4.7 Article

Identification of Pathogens Causing Alfalfa Fusarium Root Rot in Inner Mongolia, China

期刊

AGRONOMY-BASEL
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/agronomy13020456

关键词

Alfalfa Fusarium Root Rot; Fusarium spp; molecular identification; fungicide

向作者/读者索取更多资源

317 isolates suspected of alfalfa root rot were collected from Inner Mongolia, China, and 12 Fusarium species were identified as the cause of the disease, including three new species not previously reported in China. Three fungicides were found to be strongly toxic towards the dominant pathogenic species, suggesting their potential as alternative fungicides for controlling alfalfa root rot.
Alfalfa Fusarium Root Rot (AFRR) is a serious soil-borne disease with a complex pathogenicity. Diseased samples suspected of AFRR were collected from Hohhot, Ordos, Hulunbeier, Chifeng, and Bayannur in Inner Mongolia, China, leading to 317 isolates. The isolates were identified as Fusarium acuminatum, F. solani, F. equiseti, F. incarnatum, F. oxysporum, F. avenaceum, F. verticillioides, F. proliferatum, F. falciforme, F. tricinctum, F. virguliforme, and F. redolens, and the results of pathogenicity testing showed that 12 Fusarium species could cause alfalfa root rot. Among these, F. verticillioides, F. falciforme, and F. virguliforme have not previously been reported to cause AFRR in China. Although the population structure of the pathogens differed in different regions, the dominant pathogenic species was F. acuminatum. Fungicide toxicity tests showed that seven fungicides inhibited F. acuminatum, of which fludioxonil, kresoxim-methyl, and triadimefon were found to be strongly toxic towards F. acuminatum with EC50 values of 0.09, 2.28, and 16.37 mu g/mL, respectively, suggesting that these could be used as alternative fungicides for the control of AFRR. The results of this study can provide a theoretical basis for exploring the occurrence and epidemiology of alfalfa root rot and strategies for its control.

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