Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:18:19.243Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Screening for soybean varieties suited to Belgian growing conditions based on maturity, yield components and resistance to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and Rhizoctonia solani anastomosis group 2-2IIIB

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2018

J. Pannecoucque ,
S. Goormachtigh ,
K. Heungens ,
T. Vleugels ,
J. Ceusters ,
C. Van Waes  and
J. Van Waes
J. Pannecoucque*
Affiliation:
Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), Crop Husbandry, Soil and Environment, Burg. Van Gansberghelaan 109, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
S. Goormachtigh
Affiliation:
Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), Crop Husbandry, Soil and Environment, Burg. Van Gansberghelaan 109, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
K. Heungens
Affiliation:
Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), Crop Protection, Burg. Van Gansberghelaan 96, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
T. Vleugels
Affiliation:
Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), Genetics and Breeding, Caritasstraat 39, 9090 Melle, Belgium
J. Ceusters
Affiliation:
Department of Microbial and Molecular Systems, KU Leuven, Faculty of Engineering Technology, Technology Campus Geel, Kleinhoefstraat 4, 2440 Geel, Belgium
C. Van Waes
Affiliation:
Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), Crop Husbandry, Soil and Environment, Burg. Van Gansberghelaan 109, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
J. Van Waes
Affiliation:
Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), Crop Husbandry, Soil and Environment, Burg. Van Gansberghelaan 109, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
*
Author for correspondence: J. Pannecoucque, E-mail: joke.pannecoucque@ilvo.vlaanderen.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Policy makers and farmers in north-west Europe are expressing a growing interest in soybean production. However, cool and wet climatic conditions in this region pose challenges for this crop in terms of reaching maturity and producing sufficient yield and create additional disease pressure from the fungal pathogens Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and Rhizoctonia solani. To increase the chance for successful introduction of this new crop in Belgium and to determine the main issues for local soybean breeding programmes, 14 early maturing varieties were screened over a 2-year-period for their agronomic performance. Based on novel bioassays, susceptibility to S. sclerotiorum and R. solani anastomosis group (AG) 2-2IIIB was evaluated. The varieties tested were able to reach sufficient maturity (average seed moisture content of 19.0%) by the beginning of October. Significant differences were observed in most agronomic characteristics, with seed yield and protein content ranging from 2002 to 2916 kg dry matter/ha and 35.5–43.3%, respectively. Taller varieties ripened later but reached higher protein levels compared with shorter varieties. Tolerance to lodging was correlated with seed and protein yield but was not correlated with plant height. Large seeds corresponded with a high protein content. Susceptibility to S. sclerotiorum reflected significant differences between varieties. In contrast, levels of susceptibility to R. solani AG 2-2IIIB were similar between most varieties, with only the variety Primus showing significantly less disease. The results of the current study hold promise for a successful introduction of soybean cultivation in north-west Europe and areas for further crop improvement have been identified.

