| Literature DB >> 27148177 |
Na Liu1, Shengchun Xu1, Xiefeng Yao2, Guwen Zhang1, Weihua Mao3, Qizan Hu1, Zhijuan Feng1, Yaming Gong1.
Abstract
Ascochyta blight, an infection caused by a complex of Ascochyta pinodes, Ascochyta pinodella, Ascochyta pisi, and/or Phoma koolunga, is a destructive disease in many field peas (Pisum sativum L.)-growing regions, and it causes significant losses in grain yield. To understand the composition of fungi associated with this disease in Zhejiang Province, China, a total of 65 single-pycnidiospore fungal isolates were obtained from diseased pea samples collected from 5 locations in this region. These isolates were identified as Ascochyta pinodes by molecular techniques and their morphological and physiological characteristics. The mycelia of ZJ-1 could penetrate pea leaves across the stomas, and formed specific penetration structures and directly pierced leaves. The resistance level of 23 available pea cultivars was tested against their representative isolate A. pinodes ZJ-1 using the excised leaf-assay technique. The ZJ-1 mycelia could penetrate the leaves of all tested cultivars, and they developed typical symptoms, which suggested that all tested cultivars were susceptible to the fungus. Chemical fungicides and biological control agents were screened for management of this disease, and their efficacies were further determined. Most of the tested fungicides (11 out of 14) showed high activity toward ZJ-1 with EC50 < 5 μg/mL. Moreover, fungicides, including tebuconazole, boscalid, iprodione, carbendazim, and fludioxonil, displayed more than 80% disease control efficacy under the recorded conditions. Three biocontrol strains of Bacillus sp. and one of Pantoea agglomerans were isolated from pea-related niches and significantly reduced the severity of disease under greenhouse and field conditions. To our knowledge, this is the first study on ascochyta blight in field peas, and results presented here will be useful for controlling the disease in this area.Entities:
Keywords: Ascochyta pinodes; ascochyta blight; biological control; field pea; fungicides
Year: 2016 PMID: 27148177 PMCID: PMC4828446 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00481
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Origin and morphological characters of 23 pea cultivars and their susceptibility to .
| D8341 | Gansu | Tall | Green | 4.08±0.30 a |
| CH-KSKT | Gansu | Tall | Yellow | 3.88±0.25 a |
| Zhejiang-3 | Zhejiang | Dwarf | Green | 3.75±0.29 a |
| GS-28 | Gansu | Tall | Yellow | 3.75±0.50 a |
| Chaoxiang wan | Zhejiang | Dwarf | Green | 3.58±0.43 a |
| GS-23 | Gansu | Tall | Green | 3.50±0.41 a |
| Anhui-1 | Anhui | Dwarf | Yellow | 3.50±0.41 a |
| GS-25 | Gansu | Tall | Green | 3.00±0.00 b |
| J-14 | Sichuan | Tall | Yellow | 2.88±0.48 bc |
| J-16 | Sichuan | Tall | Green | 2.63±0.48 bcd |
| GS-39 | Gansu | Tall | Green | 2.38±0.48 cde |
| Mizhu-9 | Gansu | Dwarf | Green | 2.38±0.48 cde |
| Tengfei-5 | Gansu | Tall | Green | 2.38±0.48 cde |
| JQ-3 | Sichuan | Dwarf | Green | 2.33±0.46 cde |
| Zhejiang-1 | Zhejiang | Tall | Green | 2.25±0.29 def |
| Cuizhu | Gansu | Tall | Green | 2.13±0.25 def |
| Xiangwan-1 | Zhejiang | Dwarf | Green | 2.13±0.25 def |
| SUA-1 | Hubei | Tall | Green | 2.13±0.48 def |
| landzea | Hubei | Tall | Green | 2.13±0.25 def |
| Zhewan-1 | Zhejiang | Tall | Green | 2.00±0.00 ef |
| JP-2 | Sichuan | Tall | Yellow | 2.00±0.00 ef |
| J-210 | Sichuan | Tall | Green | 1.90±0.27 ef |
| Zhengzhu Lv | Gansu | Tall | Green | 1.70±0.24 f |
The data were analyzed using Fisher's protected least significant difference test (P = 0.05) in SAS (SAS version 8.0; SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). The same letters are not significantly different (P = 0.05).
Toxicity of 14 fungicides against .
