Skip to main content
Log in

Reaction of sugar beet S1 lines and cultivars to different isolates of Macrophomina phaseolina and Rhizoctonia solani AG-2-2IIIB

Euphytica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Interactions of 17 sugar beet lines and cultivars with four isolates of Macrophomina phaseolina (the causal agent of charcoal rot) and one isolate of Rhizoctonia solani (the causal agent of crown and root rot) were studied in separate experiments under greenhouse conditions. The isolates of Macrophomina were taken from their host plants, sugar beet (two isolates), soybean and sesame. In the first experiment, the colonized toothpick was used as inoculum. In the second experiment, six-month-old sugar beet plants were inoculated with barley seeds colonized with M. phaseolina. For the inoculation of sugar beet lines with R. solani, the colonized corn seeds were used. Root symptoms were recorded four weeks after inoculation, by estimating the proportion of the root surface infected by the pathogens, using a 1–9 standard scale. Our results showed a significant difference among lines and cultivars in their resistance to these two pathogens. Line B8618 was found to be considerably resistant to the isolates of the both pathogens. The inoculation methods of Macrophomina isolates had no significant effect on the results. The interaction between isolate and cultivar was not also significant in Macrophomina-resistant lines. Therefore, it appears that the response of sugar beet lines to the tested fungal isolates was not differential. These resistant lines showed a high resistance to all the tested M. phaseolina isolates. Our results revealed that the Macrophomina-resistant lines also showed resistance to R. solani. Furthermore, the sugar beet drought tolerant lines (M293, M362 and M345) were susceptible to the tested M. phaseolina and R. solani isolates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

References

  • Ahmad Y, Hameed A, Ghaffar A (2006) Enzymatic activity of fungal pathogens in corn. Pak J Bot 38(4):1305–1316

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahmadi M, Majidi-Heravan E, Sadeghian SY, Mesbah M, Darvish F (2011) Drought tolerance variability in S1 pollinator lines developed from a sugar beet open population. Euphytica 178:339–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alaghebandzadeh N, Rezaiee S, Mahmoudi B, Zamanizadeh H (2008) Pathogenic and genotypic analysis among Iranian isolates of Macrophomina phaseolina. Phytopathol 98:S11

    Google Scholar 

  • Almeida AMR, Abdelnoor RV, Arias CAA, Carvalho VP, Jacoud Filho DS, Marin SRR, Benato LC, Pinto MC, Carvalho CGP (2003) Genotypic diversity among brazilian isolates of Macrophomina phaseolina revealed by RAPD. Fitopatologia Brasileira 28:279–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amadioha AC (1998) Cellulolytic enzyme production by Rhizoctonia bataticola. Arch Phytopath Pflanz 31:415–421

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ashby SF (1927) Macrophomina phaseolina (Maubl.) Comb. Nov. The pycnidial stage of Rhizoctonia bataticola (Taub.) Butl. Trans Br Mycol Soc 12:141–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asher MJC, Hanson L (2006) Fungal and bacterial diseases. In: AP Draycott (Ed.) Sugar beet Blackwell publishing, pp 286–316

  • Banihashemi Z (1998) Phytophthora rot of sugar beet root and sunflower stem in province of Fars Iran. Iran J Plant Pathol 4:239

    Google Scholar 

  • Beas-Fernandez R, De Santiago-De Santiago A, Hernandez-Delgado S, Mayek-Perez N (2006) Characterization of Mexican and non-Mexican isolates of Macrophomina phaseolina based on morphological characteristics, pathogenicity on bean seeds and endoglucanase genes. J Plant Pathol 88(1):53–60

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bugbee WM (1993) A pectin lyase inhibitor protein from cell walls of sugar beet. Phytopathology 83:63–68

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Buttner G, Pfahler B, Marlander B (2004) Greenhouse and field techniques for testing sugar beet for resistance to Rhizoctonia root and crown rot. Plant Breed 123:158–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook DA, Scott RK (1993) The sugar beet crop: science into practice. Champan and Hall, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ershad D (2009) Fungi of Iran. Iranian research institute of plant protection, Tehran 531 pp.

