4.7 Article

Baseline Sensitivity of Pyraclostrobin and Toxicity of SHAM to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum

Journal

PLANT DISEASE
Volume 99, Issue 2, Pages 267-273

Publisher

AMER PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1094/PDIS-06-14-0633-RE

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Special Fund for Agro-scientific Research in the Public Interest [201103016]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sclerotinia sclerotiorum is a cosmopolitan plant pathogen notable for its wide host range. The quinone outside inhibitor (QoI) fungicide pyraclostrobin has not been registered for control of S. sclerotiorum in China. In this study, baseline sensitivity of pyraclostrobin was established based on effective concentration for 50% inhibition of mycelial growth (EC50) values of 153 isolates of S. sclerotiorum collected from five provinces of China and toxicity of alternative oxidase inhibitor salicylhydroxamic acid (SHAM) to S. sclerotiorum was determined. Results showed that the frequency distribution of EC50 values of the 153 isolates was unimodal but with a right-hand tail. The mean EC50 value was 0.1027 mu g/ml and the range of EC50 values was 0.0124 to 0.6324 mu g/ml. Applied as a preventive fungicide in pot experiments, pyraclostrobin at 5, 15, and 45 mu g/ml provided control efficacies of 61, 77, and 100%, respectively. There was no positive cross-resistance between pyraclostrobin and carbendazim or dimethachlon. EC50 values for SHAM against four isolates of S. sclerotiorum were 44.4, 51.8, 54.4, and 68.7 mu g/ml. SHAM at 20 mu g/ml could significantly increase not only the inhibitory effect of pyraclostrobin on mycelial growth on potato dextrose agar media but also the control efficacy in planta. These results indicated that SHAM should not be added into artificial media in in vitro assay of S. sclerotiorum sensitivity to pyraclostrobin. This has broad implications for assay of sensitivity of fungal pathogen to QoI fungicides.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available