Correlation of Root Anatomical Components with Resistance in Sugar Beet Genotypes to Cyst Nematode Heterodera schachtii Schmidt 1871

Document Type : Research Article


1 sharehkord university

2 Plant Protection Research Department,, Isfahan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREO), Isfahan, Iran


Introduction: Sugar beet cyst nematode (SBCN), Heterodera schachtii Schmidt 1871, marked as one of the most damaging disease of sugar beet worldwide. This is also an important disease pathogen of sugar beet which had an irreversible damage to this particular crop in Isfahan Province, Iran. Thus, the nematode - infested fields of sugarbeet in the province is to be threatened. This nematode has a wide host range, over 218 plant species from 95 genera, belonging to 23 families, including field crops, ornamentals and weeds as the hosts, which have been identified and introduced so far. The SBCN management's strategies are included as a long term crop rotation, use of catch crops, soil solarization, early planting and the use of nematicides. In general, the best method to control SBCN is use of resistant sugar beet cultivars.
Materials and Methods: In this study, the resistance and anatomical components of 70 sugar beet genotypes were screened against sugar beet cyst nematode (SBCN), Heterodera schachtii. Thus, the susceptibility of 70 sugar beet genotypes were assessed to sugar beet cyst nematode, H. schachtii in a completely randomized design in greenhouse and a complete randomized block design under the field conditions. The data were subjected to statistical analysis using SAS software and the means were compared using Duncan´s multiple test range. Cluster analysis was performed by the SPSS software. The initial population of SBCN in the infested soil was determined, before treating the selected field. Then, 200 g of soil were selected, out of which several samples collected from each plot and was air dried and in the file system, the cysts were extracted using Fenwick. Eggs and the second larvae in a 200 g of soil were calculated accordingly. Reproductive factors and the percent decrease and or increase in SBCN populations in each genotype were calculated relative to the initial population of the same treatment. Then, the comparison of means was done by Duncan tests. For the greenhouse experiments, the same treated soils from each treatment in field were poured into the clay pots with a capacity of 5 kg of soil. Initially, the genotypes based on sensitivity spectral to sugar beet cyst nematode were classified into 5 distinct groups of resistant, moderately resistant, tolerant, moderately susceptible and susceptible ones. Then, the root anatomical components of the sugar beet genotypes, such as the thickness of periderm, and skin parenchyma thickness were determined in microns.
Results and Discussion: The screening of sugar beet genotypes resulted in identifying the resistant and or susceptible ones to H. schachtii with a high significant difference under the field and greenhouse conditions. The combined results of greenhouse and field experiments coupled with cluster groups showed that, the genotypes 53 (SB-2), 69 (NE 0911), 16 (SB32-HSF-5) had the minimum number of cysts and the genotype of 16 (SB32-HSF-5) and 5 (SB31-HSF-2) had the lowest rates of eggs and larvae and reproductive factors. So, the two lines of 16 (SB32-HSF-5) and 5 (SB31-HSF-2), were identified as the most resistant genotypes and were located in the same cluster group in these studies. Therefore, it can be concluded that, these genotypes can be used as the nematode resistant genotypes and also, in breeding programs. The maximum thickness of the periderm was in the resistant genotype SB32 with 536.27 micron and was followed by resistant genotypes F-20747, F-20746, SB31-HSF-2, and SB27-HSF -10, with 480, 445.87, 436 and 419.47 microns respectively. The minimum thickness of the periderm was in susceptible genotypes SB35-HSF-8, F-20583 and SB35 with, 194.13, 258.67, and 319.47 microns, respectively. Also, the maximum thickness of the cortex parenchyma was in genotype F-20746 with 438.93 micron, followed by the genotypes 3 (SB27-HSF-10), 62 (F-20583), 29 ((7112 * SB36) * S1-11) and 8 (SB31-HSF-7) with 403.20, 402.40, 360.53, 344.27 and 323.73 microns, respectively. The minimum cortex parenchyma thickness was in susceptible genotypes SB32-HSF-10 and F-20603 with an average of 210.13 and 213.33 microns respectively. The other genotypes were located in between these two ranges. These results suggest a direct correlation coefficient between these characteristics of anatomical features and the resistance of some genotypes tested for the sugar beet cyst nematode disease.
1- It was found that, there are resistant genotypes among the tested sugar beet lines for cultivation and or breeding program.
2- It also was found that, there is certain and direct correlation coefficient between the sugar beet root anatomical features and the resistance of some genotypes.
3- The thickness of the periderm and cortex parenchyma as a physical barrier plays an important role in resistant of sugar beet to cyst nematode.


