Evaluation of some sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) cultivars tolerance to dodder (Cuscuta campestris Yunck.) | ||
| چغندرقند | ||
| Article 2, Volume 39, Issue 1, September 2023, Pages 1-12 PDF (1.08 M) | ||
| Document Type: Scientific - Research | ||
| DOI: 10.22092/jsb.2024.364722.1343 | ||
| Authors | ||
| F. Meighani* 1; M.R. Karaminejad2; V.A. Yousefabadi3 | ||
| 1Professor of Iranian Research Institute of Plant Protection, Agricultural Research Education and Extension Organization, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| 2Instructor of Iranian Research Institute of Plant Protection, Agricultural Research Education and Extension Organization, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| 3assistant Professor of Sugar Beet Seed Institute (SBSI) - Assistant professor of Sugar Beet seed Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran. | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Introduction of sugar beet cultivars with tolerance to dodder is considered an inevitable necessity in the management of this parasitic weed, and conducting comprehensive research in this area is of great importance. Therefore, the tolerance of eight sugar beet cultivars including Ekbatan, SBSI061, Arta, Aria, Sina, Shokoofa, Paya, and Sharif, was evaluated against dodder in pot and field trials. The pot trial was carried out in the spring of 2021 in the greenhouse of the weed research department and in the spring of 2022 in the research field of Iranian Research Institute of Plant Protection in Meshkindasht, Alborz. Among studied traits, fresh weight of sugar beet root, dodder fresh weight, and the ratio of dodder fresh weight to shoot fresh weight of sugar beet played an important role in determining the tolerance or susceptibility of sugar beet cultivars to dodder. Results showed that Ekbatan and Shokoofa experienced the lowest and highest reduction of the above-mentioned traits, respectively under contamination with dodder; because the root fresh weight reduction was the lowest (41.5 and 14% in greenhouse and field, respectively) in Ekbatan and the highest (63.5 and 96% in greenhouse and field, respectively) in Shokoofa. On the other hand, in the presence of Ekbatan and Shokoofa cultivars, dodder had the lowest (41 g pot-1 and 16g m-2 in the field) and the highest (82.5g pot-1 in the pot and 52.3 g m-2 in the field). In addition, the ratio of fresh weight of dodder to shoot of sugar beet was the lowest (0.97 and 0.11 in greenhouse and field, respectively) in Ekbatan and the highest (2.53 and 0.46 in greenhouse and field, respectively) in Shokoofa, respectively. Therefore, among studied cultivars, Ekbatan and Shokoofa are introduced as cultivars with greater tolerance and susceptibility to dodder, respectively. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Cultivar; Dodder tolerance; Parasitic Weed; Sugar beet | ||
| References | ||
|
Amhemed K, Sakran M, Ustuner T. Effect of seed's age on some treatments' efficiency for Breaking of Dodder (Cuscuta campestris Yunck.) Seed's Dormancy. International Journal of Science and Research. Publications. 2020; 10 (4): 326-330. doi:10.29322/IJSRP.10.04.2020.p10038 Arnold MC, Renaudin S, Fer A. Investigations into the cellular and biochemical events involved in the resistance of a legume (Phaseolus vulgaris) to a parasite higher plant (Cuscuta reflexa). In: Proceeding of the 6th International Parasitic Weed Symposium (eds MT Moreno, JI Cubero, D Berner, DM Joel, LJ Musselman & Cparker), 1996; 592–598. Junta De Andalucia, Cordoba, Spain. Ashton FM, Santana D. Cuscuta spp. (dodder): a literature review of its biology and control. Division of Agriculture, University of California Bull. 1976; 24 pp. Beliz, TC. A revision of Cuscuta section Cleistogra using phenetic analysis with a comparison of reproductive mechanisms and host preferences in species from California, Mexico, and Central America. 