Keywords

BelgiumGlycine maxsoybean cultivationvariety screening
Type
Crops and Soils Research Paper
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 156 , Issue 3 , April 2018 , pp. 342 - 349
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ajayi-Oyetunde, OO and Bradley, CA (2017) Identification and characterization of Rhizoctonia species associated with soybean seedling disease. Plant Disease 101, 520–533.Google Scholar
Aper, J, De Clercq, H and Baert, J (2016) Agronomic characteristics of early-maturing soybean and implications for breeding in Belgium. Plant Genetic Resources 14, 142–148.Google Scholar
Bastien, M et al. (2012) A reproducible assay for measuring partial resistance to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum in soybean. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 92, 279–288.Google Scholar
Boine, B et al. (2014) Quantitative methods for assessment of the impact of different crops on the inoculum density of Rhizoctonia solani AG2-2IIIB in soil. European Journal of Plant Pathology 140, 745–756.Google Scholar
Bradley, CA et al. (2001) Response of ancestral soybean lines and commercial cultivars to Rhizoctonia root and hypocotyl rot. Plant Disease 85, 1091–1095.Google Scholar
Buddemeyer, J et al. (2004) Genetic variation in susceptibility of maize to Rhizoctonia solani (AG 2-2IIIB) – symptoms and damage under field conditions in Germany. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection 111, 521–533.Google Scholar
Büttner, G, Ithurrart, MEF and Buddemeyer, J (2002) Root and crown rot Rhizoctonia solani – distribution, economic importance and concepts of integrated control. Zuckerindustrie 127, 856–866.Google Scholar
Büttner, G, Pfähler, B and Märländer, B (2004) Greenhouse and field techniques for testing sugar beet for resistance to Rhizoctonia root and crown rot. Plant Breeding 123, 158–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y and Wang, D (2005) Two convenient methods to evaluate soybean for resistance to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Plant Disease 89, 1268–1272.Google Scholar
Chevalier, D et al. (2016) Soyfoods: consumption in France, nutritional qualities and recent scientific data on its contribution to health. Oilseeds and Fats Crops and Lipids 23, D405. https://doi.org/10.1051/ocl/2016025Google Scholar
D'aes, J et al. (2011) Biological control of Rhizoctonia root rot on bean by phenazine- and cyclic lipopeptide-producing Pseudomonas CMR12a. Phytopathology 101, 996–1004.Google Scholar
Egnér, H, Riehm, H and Domingo, WR (1960) Untersuchungen über die chemische Bodenanalyse als Grundlage für die Beurtleilung des Nährstoffzustandes der Böden. II. Chemische Extraktionsmethoden zur Phosphor- und Kaliumbestimmung. Kungliga Lantbrukshögskolans 26, 199–215.Google Scholar
Engwerda, J (2015) Sojaboon geeft hoger saldo dan zomertarwe. Boerderij 100, 18–19.Google Scholar
European Commission (2017). Agriculture and Rural Development: Greening. Brussels, Belgium: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development European Commission. Available online from: https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/direct-support/greening_en (Accessed 15 March 2018).Google Scholar
FAOSTAT (2017). Production Data of Crops. Rome, Italy: FAO. Available online from: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC (Accessed 15 March 2018).Google Scholar
Fehr, WR et al. (1971) Stage of development descriptions for soybeans, Glycine max (L.) Merrill. Crop Science 11, 929–931.Google Scholar
FOD (2017). Statistieken Belgium - Land- en Tuinbouwbedrijven. Brussels, Belgium: FOD. Available online from: https://statbel.fgov.be/nl/themas/landbouw-visserij/land-en-tuinbouwbedrijven (Accessed 15 March 2018).Google Scholar
González García, V, Portal Onco, MA and Rubio Susan, V (2006) Review. Biology and systematics of the form genus Rhizoctonia. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 4, 55–79.Google Scholar
Hartman, GL, West, ED and Herman, TK (2011) Crops that feed the World 2. Soybean-worldwide production, use, and constraints caused by pathogens and pests. Food Security 3, 5–17.Google Scholar
Hartman, GL et al. (2015) Compendium of Soybean Diseases and Pests. St. Paul, Minnesota, USA: The American Phytopathological Society.Google Scholar
Kim, HS et al. (2000) Reaction of soybean cultivars to Sclerotinia stem rot in field, greenhouse, and laboratory evaluations. Crop Science 40, 665–669.Google Scholar
KMI (2017). Klimaatatlas van België. Brussels, Belgium: KMI. Available online from: http://www.meteo.be/meteo/view/nl/16788784-Klimaatatlas.html#navigate=3,1,1 (Accessed 15 March 2018).Google Scholar
Kurasch, AK et al. (2017 a) Phenotypic analysis of major agronomic traits in 1008 RILs from a diallel of early European soybean varieties. Crop Science 57, 726–738.Google Scholar
Kurasch, AK et al. (2017 b) Identification of mega-environments in Europe and effect of allelic variation at maturity E loci on adaptation of European soybean. Plant, Cell and Environment 40, 765–778.Google Scholar
Masuda, T and Goldsmith, PD (2009) World soybean production: area harvested, yield and long-term projections. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 12, 143–162.Google Scholar
Melzer, MS et al. (2016) Characterization and pathogenicity of Rhizoctonia spp. from field crops in Canada. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology 38, 367–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reckling, M et al. (2016) A cropping system assessment framework - evaluating effects of introducing legumes into crop rotations. European Journal of Agronomy 76, 186–197.Google Scholar
Saharan, GS and Mehta, N (2008) Sclerotinia Diseases of Crop Plants: Biology, Ecology and Disease Management. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Sato, T et al. (2014) Effects of divergent selection for seed protein content in high-protein vs. food-grade populations of early maturity soybean. Plant Breeding 133, 74–79.Google Scholar
Scholten, OE et al. (2001) A greenhouse test for screening sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) for resistance to Rhizoctonia solani. European Journal of Plant Patholgy 107, 161–166.Google Scholar
Schori, A, Charles, R and Peter, D (2003) Soja: sélection, agronomie et production en Suisse. Revue Suisse d'Agronomie 35, 69–75.Google Scholar
Schreuder, R and De Visser, C (2014) Report EIP-AGRI Focus Group on Protein Crops. Brussels: European Innovation partnership for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability.Google Scholar
Shenk, JS and Westerhaus, MO (1991 a) Population definition, sample selection, and calibration procedures for near infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Crop Science 31, 469–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shenk, JS and Westerhaus, MO (1991 b) Populations structuring of near infrared spectra and modified partial least squares regression. Crop Science 31, 1548–1555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, W et al. (2016) Analyzing the effects of climate factors on soybean protein, oil contents, and composition by extensive and high-density sampling in China. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 64, 4121–4130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vollmann, J et al. (2000) Environmental and genetic variation of soybean seed protein content under Central European growing conditions. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 80, 1300–1306.Google Scholar
Wrather, JA and Koenning, SR (2006) Estimates of disease effects on soybean yields in the United States 2003 to 2005. Journal of Nematology 38, 173–180.Google ScholarPubMed
Zander, P et al. (2016) Grain legume decline and potential recovery in European agriculture: a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 36, 26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0365-yGoogle Scholar
Zhao, G et al. (2005) Anastomosis groups of Rhizoctonia solani associated with soybean root and hypocotyl rot in Ontario and resistance of accession PI 442031 to different anastomosis groups. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology 27, 108–117.Google Scholar