Evaluation of the resistance of the breeding material beetroot to Cercospora amid epiphytoty in greenhouses the Moscow region

Relevance. An important feature that determines the technological qualities of varieties and hybrids of beetroot is an erect, compact leaf rosette that persists until the end of the vegetation of plants. In this regard, much attention is paid to the selection of resistance to diseases affecting the leaves of plants, including Cercospora beticola Sacc. When creating resistant to Cercospora interline hybrids based on CMS, the selection of parent components plays an important role. In agroclimatic conditions of the Moscow region, Cercospora on industrial beetroot rarely reaches an economically significant threshold of harmfulness. However, in 2019, epiphytic development of Cercospora on summer first-year crops was observed in the block film greenhouse of the «Federal Scientific Vegetable Center», which allowed to assess the promising breeding material.

Material and method. Phytomonitoring on beetroot plantings and sowing of the experimental production Department of the «Federal Scientific Vegetable Center» growing was carried out by methods of visual diagnostics and microscopy. Cercospora lesion in the breeding nursery was evaluated on an 11-point scale, the ranking of samples into five groups of resistance - according to the degree of disease development (R%). Analyzed: 28 sterile lines (А); 13 fertile lines of fixers (В); 25 lines of pollinators (С) and 38 hybrid F1 (АхВхС).

Results. It was found that more than half of the studied lines were receptive to Cercospora. The share of relatively resistant lines was 13%. Most of them (8%) are ms - lines « obtained by pollination of CMS with mf-lines В. A close relationship (r=0.86-0.89) between the index of lesion of fixators and the degree of disease development of ms- lines was revealed, in some simple combinations a positive effect of heterosis on resistance to Cercospora relative to mf-В was noted. In the submitted sample F1 hybrids mainly observed between the nature of inheritance according to the degree of disease development (R, %), mixed effects the base line stability of pollinator mf-С (r=0,32) and a closer correlation of the stability of hybrid offspring the F1 with the resistant parent ms-line А (r=0.55). As a result of the evaluation, the most resistant to Cercospora ms- and mf-lines and derived from them hybrid F1, among which only 9% were included in the group of relatively resistant to C. beticola. 

1. Arsenyeva M., Smirenskaya Yu. Beet suffering. Agricultural machinery and technologies. 2015. www.agroinvestor.ru (In Russ.)

2. Bilai V.I., Ellanskaya I.A. Basic mycological methods in Phytopathology. Methods of experimental Mycology. Kiev: Naukova Dumka. 1982:418-430. (In Russ.)

3. Burenin V.I. To the problem Cercospora sustainability of sugar beet (tasks of breeding and source material). Sugar beet. 2018;(10):2-5. (In Russ.)

4. Volgin V.V. Theory and practice of creation heterosis hybrids of a sugar beet on the basis of TSMs: author. dis. ... doctor of agricultural Sciences: 06.01.05. Krasnodar. 2007:50p. (In Russ.)

5. Glazunova N.N., Bezgina Y.A., Maznitsina L.V., Sharipov O.V. System of protection for major field crops of the South of Russia. А reference and textbook for students of agronomical faculty and plant protection Department. Stavropol: The Paragraph. 2013:184p. (In Russ.)

6. Dospekhov B.A. Technique of field experience. Moscow: Agropromizdat. 1985:351р. (In Russ.)

7. Georgesko G.G. Creation of breeding materials and varieties of sugar beet resistant to cercosporosis for the North Caucasus zone. Improving the efficiency of sugar beet production in the North Caucasus. Kiev: VNIIS. 1985:30-38. (In Russ.)

8. Makagon A.M., Kornienko V.A., Manko A.E. Вevelopment of resistance of the hybrids to Cercospora. Sugar beet. 1980;(10);37-38. (In Russ.)

9. Milochevic M.B., Ignatov M.V., Medich-Pap S.S. The Most significant pathogens transmitted by sugar beet seeds. Collection of summary of the 4th International Symposium on protection of sugar beet 26-28 September. Serbia and Montenegro, Novi Sad. 2005:256p. (In Russ.)

10. Pavlenko E.A. Principles of selection of cercosporous components in the creation of highly productive sugar beet hybrids resistant to cercosporosis: abstract. dis.… Cand. of agricultural Sciences. Kiev. 1991:24p. (In Russ.)

11. Pausheva Z.P. Practicum on plant Cytology. M: High school. 1989:126. (In Russ.)

12. Sirotin A.A., Trifonova M.F., Zelenkova V.N. Assessment of resistance to local strains of cercosporosis of the original genetic material for the creation of new varieties and hybrids of sugar beet. Izvestiya Mezhdunarod.Acad.agricultural education. 2018;(38):136-139. (In Russ.)

13. Smirnov K.S. Cercospora What is dangerous and how to fight it? Sugar beet. 2005;(5):14-15. (In Russ.)

14. Sobchenko V.F. Regularities of inheritance of a sign of resistance to cercosporosis and selection ways of creation of highly resistant forms of sugar beet: autoref. dis.… Cand. of agricultural Sciences. Kiev. 1993:22 p. (In Russ.)

