Methods
Collection pictures from the Richard C. Johnson, Harold Bockelman, Korzhenevsky, V., Boguslavsky, R. collection in 1999 from Krym, Ukraine.
Collection pictures taken in 2010 from Morocco collection trip for wild Beta
Participants in the 2012 collecting trip in Morocco:
Barbara Hellier, Beta curator, Western Regional Plant Introduction Station, Pullman, WA
Dr. Chris Richards, Geneticist, National Center for Genetic Resources Preservation, Fort Collins, Colorado
Dr. Yasmina EL BAHLOUL, Breeder and geneticist, INRA, Rabat, Morocco.
Mrs Naima QARIOUH, curator, Genebank, INRA, Settat, Morocco.
Wild Beta species are widespread in Morocco occurring along the coasts and in the low mountains. Beta vulgaris subsp. maritima, Beta macrocarpa, and Patellifolia patellaris (formerly Beta patellaris) are endemic to Morocco but very little is known about the extent of their distribution. The Moroccan coast represents an area isolated from the rest of the wild Beta range except for the islands of the Macaronesia ecoregion (which includes the Azores, Canary Islands, Cape Verde, Madeira, and the Savage Isle). This island ecoregion contains a diversity of Beta species and there are many questions about gene flow among and between Macaronesia and the coast of Northwestern Africa. In Morocco, Beta species are threatened by genetic erosion and habitat degradation due to heavy grazing pressure and urbanization.
Bolting, Beet Western Yellow Virus, End use, Leaf pigment, Petiole color, Rhizomania and Uniformity done by Dr. R.T. Lewellen, Salinas, California, 1996
Done by Dr. Robert T. Lewellen, Salinas, California, 1997. Data taken was BNYVV(rhizomonia), BWYV(virus yellows, and agronomic traits including root and sugar yiled, type and end use, root and petiole color, and bolting tendency. Planting was on May 8,1997 under rhizomania infested conditions. Root harvested on Nov. 13, 1997. Easy bolting annuals were removed in mid-season so that hard seed would not be set.
A test with three repetitions (Test 3298) was used to test 30 PI's and 4 checks for reaction to BNYVV (rhizomania), BWYV (virus yellows), and agronomic traits including root and sugaryield, type and end use, root and petiole color, and bolting tendency. The test was planted May11, 1998 in the field under rhizomania infested conditions. Roots were not harvested. Natural infection by Erysiphe polygoni (powdery mildew) occurred and individual plots were scored. Individual plants within each entry were scored for reactions to rhizomania based on a scale of 0 to 9, where a rating of 0 to 3 was considered resistant and 4 to 9 susceptible. No accession was found more resistant than the resistant checks. Because of very light virus yellows incidence,entries were not scored for virus yellows
Bolting1, Enduse and Rhizomania
BEET_HORTICULTURAL_NDAKOTA Experiment Type: Field Field Exp. Design: 1 rep. each
BEET_AGRONOMIC_NORTH.DAKOTA Experiment Type: Field Field Exp. Design: RCB Soil drainage: ,,,,,,,
BEET_AGRONOMIC_NORTH.DAKOTA Experiment Type: Field FIELD Exp. Design: Replicated Comment: Evaluation for yield and sugar content.
BEET_HORTICULTURAL_NDAKOTA Experiment Type: Field FIELD Exp. Design: non-replicated field Exp. Location: Fargo Comment: Evaluation of material in plots at Fargo and Logan, Utah. Logan traits taken on caged increase plots. Fargo data take on first year growth.
BEET_AGRONOMIC_NORTH.DAKOTA Experiment Type: Field FIELD Exp. Design: RB (4 reps) Exp. Location: NDSU farm Latitude: 46 Degrees 5 Minutes N Longitude: 97 Degrees Minutes W Elevation: 120 meters Topography: flat Soil drainage: fair Soil texture: Fargo clay Max temperature: 38 Fertilizer type: NONE Year started: 05/17/1991 Year seeded: 05/17/1991 Year planted: 05/17/1991 Year ended: 09/17/1991 Experiment length: 0,4,0 Comment: Several of the accessions bolted early. These were pulled resulting in no sugar analysis data. Ultramono, the check, is a commercial hybrid used extensively in this area.
Agronomic characterics done by Devon L. Doney, State University Station, Fargo, North Dakota. Field plot, 4 reps, 25 foot row.
Aphanomyces Resistance Screening Experiment Type: Greenhouse GREENHOUSE Exp. Design: Randomized Block Hardiness Zone: 6 Soil texture: Topsoil:Sand (1:1) % Organic matter: 50 % Sand: 50 Min temperature: 25 Max temperature: 35 Avg temperature: 28 Irrigation type: Overhd Irrigation days: 47 Fertilizer type: 1:1:1 Total fertilizer: 1 T/gal kg/ha Year started: 06/02/1992 Year planted: 06/05/1992 Year ended: 07/22/1992 Experiment length: ,,47 Comment: 3-4 sd were planted in each of 7 cone-tainers, and thinned to 2 plants/tube. Soil in tubes was infested with approx. 250 oospores per gram of soil. Soil was kept moist. At 24, 32, and 47 days after planting, seedling were rated for disease severity using a 0-9 scale.
Aphanomyces cochlioides evaluations by Charles Rush, Amarillo, Texas, Unitded States. Disease ratings were based on discoloration of the hypocotyl.
Aphanomyces cochlioides evaluations by Charlie Rush, Amarillo, Texas, United States. Disease ratings were based on discoloration of the hypocotyl.
There are high natural levels of inoculum of this disease in the soil on the Experiment station, and the impact of this disease on field grown sugarbeets has been evaluated for many years. The accessions were replicated 6 times and the plots monitored and rated throughout the growing season. We planted in April this year and harvested the test in August. Fusarium root rot was prevalent and I believe we had a good test. All evaluations were made on a 0-4 scale but the results are reported on a 0 to 9 scale by multiplying the original data by 2.25.
There are high natural levels of inoculum of this disease in the soil on the Experiment station, and the impact of this disease on field grown sugarbeets has been evaluated for many years. The accessions were replicated 6 times and the plots monitored and rated throughout the growing season. We planted in April this year and harvested the test in August. Fusarium root rot was prevalent and I believe we had a good test. All evaluations were made on a 0-4 scale but the results are reported on a 0 to 9 scale by multiplying the original data by 2.25.
In years past, it has been possible to evaluate plants in each plot of individual accessions forinfection by Fusarium and Aphanomyces. However, this year, disease was so severe and so earlythat these two diseases could not be distinguished. Ratings constitute an evaluation of the overall severity of the disease caused by a complex of pathogens. This complex, that includesprimarily Aphanomyces cochlioides and Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. betae, is not uncommon formany beet growing areas in the Western United States. Although in previous years, we havebeen able to distinguish between infection by Aphanomyces and Fusarium, undoubtedly manybeets were infected by both pathogens. The field evaluations for Aphanomyces and Fusariumroot rot at Bushland are actually evaluating disease caused by the two pathogens.
Beet_CYSTNEMATODE_CALIF Experiment Type: Greenhouse Year started: //1987 Comment: This experiment was performed to evaluate for Nematode resistance.
Beet_CYSTNEMATODE_CALIF Experiment Type: Greenhouse
Study Name: Beet_CYSTNEMATODE_CALIF Experiment Type: Greenhouse GREENHOUSE Comment: Screening for Beet Cyst Nematode resistance.
Beet_CYSTNEMATODE_CALIF Experiment Type: Greenhouse Greenhouse Comment: Screening for Beet Cyst Nematode resistance.
Beet_CYSTNEMATODE_CALIF Experiment Type: Greenhouse Greenhouse Comment: Screening for Beet Cyst Nematode resistance.
Cyst Nematode susceptibility ratings done by M. H. Yu, Salinas, California, United States. Greenhouse study.
Cyst Nematode susceptibility ratings done by M. H. Yu, Salinas, California, United States. Greenhouse study
Beet Cyst nematode done by Dr. Saad Hafez, Parma, Idaho in 1996. Seed was greenhouse planted on June 13, 1996 in pots containing 500 cubic centimeter field soil with an average of 5 eggs and larvae of Heterodera schachtii per cubic centimeter. Plants were harvested after 6 weeks of growth, roots and soil seperated and cysts isolated from soil by centrifugation-floatation. Randomized complete block with four reps.
Sugarbeet cyst nematode (Heterodera schachtii) screening done by Saad Hafez at Parma, Idaho, 1997. Accessions were planted in 500-cm3 pots (12 seeds per pot) containing naturally infested soil (2.6 eggs and larvae per cm3). Pots were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 6 replications in the greenhouse. Seedlings were carefully watered daily and fertilized twice with soluble 20-20-20. To control damping-off fungi, seedlings received weekly applications of Captan (50%) until harvest. Plants were harvested 7 + weeks after planting and soil was washed to recover females and cysts. Soil and root systems were evaluated separately for the number of white females and cysts, and the total number of females and cysts in root and soil was used in analysis. A score of 0 to 9 was assigned, where 0 = 100% resistant and 9 = susceptible, using the following calculation: ((Total Number of Cysts) / (Number of Cysts for the Susceptible Check))*9. Susceptible check WS-PM-9 had 78.4 cysts. Greenhouse planting date was May 12, 1997.
Sugarbeet cyst nematode (Heterodera schachtii) screening done by Saad Hafez at Parma, Idaho, 1997. Accessions were planted in 500-cm3 pots (12 seeds per pot) containing naturally infested soil (2.6 eggs and larvae per cm3). Pots were arranged in a randomized complete block design with 6 replications in the greenhouse. Seedlings were carefully watered daily and fertilized twice with soluble 20-20-20. To control damping-off fungi, seedlings received weekly applications of Captan (50%) until harvest. Plants were harvested 7 + weeks after planting and soil was washed to recover females and cysts. Soil and root systems were evaluated separately for the number of white females and cysts, and the total number of females and cysts in root and soil was used in analysis. A score of 0 to 9 was assigned, where 0 = 100% resistant and 9 = susceptible, using the following calculation: ((Total Number of Cysts) / (Number of Cysts for the Susceptible Check))*9. Susceptible check WS-PM-9 had 113 cysts. Greenhouse planting date was Oct 13, 1997.
The PI accessions were compared to the susceptible check, HM WSPM9. Experimental designwas randomized block with five replications. Sugar beet seedlings were separated from soil eightweeks after planting (09 July). Beet cyst nematode females and cysts were enumerated from the roots and soil. An analysis of variance was performed on the data, and mean separation was computed using the least significant difference. A numeric score of 0 to 9 was assigned to each accession (0 = immune, 9 = highly susceptible).
Sugar beet seeds were planted in the greenhouse in 500 cm3 pots containing naturally infested beet cyst nematode soil (4.3 eggs and larvae per 1 cm3 soil). PI accessions were compared to the susceptible check, HM WSPM9 (OB=9). Experimental design was randomized block with six replications (pots of 5 seedlings each). Sugar beet seedlings were separated from soil ten weeks after planting. Beet cyst nematode females and cysts were enumerated from the roots and soil. An analysis of variance was performed on the data, and mean separation was computed using the least significant difference. A numeric score of 0 to 9 was assigned to each PI accession (0 = immune, 9 = highly susceptible).
bolting percentage done by Devon L. Doney, Fargo, North Dakota, 1992
Bolting done by Devon L. Doney, State University Station, Fargo, North Dakota. Field plot, 4 reps, 25 foot row.
Bolting done bt Devon Doney, Fargo, North Dakota, 1996
Beet Western Yellows Virus Calif Year started: 1987 Comment: This experiment was run primarily for Beet Western yellows virus resistance screening.
Beet Western Yellows Virus Calif Exp. Design: 3 Reps,RBC Year started: 05/18/1988 Year seeded: 05/18/1988 Year planted: 05/18/1988 Year ended: 10/17/1988 Comment: BWYV was innoculated on 8/16/88, with ratings taken on 9/26, 10/3, and 10/17. Experimental design was a randomized compl block of 1-row, 7-ft. log plots, with three replications.
Beet Western Yellow Virus screening at Salinas, California, United States. Rating read on Aug-24-1995
Study Year: 1986 Exp. Design: Randomized Block Year tested: //1959 Year ended: //1959
Study Year: 1986 Year tested: //1960
Study Year: 1986 Exp. Design: Randomized Block Year planted: 04/14/1988
Study Year: 1986 Year started: 01/01/1948 Experiment length: Continuing Comment: This is a non-descript env. for all CAC converted obs.
Study Year: 1986 Year tested: //1960
Study Year: 1986 Year tested: //1986 Comment: Evaluation for WBItaly collection.
Study Name: BEET_LEAFSPOT_COLORADO Experiment Type: Field Field Year started: //1987 Year ended: //1987 Comment: This experiment was primarily for Cercospora leaf spot. The leaf spot epidemic was excellent in this location and stands were good so that the screening results could be considered excellent.
Study Name: BEET_LEAFSPOT_COLORADO Experiment Type: Field Field
Study Name: BEET_LEAFSPOT_COLORADO Experiment Type: Field Comment: Screening for Leafspot resistance.
Study Name: BEET_LEAFSPOT_COLORADO Experiment Type: Field Comment: Evaluation for Cercospora Leafspot resistance.
Study Name: BEET_LEAFSPOT_COLORADO Experiment Type: Field FIELD Exp. Design: RCB Latitude: 40 Degrees 30 Minutes N Longitude: 104 Degrees 45 Minutes W Elevation: 1525 meters % Organic matter: 2 Soil pH: 7.7 Potassium: 315 ppm Phosphorous: 8.8 ppm Nitrogen: 4 ppm Soluble salts: .5micromhos Fertilizer type: N/P Total fertilizer: 101/46 kg/ha Year planted: 04/17/1991 Year ended: 08/23/1991 Experiment length: 0,4,6 Pest protection: WEED Publication flag: N Comment: Descriptor code 073 = 5 for resistant check, 7 for susceptible check.
Study Name: BEET_LEAFSPOT_COLORADO Experiment Type: Field Field Exp. Design: RCB Exp. Location: Fort Collins Elevation: 1525 meters Soil texture: Sandy Clay % Organic matter: 2 Soil pH: 8.2 Potassium: 211 ppm Phosphorous: 12.3 ppm Nitrogen: 6 ppm Soluble salts: .4micromhos Min photoperiod: 12 Max photoperiod: 14 Min temperature: 39 Max temperature: 94 Total rainfall: 302 Mean daily rainfall: 2.5 mm/day Irrigation type: Overhd Irrigation days: 2 Total irrigation: 10 (mm) Fertilizer type: N/P Total fertilizer: 307 kg/ha Year started: 04/15/1992 Year seeded: 04/15/1992 Year planted: 04/15/1992 Year tested: 08/28/1992 Year ended: 09/17/1992 Experiment length: 0,0,21 Pest protection: HERBIC Comment: Disease evaluations of annual types is not reliable. Annuals bolted early and began to senesce.
Beet leafspot (Cercospora) trail done by Dr. Earl Ruppel, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States. Field trial.
Beet leafspot (Cercospora) trial done by Dr. Earl G. Ruppel, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States. 1994 field trial.
There were three replications in each test, which were arranged in randomized complete block designs. Two-row plots were 12 feet long, with 22-inch row spacing and an 8 - to 10-inch within-row plant spacing. The trial was planted on April 20th in Windsor, CO. Inoculation was performed on June 30th and again on July 7th. This evaluation was made on September 14 at the peak of the epidemic. The field was thinned by hand and irrigated as necessary. The 1995 leaf spot epidemic progressed rather slowly at first due to a rain-delayed first inoculation and an unusually cool, wet spring and early summer, but higher temperatures in late July and August, couple with our overhead irrigation to maintain a high canopy humidity, induced a rapid disease advance during the latter part of August. On September 14, means of the resistant and susceptible controls were 3.9 and 5.9 (scale of 0-10), respectively, across the nursery. In 1994 (September 2), these means were 3.3 and 4.8, respectively. Means of contributor lines on September 14 ranged from 3.8 - 7.2, compared with 3.0 - 5.8 in 1994.
Beet leafspot (Cercospora) trial done by Dr. E.G. Ruppel, Fort Collins, Colorado, 1996. Field nursery was two-rows, length 22 inches, plant spacing 8-10 inches, randomized complete-block with 3 reps. Incolution began on June 28, but a downpour of rain halted efforts. Fortunately, hot dry conditoins after the rain permitted the inoculation to be completed on the 29th. The second inoculation was to be done on July 3, but a severe hail storm shattered leaves so badly postponing it until July 11 to allow leaves to recover. The epidemic progressed favorably due to warm days and nights. Nursery was rated on Aug. 27, Sept. 3 and 10 with the peak of the epidemic occurred close to the last rating.
Beet leafspot (Cercospora beticola) done by Earl Ruppel and Lee Panella, Fort Collins on land near Windsor, Colorado, 1997. Nursery was planted on May 1st, inoculated on June 27th and July 8th. Visual evaluations on a scale from 0(no disease) to 10(plant dead) were made on Sep. 2nd, 9th, & 16th. The peak of the epidemic occurring on the last date and is the only data being enterred into GRIN. The 1997 leaf spot epidemic progressed rather slowly at first but rapidly became quite revere by lat August to early September due to high humidity and temperature. Susceptible check FC504/FC502 scored 8.0 and resistant check SP6322-0 scored 4.3 on sept. 16th.
The 1998 leaf spot epidemic started strong and progressed rather slowly, but eventually became more severe by late August. We had a period of about one month right after inoculation, inwhich we had relatively high evening temperatures, which helped disease development. Ananalysis of variance (PROC ANOVA - SAS) on the disease indices (visual evaluation scores)determined that there were significant differences among entries (P=0.05) on all three dates. A tour third evaluation, means of the resistant and susceptible internal controls were 3.2 and 5.3(scale of 0-10), respectively, across the nursery. In 1997 (September 8), these means were 3.7and 7.3, respectively. Means of contributor lines on September 8 ranged from 2.5-8.0, comparedwith 4.3-8.3 in the severe epidemic of 1997
Differences among lines were highly significant. There were three replications, which were arranged in randomized complete block designs. Two-row plots were 12 feet long, with 22-inch row spacing and an 8 - to 10-inch within-row plant spacing. The trial was planted on April 20th in Windsor, CO. Inoculation was performed on June 30th and again on July 7th. Evaluations were made on September 22, with the peak of the epidemic occurring on or about the last date. The field was sprayed twice with Betamix Progress, Upbeet, and Stinger (May 14th and 24th) to control weeds. The field was thinned by hand and irrigated as necessary. We had good spring rain in 1999 and emergence was excellent and we got off to an early start. The 1999 leaf spot epidemic started strong and progressed rather slowly, but eventually became more severe by late August. We had a period between of about one month right after inoculation, in which we had relatively high evening temperatures, which helped disease development, however by September or evening temperatures had dropped. At our evaluation, means of the resistant and susceptible internal controls were 3.1 and 6.4 (scale of 0-10), respectively, across the nursery. In 1998 (September 8), these means were 3.2 and 5.3, respectively. Means of contributor lines on September 22 ranged from 2.7 to 9.0, compared with 2.5 to 8.0 in the milder epidemic of 1998.
Differences among lines in the 2000 leaf spot nursery were highly significant in all tests at each of three evaluation dates. There were three replications in each test, which were arranged in randomized complete block designs. Two-row plots were 12 feet long, with 22-inch row spacing and an 8 - to 10-inch within-row plant spacing. The trial was planted on April 27th in Windsor, CO. Inoculation was performed on July 6th and July 13th. Evaluations were made on August 31th and September 7th and 14th, with the peak of the epidemic occurring on or about the last date. The field was sprayed twice with Betamix Progress, Upbeet, and Stinger (June 2nd and June 12th) to control weeds. The field was thinned by hand and irrigated as necessary.
The high temperatures in the summer of 2000, combined with very low moisture, made it difficult to keep the humidity in the nursery high, and contributed to a mild leaf spot epidemic. The Cercospora epidemic was slow to develop and had not become severe enough to rate until the end of August. Disease severity had started to increase by mid September, and our next rating was expected to be more severe. However, heavy rain shortly before our fourth rating prevented entry into the field, and this was followed by snow and a frost that damaged leaves so that consistent ratings could not be made after September 24. At our third evaluation, means of the resistant and susceptible internal control were 2.5 and 3.75 (scale of 0-10), respectively, across the nursery. In 1999 (September 14), these means were 3.1 and 6.4, respectively. Means of contributor lines ranged from 1.7 to 6.0.
Beta PIs from the USDA-ARS NPGS evaluated for resistance to Cercospora beticola, 2008. Sixty one Plant Introductions (PIs) from the USDA-ARS National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) (Garden Beet, Sugar Beet, Leaf Beet, Fodder Beet, and wild beet) were evaluated in an artificially produced epiphytotic environment (Ruppel, E.G., and J.O. Gaskill. 1971. Techniques for evaluating sugarbeet for resistance to Cercospora beticola in the field. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Technol. 16:384-389) at the Saginaw Valley Bean and Beet Research Farm (B&B) in MI. A randomized complete-block design, with three replications was used to evaluate germplasm. Internal controls included a susceptible check, variety USH20, and a resistant check, ACH355. One-row plots m long, with 56 cm between rows were planted on 1 May 08. Azoxystrobin was applied in a band in furrow at planting and broadcast on 16 Jun 08 to control Rhizoctonia damping-off and root rot. The nursery was inoculated on 10 Jul 08 with a liquid spore suspension. Visual evaluations on the plot with a disease index (DI) on a scale from 0 (no disease) to 10 (plant dead) at the B&B were made on 5 Aug, 12 Aug, 19 Aug, 26 Aug, 2 Sep and 9 Sep 08, with the peak of the epidemic occurring around 2 Sep 08. The field was sprayed four times with phenmedipham, desmedipham, triflusulfuron methyl, and clopyralid (9 and 20 May and 2 and 12 Jun 08) and a cultivation was performed on 7 July 08 to control weeds. The field was thinned by hand. Bolting beets were removed 1 Sep 08, after which some annual materials could not be rated as there was not sufficient remaining tissue.
The moderate nighttime temperatures in the summer of 2008, combined with good moisture, contributed to a moderate leaf spot epidemic. Disease severity peaked by early September, after which regrowth started to outpace new disease development, so that disease ratings remained constant or decreased after that rating (trial mean 9 Sep 08 = 4.2), thus ratings are not given after this date. At our 2 Sep 08 rating means of the resistant and susceptible internal control for the entire nursery (including three additional experiments) were 2.4 and 5.2 (scale of 0-10), respectively, across the nursery. In 2007 (27 Sep), these means were 1.8 and 5.3, respectively. Means of contributor lines in the entire nursery (including five additional tests) in 2008 ranged from 2.3 to 6.8. An analysis of variance (PROC GLM - SAS) on the disease indices (visual evaluation scores) determined that there were significant differences among entries (P#0.05) on all dates of evaluation. One accession (PI540576) had ratings that were not significantly different from the resistant control at all rating dates. Five accessions (PI518309, PI504261, PI540612, PI518371, and PI540600) had disease ratings that were significantly lower than the susceptible control on at least three of the last rating dates. These data, and more information on the accessions evaluated, are available through the USDA-ARS GRIN database at http://www.ars-grin.gov/npgs.
For a .doc file with the disease index data
Beta PIs from the USDA-ARS NPGS evaluated for resistance to Cercospora beticola, 2009.Thirty Plant Introductions (PIs) from the USDA-ARS National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) (garden beet, sugar beet, leaf beet, fodder beet, and wild beet) were evaluated in an artificially produced epiphytotic environment (Ruppel, E.G., and J.O. Gaskill. 1971. Techniques for evaluating sugarbeet for resistance to Cercospora beticola in the field. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Technol. 16:384-389). A randomized complete-block design, with three replications was used to evaluate germplasm at the Saginaw Valley Research Farm (SVRF) near Frankenmuth, MI. Internal controls included a susceptible check, variety CE (kindly provided by Syngenta Seeds), and a resistant check, ACH355 (kindly provided by Crystal Beet Seed). Single-row plots 4.5 m long, with 51 cm between rows were planted on 6 May 09. Azoxystrobin was applied in a band in furrow at planting to control Rhizoctonia damping-off and crown and root rot. The nursery was inoculated on 9 Jul with a liquid spore suspension of Cercospora beticola. Visual evaluations on the plot with a disease index (DI) on a scale from where 0=no symptoms, 1=a few scattered spots, 2=spots coalescing or in large numbers on lower leaves only, 3= some dieback on lower leaves, but leaves not entirely dead, 4-8 are increasing amounts of dead and diseased tissue, 9= mostly dead with few remaining living leaves with large dead patches, and 10=all leaves dead. Evaluations were made on 19 Aug, 26 Aug, 2 Sep and 9 Sep, with the peak of the epidemic occurring around 9 Sep. The field was sprayed four times with phenmedipham, desmedipham, triflusulfuron methyl, and clopyralid (15 and 27 May and 4 and 16 Jun), once with S-metolachlor (25 Jun), and a cultivation was performed on 24 Jun to control weeds. The beet crop was thinned by hand. Bolting beets were removed throughout the season, after which some annual materials could not be rated as there was not sufficient remaining leaf tissue.
The moderate night time temperatures in the summer of 2009, combined with good moisture, contributed to a moderate leaf spot epidemic. The Beetcast leafspot advisory daily severity values accumulated in the Frankenmuth area from 15 May to 15 Sep were 129. Disease severity peaked by early September, after which regrowth started to outpace new disease development, so that disease ratings remained constant or decreased after that rating, thus ratings are not given after this date. At our 9 Sep rating, means of the resistant and susceptible internal control for the entire nursery (including two additional experiments) were 2.5 and 5.3 (scale of 0-10), respectively, across the nursery. At the peak of the epidemic in 2008 (2 Sep), these means were 2.4 and 5.2 respectively. Means of contributor lines in the entire nursery (including three additional tests) in 2009 ranged from 2.3 to 6.3. An analysis of variance (PROC GLM - SAS) on the disease indices (visual evaluation scores) determined that there were significant differences among entries (P<0.05) on all dates of evaluation. Three accessions (PI 518429, PI 540691, and PI 604208) had ratings that were not significantly different from the resistant control at all rating dates. Two additional accessions, (PI 540583 and PI 546401) had average ratings that were not significantly different from the resistant control at four of the five rating dates. PI 546401, however, had very few plants and lost a great deal of tissue from removal of seed stalks from bolting, so ratings may not be reliable for this accession. Only seven accessions (PI 518322, 518417, 540675, 540678, 540679, 546433, and 550718) as well as the two control varieties did not require removal of seed stalks during the course of the ratings. Of these, only the resistant control was rated as resistant to Cercospora leaf spot. These data, and more information on the accessions evaluated, are available through the USDA-ARS GRIN database at . Roots were collected from PIs with low disease ratings to be included in crosses with sugar beet germplasm. For a .doc file with the disease index data
Beta PIs from the USDA-ARS NPGS evaluated for resistance to Cercospora beticola, 2010. Thirty Plant Introductions (PIs) from the USDA-ARS National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) (garden beet, sugar beet, leaf beet, fodder beet, and wild beet) were evaluated in an artificially produced epiphytotic environment (Ruppel, E.G., and J.O. Gaskill. 1971. Techniques for evaluating sugarbeet for resistance to Cercospora beticola in the field. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Technol. 16:384-389). A randomized complete-block design, with three replications was used to evaluate germplasm at the Saginaw Valley Research Farm (SVRF) near Frankenmuth, MI. Internal controls included a susceptible check, variety CE (kindly provided by Syngenta Seeds), and a resistant check, ACH355 (kindly provided by Crystal Beet Seed). Single-row plots 4.5 m long, with 51 cm between rows were planted on 14 Apr 10. Azoxystrobin was applied in a band in furrow at planting and again on 28 May to control Rhizoctonia damping-off and crown and root rot. The nursery was inoculated on 1 Jul with a liquid spore suspension of Cercospora beticola. Visual evaluations on the plot with a disease index (DI) on a scale from where 0=no symptoms, 1=a few scattered spots, 2=spots coalescing or in large numbers on lower leaves only, 3= some dieback on lower leaves, but leaves not entirely dead, 4-8 are increasing amounts of dead and diseased tissue, 9= mostly dead with few remaining living leaves with large dead patches, and 10=all leaves dead. Evaluations were made on 29 Jul, 5 Aug, 12 Aug, 19 Aug and 26 Aug, with the peak of the epidemic occurring around 19 Aug. The field was sprayed four times with phenmedipham, desmedipham, triflusulfuron methyl, and clopyralid ( and May and and Jun), once with S-metolachlor ( Jun), and a cultivation was performed on Jun to control weeds. The beet crop was thinned by hand. Bolting beets were removed throughout the season.
The high night time temperatures in the summer of 2010, combined with high humidity and low rainfall, contributed to a moderate leaf spot epidemic. The Beetcast leafspot advisory daily severity values accumulated in the Frankenmuth area from 15 May to 26 Aug were 156. Disease severity peaked by late August, after which regrowth started to outpace new disease development, so that disease ratings for several accessions remained constant or decreased after that rating, thus ratings are not given after this date. At our 19 Aug rating, means of the resistant and susceptible internal control for the entire nursery (including two additional experiments) were 3.2 and 5.5 (scale of 0-10), respectively, across the nursery. At the peak of the epidemic in 2008 (9 Sep), these means were 2.5 and 5.3 respectively. Means of contributor lines in the entire nursery (including three additional tests) in 2010 ranged from 3.0 to 7.3. An analysis of variance (PROC GLM - SAS) on the disease indices (visual evaluation scores) determined that there were significant differences among entries (P<0.05) on all dates of evaluation. Two accessions (PI 540659 and PI540579) had average ratings that were significantly lower than the susceptible control at the second and third rating dates, but not at the other rating dates, and one of these (PI 540659) was not significantly different from the resistant control at the first rating date. One accessions (PI 540586) had a significantly lower rating than the susceptible control at the third rating date only. Only 10 accessions (PI 518400, PI540672, PI540673, PI540674, PI 540694, PI 540697, PI 540699, PI 546406, PI 546412, and PI 599350) and the two control varieties did not require removal of seed stalks during the course of the ratings. These data, and more information on the accessions evaluated, are available through the USDA-ARS GRIN database at . For a .doc file with the disease index data
Beta PIs from the USDA-ARS NPGS evaluated for resistance to Cercospora beticola, 2011.Thirty Plant Introductions (PIs) from the USDA-ARS National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) Beta Collection [garden beet, sugar beet, leaf beet, fodder beet (Beta vulgaris L), and wild beet (Beta spp.)] were evaluated for resistance to Cercospora beticola in an artificially produced epiphytotic environment (Ruppel, E.G., and J.O. Gaskill. 1971. Techniques for evaluating sugarbeet for resistance to Cercospora beticola in the field. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Technol. 16:384-389). A randomized complete-block design, with three replications was used to evaluate germplasm at the Saginaw Valley Research and Extension Center (SVREC) near Frankenmuth, MI. Internal controls included a susceptible check, ‘CE’ (kindly provided by Syngenta Seeds), and a resistant check, ‘ACH355’ (kindly provided by Crystal Beet Seed). Single-row plots 4.5 m long, with 51 cm between rows were planted on 5 May 11. Azoxystrobin was applied in a band in furrow at planting and again on 15 Jun to control Rhizoctonia damping-off and crown and root rot. The nursery was inoculated on 7 Jul with a liquid spore suspension of Cercospora beticola. Visual evaluations on the plot with a disease index (DI) on a scale from where 0=no symptoms, 1=a few scattered spots, 2=spots coalescing or in large numbers on lower leaves only, 3= some dieback on lower leaves, but leaves not entirely dead, 4-8 are increasing amounts of dead and diseased tissue, 9= mostly dead with few remaining living leaves with large dead patches, and 10=all leaves dead. Evaluations were made on 10 Aug, 17 Aug, and 24 Aug, with the peak of the epidemic occurring around 24 Aug. The field was sprayed five times with phenmedipham, desmedipham, triflusulfuron methyl, and clopyralid (23 May, 31 May, 13 Jun, 25 Jun, and 5 Jul), once with S-metolachlor (15 Jun), and a cultivation was performed on 14 Jun to control weeds. The beet crop was thinned by hand. Bolting beets were removed throughout the season.
