Advertisement

Netherlands Journal of Plant Pathology

, Volume 99, Issue 2, pp 61–75 | Cite as

Bioassay to assess root rot in pea and effect of root rot on yield

  • P. J. Oyarzun
Articles

Abstract

Infection of pea roots by soil-borne pathogens causes foot and root rot. In 1985 research was started to develop a method to predict the root rot likely to occur in prospective pea fields. In a bioassay the pea cultivar Finale was sown in a composite soil sample from each field in pots under standardized conditions in the greenhouse. The plants were removed at the green bud stage and the severity of root rot recorded. Between 1985 and 1988 approximately 200 field pea crops were monitored for root rot development. Forty-eight fields were bioassayed in 1986, 51 in 1987 and 30 in 1988. Each year, root rot readings in the bioassay and disease severity readings at field sampled plants at flowering and green pod were linearly correlated (P<0.001). As the degree of root rot in the field crop increased, there was a proportional lower yield. In heavily infested fields, up to a 50% yield reduction occurred.

The bioassay in pots proved to be a reliable method for predicting root rot severity in sampled pea fields.

Additional keywords

Pisum sativum disease prediction soil-borne pathogens 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alabouvette, C., 1989. Biological control ofFusarium wilt in suppressive soils. In: Hornby, D., Cook, R.J. & Henis, Y. (Eds), Biological control of soil-borne plant pathogens. CAB International, London, p. 27–42.Google Scholar
  2. Anonymous, 1976. Voorschriften voor de bepaling van enkele fysische eigenschappen van de bodem. Landbouwscheikunde, Landbouwhogeschool Wageningen, Maart 1976. 58 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Biddle, A.J., 1979. Root disease index will identify infected fields. Arable farming (March): 38–39.Google Scholar
  4. Biddle, A.J., 1984. A prediction test for pea footrot and the effects of previous legumes. British Crop Protection Conference — Pests and Diseases. p. 773–777.Google Scholar
  5. Bouhot, D., 1979. Estimation of inoculum density and inoculum potential: Techniques and their values for disease prediction. In: Schippers, B. & Gams, W. (Eds), Soil-borne pathogens. Academic Press, New York, London. p. 21–34.Google Scholar
  6. Bouhot, D. & Bonnel, L., 1979. Description et mode d'emploi du test biologique à deux niveaux pour l'étude de fatigues de sol. Annales de Phytopathologie 11: 111–115.Google Scholar
  7. Cook, R.J. & Snyder, W.C., 1965. Influence of host exudates on growth and survival of germlings ofFusarium solani f.sp.phaseoli in soil. Phytopathology 55: 1021–1025.Google Scholar
  8. Duncan, J.M., Kennedy, D.M. & Seemüller, E., 1987. Identities and pathogenicities ofPhythophthora spp. causing root rot of red raspberry. Plant Pathology 36: 276–289.Google Scholar
  9. Garret, S.D., 1956. Biology of root-infecting fungi. The Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, London, New York. 293 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Gerlagh, M., 1985. Breeding for resistance to foot and root rot in peas; struggling against the current. EC workshop: ‘Maladies des légumineuses fourragères’, INRA, Lusignan, France, May 1985. 8 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Harman, G.E., Nedrow, B. & Nash, G., 1978. Stimulation of fungal spore germination by volatiles from aged seeds. Canadian Journal of Botany 56: 2124–2127.Google Scholar
  12. IPO, 1960–1970. Annual Reports. IPO (Research Institute for Plant Protection), Wageningen.Google Scholar
  13. Johnson, H.G., 1957. A method for determining the degree of infestation by pea root rot organisms in soils. Phytopathology 47: 18 (Abstract).Google Scholar
  14. Johnson, L.F. & Curl, E.A. (Eds) 1972. Methods for research on the ecology of soil-borne plant pathogens. Burgess Publishing Company, USA. 247 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Kobriger, K.M. & Hagedorn, D.J., 1983. Determination of bean root rot potential in vegetable production fields of Wisconsin's central sands. Plant Disease 67: 177–178.Google Scholar
  16. Maduewesi, J.N.C. & Lockwood, J.L., 1976. Test tube method of bioassay forThielaviopsis basicola root rot of soyabean. Phytopathology 68: 811–814.Google Scholar
