar beet genotypes to
R. solani AG 2 prevents both root rot, and damping-off of seedlings, induced by the pathogen. Sugar beet lines tolerant to brown root rot in laboratory tests were significantly less sensitive to infection of the seedlings by R. solani AG 2 isolates in comparison to control cultivars. Rhizoctonia solani AG 2 isolates demonstrated considerable differences in pathogenicity against seedlings of sugar beet lines and cultivars. The strongest infection of sugar beet seedlings occurred with the isolate R28b. The greatest tolerance to infection by AG 2 isolates was found for the S5 and S3 breeding lines.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors have declared that no conflict of interests exist.
REFERENCES (36)
1.
Allen M.F., Boosalis M.G., Kerr E.D., Muldoon A.E., Larsen H.J. 1985. Population dynamics of sugar beets, Rhizoctonia solani, and Laetisaria arvalis: Responses of a host, plant pathogen, and hyperparasite to perturbation in the field. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 50 (5): 1123–1127.
2.
Borodynko N., Moliszewska E., Wiśniewski W. 2011. Choroby buraka cukrowego. [Diseases of sugar beet]. Biuletyn Agrotechniczny KWS 1 (10): 1–22.
3.
Brendler F., Holtschulte B., Rieckmann W. 2008. Zuckerrüben. Krankheiten, Schädlinge, Unkräuter. [Sugar Beet: Diseases, Pests, Weeds]. AgroConcept Verlagsgesellschaft, Bonn, Germany, 272 pp.
4.
Buddemeyer J., Märländer B. 2004. Integrierte Kontrolle der Späten Rübenfäule (Rhizoctonia solani Kühn) in Zuckerrüben – Einfluß von Anbaumaßnahmen und Fruchtfolgegestaltung sowie Sortenwahl unter Berücksichtigung des Maises. [Integrated control of crown rot in sugar beet roots (Rhizoctonia solani Kühn) – the impact of tillage factors, crop rotation, and selection of varieties, including maize]. Zuckerindustrie 129: 799–809.
5.
Buhre C. 2008. Einfluss von Fruchtfolge, Bodenbearbeitung, Sortenwahl und Zwischenfruchtanbau auf den Befall von Zuckerrüben mit Rhizoctonia solani. [The influence of crop rotation, tillage of soil, cultivar choice and catch crop on sugar beet infestation by Rhizoctonia solani]. Dissertation, Faculty of Agriculture, Göttingen University, Göttingen, Germany, 137 pp.
6.
Buhre C., Kluth C., Bürcky K., Märländer B., Varrelmann M. 2009. Integrated control of root and crown rot in sugar beet: Combined effects of cultivar, crop rotation, and soil tillage. Plant Disease 93 (2): 155–161.
7.
Büttner G., Führer Ithurrart M.E., Buddemeyer J. 2002. Späte Rübenfäule Rhizoctonia solani Verbreitung, wirtschaftliche Bedeutung und integrierte Bekämpfungskonzepte. [Crown rot of sugar beet roots caused by Rhizoctonia solani occurrence, economic importance and integrated methods of control]. Zuckerindustrie 127: 856–866.
8.
Carling D.E. 1996. Grouping in Rhizoctonia solani by hyphal anastomosis reaction. p. 35–47. In: “Rhizoctonia Species: Taxonomy, Molecular Biology, Ecology, Pathology and Disease Control” (B. Sneh, S. Jabaji-Hare, S. Neate, G. Dijst, eds.). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Germany, 357 pp.
9.
Carling D.E., Baird R.E., Gitaitis R.D., Brainard K.A., Kuninaga S. 2002. Characterization of AG-13 a newly reported anastomosis group of Rhizoctonia solani. Phytopathology 92 (8): 893–899.
10.
Coosemans J., Raeymaekers A., Mas K. 2001. Identification of Rhizoctonia solani from Belgia sugar beet growing area. p. 391–396. In: Proceedings of the 64th International Institute for Beet Research Congress, Bruges, Belgium, 26–27 June 2001.
11.
