| تعداد نشریات | 282 |
| تعداد نشریات سازمان | 80 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 3,257 |
| تعداد مقالات | 35,992 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 54,972,456 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 93,984,517 |
ارزیابی مقاومت ارقام خارجی چغندرقند نسبت به پوسیدگی ریشه و طوقه ناشی از Rhizoctonia solani در شرایط آلودگی مصنوعی | ||
| چغندرقند | ||
| مقاله 5، دوره 41، شماره 2، اسفند 1404، صفحه 233-248 اصل مقاله (1.02 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22092/jsb.2026.373027.1410 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| قاسم پرمون1؛ مهدی حسنی* 2؛ مهیار شیخ الاسلامی آل‌آقا3؛ مسعود احمدی4؛ مژده کاکوئی نژاد5 | ||
| 1بخش تحقیقات چغندرقند، مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی کرمانشاه، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، کرمانشاه، ایران | ||
| 2مؤسسه تحقیقات اصلاح و تهیه بذر چغندرقند، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، کرج، ایران | ||
| 3دانشیار بخش تحقیقات گیاهپزشکی، مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی کرمانشاه، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، کرمانشاه، | ||
| 4دانشیار بخش تحقیقات چغندرقند، مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان خراسان رضوی، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، | ||
| 5استادیار مؤسسه تحقیقات اصلاح و تهیه بذر چغندرقند، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، کرج، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| پوسیدگی ریزوکتونیایی ریشه چغندرقند که عامل آن قارچ Rhizoctonia solani میباشد یکی از عوامل تهدیدکننده کشت چغندرقند در ایران است. استفاده از ارقام مقاوم یکی از مهم‌ترین راهکارهای کنترل بیماری پوسیدگی ریشه در چغندرقند معرفی شده است. در این تحقیق، تعداد چهار رقم چغندرقند خارجی (F-21444, F-21446, F-21448, F-21439) در کنار یک رقم شاهد مقاوم خارجی (F-21436) و یک رقم شاهد حساس ایرانی (Sharif) در شرایط کنترل‌شده ریزکرت به مدت دو سال (1402 و 1403) در قالب طرح بلوک‌های کاملاً تصادفی ارزیابی شد. آلوده‌سازی گیاهچه‌ها (در مرحله 8 – 6 برگی) با قارچ R. solani (جدایه Rh133) انجام شد و پس از حدود یک ماه (پس از کنترل درصد آلودگی در شاهد حساس) ریشه‌ها برداشت و شاخص بیماری (DI)، شاخص برداشت (HI) و شاخص گزینش ژنوتیپ ایده‌آل (SIIG) برای هریک از ارقام محاسبه شد. بر اساس نتایج تجزیه واریانس، اختلاف بین ارقام چغندرقند از نظر تعداد ریشه، شاخص بیماری و شاخص برداشت در سال اول به علت بالا بودن شدت بیماری معنی‌دار نبود؛ درصورتی‌که در سال دوم با کاهش شدت بیماری، اگرچه تعداد ریشه معنی‌دار نبود اما از لحاظ شاخص بیماری و شاخص برداشت در سطح احتمال یک درصد معنی‌دار شد. میانگین شاخص بیماری تمام ارقام مورد بررسی در آزمایش در سال نخست برابر 3/6 و در سال دوم برابر 65/2 بود. در بین ارقام مورد بررسی، کمترین شاخص بیماری (05/5 و 93/1 به ترتیب در سال اول و دوم) در رقم F-21444 مشاهده شد. بیشترین شاخص بیماری (81/6 و 93/3) نیز مربوط به رقم شاهد Sharif بود که حدود 50 و 25 درصد شاخص بیماری بالاتری نسبت به مقاوم‌ترین رقم (F-21444) در سال‌های دوم و اول داشت. همچنین در سال نخست رقم F-21446 و در سال دوم ارقام F-21444 و F-21446 بالاترین شاخص برداشت را به ترتیب با میانگین‌های 1/24، 6/79 و 9/71 درصد به خود اختصاص دادند. رقم F-21444 در سال اول و ارقام F-21439 و F-21446 در سال دوم بالاترین شاخص SIIG را نشان دادند. کمترین شاخص SIIG نیز مربوط به رقم F-21448 در هر دو سال زراعی است که نشان‌دهنده بیشترین حساسیت این رقم به بیماری است؛ بنابراین ارقام F-21444 و F-21439 میتواند به‌ع نوان ارقام مقاوم به بیماری و ایده‌آل معرفی شوند. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| Rhizoctonia solani؛ ارزیابی بیماری؛ مقاومت ژنتیکی؛ نشانگرمولکولی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Evaluation of the resistance of foreign sugar beet cultivars to Rhizoctonia solani induced root and crown rot under artificial inoculation conditions | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Ghasem Parmoon1؛ Mehdi Hassani2؛ Mahyar Sheikholeslami Aleaqa3؛ M. Ahmadi4؛ Mozhdeh Kakueinezhad5 | ||
| 1Sugar Beet Research Department, Kermanshah Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Kermanshah, Iran | ||
| 2Sugar Beet Seed Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran | ||
| 3Plant Pathology Research Department, Kermanshah Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Kermanshah, Iran | ||
| 4Associate professor of Sugar Beet Research Department, Khorasan Razavi Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, AREEO, Mashhad, Iran. | ||
| 5Sugar Beet Seed Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Introduction Rhizoctonia root and crown rot, caused by the soil-borne fungus Rhizoctonia solani, is one of the major constraints to sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) production in Iran. Worldwide, more than twenty fungal species have been identified as causal agents of sugar beet root rot, whereas more than fourteen species have been reported in Iran. Although integrated disease management practices, including crop rotation and fungicide application, can reduce disease incidence and severity, substantial yield losses continue to occur in many sugars’ beet-growing regions. Consequently, the development and cultivation of resistant cultivars have become one of the most effective, economical, and environmentally sustainable strategies for managing Rhizoctonia root and crown rot, providing a practical alternative to intensive chemical and cultural control measures. Materials and Methods Six sugar beet cultivars were evaluated under controlled microplot conditions over two consecutive growing seasons (2022 and 2023). The plant materials consisted of four foreign cultivars (F-21444, F-21446, F-21448, and F-21439), one resistant control cultivar (F-21436), and one susceptible Iranian control cultivar (Sharif). The experiment was conducted in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with four replications. In April of each year, seeds of each cultivar were sown in four 2-m-long rows within the microplots. At the 6-8-leaf stage, plants were artificially inoculated with Rhizoctonia solani isolate 133 using sterilized corn kernels colonized by the pathogen as the inoculum. Approximately one month after inoculation, when disease severity in the susceptible control reached a level suitable for evaluation, roots were harvested and assessed. Disease severity was recorded, and the disease index (DI) was subsequently calculated for each cultivar. Results and Discussion According to the analysis of variance, differences among the sugar beet cultivars in root number, disease index (DI), and harvest index (HI) were not significant during the first growing season because of the high disease severity. In the second growing season, root number also did not differ significantly among cultivars, whereas significant differences were detected for both the disease index and harvest index at the 1% significant level (P< 0.01). The mean disease index across all cultivars was 3.60 in the first year and 2.65 in the second year. Among the evaluated cultivars, F-21444 exhibited the lowest disease index, with values of 5.50 and 1.93 in the first and second growing seasons, respectively. In contrast, the susceptible check, cultivar Sharif, showed the highest disease index (6.81 and 3.93), representing approximately 25% and 50% higher values than those of the most resistant cultivar in the first and second growing seasons, respectively. Regarding the harvest index, cultivar F-21446 recorded the highest value in the first year (24.1%), whereas cultivars F-21444 and F-21436 exhibited the highest val ues in the second year (79.6% and 71.9%, respectively). Based on the SIIG index, cultivar F-21444 ranked first in the first growing season, whereas cultivars F-21439 and F-21446 showed the highest SIIG values in the second growing season. Conversely, cultivar F-21448 consistently exhibited the lowest SIIG values in both growing seasons, indicating its high susceptibility to Rhizoctonia solani. Conclusion The results showed that the mean disease index across all evaluated cultivars was 3.60 in the first growing season and 2.65 in the second. In the second growing season, significant differences among cultivars were detected for both the disease index and harvest index (P< 0.01). In contrast, no significant differences were observed in the first growing season, most likely because the high disease pressure limited discrimination among cultivars. The susceptible control cultivar, Sharif, exhibited the highest disease index and the lowest harvest index, confirming its high susceptibility to Rhizoctonia solani. Based on the SIIG index, cultivar F-21444 ranked first in the first growing season, whereas cultivars F-21439 and F-21446 achieved the highest SIIG values in the second growing season, indicating superior overall performance under disease pressure. Conversely, cultivar F-21448 consistently recorded the lowest SIIG values in both growing seasons, reflecting its high susceptibility to R. solani. Overall, cultivars F-21444 and F-21439 demonstrated stable performance across growing seasons and may therefore be considered promising sources of resistance for cultivation and future sugar beet breeding programs in areas affected by Rhizoctonia root and crown rot. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Micro-plot, Resistance, Rhizoctonia, Root rot, Sugar beet | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Bolton MD, Panella L, Campbell LG, Khan MF. Temperature, moisture, and fungicide effects in managing Rhizoctonia root and crown rot of sugar beet. Phytopathology. 2010; 100(7): 689–697. DOi: https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-100-7-0689 Buhre C, Kluth C, Bürcky K, Märländer B, 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. DOi: https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-93-2-0155 Buttner 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(2): 158–166. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0523.2003.00967.x 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): 31–42. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.22092/jsb.2010.758 (In Persian with English abstract). Ebrahimi Koulaee H, Mahmoudi SB, Soltani J, Ebrahimian H, Pedram A. Study on breeding diploid pollinators resistant to Rhizoctonia. Sugar Beet Seed Institute, Karaj. 2009. Report No.: 88/581. (In Persian). Ebrahimi Koulaee H, Mansouri H, Aghaeezadeh M, Mohammadian R, Soltani J, Fotouhi K. Evaluation of yield potential and resistance to Rhizoctonia solani disease of new sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) hybrids. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences. 2019; 21(2): 173–187. DOi: https://doi.org/10.29252/abj.21.2.173. (In Persian). Ebrahimi Koulaee H, Taleghani DF, Soltani J, Fotouhi K. Development of Rhizoctonia-resistant diploid pollinators. Sugar Beet Seed Institute, Karaj. 2015. Final Report. (In Persian). Hamze H, Mansouri H, Hassani M, Sadeghzadeh Hemayati S. Evaluation of new O-type lines of sugar beet resistant to root and crown Rhizoctonia rot under artificial microplot infestation conditions. Journal of Sugar Beet. 2023; 39(2): 125–138. Doi: https://doi.org/10.22092/jsb.2024.365029.1347. Harveson RM, Rush CM. The influence of irrigation frequency and cultivar blends on the severity of multiple root diseases in sugar beets. Plant Disease. 2002; 86(8): 901–908. DOi: https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS.2002.86.8.901 Hecker RJ, Ruppel EG. Polyploid and maternal effects on Rhizoctonia root rot resistance in sugar beet. Euphytica. 1976; 25(2): 419–423. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00041552. Kirk WW, Wharton PS, Schafer RL, Tumbalam P, Poindexter S, Guza C, Fogg R, Schlatter T, Stewart J, Hubbell L, Ruppal D. Optimizing fungicide timing for the control of Rhizoctonia crown and root rot of sugar beet using soil temperature and plant growth stages. Plant Disease. 2008; 92(7): 1091–1098. DOi: https://doi.org/ 10.1094/PDIS-92-7-1091. Kluth C, Varrelmann M. Maize genotype susceptibility to Rhizoctonia solani and its effect on sugar beet crop rotations. Crop Protection. 2010; 29(3): 230–238. DOi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2009.12.002 Lein JC, Sagstetter CM, Schulte D, Thurau T, Varrelmann M, Saal B, Koch G, Borchardt DC, Jung C. Mapping of Rhizoctonia root rot resistance genes in sugar beet using pathogen response-related sequences as molecular markers. Plant Breeding. 2008; 127(6): 602–611. DOi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0523.2008.01525.x Liu Y, Qi A. Khan, M.F.R. Age-dependent resistance to Rhizoctonia solani in sugar beet. Plant Disease, 2019;103(9): 2322–2329. DOi: https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-11-18-2001-RE. Mahmoudi SB, Ebrahimi Koulaee H, Soltani J. Evaluation of sugar beet germplasm to obtain a source of resistance to Rhizoctonia root rot. Sugar Beet Seed Institute, Karaj. 