| Benzimidazole | Carbendazim | Y = 3.447X+4.587 | 1.318 | 0.999 |
| Benzimidazole | Thiophanate-methyl | Y = 4.442X-0.369 | 16.163 | 0.907 |
| Sterol Biosynthesis Inhibiting (SBIs) | Tridemorph | Y = 0.490X+6.140 | 0.005 | 0.976 |
| SBIs | Difenoconazole | Y = 1.796X+6.412 | 0.167 | 0.989 |
| SBIs | Prochloraz | Y = 1.515X+5.919 | 0.248 | 0.987 |
| SBIs | Tebuconazole | Y = 1.424X+5.481 | 0.459 | 0.982 |
| SBIs | Propiconazole | Y = 1.011X+4.939 | 1.15 | 0.996 |
| SuccinateDehydrogenase Inhibitors (SDHI) | Boscalid | Y = 1.447X+4.504 | 2.201 | 0.994 |
| SDHI | Penthiopyrad | Y = 0.714X+4.435 | 6.178 | 0.971 |
| Phenylpyrrole | Fludioxonil | Y = 3.057X+8.763 | 0.058 | 0.992 |
| Phyrimidine | Pyrimethanil | Y = 3.069X+5.153 | 0.891 | 0.972 |
| Dicarboximides | Iprodione | Y = 1.719X+4.633 | 1.635 | 0.976 |
| Triazolinthione | Prothioconazole | Y = 1.279X+4.103 | 5.026 | 0.995 |
| Substitutive Benzene | Chlorothalonil | Y = 0.781X+4.106 | 13.969 | 0.987 |
Figure 1Disease symptoms of ascochyta blight of field peas and characters of representative isolate ZJ-1. (A) Typical disease symptoms of ascochyta blight on pea leaves and pods in field. (B) Colony morphology of ZJ-1 on PDA plate after 9-day incubation. (C) The disease symptoms caused by the ZJ-1 inoculums on pea leaves and pods. (D) The phylogentic tree of ZJ-1, constructed by the neighbor-joining method with Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis version 4.0, based on the ITS sequence (upper) and G3PDH gene (bottom).
Figure 2Morphological and physiological characteristics of isolate ZJ-1. (A) The colonies morphology of ZJ-1 on different media after 9-day incubation. (B) The growth rate of ZJ-1 on CM, WA, PLA and OA plates. The diameter of each colony was measured every 24 h. (C) Conidia formation on 1/3 PDA plates after 2 weeks incubation. The conidia were stained with calcofluor white and visualized by Leica TCS SP5 imaging system (Wetzlar, Hesse-Darmstadt, Germany). Bar was 20 μm.
Figure 3The infection patterns of The necrotic lesions on the surface of pea leaves (Zhewan-1 cultivar) caused by ZJ-1. (B) The mycelia of ZJ-1 penetrated the leaves and formed velvet on the backside. (C) The light-dark contrasts and physical patterns of boundary between healthy and necrotic tissue. (D) The mycelia patters and penetration structures of ZJ-1 formed on the leaves. (E) The mycelia penetrated the leaves across the stomas. (F,G) The mycelia of ZJ-1formed specific penetration structures and directly pierced leaves. (H) The infective hyphae were able to shuttle back and forth on the leaves and subsequently caused the brownish necrosis and chlorosis symptoms. The voltage and bars were indicated at the bottom of each panel.
Figure 4The antagonistic activity of biocontrol bacterial strains and their cell free supernatants against Antagonistic activity of Pa12, BsW4, Bs76 and Ba100 against ZJ-1 after co-culture on WA plates. (B) The mycelial features of ZJ-1 after biocontrol strain cell free supernatant treatment. The Bacillus subtilis PY79 and water was used as control.
Ascochyta blight severity on pea plants and biological efficacy of bacterial biocontrol agents and fungicides application under greenhouse and in the field conditions.
| Pa12 | 25.78±2.04b | 67.05±2.60f | 24.44±2.78b | 71.48±2.53d | 10.89±2.04b | 52.88±8.81c | 9.56±1.39b | 41.89±8.44c |
| BsW4 | 16.00±3.53c | 79.55±4.51e | 16.00±2.67c | 80.75±3.21c | 8.22±1.68bc | 64.42±7.26b | 7.56±0.77bc | 54.05±4.68b |
| Bs76 | 14.22±1.54cd | 81.82±1.97de | 17.33±4.00c | 80.75±2.78c | 8.00±1.15bc | 65.38±5.00b | 7.11±1.39c | 56.76±8.44b |
| Ba100 | 12.44±2.04de | 84.09±2.60cd | 13.78±2.04c | 82.71±1.72c | 6.89±1.68cd | 70.19±7.26b | 6.22±0.77c | 62.16±4.68b |
| Carbendazim | 10.22±0.77ef | 86.93±0.98bc | 8.44±2.04d | 89.66±2.41b | 4.22±0.38de | 81.73±1.67a | 2.22±0.38d | 86.49±2.34a |
| Tebuconazole | 8.00±2.67f | 89.77±3.41b | 6.22±0.77d | 92.69±0.82ab | 3.78±0.77de | 83.65±3.33a | 1.56±0.38d | 90.54±2.34a |
| Boscalid | 9.78±2.04ef | 87.50±2.60bc | 8.44±1.54d | 89.13±0.62b | 4.00±0.67de | 82.69±2.88a | 1.78±0.38d | 89.19±2.34a |
| Fludioxonil | 4.44±0.77g | 94.32±0.98a | 4.00±1.33d | 94.65±0.93a | 2.44±0.38e | 89.42±1.67a | 1.11±0.38d | 93.24±2.34a |
| Iprodione | 8.44±0.77f | 89.20±0.98b | 7.56±0.77d | 90.55±0.31b | 4.22±0.38de | 81.73±1.67a | 2.22±0.77d | 86.49±4.68a |
| Untreated | 78.22±2.04a | 83.11±3.85a | 23.11±5.00a | 16.44±2.69a | ||||
The data were analyzed using Fisher's protected least significant difference test (P = 0.05) in SAS (SAS version 8.0; SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). The same letters are not significantly different (P = 0.05).