| تعداد نشریات | 282 |
| تعداد نشریات سازمان | 80 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 3,208 |
| تعداد مقالات | 35,560 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 53,003,695 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 92,288,693 |
ارزیابی مزرعهای مقاومت برخی ارقام چغندرقند به سفیدک پودری | ||
| چغندرقند | ||
| مقاله 7، دوره 40، شماره 1، شهریور 1403، صفحه 77-92 اصل مقاله (912.74 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: کامل علمی - پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22092/jsb.2024.367388.1375 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| نگین ملکی1؛ سعید عباسی* 2؛ سیدباقر محمودی3؛ حمیدرضا چقازردی4 | ||
| 1گروه گیاهپزشکی، دانشکده علوم و مهندسی کشاورزی، دانشگاه رازی، کرمانشاه | ||
| 2دانشیار گروه گیاهپزشکی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه رازی | ||
| 3دانشیار مؤسسه تحقیقات اصلاح و تهیه بذر چغندرقند- سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، کرج، ایران | ||
| 4مهندسی تولید و ژنتیک گیاهی، دانشکده علوم و مهندسی کشاورزی، دانشگاه رازی، کرمانشاه | ||
| چکیده | ||
| بیماری سفیدک پودری چغندرقند یکی از بیماریهای مهم قارچی این محصول در سراسر دنیا است که در ایران نیز در تمامی مناطق کشت چغندر قند وجود دارد. بهرهگیری از ارقام مقاوم بهترین رویکرد مدیریتی برای مهار این بیماری محسوب میشود. از این رو، در این مطالعه، تعدادی از ارقام جدید چغندرقند با هدف دستیابی به رقم مقاوم مورد ارزیابی قرار گرفتند. در این پژوهش، مواد گیاهی شامل 17 رقم به نامهای اکباتان، پایا، آریا، شکوفا، مطهر، آرتا، دنا، سینا، آسیا، کیمیا، نیکا، تارا، هما، حسنا، پالما، مودکس و BTS 335 به همراه ژنوتیپ حساس 191، در قالب طرح بلوکهای کامل تصادفی با سه تکرار در شرایط مزرعه مورد ارزیابی قرار گرفتند. هر کرت آزمایشی شامل چهار ردیف کشت به طول دو متر و فاصله 50 سانتیمتر بود. دو ردیف وسط کرت به ژنوتیپ مورد ارزیابی، اختصاص داده شد و در ردیفهای کناری در تمامی کرتهای آزمایشی شاهد حساس 191 به منظور توزیع یکنواخت آلودگی کاشته شد. پس از ظهور اولین علائم آلودگی، میزان آلودگی هر هفته یکبار مورد ارزیابی قرار گرفت. ارزیابی مقاومت، بر اساس سه شاخص رخداد و شدت بیماری در آخرین یادداشت برداری، سطح زیر منحنی پیشرفت بیماری و تعداد کنیدیوم تولید شده در واحد سطح صورت گرفت. در این ارزیابی رقم مودکس با شاخص آلودگی 11/0 در مقیاس صفر تا یک (در قیاس با شاخص آلودگی 57/0 در شاهد حساس 191)، سطح زیرمنحنی 5/45 (در قیاس با 9/244 در شاهد 191) و میانگین 2102 کنیدیوم تولیده شده در واحد سطح (در قیاس با 19689 کنیدیوم در شاهد 191) با اختلاف معنیدار نسبت به تمامی ژنوتیپهای ارزیابی شده، در هر سه روش ارزیابی به عنوان رقم مقاوم شناخته شد. بنابراین، این رقم در صورت برخورداری از صفات زراعی و عملکرد مطلوب میتواند برای کشت توصیه شود یا به عنوان منبع مقاومت در برنامههای بهنژادی مورد استفاده قرار گیرد. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Erysiphe betae؛ سفیدک سطحی؛ AUDPC؛ کرمانشاه | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Field evaluation of some sugar beet cultivars for resistance to powdery mildew | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Negin Maleki1؛ Saeed Abbasi2؛ S.B. Mahmoudi3؛ Hamidreza Chaghazardi4 | ||
| 1Department of Plant Protection, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran | ||
| 2Associate Professor, Department of Plant Protection, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran | ||
| 3Associate Professor of Sugar Beet Seed Institute (SBSI) - Agricultural Research Education and Extension, Karaj,Iran | ||
| 4Assistant Professor, Department of Plant Production and Genetics, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Extended Abstract Introduction Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) is an important industrial crop, ranking as the second-largest source of sugar production globally, accounting for approximately 20% of total sugar production. According to the latest reports, Iran, with around 116,000 hectares of area harvested and a production exceeding 6 million tons, is one of the significant sugar beet producers in the world. Powdery mildew is a major fungal disease affecting sugar beet worldwide. In Iran, the disease is prevalent in all regions where sugar beet is cultivated. Erysiphe betae (Vanha) Welzien, the causal agent of sugar beet powdery mildew has a limited host range and specifically targets species within the genus Beta. Powdery mildew causes reduction in both root yield and sugar content, potentially reducing crop yield up to 30%. Utilizing resistant cultivars is considered as the best management strategy for controlling this disease. So. This study aimed to evaluate the resistance of several new sugar beet cultivars to powdery mildew. Materials and Methods Seventeen sugar beet cultivars namely Ekbatan, Paya, Arya, Shokoufa, Motahar, Arta, Dena, Sina, Asia, Kimia, Nika, Tara, Homa, Hosna, Palma, Modex, and BTS335, alongside the susceptible genotype 191 were evaluated. Cultivars were cultivated in a randomized complete block design with three replications at