Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T03:09:56.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Moisture Requirements and Host Specificity of Rhizoctonia solani From Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula) in Nebraska

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Gary Y. Yuen
Affiliation:
Dept. of Plant Pathol., Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583
Robert A. Masters
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Dept. of Agron., Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583

Abstract

R230, an isolate of Rhizoctonia solani anastomosis group 5 from leafy spurge, caused root and crown rots on leafy spurge when inoculated via soil in greenhouse experiments. The fungus grew through soil over a wide range of matric potentials (–0.01 to −1 MPa). When applied to leafy spurge foliage, the fungus blighted young adventitious shoots, but not mature stems. Foliar infection required high relative humidity. Mycelial growth on plant surfaces stopped at below 92% relative humidity. Pathogenicity of R230 was not limited to leafy spurge. The fungus caused stem and foliar lesions on all crops tested (alfalfa, smooth bromegrass, corn, Kentucky bluegrass, soybean, tall fescue, and wheat) when plants were kept under high humidity. It reduced seedling emergence and survival in soybean, Kentucky bluegrass, and tall fescue. R230 also caused a foliar blight on spotted spurge. The potential for R230 to damage crops will limit application of the fungus to noncultivated areas and to sites where it is endemic.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Baker, R. and Martinson, C. A. 1970. Epidemiology of diseases caused by Rhizoctonia solani . p. 172188 in Parmeter, J. R. Jr., ed. Rhizoctonia solani: Biology and Pathology. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
2. Bruckart, W. L. and Dowler, W. M. 1986. Evaluation of exotic rust fungi in the United States for classical biological control of weeds. Weed Sci. 34:1114 (Suppl. 1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Burpee, L. and Martin, B. 1992. Biology of Rhizoctonia species associated with turfgrasses. Plant Dis. 76:112117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Caesar, A. J. 1994. Comparative virulence of strains of Rhizoctonia spp. on leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) and disease reactions of cultivated plants in the greenhouse. Plant Dis. 78:183186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Caesar, A. J., Rees, N. E., Spencer, N. R., and Quimby, P. C. Jr. 1993. Characterization of Rhizoctonia spp. causing disease of leafy spurge in the Northern Plains. Plant Dis. 77:681684.Google Scholar
6. Cook, R. J. and Papendick, R. I. 1970. Influence of water potential of soils and plants on root disease. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 10:349374.Google Scholar
7. Daigle, D. J., Connick, W. J. Jr., Quimby, P. C. Jr., Evans, J., Trask-Morrell, B., and Fulgham, F. E. 1990. Invert emulsions: carrier and water source for the mycoherbicide, Alternaria cassiae . Weed Technol. 4:327331.Google Scholar
8. Freichtenberger, E., Zentmeyer, G. A., and Menge, J. A. 1984. Identity of Phytophthora isolated from milkweed vine. Phytopathology 74:5055.Google Scholar
9. Galvez, G. E., Mora, B., and Pastor-Corrales, M. A. 1989. Web blight. p. 195210 in Schwartz, H. F. and Pastor-Corrales, M. A., eds. Bean Production Problems in the Tropics, 2nd ed. CIAT, Cali, Colombia.Google Scholar
10. Masters, R. A. 1991. Leafy spurge: threat to central plains grasslands. p. 101106 in Smith, D. and Jacobs, C., eds. Proc. Twelfth North Am. Prairie Conf., Cedar Rapids, IA.Google Scholar
11. Martin, S. B. and Lucas, L. T. 1984. Characterization and pathogenicity of Rhizoctonia spp. and binucleate Rhizoctonia-like fungi from turfgrass in North Carolina. Phytopathology 74:170175.Google Scholar
12. Montecillo, C. M., Bracker, C. E., and Huber, D. M. 1982. An improved technique for inoculating plant surfaces with fungal zoospores. Phytopathology 72:403406.Google Scholar
13. Ogoshi, A. 1987. Ecology and pathogenicity of anastomosis and intraspecific groups of Rhizoctonia solani Kühn. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 25:125143.Google Scholar
14. Ridings, W. H. 1986. Biological control of stranglervine in citrus—A researcher's view. Weed Sci. 34:3132 (Suppl. 1).Google Scholar
15. Sneh, B., Burpee, L., and Ogoshi, A. 1991. Methods for isolation, identification and preservation of Rhizoctonia spp. p. 729 in Identification of Rhizoctonia Species. The American Phytopathological Society Press, St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
16. Tuite, J. 1969. Appendix: Humidity control. p. 227231 in Plant Pathological Methods; Fungi and Bacteria. Burgess Publishing Co., Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
17. Windels, C. E. and Nabben, D. J. 1989. Characterization and pathogenicity of anastomosis groups of Rhizoctonia solani isolated from Beta vulgaris . Phytopathology 79:8388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Yang, S. M., Dowler, W. M., and Johnson, D. R. 1991. Comparison of methods for screening fungi pathogenic to leafy spurge. Plant Dis. 75:12011203.Google Scholar
19. Yang, S. M., Johnson, D. R., and Dowler, W. M. 1990. Pathogenicity of Alternaria augustiovoidea on leafy spurge. Plant Dis. 14:601604.Google Scholar
20. Yang, X. B., Berggren, G. T., and Snow, J. P. 1990. Types of Rhizoctonia foliar blight on soybean in Louisiana. Plant Dis. 74:501504.Google Scholar
21. Yang, X. B., Snow, J. P., and Berggren, G. T. 1990. Analysis of epidemics of Rhizoctonia aerial blight of soybean in Louisiana. Phytopathology 80:386392.Google Scholar
22. Yang, X. B. and TeBeest, D. O. 1993. Epidemiological mechanisms of mycoherbicide effectiveness. Phytopathology 83:891893.Google Scholar
23. Yuen, G. Y., Craig, M. L., and Giesler, L. J. 1994. Biological control of Rhizoctonia solani on tall fescue using fungal antagonists. Plant Dis. 78:118123.Google Scholar