Related Links
Evaluation of new O-type lines of sugar beet resistant to root and crown rhizoctonia rot in the conditions of microplot artificial contamination | ||
| چغندرقند | ||
| Article 2, Volume 39, Issue 2, February 2024, Pages 125-138 PDF (1.2 M) | ||
| Document Type: Scientific - Research | ||
| DOI: 10.22092/jsb.2024.365029.1347 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Hamze Hamze* 1; Hamed Mansouri1; Mehdi Hassani2; Saeed Sadeghzadeh Hemayati3 | ||
| 1Assistant professor of Sugar Beet Research Department, Hamedan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center (AREEO), Hamedan, Iran. | ||
| 2Associate professor of Sugar Beet Seed Institute (SBSI), Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran. | ||
| 3Associate Professor of Sugar Beet Seed Institute (SBSI) - Associate professor of Sugar Beet Seed Institute (SBSI), Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran. | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Root rot is a serious threat for sugar beet production and consequently sugar industry. The most important way to deal with it is to use resistant cultivars. In order to identify and grouping new O-type lines resistant the fungus that causes rhizoctonia and crown rot root in sugar beet, 83 O-type lines along with three resistant control (Novodro and line SB-709) and a susceptible (bulk 191) lines were evaluated in microplot in Hamedan in 2023. Artificial inoculation was performed by propagating the Rh133 isolate with AG2-2 anastomosing group on corn seeds and placing next to two months sugar beet seedlings. At the end of the growing season, roots were harvested and evaluated using 1-9 scale, and the disease and harvest indices were calculated accordingly. In the present study, the average number of roots, disease index, and harvest index for the evaluated genetic mass were 17.16, 4.05 and 17.18, respectively. O-types 5 (OT 010245), 32 (OT 010277) and 80 (OT HSF-010041) obtained the highest number of roots and harvest index and lower disease index compared with other genotypes. Based on the SIIG index, it was found that O-types 36 (OT 010282), 32 (OT 010277), 5 (OT 010245), 80 (OT HSF-010041), 28 (OT 010273), and 1 (OT 010240) were adjacent to the ideal O-types in terms of the number of roots, disease index, and harvest index. Results of the cluster analysis classified the evaluated O-types into four groups. O-types 5 (OT 010245), 80 (OT HSF-010041), 32 (OT 010277) and 36 (OT 010282) were placed in a cluster that had significantly lower disease index and higher harvest index as well as SIIG index closer to 1 compared with other three groups. Also, the biplot analysis based on the first two components showed that O-types 80 (OT HSF-010041), 1 (OT 010240), 28 (OT 010273), 5 (OT 010245), 32 (OT 010277) and 36 (OT 010282) were placed in a suitable position of the biplot in terms of resistance indicators. Finally, O-types 5 (OT 010245), 80 (OT HSF-010041), and 32 (OT 010277) were identified as resistant maternal lines for future breeding programs. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Disease index; microplot; O-type; SIIG index | ||
| References | ||
|
Biancardi E. History of sugar beet breeding. In genetics and breeding of sugar beet, ed. Biancardi E, Campbell LG, Skaracis GN, De Biaggi M, Enfield: Science Publishers, 2005; pp. 38–40. Bruhns M, Lemmes R, Schick R. Jr Verarbeitungseigenschaften von Rhizoctonia- geschädigtenRüben, Zuckerindustrie, 2004; 129: 105-111. Buhre C, Kluth C, Burcky K, Marlander, Varrelmann M. Integrated control of root and crown rot in sugar beet: combined effects of cultivar, crop rotation, and soil tillage. Plant Diseases, 2009; 93 (2): 155–161. doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-93-2-0155. Büttner G, Führer Ithurrart ME, Buddemeyer J. Späte Rübenfäule Rhizoctonia solani– Verbreitung, wirtschaftliche Bedeutung und integrierte Bekämpfungskonzepte. Zuckerindustrie, 2002; 127: 856-866. Büttner G, Pfähler B, Märländer, B. Greenhouse and field techniques for testing sugar beet for resistance to Rhizoctonia root and crown rot. Plant Breeding. 2004; 123: 158-166. Büttner G, Pfähler B, Petersen J. Rhizoctonia root rot in Europe—incidence, economic importance and concept for integrated control. 2023. pp. 897–901 In: Proc. 66th IIRB-ASSBT Congr. San Antonio, TX. Cattanach AW, Dexter AG, Oplinger ES. Sugar beets. In WC Agronomy: Alternative fields crop manual. University of Winscons in cooperative extension service, the University of Minessota Extension Service and the Center for Alternative Plant and Animal Products. 