Influence of irrigation and plant canopy architecture on white mould disease of dry bean

Abstract

White mould caused by the fungus Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary is a major constraint to irrigated dry bean production in southern Alberta. Irrigation, coupled with dry bean canopy architecture, may influence white mould by creating conducive environmental conditions. Field experiments were conducted from 2015 to 2017 at Lethbridge to determine the effect of three irrigation levels and five dry bean genotypes with different canopy architectures on white mould. Sensors and data loggers were established to monitor micro-climate data including soil moisture within the top 5 cm, leaf wetness, and soil temperature under the canopy. Canopy porosity, lodging, flower infection, and white mould disease severity were also measured. Higher moisture within the top 5 cm of the soil, lower soil temperature, elevated leaf wetness, and higher white mould incidence were observed in high irrigation plots compared with medium and low irrigation plots. Cultivars varied for leaf wetness, porosity, and lodging. Although a significant interaction between irrigation and cultivar was detected, irrigation levels did not affect disease severity significantly. Lower disease severity and incidence were recorded in AAC Burdett and Island. These cultivars have an upright growth habit, high canopy porosity, and lodging resistance, and therefore, exhibited partial field resistance (avoidance) to white mould. Mean yield across all cultivars was not affected by irrigation; however, the highest yield occurred in the medium irrigation plots. A reduced level of irrigation and development of cultivars with both avoidance and partial physiological resistance may reduce white mould severity and incidence in dry bean fields in Alberta.

Predicting field diseases caused by Sclerotinia sclerotiorum: A review

“… a 1, Kurle et al (2001); 2, Holley and Nelson (1986); 3, Schwartz and Steadman (1978); 4, Fall, Willbur, et al (2018); 5, McCartney and Lacey (1991); 6, Willbur, Fall, Bloomingdale, et al (2018); 7, Jones et al (2012); 8, Bom and Boland (2000); 9, Boland and Hall (1988b); 10, Boland and Hall (1988c); 11, Gugel and Morrall (1986); 12, Gracia‐Garza et al (2002); 13, Morrall and Dueck (1982); 14, Qandah and del Río Mendoza (2012); 15, Reich et al (2017); 16, Kader et al (2018); 17, Turkington & Morrall (1993); 18, Makowski et al (2005); 19, Ficke et al (2018); 20, Wallenhammer et al (2007). …”

“… a 1, Fall, Willbur, et al (2018); 2, Willbur, Fall, Bloomingdale, et al (2018); 3, Reich, unpublished; 4, Leyronas et al (2019); 5, Jones et al (2012); 6, Mila et al (2003); 7, Fall, Boyse, et al (2018); 8, Foster et al (2011); 9, Qandah and del Río Mendoza (2011); 10, Bourdôt et al (2001); 11, Mila et al (2004); 12, Workneh and Yang (2000); 13, Reich et al (2017); 14, Matheron and Porchas (2005); 15. Shah et al (2019); 16, Bom and Boland (2000); 17, Ferraz et al (1999); 18, Twengström, Sigvald, et al (1998); 19, Twengström, Köpmans, et al (1998); 20, Grau and Radke (1984); 21, Blad et al (1978); 22, Kader et al (2018); 23, Schwartz and Steadman (1978); 24, Ficke et al (2018). …”

“…Total amount of precipitation (or irrigation) throughout the growing season was positively associated with greater final disease levels in dry bean (Blad et al, 1978; Kader et al, 2018), canola (Ficke et al, 2018; Twengström, Köpmans, et al, 1998) and soybean (Fall, Boyse, et al, 2018; Grau & Radke, 1984; Mila et al, 2004). In contrast, in studies that summarized precipitation in weekly to 3‐week intervals or by departures from average, there was no relationship between precipitation and disease incidence (Bom & Boland, 2000; Ficke et al, 2018; Foster et al, 2011; Workneh & Yang, 2000).…”

“…Few studies assessed the relationship between cultivar and apothecia or ascospore production, but in bean, viny or short bush cultivars were associated with greater apothecia production than open-bush cultivars (Schwartz & Steadman, 1978). Almost every study that compared several cultivars found large differences among cultivars for both levels of disease and yields (Blad et al, 1978;del Río et al, 2004del Río et al, , 2007Grau & Radke, 1984;Hoffman et al, 1998;Jones et al, 2012;Kader et al, 2018;Kolkman & Kelly, 2002;Kurle et al, 2001;Park, 1993;Saindon et al, 1995). It is not always clear what physical or physiological features of the cultivars lead to differences in disease outcomes.…”

Alternatives for selection of carioca common bean lines that combine upright plants and slow grain darkening

“…This is because upright plants facilitate operations in the field, both in the vegetative phase and at harvest. Additionally, there is evidence that this type of plant mitigates damage caused by some important pathogens in common bean crops (Miklas, Porter, Kelly, & Myers, 2013;Pereira, Abreu, Vieira Junior, Pires, & Ramalho, 2017;Kader, Balasubramanian, & Chatterton, 2018). Bean breeding programs conducted in Brazil have had substantial success in obtaining new cultivars with good plant architecture (Ramalho et al, 2016;Pereira et al, 2017;Wendland et al, 2018).…”