Optimizing Fungicide Timing for the Control of Rhizoctonia Crown and Root Rot of Sugar Beet Using Soil Temperature and Plant Growth Stages

Kirk, W. W.; Wharton, P. S.; Schafer, Robert L.; Tumbalam, Pavani; Poindexter, Steven S.; Guza, Corey J.; Fogg, Ralph; Schlatter, T.; Ja, Stewart; Hubbell, Lee A.; Ruppal, D.A.

doi:10.1094/pdis-92-7-1091

Cited by 43 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hopefully good resistance can be incorporated into a higher percentage of the commercial cultivars, because many cultivars were more susceptible than the resistant check. To supplement host resistance, good crop rotations (7,8,14,23,31,33,45) and fungicide applications (5,21,22,42,44) will likely be needed. Also, resistance to rot in the field appears to be different from controlling rot in storage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Crop rotation (7,8,14,23,31,33) and in-furrow or post-emergent banded fungicide sprays (5,21,22,42,44) have been shown to be helpful in controlling Rhizoctonia root rot but relying more on host resistance would be desirable (17,24,29). Thus, to gain a better understanding of the Rhizoctonia-bacterial root rot complex and also how to evaluate sugar beet cultivars for resistance to this complex, a series of field and greenhouse studies were conducted to achieve the following objectives: (i) identify the best disease variable for determining cultivar selection for this rot complex, (ii) determine whether resistance to R. solani will also allow for control of bacterial root rot, and (iii) establish an assay under controlled conditions for investigating the rot complex and Rhizoctonia-Leuconostoc interactions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Selection for Resistance to the Rhizoctonia-Bacterial Root Rot Complex in Sugar Beet

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Strausbaugh, C. A., Eujayl, I. A., and Foote, P. 2013. Selection for resistance to the Rhizoctonia-bacterial root rot complex in sugar beet. Plant Dis. 97:93-100.The Rhizoctonia-bacterial root rot complex continues to be a concerning problem in sugar beet production areas. To investigate resistance to this complex in 26 commercial sugar beet cultivars, field studies and greenhouse studies with mature roots from the field were conducted with Rhizoctonia solani anastomosis group 2-2 IIIB strains and Leuconostoc mesenteroides. Based on means for the 26 cultivars in the 2010 and 2011 field studies, fungal rot ranged from 0 to 8%, bacterial rot ranged from 0 to 37%, total internal rot ranged from 0 to 44%, and surface rot ranged from 0 to 52%. All four rot variables resulted in significant (P < 0.0001) cultivar differences. Based on regression analysis, strong positive relationships (r 2 from 0.6628 to 0.9320; P < 0.0001) were present among the rot variables. When ranking cultivars, the most consistent rot variable was surface rot, because 12 of 13 variable-year combinations had significant (P ≤ 0.05) correlations. When cultivar ranking in greenhouse assays was compared, there was frequently a positive correlation with storage data but no relationship with field results. Thus, the greenhouse assays will identify storage rot resistance but field screening will be required to find resistance to this rot complex in the field.Rhizoctonia root rot caused by Rhizoctonia solani Kühn is of considerable concern in sugar beet production areas in the United States and other areas of the world (9,15,38). Rhizoctonia root rot can lead to root yield losses of 50% or more but also seems to be on the increase and can be associated with losses in storage (9,21,27,38,41,43). In Idaho, Rhizoctonia root rot on mature roots tends to be associated with the R. solani anastomosis group (AG) 2-2 IIIB strains and is frequently accompanied by a bacterial root rot caused by Leuconostoc mesenteroides subsp. dextranicum (Beijerinck) Garvie which leads to a Rhizoctonia-bacterial root rot complex (36,38,39). The prevalence of this rot complex seems to be favored by warmer longer-season production areas, poor crop rotation, and surface irrigations (38,40).The fungus R. solani survives from season to season as propagules in the soil or as mycelia in infested organic matter, while L. mesenteroides is widely distributed throughout the environment (11,13,19,39). The genus Leuconostoc is a gram-positive heterofermentative lactic acid bacterium commonly found in soils, sugar factories, fermenting vegetables, dairy products, manure, and wine (4,11,12,16,19,28,35,47). These bacteria are known to be important in the initial phase of fermentation but usually are superseded by other bacteria and yeast (2,6,16). A number of other bacteria and yeast associated with bacterial root rot in sugar beet roots do not cause rot on their own but will slow down rot caused by L. mesenteroides and inhibit R. solani (25,39). These bacteria and yeast in competition wi...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selection for Resistance to the Rhizoctonia-Bacterial Root Rot Complex in Sugar Beet

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Subsequent internal transcribed spacer 5.8S rDNA sequencing and phylogenetic analysis has shown isolate F321 was similar to AG-2-2IIIB testers, whereas F6 and F302 were similar to AG-4 HG-II (data not shown). Rhizoctonia root rot on mature roots is normally attributed to isolates that belong in the AG-2-2IIIB subgroup, whereas AG-4 isolates are normally considered to be more important at emergence (Führer Ithurrart et al 2004;Kirk et al 2008;Rush et al 1994).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sugar beet root rot at harvest in the US Intermountain West