Engelkes C.A., Windels C.E. 1996. Susceptibility of sugar beet and beans to Rhizoctonia solani AG-2-2 IIIB and AG-2-2 IV. Plant Disease 80 (12): 1413–1417.
12.
Führer Ithurrart M.E. 2003. Nachweis und Charakterisierung von Rhizoctonia solani (Kühn), dem Erreger der Späten Rübenfäule an Zuckerrüben. [Identification and characterization of Rhizoctonia solani (Kühn), the causative agent of Crown rot in sugar beet roots]. Dissertation, Faculty of Agriculture, Göttingen University, Göttingen, Germany, 104 pp.
13.
Führer Ithurrart M.E., Büttner G., Petersen J. 2004. Rhizoctonia root rot in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris ssp. altissima) – Epidemiological aspects in relation to maize (Zea mays) as a host plant. Journal of Plant Disease and Protection 111 (3): 302–312.
14.
Garrett S.D. 1970. Pathogenic Root-infecting Fungi. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 294 pp.
15.
Górski D., Piszczek J. 2008. Wpływ skracania płodozmianu na zdrowotność roślin oraz plon i jakość korzeni buraków cukrowych. [Influence of shortening of crop rotation on the health, yield and quality of sugar beet]. Progress in Plant Protection 48 (4): 1417–1420. (in Polish, with English summary).
16.
Herr L.J., Roberts D.L. 1980. Characterization of Rhizoctonia populations obtained from sugar beet fields with different soil textures. Phytopathology 70 (6): 476–480.
17.
Kronland W.C., Stanghellini M.E. 1988. Clean slide technique for the observation of anastomosis and nuclear condition of Rhizoctonia solani. Phytopathology 78 (6): 820–822.
18.
Moliszewska E.B. 2000. The influence of some herbicides on species variation of fungi associated with rotted tissue of sugar beet seedlings. Phytopathologia Polonica 20: 85–95.
19.
Moliszewska E.B. 2009. Etiologia wybranych chorób korzeni buraka cukrowego. [The Etiology of Selected Diseases of Sugar beet Roots]. Studia i Monografie nr 412, Uniwersytet Opolski, Opole, Poland, 131 pp.
20.
Moliszewska E.B., Burgieł Z.J. 2002. Badania wybranych szczepów grzyba Rhizoctonia solani Kühn wyizolowanych z zamierających siewek buraka cukrowego. [Research on selected isolates of Rhizoctonia solani Kühn obtained from dying sugar beet seedlings]. Zeszyty Naukowe Akademii Rolniczej w Krakowie 82: 101–104.
21.
Moliszewska E.B., Schneider J.H.M. 2002. Studies on pathogenic properties of Rhizoctonia solani against sugar beet seedlings. Plant Protection Science 38 (Special Issue 2): 322–324.
22.
Nowakowski M., Skonieczek P., Matyka Ł., Żurek M., Wąsacz E., Szymczak-Nowak J. 2014. Monitorowanie zmian w populacjach patogena Rhizoctonia solani – sprawcy rizoktoniozy korzeni buraka cukrowego. (Zadanie 6.11). [Monitoring changes in the populations of the Rhizoctonia solani pathogen – the causative agent of Rhizoctonia root rot of sugar beet (Task 6.11)]. p. 323–330. In: ”Ulepszanie roślin dla zrównoważonych agroekosystemów, wysokiej jakości żywności i produkcji roślinnej na cele nieżywnościowe.” [“Plant Improvement for Sustainable Agroecosystems, High Food Quality and Plant Production for Non-food Purposes”]. Monografie i Rozprawy Naukowe IHAR – PIB 48, 407 pp.
23.
Ogoshi A. 1987. Ecology and pathogenicity of anastomosis and intraspecific groups of Rhizoctonia solani Kühn. Annual Review of Phytopathology 25: 125–143.
24.
