Characterization of Fusarium spp. associated with lupin in central Alberta, Canada

Figures & data

Fig. 1. Location of lupin plots where Fusarium isolates were collected in the Province of Alberta.

Table 1.   Fusarium spp. isolated from lupin roots collected in central Alberta in 2005 and 2006

			Edmonton				Westlock
Fusarium spp.^a	Barrhead 2005	Carstairs 2005	2005	2006	Penhold 2005	Tofield 2005	2005	2006	Total (%)
F. acuminatum	1	2	2	12	1	0	1	5	24 (9.8)
F. avenaceum	20	15	14	29	2	2	0	5	87 (36)
F. equiseti	2	0	0	0	0	0	1	2	5 (2.0)
F. oxysporum	10	5	8	22	0	3	0	2	50 (20)
F. redolens	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	1	4 (1.6)
F. solani	3	0	3	20	0	2	1	0	29 (12)
Discolor	2	1	3	9	0	0	0	4	19 (7.8)
Liseola	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1 (0.4)
Sporotrichiella	0	0	1	3	0	0	0	0	4 (1.6)
Other Fusaria	3	2	2	11	0	1	0	2	21 (8.6)
Total (%)	42 (17)	25 (10)	34 (14)	107 (44)	3 (1.2)	8 (3.3)	4 (1.6)	21 (8.6)	244 (100)
^aSection Discolor includes F. crookwellense, F. culmorum, F. graminearum, and F. sambucinum; Section Liseola includes F. moniliforme sensu lato; Section Sporotrichella includes F. chlamydosporum, F. poae, F. sporotrichioides and F. tricinctum.

Table 2.  Test statistics for the effects of Fusarium isolate and cultivar on seedling emergence, root rot severity and shoot dry weight of lupin

		Analysis of variance-type statistics ^a								ANOVA statistics
		Emergence				Root rot				Shoot weight
Trial	Effect	dfN	dfD	F	P value	dfN	dfD	F	P value	df	F	P value
1	Isolate (I)	118	856	2.98	< 0.01	112	697	3.43	< 0.01	140	3.90	< 0.01
	Cultivar (C)	1	856	78.4	< 0.01	1	697	1.71	0.19	1	88.7	< 0.01
	C × I	118	856	1.07	0.30	112	697	1.21	0.07	140	0.90	0.78
2	I	124	879	2.51	< 0.01	124	862	2.54	< 0.01	147	2.68	< 0.01
	C	1	879	103	< 0.01	1	862	0.31	0.58	1	184	< 0.01
	C × I	124	879	1.1	0.22	124	862	0.92	0.72	147	1.21	0.05
3	I	57.3	402	5.81	< 0.01	60.8	418	2.13	< 0.01	73	4.0	< 0.01
	C	1	403	7.16	< 0.01	1	418	0	0.99	1	45.0	< 0.01
	C × I	57.3	403	0.69	0.97	60.8	418	0.76	0.92	73	1.0	0.47
^aBased on a mixed model analysis of ranked data: dfN = numerator degrees of freedom, dfD = denominator degrees of freedom.

Table 3.  Pathogenicity of Fusarium isolates on lupin seedlings as assessed based on impact on seedling emergence, and subsequent shoot dry weight and root rot severity

		Isolates (%) adversely affecting:
Fusarium spp.	No. of isolates	Emergence	Shoot weight	Root rot	Pathogenic isolates (%)^a
F. acuminatum	22	0	0	18	18
F. avenaceum	87	14	22	51	56
F. equiseti	6	0	0	0	0
F. oxysporum	86	0	0	3.5	3.5
F. redolens	6	0	0	0	0
F. solani	35	0	0	2.9	2.9
Section Discolor	20	0	0	10	10
Section Liseola	1	0	0	0	0
Section Sporotrichiella	4	0	0	0	0
Other/Unidentified	18	5.6	5.6	11	17
Total	285	4.56	7.02	20.4	22.5
^aIsolates that were pathogenic for one or more of the response variables.