The high night time temperatures in the summer of 2011, combined with high humidity and low rainfall, contributed to a moderate leaf spot epidemic. The Beetcast leafspot advisory daily severity values accumulated in the Frankenmuth area from 1 May to 24 Aug were 171. Disease severity peaked by late August, after which regrowth started to outpace new disease development, so that disease ratings for several accessions remained constant or decreased after that rating, thus ratings are not given after this date. At our 24 Aug rating, means of the resistant and susceptible internal control for the entire nursery (including two additional experiments) were 3.5 and 5.9, respectively, across the nursery. At the peak of the epidemic in 2010 (19 Aug), these means were 3.2 and 5.5 respectively. Means of contributor lines in the entire nursery (including three additional tests) in 2011 ranged from 2.0 to 7.8. An analysis of variance (PROC GLM - SAS) on the disease indices (visual evaluation scores) determined that there were significant differences among entries (P<0.05) on all dates of evaluation. One accession, PI546425, had average ratings that were not significantly different from the resistant control on the first and third rating dates. Only 6 accessions (PI 518352, PI 518391, PI 518419, PI 540675, PI 546397, and PI518326) and the two control varieties did not require removal of seed stalks during the course of the ratings. These data, and more information on the accessions evaluated, are available through the USDA-ARS GRIN database at . For a .doc file with the disease index data
Beta PIs from the USDA-ARS NPGS evaluated for resistance to Cercospora beticola, 2012.
Thirty Plant Introductions (PIs) from the USDA-ARS National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) Beta Collection [garden beet, sugar beet, leaf beet, fodder beet (Beta vulgaris L), and wild beet (Beta spp.)] were evaluated for resistance to Cercospora beticola in an artificially produced epiphytotic environment (based loosely on Ruppel, E.G. and J.O. Gaskill. 1971. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Technol. 16:384). A randomized complete-block design, with three replications was used to evaluate germplasm at the Saginaw Valley Research and Extension Center (SVREC) near Frankenmuth, MI. Internal controls included a moderately susceptible check, C869, and a resistant check, EL50/2 (PI 664912). Single-row plots 4.5 m long, with 51 cm between rows were planted on 10 May. Azoxystrobin was applied in a 14 cm band in-furrow at planting to control Rhizoctonia damping-off and crown and root rot. The nursery was inoculated on 11 Jul with a liquid spore suspension (approximately 1 x 103 spores/ml as determined with a hemocytometer) of Cercospora beticola. Inoculum was produced from a mixture of leaves collected from the 2011 inoculated leaf spot nursery at SVREC and naturally infected beets grown on the Michigan State University campus farms in East Lansing, MI. Visual evaluations of the plot with a disease index (DI) on a scale from where 0=no symptoms, 1=a few scattered spots, 2=spots coalescing or in large numbers on lower leaves only, 3= some dieback on lower leaves, but leaves not entirely dead, 4-8 are increasing amounts of dead and diseased tissue, 9= mostly dead with few remaining living leaves with large dead patches, and 10=all leaves dead. Evaluations were made on 22 Aug, 29 Aug, 5 Sep and 12 Sep, with the peak of the epidemic occurring around 12 Sep. An evaluation was attempted subsequently, but several PIs were losing leaves following production of seed stalks and others were showing new leaf growth following defoliation from Cercospora leaf spot, so these ratings were not used. The field was sprayed two times with mixtures of phenmedipham, desmedipham, triflusulfuron methyl, and clopyralid (6 Jun and 15 Jun), once with S-metolachlor (29 Jun) to control weed seedlings, and hand weeding was done as needed to control larger weeds. The beet crop was thinned by hand with the generous help of Michigan Sugar Cooperative. Bolting beets were removed throughout the season.
The high night temperatures in the summer of 2012, combined with high humidity and low rainfall, contributed to a moderate leaf spot epiphytotic. Supplemental moisture was applied using an overhead irrigation system 13, 16 and 17 Jul. The Beetcast leafspot advisory in the Frankenmuth area from 1 May to 20 Sep was 185 cumulative daily severity values. Disease severity peaked by early September, after which regrowth started to outpace new disease development, so that disease ratings for several accessions remained constant or decreased after that rating, thus ratings are not given after this date. One entry, PI 663876, was not included in analysis as only one plot was available for rating At our 12 Sep rating, means of the resistant and susceptible internal control for the entire nursery (including two additional experiments) were 3.1 and 5.0, respectively, across the nursery. At the peak of the epiphytotic in 2011 (24 Aug), these means were 3.5 and 5.9 for resistant and susceptible, respectively. Means of contributor lines in the entire nursery (including three additional tests) in 2012 ranged from 3.0 to 8.0. An analysis of variance (PROC GLM - SAS) on the disease indices (visual evaluation scores) determined that there were significant differences among entries (P<0.05) on all dates of evaluation. One accession, PI 504285, was not significantly different from the resistant control at all four ratings. Another accession, PI 504186, was not significantly different from the resistant control at the final two rating dates. In contrast, two accessions, W6 17103 and PI 578086 had average ratings that were significantly higher than the susceptible control at all but the first rating date, and another accession, PI 590582 was significantly higher at the final two rating dates. Twelve accessions (Ames 4219, PI 504186, PI 504285, PI 518307, PI 518339, PI 518360, PI 518365, PI 518367, PI 518411, PI 546523, PI 599352, and PI 590811) required removal of seed stalks from at least one replicate during the season. These data, and more information on the accessions evaluated, are available through the USDA-ARS GRIN database at . For a .doc file with the disease index data
Beta PIs from the USDA-ARS NPGS evaluated for resistance to Cercospora beticola, 2013
Thirty-one Plant Introductions (PIs) from the USDA-ARS National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) Beta Collection [includes garden beet, sugarbeet, leaf beet, fodder beet (Beta vulgaris L), and wild beet (Beta spp.)] were evaluated for resistance to Cercospora beticola in an artificially produced epiphytotic environment (based on Ruppel, E.G. and J.O. Gaskill. 1971. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Technol. 16:384). In 2013, all PIs examined were cultivated types (Beta vulgaris ssp. vulgaris). A randomized complete-block design, with three replications was used to evaluate germplasm at the Michigan State University Saginaw Valley Research and Extension Center (SVREC) near Frankenmuth, MI. The field had been planted in wheat in 2012. Internal controls included a moderately susceptible check, CE (kindly provided by Syngenta seeds), and a resistant check, EL50/2 (PI 664912). Single-row plots 4.5 m long, with 51 cm between rows were planted on 7 May 13. Azoxystrobin was applied in a 14 cm band in-furrow at planting to control Rhizoctonia damping-off and crown and root rot. The nursery was inoculated on 11 Jul with a liquid spore suspension (approximately 1 x 103 spores/ml as determined with a hemacytometer) of C. beticola. Inoculum was produced from a mixture of leaves collected from the 2012 inoculated leaf spot nursery at SVREC and naturally infected beets grown on the Michigan State University campus farms in East Lansing, MI. Visual evaluations of the plot with a disease index (DI) on a scale from where 0=no symptoms, 1=a few scattered spots, 2=spots coalescing or in large numbers on lower leaves only, 3= some dieback on lower leaves, but leaves not entirely dead, 4-8 are increasing amounts of dead and diseased tissue, 9= mostly dead with few remaining living leaves with large dead patches, and 10=all leaves dead. Evaluations were made on 16, 22, and 29 Aug, 5 and 12 Sep 13, with the peak of the epidemic occurring around 12 Sep. An evaluation was attempted subsequently, but several PIs were losing leaves following production of seed stalks and others were showing new leaf growth following defoliation from Cercospora leaf spot, so these ratings were not used. The field was sprayed once with ethofumesate on 9 May, three times with mixtures of phenmedipham, desmedipham, triflusulfuron methyl, and clopyralid (27 May, 8 Jun and 3 Jul 13), once with S-metolachlor (12 Jun 13) to control weed seedlings, and hand weeding was done as needed to control larger weeds. The beet crop was thinned by hand with the generous help of Michigan Sugar Cooperative. Bolting beets were removed throughout the season.
The high night temperatures in the summer of 2013, combined with high humidity and low rainfall, contributed to a moderate leaf spot epiphytotic. Supplemental moisture was applied using an overhead irrigation system 13, 16 and 17 Jul. The BeetCast leafspot advisory in the Frankenmuth area from 1 May to 20 Sep accumulated 185 daily severity values. Disease severity peaked by early Sep, after which regrowth started to outpace new disease development, so that disease ratings for several accessions remained constant or decreased after that rating, thus ratings are not given after this date. At the 12 Sep 13 rating, means of the resistant and susceptible internal controls for the entire nursery (including two additional experiments) were 3.1 and 5.2, respectively, across the nursery. At the peak of the epiphytotic in 2012 (12 Sep), these means were 3.1 and 5.0 for resistant and susceptible, respectively. Means of contributor lines in the entire nursery (including three additional tests) in 2013 ranged from 3.1 to 6.8. An analysis of variance (PROC GLM - SAS) on the disease indices (visual evaluation scores) determined that there were significant differences among entries (p<0.05) on all dates of evaluation. Nine accessions (Ames 2633, PI 467873, PI 467880, PI 46788, PI 527307, PI 558515, PI 590732, PI 614827 and PI 663212) were not significantly different from the resistant control at the first rating, but all were significantly different from the resistant control at all other rating dates. One of these accessions, PI 590732, had average ratings significantly lower than the susceptible control at all rating dates. Three other accessions (Ames 2633, PI 467872, and PI 467881) had average ratings significantly lower than the susceptible control three of the four additional rating dates. In contrast, one accession, PI 470095, had average ratings that were significantly higher than the susceptible control at three of the five rating dates, and another accession, PI 505830, was significantly higher at two rating dates. Seven accessions (Ames 2632, PI 467872, PI 470089, PI 470096, PI 608797, PI 612768, and PI 612769) required removal of seed stalks from at least one replicate during the season. These data, and more information on the accessions evaluated, are available through the USDA-ARS GRIN database at . For a .doc file with the disease index data
Beta PIs from the USDA-ARS NPGS evaluated for resistance to Cercospora beticola, 2014.
Thirty Plant Introductions (PIs) from the USDA-ARS National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) Beta Collection [includes garden beet, sugarbeet, leaf beet, fodder beet (Beta vulgaris L.), and wild beet (Beta spp.)] were evaluated for resistance to Cercospora beticola in an artificially produced epiphytotic environment (based generally on Ruppel, E.G. and J.O. Gaskill. 1971. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Technol. 16:384). A randomized complete-block design, with three replications was used to evaluate germplasm at the Michigan State University Saginaw Valley Research and Extension Center (SVREC) near Frankenmuth, MI. The field had been planted in wheat with clover underseeded in 2013. Internal controls included a susceptible check, 12N0050 (kindly provided by L. Campbell), and a resistant check, EL50/2 (PI 664912). Single-row plots 4.5 m long, with 51 cm between rows were planted on 5 May 14. Moncut (N-[3-(1-methylethoxy) phenyl]-2-(trifluoromethyl) benzamide) was applied in a 14 cm band in-furrow at planting to control Rhizoctonia damping-off and azoxystrobin was applied 5 Jun 14 to manage Rhizoctonia crown and root rot with limited potential to impact leaf spot development. The nursery was inoculated on 10 Jul with a liquid spore suspension (approximately 1 x 103 spores/ml as determined with a hemacytometer) of C. beticola. Inoculum was produced from a mixture of leaves collected from the 2013 inoculated leaf spot nursery at SVREC and naturally infected beets grown on the Michigan State University campus farms in East Lansing, MI. Visual evaluations of the plot with a disease index (DI) on a scale from 0-10 where 0=no symptoms, 1=a few scattered spots, 2=spots coalescing or in large numbers on lower leaves only, 3= some dieback on lower leaves, but leaves not entirely dead, 4-8 are increasing amounts of dead and diseased tissue, 9= mostly dead with few remaining living leaves with large dead patches, and 10=all leaves dead. Evaluations were made on 14, 21, and 28 Aug, and 3 Sep 14, with the peak of the epidemic occurring around 3 Sep. An evaluation was attempted subsequently, but several PIs were losing leaves following production of seed stalks and others were showing new leaf growth following defoliation from Cercospora leaf spot, so these ratings were not used. The field was sprayed three times with mixtures of phenmedipham, desmedipham, triflusulfuron methyl, and clopyralid (1, 16, and 28 Jun 14) and once with S-metolachlor (28 Jun 14) to control weed seedlings. Hand weeding was done as needed to control larger weeds. The beet crop was thinned by hand with the generous help of Michigan Sugar Cooperative. Bolting beets were removed throughout the season.
The moderate night temperatures in the summer of 2014, combined with high humidity and low rainfall, contributed to a moderate leaf spot epiphytotic. Supplemental moisture was applied using an overhead irrigation system 11, 14 and 16 Jul. The BeetCast leafspot advisory in the Frankenmuth area from 1 May to 20 Sep accumulated 208 daily severity values. Disease severity peaked by early Sep, after which regrowth started to outpace new disease development, so that disease ratings for several accessions remained constant or decreased after that rating, thus ratings are not given after this date. At the 3 Sep 14 rating, means of the resistant and susceptible internal controls for the entire nursery (including two additional experiments) were 2.4 and 5.8, respectively, across the nursery. At the peak of the epiphytotic in 2013 (12 Sep), these means were 3.1 and 5.2 for resistant and a moderately susceptible variety (CE, kindly provided by Syngenta seeds), respectively. Means of contributor lines in the entire nursery (including three additional tests) in 2014 ranged from 2.0 to 7.0. An analysis of variance (PROC GLM - SAS) on the disease indices (visual evaluation scores) determined that there were significant differences among entries (p<0.05) on all dates of evaluation. One accession, PI 604522, was not significantly different from the resistant control at any of the rating dates. Five additional accessions (PI504242, PI518298, PI540610, PI590767, and PI 599351) were not significantly different from the resistant control at three of the four rating dates but had higher ratings higher at the peak of the epidemic. Only five accessions (NSL141985, PI590616, PI590767, PI614828, and PI604521) did NOT require removal of seed stalks from at least one replicate during the season. These data, and more information on the accessions evaluated, are available through the USDA-ARS GRIN database at . For a .doc file with the disease index data
Beta Plant Introductions from the USDA-ARS NPGS evaluated for resistance to Cercospora beticola, 2015.
Thirty Plant Introductions (PIs) from the USDA-ARS National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) Beta Collection [includes garden beet, sugarbeet, leaf beet, fodder beet (Beta vulgaris L.), and wild beet (Beta spp.)] along with seven entries resulting from crossing of previous years (2008-2013) PIs selected from Cercospora leaf spot tests (Hanson, et al. PDMR 3:V017, 6:FC037, 7:FC067. 8:FC170) with East Lansing germplasm and USDA-ARS release SR102 (PI 675153) were evaluated for resistance to Cercospora beticola in an artificially produced epiphytotic environment (based generally on Ruppel, E.G. and J.O. Gaskill. 1971. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Technol. 16:384). Previous year’s PIs were selected for their general levels of agronomic performance (e.g. emergence, stand persistence, and seed production) to augment genetic diversity in the cultivated germplasm pool and not specifically for Cercospora leaf spot performance. A randomized complete-block design, with three replications was used to evaluate germplasm at the Michigan State University Saginaw Valley Research and Extension Center (SVREC) near Frankenmuth, MI. The field had been planted in wheat with clover underseeded in 2014. Internal controls included a susceptible check, 12N0050 (kindly provided by L. Campbell), and a resistant check, EL50/2 (PI 664912). Single-row plots 4.5 m long, with 51 cm between rows were planted on 30 Apr. Quadris 2.08SC (azoxystrobin) was applied at 0.0091 kg/100 m row in a 14 cm band in-furrow at planting to control Rhizoctonia damping-off. The nursery was spray-inoculated on 2 Jul with a liquid spore suspension (approximately 1 x 103 spores/ml as determined with a hemacytometer) of C. beticola. Inoculum was produced from a mixture of leaves collected from the 2014 inoculated leaf spot nursery at SVREC and naturally infected beets grown at SVREC and on the Michigan State University campus farms in East Lansing, MI. Visual evaluations of the plot with a disease index (DI) on a scale from 0-10 where 0=no symptoms, 1=a few scattered spots, 2=spots coalescing or in large numbers on lower leaves only, 3= some dieback on lower leaves, but leaves not entirely dead, 4-8 are increasing amounts of dead and diseased tissue, 9= mostly dead with few remaining living leaves with large dead patches, and 10=all leaves dead. Evaluations were made on 13, 20, and 27 Aug, and 3 and 9 Sep, with the peak of the epidemic occurring around 9 Sep. An evaluation was attempted subsequently, but several PIs were losing leaves following production of seed stalks and others were showing new leaf growth following defoliation from Cercospora leaf spot, so these ratings were not used. Weeds were controlled by a preplant application of ethofumesate 7 May, three times with mixtures of phenmedipham, desmedipham, triflusulfuron methyl, and clopyralid (23 May and 11, and 24 Jun) and once with S-metolachlor (17 Jun). Hand weeding was done as needed to control larger weeds. The beet crop was thinned by hand with the generous help of Michigan Sugar Cooperative. Bolting beets were removed throughout the season.
The moderate night temperatures in the summer of 2015, combined with high humidity and rainfall, contributed to a moderate leaf spot epiphytotic. Supplemental moisture was applied using an overhead irrigation system 3, 6 and 10 Jul. The BeetCast leafspot advisory in the Frankenmuth area from 1 May to 20 Sep accumulated 224 daily severity values. Disease severity peaked by early Sep, after which regrowth started to outpace new disease development, so that disease ratings for several accessions remained constant or decreased after that rating, thus ratings were not given after this date. At the 9 Sep 15 rating, means of the resistant and susceptible internal controls for the entire nursery (including two additional experiments) were 3.2 and 7.0, respectively, across the nursery. At the peak of the epiphytotic in 2014 (3 Sep), these means were 2.4 and 5.8 for resistant and susceptible checks, respectively. Means of contributor lines in the entire nursery (including three additional tests) in 2015 ranged from 2.7 to 7.0. An analysis of variance (PROC GLM - SAS) on the disease indices (visual evaluation scores) determined that there were significant differences among entries (p<0.05) on all dates of evaluation. All accessions were significantly different from the resistant control at the final four rating dates, but three accessions, PIs 506218, 515965, and 518167, as well as the East Lansing breeding materials EL- A027162 and EL-A029709 were not significantly different from the resistant control at the first rating date. At the final rating date, near the peak of the epiphytototic, eleven accessions (in order from lowest to highest disease severity rating: PI 518167, PI 538250, PI506238, PI 518314, NSL 176410, NSL183446, PI296541, NSL28041, NSL183461, PI357367, and PI505828) and the East Lansing breeding lines were significantly different from the susceptible control . Only two accessions (NSL34020 and PI518314) required removal of seed stalks from at least one replicate during the season while five of the crosses from previous years PIs required such removal (735, 779, 780, 791, and 795). These data, and more information on the accessions evaluated, are available through the USDA-ARS GRIN database at . For a .doc file with the disease index data
Sugar beet activities of the USDA-ARS East Lansing conducted in cooperation with Saginaw Research & Extension Center during 2017
Evaluation and rating plots were planted at the Saginaw Valley Research & Extension Center (SVREC) in Frankenmuth, MI in 2017 that focused on Cercospora leaf spot (CLS) disease performance of a wide range of Beta vulgaris materials. CLS trials were conducted in conjunction with the Beet Sugar Development Foundation (BSDF) and CLS trials included USDA-ARS cooperator germplasm as well as germplasm screening for the National Plant Germplasm System. All trials were planted following normal fall and spring tillage operations with a USDA-ARS modified John Deere / Almaco research plot planter. The BSDF CLS nursery was planted on May 11, 2017. All plots were 15 ft long planted on 20 in rows. For non-commercial entries, as in previous years, weeds were controlled by a pre-plant application of ethofumesate, followed by intervals of post-plant mixtures of phenmedipham, desmedipham, triflusulfuron methyl, and clopyralid (4 times), and finally with S-metolachlor. Hand weeding was done as needed to control larger weeds. The BSDF trials were thinned by hand with the generous help of Michigan Sugar Cooperative.
Bolting beets were removed throughout the season. Quadris 2.08SC (azoxystrobin) was applied at 0.0091 kg/100 m row in a 14 cm band in-furrow at planting to help manage Rhizoctonia damping-off. Cercospora / Agronomic Nurseries:
The nursery was inoculated on July 5 with a liquid spore suspension (approximately 1 x 103 spores/ml) of Cercospora beticola. Inoculum was produced from a mixture of leaves collected from the 2016 inoculated leaf spot nursery at the SVREC and on the Michigan State University campus farms in East Lansing, MI. Visual evaluations of the plot were conducted with a disease index (DI) on a scale from 0-10 where 0=no symptoms, 1=a few scattered spots, 2=spots coalescing or in large numbers on lower leaves only, 3= some dieback on lower leaves, but leaves not entirely dead, 4-8 are increasing amounts of dead and diseased tissue, 9= mostly dead with few remaining living leaves with large dead patches, and 10=all leaves dead. Disease severity peaked by late August, after which regrowth started to outpace new disease development. In addition to commercial entries, 30 Plant Introductions and 100 USDA-ARS breeding lines and checks from two USDA cooperators (Ft. Collins, CO, East Lansing, MI) were evaluated in randomized replicated trials and rated for disease reaction on two dates. Fort Collins' entry ratings (65 entries) ranged from 2.3 to 6.6, excluding the checks EL50/2 (score 3.2) and F1042 (score 5.7) (overall mean 4.6, LSD 0.05 = 1.4) at the last rating.
Beta vulgatis ssp. vulgaris Core developed by Alan Hodgdon, Pullman, Washington.
Beta vulgaris ssp. maritima Core developed by Alan Hodgdon, Pullman, Washington. Accessions were grouped by country and a random 10% was selected per country.
Curlytop Experiment Type: Replicated Field FIELD Exp. Design: Replicated Comment: Screening for Curly Top resistance.
Curlytop Experiment Type: Replicated Field FIELD Exp. Design: RB Comment: Screening for Curly Top resistance. 2 reps. Checks scored 5.5 (US 33) and 4.4 (US 41) for the first rating, and 6.2 (US 33) and 5.0 (US 41) for the second rating.
Curlytop Experiment Type: Replicated Field FIELD Exp. Design: RB Comment: Screening for Curly Top resistance. 2 reps. Checks scored 6.0 (US 33) and 5.5 (US 41) for the second rating.
replicated field experiment by Terry Brown, Kimberly, Idaho
replicated field experiment by Terry Brown, Kimberly, Idaho
Plots were visually evaluated and rated on a Disease Index (DI) scale of 0 to 9 (no symptoms to dead) on 27 Aug and 16 Sep. An analysis of variance (PROC ANOVA - SAS) on the disease indices (visual evaluation scores) determined that there were no significant differences (P=0.05)among entries on both dates. Infection was milder and less uniform than in some years, and two replications were inadequate to separate differences among lines. There were, however, a number of accessions that performed very poorly, with a DI of 6 or greater.
Accessions were evaluated for resistance to the beet curly top virus in an artificially inoculated nursery, managed by the Beet Sugar Development Foundation (BSDF) in Kimberly, ID. The field was planted on 14 and 15 Jun. Planting was late to maximize the number of viruliferous leafhoppers available to transfer to the sugarbeets while they are in the 8- to 10-leaf stage. Plots were 12 ft long, two-rowed with 22 in between rows and replicated twice. After the beets emerged, plots were trimmed to 8 ft in length, thinned to one foot between beets, and cultivated. Viruliferous leafhoppers were released on 22 Jul to cause an artificial epiphytotic. One week before the leafhoppers were released in the nursery, they had been transferred onto curly top-infested beets to assure that they were viruliferous when placed in the field. Uniform infection was achieved by placing 530 small cages, each with 175 to 200 leaf hoppers, uniformly throughout the field for release, and then spreading the leafhoppers daily for the next week by dragging a 12-foot tarp across the field. The field was sprayed 9 Aug with parathion to kill black bean aphid (and not harm the leaf hoppers) and then with an insecticide on 9 Sep to kill the leafhoppers. Plots were visually evaluated and rated on a Disease Index (DI) scale of 0 to 9 (no symptoms to dead) on 22 Sep. An analysis of variance (PROC ANOVA - SAS) on the disease indices (visual evaluation scores) determined that there were highly significant differences (P=0.05) among entries.
Thirty Plant Introductions (PIs) were evaluated for resistance to the beet curly top virus in an artificially inoculated nursery, managed by the Beet Sugar Development Foundation (BSDF) in Kimberly, ID. The field was planted on 12 through 14 June. Planting was late to maximize the number of viruliferous leafhoppers available to transfer to the sugarbeets while they are in the 8- to 10-leaf stage. Plots were 12 ft long, two-rows with 22 in between rows and replicated twice. After the beets emerged, plots were trimmed to 8 ft long, thinned to one foot between beets, and cultivated. Viruliferous leafhoppers were released on 12 and 14 July to cause an artificial epiphytotic. One week before the leafhoppers were released in the nursery, they had been transferred onto curly top-infested beets to assure that they were viruliferous when placed in the field. Uniform infection was achieved by placing approximately 100,000 leaf hoppers uniformly throughout the field, and then spreading the leafhoppers daily for the next week by dragging a 12-foot tarp across the field. The field was sprayed two weeks after release to kill the leafhoppers. The summer was very hot and dry and the epiphytotic extremely severe as indicated by the scores in the second evaluation on 6 September(data in GRIN).
Thirty Plant Introductions (PIs) from the USDA-ARS National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) (Garden Beet, Sugar Beet, Leaf Beet, Fodder Beet, and wild beet) were evaluated for resistance to the beet curly top virus in an artificially inoculated nursery, managed by the Beet Sugar Development Foundation (BSDF) in Kimberly, ID. The field was planted on 11 through 12 June. Planting was late to maximize the number of viruliferous leafhoppers available to transfer to the sugarbeets while they are in the 8- to 10-leaf stage. Plots were 12 ft long, two-rows with 22 in between rows and replicated twice. After the beets emerged, plots were trimmed to 8 ft long, thinned to one foot between beets, and cultivated. Viruliferous leafhoppers were released on 11 and 12 July to cause an artificial epiphytotic. One week before the leafhoppers were released in the nursery, they had been transferred onto curly top-infested beets to assure that they were viruliferous when placed in the field. Uniform infection was achieved by placing approximately 100,000 leaf hoppers uniformly throughout the field, and then spreading the leafhoppers daily for the next week by dragging a 12-foot tarp across the field. The field was sprayed two weeks after release to kill the leafhoppers. The summer was very hot and dry and the epiphytotic extremely severe, and ratings were taken August 31.
Thirty Plant Introductions (PIs) from the USDA-ARS National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) (Garden Beet, Sugar Beet, Leaf Beet, Fodder Beet, and wild beet) were evaluated for resistance to the Beet curly top virus in an artificially inoculated nursery, managed by the Beet Sugar Development Foundation (BSDF) in Kimberly, ID. The field was planted on 11 through 12 June.
Planting was late to maximize the number of viruliferous leafhoppers available to transfer to the sugarbeets while they are in the 8-to 10-leaf stage. Plots were 12 ft long, two-rows with 22 in between rows and replicated twice. After the beets emerged, plots were trimmed to 8 ft long, thinned to one foot between beets, and cultivated. Viruliferous leafhoppers were released on 15 and 16 July to cause an artificial epiphytotic. One week before the leafhoppers were released in the nursery, they had been transferred onto curly top-infested beets to assure that they were viruliferous when placed in the field. Uniform infection was achieved by placing leaf hoppers uniformly throughout the field at a rate of approximately 1 leafhopper per plant, and then spreading the leafhoppers daily for the next week by dragging a 12-foot tarp across the field. Plants were sprayed on 23 August to kill the leafhoppers. Plots were visually evaluated and rated on a Disease Index (DI) scale of 0 to 9 (no symptoms to dead) on September 10. Leafhopper release was late, and the summer was hot and dry, and the epiphytotic was moderate.
Thirty Plant Introductions (PIs) from the USDA-ARS National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) (garden beet, sugar beet, leaf beet, fodder beet, and wild beet) were evaluated for resistance to the beet curly top virus in an artificially inoculated nursery, managed by the Beet Sugar Development Foundation in Kimberly, ID. The field was planted on 9 through 10 June. Planting was late to maximize the number of viruliferous leafhoppers available to transfer to the sugar beets while they are in the 8- to 10-leaf stage. Plots consisted of two, 12-ft long rows with a 22 in. between-row spacing. Plots were replicated twice. After the beets emerged, rows were trimmed to a length of 8ft and thinned to an in-row spacing of one foot, and cultivated. Viruliferous leafhoppers were released on 17 and 18 July to cause an artificial epiphytotic. One week before the leafhoppers were released in the nursery, they had been transferred onto curly top-infested beets to assure that they were viruliferous when placed in the field. Uniform infection was achieved by placing approximately leafhoppers uniformly throughout the field at a rate of approximately 1.2 leafhoppers per plant and then spreading the leafhoppers four times daily for the next week by dragging a 12-foot tarp across the field. The field was sprayed 11 August to kill the leafhoppers. Plots were visually evaluated and rated on a Disease Index (DI) scale of 0 to 9 (no symptoms to dead) September 2. The summer was very hot and dry and the epiphytotic severe.