Piszczek J., Kierzek R., Nowakowski M., Górski D., Miziniak W., Ulatowska A., Moliszewska E., Siódmiank J., Ledóchowski P. 2012. Metodyka integrowanej ochrony buraka cukrowego i pastewnego dla doradców. [Methodology of Integrated Protection of Sugar Beet and Fodder Beet for Advisors] (J. Piszczek, M. Mrówczyński, eds.). Institute of Plant Protection – PIB, Poznań, Poland, 123 pp.
25.
Ruppel E.G., Hecker R.J. 1994. Rhizoctonia root rot on sugarbeet cultivars having varied degrees of resistance. Journal of Sugar Beet Research 31: 135–142.
26.
Rush C.M., Carling D.E., Harveson R.M., Mathieson J.T. 1994. Prevalence and pathogenicity of anastomosis groups of Rhizoctonia solani from wheat and sugar beet in Texas. Plant Disease 78 (4): 349–352.
27.
Skonieczek P., Nowakowski M. 2013. Występowanie sprawców zgorzeli siewek buraka w tym Rhizoctonia solani na stanowiskach z uprawą buraka cukrowego. [Occurrence of the root-rot beet pathogens including Rhizoctonia solani on sugar beet cultivation sites]. Biuletyn IHAR 267: 131–152.
28.
Skonieczek P., Nowakowski M., Matyka Ł., Żurek M., Wąsacz E. 2014. Ocena podatności siewek odmian i rodów buraka cukrowego na porażenie przez izolaty Rhizoctonia solani AG 4. [Susceptibility assessment of seedlings of sugar beet cultivars and lines to infections caused by selected isolates of Rhizoctonia solani AG 4]. Fragmenta Agronomica 31 (4): 92–99.
29.
Sneh B., Burpee L., Ogoshi A. 1994. Identification of Rhizoctonia Species. The American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA, 133 pp.
30.
Szymczak-Nowak J. 2005. Wrażliwość wybranych odmian buraka cukrowego na Rhizoctonia solani Kühn. [Susceptibility of sugar beet cultivars to Rhizoctonia solani Kühn]. Progress in Plant Protection 45 (2): 1141–1144. (in Polish, with English summary).
31.
Szymczak-Nowak J., Nowakowska H., Pańczyk T., Sitarski A., Wąsacz E., Skibowska B. 2001. Ocena wrażliwości materiałów hodowlanych buraka cukrowego na Cercospora beticola Sacc. i Rhizoctonia solani Kühn. [Evaluation of the susceptibility of sugar beet breeding materials to Cercospora beticola Sacc. and Rhizoctonia solani Kühn]. Progress in Plant Protection 41 (2): 779–782. (in Polish, with English summary).
32.
Szymczak-Nowak J., Nowakowska H., Sitarski A., Wąsacz E. 2002. Patogeniczność izolatów grzyba Rhizoctonia solani (Kühn) dla kilku odmian buraka cukrowego. [Pathogenicity of Rhizoctonia solani (Kühn) isolates to some sugar beet varieties]. Progress in Plant Protection 42 (2): 913–916. (in Polish, with English summary).
33.
Szymczak-Nowak J., Rychcik B., Tyburski J. 2007. Zdrowotność buraka cukrowego uprawianego w płodozmianie i monokulturze. [Health of sugar beet cultivated in crop rotation and monoculture]. Progress in Plant Protection 47 (2): 356–360. (in Polish, with English summary).
34.
Wesołowski M., Juszczak D., Boniek Z. 2005. Wpływ wybranych środków ochrony roślin na plonowanie, zachwaszczenie i porażenie liści buraka cukrowego. [The effect of choosen of pesticides on the yielding, weed infestation and leaf infection of sugar beet]. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska Lublin – Polonia Sec. E, 60: 11–18.
35.
Windels C.E., Lamey H.A. 1998. Identification and Control of Seedling Diseases, Root Rot and Rhizomania on Sugar Beet. BU-7192-S. North Dakota State University, Fargo, USA, 1142 pp.
36.
Windels C.E., Nabben D.J. 1989. Characterization and pathogenicity of anastomosis groups of Rhizoctonia solani from Beta vulgaris. Phytopathology 79: 83–88.
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.
