American Potato Journal

, Volume 54, Issue 7, pp 315–322 | Cite as

The effect of crop rotations on Rhizoctonia disease of potatoes

  • J. A. Frank
  • H. J. Murphy


Since 1964, replicated rotation plots in Presque Isle, Maine have continually been planted and evaluated to determine the effect of various rotation crops on tuber appearance, quality, and yield. In 1974 and 1975, the saprophytic activity ofRhizoctonia solani in the soils of each rotation combination was determined, and the tubers harvested were scored forRhizoctonia damage. Soils with a two-year rotation of oat-potato had the lowest amount of saprophytic activity byRhizoctonia and provided the lowest incidence of disease on the stems, roots, and tubers of the cultivars Kennebec and Katahdin. With the cultivar Russet Burbank, the three-year rotations generally provided the lowest incidence of disease; however, this cultivar is more susceptible to the pathogen. The plots of potatoes that were not rotated had the highest pathogen activity and the greatest disease incidence.


AMERICAN Potato Journal Dinoseb Disulfoton Rhizoctonia Disease Beet Seed 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Desde 1964 parcelas replicadas de rotación en Isla Presque, Maine, han sido continuamente sembradas y evaluadas para determinar el efecto de varias rotaciones de cultivo en la apariencia, calidad y rendimiento de papas. En 1974 y 1975, la actividad saprofítica deRhizoctonia solani en los suelos de cada combinación fue determinada, y los tubérculos cosechados fueron evaluados para dano porRhizoctonia. Suelos con dos anos de rotación de cebada-papa tuvieron la más baja cantidad de actividad saprofítica deRhizoctonia y dieron la más baja incidencia de la enfermedad en los tallos, raíces y tubérculos de los cultivares Katahdin y Kennebec. Con el cultivar Russet Burbank, la rotación de tres años generalmente dió la incidencia más baja de la enfermedad; sin embargo, este cultivar es más susceptible al patógeno. Las parcelas sin rotación tuvieron la actividad más alta del patógeno y la mayor incidencia de la enfermedad.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Blodgett, F.M. 1939. The effects of some agronomic practices on the incidence ofRhizoctonia. Am Potato J 16: 93–98.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blodgett, F.M. 1940. A second report on the effect of agronomic practices on the incidenceof Rhizoctonia and scab of potatoes. Am Potato J 17: 290–295.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coons, G.H. and J.E. Kotila. 1935. Influence of preceding crops on damping off of sugar beets. Phytopathology 25: 13 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frank, J.A. and D.R. Wilson. 1972. Evaluation of three inoculation methods used to screen potatoes for resistanceto Rhizoctonia solani. Plant Dis Rep 56: 348–351.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frank, J.A. 1975. The relative importance of potato tuber-borneRhizoctonia inoculum in comparison to soil-borne inoculum. Am Potato J 52: 244 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huber, D.M. and R.D. Watson. 1970. Effect of organic amendment on soil-borne plant pathogens. Phytopathology 60: 22–26.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kommendahl, T. and H.C. Young. 1956. Effect of host and soil substrate on the persistance ofFusarium andRhizoctonia in soil. Plant Dis Rep 40: 28–29.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Linderman, R.G. 1970. Plant residue decomposition products and their effects on host roots and fungi pathogenic to roots. Phytopathology. 60: 19–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maxon, A.C. 1938. Root-rots of the sugar beet. Proc. Am Soc Sugar Beet Tech 1938: 60–64.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Papavizas, G.C. and C.B. Davey. 1962. Isolation and pathogenicity ofRhizoctonia saprophytically existing in soil. Phytopathology 52: 834–840.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Papavizas, G.C. 1970. Colonization and growth ofRhizoctonia solani in soilp. 108–122. InRhizoctonia solani: Biology and Pathology, J.R. Parmeter (ed.). Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley, 255pp.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Papavizas, G.C., P.B. Adams, R.D. Lumsden, J.A. Lewis, R.L. Dow, W.A. Ayers, and J.G. Kantzes. 1975. Ecology and epidemiology ofRhizoctonia solani in field soil. Phytopathology 65: 871–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Papavizas, G.C. and C.B. Davey. 1960.Rhizoctonia disease of bean as affected by decomposing green plant materials and associated microfloras. Phytopathology 50: 516–522.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sanford, G.B. 1947. Effect of various soil supplements on the virulence and persistence ofRhizoctonia solani. Sci Agric 27: 553–544.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sneh, B., J. Katan, Y. Henis, and I. Wahl. 1966. Methods for evaluating inoculum density ofRhizoctonia in naturally infested soil. Phytopathology 56: 74–78.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wright, E. 1941. Control of damping-off of broad-leaf seedlings. Phytopathology 31: 857–858.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. A. Frank
    • 1
  • H. J. Murphy
    • 2
  1. 1.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Department of Botany and Plant PathologyUniversity of MaineOrono
  2. 2.Department of Plant and Soil SciencesUniversity of MaineOrono

Personalised recommendations