Study the Reaction of Some Barley Cultivars to Rhizoctonia solani AG-8, the Causal Agent of Root Rot Disease

پژوهش های حفاظت گیاهان ایران

Article 3, Volume 29, Issue 4 - Serial Number 33, December 2016, Pages 490-498   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jpp.v29i4.22280

Authors

M. Yazdani Kohanstani^* ; A. Jamali Zavareh

Abstract

Introduction: Barley is one of the important agricultural products, mostly as livestock feed, and secondly for its important role in human nutrition as bread, soups, baby food and etc. It has the second-largest rank of cultivation area and yield of the national grain production and the Isfahan province, with production 5% of total barley yield, has been ranked eighth in 2010. Because its consumption exceed over the production, barley is one of the major imports to the country. In addition to, agronomy operations, plant diseases are important factors in yield loss. Rhizoctonia root rot (caused by soil-inhabiting fungus Rhizoctonia solani) is one of the important diseases of cereals include barley over the worldwide cultivation area. Apropriate soil fertility, delaying planting dates, crop rotation with insensitive crops such as legumes, planting resistant varieties and fungicide seed dressing are recommended methods to reduce disease damage. Chemical control of this disease is difficult because of its soil-born the pathogen. Therefore, reducing disease level requires application of other methods especially resistance cultivars.
Materials and Methods In this research, the reaction of 8 barley cultivars were examined against root rot disease in greenhouse conditions, in the winter of 2009. Fifteen isolates of the fungus were isolated from infected barley fields in the Isfahan province and their pathogenicity was examined on barley. One isolate with the highest pathogenicity potential was selected and special tests showed that the isolate was Rhizoctonia solani AG-8. The experiment was conducted in a completely randomized design with 4 replications. The test plants were harvested at two times of 4 & 8 weeks after planting. Following parameters were measured: 1- dry weight of plant root and aerial part, 2- disease severity as an index of subcrown internodes infection.
Results and discussion Statistical analysis of recorded data showed that there were significant differences among cultivars with respect to the dry weight of plant parts and disease reactions. Seedling shoot dry weight loss showed significant differences in the level of 5% among the tested cultivars of barley and compared to the healthy controls. The shoot dry weight of Bedonepushine cultivar seedlings treated with pathogen showed the highest loss (75% loss compared to the control) and had a significant difference at level of 1% compared to the healthy controls, thus it has been the most sensitive cultivar with due regard to shoot dry weight. In contrast, the Yoseph, Fajr 3 and Rudasht cultivars, with the shoot dry weight loss of 5%, 7% and 19%, respectively, compared to control, appeared to be more resistance than others. Pathogen effect as reducing root dry weight of seedlings had also significant differences at level of 1% among cultivars and compared to control. The maximum loss of root dry weight among cultivars was found in Bedonepushine cultivar (73% weight reduction compared to the control) while Yoseph, Rudasht and Fajr 3 cultivars, with the root dry weight loss of 6%, 7% and 11% respectively, compared to control, had the lowest weight loss. With a view to roots and crown infection rate, the Fajr 3 cultivar (with an average of 1.6 degree) had the lowest rate of root and crown infection, compared to control, and Bedonepushine cultivar (with an average of 4.6 degree) showed the highest degree of infection. In other cultivars, infection rates were measured between 2 and 4 degrees.
Conclusion In the final data analysis of tested barley cultivars, those with root and crown infection rate less than grade 3 were selected as tolerant cultivars. According to the study, the Yoseph, Fajr 3 and Rudasht cultivars, with comparatively lowest infection index and minimum weight loss, were more tolerant to disease in comparison to others. On the other hand, Bedonepushine, Bahman and Makuy cultivars are causes of highest infection index and maximum weight loss, were introduced as more susceptible cultivars against Rhizoctonia root rot disease. These results provide the possibility of the use of tolerant cultivars to reduce disease damage, and the possibility of transmission of resistance genes to R. solani of tolerant or resistant genotypes to susceptible commercial ones.

Keywords

Root rot; barley; Rhizoctonia solani

References

1- Abbasi M. and Aliabadi F. 2007. List of fungi reported in proceedings of the 12th - 17th Iranian plant protection congresses (1995-2006). 2nd edit. 203 pp. (In Farsi).

2- Ashkan M., Abusaeidi D., and Hamdullazade A. 1995. Pre and post-emergence damping-off of pistachio caused by Rhizoctonia solani. In: Proceedings of the 12th Iranian Plant Protection. Congress 2-7 September. Karaj, Iran. pp. 219. (In Farsi).

3- Bandoni R.J. 1979. Safranin 0 as a rapid nuclear stain for fungi. Mycologia 71: 873-874.

4- Banniza S., Bridge P., Simons S. and Holderness M. 1999. Characterization of population of Rhizoctonia solani in paddy rice fields in côte d’Ivoire. Phytopathology, 89: 414 - 420.

5- Barnett H.L. and Hunter B.B. 1972. Illustrated Genera of imperfect Fungi. (3nd edition). Burgess Publishing Company. 241pp.

6- Bateman D.F., and Etten V. 1969. Susceptibility to enzymatic degradation of cell walls from bean plants resistant and susceptible to Rhizoctonia solani Kuhn. Plant Physiology, 44: 641-648.

7- Booth C. 1977. Fusarium, Laboratory Guide to the Identification of the Major Species. Common wealth Mycological Institute, Kew, Surrey, England, 58 pp.

8- Carling D.E. and Summer D.R. 1992. Rhizoctonia. In: Methods for research on soilborne phytopathogenic fungi (eds. Singleton, L. C., Mihail, J. D., and Rush, C. M.). APS Press. USA. 157-165

9- Carling D.E. and Summer D.R. 1992. Rhizoctonia. In: Methods for research on soilborne phytopathogenic fungi (eds. Singleton, L. C., Mihail, J. D., and Rush, C. M.). APS Press. USA. 157-165.

10- Carling D.E., Leiner RH., and Kebler K. M. 1987. Characterisation of a new anastomosis group (AG-9) of Rhizoctonia solani. Phytopathology 77, 1609-161.

11- Cook R.J. Schillinger W.F. and Christensen N.W. 2002. Rhizoctonia root rot and take all of wheat in diverse direct-seed spring cropping systems. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology-Revue Canadienne de Phytopathologie 24, 349-358.

12- Dubin H.J. and Ginkel M. 1991. The status of wheat disease and disease research in warmer areas. Wheat for the nontraditional Warm area: a proceedings of the International conference July 29 August 3, 1990, Brazil., 125-145.

13- Eizenga G.F. Lee and Rutger J. 2002. Screening Oryza species plants for rice sheath blight resistance. Plant Disease 86, 808-812.

14- Frank M.D., Brenneman T.B. and Holbrook C.C. 1999. Identification of resistance of Rhizoctonia limb rot in a core collection of peanut germ plasm. Plant Disease, 83:944-948.

15- Glazebrook J. 2005. Contrasting mechanisms of defense against biotrophic and necrotrophic pathogens. Annual Review of Phytopathology 43, 205-227.

16- Gonzalez Garcia V., Portal Onco M.A., and Rubio Susan V. 2006. Biology and systematics of the form genus Rhizoctonia. Span J Agric Res 4, 55-79.

17- Green D.E., Burpee L. and Stevenson K. 1999. Componenets of resistance of Rhizoctonia solani associated with two tall fescue cultivars. Plant Disease, 83: 834-838.

18- Grisham M. and Anderson N. 1983. Pathogenicity and host specificity of Rhizoctonia solani isolated from Carrots. Phytopathology, 73: 1564 - 1569.

19- Hamdollah-Zadeh A. and Rahimian H. 1989. Anastomosis group 4 is the major cause of Rhizoctonia solani of cotton and soybean in Gorgan. In: Proceedings of the 9th plant protection. Congress 9-14 September. Mashhad, Iran. pp 110. (In Farsi).

20- Hill J.P. and Blunt D.T. 1994. Wheat seedling response to root infection by cochliobolus sativus and Fusarium acuminatum. Plant Disease. 78: 1150-1152.

21- Kane R.T., Smiley R.W. and Sands D.C. 1984. A relative pathogenicity of selected Fusarium species and Microdochium bolley to winter wheat in New York. Plant Disease. 71: 177-181.

22- Kronland W. and Stanghellini M. 1988. Clean slide technique for the observation of anastomosis and nuclear condition of Rhizoctonia solani. Phytopathology, 78:820-822.

23- Little T.M. and Hills F.J. 1978. Agricultural Experimentation Design and analysis John willey and Sons, Inc. NewYork, U.S.A. 349pp.

24- MacNish G.C. Neate S.M. 1996. Rhizoctonia bare patch of cereals-An Australian perspective. Plant Disease 80, 965-971.

25- Manuchehri A. and Ghannadzadeh H. 1966. Damping-off of beans in Karaj areas. Iranian journal of plant pathology, 3(2): 1-9 (in Farsi with English summary).

26- Murray G.M. and Brennan J.P. 2009. Estimating disease losses to Australian wheat industry. Australasian Plant Pathology 38, 558-570.

27- Ogoshi A. 1987. Ecology and pathogenicity of anastomosis and intraspecific groups of Rhizoctonia solani Kuhn. Annual Review of Phytopathology 25, 125-143.

28- Okubara P.C. Steber and Demacon V. 2009. Scarlet-Rzl, an EMS- generated hexaploid wheat with tolerance to the soilborne necrotrophic pathogens Rhizoctonia solani AG-8 and R. oryzae. TAG Theoretical and Applied Genetics.

29- Parmeter Jr, J. R., Sherwood R.T., and Platt W.D. 1969. Anastomosis grouping among isolates of Thanatephorus cucumeris. Phytopathology 59, 1270-1278.

30- Rice A. JR., Geraldj MAP, IIO, ML. 1981. Occurrence of Bipolaris cynodontis on Cynodontis dactylon. Summa Phytopathologica 7: 44-48.

31- Scharif G. and Ershad D. 1966. A list of fungi on cultivated plants, shrubs and trees of Iran. Ministry of Agriculture, Plant Pests and Diseases Research Institute. Evin, Tehran. (In Farsi).

32- Shamim M.D. Kumar D., Srivastava D., Pandey P. and Singh K.N. 2014. Evaluation of major cereal crops for resistance against Rhizoctonia solani under green house and field conditions. Indian Phytopathology 67 (1), 42-48.

33- Sharifnabi B. and Banihashemi Z. 1995. The role of Rhizoctonia like fungi in sainfoin root rot in Iran. In: Proceedings of the 12th plant protection. Congress 2-7 September. Karaj, Iran. pp. 96. (In Farsi).

34- Sneh B., Burpee L., and Ogoshi A. 1991. Identification of Rhizoctonia species. The American Phytopathology Society Press, St. Paul, MN USA, 133.

35- Sweetingham M.W. 1990. Rhizoctonia root and hypocotyl rots. Western Australian Journal Agricalture 31, 11-13.

36- Wiese, M.V. 1987. Compendium of Wheat Disease. 2nd., APS Press, Paul, MN., USA. 112pp.