Management of sugar beet damping off and root rot diseases caused by Sclerotium rolfsii is urgently needed. Therefore, antifungal activities of 13 materials including 2 bio agents, 2 seaweeds, 3 chemical inducers and 6 fungicides were evaluated. Required inoculum potential of either fungal mass or sclerotia to reach more than 50% of disease incidence was firstly investigated. Fungal mass inoculation (40-500g/10kg of soil) provided 70-100% damping off and 100% root rot. Meanwhile, 6.7-36.7% of damping off and no or negligible root rot were obtained using 300-500 sclerotia /10kg of soil. On the other hand, S. rolfsii mycelial growth was completely suppressed in vitro by all tested materials. However, various antifungal activities of these materials were shown in vivo after seed soaking in the 1st (2020/2021) trail or seed soaking followed by soil drenching in the 2nd (2021/2022) trail. Tipo top (Tebuoconazole 25.9%: 1cm/L) fungicide was the most effective material in the 1st trail since the seedling survival was up to 80%, followed by potassium silicate (1cm/L) and Score (Difenoconazole 25%: 1cm/L) fungicide. Seed soaking followed by soil drenching with Tipo top in the 2nd trail were protected sugar beet from sowing to harvest and enhanced the root weight. Additionally, this study illustrated that both of sugar beet root weight and sucrose content were decreased as root rot severity increased. In conclusion, chemical fungicides are unfortunately still the fast and potent way for S. rolfsii management, especially with the limitation of resistant sugar beet cultivars.
| Published in | Plant (Volume 11, Issue 1) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.plant.20231101.15 |
| Page(s) | 33-40 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Root Rot, Beta Vulgaris, Sclerotia, Disease Control
| [1] | Bhuiyan, M. Z. R, Lakshman, D. K., Del Rio Mendoza, L. E., Mosher, P., Khan, M. F. R. (2021). Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib) de Bary causes root rot and necrosis in sugar beet in Moorhead, MN, USA. Journal of Plant Protection Research, 61 (4): 384-391. |
| [2] | Hanson, L. E. (2010). Interaction of Rhizoctonia solani and Rhizopus stolonifer causing root rot of sugar beet. Plant Disease, 94: 504-509. |
| [3] | Cramer, R. A., Byrne, P. F., Brick, M. A., Panella, L., Wickliffe, E., Shchwartz, H. F. (2003). Characterization of Fusarium oxysporum isolates from common bean and sugar beet using pathogenicity assays and random amplified polymeric DNA markers. Journal of Phytopathology, 151: 352–360. |
| [4] | Farooq, M. A., Iqbal, U., Rasool, A., Zubair, M., Iqbal, S. M., Sagheer, A. (2011). Evaluation of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) genotypes for resistance against root rot caused by Sclerotium rolfsii. Mycopathologia, 9 (1): 13-15. |
| [5] | Moussa, T. A. A., Tharwat, N. A. (2007). Optimization of cellulase and glucosidase induction by sugar beet pathogen Sclerotium rolfsii. African Journal of Biotechnology, 6 (8): 1048-1054. |
| [6] | Yaqub, F., Shahzad, S. (2005). Pathogenicity of Sclerotium rolfsii on different crops and effect of inoculums density on colonization of mungbean and sunflower roots. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 37 (1): 175-180. |
| [7] | El-Nagar, A. A. A., Sabry, A. M. B., Yassin, M. A. (2013). Virulence and host range of Sclerotium rolfsii and S. cepivorum. Journal of Pure and Applied Microbiology, 7 (3): 1693-1705. |
| [8] | Rajendraprasad, M., Sagar, B. V., Devi, G. U., Rao, S. R. K. (2017). Biological control of tomato damping off caused by Sclerotium rolfsii. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, 5 (5): 113-119. |
| [9] | Eslami, A. A., Khodaparast, S. A., Mousanejad, S., Padasht Dehkaei, F. (2015). Evaluation of the virulence of Sclerotium rolfsii isolates on Arachis hypogaea and screening for resistant genotypes in greenhouse conditions. Hellenic Plant Protection Journal, 8: 1-11. |