Strausbaugh

Gillen

2009

Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Root rot in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) causes significant losses worldwide. To assess the distribution of root rot fungi and their relationship to bacterial root rot, commercial sugar beet roots with rot symptoms were collected at harvest time in the Intermountain West. Isolations for both fungi and bacteria were conducted using standard microbiological techniques, and the root area rotted was assessed. A subset of fungal isolates was tested for pathogenicity to sugar beet in greenhouse assays and field trials with and without manure. In the field survey of rotting beets, the fungi most frequently associated with root rot included Fusarium spp. (Fusarium oxysporum and Fusarium acuminatum with 24% and 15% of isolates, respectively), Geotrichum spp. (16% of isolates), Rhizoctonia solani (15% of isolates), and Mucor spp. (14% of isolates). However, only R. solani isolate F321 (AG-2-2IIIB) consistently caused rot in greenhouse pathogenicity tests. In the field survey, a mean of 6% of the root tissue had rotted for individual roots when fungi were isolated individually, whereas mean root rot was 71% and 68% when bacteria were isolated individually or in combination with other organisms, respectively. In field trials, roots inoculated with F321 averaged 3%-5% fungal rot, whereas the percentage of root tissue with bacterial rot was 6%-78%, which supports survey observations. Manure did not lead to root rots in the field. Traditionally, fungal root rots have been the main focus of breeding programs; however, because of the root area rotted by lactic acid bacteria, especially Leuconostoc, these bacteria should not be ignored in breeding efforts.Key words: Leuconostoc, Lactobacillus, Beta vulgaris, Rhizoctonia, fermentation, lactic acid bacteria.Résumé : Le pourridié de la betterave à sucre (Beta vulgaris) entraîne d'importantes pertes partout dans le monde. Afin d'évaluer la distribution des champignons qui causent le pourridié et leur relation au pourridié bactérien, on a collecté, à l'époque de la récolte, des racines de betteraves cultivées commercialement dans la région de l'Intermountain West américain, betteraves qui portaient les symptômes du pourridié. Les champignons et les bactéries ont été isolés selon les techniques microbiologiques standards et les portions de racines pourries ont été étudiées. Un sous-ensemble d'isolats fongiques a été évalué quant à sa pathénogénicité à l'égard de la betterave à sucre au cours de tests biologiques effectués en serre et d'essais au champ, avec et sans fumier. Lors des études sur le terrain, les champignons les plus souvent associés au pourridié de la betterave incluaient Fusarium spp. (Fusarium oxysporum and Fusarium acuminatum avec 24 % et 15 % des isolats, respectivement), Geotrichum spp. (16 % des isolats), Rhizoctonia solani (15 % des isolats) et Mucor spp. (14 % des isolats). Toutefois, seulement l'isolat F321 (AG-2-2IIIB) de R. solani causait invariablement le pourridié lors des tests de pathogénicité effectués en serre. L'étude menée au champ a révélé que, ...

show abstract

“…(Strausbaugh et al 2013b). The use of crop rotation (Buddemeyer et al 2004;Buhre et al 2009;Engelkes and Windels 1996;Ruppel 1985;Rush and Winter 1990) and fungicides (Bolton et al 2010;Kiewnick et al 2001;Kirk et al 2008;Stump et al 2004;Windels and Brantner 2005) can also help limit RRCR; however, unacceptable levels of rot still frequently occur. Perhaps investigations into what leads to the synergistic interaction between R. solani and Leuconostoc spp.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leuconostoc spp. Associated with Root Rot in Sugar Beet and Their Interaction with Rhizoctonia solani

Strausbaugh

2016

Phytopathology®

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rhizoctonia root and crown rot is an important disease problem in sugar beet caused by Rhizoctonia solani and also shown to be associated with Leuconostoc spp. Initial Leuconostoc studies were conducted with only a few isolates and the relationship of Leuconostoc with R. solani is poorly understood; therefore, a more thorough investigation was conducted. In total, 203 Leuconostoc isolates were collected from recently harvested sugar beet roots in southern Idaho and southeastern Oregon during 2010 and 2012: 88 and 85% Leuconostoc mesenteroides, 6 and 15% L. pseudomesenteroides, 2 and 0% L. kimchi, and 4 and 0% unrecognized Leuconostoc spp., respectively. Based on 16S ribosomal RNA sequencing, haplotype 11 (L. mesenteroides isolates) comprised 68 to 70% of the isolates in both years. In pathogenicity field studies with commercial sugar beet 'B-7', all Leuconostoc isolates caused more rot (P < 0.0001; a = 0.05) when combined with R. solani than when inoculated alone in both years. Also, 46 of the 52 combination treatments over the 2 years had significantly more rot (P < 0.0001; a = 0.05) than the fungal check. The data support the conclusion that a synergistic interaction leads to more rot when both Leuconostoc spp. and R. solani are present in sugar beet roots.

show abstract

Optimizing Fungicide Timing for the Control of Rhizoctonia Crown and Root Rot of Sugar Beet Using Soil Temperature and Plant Growth Stages

Cited by 43 publications

References 11 publications

Selection for Resistance to the Rhizoctonia-Bacterial Root Rot Complex in Sugar Beet

Selection for Resistance to the Rhizoctonia-Bacterial Root Rot Complex in Sugar Beet

Sugar beet root rot at harvest in the US Intermountain West

Leuconostoc spp. Associated with Root Rot in Sugar Beet and Their Interaction with Rhizoctonia solani

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About