Fifty 50 cages of leafhoppers were maintained through the winter and used to increase cages this in the spring. All 500 cages were increased by May 6. The field had been in grain in 2003, and soil was sampled the middle of March and 40 Ibs of 11 52 0 per acre was applied. Telone was applied to both fields on May 3; the field was disked to seal the soil after the application and bedded the middle of May. The field was planted June 7 and finished June 8. There were two row plots 13 feet long. Plots were replicated twice. Seed emerged well except for the US 41 control. Monohikari was used as a control in place of US 33. Five foot alleyways were cut in the field June 28 29, it was cultivated on June 30 and thinned and weeded July 2 7. Leaf hopper were put of viruliferous plants and July 8. Leafhoppers were released on the field July 15 at 1.0 leafhopper per plant. Leafhoppers were spread by going over the field dragging a trap four times a day for one week. The field was weeded July 21 26 and cultivated July 27. The leafhoppers were sprayed and killed on August 4. Plots were visually evaluated and rated on a Disease Index (DI) scale of 0 to 9 (no symptoms to dead) A third and most severe rating was taken on September 13 and showed more separation than in the first and second ratings. Data are from this last rating
Thirty Plant Introductions (PIs) from the USDA-ARS National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) (Garden Beet, Sugar Beet, Leaf Beet, Fodder Beet, and wild beet) were evaluated for resistance to the beet curly top virus in an artificially inoculated nursery, managed by USDA-ARS and the Beet Sugar Development Foundation (BSDF) in Kimberly, ID. The field was planted in early June. Planting was late to maximize the number of viruliferous leafhoppers available to transfer to the sugarbeets while they are in the 8- to 10-leaf stage. Plots were 12 ft long, two-rows with 22 in between rows and replicated twice. After the beets emerged, plots were trimmed to 8 ft long, thinned to one foot between beets, and cultivated. Viruliferous leafhoppers were released in early July to cause an artificial epiphytotic. Plots were visually evaluated and rated on a Disease Index (DI) scale of 0 to 9 (no symptoms to dead) on September 13.
Thirty Plant Introductions (PIs) from the USDA-ARS National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) (Garden Beet, Sugar Beet, Leaf Beet, Fodder Beet, and wild beet) were evaluated for resistance to the beet curly top virus in an artificially inoculated nursery, managed by USDA-ARS and the Beet Sugar Development Foundation (BSDF) in Kimberly, ID. Planting was late to maximize the number of viruliferous leafhoppers available to transfer to the sugarbeets while they are in the 8- to 10-leaf stage. Plots were 12 ft long, two-rows with 22 in between rows and replicated twice. After the beets emerged, plots were trimmed to 8 ft long, thinned to one foot between beets, and cultivated. Viruliferous leafhoppers were released to cause an artificial epiphytotic. Plots were visually evaluated and rated on a Disease Index (DI) scale of 0 to 9 (no symptoms to dead) on July 17.
In 2008, the USDA-ARS sugarbeet program in Kimberly, ID, in cooperation with the BSDF created an artificial curly top epiphytotic through the release of viruliferous leafhoppers at the USDA-ARS North Farm in Kimberly, ID. The North Farm field had been in corn in 2007 and plowed in the fall. The field was fertilized (135 lb N/A and 120 lb P2O5/A) on April 29, 2008 and roller harrowed. The North farm was planted (density of 142,560 seeds/A) on May 19. The plots were two rows 10 ft long and 22 in row spacing, replicated twice and arranged in a randomized complete block design. The fields were sprinkler irrigated and hand weeded as necessary. The plant populations were thinned to 47,520 plants/A. The plants were inoculated at the 4-6 leaf growth stage on June 26 with 6 viruliferous hoppers per plant. The leafhoppers were moved twice a day (right after sunrise and just before sunset) for one week. The plants were sprayed with Lorsban 4E (1.5 pints/A) on July 10 to kill the leafhoppers. The plots were rated for symptom development using a scale of 0-9 (0 = healthy and 9 = dead; described in Plant Disease 91:1459-1463). DNA was extracted from three individual plants in both nurseries and tested with species specific primers to confirm the virus species present. Disease development was very good at both sites allowing for good separation on all rating dates and data from the last, most severe rating (July 23) were used. The temperatures were below normal early in the growing season but were above normal around hopper release. DNA isolations revealed that all six plants tested contained all three Curtovirus species: BSCTV, Beet mild curly top virus, and Beet curly top virus.
In 2008, the USDA-ARS sugarbeet program in Kimberly, ID, in cooperation with the BSDF created an artificial curly top epiphytotic through the release of viruliferous leafhoppers at the USDA-ARS North Farm in Kimberly, ID. The Curly Top Nursery was conducted at the USDA-ARS North Farm, which had been in beans in 2008. The field was plowed in the fall, fertilized (75 lb N/A and 75 lb P2O5/A) on April 22, 2009, sprayed with Ethotron (2 pt/A), and roller harrowed. The field was planted (density of 142,560 seeds/A) on May 18 in two row plots 10 ft long and 22 in row with two replicates in a randomized complete block design. The fields were sprinkler irrigated and hand weeded as necessary. The plant populations were thinned to 47,520plants/A. The plants were inoculated at the 4-6 leaf growth stage on June 23 with 6 viruliferous beet leafhoppers per plant. The beet leafhoppers were moved twice a day (right after sunrise and just before sunset) for one week. The plants were sprayed with Lorsban 4E (1.5 pints/A) on July 7 to kill the beet leafhoppers. The plots were rated for symptom development using a scale of 0-9 (0 = healthy and 9 = dead; described in Plant Disease 91:1459-1463). Disease development was very good at both sites allowing for good separation on all rating dates and data from the last (July 27), most severe rating were used. The temperatures were below normal early in the growing season but warmed up around beet leafhopper release.
Twenty-six wild beet (Beta vulgaris subsp. maritima (L.) Arcang) accessions from the Beta collection of the USDA-ARS National Plant Germplasm System were screened for resistance to Beet severe curly top virus (BSCTV) and other closely related Curtovirus species in 2010. The curly top evaluation was conducted at the USDA-ARS North Farm in Kimberly, ID which had been in beans in 2009. The field was disked in the spring, fertilized (160 lb P2O5/A) on 7 Apr 09, sprayed with Ethotron (2 pt/A), and roller harrowed. The germplasm was planted (density of 142,560 seeds/A) on 18 May. The plots were two rows 10 ft long with 22-in row spacing and arranged in a randomized complete block design with two replicates. A resistant breeding line from Betaseed, Inc., G6040, was included as a resistant check. The fields were sprinkler irrigated and hand weeded as necessary. Plant populations were thinned to about 47,500 plants/A on 19 June. Plants were inoculated at the four to six leaf growth stage on 23 June with six viruliferous beet leafhoppers per plant. The beet leafhoppers were moved twice a day (right after sunrise and just before sunset) for one week by dragging a tarp through the field. The plants were sprayed with Lorsban 4E (1.5 pints/A) on 7 July to kill the beet leafhoppers. The plots were rated for foliar symptom development on 15 July using a scale of 0-9 (0 = healthy with no sign of disease and 9 = leaves necrotic and plant dead; Mumford, D.L. 1974. Procedure for inducing curly top epidemics in field plots. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Technol. 18:20-23). Curly top development was uniform and other disease problems were not evident in the plot area. With the narrow range of scores (4.95 to 7.25), it will be necessary to evaluate these germplasm once more at a future date.
The curly top evaluation was conducted at the USDA-ARS North Farm in Kimberly, ID which has Portneuf silt loam soil and had been in barley in 2010. The field was plowed both in the fall and the spring, fertilized (80 lb N and 120 lb P2O5/A) on 20 Apr 11, sprayed with Ethotron (2 pt/A), and roller harrowed. The germplasm was planted (density of 142,560 seeds/A) on 16 May. The plots consisted of two rows 10 ft long with 22-in row spacing, arranged in a randomized complete block design with two replicates. The field was sprinkler irrigated and hand-weeded as necessary. Plant populations were thinned to about 47,500 plants/A on 19 June. Plants were inoculated at the four to six leaf growth stage on 27 June with approximately six viruliferous beet leafhoppers per plant. The leafhoppers had been reared in the greenhouse on viruliferous sugar beet plants. The beet leafhoppers were moved twice a day (right after sunrise and just before sunset) for 1 week by dragging a tarp through the field. The plants were sprayed with Lorsban 4E (1.5 pints/A) on 11 July to kill the beet leafhoppers. The plots were rated for foliar symptom development on 18 July using a scale of 0-9 (0 = healthy and 9 = dead; Mumford 1974). Curly Top development was uniform and no other disease problems were evident in the plot area. The test was evaluated while disease pressure was moderate and good symptom development occurred in the more susceptible lines. The experiment was rated only 3 weeks after inoculation, because of the severity of the epidemic; some of the more susceptible entries had died by 4 weeks and thus some of the differences among entries were no longer apparent.
Thirty sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) lines from the USDA-ARS National Plant Germplasm System plant introductions were screened for resistance to Beet severe curly top virus (BSCTV) and other closely related Curtovirus species in 2012. Commercial cultivars Monohikari and HM PM90 were included as susceptible and resistant checks, respectively. The curly top evaluation was conducted at the USDA-ARS North Farm in Kimberly, ID which has Portneuf silt loam soil and had been in alfalfa in 2011. The field was plowed in the fall and in the spring, fertilized (90 lb N and 110 lb P2O5/A) on 16 Apr 12, sprayed with Ethotron (2 pt/A), and roller harrowed. The germplasm was planted (density of 142,560 seeds/A) on 21 May. The plots were two rows 10 ft long with 22-in row spacing and arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replicates. The fields were sprinkler irrigated and hand weeded as necessary. Plant populations were thinned to about 47,500 plants/A on 19 June. Plants were inoculated at the four to six leaf growth stage on 22 June with six viruliferous beet leafhoppers per plant. The beet leafhoppers were moved twice a day (right after sunrise and just before sunset) for one week by dragging a tarp through the field. The plants were sprayed with Lorsban 4E (1.5 pints/A) on 4 July to kill the beet leafhoppers. The plots were rated for foliar symptom development on 10 July using a scale of 0-9 (0 = healthy and 9 = dead; Mumford 1974). Disease development was uniform and other disease problems were not evident in the plot area. The disease pressure in the test was severe with good disease development in the more susceptible lines.
Thirty sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Plant Introduction (PI) Lines from the USDA-ARS National Plant Germplasm System were screened for resistance to Beet severe curly top virus (BSCTV) and closely related Curtovirus species in 2013. The curly top evaluation was conducted at the USDA-ARS North Farm in Kimberly, ID which has Portneuf silt loam soil and had been in alfalfa in 2012. The field was plowed in the fall and in the spring, it was fertilized (90 lb N and 110 lb P2O5/A) on 19 Apr 13, sprayed with Ethotron (2 pt/A) for weed control, and roller harrowed. The germplasm was planted (density of 142,560 seeds/A) on 20 May. The plots were two rows 10 ft long with 22-in row spacing and arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replications. The fields were sprinkler irrigated and hand weeded as necessary. Plant populations were thinned to about 23,760 plants/A on 14 June. Plants were inoculated at the four- to six-leaf growth stage on 27 June with approximately six viruliferous beet leafhoppers per plant. The beet leafhoppers were redistributed twice a day (immediately after sunrise and just before sunset) for one week by dragging a tarp through the field to disrupt settled/feeding leafhoppers. The plants were sprayed with Lorsban 4E (1.5 pints/A) on 2 July to kill the beet leafhoppers. The plots were rated for foliar symptom development on 16 July using a scale of 0-9 (0 = healthy and 9 = dead). Curly top symptom development was uniform and no other disease problems were evident in the plot area. The disease pressure in the test was moderately severe with good symptom development in the susceptible check.
Twenty-four sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Plant Introduction (PI) Lines from the USDA-ARS National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) were screened for resistance to Beet curly top virus (BCTV). The curly top evaluation was conducted at the USDA-ARS North Farm in Kimberly, ID which has Portneuf silt loam soil and had been in barley in 2013. The field was plowed in the fall and in the spring, it was fertilized (90 lb N and 110 lb P2O5/A), sprayed with Ethotron (2 pt/A) for weed control, and roller harrowed on 11 Apr. The germplasm was planted (density of 142,560 seeds/A) on 19 May. The plots were two rows 10 ft long with 22-in row spacing and arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replications. The fields were sprinkler irrigated and hand weeded as necessary. Plant populations were thinned to about 47,500 plants/A on 14 June. Plants were inoculated at the four- to six-leaf growth stage on 23 June with approximately six viruliferous (contained three BCTV strains: Cal/Logan, severe, and Worland) beet leafhoppers per plant. The beet leafhoppers were redistributed three times a day during the first two days and then twice a day for five more days by dragging a tarp through the field. The plants were sprayed with Lorsban 4E (1.5 pints/A) on 7 July to kill the beet leafhoppers. Plots were rated for foliar symptom development on 16 July using a scale of 0 to 9 (0 = healthy and 9 = dead). Curly top symptom development was uniform and no other disease problems were evident in the plot area. The resistant and susceptible checks performed as expected for both the visual rating.
Thirty sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Plant Introduction (PI) Lines from the USDA-ARS National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) were screened for resistance to Beet curly top virus (BCTV). The curly top evaluation was conducted at the USDA-ARS North Farm in Kimberly, ID which has Portneuf silt loam soil and had been in barley in 2014. The field was plowed in the fall and in the spring, it was fertilized (90 lb N and 110 lb P2O5/A) and roller harrowed on 9 Apr. The germplasm was planted (density of 142,560 seeds/A) on 27 May. The plots were two rows 10 ft long with 22-in row spacing and arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replications. The fields were sprinkler irrigated, cultivated, and hand weeded as necessary. Plant populations were thinned to about 47,500 plants/A on 20 June. Plants were inoculated at the four- to six-leaf growth stage on 24 June with approximately six viruliferous (contained at least the following BCTV strains: Cal/Logan, CO, Severe, and Worland) beet leafhoppers per plant. The beet leafhoppers were redistributed three times a day during the first two days and then twice a day for five more days by dragging a tarp through the field. The plants were sprayed with Lorsban 4E (1.5 pints/A) on 7 July to kill the beet leafhoppers. Plots were rated for foliar symptom development on 13 and 20 July using a scale of 0 to 9 (0 = healthy and 9 = dead) and ratings from the last, more severe rating were used. Curly top symptom development was uniform and no other disease problems were evident in the plot area. The resistant and susceptible checks performed as expected.
Thirty sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Plant Introduction (PI) Lines from the USDA-ARS National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS), three commercial check cultivars [SV2012RR (susceptible), Detroit Dark Red (susceptible), and HM PM90 (resistant)] were screened for resistance to Beet curly top virus (BCTV). The curly top evaluation was conducted at the USDA-ARS North Farm in Kimberly, ID which has Portneuf silt loam soil and had been in barley in 2016. In the spring, the field was plowed and then fertilized (90 lb N and 110 lb P2O5/A) and roller harrowed on 11 Apr. The germplasm was planted (density of 142,560 seeds/A) on 15 May. The plots were two rows 10 ft long with 22-in row spacing and arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. The field was sprinkler irrigated, cultivated, and hand weeded as necessary. Plant populations were thinned to about 47,500 plants/A on 9 Jun. Plants were inoculated at the four- to six-leaf growth stage on 14 Jun with approximately six viruliferous (contained at least the following BCTV strains: California/Logan and Severe) beet leafhoppers per plant. The beet leafhoppers were redistributed three times a day during the first two days and then twice a day for five more days by dragging a tarp through the field. The plants were sprayed with Lorsban 4E (1.5 pints/A) on 28 Jun to kill the beet leafhoppers. Plots were rated for foliar symptom development on 6 Jul using a scale of 0 to 9 (0 = healthy and 9 = dead), with the scale treated as a continuous variable (Plant Dis. 90:1539-1544). Data were analyzed in SAS using the general linear models procedure (Proc GLM), and Fisher’s protected least significant difference (LSD; α = 0.05) was used for mean comparisons.
Curly top symptom development was uniform and no other disease problems were evident in the plot area. The resistant and susceptible checks performed as expected for the visual ratings. Based on the visual rating, there were three lines (entries 2, 7, and 15) that were not significantly different from the resistant check. These three lines will be reevaluated and considered for incorporation into future germplasm. These results and germplasm will be accessible to interested parties through the USDA-ARS, NPGS GRIN database.
Link to the 2017 Curly Top article
Beet curly top resistance in USDA-ARS Plant Introduction Lines, 2018. Thirty sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Plant Introduction (PI) Lines from the USDA-ARS National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) and three commercial check cultivars [SV2012RR (susceptible), Detroit Dark Red (susceptible), and HM PM90 (resistant)] were screened for resistance to Beet curly top virus (BCTV). The curly top evaluation was conducted at the USDA-ARS North Farm in Kimberly, ID which has Portneuf silt loam soil and had been in barley in 2017. In the spring, the field was plowed and then fertilized (60 lb N and 110 lb P2O5/A) and roller harrowed on 5 Apr. Planting at a density of 142,560 seeds/A was done on 29 May. The plots were two rows 10 ft long with 22-in. row spacing and arranged in a randomized complete block design with six replications. The field was sprinkler irrigated, cultivated, and hand weeded as necessary. Plant populations were thinned to approximately 47,500 plants/A on 22 Jun. Plants were inoculated at the four- to six-leaf growth stage on 25 Jun with approximately six viruliferous (contained the following BCTV strains: California/Logan and Severe) beet leafhoppers per plant. The beet leafhoppers were redistributed three times a day during the first two days and then twice a day for five more days by dragging a tarp through the field. The plants were sprayed with Lorsban 4E (1.5 pints/A) on 9 Jul to kill the beet leafhoppers. Plots were rated for foliar symptom development on 10 Jul using a scale of 0 to 9 (0 = healthy and 9 = dead), with the scale treated as a continuous variable (Plant Dis. 90:1539-1544). Data were rank transformed and analyzed in SAS using the general linear models procedure (Proc GLM), and Fisher’s protected least significant difference (LSD; α = 0.05) was used for mean comparisons. Curly top symptom development was uniform and no other disease problems were evident in the plot area. The resistant and susceptible checks performed as expected for the visual ratings. Based on the visual rating, there were five lines (entries 18, 22, 26, 27, and 29) that were not significantly different from the resistant check. These five lines will be reevaluated and considered for incorporation into future germplasm.
Study Name: BEET_ERWINIA_CALIFORNIA
Study Name: BEET_ERWINIA_CALIFORNIA
There are high natural levels of inoculum of this disease in the soil on the Experiment station, and the impact of this disease on field grown sugarbeets has been evaluated for many years. The accessions were replicated 6 times and the plots monitored and rated throughout the growing season. We planted in April this year and harvested the test in August. Aphanomyces root rot was prevalent and I believe we had a good test. All evaluations were made on a 0-4 scale but the results are reported on a 0 to 9 scale by multiplying the original data by 2.25.
There are high natural levels of inoculum of this disease in the soil on the Experiment station, and the impact of this disease on field grown sugarbeets has been evaluated for many years. The accessions were replicated 6 times and the plots monitored and rated throughout the growing season. We planted in April this year and harvested the test in August. Aphanomyces root rot was prevalent and I believe we had a good test. All evaluations were made on a 0-4 scale but the results are reported on a 0 to 9 scale by multiplying the original data by 2.25.
In years past, it has been possible to evaluate plants in each plot of individual accessions forinfection by Fusarium and Aphanomyces. However, this year, disease was so severe and so earlythat these two diseases could not be distinguished. Ratings constitute an evaluation of the overall severity of the disease caused by a complex of pathogens. This complex, that includesprimarily Aphanomyces cochlioides and Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. betae, is not uncommon formany beet growing areas in the Western United States. Although in previous years, we havebeen able to distinguish between infection by Aphanomyces and Fusarium, undoubtedly manybeets were infected by both pathogens. The field evaluations for Aphanomyces and Fusariumroot rot at Bushland are actually evaluating disease caused by the two pathogens.
gross sugar done by Devon L. Doney, Fargo, North Dakota, 1992
Habit done by Devon Doney, Fargo, North Dakota, 1987
Habit done by Devon Doney, Fargo, North Dakota, 1990
Habit done by Devon Doney, Fargo, North Dakota, 1991
General growth habit done by Devon L. Doney, State University Station, Fargo, North Dakota. Field plot, 4 reps, 25 foot row.
General growth habit done by Devon L. Doney, Fargo, North Dakota, 1996
Hypocotyl pigmentation done be Devon L. Doney, Fargo, North Dakota, 1996
Hypocotyl color taken in 1999 in the Cercospora Leaf Spot nursery. Thus these are the same accessions in the 1999 Cercospora Leaf Spot data in GRIN.
Hypocotyl color data was collected on seed used for viability testing. Seed were placed in paper towl rolls moistened with tap water and placed at constant 20 C with 12hrs light. Color was determined the last count (day 21 ) of each test for each accession. Accessions with more than one color were recorded as mixed. If the mix of colors appeared to be an even mix, it was noted but the number of seedlings with each color was not counted. If the distribution of colors did not look even, the number of seedlings with each color was counted and recorded. Colors were described with hue and brightness parameters if needed.
Hypocotyl color data was collected on seed used for viability testing. Seed were placed in paper towl rolls moistened with tap water and placed at constant 20 C with 12hrs light. Color was determined the last count (day 21 ) of each test for each accession. If more than one color is present the inventory is recorded as mixed, otherwise, when only one color is present, that color will be recorded.Seedlings where the hypocotyl color is no longer determinable at the final evaluation date were recorded as unknown. The number of seedlings with each coler was recorded and the percentages recorded under the note. Seedlings where the hypocotyl color was no longer determinable were recorded as unknown.
Hypocotyl color data was collected on seed used for viability testing. Seed were placed in paper towl rolls moistened with tap water and placed at constant 20 C with 12hrs light. Color was determined the last count (day 21 ) of each test for each accession. Accessions with more than one color were recorded as mixed. If the mix of colors appeared to be an even mix, it was noted but the number of seedlings with each color was not counted. If the distribution of colors did not look even, the number of seedlings with each color was counted and recorded. Colors were described with hue and brightness parameters if needed.
Hypocotyl color taken at Pullman, Washington
Image of Beta taken by Devon L. Doney at Fargo, North Dakato.
Image of Beta taken by Alan Hodgdon at Pullman, Washington of plants growing to obtain increase seed for distribution to requestors.
Images taken of plants growing in the greenhouses at Pullman, Washington
Accessions in the National Plant Germplasm System(NPGS) that are Core accessions in the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute(IPGRI). As of March, 1999.
A representative panel of Beta vulgaris germplasm was investigated for winter hardiness. The 396 accessions of the test panel include the four cultivar groups fodder beet (61), leaf beet (62), garden beet (90), and sugar beet (100), as well as 56 BVMs and 27 uncharacterized Beta vulgaris accessions.
Leaf blade pigmentation done by Devon L. Doney, Fargo, North Dakota, 1996
Lifeform data taken from Devon L. Doney's database. Data may have been taken from many places, so do NOT assume it was taken in North Dakota.
Lifeform data taken by Mitch McGrath from the nursery in Saginaw, MI in 1999.
Lifeform data taken by Eric Toensmeier, Belchertown, Massachusetts which is in Hardiness Zone 5. Plants planted spring 1999 survived the 1999/2000 winter.
Male sterility done by Devon L. Doney, State University Station, Fargo, North Dakota. Field plot, 4 reps, 25 foot row.
Multigerm data taken by Ann Fenwick of the Soil Management and Sugar Beet Research Unit in Fort Collins, Colorado when planting seed for increase for Pullman, Washington.
Multigermicit done by Devon Doney, Fargo, North Dakota, 1996
Multigerm data from the donor/developer of the accessions
Multigerm data taken at Pullman, Washington.
Multigerm data taken at Salinas, California when planting seed for increase for Pullman, Washington.
Study Name: BEET_AGRONOMIC_NORTH.DAKOTA Experiment Type: Field Field Exp. Design: RCB Soil drainage: ,,,,,,,
Study Name: BEET_AGRONOMIC_NORTH.DAKOTA Experiment Type: Field FIELD Exp. Design: Replicated Comment: Evaluation for yield and sugar content.
Study Name: BEET_AGRONOMIC_NORTH.DAKOTA Experiment Type: Field FIELD Exp. Design: RB (4 reps) Exp. Location: NDSU farm Latitude: 46 Degrees 5 Minutes N Longitude: 97 Degrees Minutes W Elevation: 120 meters Topography: flat Soil drainage: fair Soil texture: Fargo clay Max temperature: 38 Fertilizer type: NONE Year started: 05/17/1991 Year seeded: 05/17/1991 Year planted: 05/17/1991 Year ended: 09/17/1991 Experiment length: 0,4,0 Comment: Several of the accessions bolted early. These were pulled
The trial was planted 1996 on the farm of the American Crystal Sugar(ACS) research center in Moorhead, Minnesota. Single 25 foot row plots were arranged in a ramdomized complete block design with three reps. Four checks were included, two diploid pollinators and two tetraploid pollinators, all from the ACS breeding program. Beets were hand harvested in 1996. Root yield, sugar content, impurities(Na+, K+. and amino-N) and tare were evaluated in the ACS research center.
The trial was planted 1996 on the farm of the American Crystal Sugar(ACS) research center in Moorhead, Minnesota. Single 25 foot row plots were arranged in a ramdomized complete block design with three reps. Four checks were included, two diploid pollinators and two tetraploid pollinators, all from the ACS breeding program. Beets were hand harvested in 1996. Root yield, sugar content, impurities(Na+, K+. and amino-N) and tare were evaluated in the ACS research center.
done by Devon L. Doney, Fargo, North Dakota, 1992
Observation data obtained from the passport data. Passport data was obtain when the accession was received.
Petiole color done by Devon L. Doney, Fargo, North Dakota, 1996
From Devon L. Doney, State University Station, Fargo, North Dakota. Field plot, 4 reps, 25 foot row.
Root rot caused by (Polymyxa betae) disease ratings
The trial was planted 1996 on the farm of the American Crystal Sugar(ACS) research center in Moorhead, Minnesota. Single 25 foot row plots were arranged in a ramdomized complete block design with three reps. Four checks were included, two diploid pollinators and two tetraploid pollinators, all from the ACS breeding program. Beets were hand harvested in 1996. Root yield, sugar content, impurities(Na+, K+. and amino-N) and tare were evaluated in the ACS research center.
The trial was planted May 5, 1997 on the farm of the American Crystal Sugar(ACS) research center in Moorhead, Minnesota. Single 25 foot row plots were arranged in a ramdomized complete block design with three reps. Four checks were included, two diploid pollinators and two tetraploid pollinators, all from the ACS breeding program. Beets were hand harvested on Sep. 24. 1997. Root yield, sugar content, impurities(Na+, K+. and amino-N) and tare were evaluated in the ACS research center.
The trial was planted May 5, 1997 on the farm of the American Crystal Sugar(ACS) research center in Moorhead, Minnesota. Single 25 foot row plots were arranged in a ramdomized complete block design with three reps. Four checks were included, two diploid pollinators and two tetraploid pollinators, all from the ACS breeding program. Beets were hand harvested on Sep. 24. 1997. Root yield, sugar content, impurities(Na+, K+. and amino-N) and tare were evaluated in the ACS research center.
The trial was planted 1996 on the farm of the American Crystal Sugar(ACS) research center in Moorhead, Minnesota. Single 25 foot row plots were arranged in a ramdomized complete block design with three reps. Four checks were included, two diploid pollinators and two tetraploid pollinators, all from the ACS breeding program. Beets were hand harvested in 1996. Root yield, sugar content, impurities(Na+, K+. and amino-N) and tare were evaluated in the ACS research center.
The trial was planted May 5, 1997 on the farm of the American Crystal Sugar(ACS) research center in Moorhead, Minnesota. Single 25 foot row plots were arranged in a ramdomized complete block design with three reps. Four checks were included, two diploid pollinators and two tetraploid pollinators, all from the ACS breeding program. Beets were hand harvested on Sep. 24. 1997. Root yield, sugar content, impurities(Na+, K+. and amino-N) and tare were evaluated in the ACS research center.
The trial was planted May 5, 1997 on the farm of the American Crystal Sugar(ACS) research center in Moorhead, Minnesota. Single 25 foot row plots were arranged in a ramdomized complete block design with three reps. Four checks were included, two diploid pollinators and two tetraploid pollinators, all from the ACS breeding program. Beets were hand harvested on Sep. 24. 1997. Root yield, sugar content, impurities(Na+, K+. and amino-N) and tare were evaluated in the ACS research center.
done by Devon L. Doney, Fargo, North Dakota, 1992
Beta grown through 2004 - 2007Descriptor data collected from plants grown for seed increase. After vernalization, all plants were grown in greenhouses with day temperatures set between 15.5 C (60 F) and 21.1 C (70 F). All plants were planted in Sunshine TM #4 soilless potting media in 2 gallon pots and given 14-16 hour day lengths (supplimented with a combination of high pressure sodium and metal halide lights). Once bolting was initiated plants were fertilized every 7-10 days with 10-30-20 (N-P-K) Blossom Booster fertilizer and STEM micronutrients (11 1/3 tbsp fertilizer and 1/4 tsp. STEM /gallon for use with 15:1 hozon siphon proportioner). Vernalization protocol was as follows:
First venalization- 6 week old seedlings in rootrainersTM (in Sunshine TM #4 media) for a minimum of 4 months at 4 C , 12 hrs light, and watered as necessary.
Subsequent re-vernalizations were of adult plants in 2 gallon pots. Plants trimmed and cleaned of debris prior to placing at 4 C with 12 hrs light and watered as necessary. Vernalization length was for a minimum of 4 months.
Some accessions require 2 or more re-vernalizations for the entire population to flower.
If bolted plants produced a good quantity of seed they were thrown out;only non-bolted plants were revernalized. If bolted plants didn't produce a good quantity of seed, all plants were saved and revernalized. Bolting 2 data is % of plants vernalized.
Erysiphe
Descriptor data collected from plants grown for seed increase in the greenhouse. Ratings for Erysiphe susceptibility were made based on natural infection. No inoculations were made.