| [10] | Nandi S, Hembaram, S, Adhikari, A, Tiwari, BK, Dutta, S. (2017). Host Infection beyond the Traditional Range of Sclerotium (Athelia) rolfsii with Physalis minima. Bioinformation, 13 (10): 333-338. |
| [11] | Kator, L., Hosea, Z. Y., Oche, O. D. (2015). Sclerotium rolfsii; causative organism of southern blight, stem rot, white mold and sclerotia rot disease. Annals of Biological Research, 6 (11): 78-89. |
| [12] | Punja, Z. K. (1985) The Biology, Ecology and Control of Sclerotium rolfsii. Annual Review of Phytopathology, 23, 97-127. |
| [13] | Sugar Crop Council, 2020. Annual report of the Central Council for Sugar Crops. Ministry of Agriculture and land Reclamation, Egypt (In Arabic). |
| [14] | Götze, P., Rücknagel, J., Wensch-Dorendorf, M., Märländer, B., Christen, O. (2017). Crop rotation effects on yield, technological quality and yield stability of sugar beet after 45 trial years. European Journal of Agronomy, 82: 50–59. |
| [15] | Koch, H. J, Trimpler, K, Jacobs, A. Stockfisch, N. (2018). Crop Rotational Effects on Yield Formation in Current Sugar Beet Production – Results From a Farm Survey and Field Trials. Frontiers in Plant Science, 9: 231. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.00231. |
| [16] | Mabrouki, S., Lakhdar, F., Bouhraoua, J., Belarbi, E., Khlifi, S., Benba, J., Etahiri, S. (2020). In Vitro Antifungal Activity of Seaweed Extracts Against Sclerotium rolfsii: A Causal Agent of Root Rot Disease on Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 63 (2): 90-97. |
| [17] | Khettabi, N., Ezzahiri, B., Louali, L., Oihabi, A. (2004). Effect of nitrogen fertilizers and Trichoderma harzianum on Sclerotium rolfsii. Agronomie, 24: 281–288. |
| [18] | Errakhi, R., Lebrihi, A., Barakate, M. (2009). In vitro and in vivo antagonism of actinomycetes isolated from Moroccan rhizospherical soils against Sclerotium rolfsii: a causal agent of root rot on sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Journal of Applied Microbiology, 107 (2): 672-681. |
| [19] | Khettabi, N., Ezzahiri, B., Louali, L., Oihabi, A. (2001). Effect of fungicides and Trichoderma harzianum on sclerotia of Sclerotium rolfsii. Phytopathologia Mediterranea, 40: 143-148. |
| [20] | Bhuiyan, M. A. H. B., Rahman, M. T., Bhuiyan, K. A. (2012). In vitro screening of fungicides and antagonists against Sclerotium rolfsii. African Journal of Biotechnology, 11 (82): 14822-14827. |
| [21] | Pethybridge, S. J., Sharma, S., Silva, A., Bowden, C., Murphy, S., Knight, N. L., Hay, F. S. (2019). Southern Sclerotium root rot caused by Athelia rolfsii on table beet in New York. Journal of Plant Health Progress, 20: 4-6. |
| [22] | Fatoh, H. M. M. (2018). Potential of fluorescent pseudomonads to biocontrol of root diseases of sugar beet. PhD thesis. Faculuty of Agriculture, Cairo University. |
| [23] | Ahmed, A. Y. (2018). Biological control of some plant pathogens using algae in Egypt and Tunisia. PhD thesis. Institute of African Research and studies, Cairo University. |
| [24] | Swapan, K. P., Nur Uddin, M., Gupta, D. R., Surovy, M. Z., Mahfuzur Rahman, Md. Tofazzal Islam. (2021). Characterization of Sclerotium rolfsii Causing Root Rot of Sugar Beet in Bangladesh. Sugar Technology, 23: 1199–1205. |
| [25] | Yassin, M. A. (2013). Interaction of Rhizoctonia solani anastomosis groups and sugar beet cultivars. Journal of Pure and Applied Microbiology, 7 (3): 1869-1876. |
| [26] | Association of official analytical chemists. A. O. A. C. (1990). Official methods analysis of the association of official analytical chemists. Washington 25. D., USA. |
| [27] | Gouda, M. I. M., El-Naggar, A. A. A., Yassin, M. A. (2022). Effect of Cercospora Leaf Spot Disease on Sugar Beet Yield. American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 10 (4): 138-143. |
