| Literature DB >> 34208662 |
Carla Colque-Little1, Daniel Buchvaldt Amby1, Christian Andreasen1.
Abstract
The journey of the Andean crop quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) to unfamiliar environments and the combination of higher temperatures, sudden changes in weather, intense precipitation, and reduced water in the soil has increased the risk of observing new and emerging diseases associated with this crop. Several diseases of quinoa have been reported in the last decade. These include Ascochyta caulina, Cercospora cf. chenopodii, Colletotrichum nigrum, C. truncatum, and Pseudomonas syringae. The taxonomy of other diseases remains unclear or is characterized primarily at the genus level. Symptoms, microscopy, and pathogenicity, supported by molecular tools, constitute accurate plant disease diagnostics in the 21st century. Scientists and farmers will benefit from an update on the phytopathological research regarding a crop that has been neglected for many years. This review aims to compile the existing information and make accurate associations between specific symptoms and causal agents of disease. In addition, we place an emphasis on downy mildew and its phenotyping, as it continues to be the most economically important and studied disease affecting quinoa worldwide. The information herein will allow for the appropriate execution of breeding programs and control measures.Entities:
Keywords: Peronospora; causal agents; downy mildew; pathogenicity; quinoa disease assessment; quinoa diseases; resistance factors; severity
Year: 2021 PMID: 34208662 PMCID: PMC8233811 DOI: 10.3390/plants10061228
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Peronospora species current identity and classification by Byford [27,28].
| Host (Genus/Species) | Pathogen | Byford Classification (f. spp.) |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
Figure 1Downy mildew disease of Chenopodium spp. distribution map (CAB international, last modified 21 November 2019 via www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/39704 (accessed on 10 June 2021).
Documented reports for downy mildew on C. quinoa and weedy Chenopods.
| Country | Researcher | Year | [Ref] | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mor. | Mol. | Mor. | Mol. | Mor. | Mol. | Mor. | Mol. | Mor. | Mol. | Mor. | Mol. | ||||
| Bolivia | √ | Martin Cardenas | 1941 | [ | |||||||||||
| Peru | √ | G. Garcia | 1947 | [ | |||||||||||
| Canada | √ | JF.Tewari | 1990 | [ | |||||||||||
| Peru | √ | √ | √ | √ | L.Aragon | 1992 | [ | ||||||||
| Ecuador | √ | Jose Ochoa | 1999 | [ | |||||||||||
| Denmark | √ | S. Danielsen | 2002 | [ | |||||||||||
| Poland | √ | Panka | 2004 | [ | |||||||||||
| India | √ | A. Kumar | 2006 | [ | |||||||||||
| Bolivia | √ | √ | Erica Swenson | 2006 | [ | ||||||||||
| Argentina | √ | √ | Y.J. Choi | 2008 | [ | ||||||||||
| China | √ | √ | 2010 | [ | |||||||||||
| Ireland | √ | √ | |||||||||||||
| South Korea | √ | √ | |||||||||||||
| Netherlands | √ | √ | |||||||||||||
| Germany | √ | √ | |||||||||||||
| Latvia | √ | √ | |||||||||||||
| Romania | √ | √ | |||||||||||||
| Italy | √ | √ | |||||||||||||
| Peru | √ | S. Danielsen | 2010 | [ | |||||||||||
| Ecuador | √ | ||||||||||||||
| Denmark | √ | ||||||||||||||
| India | √ | P. Baisvar | 2010 | [ | |||||||||||
| USA (Pennsylvania) | √ | √ | Ana Testen | 2012 | [ | ||||||||||
| Bolivia | x | Ana Testen | 2014 | [ | |||||||||||
| Ecuador | x | ||||||||||||||
| USA | x | ||||||||||||||
| Korea | √ | √ | Y.J. Choi | 2014 | [ | ||||||||||
| Morocco | - | - | Manal Mhada | 2014 | [ | ||||||||||
| Egypt | √ | √ | Walaa Khalifa | 2018 | [ | ||||||||||
| USA (N. Hampshire) | √ | √ | √ | √ | x√* | x√* | √** | Helen Nolen | 2019 | [ | |||||
| Turkey | √ | √ | M.Kara | 2020 | [ | ||||||||||
| Turkey | √ | √ | Esra Gül | 2021 | [ | ||||||||||
| Denmark | √ | √ | √ | √ | C. Colque-Little | 2021 | [ | ||||||||
Mor. = morphological characterization; Mol. = molecular identification. Source: elaborated from references on the column [Ref]. x√* Koch postulates failed; √** corresponds to a field population.
