4.7 Article

Species of Pythium Associated with Seedling Root and Hypocotyl Disease on Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) in Western Australia

期刊

PLANT DISEASE
卷 98, 期 9, 页码 1241-1247

出版社

AMER PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1094/PDIS-12-13-1231-RE

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Western Australia International Postgraduate Research Scholarship
  2. School of Plant Biology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The occurrence and distribution of Pythium spp. were determined by collecting isolates of Pythium from common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) plants showing root or hypocotyl disease symptoms from different areas of Western Australia in 2012. Eight different Pythium species (Pythium conidiophorum, P. diclinum, P. intermedium, P. irregulare, P. lutarium, P. mamillatum, P. pachycaule, and P. perplexum) were isolated and identified according to molecular sequences. P. irregulare was the most widespread Pythium sp. All species, except P. poplexum, were pathogenic to the hypocotyl and root of common bean. We believe this is the first report of P. intermedium as a pathogen on common bean worldwide. This is also the first report of P. conidiophorum, P. intermedium, P. lutarium, P mamillatum, P. pachycaule, and P. diclinum as pathogens on common bean in Australia and the first report of P irregulare as a pathogen on common bean in Western Australia. P. intermedium was the most pathogenic species, causing the most severe disease on 'Gourmet Delight' (percent root disease index [%RDI] 75 +/- 2.9 and percent hypocotyl disease index [%HDI] 59.2 +/- 3.2) and 'Pioneer' (%RDI 75 +/- 2.9 and %HDI 65.8 +/- 3.2). That the relative susceptibility or resistance (the ability of a plant to reduce the extent of invasion by the pathogen) of a given bean variety to one Pythium sp. was, in general, similar across the other Pythium spp. was an important finding, because this opens up opportunities to utilize a single virulent isolate of one Pythium sp. to identify general resistance to a wider spectrum of Pythium spp.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据