Table 4.  The effect of Fusarium isolates alone and in combination with F. avenaceum on seedling emergence, root rot incidence (%) and severity (0–5), and shoot dry weight at two inoculum concentrations: High (2 × 10⁴ CFU g⁻¹) and Low (5 × 10³ CFU g⁻¹)

Inoculation treatment			Root rot
Soil	Seed	Emergence (%)	Incidence (%)	Severity	Shoot wt. (g)
High concentration
Control	Control	97 ab	11 b	0.1 b	1.17 a
	F. acuminatum	99 a	8 b	0.04 b	1.24 a
	F. oxysporum 1	90 abc	25 b	0.3 b	1.04 a
	F. oxysporum 2	96 ab	25 b	0.3 b	1.21 a
	F. solani	98 ab	29 b	0.2 b	1.25 a
F. avenaceum	Control	13 d	100 a	4.6 a	0.08 b
	F. acuminatum	35 bcd	99 a	4.5 a	0.33 b
	F. oxysporum 1	39 a–d	100 a	4.4 a	0.33 b
	F. oxysporum 2	29 cd	100 a	4.4 a	0.25 b
	F. solani	36 a–d	99 a	4.2 a	0.24 b
Low concentration
Control	Control	96 a	3 b	0.004 b	1.35 a
	F. oxysporum 1	96 a	14 b	0.1 b	1.29 ab
	F. oxysporum 2	97 a	3 b	0.001 b	1.29 ab
	F. solani	98 a	11 b	0.1 b	1.36 a
F. avenaceum	Control	86 b	89 a	2.6 a	0.97 b
	F. oxysporum 1	91 ab	90 a	2.5 a	1.02 b
	F. oxysporum 2	90 ab	88 a	2.3 a	1.08 ab
	F. solani	88 ab	83 a	2.1 a	1.03 b
Means in a column and concentration followed by the same letter are not different (P ≤ 0.05) according to Tukey–Kramer pairwise comparisons.

Table 5.  Inhibition of radial growth (RGI) of Fusarium avenaceum and width of the zone of inhibition (ZI) by other Fusarium spp. isolated from lupin, in dual culture on potato-dextrose agar (PDA) medium

	RGI (%)^a		ZI (mm)^b
Fusarium spp.	6 days	12 days	6 days	12 days
F. acuminatum	6.60 ± 5.59 a	31.80 ± 6.46 ab	10.75 ± 2.38 a	2.13 ± 1.27 a
F. oxysporum 1	7.75 ± 4.40 a	30.21 ± 7.11 ab	3.44 ± 1.27 b	0 b
F. oxysporum 2	7.41 ± 7.09 a	36.79 ± 2.90 a	5.44 ± 10.04 ab	0 b
F. solani	7.35 ± 4.42 a	25.40 ± 14.17 b	2.25 ± 0.85 b	0.13 ± 0.25 b
F. avenaceum	7.71 ± 7.78 a	32.19 ± 4.99 ab	2.63 ± 2.38 b	0 b
Control^c	2.66 ± 2.65 a	1.32 ± 3.26 c	−	−
^aRGI, inhibition of radial growth of F. avenaceum; RGI = [100(r1−r2)/r1], where r1 is the largest radius of the F. avenaceum colony and r2 is the radius of the F. avenaceum colony measured in the direction of the inoculation location of the other Fusarium isolate or control (Royse & Ries, 1978).
^bZI, the zone of inhibition between F. avenaceum and the other Fusarium isolate.
Values represent the mean of eight replicates ± standard deviation of the mean. Means followed by the same letter in each column do not differ based on Tukey–Kramer pairwise comparisons at P ≤ 0.05.
^cControl was a sterile piece of SNA medium.