1- Ahuja I., Kissen R., and Bones A.M. 2012. Phytoalexins in defense against pathogens. Trendsence, 17 (2): 73-90.
2- Akhyani A., Damadzadeh M., and Ahmadi A.R. 2000. Distribution and severity of nematode infection Heterodera schachtii in the sugar beet fields in Isfahan. Pests and Plant Pathology, 68:142-137. (In Persian with English abstract).
3- Capistrano GGG. 2010 .A candidate sequence for the nematode resistance gene Hs1-2 in sugar beet. PhD thesis, Plant Breeding Institute, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
4- Dan Deng A.B., Sheng- Chun Wu B., Fu- Yong Wu B., Hong Deng A.C., and Ming- Hung Wong B. 2010. Effects of root anatomy and Fe plaque on arsenic uptake by rice seedlings grown in solution culture. Environmental Pollution, 158 (8): 2589-95.
5- Dita Rodriguez M.A., Brommonsciienkel S.H., Matsuoka K., and Mizubuti E.S.G. 2006. Components of resistance to early blight in four potato cultivars: Effect of leaf position. Phytopathology, 154: 230-235.
6- Doney D., and Whitney E.D. 1969. Screening sugar beet for resistance to Heterodera schachtii Sch. Journal of the American Society of Sugar Beat Technologie, 15: 546-552.
7- Felle H.H., Herrmann A., Hanstein S., Huckelhoven R., and Kogel KH. 2004. Apoplastic pH signaling in barley leaves attacked by powdery mildew fungus Blumeria graminisf. sp. hordei. Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions.17: 118-123.
8- Fenwick D.W. 1940. Methods for recovery and counting of H. schachtii from soil. J. Helminthogia, 18: 155-177.
9- Heijbroek W. 1977. Partial resistance of sugar beet to beet cyst eelworm. Euphytica, 26: 257-262.
10- Holz G., and Knox-Davies P.S. 1985. Production of pectic enzymes by Fusarium oxysporum fsp. cepae and its involvement in onion bulb rot. Phytopathology, 112: 69-80
11- Jäger S. 2013. Hybrid Assembly of Whole Genome Shotgun Sequences of Two Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Translocation Lines Carrying the Beet Cyst Nematode Resistance Gene Hs1-2 and Functional Analysis of Candidate Genes, Doctoral Thesis, Christian-Albrechts University of Kiel.
12- Khoocheki A. 1985. Agronomy in dry regions. Jahad of Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, 202 pp.
13- Laloi C., Apel K., and Danon A. 2004. Reactive oxygen signaling: the latest news. Curr. Opin. Plant Biology, 7: 323-328.
14- Maiti R., Rajkumar D., and Vidyasagar P. 2014. Morpho-anatomical study of 100 tomato lines. International Journal of Bio-resource and Stress Management, 5: 78- 81.
15- Martin C., and Glover B.J. 2007. Functional aspects of cell patterning in aerial epidermis. Current Opinion in Plant Biology, 10: 70-78.
16- Mc Farlane J.S., Savitsky H., and Steele A.E. 1982. Breeding for resistance to the sugar beet nematode. Journal of the, 21 (4): 311-323.
17- Mesbah M. 1977. Characterization of alien chromosomes in monosomic additions of Beta. Ph.D. Thesis. Wageningen Agricultural University, the Netherlands. 106p.
18- Morris E., and Walker J. 2003. Receptor-like protein kinases, the keys to response. Plant Biology, 4: 339-342.
19- Muller J. 1998. New pathothypes of the beet cyst nematode (Heterodera schachtii) Nematolology, 21 (5): 519-52.
20- Nasr Esfahani M., Alizadeh Moghaddam G., and Karimkhah M. A. 2017. The relation of leaf micro-morphological components with early blight resistant potatoes varieties. Plant Protection (Scientific Journal of Agriculture), 39 (4): 51-64.
21- Nawrath C. 2002. The biopolymers cutin and suberin. The Arabidopsis book. pp.1-14.
22- Niks S.R.E., and Rubiales D. 2002. Potentially durable resistance mechanisms in plant to specialized fungal pathogens. Euphytica, 124 (2): 201-216.
23- O'Connell R.J., and Pasturage R. 2006. Tete a tete inside a plant cell: establishing compatibility between plants and biographic fungi and Oomycetes. New Phytologist, 171: 699-713.
24- Parvizi R., Eshtiaghi H., and Kheyri M. 1993. Distribution areas of Heterodera schachtii in West Azarbaijan. App. Ent. and Phytopath. 60: 73-79. (In Persian with English abstract).
25- Qiao F., Jung C., and Defan B. 2013. Cloning of a beet cyst nematode resistance gene from the wild beet Patellifolia procumbenst http://www plant breeding. Unikiel de / de / forschung / cloning of a nematode resistance gene from the wild beet patellifolia procumbens.
26- Rabie M., Jalili A., and Zarrinkamar F. 2005. Anatomical characteristics of five Artemisia species in the north of Iran. Pajouhesh and Sazandegi Journal, 70: 79- 87. (In Persian with English abstract).
27- Rahmani N., Mesbah M., and Norouzi P. 2013. Identification of molecular markers linked to sugar beet cyst nematode resistance gene(s). Journal of Sugar Beet, 28(2): 81-85. (In Persian with English abstract).
28- SAS Institute. 2008. SAS/STAT User’s Guide. Version 9.1.3. Cary: SAS Institute Inc.
29- Schmitt D.P., and Shannon G. 1992. Differentiating soybean responses to Heterodera glycines races. Crop Sci. 32, 275–7
30- Schreiber L., Skrabs M., Hartmann K., Becker D., Cassagne C., and Lessire R. 2000. Biochemical and molecular characterization of corn (Zea mays L.) root elongases. Biochem. Soc. Trans, 28: 647-649.
31- Serrano M., Coluccia F., Torres M., L' Haridon F., and Metraux J.P. 2014. The cuticle and plant defense to pathogens. Frontiers Plant Science 5: 274.
32- Seyed Mozafari F. 2007. Plant morphology and anatomy laboratory. Six edition. Payame Noor University, 76-90.
33- Staskawicz B. 2001. Genetics of plant-pathogen interactions specifying plant disease resistance. Plant Physiology, 125: 73-76.
34- Steele A.E., and Savitsky H. 1981. Resistance of transonic and diploid hybrids of Beta vulgaris and B. procumbens the sugar beet nematode, Heterodera schachtii. Journal of Nematology, 13: 352-257.
35- Taleghani F., Sadeghzadeh S., and Mesbah M. 2010. National strategic document of sugar beet. Improvement Research Institute of sugar beet seed. 520 p.