Journals / Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry / 2020 / Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 6

Sugar beet root rot caused by oomycetous pathogens in Turkey and their control by seed treatment

Pages
631–641
Publication Date
2020-12-08
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)

Out of the 15 fungicide mixes tested, 2 mixes, thiram+metalaxyl+hymexazole and thiram+metalaxyl+hymexazole+ pyraclostrobin reduced seedling root rot caused by both A. cochlioides and Pythium ultimum var. ultimum, while the standard seed treatment fungicide mix of thiram+hymexazole was not effective against either of the pathogens.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study was to determine the oomycetous pathogens causing root rot on sugar beet and test their control by seed treatment in Konya Province, Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Oomycetous fungus-like pathogens of sugar beet were investigated using 866 plant samples collected at 2 growth stages, early seedling and late root, from fields in the Konya region of Turkey and 1 sample from the Thrace region.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Out of the 15 fungicide mixes tested, 2 mixes, thiram+metalaxyl+hymexazole and thiram+metalaxyl+hymexazole+ pyraclostrobin reduced seedling root rot caused by both A. cochlioides and Pythium ultimum var. ultimum, while the standard seed treatment fungicide mix of thiram+hymexazole was not effective against either of the pathogens.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:1 sample
⚙️Variables:Oomycetous · rot · seed

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the oomycetous pathogens causing root rot on sugar beet and test their control by seed treatment in Konya Province, Turkey. Oomycetous fungus-like pathogens of sugar beet were investigated using 866 plant samples collected at 2 growth stages, early seedling and late root, from fields in the Konya region of Turkey and 1 sample from the Thrace region. Herein, 10 oomycetous species belonging to 3 genera: Aphanomyces cochlioides, Phytophthora cryptogea, Ph. pseudocryptogea, Ph. megasperma, Ph. inundata, Pythium aphanidermatum, Py. helicoides, Py. heterothallicum, Py. sylvaticum, and Py. ultimum var. ultimum (Globisporangium ultimum var. ultimum) were discovered at various times with in the 2 growth periods, all of which were the first records for Turkey. A. cochlioides was the most serious pathogen, both in terms of its wide distribution and aggressiveness. The pathogen produced more than 90% disease severity when tested by soil infestation at the seedling stage, although it also occurred at the late root growth stage. Pythium species were also ascommon, such as A. cochlioides, the majority of which were very aggressive, producing more than 84% disease severity at the seedling stage, except for Py. aphanidermatum. Half-strength potato dextrose agar medium was found to be very useful for the isolation of all of the pathogens from the plant samples at both stages. Morphological features of all of the pathogens were abundantly produced when the pathogens were grown on amended grated carrot agar medium and culture disks of fungal growth of this medium were submerged in sterile and nonsterile soil extracts. Out of the 15 fungicide mixes tested, 2 mixes, thiram+metalaxyl+hymexazole and thiram+metalaxyl+hymexazole+ pyraclostrobin reduced seedling root rot caused by both A. cochlioides and Pythium ultimum var. ultimum, while the standard seed treatment fungicide mix of thiram+hymexazole was not effective against either of the pathogens.

🔖

Cite This Article

AVAN, M., PALACİOGLU, G., ERTEK, T. S., KATİRCİOGLU, Y. Z., BAYRAKTAR, H., KAYA, R., MADEN, S. (2020). Sugar beet root rot caused by oomycetous pathogens in Turkey and their control by seed treatment. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 6, 631–641. https://ajindex.com/articles/180287

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (2)

  1. Akilli S, 2012, FOREST PATHOL, V42, P377, DOI 10.1111/j.1439-0329.2012.00770.x Avan M., 2019, New Disease Reports, V39, DOI 10.5197/j.2044-0588.2019.039.022 Babai-Ahary A, 2004, AUSTRALAS PLANT PATH, V33, P343, DOI 10.1071/AP04038 Brantner JR, 1998, PLANT DIS, V82, P896, DOI 10.1094/PDIS.1998.82.8.896 COFFEY MD, 1984,
  2. PHYTOPATHOLOGY, V74, P502, DOI 10.1094/Phyto-74-502 COOK RJ, 1985, PLANT DIS, V69, P686. CSINOS AS, 1994, PLANT DIS, V78, P471, DOI 10.1094/PD-78-0471 Erwin DC, 2005, PHYTOPHTHORA DIS WOR. Erzurum K, 1995, 8 TURK FIT K AD TURK, P122 Gallegly M, 2008, PHYTOPHTHORA IDENTIF. GOODWIN SB, 1995, PLANT DIS, V79, P967, DOI 10.1094/PD-79-0967D Harveson RM., 2009, COMPENDIUM BEET DIS, V2 Jacobsen B.J., 2006, ZABORNIK MATICE SRPS, V110, P9 Jeffers S.N., 2006, IDENTIFYING SPECIES. Kuznia R, 1993, IDENTIFICATION PATHO. Leach LD, 1986, COMPENDIUM BEET DIS, P4. Mathews PG., 2005, DESIGN EXPT MINITAB. Ozgonen H., 2009, SULEYMAN DEMIREL NIV, V4, P16 PFENDER WF, 1984, PLANT DIS, V68, P845, DOI 10.1094/PD-69-845 Piszczek Jacek, 2004, Journal of Plant Protection Research, V44, P341 RUSH CM, 1987, PLANT DIS, V71, P469, DOI 10.1094/PD-71-0469A Safaiefarahani B, 2015, MYCOL PROG, V14, DOI 10.1007/s11557-015-1129-9 Scott PT, 2005, AUSTRALAS PLANT PATH, V34, P361, DOI 10.1071/AP05042 Stamps DJ, 1990, MYCOL PAP, V162, P28. Tamura K, 2013, MOL BIOL EVOL, V30, P2725, DOI [10.1093/molbev/msr121, 10.1093/molbev/mst197] VANDERPLAATSNITERINK AJ, 1981, STUD MYCOL, P1 WHITE JG, 1988, ANN APPL BIOL, V113, P269, DOI 10.1111/j.1744-7348.1988.tb03303.x White T.J., 1990, PCR PROTOCOLS GUIDE, P315, DOI DOI 10.1016/B978-0-12-372180-8.50042-1 WILCOX WF, 1989, PLANT DIS, V73, P794, DOI 10.1094/PD-73-0794 Windels C.E., 2000, PLANT HLTH PROG, V1, P8, DOI [10.1094/PHP-2000-0720-01-DG, DOI 10.1094/PHP-2000-0720-01-DG] Yorganci U., 1988, Journal of Turkish Phytopathology, V17, P57