Submitted:
28 March 2024
Posted:
29 March 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Isolation and Culture
2.2. DNA Extraction, PCR Amplification and DNA Sequencing
2.3. Pathogenicity Test
2.4. Re-Isolation of Pathogens on Seeds
2.5. Fungicides Sensitivity Evaluation
3. Results
3.1. Symptoms of Sunflower Disk Rot (SDR)
3.2. Pathogen Isolation and Characterization
3.3. Pathogen Identification Molecularly
3.4. Phylogenetic Analyses
3.5. Pathogenicity Identification
3.6. Pathogen Reisolation
3.7. Fungicides Sensitivity of F. verticillioides
4. Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Jeong, Ho. Kim.; Yong, Ho. Joen.; Sang, Gyu. Kim.; Young, Ho. Kim.. First report on bacterial soft rot of graftcactus chamaecereus silvestrii caused by pectobacterium carotovorum subsp. carotovorum in korea. Plant Pathology Journal.2007, 23(4), 314-317.
- Bauftauf, K.; K., Hekimhan, H.; Maden, S.;Tufr, M. First report of bacterial stalk and head rot disease caused by pectobacterium atrosepticum on sunflower in turkey. Plant disease. 2009,93(12), 1352.
- Rasera, K.; NM Osório, Mitchell, D. A.; Krieger, N.; Ferreira-Dias, S. Interesterification of fat blends using a fermented solid with lipolytic activity. Journal of Molecular Catalysis B Enzymatic.2002,76(none), 75-81.
- Mathew, F. M.; Prasifka, J. R.; Gaimari, S. D.; Shi, L.; Gulya, T. J. Rhizopus oryzae associated with melanagromyza splendida and stem disease of sunflowers (helianthus annuus) in california. Plant Health Progress.2015, 16(1), 39-42.
- Gregoire, T.; Lamey, A.; Hofman, V. Sclerotinia head rot of sunflower. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Clinics of North America.2010,21(2), 6-18.
- Wei, J.C. Manual of Fungal Identification; Shanghai Science and Technology Press: Shanghai, China, 1979. 609-928.
- Booth, C.; Chen, Q.. Agriculture Press: Beijing, China, 1998.
- White, T.J.; Bruns, T.; Lee, S.J.W.T.; Taylor, J. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics.PCR Protoc. Guide Methods Appl. 1990, 18, 315-322.
- O’Donnell, K.; Kistler, H.C.; Cigelnik, E.; Ploetz, R.C. Multiple evolutionary origins of the fungus causing Panama disease of banana: Concordant evidence from nuclear and mitochondrial gene genealogies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 1998, 95, 2044–2049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kumar, S.; Stecher, G.; Tamura, K. MEGA7: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2016, 33, 1870–1874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chen, Y.; Li, H.; Chen, C.; Zhou, M. Sensitivity of fusarium graminearum to fungicide js399-19: In vitro determination of baseline sensitivity and the risk of developing fungicide resistance. Phytoparasitica 2008, 36(4), 326–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Addrah, M.E.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Liu, L.; Zhou, H.; Chen, W.; Zhao, J. Fungicide Treatments to Control Seed-borne Fungi of Sunflower Seeds. Pathogens. 2019, 9, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhou, M. G.; Ye, Z. Y.; Liu, J. F. Progress of fungicide resistance. 1994.
- Leslie, J. F; Summerell, B. A. USA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.
- 15. Dong F; Li Y; Chen X; Wu J; Wang S; Zhang X; Ma G; Lee Y W; Mokoena M.P; Olaniran A.O; Xu JH; Shi J R. Analysis of the Fusarium graminearum species complex from gramineous weeds near wheat fields in Jiangsu Province, China. Plant Disease 2021, 105(10), 3269–3275. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gai, X. T.; Xuan, Y. H.; Gao, Z. G. Diversity and pathogenicity of Fusarium graminearum species complex from maize stalk and ear rot strains in northeast China. Plant Pathology 2017, 66(8), 1267–1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, X.; Dai, H.; Wang, D.; Zhou, H.; He, W.; Fu, Y.; Ibrahim, F.; Zhou, Y.; Gong, G.; Shang, J.; et al. Identification of Fusarium species associated with soybean root rot in Sichuan Province, China. Euroual Journal Plant Pathology 2018, 151(3), 563–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gai, X. T.; Jiang, N.; Lu, C. H.; Xia, Z. Y.; He, Y. S. First report of tobacco Fusarium root rot caused by Fusarium verticillioides in China. Plant Disease 2021, 105(11), 3762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, S.; Yang, N.; Zhao, C.; Liu, J.; Han, C.; and Wu, X.. Diversity of Fusarium species associated with root rot of sugar beet in China.Journal of General Plant Pathology.2018, 84(5): 321-329.
- El, Mahjoub. M.. Vascular Fusarium wilt of sunflower in Tunisia caused by Fusarium oxysporum (Sn, et H.) f. sp. helianthi nov. sp. Annales de 1’ Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique de Tunisie,1975,48(3):3-11.
- Haggag, W. M. ; Amin, A. W.. Efficiency of trichoderma species on control of fusarium rot, root knot and reniform nematodes disease complex on sunflower. Pakistan Journal of Biological ences.2001,4(6), 679-683.
