Sugar Tech

, Volume 21, Issue 6, pp 959–965 | Cite as

Identification of Owen-Type Male Sterility Maintainers Carrying Resistance Against Rhizoctonia Crown and Root Rot (Rcrr) Disease in Sugar Beet Germplasm

  • Mahdi Hassani
  • Bahram HeidariEmail author
  • Seyed Bagher Mahmoudi
  • Dariush Fathollah Taleghani
  • Piergiorgio Stevanato
Research Article


Propagation and maintaining cytoplasmic male-sterile (CMS) lines are prerequisite of hybrid production programs in sugar beet. The identification of Owen-type (O-type) source materials is important to maintain CMS plants that accelerate crosses between single plants. The objectives of the present study were to assess a base beet germplasm (SB19) to identify O-type plants for use in hybrid production programs and test for resistance against rhizoctonia crown and root rot (Rcrr) disease. A family was developed from each two identified candidate monogerm O-types. A number of 100 plants of each family were crossed with FC708 (male sterile) in insulated cages, and the progenies of hybrids were tested for the frequency of male sterility. Progenies of candidate O-types crossed with FC708 revealed various levels of male sterility. Type I and Type II male sterility had lowest frequency, while completely sterile type was the most frequent. The results demonstrated that 6 plants in each family were fully male sterile and their parallels S1 were selected as O-type and male sterility maintainer. The mean for male sterility frequency was 10.5%. The mean disease index (DI) in the selected O-types was 2.22 that was lower than DI in SB19 as a resistant check. Mean comparison for Rcrr demonstrated that all O-types and SB19 plants were discriminated form Jolgeh as Rcrr-susceptible check. In conclusion, the identified O-types can be tested for combining ability for the development of Rcrr-resistant sugar beet hybrids with respect to root and sugar yield traits.


Owen-type FC708 Rhizoctonia Root rot Sugar beet 


Author Contributions

MH conducted the research and experimental works and wrote the initial draft of the manuscript; BH completed the initial draft of the manuscript, supervised and edited the final draft of the manuscript; SBM, DFT and PS edited the final draft of the manuscript

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights

The research does not include human participants or animals.


  1. Alexander, M.P. 1969. Differential staining of aborted and nonaborted pollen. Stain Technology 44: 117–122. Scholar
  2. Arakawa, T., S. Ue, C. Sano, M. Matsunaga, H. Kagami, Y. Yoshida, Y. Kuroda, K. Taguchi, K. Kitazaki, and T. Kubo. 2019. Identification and characterization of a semi-dominant restorer-of-fertility 1 allele in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris). Theoretical and Applied Genetics 132 (1): 227–240. Scholar
  3. Biancardi, E. 2005. History of sugar beet breeding. In Genetics and breeding of sugar beet, ed. E. Biancardi, L.G. Campbell, G.N. Skaracis, and M. DeBiaggi, 38–40. Enfield: Science Publishers. Scholar
  4. Bosemak, N.O. 2006. Genetics and breeding. In Sugar beet, ed. A.P. Draycott, 50–88. Oxford: Blackwell. Scholar
  5. Buhre, C., C. Kluth, K. Bürcky, B. Märländer, and M. Varrelmann. 2009. Integrated control of root and crown rot in sugar beet: combined effects of cultivar, crop rotation, and soil tillage. Plant Disease 93 (2): 155–161. Scholar
  6. Büttner, G., B. Pfähler, and B. Märländer. 2004. Greenhouse and field techniques for testing sugar beet for resistance to rhizoctonia root and crown rot. Plant Breeding 123 (2): 158–166. Scholar
  7. Duvick, D.N. 1959. The use of cytoplasmic male sterility in hybrid seed production. Economic Botany 13: 167–195. Scholar
  8. Erdal, M. 2001. Search for O-type plants in sugar beet. Turkish Journal of Agriculture 25: 65–69.Google Scholar
  9. Gaskill, J.O. 1968. Breeding for rhizoctonia resistance in sugarbeet. Journal of the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists 15: 105–119.Google Scholar
  10. Hagihara, E., N. Itchoda, Y. Habu, S. Iida, T. Mikami, and T. Kubo. 2005. Molecular mapping of a fertility restorer gene for Owen cytoplasmic male sterility in sugar beet. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 111 (2): 250–255. Scholar
  11. Harveson, R.M., L.E. Hanson, and G.L. Hein. 2009. Compendium of beet diseases and pests. St. Paul: American Phytopathological Society Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hassani, M. 2018. Genetic study of quantitative and qualitative traits and molecular analysis of resistance to rhizoctonia root rot in sugar beet. Ph.D. Dissertation, Shiraz University, Iran.Google Scholar
  13. Hecker, R.J., and E.G. Ruppel. 1981. Registration of FC 708 and FC 708 CMS Sugar Beet Germplasm1 (Reg. Nos. GP63 and GP64). Crop Science 21 (5): 802. Scholar
  14. Hecker, R.I., and E.G. Ruppel. 1976. Plolyploid and maternal effects on rhizoctonia root rot resistance in sugar beet. Euphytica 25: 419–423. Scholar
  15. Kiewnick, S., B.J. Jacobsen, A. Braun-Kiewnick, J.L.A. Eckhoff, and J.W. Bergman. 2001. Integrated control of Rhizoctonia crown and root rot of sugar beet with fungicides and antagonistic bacteria. Plant Disease 85: 718–722. Scholar
  16. Koç, H. 2005. Investigation of male sterility in sugar beet populations. Akdeniz Üniversitesi Zziraat Fakultesi Dergisi 25 (4): 295–300.Google Scholar
  17. McGrath, J.M., L.E. Hanson, and L. Panella. 2015. Registration of SR98 sugar beet Germplasm with resistances to Rhizoctonia seedling and crown and root rot diseases. Journal of Plant Registrations 9 (2): 227–231. Scholar
  18. Moritani, M., K. Taguchi, K. Kitazaki, H. Matsuhira, T. Katsuyama, T. Mikami, and T. Kubo. 2013. Identification of the predominant nonrestoring allele for Owen-type cytoplasmic male sterility in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.): development of molecular markers for the maintainer genotype. Molecular Breeding 32 (1): 91–100. Scholar
  19. Oldemeyer, R.K. 1957. Sugar beet male sterility. American Society of Sugar Beet Technologist IX 5: 381–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Owen, F.V. 1942. Male sterility in sugar beets produced by complementary effects of cytoplasmic and Mendelian inheritance. American Journal of Botany 29: 692.Google Scholar
  21. Owen, F.V. 1952. Mendelian male sterility in sugar beets. American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists 7: 371–376.Google Scholar
  22. Owen, F.V. 1945. Cytoplasmically inherited male-sterility in sugar beets. Journal of Agricultural Research 71: 423–440.Google Scholar
  23. Panella, L. 1999. Registration of FC709-2 AND FC727 sugar beet germplasms resistant to Rhizoctonia root rot and Cercospora leaf spot. Crop Science 39 (1): 298–299. Scholar
  24. Strausbaugh, C.A., E. Rearick, I. Eujayl, and P. Foote. 2011. Influence of Rhizoctonia bacterial root rot complex on storability of sugar beet. Journal of Sugar Beet Research 48: 155–180. Scholar
  25. Touzet, P.N., A. Hueber, S.Barnes Burkholz, and J. Cuguen. 2004. Genetic analysis of male fertility restoration in wild cytoplasmic male sterility G of beet. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 109: 240–247. Scholar
  26. Vagher, T., A.L. Fenwick, and L. Panella. 2014. Preparation of inoculum of Rhizoctonia solani Kuhn for an artificially inoculated field trial. 74 IIRB Congress, Dresden, Germany.Google Scholar
  27. Windels, C.E., L. Panella, and L.G. Ruppel. 1995. Sugar beet germplasm resistant to Rhizoctonia root and crown rot with stands disease caused by several pathogenic isolates of Rhizoctonia solani AG2-2. Sugar Beet Research and Extension Report 26: 179–185.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Sugar Research & Promotion 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sugar Beet Research Department, Hamedan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education CenterAREEOHamedanIran
  2. 2.Department of Crop Production and Plant Breeding, School of AgricultureShiraz UniversityShirazIran
  3. 3.Sugar Beet Seed Institute, Agricultural ResearchEducation and Extension Organization (AREEO)KarajIran
  4. 4.Department of Agronomy, Animals, Natural Resources and Environment-DAFNAEUniversity of PadovaLegnaroItaly

Personalised recommendations