For an xlsx file of the evalaution data
Beta grown through 2008 - 2009Descriptor data collected from plants grown for seed increase. After vernalization, all plants were grown in greenhouses with day temperatures set between 15.5 C (60 F) and 18.3 C (65 F). All plants were planted in Sunshine TM #4 soilless potting media in 2 gallon pots and given 18 hour day lengths (supplemented with a combination of high pressure sodium and metal halide lights). Once bolting was initiated plants were fertilized every 7-10 days with 10-30-20 (N-P-K) Blossom Booster fertilizer and STEM micronutrients (11 1/3 tbsp fertilizer and 1/4 tsp. STEM /gallon for use with 15:1 hozon siphon proportioner). Vernalization protocol was as follows:
First venalization was of 10-12 week old seedlings in rootrainersTM (in SunshineTM #4 media) for a minimum of 4 months at 4 C with 12 hrs light and watered as necessary.
Subsequent re-vernalizations were of adult plants, trimmed and cleaned of debris, in 2 gallon pots for a minimum of 4 months at 4 C, 12 hrs light, and watered as necessary.
Some accessions require 2 or more re-vernalizations for the entire population to flower.
If bolted plants produced a good quantity of seed they were thrown out;only non-bolted plants were revernalized. If bolted plants didn't produce a good quantity of seed, all plants were saved and revernalized. Bolting 2 data is % of plants vernalized.
Erysiphe
Descriptor data collected from plants grown for seed increase in the greenhouse. Ratings for Erysiphe susceptibility were made based on natural infection. No inoculations were made.
For an xlsx file of the evalaution data.
Beta grown through 2010 - 2014Descriptor data collected from plants grown for seed increase. After vernalization, all plants were grown in greenhouses with day temperatures set between 15.5 C (60 F) and 18.3 C (65 F). All plants were planted in Sunshine TM #4 soilless potting media in 2 gallon pots (6 inch pots were used for certain annual accessions) and given 22 hour day lengths (supplemented with a combination of high pressure sodium and metal halide lights). Once bolting was initiated plants were fertilized every 7-10 days with 10-30-20 (N-P-K) Blossom Booster fertilizer and STEM micronutrients (11 1/3 tbsp fertilizer and 1/4 tsp. STEM /gallon for use with 15:1 hozon siphon proportioner). Vernalization protocol was as follows:
First venalization was of 10-12 week old seedlings in rootrainersTM (in SunshineTM #4 media) for a minimum of 4 months at 4 C with 12 hrs light and watered as necessary.
Subsequent re-vernalizations were of adult plants, trimmed and cleaned of debris, in 2 gallon pots for a minimum of 4 months at 4 C, 12 hrs light, and watered as necessary.
Some accessions require 2 or more re-vernalizations for the entire population to flower.
If bolted plants produced a good quantity of seed they were thrown out;only non-bolted plants were revernalized. If bolted plants didn't produce a good quantity of seed, all plants were saved and revernalized. Bolting 2 data is % of plants vernalized.
Erysiphe
Descriptor data collected from plants grown for seed increase in the greenhouse. Ratings for Erysiphe susceptibility were made based on natural infection. No inoculations were made.
For an xlsx file of the evalaution data.
Beta grown through 2018 - 2020Descriptor data collected from plants grown for seed increase. After vernalization, all plants were grown in greenhouses with day temperatures set between 15.5 C (60 F) and 18.3 C (65 F). All plants were planted in Sunshine TM #4 soilless potting media in 2 gallon pots (6 inch pots were used for certain annual accessions) and given 22 hour day lengths (supplemented with a combination of high pressure sodium and metal halide lights). Once bolting was initiated plants were fertilized every 7-10 days with 10-30-20 (N-P-K) Blossom Booster fertilizer and STEM micronutrients (11 1/3 tbsp fertilizer and 1/4 tsp. STEM /gallon for use with 15:1 hozon siphon proportioner). Vernalization protocol was as follows:
First venalization was of 10-12 week old seedlings in rootrainersTM (in SunshineTM #4 media) for a minimum of 4 months at 4 C with 12 hrs light and watered as necessary.
Subsequent re-vernalizations were of adult plants, trimmed and cleaned of debris, in 2 gallon pots for a minimum of 4 months at 4 C, 12 hrs light, and watered as necessary.
Some accessions require 2 or more re-vernalizations for the entire population to flower.
If bolted plants produced a good quantity of seed they were thrown out;only non-bolted plants were revernalized. If bolted plants didn't produce a good quantity of seed, all plants were saved and revernalized. Bolting 2 data is % of plants vernalized.
Erysiphe
Descriptor data collected from plants grown for seed increase in the greenhouse.
Ratings for Erysiphe susceptibility were made based on natural infection. No inoculations were made.
SUGARBEET.PULLMAN.2022.GREENHOUSEBeta grown in greenhouse since 2022
Descriptor data collected from plants grown for seed increase. Annual plants were directly transplanted into the greenhouse and grown until seed harvest. Biennial and perennial plants were transplanted and vernalized after vegetative growth had sufficient sized rosette and root development. After vernalization, all plants were grown in greenhouses with day temperatures set between 15.5 C (60 F) and 18.3 C (65 F). All plants were planted using PRO-MIX BX MYCORRHIZAE in 2-gallon pots (6-inch pots were used for most annual accessions) and given greater than 16 hour day lengths (supplemented with a combination of LED, high pressure sodium, and metal halide lights). Once bolting was initiated plants were fertilized every 7-10 days with 10-30-20 (N-P-K) Blossom Booster fertilizer and STEM micronutrients (11 1/3 tbsp fertilizer and 1/4 tsp. STEM /gallon for use with 15:1 Hozon siphon mixer). Vernalization protocol was as follows:
First venalization was of 10-12 week old seedlings in rootrainersTM (in POR-MIX BX media) for a minimum of 4 months at 4 C with 12 hours of light and watered as necessary.
Subsequent re-vernalizations were of adult plants, trimmed and cleaned of debris, in 2-gallon pots for a minimum of 4 months at 4 C, 12 hours of light, and watered as necessary.
Some accessions require 2 or more re-vernalizations for the entire population to flower.
If bolted plants produced a good quantity of seed, they were thrown out. Only non-bolted plants were revernalized. If bolted plants did not produce a good quantity of seed, all plants were saved and revernalized. Bolting 2 data is the percentage of plants vernalized.
Erysiphe
Descriptor data collected from plants grown for seed increase in the greenhouse.Ratings for Erysiphe susceptibility were made based on natural infection. No inoculations were made.
done by Devon L. Doney, Fargo, North Dakota, 1992
Study Name: BEET_RHIZOCTONIA_COLORADO Experiment Type: Field Year started: //1987 Comment: This experiment was run for Rhizoctonia resistance evaluations.
Study Name: BEET_RHIZOCTONIA_COLORADO Experiment Type: Field Comment: Screening for Rhizoctonia resistance.
Study Name: BEET_RHIZOCTONIA_COLORADO Experiment Type: Field Field Exp. Design: Rand. Comp. Block Elevation: 1525 meters Fertilizer type: N Total fertilizer: 28 kg/ha kg/ha Year planted: 05/15/1990 Comment: Rhizoctonia score for resistant check was 2, susceptible check score was 6.
Study Name: BEET_RHIZOCTONIA_COLORADO Experiment Type: Field FIELD Exp. Design: RCB Latitude: 40 Degrees 30 Minutes N Longitude: 104 Degrees 45 Minutes W Elevation: 1525 meters % Organic matter: 2 Soil pH: 7.6 Potassium: 440 ppm Phosphorous: 12.3 ppm Nitrogen: 6 ppm Soluble salts: .5micromhos Fertilizer type: N/P Total fertilizer: 123/56 kg/ha Year planted: 05/10/1991 Year ended: 09/09/1991 Experiment length: 0,4,0 Pest protection: WEED Publication flag: N Comment: Descriptor code 086 = 2 for highly resistant check, 3 for resistant check, 8 for susceptible check.
Study Name: BEET_RHIZOCTONIA_COLORADO Experiment Type: Field Field Exp. Design: RCB Exp. Location: Fort Collins Latitude: 15 Degrees 15 Minutes Elevation: 1525 meters % Organic matter: 2 Soil pH: 8.1 Potassium: 272 ppm Phosphorous: 10.3 ppm Nitrogen: 10 ppm Soluble salts: .4micromhos Min photoperiod: 12 Max photoperiod: 14 Min temperature: 39 Max temperature: 94 Total rainfall: 302 Mean daily rainfall: 2.5 mm/day Irrigation type: OH Irrigation days: 2 Total irrigation: 10 (mm) Fertilizer type: N/P Total fertilizer: 683 kg/ha Year started: 05/15/1992 Year seeded: 05/15/1992 Year planted: 05/15/1992 Year tested: 07/21/1992 Year ended: 09/21/1992 Experiment length: 0,1,23 Pest protection: HERBIC Comment: Epidemic extremely mild due to unusually cool, wet summer. Disease evaluations unreliable this year. Annual types are difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate accurately.
Rhizoctonia screening done by Dr. Earl G. Ruppel, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States. Field trial
Rhizoctonia screening done by Dr. Earl G. Ruppel, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States. 1994 field trial.
There were five replications in each test, which were arranged in randomized complete block designs. Rhizoctonia-resistant line FC703 and a highly susceptible check (FC901/C817) were included as internal controls, along with highly resistant FC705-1. One-row plots were 14 feet long with 22 inches between rows and 8-10 inches within-row spacing. Inoculation with dry, ground, barley-grain inoculum of Rhizoctonia solani isolate R-9 was performed on July 26th; immediately after inoculation, a cultivation was performed so as to throw soil into the beet crowns. The field was thinned by hand and irrigated as necessary. Beets were harvested the week of September 18. Each root was rated for rot on a scale of 0 to 7 (dead) as previously described. ANOVAs were performed on disease indices (DIs). Although planting was on schedule, a very cold, wet weather retarded plant growth and forced almost a two week dely in inoculation and evaluations. Nevertheless, the hot, dry weather of late July and August provided ideal conditions for the development of an excellent disease nursery. Differences among entries in all tests were highly significant. Mean DIs across all tests for highly resistant Fc705-1, resistant FC703, and the susceptible control were 1.7, 2.1, and 4.3, respectively. The highest and lowest DIs for contributor lines were 6.6 and 0.9 respectively.
Rhizoctonia screening done by Dr. Earl G. Ruppel, Fort Collins, Colorado, 1996
Rhizoctonia root rot done by Earl Ruppel and Lee Panella at Fort Collins, Colorado 1997. One-row plots, planted in mid-May, were 4.3 m (14 feet) long with 56 cm (22 inches) between rows and 20- to 25-cm (8-10 inches) within-row spacing in 5 replications. Fertilization and weed control were based normal growing practices. Plots were thinned to 8 in spacing between beets starting about 6 wk after planting. Stand counts were made on all plots the week before inoculation and inoculation with dry, ground, barley-grain inoculum (3.0 g m-1) of Rhizoctonia solani isolate R-9 was performed on July 10th. Immediately after inoculation, a cultivation was performed to throw soil into the beet crowns. Beets were harvested on August 20th and 21st. Each root was rated for rot on a scale of 0 to 7 (no rot to dead), and plot means for disease index were calculated. These were transformed to a 1 to 9 scale for reporting here. Ample rainfall early in the season, followed by protracted high temperatures and more heavy rain in July and August, led to an extremely severe root rot epidemic in our 1997 nursery. Mean DIs across all tests this year for the highly resistant, resistant, and highly susceptible controls were 3.8, 4.2, and 6.5, respectively. Data was taken on a 0-7 scale and adjusted to the 0-9 scale by multipling by 1.3.
The 1998 Rhizoctonia epidemic started strong and progressed quickly, becoming severe by mid August. We had to irrigate the beets up and had a period of cold temperature with just a little rain in the week after planting. Therefore, stands were poor, and, in some instances, we lost plotsto lack of germination and crusting. Differences in DI's among entries in all tests were highly significant (P < 0.0001). Mean DI's across all tests for highly resistant FC705-1, resistant FC703,and highly susceptible FC901 controls were 4.4, 3.4, and 5.7, respectively. The highest and lowest DI's for contributor lines were 7.0 and 3.5, respectively. Data was taken on a 0-7 scale and adjusted to the 0-9 scale by multipling by 1.2857.
There were five replications in each test, which were arranged in randomized complete block designs. Rhizoctonia-resistant line FC703 and a highly susceptible check (FC901/C817) were included as internal controls, along with highly resistant FC705-1. One-row plots, planted May 20th, were 14 feet long with 22 inches between rows and 8-10 inches within-row spacing. Inoculation with dry, ground, barley-grain inoculum of Rhizoctonia solani isolate R-9 was performed on July 13th; immediately after inoculation, a cultivation was performed so as to throw soil into the beet crowns. The field was sprayed twice with Betamix Progress, Upbeet, and Stinger (June 2 and 12) to control weeds. The field was thinned by hand and irrigated as necessary. Beets were harvested August 23 through 27. Each root was rated for rot on a scale of 0 to 7 (dead) as previously described which have been converted to a 1 to 9 scale. ANOVAs were performed on disease indices (DIs).We had unusually heavy spring rainfall before planting and were able to plant to moisture. We also had just a little rain in the week after planting with warming temperatures (see accompanying summary of weather data). Therefore, stands were excellent and the 1999 Rhizoctonia epidemic started strong and progressed quickly, becoming severe by mid August. Differences in DIs among entries in all tests were highly significant (P < 0.001). Mean DIs across all tests for highly resistant FC705-1, resistant FC703, and the highly susceptible check were 3.3, 3.9, and 6.2, respectively. The highest and lowest DIs for evaluated lines were 6.8 and 2.0, respectively.
The trial was a randomized, complete-block design. One-row plots, replicated five times were planted in Windsor, CO, on 16 May. Plots were 4.5 m long with 56 cm between rows and 20 to 25 cm within-row spacing. Inoculation with dry, ground, barley-grain inoculum of Rhizoctonia solani AG 2-2 isolate R-9 was performed on 12 Jul; immediately after inoculation, a cultivation was performed to throw soil into the beet crowns. The field was thinned by hand and irrigated as necessary. Beets were harvested 31 Jul through 2 Aug. Each root was rated for rot on a scale of 0 (no damage) to 7 (dead). Analyses of variance were performed on disease indices (DIs). We had unusually high temperatures in the summer of 2000 which, combined with a high inoculum load, contributed to a severe root rot epidemic. The Rhizoctonia epidemic progressed very quickly, becoming severe by the end of July. Differences in DIs among entries were highly significant (P < 0.001). Mean DIs across all tests in the 2000 nursery for highly resistant FC705-1, resistant FC703, and highly susceptible FC901/C817 controls were 2.5, 2.7, and 4.4 respectively. Percentages of healthy roots were 16.0, 16.3, and 3.9% for these controls. Percentages of roots in disease classes 0 thru 3 were 79.9, 67.1, and 28.7, respectively. The highest and lowest DIs for the evaluated lines were 6.4 and 1.7, respectively. A few PI accessions had DIs not significantly different from the resistant checks, and one performed extremely well (PI 590766).
View 2000 Rhizoctonia data as an Excel spread sheet (.xls).
The trial was a randomized, complete-block design. One-row plots, replicated five times were planted at the Crops Research Lab-Fort Collins Research Farm, CO, on 25 May. Plots were 4.5 m long with 56 cm between rows and 20 to 25 cm within-row spacing. Inoculation with dry, ground, barley-grain inoculum of Rhizoctonia solani isolate R-9 (AG 2-2) was performed on 20 Jul; immediately after inoculation, a cultivation was performed to throw soil into the beet crowns. The field was thinned by hand and irrigated as necessary. Beets were harvested 4 through 7 Sept. Each root was rated for rot on a scale of 0(no damage) to 7 (dead). Analyses of variance were performed on disease indices (DIs). We had high temperatures in the summer of 2001 and a moderate inoculum load. The Rhizoctonia epidemic progressed quickly, becoming severe by the beginning of September. Differences in DIs among entries were highly significant (P < 0.001). Mean DIs across all tests in the 2001 nursery for highly resistant FC705-1, resistant FC703, and highly susceptible FC901/C817 controls were 1.7, 2.2, and 4.4 respectively. Percentages of healthy roots were 46.5, 34.2, and 10.4% for these controls. Percentages of roots in disease classes 0 thru 3 were 85.9, 74.1, and 29.8, respectively. The highest and lowest DIs for the evaluated lines were 6.9 and 1.3, respectively. The highest and lowest DIs for the PI accessions were 6.88 and 3.42 respectively. One PI (IDBBNR 9554) had a DI and percent of roots rated 0 - 3 that were not significantly different from the resistant control, although the percent of healthy roots was significantly lower.
View 2001 Rhizoctonia data as an Excel spread sheet (.xls).
The trial was a randomized, complete-block design. One-row plots, replicated five times were planted at the Crops Research Lab-Fort Collins Research Farm, CO, on 23 May. Plots were 4.5 m long with 56 cm between rows and 20 to 25 cm within-row spacing. Inoculation with dry, ground, barley-grain inoculum of Rhizoctonia solani isolate R-9 (AG 2-2) was performed on 17 Jul; immediately after inoculation, a cultivation was performed to throw soil into the beet crowns. The field was thinned by hand and irrigated as necessary. Beets were harvested 3 through 6 Sept. Each root was rated for rot on a scale of 0 (no damage) to 7 (dead). Analyses of variance were performed on disease indices (DIs). We had high temperatures in the summer of 2002 and a moderate inoculum load. The Rhizoctonia epidemic progressed quickly, becoming severe by the beginning of September. Differences in DIs among entries were highly significant (P < 0.001). Mean DIs across all tests in the 2002 nursery for highly resistant FC705-1, resistant FC703, and highly susceptible FC901/C817 controls were 1.89, 2.24, and 4.40 respectively. Percentages of healthy roots were 39.3, 35.9, and 10.0% for these controls. Percentages of roots in disease classes 0 thru 3 were 91.2, 86.3, and 37.1%, respectively. The highest and lowest DIs for the evaluated lines were 6.5 and 1.3, respectively. The highest and lowest DIs for the PI accessions were 6.78 and 3.13 respectively. Four PIs (518644, 535831, 546522 & 590695) had DIs significantly lower than the susceptible control.
View 2002 (A) Rhizoctonia data as an Excel spread sheet (.xls).
Forty sugar beet germplasm lines released over the past 30 years, or under development by the USDA-ARS Sugar Beet Research Unit located in Fort Collins, CO were evaluated for resistance to Rhizoctonia root rot. The trial was a randomized, complete-block design. One-row plots, replicated five times were planted at the Crops Research Lab-Fort Collins Research Farm, CO, on 23 May. Plots were 4.5 m long with 56 cm between rows and 20 to 25 cm within-row spacing. Inoculation with dry, ground, barley-grain inoculum of Rhizoctonia solani isolate R-9 (AG 2-2) was performed on 17 Jul; immediately after inoculation, a cultivation was performed to throw soil into the beet crowns. The field was thinned by hand and irrigated as necessary. Beets were harvested 3 through 6 Sept. Each root was rated for rot on a scale of 0 (no damage) to 7 (dead). Analyses of variance were performed on disease indices (DIs). We had high temperatures in the summer of 2002 and a moderate inoculum load. The Rhizoctonia epidemic progressed quickly, becoming severe by the beginning of September. Differences in DIs among entries were highly significant (P < 0.001). Mean DIs across all tests in the 2002 nursery for highly resistant FC705-1, resistant FC703, and highly susceptible FC901/C817 controls were 1.89, 2.24, and 4.40 respectively. Percentages of healthy roots were 39.3, 35.9, and 10.0% for these controls. Percentages of roots in disease classes 0 thru 3 were 91.2, 86.3, and 37.1%, respectively. There was a significant difference between all the resistant germplasm and the susceptible control with two exceptions. A 1993 seed increase of FC704 was significantly more susceptible than the susceptible control and a FC702, and early release (1968) was not significantly different from the susceptible control.
View 2002 (B) Rhizoctonia data as an Excel spread sheet (.xls).
The trial was a randomized, complete-block design. One-row plots, replicated five times were planted at the Crops Research Lab-Fort Collins Research Farm, CO, on 15 May. Plots were 4.5 m long with 56 cm between rows and 20 to 25 cm within-row spacing. Inoculation with dry, ground, barley-grain inoculum of Rhizoctonia solani isolate R-9 (AG 2-2) was performed on 10 Jul. Immediately after inoculation, a cultivation was performed to throw soil into the beet crowns. The field was thinned by hand and irrigated as necessary. Beets were harvested 27 Aug. Each root was rated for rot on a scale of 0 (no damage) to 7 (dead). Analyses of variance were performed on disease indices (DI). We had high temperatures in the summer of 2003 and a high inoculum (3 g/m) load. The Rhizoctonia root rot epidemic progressed quickly, becoming severe by the end of August. Differences in the DI among entries were highly significant (P < 0.001). Mean DIs across all tests in the 2003 nursery for highly resistant FC705-1, resistant FC703, and highly susceptible FC901/C817 controls were 3.2, 3.3, and 5.5 respectively. Percentages of healthy roots were 12.2, 8.7, and 1.4% for these controls. Percentages of roots in disease classes 0 thru 3 were 57.4, 50.5, and 7.0%, respectively. The highest and lowest DI for the evaluated lines was 6.9 and 2.9, respectively. The highest and lowest DI for the PI accessions was 6.8 and 3.0, respectively. Seven PIs had DIs that were not significantly different from the resistant control.
View 2003 Rhizoctonia data as an Excel spread sheet (.xls).
The trial was a randomized, complete-block design. One-row plots, replicated five times were planted at the Crops Research Lab-Fort Collins Research Farm, CO, on 17 May. Plots were 4.5 m long with 56 cm between rows and 20 to 25 cm within-row spacing. Inoculation with dry, ground, barley-grain inoculum of Rhizoctonia solani isolate R-9 (AG 2-2) was performed on 27 Aug. Immediately after inoculation, a cultivation was performed to throw soil into the beet crowns. The field was thinned by hand and irrigated as necessary. Beets were harvested 13 Sept. Each root was rated for rot on a scale of 0 (no damage) to 7 (dead). Analyses of variance were performed on disease indices (DI). We had moderate temperatures in the summer of 2004 and a moderate inoculum (2.3 g/m) load. The Rhizoctonia root rot epidemic progressed slowly, becoming moderate by early September. Differences in the DI among entries were highly significant (P < 0.001). Mean DIs across all tests in the 2004 nursery for highly resistant FC705-1, resistant FC703, and highly susceptible FC901/C817 controls were 2.1, 2.4, and 3.5, respectively. Percentages of healthy roots were 36.1, 32.1, and 12.3% for these controls. Percentages of roots in disease classes 0 thru 3 were 88.9, 80.1, and 40.7% respectively. The highest and lowest DI for the evaluated lines was 6.9 and 1.5, respectively. The highest and lowest DI for the PI accessions was 6.8 and 3.0, respectively. Two PIs had DIs that were not significantly different from the resistant control.
View 2004 Rhizoctonia data as an Excel spread sheet (.xls).
2005 Rhizoctonia Nursery - Experiment 2R
The trial was a randomized complete-block design with five replications. One-row plots (56 cm row spacing) were 4 m long and were planted at the Crops Research Lab-Fort Collins Research Farm, CO on 25 May. Inoculation with dry, ground, barley-grain inoculum of Rhizoctonia solani isolate R-9 (AG-2-2) was performed on 28 Jul at a rate of 25 g/m row with inoculum applied to the crown of the plant. Immediately after inoculation, plots were cultivated to throw soil into the beet crowns. The plant population was thinned to 20-25 cm spacing by hand and irrigated as necessary. Beets were harvested 19 Sep, and each root was rated for rot on a Disease Index (DI) scale of 0 (no damage) to 7 (dead plants). The average disease severity was determined to create a disease index for each PI. The scores were adjusted to a 1 (healthy) to 9 (dead) scale: [DI*(9/8)]+1. Two PIs (#504238 and #540566) had such poor emergence that too few plants (one plant for #504238 and 3 for #504566) were present to be rated. Rhizoctonia root rot reached moderate severity levels in early Sep. Differences in the DI among entries were highly significant (P < 0.001). The average DI across all tests in the 2005 nursery for highly resistant FC705-1, resistant FC703, and highly susceptible FC901/C817 controls were 2.7, 3.1, and 4.9, respectively. The highest and lowest DI for all of the lines evaluated in the nursery, including materials not in the PI tests, were 7.0 and 1.5, respectively.
This test is reported in: Panella, L. and L.E. Hanson. USDA-ARS sugar beet germplasm developed in Fort Collins, CO, evaluated for Rhizoctonia resistance, 2005. Biological and Cultural Tests for Control of Plant Diseases. (online). 21:FC012. DOI: 10. 1094/BC21. The American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, MN. 2006.
Experiment 2R, 2006.
The trial was a randomized complete-block design with five replications in one-row plots (56 cm row spacing) 4 m long at the ARS Fort Collins Research Farm, CO. The field had been summer fallowed in 2004 and 2005, and planted to barley in 2003. The soil (Garrett loam, 0 to 1 % slope, pH 7.8) was deep ripped and plowed in Nov 2005, and disked, roller harrowed and landplane-leveled in Apr prior to bedding and planting. The field was fumigated with Telone II 11 Apr for control of potentially confounding soilborne diseases and insects. Seed was planted on 24 May to moisture, and furrow irrigated as needed. The plant population was thinned to 20-25 cm spacing by hand. Inoculation with dry, ground, barley grain inoculum of Rhizoctonia solani isolate R-9 (AG-2-2) was performed on 13 Jul 06 at a rate of 2.2 g/m row with inoculum applied on the crown of the plant. Immediately after inoculation, plots were cultivated (using an in-row duck-foot cultivator) to place soil onto the plant crowns. Beets were harvested 8 Sep, with a single row lifter (pulled and cleaned by hand) and each root was rated for rot on a scale of 0 (no damage) to 7 (dead plant with root completely rotted). Average disease severity was determined to create a disease index (DI) for each PI. The scores were adjusted to a 1 (healthy) to 9 (dead) scale: [DI*(9/8)]+1. The PIs were tested in a disease nursery that included eight additional tests, involving experimental breeding material and commercial cultivated varieties. Controls were included in all nine tests. Rhizoctonia root rot reached moderate severity levels in early Sep for the entire nursery. Average DI across all nine tests in the 2006 nursery for highly resistant FC705-1, resistant FC703, and susceptible FC901/C817 controls were 1.7, 1.8, and 3.5, respectively. The greatest and least DI for all of the lines evaluated in the nursery, including materials not in the PI tests, were 5.8 and 1.0, respectively. For the PI, DI differences among entries were significant (P < 0.001). Three PIs (#518377, #540574, and #540633) had DIs that were not significantly different from either the resistant or the highly resistant controls (#991017 or #831083, respectively). One PI (#546388) had a DI that was not significantly different from the resistant control, although it was significantly different from the highly resistant control.
This has been published in: Hanson, L. E. and L. Panella. Rhizoctonia root rot resistance of Beta PIs from the USDA-ARS NPGS, 2006. Plant Disease Management Reports. (online) 1:V023. DOI: 10.1094/PDMR01. The American Phytopathological Society. St. Paul, MN. 2007.
2007 Rhizoctonia Nursery - Experiment 2R
The trial was a randomized complete-block design with five replications in one-row plots (76 cm row spacing) 4 m long at the ARS Fort Collins Research Farm, CO. The field had been summer fallowed in 2004, 2005, 2006, and planted to barley in 2003. The soil (Garrett loam, 0 to 1 % slope, pH 7.8) was deep ripped in Nov 2006, and disked, roller harrowed and leveled in May prior to bedding and planting. The field was fumigated Apr 2006 with Telone II (18 gallons/acre) for control of potentially confounding soil-borne diseases (esp. rhizomania) and insects. Seed was planted on 22 May, and furrow irrigated as needed. The first irrigation, on 6 Jun, germinated the seed. The plant population was thinned to 20-25 cm spacing by hand in late June. Inoculation with dry, ground, barley grain inoculum of Rhizoctonia solani isolate R-9 (AG-2-2) was applied to the crown of the plants on 1 Aug at a rate of 5.1 g/m row and again (due to heavy rainfall after initial inoculation) on 10 Aug at a rate of 2.4 g/m. A Gandy electrically driven applicator with Hawkins Ditchers? attached was used to apply the inoculum and place soil onto the plant crowns. Beets were harvested 3 Oct, with a single row lifter (pulled and cleaned by hand) and each root was rated for rot on a scale of 0 (no damage) to 7 (dead plant with root completely rotted). Average disease severity was determined to create a disease index (DI) for each PI. The scores were adjusted to a 1 (healthy) to 9 (dead) scale: [DI*(9/8)]+1. Analyses of variance (PROC GLM) were performed on disease indices (DI). Means of entries in the test were statistically significant (P < 0.0001). There were six screening tests in the 2007 nursery, including plant introductions, experimental breeding material, and commercially cultivated varieties. Controls were included in all tests. The disease started slowly but, by the end of September, Rhizoctonia root rot reached severe levels in most of the nursery. The average DI across the six tests in the 2007 nursery for highly resistant FC705-1, resistant FC703, and susceptible FC901/C817 controls were 1.8, 2.6, and 4.6, respectively. The DI range for all of the lines evaluated in the nursery was 6.7 to 1.3. In all of the tests in 2007, there were highly significant differences among the entries for DI. Four of the PIs had a significantly lower DI than the susceptible check, PI 552534, PI 504261, PI 552533, and PI 546420, and three of these were not significantly different from the highly resistant check. PI 546420 was significantly higher (more susceptible) than the highly resistant check. It is interesting that two of the PIs, which showed resistance to Rhizoctonia root rot, were developed by the USDA-ARS prebreeding program in Fargo, ND. PI 552533 (F1013) was developed from a Turkish accession (PI 169025) and PI 552534 (F1014) was developed from a Russian accession (PI 355959)
This has been reported in: Panella, L., A. L. Fenwick, A. L. Hill, M. McClintock, and T. Vagher. Rhizoctonia root rot resistance of Beta PIs from the USDA-ARS NPGS, 2007. Plant Disease Management Reports. (online) 2:V057. DOI:10.1094/PDMR02. The American Phytopathological Society. St. Paul, MN. 2008.