the Research Field of the campus of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Razi University, Kermanshah. Each experimental plot consisted of four rows with 2 m long and 50 cm space apart. Two middle rows were dedicated to the genotype being evaluated, while the outer rows were planted with the susceptible control 191 to ensure uniform inoculum distribution. The experimental field was monitored every two days, and after the first signs of infection, disease intensity was assessed weekly. Resistance evaluation was based on the Disease Intensity Index (DII) at the final assessment, the area under the disease progress curve (AUDPC), and the number of conidia produced per cm2 leaf. Data analysis was conducted using SAS v9.3 software, employing the general linear model for variance analysis, and mean comparisons were made using Duncan's multiple range test at the 5% probability level. Additionally, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to determine the relationships between the indices used in the resistance assessment. Results The first signs of the disease were observed on July 15, 15 weeks after planting, appearing only in the cultivars Ekbatan, Arya, Motahhar, Kimia, Nika, Homa, and 191. After about one month, these signs completely diminished. Although the disease severity at this stage was not significant, the absence of the disease in several tested cultivars is epidemiologically important. The occurrence of the disease at this time creates disease foci in the field, accelerating the re-emergence and spread of the pathogen. This re-emergence occurred after nearly a 2-month pause in October, continuing with an increasing trend. Variance analysis of the Disease Intensity Index data at the final assessment revealed significant differences among evaluated cultivars regarding resistance to powdery mildew (P < 0.0004). Among genotypes, Modex cultivar was identified as the most resistant, with a DII of 0.11 on a scale of zero to one, while Ekbatan was the most susceptible cultivar with a DII of 0.78, showing no significant difference from Paya, Arya, Sina, and Nika. The variance analysis of the AUDPC data also showed a significant difference among evaluated cultivars (P < 0.0053). In this context, Modex cultivar continued to show a significant difference with other evaluated cultivars. The AUDPC provides several advantages over point assessments of disease for various reasons. By utilizing AUDPC, researchers can monitor changes in disease progression more accurately over time. This method allows for the integration of multiple parameters, such as disease occurrence, severity, and environmental effects, into a comprehensive analysis. Consequently, it enhances our understanding of disease dynamics and plant responses to the disease. Many researchers have employed AUDPC to assess the resistance of different cultivars. In this study, continuous monitoring of the disease throughout the growing season yielded valuable data on the onset, decline, and progression of the disease—information that cannot be obtained through point assessments at the end of the season. Conclusion In conclusion, Modex cultivar was identified as significantly more resistant to the disease compared with all other evaluated cultivars by all three assessment methods. Therefore, this cultivar is recommended for cultivation if exhibits favorable agronomic traits and yield. Keywords AUDPC, Kermanshah, Powdery mildew References Abbasi S, Alizadeh A, Mesbah M, Mohammadi GE. Comparison of different methods for evaluating of resistance to Cercospora beticola in sugar beet under field, greenhouse and in vitro conditions. Applied Entomology and Phytopathology. 2003a; 71(1): 1-26 (In Persian with English abstract). https://jaenph.areeo.ac.ir/issue_26697_26698.html Moaven E, Rajabi A, Aghaizadeh M. Field evaluation of sugar beet half-sib families’ reaction to powdery mildew. Iranian Journal of Plant Protection Science. 2018; 48(2): 355-365. Doi:https://doi.org/10.22059/ijpps.2018.132847.1006663. Asher MJC, Luterbacher MC, Frese L. Wild Beta species as a source of resistance to sugar-beet pests and diseases. International Sugar Journal. 2001; 103(1,2): 447-451. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Erysiphe betae, AUDPC, Kermanshah | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abbasi S, Alizadeh A, Mesbah M, Mohammadi GE. Comparison of different methods for evaluating of resistance to Cercospora beticola in sugar beet under field, greenhouse and in vitro conditions. Applied Entomology and Phytopathology. 2003a; 71(1): 1-26 (In Persian with English abstract). https://jaenph.areeo.ac.ir/issue_26697_26698.html Abbasi S, Alizadeh A, Mohammadi E, Mesbah M. Histopathological study of resistance to Cercospora beticola in sugar beet. Journal of Sugar Beet. 2003b; 18(2): 155-166 (In Persian with English abstract). Doi:https://doi.org/10.22092/jsb.2003.8282 Abbasi S, Mesbah M, Mahmodi SB. Optimization of field evaluation of resistance of sugar beet cultivars to Cercospora leaf spot. Journal of Sugar Beet. 2002; 18(1): 81-91 (In Persian with English abstract). Doi:https://doi.org/10.22092/jsb.2002.8274 Ahmadinejad A. Studies on powdery mildew of sugar beet. Iranian Journal of Plant Pathology. 1971; 9(2): 20-25. Anonymous. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2023-2032. FAO., 2023; Web. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/agriculture-and-food/oecd-fao-agricultural-outlook-2023-2032_08801ab7-en. Anonymous. Agricultural Statistics 2022-2023: Volume 1, Field Crops, in: Agriculture IMo (Ed.). Iranian Ministry of Agriculture, Statistics. 2024. Asher MJC, Luterbacher MC, Frese L. Wild Beta species as a source of resistance to sugar-beet pests and diseases. International Sugar Journal. 2001; 103(1,2): 447-451. Basati J, Zareii A, Zarrabi MR, Fazli H. Effect of powdery mildew disease on quantity and quality of sugar beet yield in Kermanshah province. Journal of Sugar Beet. 2004; 19(2): 97-108. Doi:https://doi.org/10.22092/jsb.2004.7195 Basati JS, Mesbah M, Karimzadeh G, Sadeghian SY. Analysis of genetic resistance to powdery mildew disease in sugar beet Journal of Sugar Beet. 2006; 21(2): 105-122. Doi:https://doi.org/10.22092/jsb.2006.8202 Broers LHM, Cuesta Subias X and López Atilano RM. Field assessment of quantitative resistance to yellow rust in ten spring bread wheat cultivars. Euphytica. 1996; 909: 916. doi:10.1007/BF00025154 Francis S. Sugar-beet powdery mildew (Erysiphe betae). Molecular Plant Pathology. 2002; 3(3): 119–124. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1364-3703.2002.00103.x Heydari A, Safaei D, Urumchi S, Basati J. Comparison of a new fungicide (Opus) with common fungicides in controlling powdery mildew of sugar beet. Journal of Sugar Beet. 2006; 21(2): 179-188. Doi:https://doi.org/10.22092/jsb.2006.8207 Jeger MJ, Viljanen-Rollinson SLH. The use of the area under the disease-progress curve (AUDPC) to assess quantitative disease resistance in crop cultivars. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 2001; 10232-40. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s001220051615 Luterbacher M, Asher M, DeAmbrogio E, Biancardi E, Stevenato P, Frese L. Sources of resistance to diseases of sugar beet in related Beta germplasm: I. Foliar diseases. Euphytica. 2004; 139105-121. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-004-2488-5 Luterbacher MC, Smith JM, Asher MJC, Frese L. Disease resistance in collections of Beta species. Journal of Sugar Beet Research. 2000; 37(3): 39-48. https://repository.rothamsted.ac.uk/item/88752/disease-resistance-in-collections-of-beta-species Moaven E, Rajabi A, Aghaizadeh M. Field evaluation of sugar beet half-sib families’ reaction to powdery mildew. Iranian Journal of Plant Protection Science. 2018; 48(2): 355-365. Doi:https://doi.org/10.22059/ijpps.2018.132847.1006663 Mukhapadhyay A. Handbook on diseases of sugar beet. CRC Press, Florida, USA. 1987; pp. 192. Ruppel EG. Negative relationship of stomatal size and density with resistance in sugar beet to Cercospora beticola. Phytopathology. 1972; 621095-1096. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1094/Phyto-62-1095 Ruppel EG and Tomasovic BJ. Epidemiological factors of sugar beet powdery mildew. Phytopathology. 1977; 67619-621. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1094/Phyto-67-619 Sheikholeslami M, Okhovvat M, Hejaroude G, Sharifi-Tehrani A, Javan-Nikkhah M. Study of the Stability of Erysiphe betae (Vanha) Weltzien, the Causal Agent of Powdery Mildew in Sugar Beet in the Karaj and Qazvin Regions. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2005; 36(6): 1381-1389. https://jijas.ut.ac.ir/article_17702.html Singh RP. Resistance to leaf rust in 26 Mexican wheat cultivars. Crop Science. 1993; 33(3): 633-637. Doi:https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1993.0011183X003300030041x Skoyen I, Lewellen R, McFarline J. Effect of powdery mildew on sugar beet production in the Salinas valley of California. The Plant Disease Reporter. 1975; 59:506-510. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/ Doi:https://doi.org/10.5555/19750740232 Weltzien H and Ahrens W. Sind ertragssteigerungen durch bekaempfung des echten mehltaus der zuckerruebe (Erysiphe betae) moeglich. Zucker. 1977; 30(6): 288-291. http://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=PASCAL7810042503 Whitney E. Beta maritima as a source of powdery mildew resistance in sugar beet. Plant Disease. 1989; 73(6): 487-489. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1094/PD-73-0487
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 452 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 445 |
||