Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Identification of sugar beet germplasm EL51 as a source of resistance to post-emergence Rhizoctonia damping-off

  • Published:
European Journal of Plant Pathology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Resistance of sugar beet seedlings to Rhizoctonia damping-off caused by Rhizoctonia solani has not been described. A series of preliminary characterisations using a single susceptible host and four different R. solani isolates suggested the disease progression pattern was predictable. Two AG-4 isolates and a less virulent AG-2-2 isolate (W22) showed a comparable pattern of disease progression in the growth chamber where disease index values increased for the first 5–6 days, were relatively constant for the next 7–8 days, and declined thereafter. Seedlings inoculated with a highly virulent AG-2-2 isolate (R-1) under the same conditions showed similar patterns for the first 4 days post-inoculation; however disease index values continued to increase until seedling death at 13–14 days. Similar results were observed in the greenhouse, and a small expanded set of other germplasm lines were screened. One tested germplasm accession, EL51, survived seedling inoculation with R. solani AG-2-2 R-1, and its disease progress pattern was characterised. In a field seedling disease nursery artificially inoculated with R. solani AG-2-2 R-1, seedling persistence was high with EL51, but not with a susceptible hybrid. Identification of EL51 as a source of resistance to Rhizoctonia damping-off may allow investigations into the Beta vulgaris–Rhizoctonia solani pathosystem and add value in sugar beet breeding.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AG:

Anastomosis group

CRR:

Crown and root rot

DI:

Disease Index

DPI:

Days post-inoculation

References

  • Adams, G. C. (1996). The genetics of Rhizoctonia. In B. Sneh, S. Jabaji-Hare, S. Neate, & G. Dijst (Eds.), Rhizoctonia species: Taxonomy, molecular biology, ecology, pathology and disease control (pp. 101–116). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akino, S., & Ogoshi, A. (1995). Pathogenicity and host specificity in Rhizoctonia solani. In K. Kohmoto, U. S. Singh, & R. P. Singh (Eds.), Pathogenesis and host specificity in plant diseases. Histopathological, genetic and molecular bases. Volume II: Eukaryotes. (pp. 37–49). Tarrytown, NY, USA: Pergamon/Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N. A. (1982). The genetics and pathology of Rhizoctonia solani. Annual Review of Phytopathology, 20, 329–347. doi:10.1146/annurev.py.20.090182.001553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anonymous. (2007). Growers Guide for Producing Quality Sugarbeets. 60 pages. Michigan Sugar Co., Bay City, MI. from http://www.michigansugar.com/agriculture/guide.php (retrieved November 19, 2007).

  • Bradley, C. A., Hartman, G. L., Nelson, R. L., Mueller, D. S., & Pedersen, W. L. (2001). Response of ancestral soybean lines and commercial cultivars to Rhizoctonia root and hypocotyl rot. Plant Disease, 85, 1091–1095. doi:10.1094/PDIS.2001.85.10.1091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buttner, G., Pfahler, B., & Marlander, B. (2004). Greenhouse and field techniques for testing sugar beet for resistance to Rhizoctonia root and crown rot. Plant Breeding, 123, 158–166. doi:10.1046/j.1439-0523.2003.00967.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, C. L., & Altman, J. (1976). Rapid laboratory screening of sugar beet cultivars for resistance to Rhizoctonia solani. Phytopathology, 66, 1373–1374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carling, D. E. (1996). Grouping in Rhizoctonia solani by hyphal anastomosis reaction. In B. Sneh, S. Jabaji-Hare, S. Neate, & G. Dijst (Eds.), Rhizoctonia species: Taxonomy, molecular biology, ecology, pathology and disease control (pp. 37–47). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coe, C. E., & Hogaboam, G. J. (1971). Registration of sugar beet germplasm USH20. Crop Science, 11, 942.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cubeta, M. A., & Vilgalys, R. (1997). Population biology of the Rhizoctonia solani complex. Phytopathology, 87, 480–484. doi:10.1094/PHYTO.1997.87.4.480.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • De los Reyes, B. G., & McGrath, J. M. (2003). Cultivar-specific seedling vigor and expression of a putative oxalate oxidase germin-like protein in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 107, 54–61. doi:10.1007/s00122-003-1344-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Draycott, A. P. (2006). Introduction. In A. P. Draycott (Ed.), Sugar beet (pp. 1–8). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Engelkes, C. A., & Windels, C. E. (1994). Relationship of plant-age, cultivar, and isolate of Rhizoctonia solani AG-2-2 to sugar beet root and crown rot. Plant Disease, 78, 685–689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelkes, C. A., & Windels, C. E. (1996). Susceptibility of sugar beet and beans to Rhizoctonia solani AG-2-2 IIIB and AG-2-2 IV. Plant Disease, 80, 1413–1417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franke, M. D., Brenneman, T. B., & Holbrook, C. C. (1999). Identification of resistance to Rhizoctonia limb rot in a core collection of peanut germ plasm. Plant Disease, 83, 944–988. doi:10.1094/PDIS.1999.83.10.944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskill, J. O. (1968). Breeding for Rhizoctonia resistance in sugarbeet. Journal of the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists, 15, 107–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halloin, J. M., Saunders, J. W., Theurer, J. C., & McGrath, J. M. (2000). Registration of EL51 sugarbeet germplasm. Crop Science, 40, 586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hecker, R. J., & Lasa, J. M. (1992). Registration of FC401, FC402, and FC403, three sugarbeet parental lines. Crop Science, 32, 1299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herr, L. J. (1996). Sugar beet diseases incited by Rhizoctonia solani. In B. Sneh, S. Jabaji-Hare, S. Neate, & G. Dijst (Eds.), Rhizoctonia species: Taxonomy, molecular biology, ecology, pathology and disease control (pp. 341–349). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hori, M., Anraku, M., & Matsumoto, K. (1981). Resistance of rice cultivars from Japan and other countries to sheath blight. Kinki-Chugoku Agricultural Research, 62, 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ko, W. H., & Hora, F. K. (1971). A selective medium for quantitative determination of Rhizoctonia solani in soil. Phytopathology, 61, 707–710.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach, L. D. (1991). Seedling diseases. In E. D. Whitney, & J. E. Duffus (Eds.), Compendium of beet diseases and insects (pp. 4–8). St. Paul, MN, USA: American Phytopathological Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luterbacher, M. C., Asher, M. J. C., Beyer, W., Mandolino, G., Scholten, O. E., Frese, L., Biancardi, E., Stevanato, P., Mechelke, W., & Slyvchenko, O. (2005). Sources of resistance to diseases of sugar beet in related Beta germplasm: II. Soil-borne diseases. Euphytica, 141, 49–63. doi:10.1007/s10681-005-5231-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J. M. (2003). Registration of SR96 and SR97 smooth-root sugarbeet germplasm with high sucrose. Crop Science, 43, 2314–2315.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J. M., Derrico, C., Morales, M., Copeland, L. O., & Christenson, D. R. (2000). Germination of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) seed submerged in hydrogen peroxide and water as a means to discriminate cultivar and seed lot vigor. Seed Science Technology, 28, 607–620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagendran, S. (2006) Rhizoctonia disease in sugar beet: disease screening and cyto-histopathology of sugar beet—Rhizoctonia solani interaction. Dissertation, Michigan State University.

