DOCSLIB.ORG

SUGARBEET January 2013 Contents (Dates in Parenthesis Indicate When Each Topic Was Updated)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SUGARBEET January 2013 Contents (Dates in Parenthesis Indicate When Each Topic Was Updated) UC IPM Pest Management Guidelines: SUGARBEET January 2013 Contents (Dates in parenthesis indicate when each topic was updated) General Information Relative Toxicities of Pesticides Used in Sugarbeet to Natural Enemies and Honey Bees (1/10) .................................................. 1 Insects and Mites (Section reviewed 11/05) Aphids: General Considerations (1/10) ................................................................................................................................................... 2 Bean Aphid (1/10) ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Green Peach Aphid (1/10) ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Other Aphids (1/10) ................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Sugarbeet Root Aphid (1/10) .................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Armyworms (1/10) ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Beet Leafhopper (1/10) ............................................................................................................................................................................. 11 Cutworms (1/10) ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Empoasca Leafhoppers (1/10) ................................................................................................................................................................. 14 Flea Beetles (1/10) ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Grasshoppers (1/10) ................................................................................................................................................................................. 17 Leafminers (11/05) .................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Saltmarsh Caterpillar (1/10) .................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Seedcorn Maggot (1/10) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Spider Mites (1/10) ................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Webworms (1/10) ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Whiteflies (1/10) ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 25 Wireworms (1/10) ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 27 Diseases (Section reviewed 11/05) Aphid-Borne Viruses (1/10) .................................................................................................................................................................... 28 Cercospora Leaf Spot (1/10) .................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Curly Top (1/10) ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 30 Erwinia Soft Rot (11/05) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Phytophthora and Pythium Root Rots (11/05) ..................................................................................................................................... 32 Powdery Mildew (1/10) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 33 Rhizoctonia Root and Crown Rot (11/05) ............................................................................................................................................. 34 Rhizomania (1/10) ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Rhizopus Root Rot (11/05) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 36 Sclerotium Root Rot (1/10) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 37 Seedling Diseases (1/10) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 38 Whitefly-Borne Viruses (1/10) ................................................................................................................................................................ 39 Nematodes (Section updated 1/13) ............................................................................................................................................................ 40 Weeds (Section reviewed 11/05) Integrated Weed Management (1/10) .................................................................................................................................................... 43 Special Weed Problems (11/05) ............................................................................................................................................................... 48 Common and Scientific Names of Weeds (11/05) ................................................................................................................................ 49 Susceptibility of Winter Weeds in Sugarbeet to Herbicide Control (1/10) ...................................................................................... 51 Susceptibility of Spring and Summer Weeds in Sugarbeet to Herbicide Control (1/10) ............................................................... 52 Herbicide Treatment Table (1/13) ........................................................................................................................................................ 53 Precautions for Using Pesticides .............................................................................................................................................................. 