2009 Rhizoctonia Nursery - Experiment
The nursery was planted as a randomized complete-block design with five replications in one-row plots (76 cm row spacing) 4 m long. The field had been planted to sugar beet in 2001 and fallowed in following years with the exception of barley in 2004. The soil (Garrett loam, 0 to 1 % slope, pH 7.8) was fumigated with Telone? II in late Oct 08 for control of soilborne diseases and pests. Manure was applied and roller harrowed in Nov 08. The field was leveled and bedded in May 09. Planting occurred on 22 May, fertilized with 13.6 kg A-1 of ESN? (Agrium Advanced Technologies, Sylacauga, AL), and furrow irrigated as needed. The field was thinned (20-25 cm spacing) and hand weeded 26-28 Jun, and again on 9 Aug. Cultivations occurred on 30 Jun and 21 Jul. Inoculum of R. solani isolate R-9 (AG-2-2), colonized to dry barley and course ground, was applied to the crown of plants on 22-23 Jul at a rate of 4.8 g m-1. A Gandy? applicator was used to apply inoculum and the field cultivated afterwards to place soil onto plant crowns. On 18 Sep beets were lifted and each root rated on a scale of 0 (no damage) to 7 (dead plant with root completely rotted). Average disease severity was determined to create a disease index (DI) for each entry. The scores were adjusted to a 1 (healthy) to 9 (dead) scale: [DI*(9/8)]+1. This was an unusual year for rainfall with 10 cm of rain occurring between 1 Jan and planting providing a full profile at planting. Above average rainfall occurred through Jun and into Jul providing an additional 17.6 cm precipitation. Daytime temperatures remained at sufficient levels for disease development (25-35oC). Rhizoctonia crown and root rot pressure was high and disease development on resistant and susceptible checks was as expected. All experiments in the nursery had significant differences among DI with the most resistant line in the test (which included 7additional trials than the one reported here) having a DI of 1.8 (data not shown), and the most susceptible line a DI of 7.0. This year, a DI of less than 5.0 is considered to indicate some resistance to Rhizoctonia crown and root rot. Next year selections from within those populations will be made and the resistant plants crossed to sugar beet germplasm.
This is reported in: Panella, L., Fenwick, A. L., Hill, A. L., Vagher, T., and Webb, K. M. 2010. Rhizoctonia crown and root rot resistance of Beta PI from the USDA-ARS NPGS, 2009 Plant Disease Management Reports 4:FC004. Online publication. doi:10.1094/PDMR04.
The Rhizoctonia screening nursery in 2010 was a randomized complete-block design with five replications in one-row plots (76 cm row spacing) 4 m long. The field had been planted to sugarbeet in 2006 and summer fallowed since then. The soil (Garrett loam, 0 to 1 % slope, pH 7.8) was fumigated with Telone? II in late Oct 2008, for control of soil borne diseases (esp. rhizomania) and pests. Manure was applied 4 days later and the field was roller harrowed in Nov 2008. Field was land leveled March 2010, and bedded a month before planting. Seed was planted on 25 May to moisture, fertilized with 44.7 kg ha-1 of ESN? (Agrium Advanced Technologies, Sylacauga, AL) and furrow irrigated as needed. Only pre-plant (glyphosate and clopyralid) and pre-emergence herbicides (glyphosate and clopyralid) were used this year. The field was thinned (20 - 25 cm spacing) and hand weeded 18 to 20 Jun, and hand weeded again 3 to 4 Jul and 24 Jul. Inoculation with dry, ground, barley grain colonized with Rhizoctonia solani isolate R-9 (AG-2-2 IIIB) was applied to the crown of the plants on 15 Jul at a rate of 6.9 g m-1 row. A Gandy? electrically driven applicator was used to apply the inoculum and the plots were cultivated afterwards to place soil onto the plant crowns. Beets were harvested from 16 to 18 Aug, with a single row lifter (pulled and cleaned by hand) and each root was rated for rot on a scale of 0 (no damage) to 7 (dead plant with root completely rotted). Average disease severity per plot was determined to create a disease index (DI) for each entry. . The scores were adjusted to a 1 (healthy) to 9 (dead) scale: [DI*(9/8)]+1. Analyses of variance (PROC ANOVA/GLM) were performed on disease indices DI. 2010 had a cool spring with good early season rainfall in Fort Collins, CO. Between 1 Jan and planting we had about 15 cm of rain allowing us to plant to moisture. The crop grew well and was inoculated 15 Jul. In Jul and Aug, daytime temperatures remained high and there was an excellent infection and very severe epiphytotic. There was good separation of disease severity between the highly resistant and highly susceptible lines. Weed pressure was light and, although we saw very little curly top in the field, we noted heavy leaf hopper pressure and sprayed lorsban and mustang on 30 Jun. Four of the PIs had a DI score of 4.6, which was not significantly different from the highly resistant control. Two more PIs were rated with a DI under 5.0. There was segregation for resistance in these accessions with some of the roots looking very clean on evaluation. There may be resistance genes in these accessions and they will be reevaluated to confirm resistance to Rhizoctonia root and crown rot.
Report not yet published but accepted for publication: Panella, L., T. Vagher, A. L. Fenwick, and K. M. Webb. 2011. Rhizoctonia crown and root rot resistance of Beta PIs from the USDA-ARS National Plant Germplasm System, 2010. Plant Disease Management Reports. Online publication. (Accepted 2/9/11)
Thirty beet (Beta vulgaris subsp. maritima (L.) Arcang and Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris L.) plant introduction (PI) accessions from the Beta collection of the USDA-ARS National Plant Germplasm System were screened for resistance to Rhizoctonia root and crown rot, at the USDA-ARS Fort Collins, CO Research Farm. The rhizoctonia screening nursery in 2011 was a randomized complete-block design with five replications in one-row plots (76 cm row spacing) 4 m long. The field had been planted to sugar beet in 2007 and summer fallowed since then. The soil (Garrett loam, 0 to 1 % slope, pH 7.8) was fumigated with Telone® II in late Oct 2008, for control of soil borne diseases (esp. rhizomania) and pests. Manure was applied 4 days later and the field was roller harrowed in Nov 2008. Field was land leveled in Mar 2011, and bedded a month before planting. Seed was planted on 17 May to moisture and furrow irrigated as needed. No herbicides were used this year. There was a heavy rain right after planting and the field crusted badly. On 24 Jun the decision to replant this experiment was made. The field was rotary hoed on 3 Jul, roto-bedded on 5 Jul, and replanted on 7 Jul. The field was hand weeded on 30 Jul and thinned on 6 Aug. Inoculation with dry, ground, barley grain inoculum of Rhizoctonia solani isolate R-9 (AG-2-2 IIIB) was applied to the crown of the plants on 17 Aug at a rate of 5.3 g m-1 row. A Gandy® electrically driven applicator was used to apply the inoculum and the field was cultivated afterwards to place soil onto the plant crowns. Beets were harvested 28 Sep with a single row lifter (pulled and cleaned by hand), and each root was rated for rot on a scale of 0 (no damage) to 7 (dead plant with root completely rotted). Average disease severity per plot was determined to create a disease index (DI) for each entry. Analysis of variance was performed in SAS (Ver. 9.2) using Proc GLIMMIX on disease index and mean DI. Data also are represented as the percentage of sugar beet roots in classes 0 through 1, considered as healthy and in classes 0 through 3, considered harvestable. Because the analysis of variance does not group the entries into discrete classes, Dunnett’s one-tailed t-test was used to compare entries to the resistant check (FC703) and the highly resistant check (FC709-2).
Thirty sea beet (Beta vulgaris subsp. maritima (L.) Arcang accessions from the Beta collection of the USDA-ARS National Plant Germplasm System were screened for resistance to Rhizoctonia root and crown rot, at the USDA-ARS Fort Collins, CO Research Farm. The Rhizoctonia screening nursery in 2012 was a randomized complete-block design with five replications in one-row plots (76 cm row spacing) 4 m long. The soil (Garrett loam, 0 to 1 % slope, pH 7.8) was fumigated with Telone® II in late October 2008, for control of soil borne diseases (esp. rhizomania) and pests. Manure was applied 4 days later and the field was roller harrowed in Nov 2008. The field had been planted to sugarbeet in 2009 and summer fallowed until 2011, when it was planted to Grazex BMR 737 (a sorghum/sudangrass hybrid). The field was roller harrowed, leveled, and bedded 14-16 May of 2012. Seed was planted to moisture on 18 May and furrow irrigated as needed. No herbicides were used. Heavy rain right after planting caused the field to crust badly. On 7 Jun the decision to replant the field was made. The field was rotary bedded to remove plants on 18 Jun, and replanted on 20 Jun. The field was hand weeded and thinned on 15 and 28 Jul. Inoculation with dry, ground, barley grain inoculum of Rhizoctonia solani isolate R-9 (AG-2-2) was applied to the crown of the plants on 2 Aug (8 to 10 leaf stage) at a rate of 5.98 g m-1 of row. A Gandy® electrically driven applicator was used to apply the inoculum and the field was cultivated to place soil into the plant crowns. Beets were harvested 20 Sep with a single row lifter (pulled and cleaned by hand), and each root was rated for rot on a scale of 0 (no damage) to 7 (dead plant with root completely rotted). Average disease severity per plot was determined to create a disease index (DI) for each entry and DI was treated as a continuous variable. Analysis of variance was performed in SAS (Ver. 9.2) using Proc GLM (Data not shown). Data also are represented as the percentage of sugar beet roots in classes 0 through 1, considered as healthy and in classes 0 through 3, considered harvestable. Because the analysis of variance does not group the entries into discrete classes, Dunnett’s one-tailed t-test (p = 0.05) was used to compare entries to the resistant control (FC703), the highly resistant control (FC709-2) and the most susceptible Plant Introduction (PI 518414).
Spring of 2012 in Fort Collins, CO was hot and dry. There was a heavy rainfall right after the first planting. Because of heavy crusting, a western beet roller was used on 30 May to break up the crust. Moisture was good at replanting. With the warm soil temperatures, the replanted beets developed quickly and were ready for inoculation (8 to 10 leaf stage) about 40 days after planting. Temperatures remained high throughout September and there was moderate, uniform disease pressure. There were highly significant differences among entries for DI in this test and good separation among entries, although the susceptible control scored more resistant than expected. Nonetheless, 24 PIs (all with a DI > 3.7 – below the line in the table) were not significantly different (Dunnett’s one-tailed t-test; p = 0.05) than the worst performing Plant Introduction – PI 518414, which had a DI of 5.7. The 4 most resistant PIs (PI 604511, PI 604533, PI 604510, PI 518367) were not significantly different (Dunnett’s one-tailed t-test; p = 0.05) from the highly resistant control (FC709/2) and represent potential sources of resistance to Rhizoctonia root and crown rot. There were 2 PIs that were significantly more resistant than the worst performing line but not significantly different in performance from the resistant control (FC703) – PI 604519 and PI 518360. These germplasms are above the line in the table under PI 518360. These accessions will be retested and, if the resistance is confirmed, entered into the USDA-ARS Rhizoctonia crown and root rot -resistance breeding program at Fort Collins, CO to enhance sugar beet germplasm with increased resistance to rhizoctonia root rot. These results will be accessible to interested parties through the USDA-ARS, NPGS GRIN database (http://www.ars-grin.gov/npgs/index.html).
Thirty sea beet (Beta vulgaris subsp. maritima (L.) Arcang) accessions from the Beta collection of the USDA-ARS National Plant Germplasm System were screened for resistance to Rhizoctonia crown and root rot, at the USDA-ARS Fort Collins, CO Research Farm. The 2013 Rhizoctonia screening nursery was a randomized complete-block design with five replications in one-row plots (76 cm row spacing) 4 m long. The soil (Garrett loam, 0 to 1 % slope, pH 7.8) was fumigated with Telone® II in late October 2008, for control of soil-borne diseases (esp. rhizomania) and pests. Manure was applied 4 days later and the field was roller harrowed in Nov 2008. The field had been planted to sugarbeet in 2009 and summer fallowed until 2011 and 2012, when it was planted to Grazex BMR 737 (a sorghum/sudangrass hybrid). In 2013, the field was fertilized (70 lbs N acre-1 and 35 lbs P2O5 acre-1) and bedded on 15 and 16 May. Sugar beet seed was planted on 28 May to moisture and furrow irrigated as needed. No herbicides were used this year. The field was hand weeded and thinned on 10 and 21 Jul. Inoculation with dry, ground, barley grain inoculum of Rhizoctonia solani isolate R-9 (AG-2-2) was applied to the crown of the plants on 25 Jul (at about the 8-12 leaf stage) at a rate of 6.11 g m-1 of row. A Gandy® electrically driven applicator was used to apply the inoculum and the field was cultivated afterwards to place soil onto the plant crowns. Beets were harvested on 23 Oct with a single row lifter (pulled and cleaned by hand), and each root was rated for rot on a scale of 0 (no disease) to 7 (dead plant with root completely rotted). Average disease severity per plot was determined (on a continuous scale between 0 and 7) to create a disease index (DI) for each entry. Analysis of variance was performed in SAS (Ver. 9.3) using Proc GLM for DI, % healthy roots (classes 0 and 1 combined) and % harvestable roots (classes 0 through 3). Data in classes 0-1 and 0-3 were transformed using arcsine square root to normalize the data for analyses (AP 0-1 and AP 0-3, respectively). Because a test of the residuals indicated the data were not normally distributed, a rank transformation was used and the rank of the entry in each replication was used in the ANOVA (The American Statistician, 35(3): 124-129). Analyses of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on rank or DI, and Dunnett’s one-tailed t-test (p = 0.05) was used to compare entries to the highly resistant control (FC705/1) and the most susceptible plant introduction accession (PI 604516).
Fort Collins was very wet in 2013. The nursery was planted to moisture and had a gentle rain after planting, which germinated the seed. A light rain after inoculation helped initiate the disease. Temperatures were warm until the beginning of September, when we had unseasonably heavy rainfall and flooding throughout Colorado. Research plots were not affected by the flooding but the week of rain lowered the temperature and slowed disease progression. The combination of wet weather and a sixteen day government furlough delayed harvest and evaluation of the nursery, but the disease pressure was severe and uniform. Screening a crop wild relative like sea beet is always difficult because the seed germinates and establishes poorly. Plots contained between 1 and 16 individual plants. An ANOVA test (PROC GLM) indicated highly significant differences among entries for DI, AP 0-1, and AP 0-3 (Data not shown) in the Rhizoctonia disease screening nursery this year. There was a good separation between resistant and susceptible entries, although the susceptible control was more resistant than expected. An ANOVA of the rank transformed data showed highly significant differences among entries’ DIs. Results reported are based Dunnett’s one-tailed t-test (p = 0.05) of the transformed data. The 12 entries below the lower line in the table (line below PI 604521) were not significantly different from the worst performing entry (PI 604516). Those entries between the lines, e.g., in the middle of the table (except entry PI 604534), were significantly more resistant than the worst performing entry and significantly more susceptible than the best performing entry (FC705/1). The 10 entries above the upper line in the table (line below PI 604520) and entry PI 604534 were not significantly different from the highly resistant control (FC705/1). Without the rank transformation of the data, only the first four entries (PI 604525, PI 604551, PI 604549, and PI 504189) were not significantly different from the highly resistant control (Dunnett’s one-tailed t-test; p = 0.05). Those accessions that were not significantly less resistant than the resistant control will be retested and, if the resistance is confirmed, entered into the USDA-ARS Rhizoctonia root rot-resistance breeding program at Fort Collins, CO to develop sugar beet germplasm with increased resistance to Rhizoctonia root rot. These results will be accessible to interested parties through the USDA-ARS, NPGS GRIN database (http://www.ars-grin.gov/npgs/index.html).
Twenty-nine beet (Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris and Beta vulgaris subsp. maritima (L.) Arcang) accessions from the Beta collection of the USDA-Agricultural Research Service National Plant Germplasm System were screened for resistance to Rhizoctonia crown and root rot, at the Colorado State University ARDEC facility in Fort Collins, CO. There were two highly resistant germplasms, one resistant germplasm, and one susceptible germplasm used as controls. The 2014 Rhizoctonia screening nursery was a randomized complete-block design with five replicates in one-row plots (76 cm row spacing) 3.7 m long. The soil is a Fort Collins loam (0 to 1% slope, pH 7.2). The field had been planted to hard red winter wheat in 2012, and Grazex BMR 737 (a sorghum/sudangrass hybrid) in 2013. In 2014, the field was fertilized (60 lbs N acre-1 and 30 lbs P2O5 acre-1) and bedded on the 22 May. Sugar beet seed was planted on 29 May to moisture and irrigated as needed with an overhead linear irrigation system. The herbicide Betamix (2 oz acre-1; 8% phenmedipham, 8% desmedipham [v/v] and 84% inert ingredients) was applied on 12 and 19 Jun. The field was hand weeded and thinned on 28 Jun and 19 Jul. An inoculum of dry, ground, hulless-barley grain, infested with Rhizoctonia solani isolate R-9 (AG-2-2), was applied to the crown of the plants on 21 Jul (at the 8-12 leaf growth stage) at a rate of 6.01 g m-1 of row. A Gandy® electrically driven applicator was used to apply the inoculum and the field was cultivated afterwards to place soil onto the plant crowns. Roots were harvested on 16 Sep with a single row lifter (pulled and cleaned by hand), and each root was rated for rot on a scale of 0 (no disease) to 7 (dead plant, leaves necrotic with root completely rotted) (Plant Dis. Rep. 63:518–522). Average disease severity per plot (DI) was determined with the DI treated as a continuous variable for each replicate of each entry. Analyses of variance (PROC GLIMMIX) were performed on disease indices, percent of healthy roots (classes 0 and 1 combined) and percent of the roots in classes 0 through 3 (harvestable roots). Data in classes 0-1 and 0-3 were transformed using arcsine square root to normalize the data for analyses (AP 0-1 and AP 0-3, respectively). Additionally, an analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on DI and Dunnett’s one-tailed t-test (p = 0.05) was used to compare all entries to the highly resistant control (FC709-2) and the most susceptible plant introduction accession (PI 590719) for DI.
At harvest there was moderate Rhizoctonia root rot and other diseases were not evident. There were significant differences among entries for all three variables (PROC GLIMMIX). The DI was 1.5 in the highly resistant control and 7.0 in the most susceptible entry. Two entries, PI 560340 and PI 560339, for which DI<3.3 in the table, were not significantly different from the highly resistant control (Dunnett’s one tailed t-test for DI, p = 0.05). All entries below Ames 2652 (DI>4.4) in the table were not significantly different (Dunnett’s one tailed t-test for DI, p = 0.05) from the most susceptible entry (DI = 7.0). The eight entries with DI > 4.5 and > 3.2 had moderate resistance. The two entries with the highest resistance (PI 560339, PI 560340) were released from the USDA-ARS Salinas breeding program. PI 560339 was released for resistance to virus yellows, Erwinia (reclassified as Pectobacterium betavasculorum), powdery mildew (Erysiphe polygoni), and improvement for percent sucrose. PI 560340 was released for resistance to rhizomania and Rhizoctonia crown and root rot. All accessions significantly more resistant than PI 590719 will be retested and, if the resistance is confirmed, entered into the USDA-ARS Rhizoctonia root rot-resistance breeding program at Fort Collins, CO to develop sugar beet germplasm with increased resistance to Rhizoctonia root rot. These results will be accessible to interested parties through the USDA-ARS, NPGS GRIN database (http://www.ars-grin.gov/npgs/index.html).
Thirty beet accessions of either cultivated beet or sea beet (Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris or Beta vulgaris subsp. maritima (L.) Arcang) from the Beta collection of the USDA-Agricultural Research Service National Plant Germplasm System were screened for resistance to Rhizoctonia crown and root rot (Rcrr) at the Colorado State University ARDEC facility in Fort Collins, CO. There were two highly resistant germplasms, one resistant germplasm, and one susceptible germplasm used as controls. The 2015 Rhizoctonia screening nursery was a completely randomized design with five replicates in one-row plots (76 cm row spacing) 3.7 m long. The soil is a Fort Collins loam (0 to 1% slope, pH 7.2). The field had been planted to Channel 197-14VT3 maize in 2012, Grazex BMR 737 (a sorghum/sudan grass hybrid) in 2013, and hard red winter wheat in 2014. In 2015, the field was not fertilized due to available nitrogen and was bedded on 2 Jun. Sugar beet seed was planted on 9 Jun to moisture. The herbicide Betamix® (60 mL acre-1; 8% phenmedipham, 8% desmedipham [v/v] and 84% inert ingredients) was applied on 22 Jun. The field was hand weeded and thinned on 3 Jul and 9 Aug. An inoculum of dry, ground, hulless-barley grain, infested with Rhizoctonia solani isolate R-9 (AG-2-2), was applied to the crown of the plants on 28 Jul (at the 8-12 leaf growth stage) at a rate of 7.0 g m-1 of row. A Gandy® electrically driven applicator was used to apply the inoculum and the field was cultivated afterwards to place soil onto the plant crowns. Roots were harvested on 8 Sep with a single row lifter (pulled and cleaned by hand), and each root was rated for rot on a scale of 0 (no disease) to 7 (dead plant, leaves necrotic with root completely rotted) (Plant Dis. Rep. 63:518–522). Average disease severity per plot was determined with the Disease Index (DI) treated as a continuous variable for each replicate of each entry. Analyses of variance (PROC GLM) were performed on disease indices, percent of healthy roots (classes 0 and 1 combined) and percent of the roots in classes 0 through 3 (harvestable roots). Data in classes 0-1 and 0-3 were transformed using arcsine square root to normalize the data for analyses (AP 0-1 and AP 0-3, respectively). Additionally, an analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on DI and Dunnett’s one-tailed t-test (P = 0.05) was used to compare all entries to the highly resistant controls (FC709-2 and FC705/1) and the most susceptible plant introduction accession (PI 518325) for DI.
Thirty sea beet (Beta vulgaris subsp. maritima (L.) Arcang accessions from the Beta collection of the USDA- ARS National Plant Germplasm System were screened for resistance to Rhizoctonia root and crown rot, (RRCR) by the USDA-ARS at the Colorado State University ARDEC Research Facility. The Rhizoctonia screening nursery used two highly resistant germplasm, one resistant germplasm and one susceptible germplasm as controls. The nursery was planted in a completely randomized design with five replications in one-row plots (76 cm row spacing) 3.7 m long. The soil is a Fort Collins loam, (0 to 1 % slope, pH 7.2). The field was planted to Grazex BMR 737 (a sorghum/sudan grass hybrid) in 2013, Mycogen 2Y479 maize in 2014, fallowed in 2015, and hard red winter wheat in 2016. In 2017, the field was not fertilized due to available nitrogen and was bedded on 16 May with initial irrigation on 17 May. An inoculum of dry ground hulless barley grain infested with Rhizoctonia solani isolate R-9 (AG-2-2) was applied to the crown of the plants on 11 Jul(8 to 12 leaf growth stage) at a rate of 8.5 g m-1 of row. A Gandy® electrically driven applicator was used to apply the inoculum and the field was cultivated afterwards to place soil onto the plant crowns. Roots were harvested 6 Sept with a single row lifter (pulled and cleaned by hand), and each root was rated for RRCR on a scale of 0 (no damage) to 7 (dead plant with root completely rotted). Average disease severity per plot was determined to create a disease index (DI) for each entry and DI was treated as a continuous variable. Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed in SAS (Ver. 9.2) on DI. Data are also represented as the percentage of sugar beet roots in classes 0 through 1, considered as healthy and in classes 0 through 3, considered harvestable. Data in classes 0-1 and 0-3 were transformed using arcsine square root to normalize the data for analyses %0-1 and %0-3. Because the analysis of variance does not group the entries into discrete classes, Dunnett’s one-tailed t-test (p = 0.05) was used to compare entries to the resistant control (FC703), the highly resistant control (FC709-2) and the most susceptible Plant Introduction (PI 546516).
Spring of 2017 in Fort Collins, CO was hot and dry. The crop was planted and irrigated with overhead linear irrigation. The amount of moisture from planting to harvest was 21.06 cm of rainfall and 27.31 cm of irrigation water. Temperatures were warm through harvest, disease progression was excellent and at harvest we had severe levels of RRCR in the nursery. The disease pressure was uniform throughout the test. There were significant differences among entries for DI in this test and separation between resistant and susceptible check entries with a range of DI from 3.6 to 7. One entry, PI 535827, was not significantly different (p = 0.05) from the highly resistant control (FC 705/1) and potentially represents a novel source of resistance to RRCR. The superior performance of PI 535827 is especially apparent when the percent harvestable (%0-3) is compared with that of other entries. PI 546516, was the most susceptible in the test, and there were 13 entries not significantly different than it. There were 16 PI’s that were significantly more resistant than the worst performing line but significantly different in performance from the resistant control (FC703). These accessions will be retested and, if resistance is confirmed, incorporated into the USDA-ARS RRCR resistance breeding program at Fort Collins, CO to enhance sugar beet germplasm. These results will be accessible to interested parties through the USDA-ARS, NPGS GRIN database http://www.ars-grin.gov.
Thirty beet (Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris and Beta vulgaris subsp. maritima (L.) Arcang) accessions from the Beta collection of the USDA-Agricultural Research Service National Plant Germplasm System were screened for resistance to Rhizoctonia crown and root rot (RCRR) at the Colorado State University Agricultural Research, Development, and Education Center in Fort Collins, Colorado. The Rhizoctonia screening nursery used two highly resistant germplasm (FC705/1 and FC709-2), one resistant germplasm (FC703) and one susceptible germplasm (FC901/C817) as controls. The nursery was planted in a completely randomized design with five replications in one-row plots (76 cm row spacing) 3.7 m long. The soil is a Fort Collins loam, (0 to 1 % slope, pH 7.2). The field plot was planted to corn in 2015, pinto beans in 2016, and hard red winter wheat in 2017. The test was planted on 31 May, with an initial irrigation on 01 Jun. An inoculum of dry ground hulless barley grain infested with Rhizoctonia solani isolate R-9 (AG-2-2) was applied to the crown of the plants on 12 Jul (8 to 12 leaf growth stage) at a rate of 8.5 g m-1 of row using a Gandy® electrically driven applicator. Following inoculation, the field was cultivated afterwards to place soil onto the plant crowns. The amount of moisture from planting to harvest was 7.72 cm of rainfall and 40.64 cm of irrigation water applied via overhead linear irrigation. Temperatures were warm through harvest, with average daytime highs of 85F and average nighttime lows of 55F. Disease progression was excellent and at harvest we had severe levels of RCRR in the nursery. The disease pressure was uniform throughout the test.
Roots were harvested 26 Aug with a single row lifter (pulled and cleaned by hand), and each root was rated for RCRR on a scale of 0 (no damage) to 7 (dead plant with root completely rotted) (Plant Dis. Rep. 63:518-522). Average disease severity per plot was determined to create a disease index (DI) for each entry and DI was treated as a continuous variable. Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed in SAS (Ver. 9.2) on DI. Data are also represented as the percentage of sugar beet roots in classes 0 through 1, considered as healthy and in classes 0 through 3, considered harvestable. Data in classes 0-1 and 0-3 were transformed using arcsine square root to normalize the data for analyses %0-1 and %0-3. Dunnett’s one-tailed t-test (P = 0.05) was used to compare entries to the highly resistant control FC705/1 (19851032H) and the most susceptible line tested (PI504179). There were significant differences among entries for DI. The highest performing entries were the highly resistant checks FC705/1 and FC709-2, and the resistant check FC703. The next four most resistant entries, PI590664, PI232887, NSL31344, and PI408965 were not significantly different from the highly resistant check FC705/1. There were 14 entries significantly more resistant than the worst performing entry, PI 504179. These accessions will be retested and, if resistance is confirmed, incorporated into the USDA-ARS RRCR resistance breeding program at Fort Collins, CO to enhance sugar beet germplasm. These results will be accessible to interested parties through the USDA-ARS, NPGS GRIN database http://www.ars-grin.gov.
Twenty-nine beet (Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris and Beta vulgaris subsp. maritima (L.) Arcang) accessions from the Beta collection of the USDA-Agricultural Research Service National Plant Germplasm System were screened for resistance to Rhizoctonia crown and root rot (RCRR) at the Colorado State University Agricultural Research, Development, and Education Center in Fort Collins, Colorado. The Beta PI Rhizoctonia nursery used two highly resistant germplasm (FC709-2 and FC705/1), one resistant germplasm (FC703) and one susceptible germplasm (FC901/C817) as controls. The nursery was planted in a completely randomized design with five replications in one-row plots (76 cm row spacing) 3.7 m long. The soil is a Fort Collins loam, (0 to 1 % slope, pH 7.2). In 2015 and 2016, the field was planted to corn, followed by pinto bean in 2017 and hard red winter wheat in 2018. In 2019, the field was not fertilized due to available nitrogen and was bedded on 15 May, and the field was planted on 30 May with an initial irrigation of 1.9cm on 1 Jun. The field was watered weekly to assist with germination and seedling emergence. A hard rain event on 5 June (1.4cm) caused soil crusting issues impacting emergence. The field was weeded by hand and thinned on 26 Jun. The field was inoculated with dry, ground hulless barley grain infested Rhizoctonia solani isolate R-9 (AG2-2 IIIB). The inoculum was applied to the crown of the plants on 31 Jul (8 to 12 leaf growth stage) at a rate of 9 g m-1 of row using a Gandy® electrically driven applicator. The field was cultivated afterwards to place soil onto the plant crowns. A large hail event and rain occurred on 5 Jul. A total of 2.3 cm was recorded over 36 hrs. Most plants were at the 4-6 leaf stage, and approximately 19% of the plants across the test died due to hail damage. A single entry was completely lost to hail damage (PI 198680, not shown in data table), and 7 entries had <30 plants over all 5 replicates. From planting to harvest, there was 10.8 cm of rainfall, and 44.45 cm of water applied via overhead linear irrigation. During the season, the average daytime high was 85F, and the average nighttime low was 54F. Disease progression was excellent and at harvest we had severe and uniform levels of RCRR in the nursery.
