Influence of Sugarbeet Tillage Systems on the Rhizoctonia-Bacterial Root Rot Complex

C. A. Strausbaugh, I. Eujayl
{"title":"Influence of Sugarbeet Tillage Systems on the Rhizoctonia-Bacterial Root Rot Complex","authors":"C. A. Strausbaugh, I. Eujayl","doi":"10.5274/JSBR.49.3.57","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Rhizoctonia-bacterial root rot complex in sugarbeet caused by Rhizoctonia solani and Leuconostoc mesenteroidescan cause significant yield losses. To investigate the impact of different tillage systems on this complex, field studies were conducted from 2009 to 2011. Split blocks with conventional and strip tillage as main plot treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Within main plots, there were seven treatments (non-inoculated check and six R. solaniAG-2-2 IIIB strains). Regardless of tillage, the roots responded in a similar manner for fungal rot (conventional 8% versus strip 7%), bacterial rot (26% versus 34%), total rot (33% versus 41%), neighboring roots infected (1.7 roots versus 1.5 roots), distance spread (15.7 cm versus 15.0 cm), and the number of dead plants (12% versus 14%). Strains F517, F521, F551, and F552 always led to the lowest root and sucrose yield. Strip tillage resulted in 6% more root yield in 2009 (P = 0.087), while conventional tillage resulted in 7% and 27% more root yield in 2010 (P= 0.063) and 2011 (P = 0.012), respectively. The tillage systems influenced disease variables in a similar manner, but more studies will be needed to determine their impact on yield.","PeriodicalId":403165,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sugarbeet Research","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sugarbeet Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5274/JSBR.49.3.57","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

The Rhizoctonia-bacterial root rot complex in sugarbeet caused by Rhizoctonia solani and Leuconostoc mesenteroidescan cause significant yield losses. To investigate the impact of different tillage systems on this complex, field studies were conducted from 2009 to 2011. Split blocks with conventional and strip tillage as main plot treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Within main plots, there were seven treatments (non-inoculated check and six R. solaniAG-2-2 IIIB strains). Regardless of tillage, the roots responded in a similar manner for fungal rot (conventional 8% versus strip 7%), bacterial rot (26% versus 34%), total rot (33% versus 41%), neighboring roots infected (1.7 roots versus 1.5 roots), distance spread (15.7 cm versus 15.0 cm), and the number of dead plants (12% versus 14%). Strains F517, F521, F551, and F552 always led to the lowest root and sucrose yield. Strip tillage resulted in 6% more root yield in 2009 (P = 0.087), while conventional tillage resulted in 7% and 27% more root yield in 2010 (P= 0.063) and 2011 (P = 0.012), respectively. The tillage systems influenced disease variables in a similar manner, but more studies will be needed to determine their impact on yield.
甜菜耕作制度对根核-细菌根腐病复合体的影响
甜菜根丝胞菌和肠系膜白僵菌引起的根腐病-细菌根腐病复合体可造成显著的产量损失。为了研究不同耕作制度对这一建筑群的影响,2009 - 2011年进行了实地研究。以常规耕作和条带耕作为主要小区处理的分割区采用随机完全区设计,设4个重复。在主小区内,共设7个处理(未接种对照和6株茄枯病菌ag -2-2 IIIB)。无论耕作方式如何,根系对真菌腐病(常规腐病8% vs条带腐病7%)、细菌性腐病(26% vs 34%)、全腐病(33% vs 41%)、邻近根系感染(1.7根vs 1.5根)、距离传播(15.7 cm vs 15.0 cm)和死株数(12% vs 14%)的反应相似。菌株F517、F521、F551和F552的根产量和蔗糖产量均最低。带状耕作在2009年根系产量提高6% (P= 0.087),而常规耕作在2010年和2011年根系产量分别提高7%和27% (P= 0.063)和27% (P= 0.012)。耕作制度以类似的方式影响病害变量,但需要更多的研究来确定它们对产量的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信