Abstract
Owing to its sugar-rich stalks and high biomass, sweet sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] has potential as a source of biofuel feedstock for juice and lignocellulosic-based bioethanol production. However, stalk rot-mediated lodging is an important concern. The potential impacts of disease on sweet sorghum biofuel traits are currently unknown. The objectives of this study were to test the effects of Fusarium stalk rot and charcoal rot on sweet sorghum biofuel traits and to assess the combining ability of the parental genotypes for resistance to the two diseases. Nineteen genotypes including 7 parents and 12 hybrids were tested in the field in 2014 (Ashland, Kansas) and 2015 (Manhattan, Kansas) against Fusarium thapsinum (FT) and Macrophomina phaseolina (MP). Fourteen days after flowering, plants were inoculated with FT and MP. Plants were harvested at 35 days after inoculation and measured for disease severity using stalk lesion length. Grain weight, juice weight, Brix (°Bx), and dried bagasse weight were also determined. Total soluble sugars per plant (TSSP) were determined using juice weight and °Bx. On average, FT and MP resulted in reduced grain weight and dried bagasse weight by 17.4 and 17.6 %, respectively, across genotypes. Depending on the genotype, pathogens reduced juice weight, °Bx, and TSSP in the ranges of 11.3 to 25.9, 0.2 to 16.7, and 21.2 to 33.3 %, respectively. Parental line general and specific combining abilities were found to be statistically insignificant. This study revealed the adverse effects of stalk rot diseases on harvestable biofuel traits and the need to breed sweet sorghum for stalk rot resistance.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Schnepf R, Yacobucci BD (2010) Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): overview and issues. In: CRS Report for Congress (No. R40155)
Goettemoeller J, Goettemoeller A (2007) Sustainable ethanol. Prarie Oak Publishing, Maryville, Missouri
Hahn-Hägerdal B, Galbe M, Gorwa-Grauslund MF, Lidén G, Zacchi G (2006) Bio-ethanol—the fuel of tomorrow from the residues of today. Trends Biotechnol 24:549–556
Wang D, Bean S, McLaren J, Seib P, Madl R, Tuinstra M, Shi Y, Lenz M, Wu X, Zhao R (2008) Grain sorghum is a viable feedstock for ethanol production. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 35:313–320
Barbanti L, Grandi S, Vecchi A, Venturi G (2006) Sweet and fibre sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench), energy crops in the frame of environmental protection from excessive nitrogen loads. Eur J Agron 25:30–39
Reddy B, Reddy PS (2003) Sweet sorghum: characteristics and potential. Int Sorg Mill Newsl 44:26–28
Ali M, Rajewski J, Baenziger P, Gill KS, Eskridge KM, Dweikat I (2008) Assessment of genetic diversity and relationship among a collection of US sweet sorghum germplasm by SSR markers. Mol Breed 21:497–509
Smith CW, Frederiksen RA (2000) Sorghum: origin, history, technology, and production. Wiley, New York
Prasad S, Singh A, Jain N, Joshi HC (2007) Ethanol production from sweet sorghum syrup for utilization as automotive fuel in India. Energy Fuel 21:2415–2420
Rooney WL, Blumenthal J, Bean B, Mullet JE (2007) Designing sorghum as a dedicated bioenergy feedstock. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 1:147–157
Eggleston G, Cole M, Andrzejewski B (2013) New commercially viable processing technologies for the production of sugar feedstocks from sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) for manufacture of biofuels and bioproducts. Sugar Tech 15:232–249
Whitfield MB, Chinn MS, Veal MW (2012) Processing of materials derived from sweet sorghum for biobased products. Ind Crop Prod 37:362–375
Carpita NC, McCann MC (2008) Maize and sorghum: genetic resources for bioenergy grasses. Trends Plant Sci 13:415–420
Ragauskas AJ, Williams CK, Davison BH, Britovsek G, Cairney J, Eckert CA, Frederick WJ, Hallet JP, Leak DJ, Liotta CL, Mielenz JR, Murphy R, Templer R, Tshaplinski T (2006) The path forward for biofuels and biomaterials. Science 311:484–489
Tilman D, Hill J, Lehman C (2006) Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high diversity grassland biomass. Science 314:1598–1600
Somerville C (2007) Biofuels. Curr Biol 17:R115–R119
Schmer MR, Vogel KP, Mitchell RB, Perrin RK (2008) Net energy of cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:464–469
Wyman CE (2007) What is (and is not) vital to advancing cellulosic ethanol. Trends Biotechnol 25:153–157
Dhugga K (2007) Maize biomass yield and composition for biofuels. Crop Sci 47:2211–2227
Sticklen MB (2008) Plant genetic engineering for biofuel production: towards affordable cellulosic ethanol. Nat Rev Genet 9:433–443
Zegada-Lizarazu W, Monti A (2012) Are we ready to cultivate sweet sorghum as a bioenergy feedstock? A review on field management practices. Biomass Bioenergy 40:1–12
Tesso T, Little CR, Perumal R, et al. (2012) Sorghum pathology and biotechnology—a fungal disease perspective: part II. Anthracnose, stalk rot, and downy mildew. Eur J Plant Sci Biotechnol 6:31–44
Hundekar A, Anahosur K (1994) Pathogenicity of fungi associated with sorghum stalk rot. Karnataka J Agric Sci 7:291–295
Araus JL, Slafer GA, Reynolds MP, Royo C (2002) Plant breeding and water relations in C3 cereals: what to breed for. Ann Bot 89:925–940
Meehl GA, Arblaster JM, Tebaldi C (2007) Contributions of natural and anthropogenic forcing to changes in temperature extremes over the United States. Geophys Res Lett 34:1–5
Hallauer A, Miranda Filho J (1988) Quantitative genetics in maize breeding, 2nd edn. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA
Bandara Y, Perumal R, Little C (2015) Integrating resistance and tolerance for improved evaluation of sorghum lines against Fusarium stalk rot and charcoal rot. Phytoparasitica 43:485–499
Liu R, Li J, Shen F (2008) Refining bioethanol from stalk juice of sweet sorghum by immobilized yeast fermentation. Renew Energy 33:1130–1135
Das I, Indira S (2008) Role of stalk-anatomy and yield parameters in development of charcoal rot caused by Macrophomina phaseolina in winter sorghum. Phytoparasitica 36:199–208
Pfeiffer TW, Bitzer MJ, Toy JJ, Pedersen JF (2010) Heterosis in sweet sorghum and selection of a new sweet sorghum hybrid for use in syrup production in Appalachia. Crop Sci 50:1788–1794
Tesso TT, Claflin LE, Tuinstra MR (2005) Analysis of stalk rot resistance and genetic diversity among drought tolerant sorghum genotypes. Crop Sci 45:645–652
Odvody GN, Dunkle LD (1979) Charcoal stalk rot of sorghum: effect of environment on host parasite relations. Phytopathology 69:250–254
Craig J, Hooker AL (1961) Relation of sugar trends and pith density to Diplodia stalk rot in dent corn. Phytopathology 51:376–382
Mastrorilli M, Katerji N, Rana G (1999) Productivity and water use efficiency of sweet sorghum as affected by soil water deficit occurring at different vegetative growth stages. Eur J Agron 11:207–215
Wu X, Staggenborg S, Propheter JL, Rooney WL, Yu J, Wang D (2010) Features of sweet sorghum juice and their performance in ethanol fermentation. Ind Crop Prod 31:164–170
Amosson S, Girase J, Bean B, Rooney W, Becker J (2013) Economic analysis of sweet sorghum for biofuels production in the Texas high plains. Texas A&M Agrilife Extention, Amarillo, TX
Shapouri H, Salassi M, Fairbanks N (2006) The economic feasibility of ethanol production from sugar in the United States. Department of Agricultural. Economic Research Service, Washington, DC
Bandara YMAY, Weerasooriya DK, Tesso TT, Little CR (2016) Stalk rot fungi affect leaf greenness (SPAD) of grain sorghum in a genotype- and growth stage-specific manner. Plant Dis 100: In press
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Dr. Dereje Gobena for assistance in hybrid generation and Mr. Daniel J. Hopper for technical assistance in crop management. The Kansas Grain Sorghum Commission is gratefully acknowledged for their financial support of this research. This paper is Contribution No. 16-328-J from the Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station, Manhattan.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bandara, Y.M.A.Y., Weerasooriya, D.K., Tesso, T.T. et al. Stalk Rot Diseases Impact Sweet Sorghum Biofuel Traits. Bioenerg. Res. 10, 26–35 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-016-9775-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-016-9775-6