ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Effects of inoculum density of R. solani AG 2-2IIIB and age of plant on root rot severity in sugar beet
1
Department of Plant Pathology, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota, USA
2
Molecular Plant Pathology Laboratory, USDA-ARS, Beltsville, Maryland, USA
3
School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, Haltfield, UK
4
University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
A - Research concept and design; B - Collection and/or assembly of data; C - Data analysis and interpretation; D - Writing the article; E - Critical revision of the article; F - Final approval of article
Submission date: 2024-04-18
Acceptance date: 2024-08-19
Online publication date: 2024-09-05
Corresponding author
Journal of Plant Protection Research 2025;65(1):125-132
HIGHLIGHTS
- Investigated sugarbeet age and Rhizoctonia solani inoculum dose on disease severity
- Disease severity was highest when plants were ≤6 weeks old
- A positive correlation was noticed between inoculum dose and disease severity
- Disease severity peaked when inoculated with three colonized barley seeds/plant
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Root rot of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.), caused by Rhizoctonia solani anastomosis group
AG 2-2 IIIB is responsible for significant crop losses in North Dakota and Minnesota, USA.
Understanding the association between plant age and inoculum density with disease severity
of sugar beet cultivars is a prerequisite to properly screen for varietal resistance. Therefore,
investigations were conducted to determine the responses of 4-, 6-, and 8-week-old
plants in seven commercial sugar beet cultivars to inoculum densities of one, two, and three
grains of R. solani-colonized barley in a greenhouse and with three corresponding levels of
colonized barley, mycelial plugs, and sclerotia in field experiments. Under greenhouse conditions,
disease severity was greatest before plants reached six weeks of age (p = 0.05). There
was a positive linear relationship between the density of the inoculum and disease severity.
All seven cultivars were equally susceptible (p > 0.05) to R. solani. Interactions between cultivars
and plant age and between plant age and intensity of inoculum were not significant
(p > 0.05). Field experiments showed that the density of inoculums was significant
(p < 0.001), and the disease severity was highest in plants inoculated with three colonized
barley seeds per plant compared to doses of other inoculum types.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are very thankful to the Sugar Beet Research
and Education Board (SBREB) of Minnesota
and North Dakota and USDA-ARS, MD, for providing
funding for the research experiment. We wish to thank
the sugar beet seed companies which provided seeds.
We are also grateful to the Jack Dalrymple Agricultural
Research Complex, North Dakota State University
(NDSU), and NDSU Plant Pathology Department staff
for their help with conducting this study.
RESPONSIBLE EDITOR
Ewa Moliszewska
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors have declared that no conflict of interests exist.
REFERENCES (33)
1.
Anees M., Edel-Hermann V., Steinberg C. 2010. Buildup of patches caused by Rhizoctonia solani. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 42: 1661–1672. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soil....
2.
Arakawa M., Inagaki K. 2014. Molecular markers for genotyping anastomosis groups and understanding the population biology of Rhizoctonia species. Journal of General Plant Pathology 80: 401–407. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10327....
3.
Bartholomäus A., Mittler S., Märländer B., Varrelmann M. 2017. Control of Rhizoctonia solani in sugar beet and effect of fungicide application & plant cultivar on inoculum potential in the soil. Plant Disease 101: 941–947. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-0....
4.
Behn A., Ladewig E., Manthey R., Varrelmann M. 2012. Resistance testing of sugar beet varieties against Rhizoctonia solani. Sugar Industry-Zuckerindustrie 137: 49–57.
5.
Bhuiyan M.Z.R., del Rio Mendoza, Lakshman D.K., Aiming Q., Khan, M.F.R. 2023. Efficacy of different inoculum forms of Rhizoctonia solani AG 2-2IIIB for resistance screening of sugar beet cultivars. Journal of Plant Pathology 105: 1551–1561. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42161....
6.
Bhuiyan M.Z.R., Lakshman D.K., Mendoza L.D.R., Qi A., Khan M.F.R. 2022. Comparison of crown and root inoculation method for evaluating the reaction of sugar beet cultivars to Rhizoctonia solani AG 2-2 IIIB. Crop Protection 163: 106120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crop....
7.
Bolton M.D., Panella L., Campbell L., Khan M.F.R. 2010. Temperature, moisture, and fungicide effects in managing Rhizoctonia root and crown rot of sugar beet. Phytopathology 100: 689–697. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-....
8.
Brantner J.R., Chanda A.K. 2021. Effects of inoculum density and cultivar susceptibility on Rhizoctonia damping-off and crown and root rot in sugar beet. Plant Disease 105 (4): 1019–1025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-0....
9.
Brantner J.R., Mickelson H.R., Crane E.A. 2014. Effect of Rhizoctonia solani inoculum density and sugarbeet variety susceptibility on disease onset and development. 2013 Sugar beet Research and Extension Report 44: 203–208.
10.
