European Journal of Plant Pathology

, Volume 132, Issue 4, pp 489–498 | Cite as

Sensitivity of Lasiodiplodia theobromae from Brazilian papaya orchards to MBC and DMI fungicides

  • Alba Valéria da Silva Pereira
  • Ricardo Brainer Martins
  • Sami Jorge Michereff
  • Marcelo Bezerra da Silva
  • Marcos Paz Saraiva Câmara
Article
First Online:
Accepted:

Abstract

Stem rot caused by Lasiodiplodia theobromae is an important postharvest disease of papaya in Brazil, responsible for reducing the quality and quantity of fruits. Fungicide use is one of the main disease management measures. However, there are no estimates available of pathogen sensitivity to commonly employed fungicides. Therefore, the EC50 from 120 isolates of L. theobromae from northeastern Brazil, representative of six populations of the pathogen, was estimated in vitro for fungicides of the methyl benzimidazole carbamates—MBC (benomyl and thiabendazole) and demethylation-inhibiting—DMI (imazalil, prochloraz, tebuconazole) groups. Mycelial growth on fungicide-free media and virulence on papaya fruits of the MBC-sensitive and non-sensitive isolates were compared. For MBCs, 8.4% of isolates were non-sensitive to fungicides. For the remaining 91.6%, the mean EC50 ranged from 0.002 to 0.13 μg ml−1 and 0.36 to 1.27 μg ml−1 for benomyl and thiabendazole, respectively. For DMIs, the mean EC50 range for imazalil was 0.001 to 2.27 μg ml−1, 0.04 to 1.75 μg ml−1 for prochloraz, and 0.14 to 4.05 μg ml−1 for tebuconazole. The EC50 values of non-sensitive isolates were significantly (P≤0.05) higher those for the sensitive isolates for each of the DMI fungicides. Differences (P≤0.05) were found in the levels of sensitivity to DMI fungicides among the isolate populations associated with orchards. The populations from two orchards were less sensitive to DMIs. No solid evidence was found for fitness costs relating to MBC non-sensitive isolates because mycelial growth in fungicide-free media and virulence on papaya fruits were similar to those of sensitive isolates.

Keywords

Fungicide resistance Carica papaya Botryosphaeriaceae Botryosphaeria rhodina 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Adriano Giorgi (Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Brazil), Jorge Vivanco (Colorado State University, USA) and Lisa Castlebury (USDA—Systematic Mycology and Microbiology, USA) for the critical review of the manuscript. The authors are also thankful for funding provided by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq 470638/2008-7 and 35.0287/2008-2) and by the Fundação de Amparo à Ciência e Tecnologia do Estado de Pernambuco (FACEPE 68.0005/2007-2 and APQ-0061-5.01/08). M. P. S. Câmara and S. J. Michereff also acknowledge the CNPq research fellowship.