Table 6.  Effect of inoculation with Fusarium avenaceum on seedling emergence, root rot severity, root length, plant height and fresh weight of 18 crop species

	Emergence		Severity (0–9)		Root length (cm)		Plant height (cm)		Fresh weight (g)
Crop	Control	Inoc.	Control	Inoc.	Control	Inoc.	Control	Inoc.	Control	Inoc.
Alfalfa ‘Anchor’	7.8	0.6 *	0	8.6 *	13.0	0.5 *	7.7	0.2 *	0.95	0.020 *
Bean ‘CDC Pintium’	8.4	8.8	0	0	12.6	12.3	16.1	15.3	9.49	7.95 *
Bird's-foot trefoil	8.8	1.2 *	0	8.5 *	12.9	0.3 *	6.0	0.4 *	0.41	0.009
Chickpea ‘Chico’	7.0	0.3 *	0.2	8.9 *	12.5	0.3 *	15.0	0.2 *	3.84	0.03 *
‘Myles’	8.4	3.8 *	0.11	0.96	16.0	6.0 *	15.5	3.1 *	4.44	0.98 *
Fababean ‘Snowbird’	4.1	1.1 *	2.8	8.7 *	8.1	1.3 *	7.3	0.6 *	5.84	0.31 *
Lentil – black	9.3	0.4 *	0	8.7 *	8.7	0*	10.6	0.4 *	1.29	0.041 *
− green	9.2	0.4 *	0.07	8.9 *	16.6	0.5 *	15.7	0.4 *	3.66	0.053 *
− red	9.8	1.4 *	0.02	8.1 *	16.5	2.2 *	16.0	1.1 *	3.33	0.14 *
Lupin ‘Arabella’	8.2	2.8 *	0.07	7.1 *	14.4	5.6 *	13.1	3.0 *	4.42	1.24 *
Pea ‘Cutlass’	9.3	3.9 *	0.12	0	15.8	7.8 *	13.8	3.1 *	4.93	1.79 *
Soybean ‘Gaillard’	7.8	5.6 *	0	0	12.0	9.3	7.0	4.0	1.85	1.17
Sweet clover	9.3	0.4 *	0	8.7 *	13.9	0.4 *	7.9	0.1 *	0.75	0.012
Barley ‘Harrington’	9.7	7.3 *	0	0	17.7	15.1	43.0	21.0 *	5.99	2.86 *
‘Vivar’	9.3	6.0 *	0	0	17.8	14.3 *	40.0	20.6 *	6.36	3.41 *
Oat – hulled	9.7	9.4	0	0	19.4	17.3	35.6	32.0 *	3.78	2.58 *
− hulless	7.6	3.2 *	0	0	15.5	5.9 *	22.0	8.5 *	2.00	0.70 *
Rye ‘AC Rifle’	7.7	1.0 *	0	0	16.7	2.1 *	22.7	2.3 *	3.86	0.34 *
Triticale – spring	9.4	5.6 *	0	0	21.0	14.0 *	34.7	16.5 *	5.33	2.35 *
− winter	8.8	5.1 *	0	0	17.1	10.1 *	25.1	12.9 *	2.36	0.94 *
Wheat – spring	8.2	1.3 *	0	0	16.3	2.9 *	28.9	3.4 *	2.21	0.37 *
− winter	9.3	5.5 *	0	0	22.2	14.7 *	29.1	14.2 *	2.79	1.42 *
Canola – B. napus	7.6	2.6 *	0	6.9 *	7.0	3.1 *	5.0	1.1 *	2.30	1.33 *
− B. rapa	8.9	0*	4.5	9.0 *	4.1	0*	8.6	0*	2.17	0*
Flax (solin)	7.3	0.4 *	0	8.6 *	8.4	0.4 *	12.3	0.4 *	0.73	0.025
Differences between inoculated and control treatments for a cultivar at P ≤ 0.05 are indicated by an asterisk.

Royse , D.J. and Ries , S.M. 1978 . The influence of fungi isolated from peach twigs on the pathogenicity of Cytospora cincta . Phytopathology , 68 : 603 – 607 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar