New insights into virus yellows distribution in Europe and effects of beet yellows virus, beet mild yellowing virus, and beet chlorosis virus on sugar beet yield following field inoculation

SUMMARYSatisfactory comparisons of the incidence of virus yellows in sugar-beet fields or experimental plots with different amounts of N fertilizer can be made from visual symptoms early in the growing season, but not later because dressings of N fertilizer may then mask or delay the appearance of symptoms. Sugar-beet plants in the field infected with beet mild yellowing virus (BMYV) are less likely to show symptoms than those with beet yellows virus (BYV), and plants with BMYV in the glasshouse often fail to show clear symptoms.Crop yield will be affected by the spread of viruses and colonization of plants by aphids, which in turn are affected by such factors as plant density, nitrogen supply and irrigation. The presence or absence of virus diseases and of aphids should therefore be considered during studies on the effects of these agronomic factors on the growth and yield of sugar beet. Where ample rather than little N fertilizer is used a small increase in the percentage of plants infected with yellows can be expected, and aphids will be more numerous, if plants are not treated with insecticide. Irrigation may also increase yellows incidence (e.g. from 16% to 20% of plants at Broom's Barn in 1967), but any loss of potential yield from increased virus incidence will be small compared with that gained from the use of fertilizer or irrigation. However, plant density can appreciably affect yellows incidence. For example, at Broom's Barn in 1972, 51% of plants in crops with 17500 plants/ha contracted BMYV but only 15 % of plants in crops with 126500 plants/ha. The less dense crop lost 3–4% more of its potential yield due to yellows than the dense crop; this represents a difference due to virus of about 0·25 t sugar/ha.

Download Full-text

The effects of Beet mild yellowing virus and Beet chlorosis virus on the yield of UK field-grown sugar beet in 1997,1999 and 2000

Annals of Applied Biology ◽

10.1111/j.1744-7348.2004.tb00323.x ◽

2004 ◽

Vol 144 (1) ◽

pp. 113-119 ◽

Cited By ~ 20

Author(s):

MARK STEVENS ◽

PHILIPPA B HALLSWORTH ◽

HELEN G SMITH

Keyword(s):

Sugar Beet ◽

Beet Mild Yellowing Virus ◽

Yellowing Virus

Download Full-text

Some effects of resistance to organophosphorus insecticides in Myzus persicae (Sulz.) on the transmission of beet yellowing viruses

Bulletin of Entomological Research ◽

10.1017/s0007485300057138 ◽

1965 ◽

Vol 56 (1) ◽

pp. 191-196 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

G. E. Russell

Keyword(s):

Plant Breeding ◽

Myzus Persicae ◽

Field Conditions ◽

Organophosphorus Insecticides ◽

Normal Field ◽

Plant Breeding Institute ◽

Beet Yellows Virus ◽

Persistent Virus ◽

Beet Mild Yellowing Virus ◽

Yellowing Virus

A population of Myzus persicae (Sulz.) that apparently showed resistance to organophosphorus insecticides was found on plants growing in glasshouses at the Plant Breeding Institute, Cambridge, in 1963. Experiments were conducted to compare the resistance to dimethoate and demeton-methyl of this population with that of another population, which had never been treated with insecticides. The resistant aphids were killed much more slowly than were susceptible aphids on plants sprayed with organophosphates, and they were able to transmit beet yellows virus (BYV) and beet mild yellowing virus (BMYV) to the treated plants. Under similar conditions, susceptible aphids were able to transmit BYV, a semi-persistent virus, but less efficiently than the resistant aphids, and were not able to transmit BMYV, a persistent virus, at all.It is not known how common these organophosphorus-resistant populations of M. persicae are, at present, in the field in Britain. Under normal field conditions, control of such resistant aphids would be difficult, and virus yellows might, in consequence, become widespread even in crops that had been treated with organophosphorus chemicals.

Download Full-text

The effect of fungicides on sugar beet infected with beet mild yellowing virus

Crop Protection ◽

10.1016/0261-2194(95)00043-7 ◽

1995 ◽

Vol 14 (8) ◽

pp. 665-669

Author(s):

H.G. Smith ◽

M.J.C. Asher ◽

G.E. Williams ◽

P.B. Hallsworth

Keyword(s):

Sugar Beet ◽

Beet Mild Yellowing Virus ◽

Yellowing Virus

Download Full-text

Distribution of some aphid-borne viruses infecting sugar beet in Turkey

Sugar Industry ◽

10.36961/si17977 ◽

2016 ◽

pp. 747-752

Author(s):

Rza Kaya ◽

Nazl Dide Kutluk Ylmaz

Keyword(s):

Virus Infection ◽

Sugar Beet ◽

Mosaic Virus ◽

Beta Vulgaris ◽

Common Symptom ◽

Virus Infections ◽

Beet Mild Yellowing Virus ◽

Yellowing Virus

Surveys were conducted in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) growing areas, which cover 52% of Turkey’s sugar beet production. Sugar beet leaves showing virus-like symptoms such as chlorosis, mosaic and chlorotic spots, were collected from 291 different fields located in ten different provinces in northern and central parts of Turkey in 2011. Beet leaf samples were tested by ELISA for Beet yellowing virus (BYV), Beet mosaic virus (BtMV) and beet-related Poleroviruses [Beet mild yellowing virus (BMYV) and Beet chlorosis virus (BChV)]. Based on the ELISA tests, 58.4% of the samples collected from sugar beet fields gave positive reactions for the viruses tested. None of the samples were found to be infected in Kastamonu and Krkkale provinces. Beet-related Poleroviruses (BMYV and BChV) were the most common viruses obtained from 38.5% of the samples followed by BYV and BtMV with 29.6% and 12.7% respectively. The incidences of single virus infection were 11.3% for BYV and 5.5% for BtMV. Mixed virus infections occurred in 20.3% of the sugar beet samples. Out of four groups of symptoms, chlorosis was the most common symptom (72.9%) followed by mosaic (15.3%), chlorosis+mosaic (7.1%) and chlorotic spots (4.7%) in the surveyed areas.

Download Full-text