| [28] | Fakher, A., Jabnoun-Khiareddine, H., Abdallah, R. A. B., Remadi, M. D. (2018). Effects of pH and aeration on Sclerotium rolfsii sacc. mycelial growth, sclerotial production and germination. International Journal of Phytopathology 7 (3): 111–121. |
| [29] | Blum, L. E. B. & Rodriguez-Kabana, R. (2004). Effect of soil organic amendments on sclerotial germination, mycelial growth, and Sclerotium rolfsii-induced diseases. Fitopatologia Brasileira 29: 066-074. |
| [30] | Fery, R. L., Dukes, P. D. (2002). Southern blight (Sclerotium rolfsii Sacc) of cowpea: yield-loss estimates and sources of resistance. Crop Protection, 21: 403-408. |
| [31] | Mehan, V. K., Mayee, C. D., McDoald, D. (1994). Management of Sclerotium rolfsii – caused stem and pod rots of groundnut. International Journal of Pest Management, 40 (4): 313-320. |
| [32] | Sen, C., Singh, K., Srivastava, S. N., Misra, S. R. (1979). Technique for infesting fields with Sclerotium rolfsii for creating epiphytotics of root rot of sugar beet. Indian Journal of Sugarcane Technologists, 2: 14-20. |
| [33] | Manu, T. G., Nagaraja, A., Chetan, Janaward, S., Hosamani, V. (2012). Efficacy of fungicides and biocontrol agents against Sclerotium rolfsii causing foot rot disease of finger millet, under in vitro conditions. Global Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Health Sciences, 1 (2): 46-50. |
| [34] | Augusto, J., Brenneman, T. B. (2012). Assessing systemicity of peanut fungicides through bioassay of plant tissues with Sclerotium rolfsii. Plant Disease, 96: 313-337. |
| [35] | Karthikeyan, V., Sankaralingam, A., Nakkeeran, S. (2006). Biological control of groundnut stem rot caused by Sclerotium rolfsii (Sacc.). Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection, 39 (3): 239-246. |
| [36] | Paramageetham, C. H., Babu, G. P. (2012). Antagonistic activity of fluorescent Pseudomonas against a polyphagous soil-born plant pathogen – Sclerotium rolfsii. Open access scientific reports, 1: 436. doi: 10.4172/scientificreports.436. |
| [37] | Eliwa, M. A., El-Sheikh, M. M, Saber, S. (2021). Control of root rot disease of sugar beet using certain antioxidants and fungicids. Journal of Phytopathology and Pest Management, 8 (1): 1-14. |
| [38] | Lyr, H. Modern selective fungicides: properties, applications; mechanisms of action. 2nd ed. 1995. Villengang, Germany, and New York: Gustav Fischer Verlag. |
| [39] | Khan. I. H., Javaid, A. (2015). Chemical control of collar rot disease of Chickpea. Pakistan Journal of Phytopathology, 27 (1): 61-68. |
| [40] | Arunasri, P., Chalam, T. V., Eswara Reddy, N. P., Tirumala Reddy, S, Ravindra Reddy, B. (2011). Investigations on fungicidal sensitivity of Trichoderma spp and Sclerotium rolfsii (collar rot pathogen) in Crossandra. International Journal of Applied Biology and Pharmaceutical Technology, 2 (2): 290-293. |
| [41] | Ludwig, R., Haltrich, D. (2002). Cellobiose dehydrogenase production by Sclerotium species pathogenic to plants. Letters in Applied Microbiology, 35 (3): 261-266. |
APA Style
Abd-Allah Ahmed Aly El-Naggar, Mohamed Abdallah Yassin. (2023). In Vitro and in Vivo Management of Sclerotium rolfsii the Cause of Sugar Beet Root Rot Disease. Plant, 11(1), 33-40. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.plant.20231101.15
ACS Style
Abd-Allah Ahmed Aly El-Naggar; Mohamed Abdallah Yassin. In Vitro and in Vivo Management of Sclerotium rolfsii the Cause of Sugar Beet Root Rot Disease. Plant. 2023, 11(1), 33-40. doi: 10.11648/j.plant.20231101.15
AMA Style
Abd-Allah Ahmed Aly El-Naggar, Mohamed Abdallah Yassin. In Vitro and in Vivo Management of Sclerotium rolfsii the Cause of Sugar Beet Root Rot Disease. Plant. 2023;11(1):33-40. doi: 10.11648/j.plant.20231101.15
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.plant.20231101.15,
author = {Abd-Allah Ahmed Aly El-Naggar and Mohamed Abdallah Yassin},
title = {In Vitro and in Vivo Management of Sclerotium rolfsii the Cause of Sugar Beet Root Rot Disease},
journal = {Plant},
volume = {11},
number = {1},
pages = {33-40},