References

  1. Arauz, L. F., & Sutton, T. B. (1990). Protectant and after-infection activity of fungicides against Botryosphaeria obtusa on apple. Plant Disease, 74, 1029–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bester, W., Crous, P. W., & Fourie, P. H. (2007). Evaluation of fungicides as potential grapevine pruning wound protectants against Botryosphaeria species. Australasian Plant Pathology, 36, 73–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brent, K. J., & Hollomon, D. W. (2007a). Fungicide resistance in crop pathogens: how can it be managed? Brussels: Fungicide Resistance Action Committee.Google Scholar
  4. Brent, K. J., & Hollomon, D. W. (2007b). Fungicide resistance: the assessment of risk. Brussels: Fungicide Resistance Action Committee.Google Scholar
  5. Burgess, T. I., Barber, P. A., Mohali, S., Pegg, G., Beer, W., & Wingfield, M. J. (2006). Three new lasiodiplodia spp. from the tropics, recognizedbased on DNA sequence comparisons and morphology. Mycologia, 98, 423–435.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crous, P. W., Slippers, B., Wingfield, M. J., Rheeder, J., Marasas, W. F. O., Philips, A. J. L., et al. (2006). Phylogenetic lineages in the Botryosphaeriaceae. Studies in Mycology, 55, 235–253.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cunha, M. G., & Rizzo, D. M. (2003). Development of fungicide cross resistance in Helminthosporium solani populations from California. Plant Disease, 87, 798–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dantas, S. A. F., & Oliveira, S. M. A. (2006). Doenças do mamão. In S. M. A. Oliveira, D. Terao, S. A. F. Dantas, & S. C. C. H. Tavares (Eds.), (Org.). Patologia pós-colheita: frutas, olerícolas e ornamentais tropicais (pp. 695–729). Brasília: Embrapa Informação Tecnológica.Google Scholar
  9. Dantas, S. A. F., Oliveira, S. M. A., Michereff, S. J., Nascimento, L. C., Gurgel, L. M. S., & Pessoa, W. R. L. S. (2003). Doenças fúngicas pós-colheita em mamões e laranjas comercializados na Central de Abastecimento do Recife. Fitopatologia Brasileira, 28, 528–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davidson, R. M., Hanson, L. E., Franc, G. D., & Panella, L. (2006). Analysis of β-tubulin gene fragments from benzimidazole-sensitive and -tolerant Cercospora beticola. Journal of Phytopathology, 154, 321–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deising, H. B., Reimann, S., & Pascholati, S. F. (2008). Mechanisms and significance of fungicide resistance. Brazilian Journal of Microbiology, 39, 286–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Denman, S., Crous, P. W., Sadie, A., & Wingfield, M. J. (2004). Evaluation of fungicides for the control of Botryosphaeria protearum on Protea magnifica in the Western Cape Province of South Africa. Australasian Plant Pathology, 33, 97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. FAO, (2011). Data Base results from FAO website. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
  14. Freire, F. C. O., Viana, F. M. P., Cardoso, J. E., & Santos, A. A. (2004). Novos hospedeiros do fungo Lasiodiplodia theobromae no Estado do Ceará—Comunicado Técnico. Fortaleza-CE: EMBRAPA Agroindústria Tropical.Google Scholar
  15. Johanson, A., & Blazquez, B. (1992). Fungi associated with banana crown rot on fiel-packed fruit from the Windward Islands and assessment of their sensitivity to the fungicides thiabendazole, prochloraz and imazalil. Crop Protection, 11, 79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Karaoglanidis, G. S., & Bardas, G. (2006). Control of benzimidazole—and DMI-resistant strains of Cercospora beticola with strobilurin fungicides. Plant Disease, 90, 419–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Karaoglanidis, G. S., & Thanassoulopoulos, C. C. (2002). Phenotypic instability of Cercospora beticola Sacc. strains expressing resistance to the sterol demethylation-inhibiting (DMI) fungicide flutriafol after cold exposure. Journal of Phytopathology, 150, 692–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Karaoglanidis, G. S., & Thanassoulopoulos, C. C. (2003). Cross-resistance patterns among sterol byosynthesis inhibiting fungicides (SBIs) in Cercospora beticola. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 109, 929–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kuck, K.-H., & Gisi, U. (2007). FRAC mode of action classification and resistance risk of fungicides. In W. Krämer & U. Schirmer (Eds.), Modern crop protection compounds (pp. 415–432). Weinheim: Wiley-VCH Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lamondia, J. A., & Douglas, S. M. (1997). Sensitivity of Botrytis cinerea from Connecticut greenhouses to benzimidazole and dicarboximide fungicides. Plant Disease, 81, 729–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lennox, C. L., & Spotts, R. A. (2003). Sensitivity of populations of Botrytis cinerea from pear-related sources to benzimidazole and dicarboximide fungicides. Plant Disease, 87, 645–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ma, Z., & Michailides, T. J. (2002). Characterization of Botryosphaeria dothidea isolates collected from pistachio and other plant hosts in California. Phytopathology, 92, 519–526.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ma, Z., & Michailides, T. J. (2005). Advances in understanding molecular mechanisms of fungicide resistance and molecular detection of resistant genotypes in phytopathogenic fungi. Crop Protection, 24, 853–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ma, Z., Luo, Y., & Michailides, T. J. (2001). Resistance of Botryosphaeria dothidea from Pistachio to Iprodione. Plant Disease, 85, 183–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ma, Z., Morgan, D. P., Felts, D., & Michailides, T. J. (2002). Sensitivity of Botryosphaeria dothidea from California pistachio to tebuconazole. Crop Protection, 21, 829–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. MAPA. (2011). Agrofit—Sistema de Agrotóxicos Fitossanitários from MAPA website. Brasil: Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento.Google Scholar
  27. McDonald, B. A. (2004). Populations genetics of plant pathogens. The Plant Health Instructor. doi: 10.1094/PHI-A-2004-0524-01.
  28. Ministério Nacional da Integração Nacional. (2000). Frutiseris 7: Mamão. Brasília-DF: Ministério da Integração Nacional.Google Scholar
  29. Parker, K. C., & Sutton, T. B. (1993). Effect of temperature and wetness duration on apple fruit infection and eradicant activity of fungicides against Botryosphaeria dothidea. Plant Disease, 77, 181–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Paull, R. E., Nishijima, W., Reyes, M., & Cavaletto, C. C. (1997). Postharvest handling and losses during marketing of papaya (Carica papaya L.). Postharvest Biology and Technology, 11, 165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peever, T. L., & Milgroom, M. G. (1994). Lack of correlation between fitness and resistance to sterol biosynthesis-inhibiting fungicides in Pyrenophora teres. Phytopathology, 84, 515–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Viana, F. M. P., Cardoso, J. E., Souza, R. N. M., & Holanda, V. O. (2007). Controle da podridão-da-haste-do-mamoeiro no estado do Ceará—Comunicado Técnico. Fortaleza-CE: EMBRAPA Agroindústria Tropical.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© KNPV 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alba Valéria da Silva Pereira
    • 1
  • Ricardo Brainer Martins
    • 2
  • Sami Jorge Michereff
    • 1
  • Marcelo Bezerra da Silva
    • 1
  • Marcos Paz Saraiva Câmara
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de AgronomiaUniversidade Federal Rural de PernambucoRecifeBrazil
  2. 2.Campus ArapiracaUniversidade Federal de AlagoasArapiracaBrazil

Personalised recommendations