Figure 2Proposed disease cycle of quinoa downy mildew caused by Peronospora variabilis (Photos: C. Colque-Little). Picture of haploid gamets adapted from Judelson [58].
Figure 3Quinoa leaf infections caused by P. variabilis sporangiogenesis during the early stages of asexual reproduction. (A) Sporangium forming germ tube (gt) and faint penetration hyphae towards the mesophyll. (B) Extracellular matrices (em) secreted from germinating sporangium (sp) and appressorium-like (als) structure penetrating stomata. (C) Sporangium, forming germ-tube (gt) and appressorium like structure in water. (D) Sporangiophore (spr) emerging from stomata. (E) Sporangiophore holding sporangia, emerging from lower epidermis. Scale bar: 20 µm. (F) Hypothetical P. variabilis sporangiogenesis timeline (Photos: C. Colque-Little). Illustration in timeline created with Biorender.com.
Figure 4(A) Quinoa crop severely damaged by downy mildew. (B–D). Infected varieties in the fields of the main quinoa growing areas of Bolivia. (E) Adaxial leaf side belonging to different quinoa genotypes artificially infected with downy mildew. (F) Abaxial side of the leaves showing sporulation. (G) Differences in disease symptoms, ranging from hypersensitive reactions causing pale yellowish spots (left) to high susceptibility with chlorotic lesions covering the whole leaf (right) (Photos: C. Colque-Little).
Figure 5Peronospora variabilis spores isolated from C. quinoa. (A) Sporangiophore with lemon-shaped sporangia. (Aa) Oospores–sporangia size comparison. (B) Oospore on top of dried leaf tissue. Scale bars: 20 µm (Photos: C. Colque-Little). (C) Schematic representation of oospore localization in quinoa seed. o = oospore; pe = pericarp; en = endosperm; p = perisperm (illustration adapted from Danielsen and Ames (2004) [54] and Prego et al. (1998) [78]).
Peronospora variabilis sporangium sizes when isolated from C. quinoa and C. album.
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|
| av. Length × Width (µm) | av. Length × Width (µm) | Reference |
| 25.5 × 17.5 | Khalifa and Thabet 2018 [ | |
| 22 × 23.13 | Yin et al., 2018 [ | |
| 27.5 × 20 | Gül, 2021b [ | |
| 28.8 × 21.8 | Danielsen & Ames, 2004 [ | |
| 30.7 × 23.8 | Choi et al., 2010 [ | |
| 31 × 23 | Testen et al., 2012 [ | |
| 28.5 × 23.5 | Choi et al., 2014 [ | |
| 29.5 × 23 | Choi et al., 2008 [ | |
| 30 × 25 | Kara et al., 2020 [ | |
| 27.7 × 21.0 | 30.1 × 24 | av. size |
| 1.32 | 1.25 | av.ratio |
Set of quinoa cultivars and Chenopodium album postulated for profiling the virulence of Peronospora variabilis.
| Cultivar | Hypothesized | Response to Downy Mildew | Origin | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| Denmark |
|
|
|
|
| Denmark |
|
|
|
|
| Bolivia |
|
|
|
|
| Bolivia |
|
|
|
|
| Denmark |
|
|
|
|
| Denmark |
Figure 6Set of reference cultivars postulated for profiling the virulence of Peronospora variabilis, including C. album and two Bolivian cultivars with intermediate reactions. Leaves from three-week-old artificially inoculated plants. Numbers in red indicate the percentage of severity on the adaxial side, and those in purple indicate the percentage of sporulation on the abaxial side [52]. Numbers in green (incompatible response) and blue (compatible response) correspond to Ochoa’s scale: 0 = no symptoms; 1 = 2−5-mm lesion with truncated mycelium in the mesophyll of the leaf; 2 = 4−8-mm chlorotic lesions with minor sporulation; 3 = medium-sized and confined chlorotic lesions with sporulation mainly on the abaxial side of the leaf; 4 = large, not clearly confined chlorotic lesions with sporulation mainly on the abaxial side of the leaf; 5 = mild chlorosis with abundant sporulation on both adaxial and abaxial sides of the leaf (Ochoa et al., 1999 [40], Colque-Little et al., 2021 [52]). Both assessments are comparable in terms of severity and sporulation; thus, the existence of resistance factors is hypothesized in this set of reference cultivars.
