بررسی واکنش چند رقم غیرهیبرید و هیبرید گوجه‌فرنگی به بیماری خال‌زدگی باکتریایی

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانش‌آموخته کارشناسی ارشد رشته بیماری‌شناسی گیاهی، گروه گیاه‌پزشکی، دانشکده کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه ارومیه، ارومیه، ایران.

2 استادیار مؤسسه تحقیقات گیاه‌پزشکی کشور، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

بیماری خال­زدگی باکتریایی گوجه­فرنگی که توسط باکتری Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato ایجاد می­شود، یکی از بیماری­های مهم گوجه­فرنگی در جهان و ایران است که می­تواند به طور جدی میزان عملکرد و کیفیت محصول را تحت تاثیر قرار دهد. این بیماری بذربرد است بنابراین موثرترین راهکار در کنترل بیماری، استفاده از بذر و نشاء سالم و عاری از باکتری می­باشد اما از روش­های دیگری از قبیل استفاده از ارقام مقاوم یا متحمل، رعایت اصول بهداشتی، تناوب کاشت و کاربرد سموم باکتری­کش، نیز در مدیریت تلفیقی بیماری استفاده می­شود. در این پژوهش، واکنش 24 رقم (غیرهیبرید و هیبرید) گوجه­فرنگی در برابر بیماری خال­زدگی باکتریایی در محیط گلخانه مورد مطالعه قرار گرفت. برای این منظور، از گیاهچه­های چهار تا پنج برگی گوجه­فرنگی استفاده شد و مایه­زنی به صورت اسپری سوسپانسیون (OD600) CFU ml-1 107×1 باکتری بیماری­زا روی گیاهچه­ها انجام شد. در بررسی مقاومت ارقام مورد مطالعه، زمان ظهور اولین نشانه­های بیماری، شدت بیماری ایجاد شده و سطح زیر منحنی پیشرفت بیماری (AUDPC) مورد ارزیابی قرار گرفت. نتایج نشان داد، شاخص AUDPC با زمان ظهور اولین نشانه­های بیماری (0/71=r) و شاخص شدت بیماری (0/76=r) همبستگی مثبت داشت اما زمان ظهور اولین نشانه­های بیماری با شدت بیماری (0/22=r) همبستگی معنی­داری نداشت. بر اساس یافته­های این پژوهش، نتایج حاصل از ارزیابی چند شاخص مختلف در بررسی واکنش ارقام گیاهی به بیماری­ها، اطلاعات دقیق­تری در رابطه با میزان حساسیت یا مقاومت ارقام به بیماری ارائه می­دهد. در این مطالعه، ارقام هیبرید Hyb. 1585، Hyb. Superset، King stone، Hyb. Bellariva وHyb. Firenze، همچنین رقم غیرهیبرید Super Chef، به­عنوان ارقام با مقاومت بالاتر در برابر بیماری خال­زدگی باکتریایی گوجه­فرنگی ارزیابی شدند که استفاده از این ارقام در مدیریت تلفیقی این بیماری توصیه می­گردد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluating the Reaction of some Non-hybrid and Hybrid Tomato Cultivars to Bacterial Speck Disease

نویسندگان [English]