57 An illustrated version of this guideline is available online at http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/selectnewpest.sugarbeet.html Publication 3469 UC Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program UC IPM Pest Management Guidelines – SUGARBEET Authors Insects and Mites: E.T. Natwick, UCCE Imperial Co. Diseases: S. Kaffka, Agronomy and Range Science, UC Davis; T. A. Turini, UCCE Fresno Co.; W.M. Wintermantel, USDA-ARS, Salinas Nematodes: B. B. Westerdahl, Nematology, UC Davis; J. O. Becker, Nematology, UC Riverside Weeds: K. J. Hembree, UCCE Fresno Co. Acknowledgment for Contributions to Insects and Mites: C. G. Summers, Entomology, Kearney Agricultural Center, Parlier; D. R. Haviland, UC IPM Kern Co.; L. D. Godfrey, Entomology, UC Davis Acknowledgment for contributions to Diseases: R. T. Lewellen, USDA-ARS, Salinas; C. A. Frate, UCCE Tulare Co. Acknowledgment for contributions to Nematodes: U. C. Kodira, Nematology, UC Davis Acknowledgment for contributions to Weeds: R. F. Norris, Vegetable Crops and Weed Science, UC Davis About this publication Produced and edited by: UC Statewide IPM Program University of California , Davis Guidelines Coordinator: R. Basler Production: K. Gosal, C. Laning This publication has been anonymously peer reviewed for technical accuracy by University of California scientists and other qualified professionals. This review process was managed by the ANR Associate Editor for Agricultural Pest Management. The UC IPM Pest Management Guidelines are available from: • Online: www.ipm.ucdavis.edu • UC Cooperative Extension County Offices University of California • ANR/Communication Services Richmond, CA 94804 510-665-2195; 800-994-8849 Updates: These guidelines are updated regularly. Check with your University of California Cooperative Extension Office or the UC IPM Web
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Spinach Chlorotic Spot Uirus: a New Strain of Beet Yellows Uirus
    rfl/8 t o — • • Q n t h e e / g e p t e d roa ..... /, COljy rA? pr p l a c e d i h i ^ b z a r y . x* h oF NAmOBt U N W E R S H ^ UBRAfr? KABE.U m is T1IE3IS HAS PEEN ACCEPTED FOE THE DEGREE OF................................................... AND A COPY 'TAY BE PLACED lfl ffHL CMVEBB1TY LIBRARY. UNIVERSITY OF NAiKUH) LIBRARY SPINACH CHLOROTIC SPOT UIRUS: A NEW STRAIN OF BEET YELLOWS UIRUS BY ANNE ADHIAMBO A thesis submitted to the University of Nairobi in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in plant pathology June 1985 l ii DECLARATION This thesis is my own original work and has not been presented for a degree in any other university. n Is I § £ A, A. OSANO DATE This thesis has been submitted for examination with our approval as university supervisors* PROF. D. M. MU10JNYA DATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisors, Dr. E. M. Gathuru and Prof. D. M. Mukunya, for their devotion, guidance, advice, criticisms and constant encour a geni ent during the course of this investigation and preparation of this manuscript. I gratefully acknowledge the technical assistance I received from the technical staff of Crop Science, Food Science, Pathology and Public Health departments of the College of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences. In particular, I wish to recognise Mr. F. Ngumbu, formerly of Plant Virology Unit, for his special technical assistance and Messrs D. N. Kahara and J. G. Uaweru for their help in taking the electron micrographs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Family Closteroviridae Revised
    Virology Division News 2039 Arch Virol 147/10 (2002) VDNVirology Division News The family Closteroviridae revised G.P. Martelli (Chair)1, A. A. Agranovsky2, M. Bar-Joseph3, D. Boscia4, T. Candresse5, R. H. A. Coutts6, V. V. Dolja7, B. W. Falk8, D. Gonsalves9, W. Jelkmann10, A.V. Karasev11, A. Minafra12, S. Namba13, H. J. Vetten14, G. C. Wisler15, N. Yoshikawa16 (ICTV Study group on closteroviruses and allied viruses) 1 Dipartimento Protezione Piante, University of Bari, Italy; 2 Laboratory of Physico-Chemical Biology, Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia; 3 Volcani Agricultural Research Center, Bet Dagan, Israel; 4 Istituto Virologia Vegetale CNR, Sezione Bari, Italy; 5 Station de Pathologie Végétale, INRA,Villenave d’Ornon, France; 6 Imperial College, London, U.K.; 7 Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, U.S.A.; 8 Department of Plant Pathology, University of California, Davis, U.S.A.; 9 Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, USDA, Hilo, Hawaii, U.S.A.; 10 Institut für Pflanzenschutz im Obstbau, Dossenheim, Germany; 11 Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Thomas Jefferson University, Doylestown, U.S.A.; 12 Istituto Virologia Vegetale CNR, Sezione Bari, Italy; 13 Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Tokyo, Japan; 14 Biologische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig, Germany; 15 Deparment of Plant Pathology, University of Florida, Gainesville, U.S.A.; 16 Iwate University, Morioka, Japan Summary. Recently obtained molecular and biological information has prompted the revision of the taxonomic structure of the family Closteroviridae. In particular, mealybug- transmitted species have been separated from the genus Closterovirus and accommodated in a new genus named Ampelovirus (from ampelos, Greek for grapevine).