  17. Menzies, J.D., 1963. The direct assay of plant pathogen populations in soil. Annual Review of Pythopathology 1: 127–142.Google Scholar
  18. Mihail, J.D. & Alcorn, S.M., 1987.Macrophomina phaseolina: spatial patterns in cultivated soil and sampling strategies. Phytopathology 77: 1126–1131.Google Scholar
  19. Mitchell, J.E., 1979. The dynamic of inoculum potential of populations of soil-borne plant pathogens in soil ecosystems. In: Schippers, B. & Gams, W. (Eds), Soil-borne plant pathogens. Academic Press, New York, London. p. 3–20.Google Scholar
  20. Norton, J.M. & Harman, G.E., 1985. Response of soil microorganisms to volatile exudates from germinating pea seeds. Canadian Journal of Botany 63: 1040–1045.Google Scholar
  21. Olofson, J., 1967. Root rot of canning and freezing peas in Sweden. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 17: 101–107.Google Scholar
  22. Oyarzun, P.J., 1987. Perspectieven van een bodemtoets op voetziekte. Jaarverslag 1986, PAGV, Lelystad, Publicatie No. 35: 41–44.Google Scholar
  23. Oyarzun, P.J., 1991. Biotoets voetziekten in erwten. PAGV, Lelystad, Verslag 120. 155 pp.Google Scholar
  24. Oyazun, P.J. & Dijst, G., 1991. Assessment of site-specific receptivity of soils to soil-borne diseases of peas and cauliflower. In: Beemster, A.B.R. et al. (Eds), Biotic interactions and soil-borne diseases. Elsevier, Amsterdam. p. 322–328.Google Scholar
  25. Reiling, T.P., King, T.H. & Fields, R.W., 1960. Soil indexing for pea root rot and the effect of root rot on yield. Phytopathology 50: 287–290.Google Scholar
  26. Riepma, P., 1952. Observatieproef betreffende voet-en vaatziekten bij erwten (serie 198) in het jaar 1951. Centraal Instituut voor Landbouwkundig Onderzoek, Verslagen van Interprovinciale Proeven No. 26. 26 pp. (mimieographed)Google Scholar
  27. Riepma, P., 1967. Streekonderzoek bij erwten. Report of Proefstation voor de Akker- en Weidebouw. Wageningen, No. 226. 44 pp. (mimeographed)Google Scholar
  28. Rouxel, F., 1988. Estimation des populations dePlasmodiophora brassicae Wor. dans les sols. Agronomie 8: 653–656.Google Scholar
  29. Rush, C.M. & Kraft, J.M., 1986. Effects of inoculum density and placement onFusarium root rot of peas. Phytopathology 76: 1325–1329.Google Scholar
  30. Schreuder, J., 1949. Voet- en vaarziekte bij erwten. In: Tien jaar Peulvruchten Studie Combinatie. Wageningen, Jubileumeditie. p. 136–143.Google Scholar
  31. Sherwood, R.T. & Hagedorn, D.J., 1958. Determining common root rot potential of pea fields. Agricultural Experimental Station, University of Wisconsin, Bulletin No. 531. 12 pp.Google Scholar
  32. Short, G.E. & Lacy, M.L., 1976. Factors affecting pea seeds and seedling rot in soil. Phytopathology 66: 188–192.Google Scholar
  33. Slangen, J.H.G., 1979. Bodemvruchtbaarheid IV. Handleiding praktikum. Vakgroep Bodemkunde en Bemestingsleer, Landbouwuniversiteit, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  34. Snow, M.D. & Tingey, D.T., 1985. Evaluation of a system for the imposition of plant water stress. Plant Physiology 77: 602–607.Google Scholar
  35. Stanghellini, M.E. & Kronland, W.C., 1985. Bioassay for quantification ofPythium aphanidermatum in soil. Phytopathology 75: 1242–1245.Google Scholar
  36. Timmer, R.D., Jansen, H., Staal, J., Nijnhuis, C.M.A., Van Bon, K.B. & De Jonge P., 1989. Teelt van droge erwten. PAGV, Lelystad, Teelthandleiding 28. 80 pp.Google Scholar
  37. Tivoli, B., Tika, N. & Lemarchand, E., 1987. Comparaison de la réceptivité des sols aux agents de la pourriture des tubercules de pomme de terre:Fusarium spp. etPhoma spp. Agronomie 7: 531–538.Google Scholar
  38. Tu, J.C., 1987. Integrated control of pea root rot disease complex in Ontario. Plant Disease 71: 9–13.Google Scholar
  39. Wisbey, B.D., Black, T.A. & Copeman, R.J., 1977. Controlling soil water matric potential in root disease studies. Canadian Journal of Botany 55: 825–830.Google Scholar
  40. Yarwood, C.E., 1946. Isolation ofThielaviopsis basicola from soil by means of carrot disks. Mycologia 38: 346–348.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Koninklijke Nederlandse Planteziektenkundige Vereniging 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. J. Oyarzun
    • 1
  1. 1.DLO Research Institute for Plant Protection (IPO-DLO)Wageningenthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations