1
|
Sikora EJ, Allen TW, Wise KA, Bergstrom G, Bradley CA, Bond J, Brown-Rytlewski D, Chilvers M, Damicone J, DeWolf E, Dorrance A, Dufault N, Esker P, Faske TR, Giesler L, Goldberg N, Golod J, Gómez IRG, Grau C, Grybauskas A, Franc G, Hammerschmidt R, Hartman GL, Henn RA, Hershman D, Hollier C, Isakeit T, Isard S, Jacobsen B, Jardine D, Kemerait R, Koenning S, Langham M, Malvick D, Markell S, Marois JJ, Monfort S, Mueller D, Mueller J, Mulrooney R, Newman M, Osborne L, Padgett GB, Ruden BE, Rupe J, Schneider R, Schwartz H, Shaner G, Singh S, Stromberg E, Sweets L, Tenuta A, Vaiciunas S, Yang XB, Young-Kelly H, Zidek J. A Coordinated Effort to Manage Soybean Rust in North America: A Success Story in Soybean Disease Monitoring. Plant Dis 2014; 98:864-875. [PMID: 30708845 DOI: 10.1094/pdis-02-14-0121-fe] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
Abstract
Existing crop monitoring programs determine the incidence and distribution of plant diseases and pathogens and assess the damage caused within a crop production region. These programs have traditionally used observed or predicted disease and pathogen data and environmental information to prescribe management practices that minimize crop loss. Monitoring programs are especially important for crops with broad geographic distribution or for diseases that can cause rapid and great economic losses. Successful monitoring programs have been developed for several plant diseases, including downy mildew of cucurbits, Fusarium head blight of wheat, potato late blight, and rusts of cereal crops. A recent example of a successful disease-monitoring program for an economically important crop is the soybean rust (SBR) monitoring effort within North America. SBR, caused by the fungus Phakopsora pachyrhizi, was first identified in the continental United States in November 2004. SBR causes moderate to severe yield losses globally. The fungus produces foliar lesions on soybean (Glycine max) and other legume hosts. P. pachyrhizi diverts nutrients from the host to its own growth and reproduction. The lesions also reduce photosynthetic area. Uredinia rupture the host epidermis and diminish stomatal regulation of transpiration to cause tissue desiccation and premature defoliation. Severe soybean yield losses can occur if plants defoliate during the mid-reproductive growth stages. The rapid response to the threat of SBR in North America resulted in an unprecedented amount of information dissemination and the development of a real-time, publicly available monitoring and prediction system known as the Soybean Rust-Pest Information Platform for Extension and Education (SBR-PIPE). The objectives of this article are (i) to highlight the successful response effort to SBR in North America, and (ii) to introduce researchers to the quantity and type of data generated by SBR-PIPE. Data from this system may now be used to answer questions about the biology, ecology, and epidemiology of an important pathogen and disease of soybean.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E J Sikora
- Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Auburn University, Auburn 36849
| | - T W Allen
- Department of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, Entomology and Plant Pathology, Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, Stoneville 38776
| | - K A Wise
- Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette 47907
| | - G Bergstrom
- Department of Plant Pathology and Plant-Microbe Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca 14853
| | - C A Bradley
- Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana 61801
| | - J Bond
- Department of Plant, Soil, and Agricultural Systems, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale 62901
| | - D Brown-Rytlewski
- Department of Plant, Soil, and Microbial Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing 48824
| | - M Chilvers
- Department of Plant, Soil, and Microbial Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing 48824
| | - J Damicone
- Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater 74078
| | - E DeWolf
- Department of Plant Pathology, Kansas State University, Manhattan 66506
| | - A Dorrance
- Department of Plant Pathology, The Ohio State University, Wooster 44691
| | - N Dufault
- Department of Plant Pathology, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611
| | - P Esker
- Escuela de Agronomia, Universidad de Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica 10111
| | - T R Faske
- Department of Plant Pathology, University of Arkansas Lonoke Research and Extension Center, Lonoke 72086
| | - L Giesler
- Department of Plant Pathology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln 68508
| | - N Goldberg
- Department of Plant Sciences, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces 88003
| | - J Golod
- Department of Plant Pathology and Environmental Microbiology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park 16802
| | - I R G Gómez
- Sistema Nacional de Vigilancia Epidemiologica Fitosanitaria, Centro Nacional de Referenceia Fitosanitaria, Col. Del Carmen, Coyoacan, Mexico
| | - C Grau
- Department of Plant Pathology, University of Wisconsin, Madison 53706
| | - A Grybauskas
- Department of Plant Science and Landscape Management, University of Maryland, College Park 20742
| | | | - R Hammerschmidt
- Department of Plant, Soil, and Microbial Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing 48824
| | - G L Hartman
- United States Department of Agriculture/Agricultural Research Service, Urbana 61801
| | - R A Henn
- Department of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, Entomology, and Plant Pathology, Mississippi State 39762
| | - D Hershman
- Department of Plant Pathology, University of Kentucky Research and Education Center, Princeton 42445
| | - C Hollier
- Department of Plant Pathology and Crop Physiology, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge 70803
| | - T Isakeit
- Department of Plant Pathology & Microbiology, Texas A&M University, College Station 77843
| | - S Isard
- Department of Plant Pathology and Environmental Microbiology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park 16802
| | - B Jacobsen
- Department of Plant Sciences and Plant Pathology, Montana State University, Bozeman 59717
| | - D Jardine
- Department of Plant Pathology, Kansas State University, Manhattan 66506
| | - R Kemerait
- Department of Plant Pathology, University of Georgia, Tifton 31793
| | - S Koenning
- Department of Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695
| | - M Langham
- Department of Plant Science, South Dakota State University, Brookings 57007
| | - D Malvick
- Department of Plant Pathology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul 55108
| | - S Markell
- Department of Plant Pathology, North Dakota State University, Fargo 58108
| | - J J Marois
- Department of Plant Pathology, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611
| | - S Monfort
- Edisto Research and Education Center, Clemson University, Blackville 29817
| | - D Mueller
- Department of Plant Pathology and Microbiology, Iowa State University, Ames 50011
| | - J Mueller
- Edisto Research and Education Center, Clemson University, Blackville 29817
| | - R Mulrooney
- Department of Plant and Soil Science, University of Delaware, Newark 19716
| | - M Newman
- BASF Corporation, Jackson, TN 38301
| | | | - G B Padgett
- Department of Plant Pathology and Crop Physiology, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge 70803
| | - B E Ruden
- South Dakota Wheat Growers Association, Aberdeen 57401
| | - J Rupe
- Department of Plant Pathology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville 72701
| | - R Schneider
- Department of Plant Pathology and Crop Physiology, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge 70803
| | - H Schwartz
- Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins 80523
| | - G Shaner
- Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette 47907
| | - S Singh
- Department of Plant, Soil and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, Kimberly 83341
| | - E Stromberg
- Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg 24061
| | - L Sweets
- Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia 65211
| | - A Tenuta
- Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and Ministry of Rural Affairs, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada, NOP2CO
| | - S Vaiciunas
- New Jersey Department of Agriculture, Trenton 08625
| | - X B Yang
- Department of Plant Pathology and Microbiology, Iowa State University, Ames 50011
| | - H Young-Kelly
- Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, University of Tennessee West Tennessee Research and Education Center, Jackson 38301
| | - J Zidek
- ZedX Incorporated, Bellefonte, PA 16823
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Rothrock CS, Winters SA, Miller PK, Gbur E, Verhalen LM, Greenhagen BE, Isakeit TS, Batson WE, Bourland FM, Colyer PD, Wheeler TA, Kaufman HW, Sciumbato GL, Thaxton PM, Lawrence KS, Gazaway WS, Chambers AY, Newman MA, Kirkpatrick TL, Barham JD, Phipps PM, Shokes FM, Littlefield LJ, Padgett GB, Hutmacher RB, Davis RM, Kemerait RC, Sumner DR, Seebold KW, Mueller JD, Garber RH. Importance of Fungicide Seed Treatment and Environment on Seedling Diseases of Cotton. Plant Dis 2012; 96:1805-1817. [PMID: 30727261 DOI: 10.1094/pdis-01-12-0031-sr] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
Abstract