  • A. Abbaspour Anbi 1
  • M. Khezri 2
1 Former M.Sc. student of Plant Pathology, Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor, Iranian Research Institute of Plant Protection, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Introduction: Tomato bacterial speck caused by Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato, is one of the several tomato diseases in the world. The disease can seriously affect the quantity and quality of this high-consumption crop in its cultivated areas. Disease symptoms included black spots surrounded by yellow halo on the leaves and small block spot on fruits surface. The spots on ripe fruits may surround with yellow haloes. It is difficult to diagnose the disease via symptoms, because there is high similarity among symptoms of bacterial speck and other tomato bacterial leaf spot diseases, especially bacterial spot caused by Xanthamonas spp. and Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae. The disease is seed-borne, and application of bacterial-free seeds is the most effective strategy to reduce disease damage. Besides using healthy seed and seedling, other strategies such as applying resistant cultivars, crop rotation, drip irrigation and using pesticides are common procedures in integrated disease management
Materials and Methods: In this study, the reaction of 24 tomato cultivars including 13 non-hybrid cultivars (Early Urbana 111, Early Urbana Y, King stone, Super 22 TO, CalJ N3, 2270, Rio grenade, Early Urbana, Primo early, Falat CH, Super Chef, Primax and Red Stone, and 11 hybrid cultivars (Hyb. Superset, Hyb. Firenze, Hyb. Comodoro, Hyb. Bellariva, Hyb. 1585, Hyb. Kishmat, Hyb. Eden, Hyb. 8320, Hyb. Monty marker F1 and Hyb. Ferguson F1) was evaluated against bacterial speck disease in greenhouse. Four pathogenic P. syringae pv. tomato strains isolated from tomato fields in West Azarbaijan province, northwest of Iran, used in all experiments. For inoculation, bacterial suspension of 107 CFU ml−1 (OD600) was sprayed on the foliage of tomato seedling at four-five leaf stage. Inoculated seedlings were monitored daily for 21 days, and symptoms were recorded. The indexes of disease severity (DS), time of the first disease symptoms appearance and the area under the disease progress curve (AUDPC) were determined. To assess the disease severity, spots were counted on six leaves of each plant, and the index from zero to six was used, where 0) without symptom, 1) 1-10 spots, 2) 11-15 spots, 3) 16-20 spots, 4) 21-25 spots, 5) 26-30 spots and 6) more than 30 spots on leaves. Experiments were conducted in a completely randomized design, and four pots with four seedlings in each pot were considered for each treatment (cultivar). Statistical analysis of data was performed via Tukey’ HSD test using SAS software (version 9.4). The AUDPC index was calculated using R (version 3.5.2) and Agricolae package. Correlation among studied indexes was evaluated via Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients in SPSS (version 25).
Results and Discussion: Analysis variance of data indicated the significance at 1% level among the studied indexes. Positive correlation observed between AUDPC and the time of the first symptoms appearance (r=0.71), as well as the disease severity index (r=0.76), but there was no significant correlation between the time of the first symptoms appearance and the disease severity indexes (r=0.22). According to all three indexes cv. Hyb.1585 determined as a resistant cultivar and cv. Hyb. 8320 were identified as disease susceptible cultivar. However, some cultivars such as cv. Hyb. Firenze was susceptible based on the disease severity index but it considered as a resistant cultivar based on the time of the first disease symptoms appearance index. The results of previous research on tomato bacterial speck disease have shown different degrees of disease severity in various cultivars. So far, several resistant cultivars against this disease have been reported. The response of 93 different tomato cultivars growing in the Mediterranean region of Turkey was examined and seven cultivars showed resistance against P. syringae pv. tomato. Six of these cultivars included Atalay, Party, Petrus, Piccadilly, Prenses and they had the Pto gene, which encodes proteins related to resistance against the disease. Overall, based on the findings of this study, hybrid cultivars of Hyb. 1585, Hyb. Superset, King stone, Hyb. Bellariva and Hyb. Firenze, and non-hybrid cultivar Super Chef showed higher resistance to tomato bacterial speck disease in compare to other studied cultivars.
Conclusion: According to the results of this study, the resistance to this pathogen depends on various genetic and physiological factors, as well as plant-pathogen interactions. Application of different disease indexes in evaluating the cultivars reaction to diseases is recommended which can be effective in the final decisions for diseases management.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • AUDPC
  • Pseudomonas syringae pv. Tomato
  • resistance cultivars
  • Tomato
  1. Allahyari S., Khezri M., and Sadeghinasab F. 2017. A study on tomato gram-negative pathogenic bacteria in West Azarbaijan. p 279. In: Proceedings of the 1st International and 5th National Congress on Organic vs. Conventional Agriculture. 6-17 August. University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran.
  2. Bakir V., Özdemіr Z., and Yardim H. 2012. Reaction of some popular hybrid tomato cultivars grown in Aegean region to bacterial speck disease and determination of disease incidence in Şahnalı, Aydın. The Journal of Turkish Phytopathology 41: 37-42.
  3. Blancard D. 2012. A Color Handbook Tomato Diseases, Identification, Biology and Control. 2nd. Academic press, USA. 688 pp.
  4. Borkar S.G., and Yumlembam R.A. 2016. Bacterial Diseases of Crop Plants. 1st CRC Press, Boca Raton, USA. 594 pp.
  5. Campbell C.L., and Modden L.V. 1990. Introduction to Plant Disease Epidemiology. John Willeyand Sons, New York, USA. 532 pp.
  6. Canzoniere P., Francesconi S., Giovando S., and Balestra G.M. 2021. Antibacterial activity of tannins towards Pseudomonas syringae tomato, and their potential as biostimulants on tomato plants. Phytopathologia Mediterranea 60: 23-36.
  7. Caruso A., Licciardello G., La Rosa R., Catara V., and Bella P. 2016. Mixed infection of Pectobacterium carotovorum carotovorum and P. carotovorum subsp. brasiliensis in tomato stem rot in Italy. Journal of Plant Pathology 98: 3. doi: 10.4454/JPP.V98I3.062.
  8. de Mendiburu F., and de Mendiburu M.F. 2019. Package ‘agricolae’. R Package, Version, 1-
  9. 2021. The Agricultural Production Domain. Available at: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC [visited 27 August 2021].
  10. Fletcher J. 1992. Compendium of Tomato Disease. APS Press, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA, 73 pp.
  11. Gullino M.L., Gilardi G., Sanna M., and Garibaldi A. 2009. Epidemiology of Pseudomonas syringae syringae on tomato. Phytoparasitica 37: 461-466.
  12. Hibberd A.M., Heaton J.B., Finally G.P., and Dullahide S.R. 1992. A greenhouse method for selecting tomato seedlings resistant to bacterial canker. Plant Disease 76: 1004-
  13. Kozik E.U. 2002. Studies on resistance to bacterial speck (Pseudomonas syringae tomato) in tomato cv. Ontario 7710. Plant Breeding 121: 526-530.
  14. Le K.D., Kim J., Yu N.H., Kim B., Lee C.W., and Kim J.C. 2020. Biological control of tomato bacterial wilt, kimchi cabbage soft rot, and red pepper bacterial leaf spot using Paenibacillus elgii JCK-5075. Frontiers in Plant Science 11: 775. org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00775.
  15. Louws F.J. 2018. Evaluation of biopesticides and biorationals on bacterial canker and bacterial spot disease levels in tomato fresh-market production in North Carolina. Acta Horticalture 1207: 241-248
  16. Najeeb S., Ahmad M., Khan R.A.A., Naz I., Ali A., and Alam S.S. 2019. Management of bacterial wilt in tomato using dried powder of Withania coagulan (L) Dunal. Australasian Plant Pathology 48: 183-192
  17. Okabe N. 1933. Bacterial disease of plants occurring in Formosa. II. Bacterial leaf spot of tomato. Journal of the Society of Tropical Agriculture 5: 25-36.
  18. Preston G.M. 2000. Pseudomonas syringae tomato: the right pathogen, of the right plant, at the right time. Molecular Plant Pathology 1: 263-275.
  19. Quaglia M., Bocchini M., Orfei B., D’Amato R., Famiani F., Moretti C., and Buonaurio R. 2021. Zinc phosphate protects tomato plants against Pseudomonas syringae tomato. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection 128: 989-998.
  20. Rossi V. 1999. Effect of host resistance and fungicide sprays against Cercospora leaf spot indifferent sugar beet-growing areas of the Mediterranean basin. Phytopathologia Mediterranea 38: 465-470.
  21. Saimin J., Soetjipto, and Hendarto H. 2020. Antioxidant effects of tomato juice on reducing serum malondialdehyde levels in menopausal rats. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition 19: 362-366.
  22. Shahriari D., and Rahimian H. 1995. Tomato bacterial speck in Varamin. p 168. In: Proceedings of the 12th Iranian Plant Protection Congress. August 27-September 1. Karaj, Iran. (In Persian with English abstract)
  23. Shao X., Tan M., Xie Y., Yao C., Wang T., Huang H., Zhang Y., Ding Y., Liu J., Han L., Hua C., Wang X., and Deng X. 2021. Integrated regulatory network in Pseudomonas syringae reveals dynamics of virulence. Cell Reports 34: doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2021.108920.
  24. Thomas J.E., Geering A.D.W., and Maynard G. 2018. Detection of Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum in tomato on Norfolk Island, Australia. Australasian Plant Disease Notes 13: 1.
  25. Turgut A., and Basim H. 2013. Sensitivity of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) cultivars from Turkey to bacterial speck (Pseudomonas syringae tomato). African Journal of Biotechnology 12: 1793-1801.
  26. Yang W.E.N.C.A.I., and Francis D.M. 2007. Genetics and Breeding for Resistance to Bacterial Diseases in Tomato: Prospects for Marker-Assisted Selection. Genetic Improvement of Solanaceous Crops. Volume 2: tomato. Eds K. Razdan and A.K. Mattoo (eds.) Science Publishers Inc, New Hampshire. pp. 379-419.
  27. Yunis H., Bashan Y., Okon Y., and Heniis Y. 1980. Two sources of resistance to bacterial speck of tomato caused by Pseudomonas tomato. Plant Disease 64: 851-852.