4.7 Article

Recovery of anastomosis groups of Rhizoctonia solani from different latitudinal positions and influence of temperatures on their growth and survival

期刊

PLANT DISEASE
卷 88, 期 8, 页码 817-823

出版社

AMER PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1094/PDIS.2004.88.8.817

关键词

distribution

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multinucleate Rhizoctonia solani isolates were recovered from soybean fields from five locations at a range of latitudes from 33 to 46degreesN. Out of 143 multinucleate isolates recovered, 51 isolates were anastomosis group (AG)-1 (35.6%), 9 were AG-2-2 (6.2%), 40 were AG-4 (28%), and 15 were AG-5 (10.6%). The remaining 28 isolates (19.6%) failed to anastomose with any of the testers (AG-1, 2-2, 4, or 5). Among the four AGs, AG-1 was found mainly in the more southern latitudes in contrast to AG-2-2, which was found mostly in the more northern latitudes. AG-4 and AG-5 were distributed across all latitudes. Effects of temperature on growth, sclerotia production (range from 5 to 30degreesC with 5degrees increments), and saprophytic survival using infested straw (range from -10 to 30degreesC with 10degrees increments) were studied with representative isolates from AG-1, AG-2-2, AG-4, and AG-5 isolated from different locations. Results indicate differential effects of temperature on growth rate and sclerotia production among the isolates within each AG. Optimum temperature for growth rate of all isolates tested from the different AGs was between 25 and 30degreesC; whereas, for sclerotia production, it was 25degreesC. Isolates from AG-1 had the highest mean sclerotia production. Saprophytic survival of isolates from all AGs tested declined linearly over time and with decrease in temperature in the survival study. Saprophytic survival of all isolates irrespective of AG collected from the southernmost location was lower at low temperatures than that of isolates collected from higher latitudes. Our results suggest temperature-dependent response among isolates within different AGs of R. solani.

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