Roots were defoliated and harvested 4 Sep with a single row lifter (pulled and cleaned by hand), and each root was rated for RRCR on a scale of 0 (no damage) to 7 (dead plant with root completely rotted) (Plant Dis. Rep. 63:518-522). Average disease severity per plot was determined to create a disease index (DI) for each entry and DI was treated as a continuous variable. Analysis of variance (PROC GLIMMIX) was performed in SAS (Ver. 9.4) on DI. Data are also represented as the percentage of sugar beet roots in classes 0 through 1, considered as healthy and in classes 0 through 3, considered harvestable. Data in classes 0-1 and 0-3 were transformed using arcsine square root to normalize the data for analyses %0-1 and %0-3. Dunnett’s one-tailed t-test (P = 0.05) was used to compare entries to the highly resistant control FC705-1 (19851032H) and the most susceptible line tested (PI 344063). Of the 2019 entries, 12 were screened in recent years (2012 or 2018) and showed moderate to high levels of resistance. The other 17 were repeats from the 2016 screen which failed due to inadequate disease pressure. There were significant differences among entries for DI in this test. Two entries, PI604510 and NSL 31344, were not significantly different (P = 0.05) from the highly resistant control (FC 705-1) and represents potentially novel sources or combinations of resistance to RCRR. PI 344063 was the most susceptible entry, with a DI of 6.7. There were 20 entries not significantly different from PI 344063, suggesting a lack of resistance in these entries. These accessions will be retested and, if resistance is confirmed, incorporated into the USDA-ARS RRCR resistance breeding program at Fort Collins, CO to enhance sugar beet germplasm. These results will be accessible to interested parties through the USDA-ARS, NPGS GRIN database http://www.ars-grin.gov.
BEET_RHIZOMANIA_CALIF Experiment Type: Field FIELD Comment: Evaluation for Rhizomania and BWYV resistance.
BEET_RHIZOMANIA_CALIF Experiment Type: Field FIELD Comment: Evaluation for Rhizomania and BWYV resistance.
Beta Rhizomania Evaluation Experiment Type: Greenhouse GREENHOUSE Exp. Design: Randomized Block Hardiness Zone: 6 Soil texture: Topsoil:Sand (1:1) % Sand: 50 Min temperature: 25 Max temperature: 35 Avg temperature: 28 Irrigation type: Overhd Irrigation days: 120 Fertilizer type: 1:1:1 Total fertilizer: 1 T/gal kg/ha Year started: 05/05/1992 Year planted: 05/11/1992 Year ended: 09/08/1992 Experiment length: 120 Comment: 3-4 sd were planted in each of 7 cone-tainers, and thinned to 2 plants/tube. Soil in tubes was infested with approx. . Rhizomania inoculum. Soil was kept moist. Approx. 12 wks aft planting, seedlings were harvested and scored for colonizati using a 0-9 scale. ELIZA was also run.
Thirty sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Plant Introduction (PI) Lines from the USDA-ARS National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS), and four check cultivars were screened for resistance to Beet necrotic yellow vein virus (BNYVV), the causal agent of rhizomania, and to storage rot. The rhizomania evaluation was conducted at the USDA-ARS North Farm in Kimberly, ID which has Portneuf silt loam soil and had been in barley in 2016. In the spring the field was plowed and then fertilized (90 lb N and 110 lb P2O5/A) and roller harrowed on 11 Apr 17. The germplasm was planted (density of 142,560 seeds/A) on 4 May. The plots were one row 10-ft long with 22-in. row spacing and arranged in a randomized complete block design with 6 replicates. The crop was managed according to standard cultural practices for southern Idaho. Plant populations were thinned manually to 47,500 plants/A on 3 Jun. The trial relied on endemic field inoculum for rhizomania and storage rot development. The plots were rated for foliar symptom (percentage of plants with yellow, stunted, upright leaves) development on 21 Aug. The plants were mechanically topped and hand-harvested on 10 Oct. At harvest, ten roots per plot were rated for symptom development using a scale of 0 to 9 (0 = healthy and 9 = dead; Plant Disease 93:632-638), with disease index (DI) treated as a continuous variable. At harvest, eight roots per plot were also placed in a mesh-onion bag and placed in an indoor commercial storage facility (temperature set point 34°F) in Paul, ID on 10 Oct. On 21 Feb 18, after 133 days in storage, the roots were evaluated for the percentage of root surface area (0 to 100%) covered by fungal growth and rot. Data were analyzed in SAS (Ver. 9.4) using the general linear models procedure (Proc GLM), and Fisher’s protected least significant difference (α = 0.05) was used for mean comparisons.
Rhizomania symptom development was uniform and other disease problems were not evident in the plot area. Entries 1, 3, 24, and 30 were dropped from the study because of poor stand. The BNYVV susceptible check (Check 1) had 97% foliar symptoms and a high root disease severity rating. The three resistant checks (2, 3, and 4) had 0 to 6% foliar symptoms and the lowest root ratings. Based on root ratings, all PI Line entries were more susceptible than the resistant checks and 14 entries were not different from the susceptible check. However, entry 2 had both the lowest foliar rating of the PI lines and ranked first among all entries for the lowest storage rot. The root rating for entry 2 may have been affected by poor inherent root shape and may not necessarily represent a lack of resistance to BNYVV. The foliar rating and resistance to storage rot both suggest entry 2 should be reevaluated for resistance to BNYVV. Entry 2 may serve as a starting point for identifying additional sources of resistance to BNYVV and storage rots.
Root Disease Index (DSI) scores were converted to 0-9 scale for loading into Grin-Global 0-9 coded ratings
link to the 2017 Rhizomania article
Rhizomania and storage rot resistance in USDA-ARS Plant Introduction Lines evaluated in Idaho, 2018.
Thirty sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Plant Introduction (PI) Lines from the USDA-ARS National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS), and four check cultivars were screened for resistance to Beet necrotic yellow vein virus (BNYVV), the causal agent of rhizomania, and to storage rot. The rhizomania evaluation was conducted at the USDA-ARS North Farm in Kimberly, ID which has Portneuf silt loam soil and had been in barley in 2017. In the spring the field was plowed and then fertilized (60 lb N and 110 lb P2O5/A) and roller harrowed on 5 Apr 18. The germplasm was planted (density of 142,560 seeds/A) on 25 Apr. The plots were one row 10-ft long with 22-in. row spacing and arranged in a randomized complete block design with 6 replicates. The crop was managed according to standard cultural practices for southern Idaho. Plant populations were thinned manually to 47,500 plants/A on 26 May. The trial relied on endemic field inoculum for rhizomania and storage rot development. The plots were rated for foliar symptom (percentage of plants with yellow, stunted, upright leaves) development on 7 Aug. The plants were mechanically topped and hand-harvested on 15 Oct. At harvest, ten roots per plot were rated for symptom development using a scale of 0 to 9 (0 = healthy and 9 = dead; Plant Disease 93:632-638), with disease index (DI) treated as a continuous variable. At harvest, eight roots per plot were also placed in a mesh-onion bag and placed in an indoor commercial storage facility (temperature set point 34°F) in Paul, ID on 16 Oct. On 11 Feb 19, after 119 days in storage, the roots were evaluated for the percentage of root surface area (0 to 100%) covered by fungal growth and rot.
Rhizomania symptom development was uniform and other disease problems were not evident in the plot area. The BNYVV susceptible check (Check 1) had 97% foliar symptoms and a high root disease severity rating. The three resistant checks (2, 3, and 4) had 0 to 6% foliar symptoms and the lowest root ratings. Although the root ratings for entries 5 (NSL 141986) and 7 (NSL 176410) were not significantly different from the resistant checks, none of the PI Line entries had acceptable root ratings. Entries 3 (Ames 8447), 23 (PI 540616), and 24 (PI 540617) had foliar ratings that were better than the other PI Line entries indicating they may contain some level of resistance to BNYVV. The root ratings for these 3 entries may have been affected by poor inherent root shape and may not necessarily represent a lack of resistance to BNYVV. Entry 3 was the only entry that performed well for all three variables. Some of the entries may serve as a starting point for identifying additional sources of resistance to BNYVV and storage rots.
Four tests were conducted in rhizomanina-infested fields at Salinas, CA: 3 (tests 710, 910, 1310) at the Spence Farm infested with the wild type strain of BNYVV and one (1910) at the Hartnell Farm infested with Rz1-resistance breaking strain of BNYVV. Trials were planted in April and May in a RCBD of single-row plots 2.74 m in planted length with 0.61 m between plots and 0.71 m row spacing. Stand count (number of plants per plot) was recorded 6-weeks post-planting. Stand count was not recorded for Test 1310. Plants were rated for disease as signs and symptoms of infection are seen, typically beginning in September. Evaluation for resistance to rhizomania is based on a composite visual score of foliar color and wilting and a root score of bearding (the massive proliferation of necrotic secondary roots), shape, and size. Two methods are used to estimate reaction to rhizomania. First, scores for foliar yellowing attributed to rhizomania are evaluated on 0 to 9 scale, where 0 = very dark green with no yellowish plants, and 9 = 100% of the plants showing yellowing typical of rhizomania-susceptible varieties. Second, a rhizomania disease index (RZDI) is calculated. Plot canopies are mowed and roots are lifted for evaluation. Each beet per plot is given a root score on a severity scale from 0 (a completely clean root) to 9 (where the tap root is completely bearded, replaced by secondary and tertiary roots, due to rhizomania). As bearding increases, so does the RZDI, which is calculated for each plot based on the severity scale as follows: [(number roots X 0) + (number roots X 1) + X + (number roots X 9)] divided by the total number roots harvested. Essentially it is a weighted average of all roots in the variety. When present, natural PM infection is scored from 0, clean leaves, to 9, indicating at least 90% or more of the leaf area is covered with visible mildew. PM infection is usually higher at the Hartnell Farm due to environmental conditions.
Excel file from Kelly Richardson 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 data with multiple worksheets.
A general overview of the Rhizomania evaluation work at Salinas, California.
Four tests were conducted in rhizomanina-infested fields at Salinas, CA: 3 (tests 710, 910, 1310) at the Spence Farm infested with the wild type strain of BNYVV and one (1910) at the Hartnell Farm infested with Rz1-resistance breaking strain of BNYVV. Trials were planted in April and May in a RCBD of single-row plots 2.74 m in planted length with 0.61 m between plots and 0.71 m row spacing. Stand count (number of plants per plot) was recorded 6-weeks post-planting. Stand count was not recorded for Test 1310. Plants were rated for disease as signs and symptoms of infection are seen, typically beginning in September. Evaluation for resistance to rhizomania is based on a composite visual score of foliar color and wilting and a root score of bearding (the massive proliferation of necrotic secondary roots), shape, and size. Two methods are used to estimate reaction to rhizomania. First, scores for foliar yellowing attributed to rhizomania are evaluated on 0 to 9 scale, where 0 = very dark green with no yellowish plants, and 9 = 100% of the plants showing yellowing typical of rhizomania-susceptible varieties. Second, a rhizomania disease index (RZDI) is calculated. Plot canopies are mowed and roots are lifted for evaluation. Each beet per plot is given a root score on a severity scale from 0 (a completely clean root) to 9 (where the tap root is completely bearded, replaced by secondary and tertiary roots, due to rhizomania). As bearding increases, so does the RZDI, which is calculated for each plot based on the severity scale as follows: [(number roots X 0) + (number roots X 1) + X + (number roots X 9)] divided by the total number roots harvested. Essentially it is a weighted average of all roots in the variety. When present, natural PM infection is scored from 0, clean leaves, to 9, indicating at least 90% or more of the leaf area is covered with visible mildew. PM infection is usually higher at the Hartnell Farm due to environmental conditions.
Excel file from Kelly Richardson 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 data with multiple worksheets.
A general overview of the Rhizomania evaluation work at Salinas, California.
Four tests were conducted in rhizomanina-infested fields at Salinas, CA: 3 (tests 710, 910, 1310) at the Spence Farm infested with the wild type strain of BNYVV and one (1910) at the Hartnell Farm infested with Rz1-resistance breaking strain of BNYVV. Trials were planted in April and May in a RCBD of single-row plots 2.74 m in planted length with 0.61 m between plots and 0.71 m row spacing. Stand count (number of plants per plot) was recorded 6-weeks post-planting. Stand count was not recorded for Test 1310. Plants were rated for disease as signs and symptoms of infection are seen, typically beginning in September. Evaluation for resistance to rhizomania is based on a composite visual score of foliar color and wilting and a root score of bearding (the massive proliferation of necrotic secondary roots), shape, and size. Two methods are used to estimate reaction to rhizomania. First, scores for foliar yellowing attributed to rhizomania are evaluated on 0 to 9 scale, where 0 = very dark green with no yellowish plants, and 9 = 100% of the plants showing yellowing typical of rhizomania-susceptible varieties. Second, a rhizomania disease index (RZDI) is calculated. Plot canopies are mowed and roots are lifted for evaluation. Each beet per plot is given a root score on a severity scale from 0 (a completely clean root) to 9 (where the tap root is completely bearded, replaced by secondary and tertiary roots, due to rhizomania). As bearding increases, so does the RZDI, which is calculated for each plot based on the severity scale as follows: [(number roots X 0) + (number roots X 1) + X + (number roots X 9)] divided by the total number roots harvested. Essentially it is a weighted average of all roots in the variety. When present, natural PM infection is scored from 0, clean leaves, to 9, indicating at least 90% or more of the leaf area is covered with visible mildew. PM infection is usually higher at the Hartnell Farm due to environmental conditions.
Excel file from Kelly Richardson 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 data with multiple worksheets.
A general overview of the Rhizomania evaluation work at Salinas, California.
Four tests were conducted in rhizomanina-infested fields at Salinas, CA: 3 (tests 710, 910, 1310) at the Spence Farm infested with the wild type strain of BNYVV and one (1910) at the Hartnell Farm infested with Rz1-resistance breaking strain of BNYVV. Trials were planted in April and May in a RCBD of single-row plots 2.74 m in planted length with 0.61 m between plots and 0.71 m row spacing. Stand count (number of plants per plot) was recorded 6-weeks post-planting. Stand count was not recorded for Test 1310. Plants were rated for disease as signs and symptoms of infection are seen, typically beginning in September. Evaluation for resistance to rhizomania is based on a composite visual score of foliar color and wilting and a root score of bearding (the massive proliferation of necrotic secondary roots), shape, and size. Two methods are used to estimate reaction to rhizomania. First, scores for foliar yellowing attributed to rhizomania are evaluated on 0 to 9 scale, where 0 = very dark green with no yellowish plants, and 9 = 100% of the plants showing yellowing typical of rhizomania-susceptible varieties. Second, a rhizomania disease index (RZDI) is calculated. Plot canopies are mowed and roots are lifted for evaluation. Each beet per plot is given a root score on a severity scale from 0 (a completely clean root) to 9 (where the tap root is completely bearded, replaced by secondary and tertiary roots, due to rhizomania). As bearding increases, so does the RZDI, which is calculated for each plot based on the severity scale as follows: [(number roots X 0) + (number roots X 1) + X + (number roots X 9)] divided by the total number roots harvested. Essentially it is a weighted average of all roots in the variety. When present, natural PM infection is scored from 0, clean leaves, to 9, indicating at least 90% or more of the leaf area is covered with visible mildew. PM infection is usually higher at the Hartnell Farm due to environmental conditions.
Excel file from Kelly Richardson 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 data with multiple worksheets.
A general overview of the Rhizomania evaluation work at Salinas, California.
Test (411) was conducted at the Spence Farm in Salinas, CA. The field is infested with the wild type strain of BNYVV. Trial was planted in April/May in a RCBD of single-row plots 2.74 m in planted length with 0.61 m between plots and 0.71 m row spacing. Stand count (number of plants per plot) was recorded 6-weeks post-planting. Plants were rated for disease as signs and symptoms of infection were seen, typically beginning in September. Evaluation for resistance to rhizomania is based on a composite visual score of foliar color and wilting and a root score of bearding (the massive proliferation of necrotic secondary roots), shape, and size. Two methods are used to estimate reaction to rhizomania. First, scores for foliar yellowing attributed to rhizomania are evaluated on 0 to 9 scale, where 0 = very dark green with no yellowish plants, and 9 = 100% of the plants showing yellowing typical of rhizomania-susceptible varieties. Second, a rhizomania disease index (RZDI) is calculated. Plot canopies are mowed and roots are lifted for evaluation. Each beet per plot is given a root score on a severity scale from 0 (a completely clean root) to 9 (where the tap root is completely bearded, replaced by secondary and tertiary roots, due to rhizomania). As bearding increases, so does the RZDI, which is calculated for each plot based on the severity scale as follows: [(number roots X 0) + (number roots X 1) +X + (number roots X 9)] divided by the total number roots harvested. Essentially it is a weighted average of all roots in the variety. When present, natural PM infection is scored from 0, clean leaves, to 9, indicating at least 90% or more of the leaf area is covered with visible mildew.
Excel file from Kelly Richardson 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 data with multiplr worksheets
A general overview of the Rhizomania evaluation work at Salinas, California.
Two tests were conducted in rhizomanina-infested fields at Salinas, CA. Both were at the Spence Farm. Test 512 was in a field infested with the wild type strain of BNYVV. Test 1112 was in a field infested with the Rz1-resistance breaking strain of BNYVV. Trials were planted in April/May in a RCBD of single-row plots 2.74 m in planted length with 0.61 m between plots and 0.71 m row spacing. Stand count (number of plants per plot) was recorded 6-weeks post-planting. Stand count was not taken for Test 1112. Instead, a low, medium, or high plant stand was recorded. Plants were rated for disease as signs and symptoms of infection are seen, typically beginning in September. Evaluation for resistance to rhizomania was based on a composite visual score of foliar color and wilting. Scores for foliar yellowing attributed to rhizomania are evaluated on 0 to 9 scale, where 0 = very dark green with no yellowish plants, and 9 = 100% of the plants showing yellowing typical of rhizomania-susceptible varieties. When present, natural PM infection is scored from 0, clean leaves, to 9, indicating at least 90% or more of the leaf area is covered with visible mildew.
Excel file from Kelly Richardson 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 data with multiple worksheets
A general overview of the Rhizomania evaluation work at Salinas, California.
Two tests were conducted in rhizomanina-infested fields at Salinas, CA. Both were at the Spence Farm. Test 512 was in a field infested with the wild type strain of BNYVV. Test 1112 was in a field infested with the Rz1-resistance breaking strain of BNYVV. Trials were planted in April/May in a RCBD of single-row plots 2.74 m in planted length with 0.61 m between plots and 0.71 m row spacing. Stand count (number of plants per plot) was recorded 6-weeks post-planting. Stand count was not taken for Test 1112. Instead, a low, medium, or high plant stand was recorded. Plants were rated for disease as signs and symptoms of infection are seen, typically beginning in September. Evaluation for resistance to rhizomania was based on a composite visual score of foliar color and wilting. Scores for foliar yellowing attributed to rhizomania are evaluated on 0 to 9 scale, where 0 = very dark green with no yellowish plants, and 9 = 100% of the plants showing yellowing typical of rhizomania-susceptible varieties. When present, natural PM infection is scored from 0, clean leaves, to 9, indicating at least 90% or more of the leaf area is covered with visible mildew.
Excel file from Kelly Richardson 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2014 data with multiple worksheets
A general overview of the Rhizomania evaluation work at Salinas, California.
Test (513) was conducted at the Spence Farm in Salinas, CA. The field for this test at the Spence Farm is infested with the wild type strain of BNYVV. Trial was planted in April/May in a RCBD of single-row plots 2.74 m in planted length with 0.61 m between plots and 0.71 m row spacing. Stand count (number of plants per plot) was recorded 6-weeks post-planting. Plants were rated for disease as signs and symptoms of infection are seen, typically beginning in September. Evaluation for resistance to rhizomania is based on a composite visual score of foliar color and wilting. Scores for foliar yellowing attributed to rhizomania are evaluated on 0 to 9 scale, where 0 = very dark green with no yellowish plants, and 9 = 100% of the plants showing yellowing typical of rhizomania-susceptible varieties. When present, natural PM infection is scored from 0, clean leaves, to 9, indicating at least 90% or more of the leaf area is covered with visible mildew.
Excel file from Kelly Richardson 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 data with multiple worksheets
A general overview of the Rhizomania evaluation work at Salinas, California.
Root ring color done by Devon L. Doney, Fargo, North Dakota, 1996
Study Name: BEET_ROOTMAG_NDAK Exp. Design: Randomized Block Exp. Location: St. Thomas, Latitude: 48 Degrees 35 Minutes N Longitude: 97 Degrees 27 Minutes W Soil texture: Sandy loam % Organic matter: 4 Soil pH: 8.15 Total rainfall: 229.62 Year seeded: 05/14/1992 Year tested: 08/03/1992 Pest protection: HERBIC Comment: Herbicide - 3# Antor 3# Ro-neet-
Dr. Jerry Michels is a professor in the Department of Entomology at Texas A&M University and is located at the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station in Bushland, TX. Dr. Michels and his technical staff evaluate resistance to the sugar beet root aphid. His staff is hired through Texas A&M University and consists of full time professional technical personnel. This is a greenhouse test that is evaluated against a resistant and susceptible sugar beet check. Replications consist of a single plant grown in a pot and infested with aphids at the four leaf stage; each accession is replicated 15 times. The plants are evaluated six weeks after infestation and scored on a 1 to 4 scale] (no aphid colonization to major aphid colonization and reproduction) scale.
For an Excel (xlsx) file of Michels screening data from 1995 to 2010
Each entry was replicated 15 times (1 plant/rep) in 4-inch square pots using a 2:1 topsoil: sand mix. At the four true leaf stage each pot was infested with five sugarbeet root aphids. Greenhouse temperature was approximately 20oC and plants were watered as needed to keep the soil moist and prevent aphids from drowning before colonies established. Plants were allowed to grow undisturbed for six weeks. After six weeks the infestations were evaluated. Plants were removed from the pots, and the level of the infestation was determined by floating aphids out of the root mass in bowls filled with water. Level of infestation was rated between 1-4 for each plant (1 - no nymphs or adults present; 2 - nymphs present, no adults present; 3 - nymphs present, few adults present; 4 - nymphs present, many adults present). The resistant check (Ranger) rated 1.47
For an Excel (xlsx) file of Michels screening data from 1995 to 2010
In order to have standard comparisons, the evaluation included 15 replications of 'Ranger' and 'ACH205' repeated twice as resistant and susceptible controls, respectively. None ofthe entries in this experiment seemed to be resistant to the sugar beet root aphid. In the field, theentries may host fewer aphids than in a controlled greenhouse experiment, however, all would support sugar beet root aphid reproduction and development, since all approached or exceeded a rating of 3.0 on our 1-4 scale. ACH205 and Ranger results were typical of those found in previous experiments, indicating that the aphid source was consistent with previous experiments.
For an Excel (xlsx) file of Michels screening data from 1995 to 2010
Each entry was replicated 15 times. Three seeds of each entry were planted in 4-inch square pots using a 2:1 topsoil: sand mix. After germination, each pot was reduced to one healthy plant. These plants were allowed to grow until they reached the four true leaf stage. Each pot was then infested with five sugarbeet root aphids. Aphids used for infesting the plants were taken from a bulk greenhouse culture reared Chenopodium quinoa. Potted, infested plants were arranged randomly in groups of three in flats with a row of empty pots separating each group of three. Greenhouse temperature was approximately 20 degrees C and plants were manually watered as needed to keep the soil moist and prevent aphids from drowning before colonies established. Plants were allowed to grow undisturbed for six weeks.
After six weeks the infestations were evaluated. Plants that died from causes other than sugarbeet root aphid damage, before the evaluations were made, were not included in the analyses. Plants were removed from the pots, and the severity of the infestation was determined by floating aphids out of the root mass in 12 cm diameter x 8 cm deep bowls filled with water. Level of infestation was rated between 1-4 for each plant. Classifications are as follows: 1 - no nymphs or adults present; 2 - nymphs present, no adults present; 3 - nymphs present, few adults present; 4 - nymphs present, many adults present. Aphids were classified as adult using the presence of the sub-genital plate as an indicator of maturity.
Data were analyzed by analysis of variance and the Student-Newman-Keuls test was used to separate significantly different means (p=0.05). The results of the 1-4 rating.
For an Excel (xlsx) file of Michels screening data from 1995 to 2010
Each entry was replicated 15 times. Three seeds of each entry were planted in 4-inch square pots using a 2:1 topsoil: sand mix. After germination, each pot was reduced to one healthy plant. These plants were allowed to grow until they reached the four true leaf stage. Each pot was then infested with five sugarbeet root aphids. Aphids used for infesting the plants were taken from a bulk greenhouse culture reared Chenopodium quinoa. Potted, infested plants were arranged randomly in groups of three in flats with a row of empty pots separating each group of three. Greenhouse temperature was approximately 20 degrees C and plants were manually watered as needed to keep the soil moist and prevent aphids from drowning before colonies established. Plants were allowed to grow undisturbed for six weeks.
After six weeks the infestations were evaluated. Plants that died from causes other than sugarbeet root aphid damage, before the evaluations were made, were not included in the analyses. Plants were removed from the pots, and the severity of the infestation was determined by floating aphids out of the root mass in 12 cm diameter x 8 cm deep bowls filled with water. Level of infestation was rated between 1-4 for each plant. Classifications are as follows: 1 - no nymphs or adults present; 2 - nymphs present, no adults present; 3 - nymphs present, few adults present; 4 - nymphs present, many adults present. Aphids were classified as adult using the presence of the sub-genital plate as an indicator of maturity.
Data were analyzed by analysis of variance and the Student-Newman-Keuls test was used to separate significantly different means (p=0.05). The results of the 1-4 rating.
For an Excel (xlsx) file of Michels screening data from 1995 to 2010
Each entry was replicated 15 times. Three seeds of each entry were planted in 4-inch square pots using a 2:1 topsoil: sand mix. After germination, each pot was reduced to one healthy plant. These plants were allowed to grow until they reached the four true leaf stage. Each pot was then infested with five sugarbeet root aphids. Aphids used for infesting the plants were taken from a bulk greenhouse culture reared Chenopodium quinoa. Potted, infested plants were arranged randomly in groups of three in flats with a row of empty pots separating each group of three. Greenhouse temperature was approximately 20 degrees C and plants were manually watered as needed to keep the soil moist and prevent aphids from drowning before colonies established. Plants were allowed to grow undisturbed for six weeks.
After six weeks the infestations were evaluated. Plants that died from causes other than sugarbeet root aphid damage, before the evaluations were made, were not included in the analyses. Plants were removed from the pots, and the severity of the infestation was determined by floating aphids out of the root mass in 12 cm diameter x 8 cm deep bowls filled with water. Level of infestation was rated between 1-4 for each plant. Classifications are as follows: 1 - no nymphs or adults present; 2 - nymphs present, no adults present; 3 - nymphs present, few adults present; 4 - nymphs present, many adults present. Aphids were classified as adult using the presence of the sub-genital plate as an indicator of maturity.
Data were analyzed by analysis of variance and the Student-Newman-Keuls test was used to separate significantly different means (p=0.05). The results of the 1-4 rating.
For an Excel (xlsx) file of Michels screening data from 1995 to 2010
Each entry was replicated 15 times. Three seeds of each entry were planted in 4-inch square pots using a 2:1 topsoil: sand mix. After germination, each pot was reduced to one healthy plant. These plants were allowed to grow until they reached the four true leaf stage. Each pot was then infested with five sugarbeet root aphids. Aphids used for infesting the plants were taken from a bulk greenhouse culture reared Chenopodium quinoa. Potted, infested plants were arranged randomly in groups of three in flats with a row of empty pots separating each group of three. Greenhouse temperature was approximately 20 degrees C and plants were manually watered as needed to keep the soil moist and prevent aphids from drowning before colonies established. Plants were allowed to grow undisturbed for six weeks.
After six weeks the infestations were evaluated. Plants that died from causes other than sugarbeet root aphid damage, before the evaluations were made, were not included in the analyses. Plants were removed from the pots, and the severity of the infestation was determined by floating aphids out of the root mass in 12 cm diameter x 8 cm deep bowls filled with water. Level of infestation was rated between 1-4 for each plant. Classifications are as follows: 1 - no nymphs or adults present; 2 - nymphs present, no adults present; 3 - nymphs present, few adults present; 4 - nymphs present, many adults present. Aphids were classified as adult using the presence of the sub-genital plate as an indicator of maturity.
Data were analyzed by analysis of variance and the Student-Newman-Keuls test was used to separate significantly different means (p=0.05). The results of the 1-4 rating.
For an Excel (xlsx) file of Michels screening data from 1995 to 2010
Each entry was replicated 15 times. Three seeds of each entry were planted in 4-inch square pots using a 2:1 topsoil: sand mix. After germination, each pot was reduced to one healthy plant. These plants were allowed to grow until they reached the four true leaf stage. Each pot was then infested with five sugarbeet root aphids. Aphids used for infesting the plants were taken from a bulk greenhouse culture reared Chenopodium quinoa. Potted, infested plants were arranged randomly in groups of three in flats with a row of empty pots separating each group of three. Greenhouse temperature was approximately 20 degrees C and plants were manually watered as needed to keep the soil moist and prevent aphids from drowning before colonies established. Plants were allowed to grow undisturbed for six weeks.
After six weeks the infestations were evaluated. Plants that died from causes other than sugarbeet root aphid damage, before the evaluations were made, were not included in the analyses. Plants were removed from the pots, and the severity of the infestation was determined by floating aphids out of the root mass in 12 cm diameter x 8 cm deep bowls filled with water. Level of infestation was rated between 1-4 for each plant. Classifications are as follows: 1 - no nymphs or adults present; 2 - nymphs present, no adults present; 3 - nymphs present, few adults present; 4 - nymphs present, many adults present. Aphids were classified as adult using the presence of the sub-genital plate as an indicator of maturity.
Data were analyzed by analysis of variance and the Student-Newman-Keuls test was used to separate significantly different means (p=0.05). The results of the 1-4 rating.
For an Excel (xlsx) file of Michels screening data from 1995 to 2010
Each entry was replicated 15 times. Three seeds of each entry were planted in 4-inch square pots using a 2:1 topsoil: sand mix. After germination, each pot was reduced to one healthy plant. These plants were allowed to grow until they reached the four true leaf stage. Each pot was then infested with five sugarbeet root aphids. Aphids used for infesting the plants were taken from a bulk greenhouse culture reared Chenopodium quinoa. Potted, infested plants were arranged randomly in groups of three in flats with a row of empty pots separating each group of three. Greenhouse temperature was approximately 20 degrees C and plants were manually watered as needed to keep the soil moist and prevent aphids from drowning before colonies established. Plants were allowed to grow undisturbed for six weeks.
After six weeks the infestations were evaluated. Plants that died from causes other than sugarbeet root aphid damage, before the evaluations were made, were not included in the analyses. Plants were removed from the pots, and the severity of the infestation was determined by floating aphids out of the root mass in 12 cm diameter x 8 cm deep bowls filled with water. Level of infestation was rated between 1-4 for each plant. Classifications are as follows: 1 - no nymphs or adults present; 2 - nymphs present, no adults present; 3 - nymphs present, few adults present; 4 - nymphs present, many adults present. Aphids were classified as adult using the presence of the sub-genital plate as an indicator of maturity.
