Advertisement

Tropical Plant Pathology

, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 73–81 | Cite as

Differential aggressiveness of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum isolates from North and South America and partial host resistance in Brazilian soybean and dry bean cultivars

  • Thomas J. J. Miorini
  • Zhian N. Kamvar
  • Rebecca S. Higgins
  • Carlos G. Raetano
  • James R. Steadman
  • Sydney E. EverhartEmail author
Original Article
  • 279 Downloads

Abstract

White mold (or Sclerotinia stem rot), caused by Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, is a yield-reducing disease of great importance to both dry bean and soybean crops in the Americas. Characterization of both the physiological resistance in commercial cultivars to white mold disease and the range of aggressiveness among S. sclerotiorum isolates collected from locations where these cultivars are to be deployed provides useful information for breeding and management. In this study, aggressiveness was characterized for a collection of 82 isolates originating North and South America and the reaction of 23 dry bean and 11 soybean cultivars from Brazil was evaluated. The detached leaf bioassay (DLB) was used to assess aggressiveness of 63 isolates on U.S. soybean cultivar Dassel and 25 isolates on Brazilian dry bean cultivar IAC Alvorada. The straw test (ST) was used to evaluate the aggressiveness of 32 isolates on U.S. dry bean cultivar G122 and 26 isolates on Brazilian cultivar IAC Alvorada. Results of the DLB test showed that the isolates were in general more aggressive towards bean IAC Alvorada (\( \overline{x} \) = 14.26 cm2) than on soybean Dassel (\( \overline{x} \) = 9.20 cm2). ST ratings classified 24 26 isolates inoculated on dry bean IAC Alvorada as highly aggressive (\( \overline{x} \) = 8.0), whereas no isolates were classified as highly aggressive on dry bean G122 (\( \overline{x} \) = 5.1). When the isolates were compared for aggressiveness, some of them were consistently rated in the top 10, regardless of the evaluation method or plant host used. Based on results of both inoculation methods, IAC Diplomata and IPR Tangará were the most resistant to S. sclerotiorum among 23 Brazilian dry bean cultivars. In soybean, M5410 and M6410 were classified as the most resistant. Collectively, results of this study contribute new knowledge of variation in aggressiveness in the pathogen population and of cultivars that may have partial resistance, warranting further investigation.