    [Show full text]
  • Molecular Breeding for Resistance to Rhizomania in Sugar Beets
    Molecular breeding for resistance to rhizomania in sugar beets Britt-Louise Lennefors Faculty of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences Department of Plant Biology and Forest Genetics Uppsala and Syngenta Seeds AB Department of Plant Pathology Landskrona Doctoral thesis Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Uppsala 2006 Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae 2006:106 ISSN 1652-6880 ISBN 91-576-7255-5 © 2006 Britt-Louise Lennefors, Landskrona Tryck: SLU Service/Repro, Uppsala 2006 Abstract Lennefors, B-L. 2006. Molecular breeding for resistance to rhizomania in sugar beets. Doctor’s dissertation ISSN: 1652-6880, ISBN: 91-576-7255-5 Rhizomania is one of the most destructive sugar beet diseases. It is caused by Beet necrotic yellow vein virus (BNYVV) vectored by the soilborne protoctist Polymyxa betae Keskin. The studies in this thesis evaluated natural and transgenic resistances to rhizomania in sugar beets. Also the genetic variability in the coat protein genes of BNYVV, Beet soil-borne virus, Beet virus Q and Beet soil-borne mosaic virus isolates was studied. Several natural sources of resistance to BNYVV are known, such as the “Holly” source with resistance gene Rz1, WB42 carrying Rz2, and WB41. We mapped the major gene called Rz3 in WB41 to a locus on chromosome 3. In hybrids with combined resistance of Rz1 and Rz3, the resistance level to BNYVV was improved as compared to plants carrying Rz1 only. Transgenic sugar beets resistant to BNYVV were produced. The resistance was based on RNA silencing. The level of resistance to BNYVV in the transgenic plants was compared to the natural sources of resistance in greenhouse experiments and in the field and found to be superior to the resistance conferred by Rz1.
    [Show full text]
  • Vectors of Beet Yellows Virus
    Transmission Efficiencies of Field-Collected Aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae) Vectors of Beet Yellows Virus MARYELLYN KIRK,' STEVEN R. TEMPLE,* CHARLES G. SUMMERS,3 AND L. T. WILSON' University of California, Davis, California 95616 J. Econ. Entomol. 84(2). 638-643 (1991) ABSTRACT Alate aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) were collected at weekly intervals in 1988 in six California sugarbeet fields-three on each side of a boundary line which separates overwintered spring harvest beet fields in Solano County from fall harvested fields in Yolo County. Alate aphids landing on a yellow board during a 45-min morning collection period were captured live and tested for ability to transmit beet yellows virus (BYV) by allowing individual aphids to feed on healthy sugarbeet seedlings immediately after capture. Test plants were evaluated for BYV infection by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). and aphids were preserved and later identified. Myzus persicae (Sulzer), Aphis fabae Scopoli complex, and Rhopalostphum padi (L.) were the principal aphid species which transmitted BYV. Five additional captured aphid species were found to be carrying BYV, including Macrostphum rosae (L.) and Amphorophora spp., which are reported as BYV vectors for the first time. Geographically distinct isolates of A. fake complex were collected from fields in Fresno, Monterey, Santa Barbara, Tehama and Yolo counties; M. persicae was collected from Yolo County and R. padi was collected from Fresno and Yolo counties. A laboratory colony of R. padi was also obtained from New York. All aphid collections were tested for their relative efficiency in transmitting BYV. Differential transmission ability was found among geographically isolated aphid colonies of the same species and also among the different genera.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the United States National Museum
    : KEVISION OF THE BEETLES OF THE GENUS DISONYCHA OCCURRING IN AMERICA NORTH OF MEXICO By Doris Holmes Blake Assistant Entomologist, Bureau of Entomology, United States Department of Agriculture HISTORY OF THE GENUS The generic name Disomjcha Chevrolat first appeared in the Dejean Catalogue of 1837 ^ with 31 species listed under it. In 1844 Chevrolat - defined the genus as follows Disonycha (5/s deux, '6vv^ ongle). Geure de Col^opt^res tetrameres, famille des Cycliques, tribu des Alticites, cr^e par nous, et adopts par M. Dejean, qui, daus son Catalogue, en enuniere 30 [sic] especes, dont 26 appartiennent k I'Amerique, 3 & I'Afriqiie australe et une a I'Asie. Nous citerons, parrai les premieres, les D. glahrata, conjugata, caroliniana et collaris (altica) de Fabricius, 5-lincata, 6-Uneata d'Olivier, et Jf-vittata d'lUiger. Les insectes qui composent sont moyeune grandeur presque tons ont les elytres noires avec ce g. de ; des lignes longitudinales jauues ; leurs tibias sont terniinfe ext^rieurement par deux ongles excessivenient petits. Of the original 31 species listed in the Dejean Catalogue, at least 6 of the North and South American species had been previously described, possibly more. Of these, only four are now considered as belonging to the genus Dhonycha. Galleruca coUaris Fabricius ^ is not recognizable, and Haltica quadrivittata Illiger * was listed b}'^ Illiger under the group Oedipodes. The remainder are : Crioceris caroliniana Fabricius,^ C. gJahnita Fabricius,*' C. collata Fabricius,'' and Haltica conjuncta Germar.^ Since no previous designation seems to have been made, Crioceris collata^ the most definitely de- scribed of the North American species included by Chevrolat (in Dejean), is hereby designated as the type of the genus.