Data were analyzed by analysis of variance and the Student-Newman-Keuls test was used to separate significantly different means (p=0.05). The results of the 1-4 rating.
For an Excel (xlsx) file of Michels screening data from 1995 to 2010
Each entry was replicated 15 times. Three seeds of each entry were planted in 4-inch square pots using a 2:1 topsoil: sand mix. After germination, each pot was reduced to one healthy plant. These plants were allowed to grow until they reached the four true leaf stage. Each pot was then infested with five sugarbeet root aphids. Aphids used for infesting the plants were taken from a bulk greenhouse culture reared Chenopodium quinoa. Potted, infested plants were arranged randomly in groups of three in flats with a row of empty pots separating each group of three. Greenhouse temperature was approximately 20 degrees C and plants were manually watered as needed to keep the soil moist and prevent aphids from drowning before colonies established. Plants were allowed to grow undisturbed for six weeks.
After six weeks the infestations were evaluated. Plants that died from causes other than sugarbeet root aphid damage, before the evaluations were made, were not included in the analyses. Plants were removed from the pots, and the severity of the infestation was determined by floating aphids out of the root mass in 12 cm diameter x 8 cm deep bowls filled with water. Level of infestation was rated between 1-4 for each plant. Classifications are as follows: 1 - no nymphs or adults present; 2 - nymphs present, no adults present; 3 - nymphs present, few adults present; 4 - nymphs present, many adults present. Aphids were classified as adult using the presence of the sub-genital plate as an indicator of maturity.
Data were analyzed by analysis of variance and the Student-Newman-Keuls test was used to separate significantly different means (p=0.05). The results of the 1-4 rating.
For an Excel (xlsx) file of Michels screening data from 1995 to 2010
Each entry was replicated 15 times. Three seeds of each entry were planted in 4-inch square pots using a 2:1 topsoil: sand mix. After germination, each pot was reduced to one healthy plant. These plants were allowed to grow until they reached the four true leaf stage. Each pot was then infested with five sugarbeet root aphids. Aphids used for infesting the plants were taken from a bulk greenhouse culture reared Chenopodium quinoa. Potted, infested plants were arranged randomly in groups of three in flats with a row of empty pots separating each group of three. Greenhouse temperature was approximately 20 degrees C and plants were manually watered as needed to keep the soil moist and prevent aphids from drowning before colonies established. Plants were allowed to grow undisturbed for six weeks.
After six weeks the infestations were evaluated. Plants that died from causes other than sugarbeet root aphid damage, before the evaluations were made, were not included in the analyses. Plants were removed from the pots, and the severity of the infestation was determined by floating aphids out of the root mass in 12 cm diameter x 8 cm deep bowls filled with water. Level of infestation was rated between 1-4 for each plant. Classifications are as follows: 1 - no nymphs or adults present; 2 - nymphs present, no adults present; 3 - nymphs present, few adults present; 4 - nymphs present, many adults present. Aphids were classified as adult using the presence of the sub-genital plate as an indicator of maturity.
Data were analyzed by analysis of variance and the Student-Newman-Keuls test was used to separate significantly different means (p=0.05). The results of the 1-4 rating.
For an Excel (xlsx) file of Michels screening data from 1995 to 2010
Each entry was replicated 15 times. Three seeds of each entry were planted in 4-inch square pots using a 2:1 topsoil: sand mix. After germination, each pot was reduced to one healthy plant. These plants were allowed to grow until they reached the four true leaf stage. Each pot was then infested with five sugarbeet root aphids. Aphids used for infesting the plants were taken from a bulk greenhouse culture reared Chenopodium quinoa. Potted, infested plants were arranged randomly in groups of three in flats with a row of empty pots separating each group of three. Greenhouse temperature was approximately 20 degrees C and plants were manually watered as needed to keep the soil moist and prevent aphids from drowning before colonies established. Plants were allowed to grow undisturbed for six weeks.
After six weeks the infestations were evaluated. Plants that died from causes other than sugarbeet root aphid damage, before the evaluations were made, were not included in the analyses. Plants were removed from the pots, and the severity of the infestation was determined by floating aphids out of the root mass in 12 cm diameter x 8 cm deep bowls filled with water. Level of infestation was rated between 1-4 for each plant. Classifications are as follows: 1 - no nymphs or adults present; 2 - nymphs present, no adults present; 3 - nymphs present, few adults present; 4 - nymphs present, many adults present. Aphids were classified as adult using the presence of the sub-genital plate as an indicator of maturity.
Data were analyzed by analysis of variance and the Student-Newman-Keuls test was used to separate significantly different means (p=0.05). The results of the 1-4 rating.
For an Excel (xlsx) file of Michels screening data from 1995 to 2010
Each entry was replicated 15 times. Three seeds of each entry were planted in 4-inch square pots using a 2:1 topsoil: sand mix. After germination, each pot was reduced to one healthy plant. These plants were allowed to grow until they reached the four true leaf stage. Each pot was then infested with five sugarbeet root aphids. Aphids used for infesting the plants were taken from a bulk greenhouse culture reared Chenopodium quinoa. Potted, infested plants were arranged randomly in groups of three in flats with a row of empty pots separating each group of three. Greenhouse temperature was approximately 20 degrees C and plants were manually watered as needed to keep the soil moist and prevent aphids from drowning before colonies established. Plants were allowed to grow undisturbed for six weeks.
After six weeks the infestations were evaluated. Plants that died from causes other than sugarbeet root aphid damage, before the evaluations were made, were not included in the analyses. Plants were removed from the pots, and the severity of the infestation was determined by floating aphids out of the root mass in 12 cm diameter x 8 cm deep bowls filled with water. Level of infestation was rated between 1-4 for each plant. Classifications are as follows: 1 - no nymphs or adults present; 2 - nymphs present, no adults present; 3 - nymphs present, few adults present; 4 - nymphs present, many adults present. Aphids were classified as adult using the presence of the sub-genital plate as an indicator of maturity.
Data were analyzed by analysis of variance and the Student-Newman-Keuls test was used to separate significantly different means (p=0.05). The results of the 1-4 rating.
For an Excel (xlsx) file of Michels screening data from 1995 to 2010
Sugar beet cultivars were seeded (5 seeds per pot) into 0.5 l pots using a custom soil mixture of 25% sand, 25% clay, and 50% peat moss. Upon emergence, plants were thinned to 1 plant per pot and maintained in a climate-controlled greenhouse at 24-30ºC with supplemental light set at 10 hr:14 hr (light:dark) cycle. Following three weeks of growth, two 10-ml holes (1.27 cm in diameter) were formed in the soil using a round-bottom centrifuge tube. Cells were then be capped with a natural cork stopper. Beets were grown for two more weeks to allow for sufficient root mass to invade soil cells. Five sugar beet root aphids were placed in each cell (10 aphids per pot or plant), and the corks replaced to enclose the aphids. Aphids were allowed to multiply for three weeks and then be evaluated and sampled
.
To determine resistance or susceptibility of individual plants, root aphids were evaluated by visual rating (Fig. 1). The root aphid infestation were evaluated by removing the soil/root-ball from the pot and breaking open the ball so that both root cells are visible. The extent to which the aphids were present in the cells is the basis of the visual rating system, where 0 represents no aphids, 1 represents isolated aphids, 2 represents small colony, up to ¼ of cells, 3 represents cells ¼ to ½ full, 4 represents cells ½ to ¾ full, 5 represents cells ¾ full to full, and 6 represents cells excessively full. Plants with a root aphid rating of 0 or 1 are considered resistant and plants with a root aphid rating of 5 or 6 are considered susceptible. Ten plants per cultivar were evaluated. Susceptible check was HM3035RZ and had an average root aphid rating of 4.8 (19 plants). Resistant check was Monohikari-lot #8161 and had an average root aphid rating of 0.8 (19 plants).
External root color habit done by Devon L. Doney, State University Station, Fargo, North Dakota. Field plot, 4 reps, 25 foot row.
External root color habit done by Devon L. Doney, Fargo, North Dakota, 1996
Study Name: BEET_ROOTMAG_NDAK Year started: //1987 Comment: This experiment was performed to evaluate Root maggot resistance.
Study Name: BEET_ROOTMAG_NDAK
Root Maggot resistance study done by Dr. Albin W. Anderson, Fargo, North Dakota, 1995
Root Maggot resistance study done by Dr. Albin W. Anderson, Fargo, North Dakota, 1996
Root maggot screening on by J. Scott Armstrong, Fargo, North Daloka, 1997. Trial was conducted in St Thomas, North Dakata because sugarbeet root maggot populations have been high in this area. The trial was planted May 24,1997 and consisted of a single 35 foot row per accession with 4 replications. Ten roots from each entry per replication were evaluated for insect damage, and rated on a 0 to 9 (no damage to dying plant) scale on July 24 and 28, 1997. The resistant control average 2.5.
Densities of SBRM populations were lower than expected for St. Thomas, as reflected by overall damage ratings and numbers caught on sitcky stakes surrounding the test plots. The highest mean damage rating was 4.8 compared to 6.7 from last years evaluation. Entry PI 269309 had a slightly lower damage rating than F 1016, a SBRM-resistant line developed and released by Dr.Campbell. Entry PI 181718 (94NOO13) did not differ significantly from F 1016 in damage rating or plant stand counts. This is encouraging because entries that show lower damage ratings usually have low plant stand counts. PI 142809 had a high plant stand count and was slightly lower, although not significantly from Maribo 9363 B in damage. PI 269309, PI 181718(94NOO13), and PI 142809, should be considered for further SBRM resistance development based on damage ratings and plant stand counts.
A commercial field site near St. Thomas, in northeastern North Dakota, was selected for the 1999 Beta germplasm trial due to consistently high Sugar beet root maggot (SBRM) populations in the vicinity. Forty entries (treatments) were planted on 17 May into single-row plots (22-inch row spacing) that were 35 ft in length. Experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replications of treatments. A commercial variety (Maribo 9363) was included as a susceptible standard. SBRM population levels in the northern Red River Valley of North Dakota and Minnesota were severe during the 1999 growing season. Plant stand counts were very low for the majority of this experiment. Maribo 9363 had a DI of 5.88 and an average of only 19 surviving plants per 35 ft of row, whereas, the same variety had a mean density of 44.5 plants during 1998. Low stand counts were largely due to severe SBRM larval feeding injury that often caused the severing of sugar beet tap roots and eventual plant mortality.
A commercial field site near St. Thomas (Pembina County) in northeastern North Dakota was selected to evaluate Beta germplasm accessions for potential resistance to SBRM feeding injury. The experiment was planted on 10 May, 2000. No planting-time or postemergence insecticide protection was applied to any plots. Individual treatment plots were single rows that were 35 ft (10.7 m) long and spaced 22 inches (55.9 cm) apart. Experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replications of 30 treatments. Treatments included nine accessions of Beta vulgaris, seven accessions of B. v. subsp. vulgaris, and eight accessions of B. v. subsp. maritima that were obtained from the NPGS Beta collection, courtesy of the USDA-ARS Western Regional Plant Introduction Station (Pullman, WA). Six additional entries (i.e., PI-605413, PI-608437, Beta 3712, Maribo 9363, PI-590659, and Yellow) were included for comparative purposes. One of the commercial hybrid entries, Maribo 9363, was used as the susceptible control. Larval feeding injury was assessed on up to ten sugarbeet roots per plot and rated in accordance with a 0 to 9 scale (0 = no damage and 9 = 75% or more of root surface blackened with feeding scars or a dead plant) on 2 August. Sugarbeet root maggot fly activity was relatively high in the plot area, and peaked between 7 and 8 June at about 230 flies per stake per day. Correspondingly, root maggot larval feeding injury levels observed in the trial were also high, as was observed for PI-142812, which incurred an average root injury rating (RI) of 7.0 on the 0 to 9 scale. The lowest average SBRM feeding injury in the test (RI = 2.28) was recorded for PI-608437 (F1016), which was significantly less injury than that incurred by any other entry in the trial. Other entries that incurred moderately low levels (i.e., RI < 5.0) of feeding injury that were significantly lower than that recorded for the susceptible control (i.e., Maribo 9363) included PI-546378 (RI = 4.85), PI-590659 (FC704; RI = 4.08), and PI-605413 (F1015; RI = 3.45). The relatively low incidence of injury incurred by these entries, despite the high infestation levels that developed during the 2000 growing season, suggests that they have moderate to strong tolerance to sugarbeet root maggot larval feeding injury.
This trial was planted on 16 May, 2001 in a grower-owned field site near St. Thomas, ND to evaluate Beta germplasm accessions for potential resistance to sugarbeet root maggot (SBRM) feeding injury. Individual treatment plots were single, 28-ft (8.5 m) long rows that were spaced 22 inches (55.9 cm) apart. Experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replications. A total of 25 entries were tested. Twenty accessions (i.e., nine accessions of B. vulgaris, four of B. v. maritima, and seven accessions of B. v. vulgaris) were obtained from the NPGS Beta collection, courtesy of the USDA-ARS Western Regional Plant Introduction Station (Pullman, WA). Five additional entries (i.e., PI-605413, PI-608437, Beta 3712, PI-590659, and 99N0015 [Yellow]) were included in the experiment for comparative purposes. Root maggot larval feeding injury was assessed on up to ten sugarbeet roots per plot on 8 August. Each root was washed, examined for SBRM feeding injury, and rated in accordance with a 0 to 9 scale (0 = no damage and 9 = 75% or more of root surface blackened with feeding scars or a dead plant). Root maggot fly activity in the plot area began in early June and peaked on 12 June (i.e., a very typical time for peak fly to occur) at about 67 flies per trap per day. A second activity peak of about 50 flies per trap occurred about one week later. Overall, SBRM feeding injury ratings (RI) in this trial were considered moderate, with the highest (RI = 6.1 on the 0 to 9 rating scale) being recorded for PI-174062. The lowest mean SBRM root feeding injury in the test (RI = 2.63) was recorded for PI-608437 (F1016). This entry, as well as PI-590659 (FC704; RI = 2.7), sustained significantly lower levels of SBRM feeding injury than the susceptible commercial hybrid (Beta 3712; RI = 5.1). Other entries that incurred relatively low levels of feeding injury included Ames 19022 (RI = 3.70), Yellow (RI = 3.73), PI-531254 (RI = 3.85), PI-590664 (RI = 3.95), Ames 3096 (RI = 4.03), PI-605413 (F1015; RI = 4.10), PI-518306 (RI = 4.11), and PI-612770 (RI = 4.35).
Several Beta germplasm accessions were assessed for potential resistance to sugarbeet root maggot (SBRM) feeding injury in a field trial near St. Thomas in northeastern ND. Plots were planted on 14 May, 2002, and none of the treatments received chemical insecticide protection. Individual treatment plots were single, 33-ft (10 m) long rows that were spaced 22 inches (55.9 cm) apart. Experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replications of 40 treatments. Treatments included one accession of Beta macrocarpa, two accessions of B. vulgaris, and 27 accessions of B. vulgaris maritima from the NPGS Beta collection, courtesy of the USDA-ARS Western Regional Plant Introduction Station (Pullman, WA). Ten additional entries (i.e., PI-608437, PI-605413, PI-179180, PI-181718, 01N0015, 01N0017, 01N0018, 01N0019, 01N0023, and PI-590659) were included for comparative purposes. Sugarbeet root maggot flies were first detected in the plot area on 28 May; however, the majority of fly activity occurred later than average for the area, and peaked on 28 June at a moderately high rate of 103 flies per trap per day. Larval feeding injury was assessed on up to ten sugarbeet roots per plot by rating them in accordance with a 0 to 9 scale (0 = no damage and 9 = 75% or more of root surface blackened with feeding scars or a dead plant) on 19 August. Overall, root maggot larval feeding injury (i.e., RI) levels observed in the trial were moderate to moderately high in comparison to other years of testing. Roots of PI-608437 (F1016) plants incurred significantly lower levels of SBRM feeding injury (mean RI = 1.15 on the 0 to 9 scale) than all other entries in the trial. Other entries that sustained relatively low levels of feeding injury (i.e., RI < 4.00) included 01N0015, PI-590659 (FC704), PI-605413 (F1015), 01N0017, and 01N0019, for which the average root ratings were 2.43, 3.28, 3.80, 3.85, and 3.98, respectively. The experimental breeding program entry, 01N0015, incurred significantly lower levels of root injury than all other entries in the trial, except PI-608437 and PI-590659.
A field site near St. Thomas, ND was selected to evaluate Beta germplasm accessions for potential resistance to sugarbeet root maggot (SBRM) feeding injury. The experiment was planted on 8 May, 2003 without any insecticidal root protection into 32-ft (9.75 m) long single-row plots spaced 22 inches (55.9 cm) apart. Experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replications. A total of 32 entries were tested. Thirty B. vulgaris accessions were obtained from the NPGS Beta collection, courtesy of the USDA-ARS Western Regional Plant Introduction Station (Pullman, WA). Two additional entries (i.e., PI-605413 and PI-608437) were included in the experiment for comparative purposes. Root maggot larval feeding injury was assessed on up to ten sugarbeet roots per plot on 13 August. All root samples were washed, examined for SBRM feeding injury, and rated in accordance with a 0 to 9 scale (0 = no damage and 9 = 75% or more of root surface blackened with feeding scars or a dead plant). Root maggot fly activity in the plot area began slightly later than average, with the first flies being detected in early June and activity peaking on 18 June at a moderate rate of 69 flies captured per trap per day. Sugarbeet root maggot feeding injury in this trial was low to moderate in most plots, as was evidenced by the highest mean root injury rating (RI) in the trial only reaching 4.41 on the on the 0 to 9 rating scale. Consequently, the low overall feeding pressure in the trial resulted in very few statistical differences among treatments. The lowest mean SBRM feeding injury rating in the test (RI = 1.78) was recorded for PI-608437 (F1016). Other entries that incurred low levels of SBRM feeding injury (i.e., mean RI < 3.22) that were not significantly different from those in plots planted with PI-608437 included PI-605413 ([F1015] RI = 2.08), PI-504215 (RI = 2.8), Ames 19161 (RI = 3.03), PI-504218 (RI = 3.17), and PI-504249 (RI = 3.22).
A commercial field site near St. Thomas (Pembina County) in northeastern North Dakota was selected to evaluate Beta germplasm accessions for potential resistance to SBRM feeding injury. The experiment was planted on 6 May, 2004. No planting-time or postemergence insecticide protection was applied to any plots. Individual treatment plots were single rows that were 33 ft (10 m) long and spaced 22 inches (55.9 cm) apart. Experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replications of 36 treatments. Treatments included 26 accessions of B. vulgaris maritima that were obtained from the NPGS Beta collection, courtesy of the USDA-ARS Western Regional Plant Introduction Station (Pullman, WA). Ten additional entries (i.e., PI-179180, PI-181718, PI-221436, PI-285595, PI-658654, 02N0028, PI-605413, PI-608437, Beta 6600, and PI-590659) were included for comparative purposes. Larval feeding injury was assessed on up to ten sugarbeet roots per plot and rated in accordance with a 0 to 9 scale (0 = no damage and 9 = 75% or more of root surface blackened with feeding scars or a dead plant) on 18 August. Sugarbeet root maggot fly activity was delayed by cool spring weather conditions that prevailed during much of April and May. Despite later-than-average emergence, fly activity in the plot area peaked at a relatively high level of 113 flies per stake per day on June 30 (i.e., about two weeks later than normal). Root maggot larval feeding injury levels were also relatively high compared to other years of testing. For example, the highest average root rating in the trial (7.11 on the 0 to 9 scale) was recorded for PI- 504250. The lowest overall SBRM feeding injury in the test (i.e., 1.85) was recorded for PI-608437 (F1016). Other entries that incurred low levels of feeding injury that were not significantly different from those recorded for PI-608437 included PI-658654 (F1024), 02N0028, and PI-605413 (F1015), which had average root ratings of 2.45, 2.60, and 2.85, respectively. Root injury ratings for these four top-performing entries were all significantly lower than all other entries in the trial. All remaining entries incurred mean levels of root maggot feeding injury that exceeded 4.0 on the 0 to 9 rating scale.
A grower-owned field site near St. Thomas, North Dakota was selected to evaluate Beta germplasm accessions for potential resistance to sugarbeet root maggot (SBRM) feeding injury. Plots were planted on 6 May, 2005, and no planting-time or postemergence insecticide protection used for any of the treatments. Individual treatment plots consisted of single rows that were 28 ft (8.5 m) long and spaced 22 inches (55.9 cm) apart. Forty treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Treatments included 30 accessions of B. vulgaris maritima that were obtained from the NPGS Beta collection, courtesy of the USDA-ARS Western Regional Plant Introduction Station (Pullman, WA). Ten additional entries (i.e., PI-179180, PI-181718, PI-221436, PI-285596, PI-605413, PI-608437, 04N0063, PI-658654, Beta 6600, and PI-590659 were included for comparative purposes. Larval feeding injury was assessed on up to ten sugarbeet roots per plot and rated in accordance with a 0 to 9 scale (0 = no damage and 9 = 75% or more of root surface blackened with feeding scars or a dead plant) on 23 August. Due to extended periods of cold weather during April and May, SBRM fly activity in 2005 began later than normal and peaked on 22 June at a relatively low level of 51 flies per trap per day. However, fly activity persisted for a relatively long period of nearly three weeks. Accordingly, root maggot larval feeding injury rating means in the more susceptible entries of this trial (i.e., PI-504202, PI-504249, and Ames 4436) were moderately high, ranging from 5.45 to 6.85 on the 0 to 9 scale. The lowest SBRM feeding injury in the test (i.e., mean = 0.28) was recorded for roots of PI-590659 (FC704) plants. Other entries that also incurred very low levels of feeding injury (i.e., 0.40 to 2.23) that were not statistically different from that recorded for PI-590659 included the following (in ascending order of injury): PI-181718, PI-179180, PI-285596, PI-658654 (F1024), PI-540616, PI-540620, PI-608437 (F1016), PI-221436, PI-518421, PI-540629, PI-540643, PI-540619, PI-540615, and PI-540630.
This research was carried out in a commercial sugarbeet production field site near St. Thomas, ND during the 2006 growing season to screen Beta germplasm accessions for potential resistance to sugarbeet root maggot (SBRM) feeding injury. Plots were planted on 8 May, 2006 without any insecticidal root protection into 35-ft (10.7 m) long single-row plots spaced 22 inches (55.9 cm) apart. Experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replications. A total of 36 entries were tested. Twenty-nine accessions of B. vulgaris maritima were obtained from the NPGS Beta collection, courtesy of the USDA-ARS Western Regional Plant Introduction Station (Pullman, WA). Seven additional entries (i.e., PI-221436, PI-285595, PI-658654, 04N0064, PI-608437, PI-590659, and Beta 2084 [a commercial hybrid]) were included in the experiment for comparative purposes. Sugarbeet root maggot larval feeding injury was assessed on up to ten sugarbeet roots per plot on 14 August. Each root was washed, examined for SBRM feeding injury, and rated in accordance with the 0 to 9 scale (0 = no damage and 9 = 75% or more of root surface blackened with feeding scars or a dead plant. The onset of SBRM adult fly activity in the plot area occurred slightly earlier than average, with the first flies being detected early in the last week of May, and activity peaking around 4 June at over 80 flies per trap per day. This was considered a high level of SBRM fly activity in comparison to most previous years of testing. Accordingly, the overall levels of SBRM feeding injury in this trial were also relatively high. The lowest mean SBRM root-feeding injury (i.e., DR) in the test (DR = 1.43 on the 0 to 9 rating scale) was recorded for PI-608437 (F1016). Entries PI-658654 (F1024), PI-590659 (FC704), and 04N0064 also incurred low levels of injury (DR = 1.47, 2.38, and 2.76, respectively), and were not significantly different from PI-608437. Other accessions that sustained moderately low levels of SBRM feeding injury (mean < 4.0) included the following (in ascending order of root injury): PI-540660 (DR=3.43), PI-540667 (DR=3.48), Beta-2084 (DR=3.50), PI-518433 (DR=3.60), PI-546407 (DR=3.62), PI-546403 (DR=3.85), PI-285595 (DR=3.85), PI-540657 (DR=3.95), PI-540654 (DR=3.95), and PI-540664 (DR=3.98). The highest levels of injury in this study (i.e., rating > 5.0) occurred in plots planted with PI-504272, PI-546413, PI-546379, PI-504264, PI-504248, PI-546422, PI-546418, and PI-504235, which respectively averaged 5.05, 5.14, 5.15, 5.29, 5.43, 5.76, 6.00, and 7.00 on the 0 to 9 scale.
Several Beta germplasm accessions were assessed for potential resistance to sugarbeet root maggot (SBRM) feeding injury in a field trial near St. Thomas, ND. Plots were planted on 11 May, 2007, and none of the treatments received chemical insecticide protection. Individual treatment plots were single, 28-ft (8.5 m) long rows that were spaced 22 inches (55.9 cm) apart. Experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replications of 35 treatments. Treatments included 30 accessions of B. vulgaris maritima obtained from the NPGS Beta collection, courtesy of the USDA-ARS Western Regional Plant Introduction Station (Pullman, WA). Five additional entries (i.e., PI-605413, PI-608437, PI-658654, Beta 2084, and FC704) were included for comparative purposes. Sugarbeet root maggot fly activity timing was normal for the area, and activity peaked 12 June at a moderate rate of 65 flies per trap per day. Larval feeding injury was assessed on up to ten sugarbeet roots per plot and rated in accordance with a 0 to 9 scale (0 = no damage and 9 = 75% or more of root surface blackened with feeding scars or a dead plant) on 17 August. Root maggot feeding injury levels observed for most entries were also mostly moderate when compared to most years. The lowest levels of SBRM feeding injury were incurred by roots of PI-658654 (F1024) plants, for which the average feeding injury rating was 0.85. Entries that were not significantly different from PI-658654 with respect to SBRM feeding injury incurred included FC704, PI-608437 (F1016), and PI-605413 (F1015), for which the average root ratings were 1.13, 1.40, and 1.60, respectively. Other entries that sustained relatively low levels of SBRM feeding injury (mean < 3.0) included Beta 2084, PI-518377, PI-546389, PI-540565, PI-540633, and PI-540666. PI-518373, PI-562599, PI-251042, FC704, PI-232888, and PI-608437 (F1016).
A field site near St. Thomas, ND was selected to evaluate Beta germplasm accessions for potential resistance to sugarbeet root maggot (SBRM) feeding injury. The experiment was planted on 22 May, 2008 without any insecticidal root protection into 28-ft (8.5 m) long single-row plots spaced 22 inches (55.9 cm) apart. Experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replications. A total of 36 entries were tested. Thirty B. vulgaris accessions were obtained from the NPGS Beta collection, courtesy of the USDA-ARS Western Regional Plant Introduction Station (Pullman, WA). Six additional entries (i.e., PI-504204, PI-608437, PI-658654, Tst-2 (an experimental hybrid with a susceptible female (cms) pollinated by PI 658654, Beta 2084, and FC704) were included in the experiment for comparative purposes. Root maggot larval feeding injury was assessed on up to ten sugarbeet roots per plot on 14 August. Each root was washed, examined for SBRM feeding injury, and rated in accordance with a 0 to 9 scale (0 = no damage and 9 = 75% or more of root surface blackened with feeding scars or a dead plant). Root maggot fly activity in the plot area began considerably later than average, with the first flies being detected on 20 June and activity peaking on 25 June at a very high rate of 110 flies captured per trap per day. Relatively high levels of SBRM root-feeding injury in this trial were also observed. The lowest mean SBRM feeding injury in the test (i.e., 0.38 on the 0 to 9 rating scale) was recorded for PI-608437 (F1016). Root injury incurred by PI-658654 (F1024) was also very low (mean = 0.93), which was not statistically different from the average feeding injury in plots planted with PI-608437. Other entries that incurred low levels of SBRM feeding injury (i.e., mean < 2.0) that were not significantly different from those in plots planted with PI-658654 included FC704 and PI-546411. The highest levels of SBRM feeding injury in this study (i.e., rating > 5.0) occurred in plots planted with PI-562588 and PI-540563, for which mean root injury ratings were 5.03 and 5.33, respectively.
A commercial field site near Auburn, ND was selected to evaluate Beta germplasm accessions for potential resistance to SBRM feeding injury. Plots were planted on 22 May, 2009 without any chemical insecticide protection. Individual treatment plots were single rows that were 28 ft (8.5 m) long and spaced 55.9 cm (22 inches) apart. Experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replications of 36 treatments. Treatments included 17 accessions of B. vulgaris maritima and 13 B. v. vulgaris that were obtained from the NPGS Beta collection, courtesy of the USDA-ARS Western Regional Plant Introduction Station (Pullman, WA). Six additional entries (i.e., PI-605413, PI-608437, PI-658654, Tst-2, Crystal 817, and FC704) were included for comparative purposes. The parentage of Tst-2, an experimental hybrid, was comprised of PI-658654 as the pollinator and a SBRM-susceptible female. The commercial hybrid Crystal 817 served as a susceptible control in the experiment. Larval feeding injury was assessed on up to ten sugarbeet roots per plot and rated in accordance with a 0 to 9 scale (0 = no damage and 9 = 75% or more of root surface blackened with feeding scars or a dead plant) on 13 August. Sugarbeet root maggot fly activity in the area began slightly later than normal, and peaked 16 d later than average on 29 June at 84 flies per trap per day. This was considered a moderate level of SBRM fly activity. Levels of root maggot feeding injury observed for most entries was also moderate when compared to other years of testing. The only accessions that sustained significantly less SBRM feeding injury than the susceptible commercial hybrid (i.e., Crystal 817; rating mean = 4.23) were PI-605413 (F1015), PI-658654 (F1024), and PI-357355. The lowest level of feeding injury (i.e., 1.43 on the 0 to 9 rating scale) in the test was recorded for PI-605413 (F1015); however, root-feeding injury means for PI-658654 and PI-357355 were not significantly different from that for PI-605413. Other entries that incurred relatively low levels of SBRM feeding injury (mean < 3.1) included PI-518373, PI-562599, PI-251042, FC704, PI-232888, and PI-608437 (F1016).