The importance of fungicide seed treatments on cotton was examined using a series of standardized fungicide trials from 1993 to 2004. Fungicide seed treatments increased stands over those from seed not treated with fungicides in 119 of 211 trials. Metalaxyl increased stands compared to nontreated seed in 40 of 119 trials having significant fungicide responses, demonstrating the importance of Pythium spp. on stand establishment. Similarly, PCNB seed treatment increased stands compared to nontreated seed for 44 of 119 trials with a significant response, indicating the importance of Rhizoctonia solani in stand losses. Benefits from the use of newer seed treatment chemistries, azoxystrobin and triazoles, were demonstrated by comparison with a historic standard seed treatment, carboxin + PCNB + metalaxyl. Little to no stand improvement was found when minimal soil temperatures averaged 25°C the first 3 days after planting. Stand losses due to seedling pathogens increased dramatically as minimal soil temperatures decreased to 12°C and rainfall increased. The importance of Pythium increased dramatically as minimal soil temperature decreased and rainfall increased, while the importance of R. solani was not affected greatly by planting environment. These multi-year data support the widespread use of seed treatment fungicides for the control of the seedling disease complex on cotton.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C S Rothrock
- Department of Plant Pathology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville 72701
| | - S A Winters
- Department of Plant Pathology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville 72701
| | - P K Miller
- Department of Plant Pathology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville 72701
| | - E Gbur
- Agricultural Statistics, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville 72701
| | - L M Verhalen
- Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater 74078
| | - B E Greenhagen
- Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater 74078
| | - T S Isakeit
- Department of Plant Pathology and Microbiology, Texas A&M University, College Station 77843
| | - W E Batson
- Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State 39762
| | - F M Bourland
- Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Northeast Research and Extension Center, Keiser 72351
| | - P D Colyer
- Red River Research Station, Louisiana State University AgCenter, Bossier City 71113
| | - T A Wheeler
- Texas AgriLife Research and Extension Center, Lubbock 79403
| | - H W Kaufman
- Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville 38776
| | - G L Sciumbato
- Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville 38776
| | - P M Thaxton
- Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville 38776
| | - K S Lawrence
- Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Auburn University, Auburn 36849
| | - W S Gazaway
- Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Auburn University, Auburn 36849
| | - A Y Chambers
- Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, University of Tennessee, West Tennessee Research and Education Center, Jackson 38301
| | - M A Newman
- Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, University of Tennessee, West Tennessee Research and Education Center, Jackson 38301
| | - T L Kirkpatrick
- Department of Plant Pathology, University of Arkansas, Southwest Research and Extension Center, Hope 71801
| | - J D Barham
- Department of Plant Pathology, University of Arkansas, Southwest Research and Extension Center, Hope 71801
| | - P M Phipps
- Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Tidewater Agriculture Research and Extension Center, Suffolk 23437
| | - F M Shokes
- Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Tidewater Agriculture Research and Extension Center, Suffolk 23437
| | - L J Littlefield
- Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater 74078
| | - G B Padgett
- Macon Ridge Research Station, Louisiana State University AgCenter, Winnsboro, 71295
| | - R B Hutmacher
- University of California, Davis, Shafter Research and Extension Center, Shafter 93263
| | - R M Davis
- Department of Plant Pathology, University of California, Davis 95616
| | - R C Kemerait
- Department of Plant Pathology, University of Georgia, Tifton 31794
| | - D R Sumner
- Department of Plant Pathology, University of Georgia, Tifton 31794
| | - K W Seebold
- Department of Plant Pathology, University of Kentucky, Lexington 40546
| | - J D Mueller
- Clemson University, Edisto Research and Education Center, Blackville 29817
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Brenneman TB, Padgett GB, McDaniel RG. First Report of Cylindrocladium Black Rot (C. parasiticum) on Partridgepea and Sicklepod. Plant Dis 1998; 82:1064. [PMID: 30856845 DOI: 10.1094/pdis.1998.82.9.1064c] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
Abstract
