Erysiphe betae. [Descriptions of Fungi and Bacteria].

1967 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. N. Kapoor
Keyword(s):  
Powdery Mildew ◽  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Succinic Acid ◽  
Geographical Distribution ◽  
Seed Treatment ◽  
Erysiphe Betae ◽  
Lower Infection

Abstract A description is provided for Erysiphe betae. Information is included on the disease caused by the organism, its transmission, geographical distribution, and hosts. HOSTS: On Beta corolliflora, B. intermedia, B. maritima, B. trigyna, B. vulgaris and B. vulgaris var. cycla (Hirata, 1966). DISEASE: Powdery mildew of sugar beet. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION: Africa (Libya); Asia (Iran, Israel, Japan, Lebanon, Turkey); Europe (widely distributed). (Hirata, 1966). TRANSMISSION: Not known. However, seed treatment with 2, 4-D, heterosuxin, gibberellin and succinic acid has been reported to lower infection (44, 1315).

scholarly journals First Report of Powdery Mildew Caused by Erysiphe betae on Sugar Beet in Korea

Plant Disease ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 101 (1) ◽  
pp. 254-254
Author(s):  
J. H. Joa ◽  
K. C. Seong ◽  
I. Y. Choi ◽  
S. E. Cho ◽  
H. D. Shin
Keyword(s):  
Powdery Mildew ◽  
Sugar Beet ◽  
First Report ◽  
Erysiphe Betae

scholarly journals QoI Resistance in Sugar Beet Powdery Mildew (Erysiphe betae) in Scandinavia

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 179-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thies Marten Heick ◽  
Anne Lisbet Hansen ◽  
Annemarie Fejer Justesen ◽  
Lise Nistrup Jørgensen
Keyword(s):  
Powdery Mildew ◽  
Sugar Beet ◽  
The United States ◽  
Field Trials ◽  
Active Ingredients ◽  
Management Measures ◽  
Real Risk ◽  
Erysiphe Betae ◽  
European Union Legislation ◽  
Qoi Resistance

Powdery mildew caused by Erysiphe betae is one of the major fungal diseases in sugar beet in Denmark and Sweden. Frequent applications of fungicides mitigate the risk of powdery mildew epidemics and, consequently, reduce yield losses conferred by the disease. So far, mixtures of quinone outside inhibitors (QoIs) and triazoles have provided good efficacy against E. betae in field trials and common farming practice. However, development of fungicide resistance is a real risk, because only a limited number of active ingredients are available for the control of powdery mildew in sugar beet, and several other active ingredients are expected to be banned following reevaluation when the most recent European Union legislation is implemented. The G143A mutation associated with QoI resistance has been previously found in the United States. In this brief, its presence in Europe is reported for the first time. The current finding strongly encourages the adoption of anti-resistance strategies that minimize the spread of QoI resistance in sugar beet powdery mildew. Those strategies should be based on integrated pest management measures, including disease monitoring, the use of resistant cultivars, and the use of biological products. A sole reliance on QoI fungicides for sugar beet powdery mildew control should be avoided.

scholarly journals Is there a risk to honeybees from use of thiamethoxam as a sugar beet seed treatment?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Thompson ◽  
Sarah Vaughan ◽  
Anne‐Katrin Mahlein ◽  
Erwin Ladewig ◽  
Christine Kenter
Keyword(s):  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Seed Treatment

scholarly journals Future of Insecticide Seed Treatment

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (16) ◽  
pp. 8792
Author(s):  
Milorad Vojvodić ◽  
Renata Bažok
Keyword(s):  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Integrated Pest Management ◽  
Pest Management ◽  
Seed Treatment ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Protective Measure ◽  
Lower Amount ◽  
Vegetable Crops ◽  
Good Efficacy ◽  
Active Substances

Seed treatment as a method of local application of pesticides in precise agriculture reduces the amount of pesticides used per unit area and is considered to be the safest, cheapest and most ecologically acceptable method of protecting seeds and young plants from pests in the early stages of their development. With the introduction of insecticides from the neonicotinoid group in the mid-1990s, the frequency of seed treatment increased. Due to suspected negative effects on pollinators, most of these insecticides are banned in the European Union. The ban has therefore led to a reduction in the number of active substances approved for seed treatment and to an increased re-use of active substances from the group of pyrethroids as well as other organophosphorus insecticides, which pose potentially very serious risks, perhaps even greater than those of the banned neonicotinoids. The objective of this review is to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of seed treatment and the potential role of insecticide seed treatment in reducing the negative impact of pesticides on the environment. The main disadvantage of this method is that it has been widely accepted and has become a prophylactic protective measure applied to almost all fields. This is contrary to the principles of integrated pest management and leads to an increased input of insecticides into the environment, by treating a larger number of hectares with a lower amount of active ingredient, and a negative impact on beneficial entomofauna. In addition, studies show that due to the prophylactic approach, the economic and technical justification of this method is often questionable. Extremely important for a quality implementation are the correct processing and implementation of the treatment procedure as well as the selection of appropriate insecticides, which have proven to be problematic in the case of neonicotinoids. The ban on neonicotinoids and the withdrawal of seed treatments in oilseed rape and sugar beet has led to increased problems with a range of pests affecting these crops at an early stage of growth. The results of the present studies indicate good efficacy of active ingredients belonging to the group of anthranilic diamides, cyantraniliprole and chlorantraniliprole in the treatment of maize, soybean, sugar beet and rice seeds on pests of the above-ground part of the plant, but not on wireworms. Good efficacy in controlling wireworms in maize is shown by an insecticide in the naturalites group, spinosad, but it is currently used to treat seeds of vegetable crops, mainly onions, to control onion flies and flies on other vegetable crops. Seed treatment as a method only fits in with the principles of integrated pest management when treated seeds are sown on land where there is a positive prognosis for pest infestation.

Erysiphe pisi. [Descriptions of Fungi and Bacteria].

1967 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. N. Kapoor
Keyword(s):  
Powdery Mildew ◽  
Geographical Distribution ◽  
Lens Culinaris ◽  
World Wide ◽  
Erysiphe Pisi ◽  
Lens Esculenta

Abstract A description is provided for Erysiphe pisi. Information is included on the disease caused by the organism, its transmission, geographical distribution, and hosts. HOSTS: On Papilionaceae, chiefly on Pisum, Dorcynium, Medicago and Vicia; also on Lupinus spp., Lens esculenta[Lens culinaris], Trifolium dubium and? Astragalus alpinus (Blumer, 1967). DISEASE: Powdery mildew of pea. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION: World-wide. TRANSMISSION: Internally seed borne (15: 338).

Podosphaera leucotricha. [Descriptions of Fungi and Bacteria].

1967 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. N. Kapoor
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
North America ◽  
Powdery Mildew ◽  
South America ◽  
Geographical Distribution ◽  
Prunus Persica ◽  
Podosphaera Leucotricha

Abstract A description is provided for Podosphaera leucotricha. Information is included on the disease caused by the organism, its transmission, geographical distribution, and hosts. HOSTS: On Malus spp., chiefly on M. pumila (apple), peach (Prunus persica), quince (Cydonia ualgaris) and Photinia spp. also attacked (Hirata, 1966). Also reported on almond fruit (43, 2544). DISEASE: Powdery mildew of apple. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION: Africa (? Kenya, Rhodaia, South Africa, Tanzania); Asia (China, India, Israel, Japan, U.S.S.R.); Australia and New Zealand, Europe (widely distributed) North America (Canada and U.S.A.); South America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Peru). (CMI map 118). TRANSMISSION: Overwinters on host as dormant mycdium in blossom buds. The role of deistothecia in overwintering is doubtful. Spread by wind-borne conidia (Anderson, 1956).

scholarly journals Length of Efficacy for Control of Curly Top in Sugar Beet With Seed and Foliar Insecticides

Plant Disease ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 100 (7) ◽  
pp. 1364-1370 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl A. Strausbaugh ◽  
Erik J. Wenninger ◽  
Imad A. Eujayl
Keyword(s):  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Host Resistance ◽  
Seed Treatment ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Block Design ◽  
Root Yield ◽  
Pyrethroid Insecticides ◽  
Beet Curly Top Virus ◽  
Randomized Complete Block Design ◽  
Untreated Check

Curly top in sugar beet caused by Beet curly top virus (BCTV) is an important yield-limiting disease that can be reduced via neonicotinoid and pyrethroid insecticides. The length of efficacy of these insecticides is poorly understood; therefore, field experiments were conducted with the seed treatment Poncho Beta (clothianidin at 60 g a.i. + beta-cyfluthrin at 8 g a.i. per 100,000 seed) and foliar treatment Asana (esfenvalerate at 55.48 g a.i./ha). A series of four experiments at different locations in the same field were conducted in 2014 and repeated in a neighboring field in 2015, with four treatments (untreated check, Poncho Beta, Asana, and Poncho Beta + Asana) which were arranged in a randomized complete block design with eight replications. To evaluate efficacy, viruliferous (contain BCTV strains) beet leafhoppers were released 8, 9, 10, or 11weeks after planting for each experiment, which corresponded to 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks after Asana application. Over both years, in 30 of 32 observation dates for treatments with Poncho Beta and 14 of 16 observation dates for Asana, visual curly top ratings decreased an average of 41 and 24%, respectively, with insecticide treatments compared with the untreated check. Over both years, in eight of eight experiments for treatments with Poncho Beta and six of eight experiments for Asana, root yields increased an average of 39 and 32%, respectively, with treatment compared with the untreated check. Over both years, the Poncho Beta treatments increased estimated recoverable sucrose (ERS) yield by 75% compared with the untreated check for weeks 8 and 9. By week 10, only the Poncho Beta + Asana treatment led to increases in ERS in both years, while the influence of increasing host resistance may have made other treatments more difficult to separate. When considering curly top symptoms, root yield, and ERS among all weeks and years, there was a tendency for the insecticides in the Poncho Beta + Asana treatment to complement each other to improve efficacy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document