  • O’Sullivan, E., & Kavanagh, J. A. (1991). Characteristics and pathogenicity of isolates of Rhizoctonia spp. associated with damping-off of sugar-beet. Plant Pathology, 40, 128–135. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3059.1991.tb02301.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panella, L. (2005). Root Rots. In E. Biancardi, L. G. Campbell, G. N. Skaracis, & M. de Biaggi (Eds.), Genetics and breeding of sugarbeet (pp. 95–98). Enfield NH USA: Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajendran, C., Baby, A., Kumari, S., & Verghese, T. (1991). An evaluation of straw-extract agar media for the growth and sporulation of Madurella mycetomatis. Mycopathologia, 115, 9–12. doi:10.1007/BF00436415.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ruppel, E. G. (1972). Correlation of cultural characteristics and source of isolates with pathogenicity of Rhizoctonia solani from sugar beet. Phytopathology, 62, 202–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruppel, E. G. (1973). Histopathology of resistant and susceptible sugar beet roots inoculated with Rhizoctonia solani. Phytopathology, 63, 123–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruppel, E. G., Schneider, C. L., Hecker, R. J., & Hogaboam, G. J. (1979). Creating epiphytotics of Rhizoctonia root rot and evaluating for resistance to Rhizoctonia solani in sugar beet field plots. Plant Disease Reporter, 63, 518–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rush, C. M., Carling, D. E., Harveson, R. M., & Mathieson, J. T. (1994). Prevalence and pathogenicity of anastomosis groups of Rhizoctonia solani from wheat and sugar-beet in Texas. Plant Disease, 78, 349–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholten, E. O., Panella, L. W., Theo, S. M., Bock, D., & Lange, W. (2001). A greenhouse test for screening sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) for resistance to Rhizoctonia solani. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 107, 161–166. doi:10.1023/A:1011208903344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sneh, B., Burpee, L., & Ogoshi, A. (1991). Identification of Rhizoctonia species. St. Paul, MN USA: American Phytopathological Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Windels, C. E., & Nabben, D. J. (1989). Characterization and pathogenicity of anastomosis groups of Rhizoctonia solani isolated from Beta vulgaris. Phytopathology, 79, 83–88. doi:10.1094/Phyto-79-83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, J., & Verma, P. R. (1992). Screening genotypes for resistance to preemergence damping-off and postemergence seedling root-rot of oilseed rape and canola caused by Rhizoctonia solani AG-2-1. Crop Protection (Guildford, Surrey), 11, 443–448. doi:10.1016/0261-2194(92)90028-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the Beet Sugar Development Foundation for partially funding this project, Cindy Wang, Reid Shepard, David Moldovan, Tim Duckert, and Scott Shaw for expert technical assistance and Dr. Linda Hanson for helpful discussions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plant Pathology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824-1311, USA

    Suba Nagendran, Ray Hammerschmidt & J. Mitchell McGrath

  2. USDA-ARS, Sugarbeet and Bean Research Unit, 494 PSSB, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824-1325, USA

    J. Mitchell McGrath

Authors
  1. Suba Nagendran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ray Hammerschmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Mitchell McGrath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Mitchell McGrath.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nagendran, S., Hammerschmidt, R. & Mitchell McGrath, J. Identification of sugar beet germplasm EL51 as a source of resistance to post-emergence Rhizoctonia damping-off. Eur J Plant Pathol 123, 461–471 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10658-008-9384-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10658-008-9384-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation