4.1 Article

PREVALENCE AND INCIDENCE OF FOUR COMMON BEAN ROOT ROTS IN UGANDA

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL AGRICULTURE
卷 54, 期 6, 页码 888-900

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0014479717000461

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)
  2. Department for International Development (DFID)
  3. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  4. U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture (USDA NIFA) through Michigan State University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Root rots are one of the main biotic constraints to common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) production, causing losses estimated at 221 000 metric tons a year in sub-Saharan Africa. Until recently, root rots in Ugandan common bean agroecologies were mostly caused by Pythium and Fusmium spp., especially in high altitude areas. But now, severe root rots are observed in low and medium altitude agroecologies characterized by dry and warm conditions. The objective of our study was therefore to ascertain the current prevalence and incidence of common bean root rot diseases in Ugandan common bean agroecologies. Our results show that root rots were present in all seven agroecologies surveyed. Overall, the most rampant root rot was southern blight caused by Sekrotium ro/fsii Sacc., followed by root rots caused by Fusarium spp., thium spp. and Rhizpetonia solani, respectively. Our study clearly showed the influence of environmental conditions on the prevalence and incidence of common bean root rots. While Fusarium and Pythium root rots are favoured under low air temperature and high air humidity in highland areas, high incidence of southern blight is favoured by warm and moist conditions of lowland areas. The prevalence and incidence of common bean root rots was mapped, providing a reliable baseline for future studies. Similarly, hotspots identified for common bean root rots will be a very useful resource for evaluation of germplasm and breeding lines for resistance to root rots.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据