Figure 7Reference cultivars’ responses to infection with Peronospora variabilis, measured in mean severity under greenhouse conditions. Source: Colque-Little et al. [52].
Figure 8Modified from Danielsen and Munk (2004) [97]. Three-leaf field assessment method for quinoa-downy mildew at different growth stages.
Figure 9Scale for percentage of severity and sporulation area affected by downy mildew in quinoa. r = postulated minor genes; R = hypothesized major genes. BOL = accession numbers. Note: Percentage of sporulation is estimated on the abaxial leaf side area covered by visible lesion. It is not estimated on the total abaxial side leaf area (Colque-Little et al., 2021) [52]. Photos by Colque-Little.
Figure 10Ratio calculated from mean averages of sporulation/severity for the South American diversity panel. The names inside the histogram bars correspond to reference and representative cultivars for each group. Source: calculated with the data set from Colque-Little et al. (2021) [52].
Figure 11Disease traits estimated means fitted on a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) for a diversity panel, comprising gene bank accessions (landraces), cultivars (Bolivian-bred cultivars), and check varieties (reference cultivars). (A) Severity of infection, (B) sporulation, and (C) incidence of infection. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Adapted from Colque-Little et al. (2021) [52].
Phenotypic infection traits and Ratio for representative cultivars and reference varieties.
| Name | % Severity | % Sporulation | Spo/Sev Ratio | % Incidence | Ratio Based Classification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 5 | 0.4 | 0.08 | 45 | Resistant |
|
| 11 | 0.2 | 0.02 | 42 | Resistant |
|
| 32 | 17 | 0.53 | 59 | Highly tolerant |
|
| 41 | 30 | 0.73 | 73 | Mildly resistant |
|
| 45 | 29 | 0.64 | 74 | Mildly resistant |
|
| 45 | 50 | 1.1 | 56 | Susceptible |
|
| 46 | 47 | 1 | 79 | Mildly susceptible |
|
| 50 | 69 | 1.4 | 67 | Very susceptible |
|
| 52 | 40 | 0.77 | 81 | Mildly resistant |
|
| 52 | 63 | 1.2 | 77 | Susceptible |
|
| 58 | 63 | 1.1 | 83 | Susceptible |
|
| 71 | 84 | 1.2 | 82 | Susceptible |
Eco-regions for quinoa production in South America.
| Temperature | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eco-Region | Soil | Altitude m.a.s.l | Rainfall (mm) | Max. | Min. | Av. |
| Northern Highland | Rich in organic matter | 3500–4000 | 500 | 14 | 4 | 7 |
| Central Highland | Slightly acid | 3300–4100 | 350 | 17.7 | −2 | 8.7 |
| Southern Highland | Arid and poor soils | 3200–4000 | 50–200 | 18 | −11 | 5.7 |
| Andean Slopes | Variable | 800–3200 | 3500–700 | 12 | 3 | 7.6 |
| Coastal/Lowland | Variable | Sea level to | 40 > 2000 | | | |
Within the sub-regions, temperatures vary depending on location (coast or foothills), not shown. Source: elaborated with information from Gandarillas et al. (2015) [112]; Seiler et al. (2013) [120]; Cereceda et al. (2008) [121]; http://germoplasma.iniaf.gob.bo (accessed on 15 April 2020).
Figure 12(A) Modified map of germplasm bank accession across South America by elevation Source: Colque-Little et al. (2021) [52] and modified map of Bolivian ecoregions for quinoa production. Source: Gandarillas et al. (2015) [6]. (B) Mean sporulation on diversity panel related to quinoa ecoregions calculated with Tukey test (p = 0.05). Different letters (a,b,c) represent significant differences between the sporulation produced by genotypes coming from different ecoregions when infected with P. variabilis.
