Journals / ANADOLU Ege Tarımsal Araştırma Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2007 / Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 2

Ascochyta blight of pea and ıts biological control by fluorescent pseudomonads

Bezelyede ascochyta yanıklığı ve bunun fluoresent pseudomonaslarla biyolojik kontrolü

Pages
14–34
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Moreover, found compatible with some fungicides at the concentration as high as 100 ppm in vitro.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Ascochyta blight is a serious foliar disease of pea in Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Also, the potential of fluorescent pseudomonads as component of integrated management of Ascochyta blight caused by A. pinodes was investigated with this study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Moreover, found compatible with some fungicides at the concentration as high as 100 ppm in vitro.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Ascochyta pisi · Mycosphaerella pinodes · Phoma medicaginis var. pinodella

Abstract

Ascochyta blight is a serious foliar disease of pea in Turkey. The disease is caused by the Ascochyta complex of fungal pathogens which may include Ascochyta pisi, A. pinodes and A. pinodella. With this study, responsible pathogens from the disease in Aegean and Marmara regions were investigated and identified as A. pinodes and A. pisi. Besides, determination of the cultivars resistance against the disease was performed with pathogenicity test which clearly showed that Bolero expressed a tolerant reaction and the rest of the cultivars were found to be susceptible or more susceptible. Also, the potential of fluorescent pseudomonads as component of integrated management of Ascochyta blight caused by A. pinodes was investigated with this study. Four isolates were tested alone and in combinations for suppression of the disease and promotion of plant growth under field conditions. The individual isolates significantly reduced the Ascochyta blight incidence when applied as either bacterial suspension through foliar and plant debris treatments, compared to the respective mixture isolates. The average mean of disease reduction with the most promising isolate 51 was 60% in foliar and 55% in plant debris treatment. In addition to disease suppression, pseudomonads promoted plant growth in terms of increased plant height and grain yield. Moreover, found compatible with some fungicides at the concentration as high as 100 ppm in vitro.

Özet

Ascochyta yanıklığı Türkiye de bezelyenin önemli bir yeşil aksam hastalığıdır. Hastalığa içlerinde Ascochyta pisi, A. pinodes ve A. pinodella nın bulunabildiği Ascochyta kompleksi fungal patojenler neden olmaktadır. Bu çalışmayla Ege ve Marmara bölgesinde hastalıktan sorumlu patojenler araştırılmış ve bunlar A. pinodes ve A. pisi olarak tanılanmıştır. Bunun yanında, patojenisite testleriyle hastalığa karşı çeşitlerin dayanıklılık durumları incelenmiş, bu testlerde Bolero nun tolerant, geriye kalan diğer çeşitlerin duyarlı ya da aşırı duyarlı bir reaksiyon sergiledikleri ortaya konmuştur. Aynı zamanda bu çalışmada fluoresent Pseudomonasların A. pinodes ten kaynaklanan Ascochyta yanıklığının entegre yönetiminin bir komponenti olarak potansiyeli de ele alınmıştır. Dört izolat tarla koşullarında hastalığı baskılayıcılıkları ve bitki gelişimini uyarıcı etkileri açısından tek başlarına ve kombinasyonlar halinde denenmiştir. İzolatların bireysel kullanımı Ascochyta yanıklığını yeşil aksam ve kalıntı uygulamalarının her ikisinde de kombinasyon uygulamalarına göre daha yüksek oranda azaltmıştır. En umitvar izolat 51le ortalama hastalık şiddeti yeşil aksamda %60, kalıntı uygulamalarında %55 oranında azalmıştır. Hastalığın baskılanması yanında Pseudomonaslar bitki boyunda ve verimde sağladıkları artışla bitki gelişimini de uyarmıştır. Ayrıca bu bakteriler bazı fungisitlerle 100 ppm gibi yüksek konsantrasyonlarda uyumlu bulunmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÖRE, M. E., BORA, T. (2007). Ascochyta blight of pea and ıts biological control by fluorescent pseudomonads. ANADOLU Ege Tarımsal Araştırma Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 2, 14–34. https://ajindex.com/articles/153571

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Albuquerque, V. V. D. Terao, and R. L. R. Mariano. 2003. Growth-Promotion and Biocorıtrol of Fusarium Wilt In Micropropagated Plantlets Of Musa Sp., 6th International Workshop on Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR). 5-10
  2. October, Calicut, India, page 3-8.
  3. Ali, S., L. E. Nitschke, A. J. Dube, M. R. Krause and B. Cameron. 1978. Selection of pea lines for resistance to pathotypes of Ascochyta pinodes, A.pisi and Phoma medicaginis var. pinodella. Aust.J.Agric.Res. 39: 841-849.
  4. Anith, K. N., M. T. Momol and J. W. Kloepper. 2003. Plant Growth Promotion and Biological Control of Bacterial Wilt of Tomato by Plant-Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria, 6th International Workshop on Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR). 5 -10 October, Calicut, India, page 103 (Abstract). Anonymus. 2002. Türkiye istatistik Yıllığı. Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü. Barbetti, M. and A. Brown. 1993. Diseases, in: Growing Field Peas, J. Carpenter ed. Western Australia Department of Agriculture. Buletin 4239. Beasse, C., B. Ney and B. Tivoli. 2000. A simple model of pea (Pisum sativum) growth affected by Mycosphaerella pinodes. Plant Pathology, 49:2, 187-200.
  5. Bora, T. ve H. Özaktan. 1998. Bitki hastalıklarıyla biyolojik savaş. Prizma Matbaacılık. 205p. Borowitz, J. J., M. Stankie-Dicz, T. Lcwicka and Z. Zukowska. 1992. Inhibition of fungal cellulase, pectinase and xyianase activity of plant growth promoting fluorescent pseudomonads. Bull. OILR/SROP 15: 103-106.
  6. Bretag, T. 1991. Epidemiology and control of Ascochyta blight of field peas. Ph.D. Thesis, La Trobe University. Bretag, T.W.,T. V. Price, and P. J. Keane. 1995. Importance of seed-borne inoculum in tthe etiology of the Ascochyta blight complex of field peas (Pisum sativum L.) grown in Victoria. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 35: 4, 525-530.
  7. Carter, M. V. and W. J. Moller. 1961. Factors affecting the survival and dissemination of Mycosphaerella pinodes in south Australian irrigated pea fields. Australian J. Agric. Res. 12(5): 878-888 + plate 1. Clulow, S. A. 1989. The resistance of Pisum to Mycosphaerella pinodes (Berk.&Blox.) Vestergr. PhD Thesis, pp. 1-198.
  8. The University of East Anglia, Norwich. Clulow, S. A., B. G. Lewis, and P. Matthews. 1991. A pathotype classification for Mycosphaerella pinodes. Journal of Phytopathology, 131:4, 322-332.
  9. De Boer, M., I. van der Sluis, L.C. van Loon, and P. A. H. M. Bakker. 1997. In vitro compatibility between fluorescent Pseudomonas spp. strains can increase etTectivity