4.7 Article

Pathogenicity and Virulence of Soilborne Oomycetes on Phaseolus vulgaris

期刊

PLANT DISEASE
卷 101, 期 11, 页码 1851-1859

出版社

AMER PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1094/PDIS-02-17-0178-RE

关键词

-

资金

  1. USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Initiative Competitive Grant [2012-39571-20296]
  2. NIFA [2012-39571-20296, 577944] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is a globally important leguminous food crop. Yields can be reduced by high incidence of soilborne oomycetes that cause seedling disease. Breeders have attempted to develop Pythium root rot-resistant bean varieties; however, relationships between dry bean and most soilborne oomycete species remain uncharacterized. Oomycete species (n = 28), including Pythium spp. and Phytopythium spp., were tested in a growth chamber seedling assay at 20 degrees C and an in vitro seed assay at 20 degrees C and 26 degrees C to evaluate their pathogenicity and virulence on 'Red Hawk' dark red kidney bean and 'Zorro' black bean. Root size or disease severity was significantly impacted by 14 oomycete species, though results varied by bean variety, temperature, and assay. Of these 14 pathogenic oomycete species, 11 species exhibited significant differences in DSI due to temperature on at least one bean variety. Pythium aphanidermatum, P. myriotylum, P. ultimum, P. ultimum var. sporangiiferium, and P. ultimum var. ultimum were the most virulent species in both assays, causing seed rot and pre-emergence damping-off of dry bean. Oomycete species were clustered into three groups based on symptom development: seed rot pathogens, root rot pathogens, or nonpathogens. Intraspecific variability in virulence was observed for eight of the 14 pathogenic oomycete species. Improved understanding of Pythium and Phytopythium interactions with dry bean may enable breeders and pathologists to more effectively evaluate strategies for oomycete seedling disease management.

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