Partridgepea (Cassia fasciculata Michx.) is grown in the southeastern U.S. in food plots for game birds. In 1997, numerous dead plants were observed in a commercial planting for seed production. Perithecia of Calonectria ilicicola Boedijin & Reitsma (imperfect stage: Cylindrocladium parasiticum Crous, Wingfield & Alfenas), a serious pathogen of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.), were found on the crown of diseased plants. Two isolates each from partridgepea and peanut were grown on potato dextrose agar for 5 weeks. Microsclerotia produced were added to a 2:1 mixture of pasteurized field soil and Pro-mix potting medium (25 microsclerotia per g of mix). Both infested and noninfested potting mixes were put in Super Cell Cone-Tainers (Stuewe & Sons, Corvallis, OR) in the greenhouse and planted to one pre-germinated seed each of either peanut or partridgepea (10 replications). Soil moisture was kept at field capacity and after 7 weeks root rot severity (0 to 4 scale with 4 = dead plant) and fresh weight of whole plants and roots were determined. Mean disease ratings for peanut were 2.1 and 2.5 with the peanut and partridgepea isolates, respectively, and 0.1 for the controls. Mean disease ratings for partridgepea were 3.2 and 3.2 with the peanut and partridgepea isolates, respectively, and 1.0 for the controls. Peanut and partridgepea plant weights were reduced by 50 and 68%, respectively, compared with controls. Reductions in root weights were similar to those for whole plants. The pathogen was consistently recovered from diseased roots. In summary, all four isolates were pathogenic to both hosts, but partridgepea was more susceptible (P ≤ 0.05) than peanut to C. parasiticum. Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia (L.) H. Irwin & Barneby), one of the most troublesome weeds in the southeastern U.S., was previously observed to have black rot symptoms and perithecia of C. ilicicola on the crowns of diseased plants. Plants grown in soil infested with an isolate of the fungus from sicklepod exhibited typical symptoms and the pathogen was reisolated from diseased tissue. Rotation with soybean (Glycine max L.) traditionally has been the major concern for peanut production in fields with a history of Cylindrocladium black rot; however, these additional hosts also should be considered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- T B Brenneman
- Department of Plant Pathology, University of Georgia, Tifton 31793
| | - G B Padgett
- Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service, 212 Macon Rd., Winnsboro 71295
| | - R G McDaniel
- Georgia Cooperative Extension Service, P.O. Box 300, Waynesboro 30830
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Culbreath AK, Brenneman TB, Reynolds KL, Hammond JM, Padgett GB. Tank Mix Combinations of Propiconazole and Chlorothalonil for Control of Leaf Spot Diseases of Peanut. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 1995. [DOI: 10.3146/i0095-3679-22-2-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Field experiments were conducted in one location in 1993 and two locations in 1994 to determine the effects of propiconazole and chlorothalonil tank mix combinations on severity of early (Cercospora arachidicola) and late (Cercosporidium personatum) leaf spot diseases of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). In all tests, 10 treatments consisted of 0 and 63 g a.i./ha of propiconazole and 0, 0.315, 0.63, 0.945, and 1.26 kg a.i./ha of chlorothalonil arranged factorially. In 1993, final leaf spot intensity ratings decreased according to nonlinear quadratic functions of chlorothalonil concentrations applied with and without propiconazole. No improvement in leaf spot control was evident with the addition of more than 0.945 kg a.i./ha of chlorothalonil with 63 g a.i./ha of propiconazole. In 1994, conditions were more conducive for leaf spot development. At the Plains location, final leaf spot intensity ratings decreased according to non-linear quadratic functions of chlorothalonil concentrations alone. Leaf spot intensity ratings decreased linearly with increasing rates of chlorothalonil when applied with 63 g a.i./ha of propiconazole. At Tifton, final leaf spot intensity ratings decreased linearly with increasing rates of chlorothalonil with or without propiconazole. Leaf spot intensity ratings were lower on plants treated with tank mixes of chlorothalonil and propiconazole compared to those treated with chlorothalonil alone. Pod yields increased linearly or according to quadratic functions of rates of chlorothalonil with or without propiconazole in both years and all locations. Across all rates of chlorothalonil, yields were higher from plants treated with propiconazole than those treated with the respective rates of chlorothalonil alone.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A. K. Culbreath
- Dept. of Plant Pathology, The Univ. of Georgia, Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Tifton, GA 31793–0748
| | - T. B. Brenneman
- Dept. of Plant Pathology, The Univ. of Georgia, Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Tifton, GA 31793–0748
| | - K. L. Reynolds
- Dept. of Plant Pathology, The Univ. of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602
| | - J. M. Hammond
- Ciba Plant Protection, P. O. Box 2369, Auburn, AL 36830
| | - G. B. Padgett
- Dept. of Plant Pathology, The Univ. of Georgia, Rural Dev. Ctr., Tifton, GA 31793
| |
Collapse
|