Skip to main content
ARS Home » Research » Publications at this Location » Publication #121449


item Panella, Leonard
item Hanson, Linda

Submitted to: Biological and Cultural Tests for Control of Plant Diseases
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: 2/27/2001
Publication Date: 5/7/2001
Citation: Panella, L.W., Hanson, L.E. 2001. Evaluation of beta pis from the usda-ars npgs for resistance to curly top virus, 2000.. Biological and Cultural Tests for Control of Plant Diseases.

Interpretive Summary: Beet Curly top virus is widespread throughout the western United States. It causes beets to be dwarfed with crinkled and rolled leaves. Disease control is largely through the use of disease resistant varieties. Thus the identification of new sources of resistance is important for managing beet curly top. In 2000, 30 Plant Introductions from the USDA-ARS National lPlant Germplasm System were tested for resistance to beet curly top virus. The disease was very severe this year due to the hot, dry weather. Out of the thirty Plant Introductions tested, three were not significantly different from the resistance control at both of the times tested.

Technical Abstract: Thirty Plant Introductions (PIs) from the USDA-ARS National Plant Germplasm System were evaluated for resistance to the beet curly top virus in an artificially inoculated nursery in Kimberly, ID. After the beets emerged, plots were trimmed, thinned, and cultivated. Viruliferous leafhoppers were released to cause an artificial epiphytotic. The field was sprayed two weeks after release to kill the leafhoppers. Plots were visually evaluate and rated on a disease index (DI) scale of 0 to 9 (no symptoms to dead) at two different times. An analysis of variance on the disease indices determined that there were highly significant differences (P=0.05) among entries. There was cultivar damage throughout the field and some plots were missing. The summer was very hot and dry and the epiphytotic extremely severe. There were four accessions which were not significantly different at both times. The resistant and susceptible checks had DIs of 3.5 and 6.5 5respectively at the first rating, and 6.0 and 7.5 at the second, while the DIs for the PIs ranged from 4.0 to 9.0 at the second.