  • Gaskill JO, Mumford DL, Ruppel EG (1970) Preliminary report on breeding for combined resistance to leaf spot, curly top and Rhizoctonia. J Am Soc Sugar Beet Tech 16:207–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hecker RJ, Ruppel EG (1977) Rhizoctonia root rot resistance in sugar beet: breeding and related research. J Am Soc Sugar Beet Technol 19:246–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Holliday P, Punithalingam E (1970) Macrophomina phaseolina. Descriptions of pathogenic fungi and Bacteria No. 275, Commonweslth Mycological Institiue, England

  • Jones RW, Canada S, Wang H (1998) Highly variable minichoromosomes and highly conserved endoglucanase genes in the phytopathogenic fungus Macrophomina phaseolina. Can J Bot 76:694–698

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mahmoudi, SB, Soltani J (2005) Sugar beet root rot in Iran. Newsletter of Iranian Sugar Industries Research and Training Center, 16(178): 14–18

  • Mahmoudi SB, Mesbah M, Alizadeh A (2004) Pathogenic variability of Rhizoctonia solani in sugar beet. Iran J Plant pathol 40:253–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahmoudi SB, Mesbah M, Rahimian H, Noruzi P (2005) Genetic diversity of sugar beet isolates of Rhizoctonia solani revealed by RAPD-PCR and ITS-rDNA analysis. Iran J Plant pathol 41:523–542

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus L, Barash I, Sneh B, Koltin Y, Finkler A (1986) Purification and characterization of pectinolytic enzymes produced by virulent and hypovirulent isolates of Rhizoctonia solani. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 29:325–336

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Martin FN, English JT (1997) Population genetics of soilborne fungal plant pathogens. Phytopathol 87:446–447

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mayek-Perez N, Garcia–Espinosa R, Lopez-Castaneda C, Acosta-Gallegos JA, Simpson J (2002) water relation, histopathology and growth of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) during pathogenesis of Macrophomina phaseolina under drought stress. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 60:185–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayek-Perez N, Lopez-Castaneda C, Gonzalez-Chavira M, Garcia–Espinosa R, Acosta-Gallegos JA, De la Martinez-Vega O, Simpson J (2001) Variability of Mexican isolates of Macrophomina phaseolina on basis of pathogenesis and AFLP genotype. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 59:257–264

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald BA, Linde C (2002) Pathogen population genetics, evolutionary potential, and durable resistance. Annu Rev Phytopathol 40:349–379

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Naito S, Sugitomo T (1981) Histopathological observation on root rot of sugar beet by different anastomosis groups of Rhizoctonia solani. Hokkaido Natl Agr Exp Sta Res Bull 131:95–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson CAS, Leslie JF, Schwenk FW (1987) Host preference correlated with chlorate resistance in Marophomina phaseolina. Plant Dis 71:828–831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raeyatpanah S, Alavi SV, Arab G (2007) Reaction of some soybean advanced lines to charcoal rot disease, Macrophomina phaseolina (Tassi) Goid in East Mazandaran. Seed Plant J 23:181–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Raoufi M, Farrokhonejad R, Mahmoudi SB (2003) Identification and pathogenicity of Fusarium species associated with sugar beet root and crown rot in Iran. Sugar Beet J 19(2):109–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruppel EG (1972) Correlation of cultural characters and source of isolates with pathogenicity of Rhizoctonia solani from sugar beet. Phytopathol 62:202–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholten OE, Panella LW, DeBock TSM, Lange W (2001). A greenhouse test for screening sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) for resistance to Rhizoctonia solani. Eur J Plant Pathol 107: 161–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuster ML, Jensen SG, Sayre RM (1958) Toothpick method of inoculating sugar beets for determining pathogenicity of Rhizoctonia solani. J Am Soc Sugar Beet Technol 10:142–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheikholeslami M, Hajaroud G, Okhovat M (1998) Fungi causing sugar beet post-harvest root rot in Kermanshah. Iran J Plant Pathol 34:84–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomkins CM (1938) Charcoal rots of sugar beet. Hilgardia 12(1):75–81

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Boogert PHJF, Bonants PJM, Schneider JHM (1998) Molecular detection of pathogenic subgroups of Rhizoctonia silani AG-2-2. 7th Int Cong Plant Pathol: 3.3.74

  • Vandermark G, Martinez O, Pecina V, Alvarado MJ (2000) Assessment of genetic relationships among isolates of Macrophomina phaseolina using a simplified AFLP technique and two different methods of analysis. Mycologia 92:659–664

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitney ED, Duffus JE (1986) Compendium of beet diseases and insects. APS press

  • Windels CE, Panella LW, Ruppel EG (1995) Sugar beet germplasm resistant to Rhizoctonia root and crown rot withstands disease caused by several pathogenic isolates of Rhizoctonia solani AG-2-2. Sugar beet. Research and Extension Reports, 26: 179–185

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to Iran National Science Foundation for financial support of the study. The drought tolerant S1 lines were kindly supplied by Dr. Masoud Ahmadi. The author is thankful to Dr. Abazar Rajabi and Dr. Omid Eini for the critical review of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seyed Bagher Mahmoudi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mahmoudi, S.B., Ghashghaie, S. Reaction of sugar beet S1 lines and cultivars to different isolates of Macrophomina phaseolina and Rhizoctonia solani AG-2-2IIIB. Euphytica 190, 439–445 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-012-0832-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-012-0832-8

Keywords

Navigation