Bazı Fungisitlerin Şeker Pancarı Kök Çürüklüğü ve Çökerten Etmeni Rhizoctonia solani’ ye Karşı Etkileri

Yıl 2020, , 169 - 189, 15.12.2020

Meltem Avan , Yakup Zekai Katırcıoğlu

https://doi.org/10.47898/ijeased.767676

Öz

Konya bölgesi ülkemizde şeker pancarı üretiminin 1/3’ ünden fazlasını elinde tutan oldukça önemli bir şeker pancarı üretim alanıdır. 2015-2017 yılları arasında bu bölgede 866 tarlada yapılan surveyler sonucu 691’inde özellikle hasata yakın geç dönemde ve tüm dönemlerde kök çürüklükleri tespit edilmiş, bunlar arasında da en çok Rhizoctonia etmenine rastlandığı bildirilmiştir. Yapılan morfolojik tanılama, izolasyon, mikroskopik gözlem, ITS rDNA bölgesinin sekans verileri ile yapılan moleküler yöntemlerle etmen Rhizoctonia spp. olarak tanımlanmıştır. Bazı fungisitlerin patojene etkisini tespit etmek amacıyla yapılan çalışmamızda, elde edilen izolatlardan en yaygın ve virülensliği en fazla olan Rhizoctonia solani AG-2-2-IIIB’ ye ait 2G izolatı ile Azoxystrobin, Fludioxonil, Flutolanil, Tolclofos-methly, Pyraclostrobin+Epoxiconazole, Difenoconazole+Propiconazole, Spiroxamine+Prothiocona ve Sedaxane+Fludioxonil+Metalaxyl-M etken maddeli 8 farklı fungisit petri ve saksı denemelerinde kullanılmıştır. Petri misel denemesinde tespit edilen engelleme dozları ile beraber firmaların önerdiği tam doz, çift kat doz, yarı dozlar saksı denemesinde kullanılmıştır. Çalışmalar sonucunda, en etkili fungisit ve dozu olarak Azoxystrobin’ un çift kat dozu ve Sedaxane+Fludioxonil+Metalaxyl-M’ ın tam dozu olduğu tespit edilirken; saksı çalışmalarında, önerilen dozun 2 katı dozlarının daha etkili bulunması patojenin bu ilaçlara karşı direnç geliştirmiş olmasını düşündürmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Beta vulgaris, Fungisit etkisi, kök çürüklüğü, Rhizoctonia solani

Destekleyen Kurum

TÜBİTAK, BAP

Proje Numarası

115O562, 18L0447014

Teşekkür

Bu çalışma, 115O562 nolu TÜBİTAK projesinde elde edilen bitki örneklerinden ve 18L0447014 nolu Ankara Üniversitesi BAP Projesi ile finanse edilen proje sonuçlarının bir kısmını içermektedir. Yazarlar ayrıca arazi çalışmasına katkıları nedeniyle Torku, Konya Şeker ve Ilgın şeker fabrikalarına; desteklerinden dolayı Dr. Rıza Kaya’ ya (Ankara Şeker Enstitüsü), fungisit temininde yardımcı olan Bayer, Agrobest, Syngenta, Sumitomo, AMC ilaç firmalarına teşekkür ederler.

The Effects of Some Fungicides against Rhizoctonia solani Causing Root Rot and Damping-off on Sugar Beet

Öz

Konya region is a very important sugar beet production area that contains more than 1/3 of sugar beet production in Turkey. Root rots were detected in 691 of the surveys made in 866 fields in this region between the years 2015-2017, Root rots were detected in the late period close to the harvest period and in all periods, Rhizoctonia has been reported to be the most common among root rot. The causal organism was defined as R. spp. by visual diagnosis, isolation, microscopic observation and molecular methods. Sequence data of the ITS rDNA region confirmed the species identity of pathogens as Rhizoctonia. In our study to determine the effect of fungicides on the pathogen; 4 different doses of 8 different fungicides with Azoxystrobin, Fludioxonil, Flutolanil, Tolclofos-methly, Pyraclostrobin + Epoxiconazole, Difenoconazole + Propiconazole, Spiroxamine + Prothioconazole ve Sedaxane + Fludioxonil + Metalaxyl-M were used in petri dish and pot experiments with 2G isolate from Rhizoctonia solani AG-2-2-IIIB which is the most common and most virulent of the isolates obtained. The inhibition doses obtained in the petri mycellium experiment were not found effective in the pot experiment. As a result of studies, as the most effective fungicide and dosage, while it is determined that Azoxystrobin is a double dose and Sedaxane + Fludioxonil + Metalaxyl-M is a full dose; in pots studies, the double dose of the recommended dose is more effective suggests that the pathogen has developed resistance to these fungicides.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Beta vulgaris, Fungicide effect, Root rot, Rhizoctonia solani