    [Show full text]
  • Co-Infection of Beet Mosaic Virus with Beet Yellowing Viruses Leads to Increased Symptom Expression on Sugar Beet
    Co-infection of Beet mosaic virus with Beet Yellowing Viruses Leads to Increased Symptom Expression on Sugar Beet William M. Wintermantel, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 1636 E. Alisal Street, Salinas, CA 93905 (5,13,32). Seed yields may be decreased ABSTRACT by up to 70% as a result of virus yellows Wintermantel, W. M. 2005. Co-infection of Beet mosaic virus with beet yellowing viruses leads infection (6). Each virus in the yellows to increased symptom expression on sugar beet. Plant Dis. 89:325-331. complex differs in its effect on yield in single infections. BYV infection results in Three distinct aphid-transmitted viruses associated with a yellowing disease on sugar beet were decreased leaf area and losses in both root examined in single and mixed infections for the effects of virus interactions on plant weight, rate weight and sugar yield (13). Yield losses of symptom development, and virus concentration. Sugar beet lines exhibiting different degrees associated with BWYV infection are much of susceptibility to the virus yellows complex were inoculated with either one, two, or all three less than those resulting from infection by viruses. Severe stunting, as measured by fresh plant biomass, was observed with mixed infec- tions with Beet yellows virus (BYV) and Beet mosaic virus (BtMV), compared to single infec- BYV (13). BtMV infections result in less tions of these viruses. In addition, the overall rate of appearance of Beet western yellows virus than 10% yield loss even when plants are (BWYV) symptoms increased during co-infection with BtMV. Synergistic effects on stunting infected early (13).
    [Show full text]
  • THESIS a SURVEY of the ARTHROPOD FAUNA ASSOCIATED with HEMP (CANNABIS SATIVA L.) GROWN in EASTERN COLORADO Submitted by Melissa
    THESIS A SURVEY OF THE ARTHROPOD FAUNA ASSOCIATED WITH HEMP (CANNABIS SATIVA L.) GROWN IN EASTERN COLORADO Submitted by Melissa Schreiner Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of Master of Science Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado Fall 2019 Master’s Committee: Advisor: Whitney Cranshaw Frank Peairs Mark Uchanski Copyright by Melissa Schreiner 2019 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT A SURVEY OF THE ARTHROPOD FAUNA ASSOCIATED WITH HEMP (CANNABIS SATIVA L.) GROWN IN EASTERN COLORADO Industrial hemp was found to support a diverse complex of arthropods in the surveys of hemp fields in eastern Colorado. Seventy-three families of arthropods were collected from hemp grown in eight counties in Colorado in 2016, 2017, and 2018. Other important groups found in collections were of the order Diptera, Coleoptera, and Hemiptera. The arthropods present in fields had a range of association with the crop and included herbivores, natural enemies, pollen feeders, and incidental species. Hemp cultivars grown for seed and fiber had higher insect species richness compared to hemp grown for cannabidiol (CBD). This observational field survey of hemp serves as the first checklist of arthropods associated with the crop in eastern Colorado. Emerging key pests of the crop that are described include: corn earworm (Helicoverpa zea (Boddie)), hemp russet mite (Aculops cannibicola (Farkas)), cannabis aphid (Phorodon cannabis (Passerini)), and Eurasian hemp borer (Grapholita delineana (Walker)). Local outbreaks of several species of grasshoppers were observed and produced significant crop injury, particularly twostriped grasshopper (Melanoplus bivittatus (Say)). Approximately half (46%) of the arthropods collected in sweep net samples during the three year sampling period were categorized as predators, natural enemies of arthropods.