1991. Ebrahimi Koulaee H, Mahmoudi SB, Hasani M. Evaluation of the resistance of sugar beet breeding lines to Rhizoctonia root and crown rot. Journal of Sugar Beet. 2010; 26(1): 42-31. doi:10.22092/JSB.2010.758. [In Persian] Ebrahimi Koulaee H, Mansouri H, Aghaeezadeh M, Mohammadian R, Soltani J, Fotouhi K. Evaluation of yield potential and resistance to rhizoctonia (Rhizoctonia solani) disease of new sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) hybrids. Iranian Journal of Crop Science. 2019; 21(2): 173-187. doi:10.29252/abj.21.2.173. [In Persian] Fattahi SH, Zafari D, Mahmoudi SB. Evaluation of superior sugar beet genotypes for resistance to important root rot pathogens in the greenhouse. Journal of Sugar Beet. 2011; 27(1): 25-38. doi:10.22092/JSB.2011.682. [In Persian] Hamze H, Hassani M, Mansouri H. Screening O-type lines of sugar beet in terms of resistance to rhizoctonia root rot. Journal of Sugar Beet. 2022; 37(2): 153-165. doi:10.22092/JSB.2022.357181.1296. [In Persian] Harveson RM, Hanson LE, Hein GL. Compendium of beet diseases and pests. St. Paul: American Phytopathological Society Press. 2009; pp 12-21. doi.org/10.1094/9780890546598.fm. Hofmann CM. Root Quality of Sugarbeet. Sugar Tech. 2010; 12(3–4): 276-287. doi:10.1007/s12355-010-0040-6. Inokuti EM, Thiery- Lanfranchi D, Edelann V, Gauthero N, Fayollo L, Michereff SJ, Steinberg C. Genetic and pathogenic variability of Rhizoctonia solani causing crown and root rot on sugar beet in France. Journal of Plant Pathology. 2019; 101: 907-916. doi:10.1007/s42161-019-00289-4. Jacobsen BJ. Root rot diseases of sugar beet Zbornik Matice srpske za prirodne nauke. 2006a. 110: 9-19. Katharina S, Wigg F, Goldman L. Variability in reaction to root and crown rot caused by rhizoctonia solani among table beet cultivars, breeding lines, and plant introductions in controlled environment conditions. Hort Science, 2020; 55(9):1482– 1494. doi:10.21273/HORTSCI15011-20. Liu YX, Qi AM, Khan FR. Age- dependent resistance to rhizoctonia solani in sugar beet. Plant Diseases. 2019; 103(9): 2322-2329. doi:10.1094/PDIS-11-18-2001-RE. Mahmoudi SB, Ghashghaie S. Reaction of sugar beet S1 lines and cultivars to different isolates of macro phominaphaseolina and Rhizoctonia solani AG-2-2IIIB. Euphytica. 2012: 190: 439– 445. doi:10.1007/s10681-012-0832-8. Mall AK, Misra V, Lal RJ, Kumar M, Santeshwari A, Kumar Pathak AD. Rhizoctonia root rot: A threatening disease of sugar beet incited by Rhizoctonia species. Indian Journal of Sugarcane Technology. 2020; 35(02): 1-4. Mall AK, Mall V, Misra, SanteshwariAD, Pathak S. Srivastava Sugar beet cultivation in India: Prospects for bioethanol production and value added co-products. Sugar Tech. 2021; 23:1218- 1234. doi:10.1007/s12355-021-01007-0. McGrath JM, Hanson LE, Panella L. Registration of SR98 sugar beet Germplasm with resistances to Rhizoctonia seedling and crown and root rot diseases. Journal of Plant Registrations. 2015; 9 (2): 227–231. doi:10.3198/jpr2013.08.0052crg. Misra V, Srivastava S, Mall AK. (Eds.), Sugar beet cultivation, management, and processing. Springer Publisher. Singapore, 2022; pp. 607-619. Olivoto T, Lúcio AD, da Silva JA, Sari BG, Diel M. Mean performance and stability in multi- environment trials II: Selection based on multiple traits. Agronomy J, 2019; 111:2961– 2969. doi:10.2134/agronj2019.03.0221. Strausbaugh CA, Eujayl IA, Panella LW. Interaction of sugar beet host resistance and Rhizoctonia solani AG-2-2 IIIB strains. Plant Diseases. 2013; 97:1175-1180. doi:10.1094/PDIS-11-12-1078-RE. Wigg KS, Goldman IL. Variability in reaction to root and crown rot caused by rhizoctonia solani among table beet cultivars, breeding lines, and plant introductions in controlled environment conditions. Hort Science, 2020; 5(9): 1482–1494. doi:10.21273/HORTSCI15011-20. Windels CE, Panella L, Ruppel EG. Sugar beet germplasm resistant to Rhizoctonia root and crown rot with stands disease caused by several pathogenic isolates of Rhizoctonia solani AG2-2. Sugar Beet Research and Extension Report, 1995; 26: 179-185. Zali H, Sofalian O, Hasanloo T, Asghari A, Hoseini SM. Appraising of drought tolerance relying on stability analysis indices in canola genotypes simultaneously, using selection index of ideal genotype (SIIG) technique: Introduction of new method. Biological Forum, 2015; 7(2): 703-711. Zali H, Sofalian O, Hasanloo T, Asghari A, Zeinalabedini M. Appropriate strategies for selection of drought tolerant genotypes in canola. Journal of Crop Breeding. 2106; 78(20):77- 90. doi:20.1001.1.22286128.1395.8.20.7.4. [In Persian] | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 441 PDF Download: 278 |
||
Journal management system. designed by sinaweb