Thiophanate-methyl sensitivity and fitness in Lasiodiplodia theobromae populations from papaya in Brazil

被引:0
作者
Rômulo Diniz Cavalcante
Waléria Guerreiro Lima
Ricardo Brainer Martins
Juan Manuel Tovar-Pedraza
Sami Jorge Michereff
Marcos Paz Saraiva Câmara
机构
[1] Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco,Departamento de Agronomia
[2] Campus Arapiraca,undefined
[3] Universidade Federal de Alagoas,undefined
[4] Instituto de Fitosanidad,undefined
[5] Campus Montecillo,undefined
[6] Colegio de Postgraduados,undefined
来源
European Journal of Plant Pathology | 2014年 / 140卷
关键词
Fungicide resistance; Stem-end rot; Botryosphaeriaceae; Fitness;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Stem-end rot, caused by Lasiodiplodia theobromae, is an important postharvest disease of papaya in Brazil. The use of fungicides is one of the main disease management measures. However, there are no data available on the sensitivity of L. theobromae to thiophanate methyl (methyl benzimidazole carbamate), the most common fungicide used in papaya orchards in northeastern Brazil. Thus, the effective concentration that results in 50 % of mycelial growth inhibition (EC50) of 109 isolates, representing five populations of the pathogen was estimated in vitro. Seven components of fitness were measured for the 10 isolates with lower and high values of EC50. Of the 109 isolates, 20.2 % were resistant to the fungicide with EC50 values greater than 300 μg ml−1, whereas the remaining 79.8 % were sensitive with an average EC50 of 1.87 μg ml−1. The EC50 values for the resistant isolates were significantly (P ≤ 0.05) higher than those for the sensitive isolates. When the fitness components were evaluated, only in relation to the spore production was significant difference among sensitive and resistant isolates, and resistant isolates showed sporulation capacity significantly lower than the S isolates, indicating a fitness cost.
引用
收藏
页码:251 / 259
页数:8
相关论文
共 49 条
[1]  
Avenot HF(2010)Progress in understanding molecular mechanisms and evolution of resistance to succinate dehydrogenase inhibiting (SDHI) fungicides in phytopathogenic fungi Crop Protection 29 643-651
[2]  
Michailides TJ(2003)Doenças fúngicas pós-colheita em mamões e laranjas comercializados na Central de Abastecimento do Recife Fitopatologia Brasileira 28 528-533
[3]  
Dantas SAF(2006)Analysis of Journal of Phytopathology 154 321-328
[4]  
Oliveira SMA(2001)-tubulin gene fragments from benzimidazole-sensitive and -tolerant European Journal of Plant Pathology 107 337-347
[5]  
Michereff SJ(2005)Fitness of Crop Protection 24 853-863
[6]  
Nascimento LC(2011) field isolates—resistant and—sensitive to demethylation inhibitor fungicides Plant Disease 95 821-827
[7]  
Gurgel LMS(2004)Advances in understanding molecular mechanisms of fungicide resistance and molecular detection of resistant genotypes in phytopathogenic fungi The Plant Health Instructor 11 165-179
[8]  
Pessoa WRLS(2014)Sensitivity of Fungal Diversity 84 515-519
[9]  
Davidson RM(1997) from Brazil to tebuconazole, azoxystrobin, and thiophanate-methyl and implications for disease management Postharvest Biology and Technology 132 489-498
[10]  
Hanson LE(1994)Populations genetics of plant pathogens Phytopathology 96 83-101