Breeding for Rhizoclonia resistance in sugarbeet

Gaskill, J. O.

doi:10.5274/jsbr.15.2.107

Cited by 40 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This was unexpected, despite EL51's history of selection under inoculated CRR pressure over at least six breeding cycles in Michigan (Halloin et al 2000). Early work towards developing a Rhizoctonia damping-off field nursery was abandoned due to excessive seedling and plant mortality exhibited in these fields (Gaskill 1968), since there was no reason to suppose any resistance was present in cultivated germplasm. Also, resistance appears to increase with increasing age of the sugar beet plant (Engelkes and Windels 1996); thus later inoculations were preferred due to the relative ease of discriminating CRR reactions in adult plants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Direct sowing of seed into artificially pre-inoculated field nurseries with AG2-2 was determined to be ineffective for selection of resistance to CRR, with little or no survival of seedling-inoculated plants at harvest noted (Gaskill 1968). In growth chambers, and only at 26°C, the percentage of seedlings surviving 21 days post-germination in AG2-2 pre-inoculated soil was correlated with CRR resistance (Campbell and Altman 1976); however the proportion of survivors was low.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Families with an increased level of resistance were selected through mass selection by Gaskill (1968) and by Yamaguchi et al (1976) . Improved families were reported by Hecker & Gaskill (1972) and Hecker & Ruppel (1982a, 1982b .…”

Section: Fungal Diseasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Natural variation within the genus Beta and its possible use for breeding sugar beet: A review

et al. 1990

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…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%

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

Breeding for Rhizoclonia resistance in sugarbeet

Cited by 40 publications

References 0 publications

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

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

Natural variation within the genus Beta and its possible use for breeding sugar beet: A review

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About