Impact of Crop Residue and Corn-soybean Rotation on the Survival of Fusarium virguliforme a Causal Agent of Sudden Death Syndrome of Soybean

Navi, Shrishail S.; Yang, Xiao-Bing

doi:10.4172/2157-7471.1000330

Cited by 14 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 24 publications

(44 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…7). The modified method of Navi and Yang [unpublished] in brief is as follows; White sorghum grains infested with F. virguliforme [84] were sprinkled into plastic tub containing potting mixture (two parts of steamsterilized sand and one part black soil) at 1% of the potting mixture (Fig. 7A), and the inoculum was mixed with the potting mixture (Fig.…”

Section: Resistance Screening In Greenhouse Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The SDS fungus survives between crops in soil and crop residue (corn and soybean) either as conidia or chlamydospore [84,98], on decomposed soybean roots post-harvest [100,101], inside soybean cyst nematode [67,68] and in no-till fields [71,100]. This pathogen can also reproduce on corn, wheat, ryegrass, pigweed, sugar beet, lambsquarters, canola, alfalfa, pinto bean, navy bean, white clover, red clover, pea, and Canadian milk vetch without causing symptoms on these hosts [55].…”

Section: Infection Process and Survival Of F Virguliformementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Researchers have been puzzled by the fact that SDS has now become more prevalent in the Corn Belt and there were many observations that severe SDS occurred after continuous corn. Recently, Navi and Yang [84] investigated effects of rotation with corn on F.…”

Section: Infection Process and Survival Of F Virguliformementioning

confidence: 99%

“…5) include delayed planting [39,123,135], planting SDS tolerant varieties [102,108], fall tillage [135,137], crop rotation [1,104,137,142], modifying agronomic practices like row spacing and seeding rate [123], fungicide seed treatments [52,72,82,130,131,155], seed treatments with a combination of fungicides, systemic insecticides and biological(s) [2,155], seed treatment with bacteria and fungi based biocontrol agents [43,75,87,129], preplant or foliar applied potassium chloride with fungicides [88], cultural and biological control [4], exploring potential untapped resistance sources in perennial Glycine spp. to improve resistance in soybean [33] and recovering SDS infected plants [79] similar to sorghum and pearl millet [120,121], plant resistance, variety selection, adjusting planting dates, crop rotation, seed treatment with bio-fungicide [149], identification of quantitative trait loci [145], genomic approaches to molecular breeding of resistance [46], integrated approaches [34], clean harvest of corn and soybean [84,151] and genetic engineering along with other traditional management options may be needed as integrated approaches to manage SDS [32].…”

Section: Management Options Of Sdsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Sudden death syndrome - a growing threat of losses in soybeans.

Navi¹,

Yang²

2016

CABI Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sudden death syndrome (SDS) caused by Fusarium virguliforme is one of the major yield-limiting soil borne diseases of soybean (Glycine max). The SDS has been reported from 21 U.S. states and is known to occur in Africa, North America, and South America. In the U.S. the losses due to SDS was estimated at $3.06 billion for a period from 1988 to 2010. Since 1983, several management approaches have been investigated to reduce SDS and yet, continued efforts are necessary to develop long term disease management programs and to sustain disease below economic threshold levels. Integrating available control measures is an option, but adaptability and real-world assessments are equally important. Support of several funding agencies to better understand the disease in identifying suitable control measures to reduce yield losses in commercial cultivations has been indispensable in accomplishing these goals. In spite of sustained efforts, SDS continued to spread within the U.S. and reported in seven other countries since its first report in 1971.Comprehensive reviews have previously been published on this disease by Roy et al. [98], Leandro et al. [58], and Hartman et al. [32]. In this review, updated information on geographic distribution and economic significance of SDS, epidemiology, factors affecting SDS, and management options for SDS including screening techniques have been compiled. Also, discussed significant gaps in use of plant, fungi and bacteria based biocontrol agents in addressing management of SDS.Keywords: Soybean sudden death syndrome, SDS, Fusarium virguliforme, biocontrol, global reports, yield losses due to SDS, epidemiological factors, greenhouse and field screening. ______________________________________________________________________________This is a manuscript of an article from CAB Reviews 11 (2016): 039, doi: 10.1079/PAVSNNR201611039. Navi, S. S.; Yang, X. B. 2016. Sudden death syndrome -a growing threat of losses in soybeans. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Aoki et al., and F. virguliforme,90] is an economically significant soil-borne disease, and a risk to many soybean production areas worldwide. The disease was first observed by H.J. Walters in Arkansas, United States in 1971[100], but it was only in 1983 that the disease was named as sudden death syndrome (SDS) of unknown etiology [40]. As of this review, the disease has been reported in three continents, North America (Canada and United States), South America (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay), and Africa (South Africa), and within the United States 21 states (Fig. 1) Whether the pathogens causing SDS have been introduced in to new regions or if they have been present in the soil in production fields of these countries for some time without being detected is unknown. After the SDS was detected in Iowa [150], Scherm and Yang [114] developed a risk assessment model to determine potential geographic range of development of this disease, which was considered a southern disease by then, in North America. They predi...