Keywords

Glycine max Phaseolus vulgaris Sclerotinia stem rot White mold Detached leaf bioassay Straw test 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the institutions IAPAR (Instituto Agronômico do Paraná), IAC (Instituto Agronômico), Embrapa (Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária), and the company Monsanto that provided the dry bean and soybean cultivars seeds to conduct the cultivar performance experiment. Also, the authors thank the support provided by Arysta LifeScience, in special thanks to Dorival Boer Júnior and Ângelo Stasievski. We also thank Lucky Mehra for advice on statistical analysis. The authors also acknowledge the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) for the financial support provided to Thomas J. J. Miorini’s PhD program for execution of the experimental phase of this study. This project is based on research that was partially supported by the Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station with funding from the Hatch Act (Accession Number 1007272) through the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. This work was funded in part by grant #58-5442-2-209 from the USDA-ARS National Sclerotinia Initiative to J.R. Steadman / S.E. Everhart and start-up funds from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) to S.E. Everhart. Funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  1. Aldrich-Wolfe L, Travers S, Nelson BD Jr (2015) Genetic variation of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum from multiple crops in the north Central United States. PLoS One 10:e0139188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anonymous (2009) Cultivar de feijão IPR Tangará: Grupo carioca de porte ereto e alto potencial de rendimento. Instituto Agronômico do ParanáGoogle Scholar
  3. Arahana VS, Graef GL, Specht JE, Steadman JR, Eskridge KM (2001) Identification of QTLs for resistance to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum in soybean. Crop Science 41:180–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67:1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carbonell SAM, Chiorato AF, Ito MF, Perina EF, Gonçalves JGR, Souza PS, Gallo PB, Ticelli M, Colombo CA, Azevedo Filho JA (2008) IAC-Alvorada and IAC-Diplomata: new common bean cultivars. Crop Breeding and Applied Biotechnology 8:163–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Mendiburu F, Simon R (2015) Agricolae - ten years of an open source statistical tool for experiments in breeding, agriculture and biology. PeerJ PrePrints 3:e1404v1Google Scholar
  7. Ferreira LU, Patrícia GSM, Lobo Junior M, Wendland A, Pereira HS, Melo LC, Faria LC, Souza TLPO (2014) Common bean white mold resistance sources identified by greenhouse screening in Brazil. Annual Report of the Bean Improvement Cooperative 57:169–170Google Scholar
  8. Ferreira LU, Ribeiro VA, Melo PG, Junior ML, Costa JGC, Pereira HS, Melo LC, Souza TLP (2018) Comparison of inoculation methods for selecting common bean genotypes with physiological resistance to white mold. Tropical Plant Pathology (in this issue)Google Scholar
  9. Kamvar ZN, Amaradasa BS, Jhala R, McCoy S, Steadman JR, Everhart SE (2017) Population structure and phenotypic variation of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum from dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) in the United States. PeerJ 5e:4152Google Scholar
  10. Kim HS, Hartman GL, Manandhar JB, Graff GL, Steadman JR, Diers BW (2000) Reaction of soybean cultivars to Sclerotinia stem rot in field, greenhouse, and laboratory evaluations. Crop Science 40:665–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kull LS, Vuong TD, Hartman GL, Powers KS, Eskridge KM, Steadman JR (2003) Evaluations of resistance screening methods for Sclerotinia stem rot of soybean and dry bean. Plant Disease 87:1471–1476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RH (2017) lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software 82:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Leone G, Tonneijck AEG (1990) A rapid procedure for screening the resistance of bean cultivars (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to Botrytis cinerea and Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Euphytica 47:87–90Google Scholar
  14. McLaren NW, Craven M (2008) Evaluation of soybean cultivars for resistance to Sclerotinia stalk rot in South Africa. Crop Protection 27:231–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Miklas PN, Johnson WC, Delorme R, Gepts P (2001) QTL conditioning physiological resistance and avoidance to white mold in dry bean. Crop Science 41:309–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Otto-Hanson L, Steadman JR, Higgins R, Eskridge KM (2011) Variation in Sclerotinia sclerotiorum bean isolates from multisite resistance screening locations. Plant Disease 95:1370–1377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. R Core Team (2017) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/
  18. Rousseau G, Huynh Thanh T, Dostaler D, Rioux S (2004) Greenhouse and field assessments of resistance in soybean inoculated with sclerotia, mycelium, and ascospores of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 84:615–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schwartz HF, Singh SP (2013) Breeding common bean for resistance to white mold: a review. Crop Science 53:1832–1844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shurtleff MC, Averre III CW (1997) Glossary of plant-pathological terms. American Phytopathological society (APS Press)Google Scholar
  21. Terán H, Lema M, Schwartz HF, Duncan R, Gilbertson R, Singh SP (2006) Modified Petzoldt and Dickson scale for white mold rating of common bean. Annual Report-Bean Improvement Cooperative 49:115Google Scholar
  22. Wegulo SN, Yang XB, Martinson CA (1998) Soybean cultivar responses to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum in field and controlled environment studies. Plant Disease 82:1264–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wickham H (2009) ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Willbur JF, Ding S, Marks ME, Lucas H, Grau CR, Groves CL, Kabbage M, Smith DL (2017) Comprehensive Sclerotinia stem rot screening of soybean germplasm requires multiple isolates of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Plant Disease 101:344–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Sociedade Brasileira de Fitopatologia 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plant PathologyUniversity of NebraskaLincolnUSA
  2. 2.Carrington Research Extension CenterNorth Dakota State UniversityCarringtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, School of Public HealthImperial CollegeLondonUK
  4. 4.Faculdade de Ciências AgronômicasUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)BotucatuBrazil

Personalised recommendations