In this study, four recombinant inbred line (RIL) soybean populations were screened for their response to infection by Pythium sylvaticum, Pythium irregulare, Pythium oopapillum, and Pythium torulosum. The parents, PI 424237A, PI 424237B, PI 408097, and PI 408029, had higher levels of resistance to these species in a preliminary screening and were crossed with “Williams,” a susceptible cultivar. A modified seed rot assay was used to evaluate RIL populations for their response to specific Pythium species selected for a particular population based on preliminary screenings. Over 2500 single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers were used to construct chromosomal maps to identify regions associated with resistance to Pythium species. Several minor and large effect quantitative disease resistance loci (QDRL) were identified including one large effect QDRL on chromosome 8 in the population of PI 408097 × Williams. It was identified by two different disease reaction traits in P. sylvaticum, P. irregulare, and P. torulosum. Another large effect QDRL was identified on chromosome 6 in the population of PI 408029 × Williams, and conferred resistance to P. sylvaticum and P. irregulare. These large effect QDRL will contribute toward the development of improved soybean cultivars with higher levels of resistance to these common soil-borne pathogens.

Some Pythium spp. cause damping off and root rot in soybeans and other crop species. One of the most effective management tools to reduce disease is host resistance; however, little is known about resistance in soybean to Pythium spp. The soybean nested associated mapping (SoyNAM) parent lines are a set of germplasms that were crossed to a single hub parent to create recombinant inbred line populations for the purpose of mapping agronomic traits. The SoyNAM parents were screened for resistance to Pythium lutarium, Pythium oopapillum, Pythium sylvaticum, and Pythium torulosum in separate assays to evaluate seed and root rot severity. Of the 40 SoyNAM parents, only ‘Maverick’ was resistant to the four species tested; however, 13 were resistant to three species. Other lines were resistant to two, one, or none of the species tested. Correlations between seed and root rot severity for the lines assessed were weak or insignificant. Results indicate that mechanisms of resistance to seed and root rot caused by Pythium spp. may not necessarily be the same.

No abstract