- Pineda, P. J. B.;Avila, M. J. M.. Management and control of sunflower disease in Portuguesa State. FONAIAP Divulga,1991, 9(38):6-8.
- Bhargava, S. N; Shukla, D. N.; Singh, N.. Wilt of sunflower caused by Fusarium moniliforme. Indian Phytopathology,1978.
- Zazzerini, A; Tosi, L.. New sunflower disease caused by Fusarium tabacinum. Plant Disease,1987,71(11):1043-1044.
- Mahmoud, A.. Molecular and biological investigations of damping-off and charcoal-rot diseases in sunflower.2010.






| Sequence ID | Host of isolated | Fusarium species |
|---|---|---|
| FN179345.1 | Rice(Oryza sativa) | F. verticillioides |
| MK560262.1 | Soybean(Glycine max) | F. verticillioides |
| KX822794.1 | Statice(Ltmonium stnuatum) | F. oxysporum |
| MK059958.1 | Lettuce(Lactuca sativa) | F.oxysporum |
| DQ855948.1 | Ginseng(Panax ginseng) | F. acuminatum |
| LC469785.1 | Potato(Solanum tuberosum) | F. acuminatum |
| JX268969.1 | Sorghum(Sorghum bicolor) | F. thapsinum |
| MN228489.1 | Maize(Zea mays) | F. thapsinum |
| MH315936.1 | Soybean(Glycine max) | F. equiseti |
| OP133921.1 | Faba bean(Vicia faba) | F. equiseti |
| MT630413.1 | Date palm (Phoenix dactylifera) | F. solani |
| MK675303.1 | Edible mushroom( Pleurotus eryngii) | F. solani |
| GU461623.1 | Potato(Solanum tuberosum) | Verticillium dahliae |
| Fungicide Name | Dosage Form | Manufacturer Information |
|---|---|---|
| Tebuconazole · dimetachlone | 70% WG | Wilda Chemical Co., Ltd., ZheJiang, China |
| pyraclostrobine | 25% EC | BASF (China) Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China |
| Iprodione | 500g/L SC | Suzhou Fumeishi Plant Protector Co., Ltd., JiangSu, China |
| Hymexazol | 98% WP | Lvheng Biotechnology Co., Ltd., ShanDong, China |
| Flutolanil | 42.4% SC | BASF (China) Co., Ltd., JiangSu, China |
| Fludioxonil | 25g/L FS | Syngenta Nantong Crop Protection Co., Ltd., Jiangsu, China |
| Drug Name | Treatment Concentration (μg/ml) | Concentration Logarithm (x) | Inhibition Rate % | Probability Value (Y) | Virulence Regression Equation | EC50 (µg/mL) | R |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tebuconazole· dimetachlone | 280.00 | 2.45 | 86.54 | 6.10 | y = 1.3549x +2.7613 |
45.23 |
0.9972 |
| 140.00 | 2.15 | 74.84 | 5.67 | ||||
| 70.00 | 1.85 | 58.21 | 5.21 | ||||
| 35.00 | 1.54 | 43.97 | 4.85 | ||||
| 17.50 | 1.24 | 30.02 | 4.48 | ||||
| pyraclostrobine | 128.00 | 2.11 | 84.16 | 6.00 | y = 0.8295x+4.2317 |
8.44 |
0.9907 |
| 64.00 | 1.81 | 75.77 | 5.70 | ||||
| 32.00 | 1.51 | 68.83 | 5.49 | ||||
| 16.00 | 1.20 | 58.61 | 5.22 | ||||
| 8.00 | 0.90 | 49.72 | 4.99 | ||||
| Iprodione | 500.00 | 2.70 | 59.11 | 5.23 | y =0.5142x +3.8324 |
186.21 |
0.9919 |
| 250.00 | 2.40 | 52.35 | 5.06 | ||||
| 125.00 | 2.10 | 46.72 | 4.92 | ||||
| 62.50 | 1.80 | 39.02 | 4.72 | ||||
| 31.25 | 1.49 | 35.39 | 4.63 | ||||
| Hymexazol | 32.00 | 1.51 | 49.88 | 5.00 | y =0.7380x + 3.9027 | 30.68 | 0.9943 |
| 16.00 | 1.20 | 42.11 | 4.80 | ||||
| 8.00 | 0.90 | 33.33 | 4.57 | ||||
| 4.00 | 0.60 | 26.95 | 4.39 | ||||
| 2.00 | 0.30 | 18.24 | 4.09 | ||||
| Flutolanil | 160.00 | 2.20 | 76.39 | 5.72 | y =0.3252x + 5.0058 |
0.96 |
0.9964 |
| 80.00 | 1.90 | 73.60 | 5.63 | ||||
| 40.00 | 1.60 | 69.78 | 5.52 | ||||
| 20.00 | 1.30 | 67.07 | 5.44 | ||||
| 10.00 | 1.00 | 62.71 | 5.32 | ||||
| Fludioxonil | 5.00 | 0.70 | 76.39 | 5.72 | y =0.3519x + 5.4496 | 0.05 | 0.9825 |
| 1.00 | 0.00 | 65.75 | 5.41 | ||||
| 0.20 | -0.70 | 59.30 | 5.24 | ||||
| 0.05 | -1.30 | 48.74 | 4.97 | ||||
| 0.01 | -2.00 | 40.45 | 4.76 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).