show abstract

Section: Resistance Screening In Greenhouse Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Infection Process and Survival Of F Virguliformementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Infection Process and Survival Of F Virguliformementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Management Options Of Sdsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Sudden death syndrome - a growing threat of losses in soybeans.

Navi¹,

Yang²

2016

CABI Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The soybean crop is infected by many plant diseases that damage the shoot and root systems. The soil fungi are the most common pathogens that infect plant at various growth stages causing root rot and seedlings death (Navi & Yang, 2016;Abdelmajid et al, 2012& Roth & Chilivers, 2019. Fusarium solani is the most widely spread and dangerous species in recent years (Diaz, 2012) This pathogen has a severe effect on plant parts under soil surface resulting in to a general weakness of the shoot system (Zheng et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Induction of Systemic Resistance in Soybean Using Some Eco-Friendly Materials Against Infection of F. Solani and Its Effect on Germination and Biochemical characteristics

AL-Mayahi¹,

Hassan²

2021

PLANT ARCHIVES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of some chemical and biological substances, individually or in combination in reducing fusarium root rot disease in soybeans caused by the fungus Fusarium solani. The results of laboratory evaluation showed that A. chroococcum bacteria achieved 58.90% inhibition by using dilution 10 -7 . Whereas, the biochar scored 100% inhibition rate at a concentration 4%, while the potassium phosphate (K 2 HPO 4 ) scored a complete and 100% inhibition of the growth of the fungus at of 200 mM concentration. At greenhouse conditions, the mixing treatment A .chroococcum with biochar was performed in the presence of pathogenic fungi, and treatment of K 2 HPO 4 with A.chroococcum and biochar with pathogenic fungi, was the most efficient in reducing the incidence and severity of infection with F. solani which was 0.00 and 0.00% respectively, which did not differ significantly from the treatment of K 2 HPO 4 with A.chroococcum with pathogenic fungi, which was 6.67 and 3.33% respectively, compared to the percentage and severity of infection in the control treatment with, 76.67 and 75.00% respectively, as well as their cause of The fresh and dry weight of the plant was significantly increased among their treatments. The factors also showed an efficiency in inducing systemic resistance by increasing the peroxidase enzyme activity 7 and 14 days of adding the pathogen, compared to the treatment (without pathogenic fungi. The two mixing treatments between K 2 HPO 4 with A .chroococcum and biochar with pathogenic fungi and the addition treatment of mixing A .chroococcum with biochar in the presence of the pathogen were 64.00, 70.00, 63.17 and 68.37 respectively the rate of change in photosynthesis / min / g fresh weight of plant leaves. The rate of change of plant leaves was successively, while the rate of change of the enzyme was achieved by the comparison treatment (without pathogenic fungi), which was 22.27 and 23.33 rate of change by photosynthesis / min / gm fresh weight of plant leaves respectively, followed by the remaining treatments.

show abstract