Figure 13Leaves showing symptoms of infection caused by A. hyalospora (A) on the adaxial side of the leaf and (B) on the abaxial side. (C) Stems showing pycnidia and brown stalk. (D) Stem showing pycnidia. (E) A. hyalospora conidia (Photos: Testen, 2020) [77]. (F) A. hyalospora: (a) pycnidium (×200); (b) conidiogenous cells of pycnidium (×1000); (c) conidia from pycnidium (×400); (d) bi and tri-septate conidia from pycnidium on an inoculated stem of C. quinoa (×400); (e) conidia from pycnidium on leafspot of inoculated leaf of C.quinoa (×400). Source: photos (A−E) provided by A.L. Testen. F. Adapted from [128].
Figure 14Typical symptoms of quinoa black stem in the fields of China. (A) Symptoms induced by inoculation of A. caulina on C. quinoa (left of midrib) and on C. album (right of midrib). (B) 10 dpi diamond shaped lesion on quinoa stem with presence of pycnidia. (C) Necrotic quinoa stem prior to lodging; (D) morphological characteristics of conidia and pycnidia of A. caulina. Source: illustrations based on pictures from Yin et al. [114].
Figure 15(A,C) depict symptoms of P. dubia on leaf tissue. (B) Comparison of “cockerel eye” and leaf spot symptoms. (D) Conidia of P. dubia. Source: pictures (A–C) provided by Testen and (D) Testen [77].
Figure 16(A,B) Foliar symptoms of Cercospora leaf spot. (C) Condidia of Cercospora. Source: illustrations adapted from Yin et al. (2019) [151].
Figure 17(A) Brown stalk rot. (B) Diamond-shaped symptoms bearing pycnidia. Source: illustrations adapted from Alandia et al. [4].
Figure 18(A) Quinoa seedlings affected by damping-off. (B) Rhizoctonia spp hyphae. (C) Fusarium spp. spores. (D) Healthy quinoa seedlings growing under low soil moisture conditions. Source: illustration adapted from Isobe et al. (2019) [155].
Major fungicide groups and key active ingredients, application site, and resistance risk. Adapted from Gisi and Zierotski (2015) [105]; Lebeda and Cohen (2021) [165]; Plimmer, (2003) [166]; and Masielo et al., (2019) [164]. Rows in blue correspond to fungicides that are effective against Ascomycetes.
| Mode of Trans-location | Fungicide Group and Key Active Ingredients | Resistance Risk a | Foliar | Seed | Soil | Type of Activity | Translocation in Plants | Biochemical Mode of Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fully | Phenylamides: | High | √ | √ | Preventive, curative, eradicative | Apoplastic, symplastic, translaminar | Inhibition of rRNA synthesis | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Non-Systemic | b Multisites: | Low | √ | Preventive | Multi-site inhibition | |||
| Non-Systemic | Carboxylic acid amides: | Moderate | √ | Preventive | Translaminar | Cell wall synthesis, Ces3A cellulose synthase inhibition | ||
| Fully | Cyanoacetamide, oximes (cymoxanil) | Moderate | √ | √ | Preventive, curative | Apoplastic, symplastic, translaminar | Inhibition of mitochondrial respiration at the enzyme complex III | |
| Non-Systemic | Dinitroanilines (fluazinam) | Moderate | Preventive | Inhibition of ATP production | ||||
| Fully | Phosphonates (fosetyl-Al) | Moderate | √ | Preventive, curative | Apoplastic, symplastic, | Inhibition of spore germination, retardation of mycelia | ||
| Partially | Quinone inside respiration inhibitors: | Medium to hight | √ | √ | Preventive, curative, eradicative/ | Translaminar | ||
| Fully | Benzamides (fluopicolide) | Mod. | √ | √ | Preventive, curative | Apoplastic, symplastic, translaminar | Delocalization of spectrin-like proteins | |
| Benzamides, carboxamides | Low | |||||||
| Systemic | Hymexaxol (heteroaromatics) | √ | √ | Fungal RNA and DNA syntheses | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| Fully | Carbamates: Propamocarb, prothiocarb | Preventive, eradicative | Apoplastic | Multi-site inhibition |
Nomenclature according to Fungicide Resistance Action Committee mode of action code list, 2014, www.frac.info (accessed on 10 June 2021). Quinone outside inhibitors and multi-sites are broad-spectrum fungicides, including activity against fungi.
Figure 19Symptoms of bacterial leaf spot on quinoa. Source: illustration adapted from Fonseca-Guerra et al. [167].