BioEnergy Research

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 26–35 | Cite as

Stalk Rot Diseases Impact Sweet Sorghum Biofuel Traits

  • Y. M. A. Y. Bandara
  • D. K. Weerasooriya
  • T. T. Tesso
  • C. R. Little
Article

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.

Keywords

Sweet sorghum Fusarium stalk rot Charcoal rot Biofuel feedstock Bioethanol Combining ability Resistance Tolerance 

References

  1. 1.
    Schnepf R, Yacobucci BD (2010) Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): overview and issues. In: CRS Report for Congress (No. R40155)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goettemoeller J, Goettemoeller A (2007) Sustainable ethanol. Prarie Oak Publishing, Maryville, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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 24:549–556CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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 35:313–320CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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 25:30–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reddy B, Reddy PS (2003) Sweet sorghum: characteristics and potential. Int Sorg Mill Newsl 44:26–28Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    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 21:497–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smith CW, Frederiksen RA (2000) Sorghum: origin, history, technology, and production. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Prasad S, Singh A, Jain N, Joshi HC (2007) Ethanol production from sweet sorghum syrup for utilization as automotive fuel in India. Energy Fuel 21:2415–2420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rooney WL, Blumenthal J, Bean B, Mullet JE (2007) Designing sorghum as a dedicated bioenergy feedstock. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 1:147–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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 15:232–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Whitfield MB, Chinn MS, Veal MW (2012) Processing of materials derived from sweet sorghum for biobased products. Ind Crop Prod 37:362–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carpita NC, McCann MC (2008) Maize and sorghum: genetic resources for bioenergy grasses. Trends Plant Sci 13:415–420CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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 311:484–489CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tilman D, Hill J, Lehman C (2006) Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high diversity grassland biomass. Science 314:1598–1600CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Somerville C (2007) Biofuels. Curr Biol 17:R115–R119CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schmer MR, Vogel KP, Mitchell RB, Perrin RK (2008) Net energy of cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:464–469CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wyman CE (2007) What is (and is not) vital to advancing cellulosic ethanol. Trends Biotechnol 25:153–157CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dhugga K (2007) Maize biomass yield and composition for biofuels. Crop Sci 47:2211–2227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sticklen MB (2008) Plant genetic engineering for biofuel production: towards affordable cellulosic ethanol. Nat Rev Genet 9:433–443CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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 40:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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 6:31–44Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hundekar A, Anahosur K (1994) Pathogenicity of fungi associated with sorghum stalk rot. Karnataka J Agric Sci 7:291–295Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Araus JL, Slafer GA, Reynolds MP, Royo C (2002) Plant breeding and water relations in C3 cereals: what to breed for. Ann Bot 89:925–940CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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 34:1–5Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hallauer A, Miranda Filho J (1988) Quantitative genetics in maize breeding, 2nd edn. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IAGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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 43:485–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Liu R, Li J, Shen F (2008) Refining bioethanol from stalk juice of sweet sorghum by immobilized yeast fermentation. Renew Energy 33:1130–1135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    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 36:199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    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 50:1788–1794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tesso TT, Claflin LE, Tuinstra MR (2005) Analysis of stalk rot resistance and genetic diversity among drought tolerant sorghum genotypes. Crop Sci 45:645–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Odvody GN, Dunkle LD (1979) Charcoal stalk rot of sorghum: effect of environment on host parasite relations. Phytopathology 69:250–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Craig J, Hooker AL (1961) Relation of sugar trends and pith density to Diplodia stalk rot in dent corn. Phytopathology 51:376–382Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    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 11:207–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    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 31:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    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, TXGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    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, DCGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    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 pressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Y. M. A. Y. Bandara
    • 1
  • D. K. Weerasooriya
    • 2
  • T. T. Tesso
    • 2
  • C. R. Little
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant Pathology, 4024 Throckmorton Plant Sciences CenterKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA
  2. 2.Department of Agronomy, 2004 Throckmorton Plant Sciences CenterKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA

Personalised recommendations