Kandel Yuba R, Lawson Maia N, Brown Mariama T, Chilvers Martin I, Kleczewski Nathan M, Telenko Darcy E P, Tenuta Albert U, Smith Damon L, Mueller Daren S
Department of Plant Pathology, Entomology and Microbiology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, U.S.A.
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, U.S.A.
Plant Dis. 2023 Apr;107(4):1131-1138. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-03-22-0527-RE. Epub 2023 Apr 11.
Seed treatments for the management of sudden death syndrome (SDS) caused by are available in the United States and Canada; however, side-by-side comparisons of these seed treatments are lacking. Sixteen field experiments were established in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin, United States, and Ontario, Canada, in 2019 and 2020 to evaluate seed treatment combinations. Treatments included a nontreated check (NTC), fungicide and insecticide base seed treatments (base), fluopyram, base + fluopyram, base + saponin extracts from , base + fluopyram + heat-killed , base + pydiflumetofen, base + thiabendazole + heat-killed , and base + thiabendazole + extracts heat-killed . Treatments were tested on SDS moderately resistant and susceptible soybean cultivars at each location. Overall, NTC and base had the most root rot, most foliar disease index (FDX), and lowest yield. Base + fluopyram and base + pydiflumetofen were most effective for managing SDS. Moderately resistant cultivars reduced FDX in both years but visual root rot was greater on the moderately resistant than the susceptible cultivars in 2020. Yield response to cultivar was also inconsistent between the 2 years. In 2020, the susceptible cultivar provided significantly more yield than the moderately resistant cultivar. Treatment effect for root rot and FDX was similar in field and greenhouse evaluations. These results reinforce the need to include root rot evaluations in addition to foliar disease evaluations in the breeding process for resistance to and highlights the importance of an integrated SDS management plan because not a single management tactic alone provides adequate control of the disease.
在美国和加拿大有用于防治由[病因未提及]引起的猝死综合征(SDS)的种子处理剂;然而,缺乏对这些种子处理剂的并排比较。2019年和2020年在美国伊利诺伊州、印第安纳州、爱荷华州、密歇根州和威斯康星州以及加拿大安大略省开展了16项田间试验,以评估种子处理组合。处理包括未处理对照(NTC)、杀菌剂和杀虫剂基础种子处理(基础处理)、氟吡菌酰胺、基础处理+氟吡菌酰胺、基础处理+[植物未提及]皂苷提取物、基础处理+氟吡菌酰胺+热灭活[微生物未提及]、基础处理+吡唑醚菌酯、基础处理+噻苯达唑+热灭活[微生物未提及]以及基础处理+噻苯达唑+[植物未提及]提取物热灭活[微生物未提及]。在每个地点对SDS中度抗性和敏感的大豆品种进行了处理测试。总体而言,NTC和基础处理的根腐病最多、叶部病害指数(FDX)最高且产量最低。基础处理+氟吡菌酰胺和基础处理+吡唑醚菌酯对防治SDS最有效。中度抗性品种在两年中均降低了FDX,但2020年中度抗性品种的可见根腐病比敏感品种更严重。两年间品种的产量响应也不一致。2020年,敏感品种的产量显著高于中度抗性品种。田间和温室评估中根腐病和FDX的处理效果相似。这些结果强化了在抗[病因未提及]育种过程中除叶部病害评估外还需纳入根腐病评估的必要性,并突出了综合SDS管理计划的重要性,因为没有单一的管理策略能单独充分控制该病。