1986; Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. California, Berkeley. Dawson JH, Musselman LJ, Pieter W. Biology and control of Cuscuta, Review Weed Science 1994; 6: 265-317. Dinelli G, Bonetti A, Tibiletti E. Photosynthetic and accessory pigments in Cuscuta campestris Yuncker and some host species. Weed Res. 1993; 33: 253-260. doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.1993.tb01939.x Fallahpoor F, Koochki A, Nasisi Mahalati M, Falahati Rastgar M. Study of of sugarbeet cultivars resistance to dodder (Cuscuta campestris). Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research. 2013; 208-214. [In Persian] Goldwasser Y, Miryamchik H, Sibony M, Rubin B. Detection of resistant chickpea (Cicer arietinum) genotypes to Cuscuta campestris (field dodder). Weed Res. 2012; 52: 122–130. doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.2012.00904.x Goldwasser Y, Lanini WT, Wrobel RL. Tolerance of tomato varieties to lespedeza dodder. Weed Science. 2001; 49, 520-523. Hutchison JM, Ashton. FM. Effect of desiccation and scarification on the permeability and structure of the seed coat of Cuscuta campestris. American Journal of Botany. 1979; 66: 40-46. Lanini WT, Kogan M. Biology and Management of Cuscuta in Crops. Cienciae Investigacion Agraria, 2005; 32: 165-179. Meighani F, Labbafi MR. Parasitic Weeds, Ecophysiology and Management. Iranian Research Institute of Plant Protection Publication, 2012; pp. 190. [In Persian] Meighani F, Nezamabadi N, Jafarzadeh N, Sharifi Ziveh P. Study of the efficacy of new herbicides in the control of dodder (Cuscuta campestris) in sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris). Proceedings of the 4th Weed Science Congress, 2012; Feb 6-8, Ahwaz, Iran. [In Persian] Meighani F, Nezamabadi N, Karaminejad MR, Jafarzadeh N. Investigating efficacy of new herbicides to control dodder (Cuscuta campestris) in sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) fields. Iranian Journal of Weed Science. 2017; 12 (2):199-209. [In Persian] Meighani F, Karaminejad MR, Najafi H. Parasitic Weed: Cuscuta campestris (Biology and Management). Handbook. Research Institute of Plant Protection Publication. Tehran, Iran. 2017; pp. 21. [In Persian] Meighani F, Najafi H, Karaminejad MR, Evaluation of Chemical Control and Tank-mix Efficacy in Dodder (Cuscuta campestris) Management in Sugar beet. Proceedings of the 9th Iranian Weed Science Congress, 2021; Nov 16-17, Tehran, Iran. [In Persian] Mousavi MR, Shimi P. Parasitic Weeds of the World (Biology and Management). Azad University Press, 2000; pp. 389. [In Persian] Nagar R, Sanwal GG. Biochemical aspects of parasitism in Cuscuta reflexa: inhibition of cell wall degrading enzymes of Cuscuta by non-susceptible plants. Journal of Experimental Botany. 1984; 35(157):1104-1112. Parker C, Riches CR. Parasitic weeds of the world: biology and control. CAB International, 1993; Wallingford, UK. 304 pp. Üstuner T. The effect of field dodder (Cuscuta campestris Yunck.) on the leaf and tuber yield of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry. 2018; 42: 348-353. doi.org/10.3906/tar-1711-108 Toth P, Tancik JJ, Cagan L. Distribution and harmfulness of field dodder (Cuscuta Campestris) at sugarbeet fields in Slovakia. Proc. Nat. Sci, Matica Novi Sad, 2006; 110: 179-185. doi:10.2298/ZMSPN0610179T Yaghoubi Z, Meighani F. Effect of planting depth on germination and germination of dodder (Cuscuta sp.) and pigweed (Amaranthus sp.). Proceedings of the 1st Weed Science Congress, 2006; Jan 25-26, Iranian Research Institue of Plant Protection, Tehran, Iran. [In Persian] | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 446 PDF Download: 362 |
||
Journal management system. designed by sinaweb