Proje Numarası

115O562, 18L0447014

Kaynakça

• Alfaig, E. A. A., Suleimain, K. H., and Elhaj, A. M. (2011). J. Sci Tech., 12(2), 1-6.
• Anderson, N. A. (1982). Genetics and pathology of Rhizoctonia solani. The Annual Review of Phytopathology, 20, 329-347.
• Arabiat, S., and Khan, M. F. (2016). Sensitivity of Rhizoctonia solani AG-2-2 from Sugar Beet to Fungicides. Plant disease, 100(12), 2427-2433.
• Bolton, M. D., Panella, L., Campbell, L., and Khan, M. F. (2010). Temperature, moisture, and fungicide effects in managing Rhizoctonia root and crown rot of sugar beet. Phytopathology, 100(7), 689-697.
• Buhre, C., Kluth, C., Bürcky, K., Märländer, B., and Varrelmann, M. (2009). Integrated control of root and crown rot in sugar beet: Combined effects of cultivar, crop rotation, and soil tillage. Plant Disease, 93(2), 155–161.
• Büttner, G., Pfähler, B., and Märländer, B. (2004). Greenhouse and field techniques for testing sugar beet for resistance to Rhizoctonia root and crown rot. Plant breeding, 123(2), 158-166.
• Carling, D. E., Rothrock, C. S., MacNish, G. C., Sweetingham, M. W., Brainard, K. A., and Winters, S.W. (1994). Characterization of anastomosis group 11 (AG-11) of Rhizoctonia solani. Phytopathology, 84, 1387-1393.
• Cotterill, P. J., Ballinger, D. J., and Kollmorgen, J. F. (1989). Use of three screening techniques for the evaluation of fungicides to control Rhizoctonia root rot of wheat. Annals of applied biology, 115(2), 229-235.
• Djébali, N., Elkahoui, S., Taamalli, W., Hessini, K., Tarhouni, B., and Mrabet, M. (2014). Tunisian Rhizoctonia solani AG3 strains affect potato shoot macronutrients content, infect faba bean plants and show in vitro resistance to azoxystrobin. Australasian Plant Pathology, 43(3), 347-358.
• Draycott, A. P. (2006). Introduction, pp. 1-8. In: DRAYCOTT A.P. (eds.) Sugar Beet. Blackwell, Oxford, United Kingdom.
• Engelkes, C. A., and Windels, C. E. (1996). Susceptibility of sugarbeet and beans to Rhizoctonia solani AG 2-2 IIIB and AG 2-2 IV. Plant Disease, 80, 1413-1417.
• FAOSTAT, (2019). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [online]. Website http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC/visualize (accessed on 12.12.2019).
• Hamada, M. S., Yin, Y., and Ma, Z. (2011). Sensitivity to iprodione, difenoconazole and fludioxonil of Rhizoctonia cerealis isolates collected from wheat in China. Crop protection, 30(8), 1028-1033.
• Harveson, R. M. (2008). Rhizoctonia root and crown rot of sugar beet. Univ. Nebr. Ext. Publ. G1841.
• Harveson, R. M., Hanson, L. E., and Hein, G. L. (2009). Compendium of Beet Disease and Pests. The American Phytopathological Society Press, St. Paul, MN.
• Herr, L. J., and Roberts, D. L. (1980). Characterization of Rhizoctonia populations obtained from sugarbeet fields with differing soil textures. Phytopathology, 70(6), 476-480.
• Karman, M. (1971). Denemelerin Kuruluşu ve Değerlendirme Esasları. T.C. Tarım Bakanlığı Zirai Mücadele ve Karantina Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları, 279s.
• Kataria, H. R., Singh, H., and Gisi, U. (1989). Interactions of fungicide-insecticide combinations against Rhizoctonia solani in vitro and in soil. Crop Protection, 8(6), 399-404.
• Kataria, H. R., Hugelshofer, U., and Gisi, U. (1991). Sensitivity of Rhizoctonia species to different fungicides. Plant Pathology, 40(2), 203-211.
• Khan, M. F. R., and Carlson, A. (2009). Efficacy of fungicides for controlling Cercospora leaf spot on sugarbeet. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports, 39, 216-219.
• Larkin, R. P., Roberts, D. P., and Gracia-Garza, J. A. (1998). Biological control of fungal diseases. In: Fungicidal activity, chemical and biological approaches. NY: Wiley, New York, USA. pp: 141-191.
• Long, L. X. L. J. Z., and Xiaolin, L. J. L. (2001). Effect of fungicides and its mixture on the toxicity and morphology of the Rhizoctonia solani of rice. Journal of Plant Protection, (4), 12.
• Ogoshi A. (1987). Ecology and pathogenicity of anastomosis and intraspecific groups of Rhizoctonia solani Kühn. Annual Review of Phytopathology, 25, 125–143.
• Panella, L. W., Ruppel, E. G., Hecker, R. J., Johnson, J. W., Buntin, G. D., Cunfer, B. M., ... and Martin, T. J. (1995). 2311501. Registration of four multigerm sugarbeet germplasms resistant to Rhizoctonia root rot: FC716, FC717, FC718, and FC719. Crop science, 35(1), 291-292.
• Schmitthenner, A. F., and Hilty, J. W. (1962). A method for studying postemergence seedling root rot. Phytopathology, 52, 177-179.
• Sneh, B., Burpee L., and Ogoshi A. (1991). Identification of Rhizoctonia Species. APS Press, St. Paul Minnesota, 135 pgs.
• Thach, T., Munk, L., Hansen, A. L., and Jørgensen, L. N. (2013). Disease variation and chemical control of Ramularia leaf spot in sugar beet. Crop protection, 51, 68-76.
• TÜİK, (2019). Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/ ?kn=92& locale=tr (Accesssed on 12.12.2019).
• Windels, C. E., and Brantner, J. R. (2005). Early-season application of azoxystrobin to sugarbeet for control of Rhizoctonia solani AG 4 and AG 2-2. Journal Sugar Beet Research, 42, 1-17.
• Zhao, C., Li, Y., Wu, S., Wang, P., Han, C., and Wu, X. (2019). Anastomosis group and pathogenicity of Rhizoctonia spp. associated with seedling damping-off of sugar beet in China. European journal of plant pathology, 153(3), 869-878.