15. Stognienko O.I., Melkumova E.A., Kornienko A.V. Cercosporosis of sugar beet and methods of reducing its harmfulness. Voronezh: LLC "Antares". 2016:170p. (In Russ.)

16. Stognienko O.I. Paracomplex of the microbiota of sugar beet and methods to reduce their harmfulness in WH Russia: Avtoref. Diss. ... doctor of agricultural Sciences: 06.01.05. Ramon. 2017:47р. (In Russ.)

17. Sycheva I.V., Morozova K.A. Assessment of economically valuable traits of beet varieties and tolerance to Cercospora beticola Sacc. Materials of XV Century.scientific.Conf. "Agroecological aspects of sustainable development of agriculture". 2018:323. (In Russ.)

18. Tsyba Y.I. Agrobiological substantiation of protection of sugar beet against Cercospora in the experimental field of center for research and innovation, OOO "SYNGENTA"// IN proceedings of the 71st scientific-pract. Conf. "Scientific support of agro-industrial complex". Ministry of AGRICULTURE of the Russian Federation; Kuban state agrarian University named after I. T. Trubilin. 2016:62-64. (In Russ.)

19. https://mgutunn.ru/....

20. https://rosselhoscenter.com

21. Battialani P., Beltrami G., Meriggi P., Ponti I., Rossi A., Rossi V., Rosso F., Tugnoli V., Zocca A. Nuovi indrizzi di divesa anticercosporica. LInformatore Agrario. 1990;(46):53-70.

22. Bolton M.D., Birla K., Rivera-Varas V., Rudolph K.D., Secor G.A. Characterization of CbCyp51 from Field Isolates of Cercospora beticola. Phytopathology. 2012;(102):298-305.

23. Braun U., Melnik U.A. Cercosporoid fungi from Russia and adjacent countries. Russian Academy of Sciences. 1997;(1197):112.

24. Khan, J., Qi, A., Khan, M.F.R. Fluctuations in number of Cercospora beticola conidia in relationship to environment and disease severity in sugar beet. Phytopathology. 2009;(99);796-801.

25. Levelin R.T., Whitney E.D. Inheritance of resistance tu rase C2 of Cercospora beticola in Zugar beet. Group Sciens. 1976;(16):558.

26. Mukhopadhyay A.N., Pal V. Variation among the sugar beet isolates of Cercospora beticola from India. Proceedings of the 3-rd International Simposium on Plant Patology. New Dehli, India. 1981;132-136.

27. Pethybridge SJ., Vaghefi N., Kikkert JR. Management of Cercospora Leaf Spot in Conventional and Organic Table Beet Production. PMID:30677334. 2017. DOI:10.1094/PDIS-04-17-0528-RE

28. Pethybridge S.J., Kikker J.R.t , Hanson L.E., Nelson S.C. Challenges and Prospects for Building Resilient Disease Management Strategies and Tactics for the New York Table Beet Industry. Agronomy. 2018;8(7):112. doi.org/10.3390/agronomy8070112

29. Piszczek J., Czekalska A. Resistance of cercospora beticola sacc. To fungicides used against this patogen in Poland. F Prog. Plant Prot. 2006;46(1):375- 379.

30. Setiawan A., Koch G.F., Barnes S.R., Jung C. Mapping quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for resistance to Cercospora leaf spot disease (Cercospora beticola Sacc.) in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 2000. DOI: 10.1007 / s001220051421

31. Slosser L.A., Koch F. Rassenbildung bei Cercospora beticola. Zucker. 1957;(10):489.

32. Solel Z., Wahl I. Pathogenic specialization of Cercospora beticola. Phitopatology. 1971;(61):1081-1083.

33. Soylu S., Soylu E.M., Kurt S. First report of Cercospora leaf spot on Swiss chard caused by Cercospora beticola Sacc. in Turkey. Plant Pathology. 2003;(52):804.

34. Staerkel, C., Boenisch, M.J., Kroger, C., Bormann, J., Schafer, W., and Stahl, D. CbCTB2, an O-methyltransferase is essential for biosynthesis of the phytotoxin cercosporin and infection of sugar beet by Cercospora beticola. BMC Plant Biol. 2013;(13):50. doi: 10.1186/1471-2229-13-50

35. Trkulja N.R., Milosavljević A.G., Mitrović M.S, Jović J.B., Toљevski I.T, Khan M.F.R. Secor G.A. Molecular and experimental evidence of multi-resistance of Cercospora beticola field populations to MBC, DMI and QoI. European Journal of Plant Pathology. 2017;149(4):895–910.

36. Vaghefi N. Genotypic Diversity and Resistance to Azoxystrobin of Cercospora beticola on Processing Table Beet in New York. Population Genetics, Plant Pathol. 2015. http://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/Fungicide_Resistance

37. Vereijssen J. Cercospora leaf spot in sugar beet. Epidemiology, life cycle components and disease management. Bergen op Zoom, The Netherlands. 2004:198.

38. Weiland J., Koch G. Sugarbeet leaf spot disease (Cercospora beticola Sacc.) dagger. Mol Plant Pathol. 2004;5(3):157-166. doi: 10.1111/j.1364-3703.2004.00218.x.