A grower-owned field site near St. Thomas, ND was chosen to evaluate Beta germplasm accessions for potential resistance to SBRM feeding injury. The experiment was planted on 14 May, 2010. No chemical insecticide protection was applied to any plots. Individual treatment plots were single rows that were 11.5 ft (3.5 m) long and spaced 55.9 cm (22 inches) apart. Experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replications of 36 treatments. Treatments included 30 accessions of B. vulgaris maritima that were obtained from the NPGS Beta collection, courtesy of the USDA-ARS Western Regional Plant Introduction Station (Pullman, WA). Six additional entries (i.e., PI-605413, PI-608437, PI-658654, Crystal R761, Beta 1125R, and Hilleshög 2467RZ) were included for comparative purposes. The commercial hybrid Crystal R671 served as the susceptible control. Larval feeding injury was assessed on five sugarbeet roots per plot and rated in accordance with a 0 to 9 scale (0 = no damage and 9 = 75% or more of root surface blackened with feeding scars or a dead plant) on 19 August. Sugarbeet root maggot fly activity in the area began in late-May, and peaked early on 3 June at 60 flies per trap per day. Levels of root maggot feeding injury observed for most entries were low to moderate when compared to other years of testing. The lowest levels of feeding injury in the test were recorded in plots seeded with PI-605413 (F1015) and PI-608437 (F1016), in which ratings averaged 0.70 and 1.00 on the 0 to 9 SBRM root injury rating scale; however, root-feeding injury means for the following entries also were not statistically different from the mean for PI-605413 (ranked in ascending order of root injury sustained): PI-658654 (F1024), Hilleshög 2467RZ, PI-540621, PI-540622, PI-540601, PI-540688, PI-540586, PI-540648, PI-540587, PI-546405, PI-540691, PI-546392, PI-540634, Crystal R761, PI-540593, PI-540668, PI-540675, PI-599350, PI-540671, and PI-540682. Heavy rains saturated the plot area during the SBRM fly activity and egg-laying period in 2010, and could have been a factor in the relatively low number of statistical differences between entries in this experiment.
A grower-owned field site near St. Thomas, ND was selected to evaluate Beta germplasm accessions for potential resistance to SBRM feeding injury. The experiment was planted on 26 May, 2011. No chemical insecticide protection was applied to any plots. Individual treatment plots were single rows that were 28 ft (8.5 m) long and spaced 55.9 cm (22 inches) apart. Experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replications of 40 treatments. Treatments included 30 accessions of B. vulgaris maritima that were obtained from the NPGS Beta collection, courtesy of the USDA-ARS Western Regional Plant Introduction Station (Pullman, WA). Ten additional entries (i.e., Beta 1301, Crystal R761, FC704, PI-182146, PI-504262, PI-540563, PI-605413, PI-608437, PI-658654, and 3JS1217) were included for comparative purposes. Crystal R761, one of the commercial hybrid entries, served as the susceptible control. Larval feeding injury was assessed on up to ten sugarbeet roots per plot and rated in accordance with a 0 to 9 scale (0 = no damage and 9 = 75% or more of root surface blackened with feeding scars or a dead plant) on 11 August. Sugarbeet root maggot fly activity in the area began about two weeks later than normal, and peaked on 28 June at 82 flies per trap per day. This was a moderate level of SBRM fly activity in comparison to most years. Accordingly, SBRM feeding injury in most entries was also somewhat moderate when compared to other years of testing. As a result, statistical differences among entries were relatively infrequent. The lowest SBRM feeding injury in the test (i.e., 1.33 on the 0 to 9 rating scale) was recorded for FC704. Other entries that incurred very low (< 2.0 on the 0 to 9 scale) levels of SBRM feeding injury included PI-518402 and PI-608437 (F1016). These two entries, in addition to FC704, were the only entries that sustained significantly less injury than the susceptible commercial hybrid (i.e., Crystal R761; rating mean = 2.88). Other entries that incurred low levels of feeding injury which were not significantly different from FC704 included Beta 1301 (a commercial hybrid), PI-182146, PI-504262, PI-518403, PI-518423, PI-540580, PI-540639, PI-540590, PI-540688, PI-540693, PI-540697, PI-546401, PI-605413 (F1015), PI-658654 (F1024), and 3JS1217.
A grower-owned field site near St. Thomas, North Dakota was selected to evaluate Beta germplasm accessions for potential resistance to SBRM feeding injury. The experiment was planted on 9 May, 2012. No planting-time or postemergence insecticide protection was applied to any plots. Individual treatment plots were single rows that were 28 ft (8.5 m) long and spaced 55.9 cm (22 inches) apart. Experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replications of 34 treatments. Treatments included 30 accessions of B. vulgaris maritima that were obtained from the NPGS Beta collection, courtesy of the USDA-ARS Western Regional Plant Introduction Station (Pullman, WA). Four additional entries (i.e., FC704, PI-608437, PI-658654, and Triton) were included for comparative purposes. The commercial hybrid entry, Triton, served as the susceptible control. Larval feeding injury was assessed on up to ten sugarbeet roots per plot and rated in accordance with a 0 to 9 scale (0 = no damage and 9 = 75% or more of root surface blackened with feeding scars or a dead plant) on 13 August. Most SBRM fly activity occurred during early to mid-June, and peaked on 8 June at 136 flies per trap per day. This was a relatively high level of activity in comparison to most previous years. Root maggot feeding injury in the more susceptible entries was also moderately high compared to other years of testing. The lowest SBRM feeding injury in the test (i.e., 1.7 on the 0 to 9 rating scale) was recorded for PI-608437 (F1016). PI-608437 incurred significantly less feeding injury than all other entries, except FC704 and PI-658654 (F1024), which had average root injury ratings of 2.22 and 2.97, respectively. Other entries that had significantly lower SBRM feeding injury than the susceptible commercial hybrid (Triton) included the following: PI-518307, PI-518319, PI-518326, PI-518339, PI-518345, PI-518360, PI-518414, PI-540694, and PI-604507.
A commercial field site near St. Thomas (Pembina County) in northeastern North Dakota was selected to evaluate Beta germplasm accessions for potential resistance to SBRM feeding injury. The experiment was planted on 6 June, 2013. No planting-time or postemergence insecticide protection was applied to any plots. Individual treatment plots were single rows that were 28 ft (8.5 m) long and spaced 55.9 cm (22 inches) apart. Experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replications of 36 treatments. Treatments included 30 accessions of B. vulgaris maritima that were obtained from the NPGS Beta collection, courtesy of the USDA-ARS Western Regional Plant Introduction Station (Pullman, WA). Six additional entries (i.e., ACH-817, PI-540563, PI-605413, PI-608437, PI-658654, and Yellow) were included for comparative purposes. The commercial hybrid entry, ACH-817, which has been confirmed as susceptible to SBRM feeding injury in previous testing, was used as the susceptible control. Larval feeding injury was assessed on up to ten sugarbeet roots per plot and rated in accordance with a 0 to 9 scale (0 = no damage and 9 = 75% or more of root surface blackened with feeding scars or a dead plant) on 20 August. Sugarbeet root maggot fly activity was relatively high in the plot area, and peaked on 19 June at 167 flies per stake per day. Overall levels of SBRM feeding injury were low compared to most previous years of testing. The lowest SBRM feeding injury in the test (i.e., 2.3 on the 0 to 9 rating scale) was recorded for PI-608437 (F1016), which was also the only entry in the trial that had significantly lower levels of SBRM feeding injury than the susceptible commercial hybrid (ACH-817). The following entries also incurred relatively low levels of feeding injury that were not significantly different from those recorded for PI-608437: Ames 4219, PI-604518, PI-604524, PI-604531, PI-604532, PI-604533, PI-604537, PI-604538, PI-604540, PI-604549, PI-605413 (F1015), PI-658654 (F1024), and Yellow.
A commercial field site near St. Thomas (Pembina County) in northeastern North Dakota was selected to evaluate Beta germplasm accessions for potential resistance to SBRM feeding injury. The experiment was planted on 6 June, 2013. No planting-time or postemergence insecticide protection was applied to any plots. Individual treatment plots were single rows that were 28 ft (8.5 m) long and spaced 55.9 cm (22 inches) apart. Experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replications of 36 treatments. Treatments included 30 accessions of B. vulgaris maritima that were obtained from the NPGS Beta collection, courtesy of the USDA-ARS Western Regional Plant Introduction Station (Pullman, WA). Six additional entries (i.e., ACH-817, PI-540563, PI-605413, PI-608437, PI-658654, and Yellow) were included for comparative purposes. The commercial hybrid entry, ACH-817, which has been confirmed as susceptible to SBRM feeding injury in previous testing, was used as the susceptible control. Larval feeding injury was assessed on up to ten sugarbeet roots per plot and rated in accordance with a 0 to 9 scale (0 = no damage and 9 = 75% or more of root surface blackened with feeding scars or a dead plant) on 20 August. Sugarbeet root maggot fly activity was relatively high in the plot area, and peaked on 19 June at 167 flies per stake per day. Overall levels of SBRM feeding injury were low compared to most previous years of testing. The lowest SBRM feeding injury in the test (i.e., 1.77 on the 0 to 9 rating scale) was recorded for PI-658654 (F1024).
A commercial field site near St. Thomas, ND was selected to screen thirty-six Beta germplasm entries for potential host plant resistance to sugarbeet root maggot. All entries were planted on 1 May, 2015 into single-row plots that were 28 ft (8.5 m) long and spaced 55.9 cm (22 inches) apart. Experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replications. Thirty entries were accessions obtained from the NPGS Beta collection, courtesy of the USDA-ARS Western Regional Plant Introduction Station (Pullman, WA). Six additional entries (i.e., ACH-817, PI-179180, PI-269309, PI-285590, PI-608437, and PI-658654) were included for comparative purposes. ACH-817, a commercial hybrid shown in previous testing as susceptible to SBRM feeding injury, served as the susceptible control. On 4 August, SBRM larval feeding injury was rated on up to ten roots per plot in accordance to a 0 to 9 scale (0 = no damage and 9 = 75% or more of root surface blackened with feeding scars or a dead plant). High levels of SBRM fly activity developed in the plot area, and activity peaked at 140 flies/stake/day on 12 June. As a result, SBRM feeding pressure in the plots was high. Entries that sustained the least amounts of SBRM root feeding injury included PI-608437 (F1016) and PI-658654 (F1024), which averaged 3.10 and 3.08, respectively, on the 0 to 9 scale. Other entries that incurred relatively low levels of feeding injury included PI-179180, PI-269309, PI-518308, PI-518312, PI-518313, PI-518321, PI-518343, PI-546442, PI-546443, and PI-546523. Root injury sustained by all of these entries was significantly lower than that observed in the susceptible control (ACH-817).
A commercial field site near St. Thomas (Pembina County) in northeastern North Dakota was selected to evaluate Beta germplasm accessions for potential resistance to sugarbeet root maggot (SBRM) feeding injury. Plots were planted on 9 May, 2016, and no planting-time or postemergence insecticide protection was applied to any plots. Individual treatment plots were single, 14 ft (4.3 m) long rows that were spaced 22 inches (55.9 cm) apart. Experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replications of 38 treatments. Treatments included 29 accessions of Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris and one accession of B. v. subsp. maritima that were obtained from the NPGS Beta collection, courtesy of the USDA-ARS Western Regional Plant Introduction Station (Pullman, WA). Eight additional entries (i.e., PI-605413, PI-608437, PI-658654, PI-676971, PI-535818, PI-179180, PI-181718, and ACH 817 [Crystal 817]) were included for comparative purposes. Larval feeding injury was assessed on up to ten roots per plot and rated in accordance with a 0 to 9 scale (0 = no damage and 9 = 75% or more of root surface blackened with feeding scars or a dead plant) on 18 August. Sugarbeet root maggot fly activity was monitored in the plot area throughout the growing season by using sticky-stake traps. Activity peaked on 9 June at high rate of about 160 flies per trap per day. Root maggot larval feeding injury levels observed in the trial were also relatively high, as was observed for PI-175596, which incurred an average root injury rating (RI) of 6.75 on the 0 to 9 scale. Unusually high amounts of rainfall (i.e., post-plant total of over 20 inches [51 cm]) occurred in the plot area, which led to long periods of standing water and the loss of several plants (e.g., two entries, for which there were only six and eight observations, were excluded from the analysis). Standing water also could have impacted root maggot egg deposition. As such, these results should be interpreted with some degree of discretion, as they may not completely reflect outcomes that would have occurred under more typical growing conditions. The lowest average SBRM feeding injury in the test (RI = 2.09) was recorded for PI-181718. Other entries that incurred moderately low levels (i.e., RI < 4.0) of feeding injury that were not significantly different from that recorded for PI181718 included the following (in ascending order of injury): PI-179180 (RI = 2.47), PI-535818 (F1010; RI = 2.74), PI-658654 (F1024; RI = 2.84), PI-174063 (RI = 2.93), PI-676971 (F1043; RI = 3.07), PI-560130 (RI = 3.12), PI-515964 (RI = 3.35), PI-518325 (RI = 3.44), PI-515965 (RI = 3.60), PI-608437 (F1016; RI = 3.62), PI-560340 (RI = 3.78), PI-470091 (RI = 3.79), PI-175601 (RI = 3.80), PI-120282 (RI = 3.87), and PI-109040 (RI = 3.88). The relatively low feeding injury incurred by these entries, despite relatively high SBRM infestation levels, suggests that they have moderate to strong tolerance to root maggot feeding injury.
A commercial field site near St. Thomas (Pembina County) in northeastern North Dakota was selected to evaluate Beta vulgaris germplasm accessions for potential resistance to sugarbeet root maggot (SBRM), Tetanops myopaeformis, feeding injury. Plots were planted on 11 May, 2017, and no insecticide was applied to any plots. Individual treatment plots were single rows that were 28 ft (8.5 m) long and spaced 22 inches (55.9 cm) apart. Experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replications of 39 treatments. Treatments included 20 accessions of B. vulgaris vulgaris and two accessions of B. v. maritima that were obtained from the NPGS Beta collection (courtesy of the USDA-ARS Western Regional Plant Introduction Station [Pullman, WA]). Seventeen additional entries (i.e., ACH-817 (a commercial hybrid), PI-590659, PI-176424, PI-179180, PI-181718, PI-355957, PI-372278, PI-467873, PI-535818, PI-546511, PI-546513, PI-546525, PI-546526, PI-605413, PI-608437, PI-658654, PI-676971) were included for comparative purposes. Larval feeding injury was assessed on up to ten sugarbeet roots per plot and rated in accordance with a 0 to 9 scale (0 = no damage and 9 = 75% or more of root surface blackened with feeding scars or a dead plant) on 3 August. Sugarbeet root maggot fly activity occurred at nearly average timing compared to historical records, with activity peaking on June 11. Fly activity levels in the plot area were considered moderate, which was largely due to a hail storm that occurred on June 9 and killed an estimated 40 to 60% of the SBRM fly population in the plot area. As such, resulting larval feeding injury (RI) levels in the plot area were considered moderate. The lowest overall SBRM feeding injury in the test (i.e., 1.75) was recorded for PI-676971 (F1043). Other entries that incurred low levels of feeding injury that were not significantly different from those recorded for PI-676971 included PI-658654 (F1024), PI-179180, PI-608437 (F1016), and Ames 2662, which had respective average root ratings of 2.23, 2.35, 2.7, and 2.78. Additional entries for which relatively low (i.e., RI < 3.3) levels of root injury were recorded included PI-504177, PI-546525, PI-605413 (F1015), PI-518383, Ames 2659, PI-531253, PI-590659 (FC704), and PI-181718.
Twenty-nine sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) lines from the National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) at Pullman WA, and two resistant (F1024 and F1016) and one susceptible (C817) check cultivars were screened for resistance to sugar beet root maggot (SBRM), a severe pest insect of sugar beet causing significant yield loss in growing areas of the upper mid-west and western states of the U.S. and adjacent Canadian provinces. The SBRM evaluation was conducted at the sugar beet root maggot nursery in St. Thomas, ND. The germplasm lines along with the resistance and susceptible checks were planted (density of 68,062 seeds/A) on 4 June 22. Each plot included two rows of 8.5-m long, and between-row space was set at 56 cm. A randomized complete block design was used for resistance evaluation with 3 replications included. The sugar beet nursery field was managed according to standard cultural practices as conducted in northern North Dakota. The evaluation relied on endemic field insect infestation that caused feeding damage on roots by SBRM. The plots were rated for size and area of feeding scars on the roots on 23 August. Ten roots from middle of two rows in each plot were manually dug out and were then hand cleaned in water using a brush to remove all soil on roots to clearly show insect feeding scars. Damage on the roots was rated using a widely accepted scale of 0 to 9 (0 = no damage, 1-3 = minor damage from few feeding scars, 4-6 =moderate to heavy damage from large feeding scars covering less than 25% of root surface, and 7-9 = severe damage from numerous feeding scars covering over 25% of root surface), and lines with ratings of 3 or less were considered resistant. The root rating data were rank transformed and analyzed in SAS (Ver. 9.4) using the mixed linear model (Proc MIXED) procedure with germplasm lines as fixed effect and blocks as random effect, and Fisher’s protected least significant difference (α = 0.05) was used for mean comparisons, which are presented in the table.
The SBRM pressure was uniform according to damage on roots of the susceptible check and susceptible commercial varieties on the border. No sever other disease problems were observed in the plot area. The two resistant checks F1024 and F1016 both have damage ratings around 2, which agree with observations from previous years. Of the total 29 NPGS accessions evaluated and reported in the table, all lines of cultivated beet (sugar beet, fodder beet and table beet) showed moderate to heavy damages caused by SBRM with average ratings ranged from 4.2 to 7.1. Of the 8 accessions of sea beet (B. vulgaris ssp. maritima), lines PI 518344 and PI 518408 were both resistant and showed a mean damage rate of 2.1 and 2.6, respectively, and the remained 6 B. maritima lines were all susceptible with the damage ratings ranged from 5.2 to 7.1. Therefore, two B. maritima lines PI 518344 and PI 518408 will be evaluated again to confirm their resistance. If resistance is confirmed, these germplasm lines will be used for trait introgression in the USDA-ARS root maggot pre-breeding program.
Root shape done by Devon L. Doney, State University Station, Fargo, North Dakota. Field plot, 4 reps, 25 foot row.
Leaf erectness done by Devon L. Doney, State University Station, Fargo, North Dakota. Field plot, 4 reps, 25 foot row.
Root Division done by Devon Doney, Fargo, North Dakota, 1996
Seed weight data taken by Ann Fenwick of the Soil Management and Sugar Beet Research Unit in Fort Collins, Colorado when planting seed for increase for Pullman, Washington.
100 seed weight at the Western Regional Plant Introduction Station, Pullman Washington, USA
The trial was planted 1996 on the farm of the American Crystal Sugar(ACS) research center in Moorhead, Minnesota. Single 25 foot row plots were arranged in a ramdomized complete block design with three reps. Four checks were included, two diploid pollinators and two tetraploid pollinators, all from the ACS breeding program. Beets were hand harvested in 1996. Root yield, sugar content, impurities(Na+, K+. and amino-N) and tare were evaluated in the ACS research center.
The trial was planted May 5, 1997 on the farm of the American Crystal Sugar(ACS) research center in Moorhead, Minnesota. Single 25 foot row plots were arranged in a ramdomized complete block design with three reps. Four checks were included, two diploid pollinators and two tetraploid pollinators, all from the ACS breeding program. Beets were hand harvested on Sep. 24. 1997. Root yield, sugar content, impurities(Na+, K+. and amino-N) and tare were evaluated in the ACS research center.
The trial was planted May 5, 1997 on the farm of the American Crystal Sugar(ACS) research center in Moorhead, Minnesota. Single 25 foot row plots were arranged in a ramdomized complete block design with three reps. Four checks were included, two diploid pollinators and two tetraploid pollinators, all from the ACS breeding program. Beets were hand harvested on Sep. 24. 1997. Root yield, sugar content, impurities(Na+, K+. and amino-N) and tare were evaluated in the ACS research center.
The trial was planted 1996 on the farm of the American Crystal Sugar(ACS) research center in Moorhead, Minnesota. Single 25 foot row plots were arranged in a ramdomized complete block design with three reps. Four checks were included, two diploid pollinators and two tetraploid pollinators, all from the ACS breeding program. Beets were hand harvested in 1996. Root yield, sugar content, impurities(Na+, K+. and amino-N) and tare were evaluated in the ACS research center.
The trial was planted May 5, 1997 on the farm of the American Crystal Sugar(ACS) research center in Moorhead, Minnesota. Single 25 foot row plots were arranged in a ramdomized complete block design with three reps. Four checks were included, two diploid pollinators and two tetraploid pollinators, all from the ACS breeding program. Beets were hand harvested on Sep. 24. 1997. Root yield, sugar content, impurities(Na+, K+. and amino-N) and tare were evaluated in the ACS research center.
The trial was planted May 5, 1997 on the farm of the American Crystal Sugar(ACS) research center in Moorhead, Minnesota. Single 25 foot row plots were arranged in a ramdomized complete block design with three reps. Four checks were included, two diploid pollinators and two tetraploid pollinators, all from the ACS breeding program. Beets were hand harvested on Sep. 24. 1997. Root yield, sugar content, impurities(Na+, K+. and amino-N) and tare were evaluated in the ACS research center.
The trial was planted 1996 on the farm of the American Crystal Sugar(ACS) research center in Moorhead, Minnesota. Single 25 foot row plots were arranged in a ramdomized complete block design with three reps. Four checks were included, two diploid pollinators and two tetraploid pollinators, all from the ACS breeding program. Beets were hand harvested in 1996. Root yield, sugar content, impurities(Na+, K+. and amino-N) and tare were evaluated in the ACS research center.
Flower stem pigmentation done by Devon L. Doney, Fargo, North Dakota, 1996
done by Devon L. Doney, Fargo, North Dakota, 1992
The trial was planted 1996 on the farm of the American Crystal Sugar(ACS) research center in Moorhead, Minnesota. Single 25 foot row plots were arranged in a ramdomized complete block design with three reps. Four checks were included, two diploid pollinators and two tetraploid pollinators, all from the ACS breeding program. Beets were hand harvested in 1996. Root yield, sugar content, impurities(Na+, K+. and amino-N) and tare were evaluated in the ACS research center.
The trial was planted May 5, 1997 on the farm of the American Crystal Sugar(ACS) research center in Moorhead, Minnesota. Single 25 foot row plots were arranged in a ramdomized complete block design with three reps. Four checks were included, two diploid pollinators and two tetraploid pollinators, all from the ACS breeding program. Beets were hand harvested on Sep. 24. 1997. Root yield, sugar content, impurities(Na+, K+. and amino-N) and tare were evaluated in the ACS research center.
The trial was planted May 5, 1997 on the farm of the American Crystal Sugar(ACS) research center in Moorhead, Minnesota. Single 25 foot row plots were arranged in a ramdomized complete block design with three reps. Four checks were included, two diploid pollinators and two tetraploid pollinators, all from the ACS breeding program. Beets were hand harvested on Sep. 24. 1997. Root yield, sugar content, impurities(Na+, K+. and amino-N) and tare were evaluated in the ACS research center.
The trial was planted 1996 on the farm of the American Crystal Sugar(ACS) research center in Moorhead, Minnesota. Single 25 foot row plots were arranged in a ramdomized complete block design with three reps. Four checks were included, two diploid pollinators and two tetraploid pollinators, all from the ACS breeding program. Beets were hand harvested in 1996. Root yield, sugar content, impurities(Na+, K+. and amino-N) and tare were evaluated in the ACS research center.
The trial was planted May 5, 1997 on the farm of the American Crystal Sugar(ACS) research center in Moorhead, Minnesota. Single 25 foot row plots were arranged in a ramdomized complete block design with three reps. Four checks were included, two diploid pollinators and two tetraploid pollinators, all from the ACS breeding program. Beets were hand harvested on Sep. 24. 1997. Root yield, sugar content, impurities(Na+, K+. and amino-N) and tare were evaluated in the ACS research center.
The trial was planted May 5, 1997 on the farm of the American Crystal Sugar(ACS) research center in Moorhead, Minnesota. Single 25 foot row plots were arranged in a ramdomized complete block design with three reps. Four checks were included, two diploid pollinators and two tetraploid pollinators, all from the ACS breeding program. Beets were hand harvested on Sep. 24. 1997. Root yield, sugar content, impurities(Na+, K+. and amino-N) and tare were evaluated in the ACS research center.
The trial was planted 1996 on the farm of the American Crystal Sugar(ACS) research center in Moorhead, Minnesota. Single 25 foot row plots were arranged in a ramdomized complete block design with three reps. Four checks were included, two diploid pollinators and two tetraploid pollinators, all from the ACS breeding program. Beets were hand harvested in 1996. Root yield, sugar content, impurities(Na+, K+. and amino-N) and tare were evaluated in the ACS research center.
The trial was planted May 5, 1997 on the farm of the American Crystal Sugar(ACS) research center in Moorhead, Minnesota. Single 25 foot row plots were arranged in a ramdomized complete block design with three reps. Four checks were included, two diploid pollinators and two tetraploid pollinators, all from the ACS breeding program. Beets were hand harvested on Sep. 24. 1997. Root yield, sugar content, impurities(Na+, K+. and amino-N) and tare were evaluated in the ACS research center.
The trial was planted May 5, 1997 on the farm of the American Crystal Sugar(ACS) research center in Moorhead, Minnesota. Single 25 foot row plots were arranged in a ramdomized complete block design with three reps. Four checks were included, two diploid pollinators and two tetraploid pollinators, all from the ACS breeding program. Beets were hand harvested on Sep. 24. 1997. Root yield, sugar content, impurities(Na+, K+. and amino-N) and tare were evaluated in the ACS research center.
From Devon L. Doney, State University Station, Fargo, North Dakota. Field plot, 4 reps, 25 foot row.
For a Excel file(xlsx) of this data
Beta vulgaris sp vulgaris TYPE evaluation 2016 Date: 12/28/2016
Every accession in the Beta vulgaris sp vulgaris collection (1,816 accessions) as of 12/28/2016 was given a TYPE designation based on previous evaluation data, passport data, information from the International Database for Beta (managed by the IPK, Germany) or other information found on the internet. In the accompanying Excel spreadsheet the source used to assign TYPE is given (data source 1 and data source 2). The following is information on the data sources:
Table Beet evaluation 2013 - conducted at Central Ferry, WA by the Beta curator and technician. Evaluated 140 accessions previously designated as table beet. Images of plants, dug roots and cut roots were taken.
USDA Release list - Panella L., Campbell, L.G., Eujayl, I.A., Lewellen, R.T., and McGrath, J.M. USDA-ARS Sugarbeet Releases and Breeding Over the Past 20 Years. Journal of Sugar Beet Research Vol. 52 Nos. 3 & 4, 7/28/2016. This article incorporates USDA-ARS sugarbeet releases listed in Doney’s 1995 paper. (Doney, D.L. 1995b. USDA-ARS sugarbeet releases. J. Sugar Beet Res.32:229-257.)
Passport data - passport data (on the web () or in the Plant Inventory Books. For a small number of accessions, little pieces of information in the Plant Inventory Book were not entered into the database. Evaluation data - data from CGC(formerly known as CAC) funded evaluations and other studies. The year the evaluation(s) was conducted is listed.
Topname - the topname is the primary name associated with the accession. If it was used to designate TYPE, it is a known cultivar name (eg Huntley Chard, Ohio Canner).
Images - if images were used to help determine TYPE the year the image was taken is listed. All images are in GRIN-Global database
I followed the TYPE classification as described by Lange et al in Taxonomy and cultonomy of Beet, 1999 (see below for definitions) with the exception that garden beets are called table beet. For some accessions, there was only enough information to come close to a TYPE assignment. For example, an accession has large swollen hypocotyls but there is no cultivar name or sucrose content data. We know it is not a leaf or table beet but don’t have enough information to determine if it is a fodder or sugar beet. Accessions with this kind of information were assigned the TYPE of other.
There is a large group of accessions with no or little passport data and no or little evaluation data that indicated a TYPE. These accessions were given the TYPE of unknown. As more regenerations and evaluations are done with these accessions a TYPE will be assigned.
In addition to the above TYPE designations an accessions was assigned the TYPE of wild if it was collected from a wild population or if in an evaluation it was determined it did not fit the definitions of the cultivated beets.
Information on the data source(s) used and notes regarding TYPE are displayed in GRIN-Global concatenated under the column heading "Observation details" in the following format: Type notes(if present). data source 1; data source 2; data source 3.
This project was undertaken because not all the Beta vulgaris sp vulgaris accessions in the collection had a TYPE designation. This was true even for recent sugar beet cultivars. The addition of a TYPE assignment for all the B.v. sp vulgaris accessions will aid in the management and utilization of the collection. It is acknowledged that assigning a TYPE based on passport information rather than evaluation data (data collected from the actual material in the collection) is not ideal. If discrepancies are found between this TYPE data and plants derived from actual material for an accession, the user community is encouraged to contact the NPGS Beta curator.
From : LANGE, W., BRANDENBURG, W. A., & BOCK, T. S. D. (1999). Taxonomy and cultonomy of beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 130(1), 81-96.
Leaf beet group (includes chard-large mid-rib, spinach beet. swollen hypocotyls and/or roots are absent or small ).
Garden beet group (dense swollen hypocotyls, used for vegetable, color can range from white to deep red)
Fodder beet group (large hypocotyls and root, color doesn’t matter, used as fodder or forage) Sugar beet group (used for sugar extraction, swollen part mainly root tissue)
The trial was planted 1996 on the farm of the American Crystal Sugar(ACS) research center in Moorhead, Minnesota. Single 25 foot row plots were arranged in a ramdomized complete block design with three reps. Four checks were included, two diploid pollinators and two tetraploid pollinators, all from the ACS breeding program. Beets were hand harvested in 1996. Root yield, sugar content, impurities(Na+, K+. and amino-N) and tare were evaluated in the ACS research center.
The trial was planted May 5, 1997 on the farm of the American Crystal Sugar(ACS) research center in Moorhead, Minnesota. Single 25 foot row plots were arranged in a ramdomized complete block design with three reps. Four checks were included, two diploid pollinators and two tetraploid pollinators, all from the ACS breeding program. Beets were hand harvested on Sep. 24. 1997. Root yield, sugar content, impurities(Na+, K+. and amino-N) and tare were evaluated in the ACS research center.
The trial was planted May 5, 1997 on the farm of the American Crystal Sugar(ACS) research center in Moorhead, Minnesota. Single 25 foot row plots were arranged in a ramdomized complete block design with three reps. Four checks were included, two diploid pollinators and two tetraploid pollinators, all from the ACS breeding program. Beets were hand harvested on Sep. 24. 1997. Root yield, sugar content, impurities(Na+, K+. and amino-N) and tare were evaluated in the ACS research center.