Buhre C., Kluth C., B¨urcky K., Marlander B., and Varrelmann M. 2009. Integrated control of root and crown rot in sugar beet: Combined effects of cultivar, crop rotation, and soil tillage. Plant Disease 93: 155–161. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-9....
11.
Carlson A.L., Khan M.F.R., Stachler J.M., Boetel M.A. 2012. Survey of fungicide use in sugarbeet in Minnesota and eastern North Dakota in 2012. Sugar Beet Research and Extension Report 42: 181–182.
12.
Chitrampalam P., Turin T.A., Matheron M.E., Pryor B.M. 2010. Effect of Sclerotium density and irrigation on disease incidence and on efficacy of Coniothyrium minitans in suppressing lettuce crop caused by Sclerotinia sclerotium. Plant Disease 94: 1118–1124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-9....
13.
Goswami B.K., Rahman M.M., Hoque A., Bhuiyan K. and Mian I. H. 2011. Variations in different isolates of Rhizoctonia solani based on temperature and pH. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Research 36: 389–396.
14.
Hecker R.J., Ruppel E.G. 1977. Rhizoctonia root rot resistance in sugar beet: breeding and related research. Journal of American Society of Sugar Beet Technology 19 (3): 246–256.
15.
Hu L., Yang, L. 2019. Time to flight: Molecular mechanisms of age-related resistance. Phytopathology 109: 1500–1508. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-....
16.
ISO (International Sugar Organization). 2021. 2020 Sugar Yearbook. International Sugar Organization. [Available on: https://www.isosugar.org/publi...].
17.
Khan M.F.R. 2014. The "beet" goes on – Roundup ready sugar beet deregulated again in USA. International Sugar Journal CXVI (1382): 131–133.
18.
Khan M.F.R. 2018. Sugarbeet Production Guide. NDSU Extension Service and University of Minnesota Extension. A1698.
19.
Kulkarni V.R. 2007. Epidemiology and integrated management of potato caused by Sclerotium rolfsii Sacc. [PhD] Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.
20.
Liu Y., Qi A., Khan M.F.R. 2019. Age-dependent resistance to Rhizoctonia solani in sugar beet. Plant Disease 103: 2322–2329. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-1....
21.
Misra V., Mall A.K., Singh D. 2023. Rhizoctonia root-rot diseases in sugar beet: Pathogen diversity, pathogenesis and cutting-edge advancements in management research. The Microbe 1: 100011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micr....
22.
Morishita D.W. 2016. Impact of glyphosate-resistant sugar beet. Pest Management Science. 74: 1050–1053. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.450....
23.
Muthukumar A., Venkatesh A. 2013. Occurrence, virulence, inoculum density and plant age of Sclerotium rolfsii Sacc. causing collar rot of peppermint. Journal of Plant Pathology and Microbiology 4: 211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-7....
24.
Neher O.T., Gallian J.J. 2011. Rhizoctonia on sugar beet. Importance, identification, and control in the Northwest. A Pacific Northwest Extension Publication, University of Idaho, USA.
25.
Noor A., Khan M.F.R. 2014. Efficacy and safety of mixing azoxystrobin and starter fertilizers for controlling Rhizoctonia solani in sugar beet. Phytoparasitica 43: 51–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12600....
26.
Paugh K.R., Gordon T.R. 2019. Effect of planting date and inoculum density on severity of Fusarium wilt of lettuce in California. Plant Disease 103: 1498–1506. DOI: 10.1094/PDIS-09-18-1614-RE.
27.
Schroeder K.L., Paulitz T.C. 2008. Effect of inoculum density and soil tillage on the development and severity of Rhizoctonia root rot. Phytopathology 98 (3): 304–314. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-....
28.
Scott J., Gordon T., Kirkpatrick S., Koike S., Matheron M., Ochoa O., Truco M., Michelmore R. 2012. Crop rotation and genetic resistance reduce risk of damage from Fusarium wilt in lettuce. California Agriculture 66: 20–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.v06....
29.
Shah D.A., Madden L.V. 2004. Nonparametric analysis of ordinal data in designed factorial experiments. Phytopathology 94: 33–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO.....
30.
Strausbaugh C.A., Eujayl I.A., Panella L.W., Hanson L.E. 2011. Virulence, distribution, and diversity of Rhizoctonia solani from sugar beet in Idaho and Oregon. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology 33: 210–226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/070606....
31.
Torres S.V., Vargas M.M., Godoy-Lutz G., Porch T.G., Beaver J.B. 2016. Isolates of Rhizoctonia solani can produce both web blight and root rot symptoms in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Plant Disease 100: 1351–1357. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1094/pdis-1....
32.
USDA-ERS 2023. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. [Available on: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topic...].
33.
Wigg K.S., Goldman I.L. 2020. Variability in reaction to root and crown rot caused by Rhizoctonia solani among table beet cultivars, breeding lines, and plant introductions in controlled environment conditions. Hortscience 55: 1482–1494.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 1899-007X |
| ISSN: | 1427-4345 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