    [Show full text]
  • Encyclopaedia of Pests and Natural Enemies in Field Crops Contents Introduction
    Encyclopaedia of pests and natural enemies in field crops Contents Introduction Contents Page Integrated pest management Managing pests while encouraging and supporting beneficial insects is an Introduction 2 essential part of an integrated pest management strategy and is a key component of sustainable crop production. Index 3 The number of available insecticides is declining, so it is increasingly important to use them only when absolutely necessary to safeguard their longevity and Identification of larvae 11 minimise the risk of the development of resistance. The Sustainable Use Directive (2009/128/EC) lists a number of provisions aimed at achieving the Pest thresholds: quick reference 12 sustainable use of pesticides, including the promotion of low input regimes, such as integrated pest management. Pests: Effective pest control: Beetles 16 Minimise Maximise the Only use Assess the Bugs and aphids 42 risk by effects of pesticides if risk of cultural natural economically infestation Flies, thrips and sawflies 80 means enemies justified Moths and butterflies 126 This publication Nematodes 150 Building on the success of the Encyclopaedia of arable weeds and the Encyclopaedia of cereal diseases, the three crop divisions (Cereals & Oilseeds, Other pests 162 Potatoes and Horticulture) of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board have worked together on this new encyclopaedia providing information Natural enemies: on the identification and management of pests and natural enemies. The latest information has been provided by experts from ADAS, Game and Wildlife Introduction 172 Conservation Trust, Warwick Crop Centre, PGRO and BBRO. Beetles 175 Bugs 181 Centipedes 184 Flies 185 Lacewings 191 Sawflies, wasps, ants and bees 192 Spiders and mites 197 1 Encyclopaedia of pests and natural enemies in field crops Encyclopaedia of pests and natural enemies in field crops 2 Index Index A Acrolepiopsis assectella (leek moth) 139 Black bean aphid (Aphis fabae) 45 Acyrthosiphon pisum (pea aphid) 61 Boettgerilla spp.
    [Show full text]
  • Semipersistently Transmitted, Phloem Limited Plant Viruses Are Inoculated During the First Subphase of Intracellular Stylet Penetrations in Phloem Cells
    viruses Article Semipersistently Transmitted, Phloem Limited Plant Viruses Are Inoculated during the First Subphase of Intracellular Stylet Penetrations in Phloem Cells Jaime Jiménez †, Aránzazu Moreno and Alberto Fereres * Instituto de Ciencias Agrarias, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (ICA-CSIC), C/Serrano 115 dpdo, 28006 Madrid, Spain; jaime.jimenez@ufl.edu (J.J.); [email protected] (A.M.) * Correspondence: [email protected] † Current address: Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of Florida, UF/IFAS, Gainesville, FL 32608, USA. Abstract: The green peach aphid Myzus persicae Sulzer is the main vector of the semipersistently transmitted and phloem-limited Beet yellows virus (BYV, Closterovirus). Studies monitoring the M. persicae probing behavior by using the Electrical penetration graphs (EPG) technique revealed that inoculation of BYV occurs during unique brief intracellular punctures (phloem-pds) produced in companion and/or sieve element cells. Intracellular stylet punctures (or pds) are subdivided in three subphases (II-1, II-2 and II-3), which have been related to the delivery or uptake of non-phloem limited viruses transmitted in a non-persistent or semipersistent manner. As opposed to non-phloem limited viruses, the specific pd subphase(s) involved in the successful delivery of phloem limited viruses by aphids remain unknown. Therefore, we monitored the feeding process of BYV-carrying M. persicae individuals in sugar beet plants by the EPG technique and the feeding process was Citation: Jiménez, J.; Moreno, A.; artificially terminated at each phloem-pd subphase. Results revealed that aphids that only performed Fereres, A. Semipersistently the subphase II-1 of the phloem-pd transmitted BYV at similar efficiency than those allowed to Transmitted, Phloem Limited Plant perform subphase II-2 or the complete phloem-pd.
    [Show full text]
  • Tracking List
    Tracked Taxa List: Current as of Invertebrates 2021-May-17 This list contains the tracked invertebrate animal taxa known by the Saskatchewan Conservation Data Centre (SKCDC) to occur within Saskatchewan, as of the date provided above. If you notice any errors or omissions, please contact [email protected]. For more information about how the SKCDC generates these lists and what determines when a species is tracked by the SKCDC, visit: http://biodiversity.sk.ca/lists.htm Conservation ranks/status are provided for each species. For details on each, refer to the following resources: ◦ Subnational (S), National (N) and Global (G) Ranks: www.biodiversity.sk.ca/ranking.htm ◦ Government of Saskatchewan Wild Species at Risk Regulations: https://publications.saskatchewan.ca/#/products/1609 ◦ COSEWIC: https://www.cosewic.ca/index.php ◦ SARA; Government of Canada Species at Risk public registry: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/species-risk-public-registry.html SYNONYMS: This list is being provided by the SKCDC as a tool to facilitate users in determining the current, accepted taxonomy. If a name is currently out of use in Saskatchewan, it’s current synonym is provided, indented in the line below the accepted name. In this row, we are unable to distinguish between true synonyms and misapplied names used as synonyms. For example, Cryptantha fendleri is an accepted name for a vascular plant that is currently found in Saskatchewan. This name, however, has also been misapplied to both Cryptantha kelseyana and Cryptantha minima in the past. Therefore, it appears as a synonym to those two species.
    [Show full text]
  • Foreign Virus Diseases Potentially Danger- Ous to the Sugar Beet
    Foreign Virus Diseases Potentially Danger­ ous to the Sugar Beet Industry in the United States C. W. BENNETT1 Five virus diseases, curly top, mosaic, savoy, cucumber mosaic, and yellow vein are known on sugar beets in the United States. Of these, curly top, which occurs in western United States, is by far the most severe, but its destructiveness on sugar beets has been reduced greatly in recent years by the development and use of curly top re­ sistant varieties. Beet mosaic occurs in all parts of the United States where sugar beets are grown. It has not caused serious reduction in yield of beets grown for sugar, but it has been shown (5)2 to be capable of causing appreciable injury to beets grown for seed. Savoy appears to be limited largely to the middle western states. It produces severe injury on plants that are attacked, but fortunately it spreads slowly and few cases of high percentages of infection have been re­ ported. A severe outbreak of cucumber mosaic on sugar beets oc­ curred in the southern part of the San Joaquin Valley in California in 1940, resulting in the abandonment of some fields and in ap­ preciable reduction in yield in other fields. The factors involved in this outbreak have not been determined. Under average conditions the disease is rarely found on sugar beets. Yellow vein is of very minor importance but small numbers of diseased plants are found in • fields in Colorado and southern California during most seasons. In addition to the diseases that already occur in the United States, there are at least three other virus diseases, each capable of causing considerable injury, that have not yet been introduced.
    [Show full text]
  • The Incubation Period of Beet Yellowing Viruses in Sugar-Beet Under Field Conditions
    Net h. J. Pl. Path. 95 (1989) 241-258 The incubation period of beet yellowing viruses in sugar-beet under field conditions 1 2 1 1 W. VANDER WERF • , C. KEMPENAAR and D. PETERS 1 Department of Virology, Wageningen Agricultural University, P.O. Box 8045, 6700 EM Wage­ ningen, the Netherlands 2 Department of Theoretical Production Ecology, Wageningen Agricultural University, P.O. Box 430, 6700 AK Wageningen, the Netherlands Accepted 6 July 1989 Abstract In three years field trials, the incubation period, i.e. the time between infection and the appearance of symptoms, of beet yellows virus (BYV) and beet mild yellowing virus (BMYV) increased with later infection during the growing season. The incubation period of BYV, a closterovirus, in­ creased from 3 weeks in young plants infected before canopy closure, to 9 weeks in old plants infected in August. The incubation period of BMYV, a luteovirus, increased from 4 to 5 weeks in young plants to 9 weeks in old plants. Symptoms were observed c. one week earlier on the inoculated leaves than on those infected systemically, except on young BYV-infectecl plants. On these plants, symptoms developed in 3 weeks on both leaf types. The incubation period decreased at increasing temperature, a fixed temperature sum being required for the development of symptoms on plants of a certain age. This temperature sum in­ creased with plant age. Symptom development was related to leaf growth; the systemic symp­ toms appeared after the infected leaves attained their final size. Young, expanding leaves did not show symptoms. Thus the development of symptoms seems to be related to physiological condi­ tions occurring only in full-grown leaves.
    [Show full text]