2007. Report No.: 86/1275. (In Persian with English abstract). Mahmoudi SB, Norouzi P, Khayamim S, Bazrafshan M, Mansouri H, Ahmadi M, Sadeghzadeh Hemayati S, Aghaeezadeh M. Identification of proper maternal parent for producing sugar beet cultivars resistant to major soil-borne diseases. Journal of Sugar Beet. 2020; 36(1): 1–13. (In Persian with English abstract). DOi: https://doi.org/10.22092/jsb.2021.351187.1244. Mahmoudi SB. Breeding diploid pollinators resistant to rhizomania and Rhizoctonia in sugar beet. Sugar Beet Seed Institute, Karaj. 2014. Report No.: 46349. (In Persian). Monteiro F, Frese L, Castro S, Duarte MC, Paulo OS, Loureiro J, Romeiras MM. Genetic and genomic tools to assist sugar beet improvement: The value of the crop wild relatives. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2018; 9: 74. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00074. Panella L, Lewellen RT. Broadening the genetic base of sugar beet: Introgression from wild relatives. Euphytica. 2007; 154(3): 383–400. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-006-9209-1. Panella L. Root rots. p. 95–100. In: Biancardi E, Campbell LG, Skaracis GN, de Biaggi M. (Eds). Genetics and Breeding of Sugar Beet. Enfield, NH: Science Publishers. 2005. Pourrahim R, Najafi H, Farzadfar SH, Ardeh MJ, Sheikholeslami M, Fatemy S, Ghasemi A, Arbabi M. Sugar Beet Handbook (Plant Protection). Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Ministry of Jihad-e-Agriculture, Iran. 2016. Report No.: 50954. (In Persian). Salazar-Ordóñez M, Pérez-Hernández PP, Martín-Lozano JM. Sugar beet for bioethanol production: An approach based on environmental agricultural outputs. Energy Policy. 2013; 55: 662–668. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.12.063. Shekholeslami M, Jalilian A, Younesi H. Evaluation of sugar beet commercial cultivars resistance to Rhizoctonia root rot in greenhouse and field conditions. Journal of Sugar Beet. 2021; 37(1): 1–10. (In Persian with English abstract).Doi: https://doi.org/10.22092/jsb.2022.355407.1282 Shekholeslami M. Identification of sugar beet root rot fungi and determination of their distribution in Kermanshah province. Kermanshah Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Kermanshah. 2000. Report No.: 80/443. (In Persian). Soltani J. Breeding and developing pollinators tolerant to Rhizoctonia in sugar beet. Sugar Beet Seed Institute, Karaj. 2014. Report No.: 46355. (In Persian). Soltani Nezhad S, Mahmoudi SB, Farokhi Nezhad RF. Characterization of sugar beet Rhizoctonia isolates in Iran. Journal of Sugar Beet. 2007; 23(2): 135–150. (In Persian with English abstract).Doi: https://doi.org/ 10.22092/jsb.2007.1315 Strausbaugh CA, Gillen AM. Bacteria and yeast associated with sugar beet root rot at harvest in the Intermountain West. Plant Disease. 2008; 92(3): 357–363. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-92-3-0357. Taleghani D, Hosseinpour M, Nemati R, Saremirad A. Study of the possibility of winter sowing of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) early cultivars in Moghan region, Iran. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences. 2023; 24(4): 319–334. Tomaszewska J, Bieliński D, Binczarski M, Berlowska J, Dziugan P, Piotrowski J, Witońska I. Products of sugar beet processing as raw materials for chemicals and biodegradable polymers. RSC Advances. 2018; 8(6): 3161–3177. DOi: https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RA12782K. 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. Hort Science. 2020; 55(9): 1482–1494. DOi: https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI15011-20. Windels CE, Kuznia RA, Call J. Characterization and pathogenicity of Thanatephorus cucumeris from sugar beet in Minnesota. Plant Disease. 1997; 81(3): 245–249. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS.1997.81.3.245. Windels CE, Nabben DJ. Characterization and pathogenicity of anastomosis groups of Rhizoctonia solani isolated from Beta vulgaris. Phytopathology. 1989; 79(1): 83–88. DOi: https://doi.org/10.1094/Phyto-79-83. Zhao C, Wu XH. First report of sugar beet Rhizoctonia crown and root rot caused by Rhizoctonia solani AG-2-2 IIIB in Shanxi Province of China. Plant Disease. 2014; 98(3): 419. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-07-13-0717-PDN. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 81 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 79 |
||