| تعداد نشریات | 282 |
| تعداد نشریات سازمان | 80 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 3,168 |
| تعداد مقالات | 35,197 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 50,932,572 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 90,938,120 |
غربال لاینهای اوتایپ چغندرقند از نظر مقاومت به پوسیدگی ریزوکتونیایی ریشه | ||
| چغندرقند | ||
| مقاله 3، دوره 37، شماره 2، مهر 1400، صفحه 153-165 اصل مقاله (1.37 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: کامل علمی - پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22092/jsb.2022.357181.1296 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| حمزه حمزه* ؛ مهدی حسنی؛ حامد منصوری | ||
| استادیار بخش تحقیقات چغندرقند، مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان همدان، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، همدان، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| به منظور شناسایی لاینهای اوتایپ چغندرقند مقاوم به پوسیدگی ریشه ریزوکتونیایی، تعداد 51 لاین اوتایپ به همراه شاهد مقاوم و حساس در میکروپلاتهای ایستگاه اکباتان مرکز تحقیقات کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی همدان در سال 1400 ارزیابی شدند. برای آلودهسازی مصنوعی بوتهها، جدایه Rh133 از قارچ Rhizoctonia solani- AG2-2 بر روی بذر ذرت تکثیر و در کنار ریشههای 63 روزه چغندرقند قرار داده شد. در پایان فصل، ریشهها برداشت و بر اساس مقیاس یک تا نه نمرهدهی انجام و شاخص بیماری و شاخص برداشت بر مبنای آن برآورد شدند. مقایسه میانگین ژنوتیپها نشان داد اوتایپهای شماره 9 (FCOT 990084) و 19 (FCOT 990094) به ترتیب با مقادیر 55/3و76/3 واحد کمترین مقدار شاخص بیماری و با مقادیر 49/82 و 49/32 درصد بالاترین شاخص برداشت را به خود اختصاص دادند. بر اساس نتایج تجزیه خوشهای 48 ژنوتیپ چغندرقند تحت شرایط میکروپلات به پنچ گروه تقسیم شدند بین این گروهها از نظر تعداد بوته، تعداد ریشه، شاخص بیماری و شاخص برداشت اختلاف معنیداری وجود داشت. اوتایپهای شماره4 (FCOT 990079)،9 (FCOT 990084)، 19 (FCOT 990094)، 30 (FCOT 990105)، 47 (FCOT 990122) و رقم شاهد مقاوم 52 (Check1) در گروه شماره 5 قرار گرفتند که بالاترین مقدار شاخص برداشت و پایینترین شاخص بیماری را به خود اختصاص دادند. گروهبندی ژنوتیپهای اوتایپ بر اساس شاخص SIIG نشان داد ژنوتیپهای شماره 19 (FCOT 990094) و 9 (FCOT 990084)، 30 (FCOT 990105)، 4 (FCOT 990079)، 47 (FCOT 990122) به ترتیب با مقادیر0/854 و 0/824، 0/741، 0/708 و 0/701 نزدیکترین ژنوتیپها به ژنوتیپ های ایدهآل از لحاظ مقاومت به ریزوکتونیا بودند. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| اوتایپ؛ پوسیدگی ریزوکتونیایی؛ چغندرقند؛ شاخص بیماری | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Screening O-type lines of sugar beet in terms of resistance to rhizoctonia root rot | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| H. Hamze؛ M. Hassani؛ H. Mansouri | ||
| Assistant professor of Sugar Beet Research Department, Hamedan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center (AREEO), Hamedan, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| In order to distinguish O-type lines of sugar beet resistant to rhizoctonia root rot, 51 Otype lines along with resistant and susceptible controls were evaluated in the microplots at Ekbatan Station in Hamedan in 2021. To inoculate the seedlings to rhizoctonia, isolate Rh133 from rhizoctonia solani-AG2-2 fungus were propagated on corn seeds and placed next to root of 63-day-old plants. At the end of the season, roots were harvested and scored based on a scale of 1 to 9; thereafter, the disease index as well as harvest index were estimated. Results showed that Otypes 9 (FCOT 990084) and 19 (FCOT 990094) had the lowest disease index of 3.55 and 3.76, respectively, , and consequently the highest harvest index of 49.82 and 49.32%, respectively. Based on the results of cluster analysis, 48 sugar beet genotypes were divided into five groups under microplate condition. There was a significant difference among groups in terms of plant number, root number, disease index, and harvest index. Otypes 4 (FCOT 990079), 9 (FCOT 990084), 19 (FCOT 990094), 30 (FCOT 990105), and 47 (FCOT 990122) together with resistant control, cultivar 52 were placed in cluster 5 which had the highest harvest index and the lowest disease index. Grouping of Otype genotypes based on SIIG index showed that genotypes 19 (FCOT 990094), 9 (FCOT 990084), 30 (FCOT 990105), 4(FCOT 990079), and 47 (FCOT 990122) with values of 0.854, 0.824, 0.741, 0.708, and 0.701 were the closest genotypes to the ideal genotypes in terms of resistance to rhizoctonia. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Disease index, Otype, Rhizoctonia root rot, Sugar beet | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Biancardi E. History of sugar beet breeding. In Genetics and breeding of sugar beet, ed. E. Biancardi, L.G. Campbell, G.N. Skaracis, and M. DeBiaggi, Enfield: Science Publishers. 2005; pp38–40 Buhre C, Kluth C, Bu¨rcky K, Ma¨rla¨nder, Varrelmann, M. Integrated control of root and crown rot in sugar beet: combined effects of cultivar, crop rotation, and soil tillage. Plant Disease. 2009; 93 (2): 155–161. Büttner G, Pfähler B, Märländer B. Greenhouse and field techniques for testing sugar beet for resistance to Rhizoctonia root and crown rot. Plant Breeding. 2004; 123: 158-166. Ebrahimi Koulaee H, Mahmoudi SB, Hasani M. Evaluation of the resistance of sugar beet breeding lines to Rhizoctonia root and crown rot. Journal of Sugar Beet. 2010; 26(1): 42-31. (in Persian, abstract in English). Ebrahimi Koulaei H, Mansouri H, Aghaeezadeh M, Mohammadian R, Soltani J, Fotouhi K. Evaluation of yield potential and resistance to rhizoctonia (Rhizoctonia solani) disease of new sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) hybrids. Iranian journal of crop science. 2019; 21(2): 173-187. (in Persian, abstract in English) FAOSTAT. Crops - Production/Yield quantities of Sugar beet. 2021. Available at: http://www.fao.org/faostat/ (Accessed October 4th 2021). Fattahi SH, Zafari D, Mahmoudi SB. Evaluation of superior sugar beet genotypes for resistance to important root rot pathogens in the greenhouse. Journal of Sugar Beet. 2011; 27(1): 25-38. (in Persian, abstract in English) Ghashghaee S, Mahmoudi SB, Rezaei S. Assessment resistance of sugar beet pollinator s1 lines to charcoal root rot. Plant Protection (Scientific Journal of Agriculture). 2015: 28(1): 1-9. (in Persian, abstract in English) Harveson RM, Hanson LE, Hein GL. Compendium of beet diseases and pests. St. Paul: American Phytopathological Society Press. 2009; pp 12-21. Katharina S, Wigg F, Goldman L. Variability in Reaction to Root and Crown Rot Caused by Rhizoctonia Solani Among Table Beet Cultivars, Breeding Lines, and Plant Introductions in Controlled Environment Conditions. Horticultural Science. 2020; 55(9):1482–1494. Liu YX, Qi AM, Khan FR. Age-Dependent Resistance to Rhizoctonia solani in Sugar Beet. Plant Diseases. 2019; 103 (9): 2322-2329. Mahmoudi SB, Ghashghaie S. Reaction of sugar beet S1 lines and cultivars to different isolates of Macrophomina phaseolina and Rhizoctonia solani AG-2-2IIIB. Euphytica. 2012; 190: 439–445. Mahmoudi SB, Mesbah M, Alizadeh A. Pathogenic variability of sugar beet isolates of Rhizoctonia solani. Iranian Journal of Plant Pathology. 2004. 40(3-4)253- 280. (in Persian, abstract in English) Mahmoudi SB, Mesbah M, Alizadeh A, Ebrahimi-koulaii H. Comparison of different methods for evaluation of resistance to Rhizoctonia root and crown rot in selected genotypes of sugar beet. Journal of Sugar Beet. 2003; 19(1): 1-22. (in Persian, abstract in English) Mc Grath JM, Hanson LE, Panella L. Registration of SR98 sugar beet Germplasm with resistances to Rhizoctonia seedling and crown and root rot diseases. Journal of Plant Registrations. 2015; 9(2): 227–231. Soltani Nezhad S, Mahmoodi SB, Farrokhi Nezhad R. Characterization of sugar beet Rhizoctonia isolates in Iran. Journal of Sugar Beet. 2007; 23(2): 135- 150. (in Persian, abstract in English) Strausbaugh CA, Eujayl IA, Panella LW. Interaction of sugar beet host resistance and Rhizoctonia solani AG-2-2 IIIB strains. Plant Diseases. 2013; 97:1175-1180. Wigg KS, Goldman IL. Variability in reaction to root and crown rot caused by Rhizoctonia solani among table beet cultivars, breeding lines, and plant introductions in controlled environment conditions. Horticultural Science. 2020; 5 (9): 1482–1494. Windels CE, Panella L, Ruppel EG. Sugar beet germplasm resistant to Rhizoctonia root and crown rot with stands disease caused by several pathogenic isolates of Rhizoctonia solani AG2-2. Sugar Beet Research and Extension Report. 1995; 26: 179-185. Zali H, Sofalian O, Hasanloo T, Asghari A, Hoseini SM. Appraising of drought tolerance relying on stability analysis indices in canola genotypes simultaneously, using Selection Index of Ideal Genotype (SIIG) technique: Introduction of new method. Biological Forum. 2015; 7(2): 703-711. Zali H, Sofalian O, Hasanloo T, Asghari A, Zeinalabedini M. Appropriate Strategies for Selection of Drought Tolerant Genotypes in Canola. Journal of Crop Breeding. 2106; 78(20): 77-90 (in Persian, abstract in English). | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 646 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 553 |
||