doi = {10.11648/j.plant.20231101.15},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.plant.20231101.15},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.plant.20231101.15},
abstract = {Management of sugar beet damping off and root rot diseases caused by Sclerotium rolfsii is urgently needed. Therefore, antifungal activities of 13 materials including 2 bio agents, 2 seaweeds, 3 chemical inducers and 6 fungicides were evaluated. Required inoculum potential of either fungal mass or sclerotia to reach more than 50% of disease incidence was firstly investigated. Fungal mass inoculation (40-500g/10kg of soil) provided 70-100% damping off and 100% root rot. Meanwhile, 6.7-36.7% of damping off and no or negligible root rot were obtained using 300-500 sclerotia /10kg of soil. On the other hand, S. rolfsii mycelial growth was completely suppressed in vitro by all tested materials. However, various antifungal activities of these materials were shown in vivo after seed soaking in the 1st (2020/2021) trail or seed soaking followed by soil drenching in the 2nd (2021/2022) trail. Tipo top (Tebuoconazole 25.9%: 1cm/L) fungicide was the most effective material in the 1st trail since the seedling survival was up to 80%, followed by potassium silicate (1cm/L) and Score (Difenoconazole 25%: 1cm/L) fungicide. Seed soaking followed by soil drenching with Tipo top in the 2nd trail were protected sugar beet from sowing to harvest and enhanced the root weight. Additionally, this study illustrated that both of sugar beet root weight and sucrose content were decreased as root rot severity increased. In conclusion, chemical fungicides are unfortunately still the fast and potent way for S. rolfsii management, especially with the limitation of resistant sugar beet cultivars.},
year = {2023}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - In Vitro and in Vivo Management of Sclerotium rolfsii the Cause of Sugar Beet Root Rot Disease AU - Abd-Allah Ahmed Aly El-Naggar AU - Mohamed Abdallah Yassin Y1 - 2023/03/28 PY - 2023 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.plant.20231101.15 DO - 10.11648/j.plant.20231101.15 T2 - Plant JF - Plant JO - Plant SP - 33 EP - 40 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2331-0677 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.plant.20231101.15 AB - Management of sugar beet damping off and root rot diseases caused by Sclerotium rolfsii is urgently needed. Therefore, antifungal activities of 13 materials including 2 bio agents, 2 seaweeds, 3 chemical inducers and 6 fungicides were evaluated. Required inoculum potential of either fungal mass or sclerotia to reach more than 50% of disease incidence was firstly investigated. Fungal mass inoculation (40-500g/10kg of soil) provided 70-100% damping off and 100% root rot. Meanwhile, 6.7-36.7% of damping off and no or negligible root rot were obtained using 300-500 sclerotia /10kg of soil. On the other hand, S. rolfsii mycelial growth was completely suppressed in vitro by all tested materials. However, various antifungal activities of these materials were shown in vivo after seed soaking in the 1st (2020/2021) trail or seed soaking followed by soil drenching in the 2nd (2021/2022) trail. Tipo top (Tebuoconazole 25.9%: 1cm/L) fungicide was the most effective material in the 1st trail since the seedling survival was up to 80%, followed by potassium silicate (1cm/L) and Score (Difenoconazole 25%: 1cm/L) fungicide. Seed soaking followed by soil drenching with Tipo top in the 2nd trail were protected sugar beet from sowing to harvest and enhanced the root weight. Additionally, this study illustrated that both of sugar beet root weight and sucrose content were decreased as root rot severity increased. In conclusion, chemical fungicides are unfortunately still the fast and potent way for S. rolfsii management, especially with the limitation of resistant sugar beet cultivars. VL - 11 IS - 1 ER -
Email: