Skip the header
Open access
Technical Factsheet
Basic
19 September 2022

Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (cottony soft rot)

Identity

Preferred Scientific Name
Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary
Preferred Common Name
cottony soft rot
Other Scientific Names
Peziza sclerotiorum Lib.
Sclerotinia libertiana Fuckel
Sclerotium varium Pers.
Whetzelinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) Korf & Dumont
International Common Names
English
collar rot
Sclerotinia blossom blight
Sclerotinia canker
sclerotinia disease
Sclerotinia drop
Sclerotinia head rot
Sclerotinia pod rot
Sclerotinia soft rot
Sclerotinia stalk rot
Sclerotinia stem rot
Sclerotinia twig blight
Sclerotinia wilt
watery pod rot
white mould
white rot
Spanish
mal del esclerocio de las plantas cultivadas
moho blanco
pudricion blanca
French
maladie des sclérotes
pourriture des pommes
pourriture du collet
Local Common Names
China
bai gan
bai mei bin
jun ho bin
jun ho sin su tsai ruan ru bin
lan tou bin
lau lai wen
Germany
Sclerotinia faule
Sclerotinia korbfaule
Sclerotinia stengelfaule
Sclerotinia welke
Japan
kinkakubyo
EPPO code
SCLESC (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum)

Pictures

Head rot of sunflower caused by infection with ascospores of S. sclerotiorum. Note the threaded fibrous tissues.
Symptoms on sunflower head
Head rot of sunflower caused by infection with ascospores of S. sclerotiorum. Note the threaded fibrous tissues.
©CABI BioScience
Head rot of safflower caused by S. sclerotiorum. Note brown rotted heads.
Symptoms on safflower
Head rot of safflower caused by S. sclerotiorum. Note brown rotted heads.
H.C. Huang
White mould of beans caused by S. sclerotiorum, showing white fluffy mycelia on the diseased pod (top).
Symptoms on beans
White mould of beans caused by S. sclerotiorum, showing white fluffy mycelia on the diseased pod (top).
H.C. Huang
Mycelial growth on tomato stem.
Symptoms on tomato stem
Mycelial growth on tomato stem.
Mauritius Sugar Industry Research Institute
Infected soyabean plant showing sclerotia.
Symptoms on soyabean
Infected soyabean plant showing sclerotia.
ISU
Sclerotia from diseased sunflower head showing variation in size (up to 1 cm across) and shape.
Sclerotia
Sclerotia from diseased sunflower head showing variation in size (up to 1 cm across) and shape.
H.C. Huang
Morphologically abnormal sclerotia of S. sclerotiorum from diseased sunflower plants. Note the medullary tissue is white in the normal sclerotium (right) and brown or amber in the slightly abnormal (centre) and grossly abnormal (left) sclerotia.
Normal and abnormal sclerotia (sections)
Morphologically abnormal sclerotia of S. sclerotiorum from diseased sunflower plants. Note the medullary tissue is white in the normal sclerotium (right) and brown or amber in the slightly abnormal (centre) and grossly abnormal (left) sclerotia.
H.C. Huang
Apothecia on sclerotium.
Apothecia on sclerotium
Apothecia on sclerotium.
R.A. Frederiksen
CMI Descriptions of Pathogenic Fungi and Bacteria No. 513. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
Section of sclerotium
CMI Descriptions of Pathogenic Fungi and Bacteria No. 513. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
©CABI BioScience
White mold of lentil
Sclerotinia sclerotiorum
White mold of lentil
USDA-Agricultural Research Service
Soft rot in cabbage
Sclerotinia sclerotiorum
Soft rot in cabbage
Francis Nduati, Kenya
White mould infected cabbage
Sclerotinia sclerotiorum
White mould infected cabbage
"K.P. Somachandra, Regional Agricultural Research and Development Centre, Sri Lanka"
A, cells from sclerotium rind; B, from sclerotium medulla; C, hyphae from advancing edge of colony (stained cotton-blue in lactophenol); D, spermatia. CMI Descriptions of Pathogenic Fungi and Bacteria No. 513. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
S. sclerotiorum - line drawing
A, cells from sclerotium rind; B, from sclerotium medulla; C, hyphae from advancing edge of colony (stained cotton-blue in lactophenol); D, spermatia. CMI Descriptions of Pathogenic Fungi and Bacteria No. 513. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
©CABI BioScience

Distribution

This content is currently unavailable.

Host Plants and Other Plants Affected

HostHost statusReferences
Abelmoschus esculentus (okra)Main 
Actinidia chinensis (Chinese gooseberry)Main 
Actinidia deliciosa (kiwifruit)Main 
Alcea rosea (Hollyhock)Main 
Allium cepa (onion)Main 
Allium sativum (garlic)Main 
Allium tuberosum (Oriental garlic)Unknown
Choi et al. (2017)
Althaea officinalis (Marsh-mallow)Unknown
Kim et al. (2016)
Pavlović et al. (2008)
Anemone coronaria (Poppy anemone)Other
Han et al. (2013)
Anethum graveolens (dill)Main 
Angelica archangelica (Angelica)Main 
Antirrhinum majus (snapdragon)Main 
Apium graveolens (celery)Main 
Apium graveolens var. rapaceum (celeriac)Main 
Aquilegia (columbines)Other 
Aquilegia flabellataOther
Garibaldi et al. (2011)
Arabidopsis thalianaOther 
Arachis hypogaea (groundnut)Main
Yan et al. (2014)
Woodward et al. (2006)
Woodward et al. (2008)
Sanogo and Puppala (2007)
Luong et al. (2010)
Arctium lappa (burdock)Main 
Argyranthemum frutescensOther
Garibaldi et al. (2008)
Artemisia annuaUnknown
Aghajani and Safaei (2008)
Artocarpus heterophyllus (jackfruit)Other
Rahman et al. (2015)
Asclepias (Silkweed)Wild host 
Asparagus officinalis (asparagus)Main 
Aster dumosusUnknown
Pieczul (2018)
Aster ericoides (Heath aster)Other
Wolcan et al. (2006)
Astragalus sinicus (chinese clover)Main 
Avena sterilis subsp. ludoviciana (Winter wild oat)Unknown
Aghajani and Safaei (2008)
Begonia tuberhybridaMain 
Bellis perennis (common daisy)Main 
Berberis (barberries)Wild host 
Beta vulgaris (beetroot)Unknown
Khan et al. (2020)
Beta vulgaris var. saccharifera (sugarbeet)Main 
Borago officinalis (Borage)Other
Bradley et al. (2005)
Garibaldi et al. (2008)
BrassicaMain 
Brassica carinata (African cabbage)Other
Young et al. (2012)
Brassica juncea (mustard)Unknown
Shrestha et al. (2018)
Rathi et al. (2018)
Brassica napusUnknown
Gossen et al. (2001)
Tziros et al. (2008)
Aghajani and Safaei (2008)
Isakeit et al. (2010)
Brassica napus var. napus (rape)Main 
Brassica napus var. oleiferaUnknown
Karimi et al. (2012)
Brassica oleracea (cabbages, cauliflowers)Other
Mahalingam et al. (2017)
Brassica oleracea var. alboglabra (Chinese kale)Unknown
Shrestha et al. (2018)
Brassica oleracea var. botrytis (cauliflower)Main
Shrestha et al. (2014)
Brassica oleracea var. capitata (cabbage)Main
Sanogo et al. (2015)
Brassica oleracea var. gemmifera (Brussels sprouts)Main 
Brassica oleracea var. gongylodes (kohlrabi)Main
Kim et al. (2014)
Brassica oleracea var. italica (broccoli)Main 
Brassica oleracea var. viridis (collards)Main 
Brassica rapa (field mustard)Unknown
Brodal et al. (2017)
Gossen et al. (2001)
Brassica rapa subsp. chinensis (Chinese cabbage)Main 
Brassica rapa subsp. pekinensisOther 
Brassica rapa subsp. rapa (turnip)Main 
Brassicaceae (cruciferous crops)Main 
Calendula officinalis (Pot marigold)Unknown
Garibaldi et al. (2001)
Calibrachoa hybridaUnknown
Borrelli et al. (2020)
Camelina sativaOther
Cristea and Jurcoane (2016)
CamelliaMain 
Campanula (campanulas)Main 
Campanula carpaticaUnknown
Garibaldi et al. (2002)
Canavalia gladiata (sword bean)Unknown
Han et al. (2020)
Cannabis sativa (hemp)Main
Pankaj et al. (2016)
Bains et al. (2000)
Garfinkel (2021)
Capsella bursa-pastoris (shepherd's purse)Unknown
Aghajani and Safaei (2008)
Capsicum annuum (bell pepper)Main
Luong et al. (2010)
Capsicum frutescens (chilli)Main 
Carduus (thistle)Other 
Carthamus tinctorius (safflower)Main 
Carum carvi (caraway)Main 
Catharanthus roseus (Madagascar periwinkle)Other
Sun and Hsiang (2016)
Centaurea (Knapweed)Wild host 
Chenopodium album (fat hen)Wild host 
Chrysanthemum (daisy)Main 
Chrysanthemum morifolium (chrysanthemum (florists'))Unknown
Wright and Palmucci (2003)
Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Main
Matheron and Porchas (2000)
Chen et al. (2006)
Cichorium (chicory)Main 
Citrullus lanatus (watermelon)Main 
CitrusMain 
Citrus aurantiifolia (lime)Main 
Citrus aurantium (sour orange)Main 
Citrus limonia (mandarin lime)Other 
Citrus maxima (pummelo)Main 
Citrus medica (citron)Main 
Citrus reticulata (mandarin)Main 
Citrus sinensis (sweet orange)Main 
Citrus volkamerianaUnknown
Polizzi et al. (2011)
Citrus x paradisi (grapefruit)Main
Hanif et al. (2016)
Codonopsis lanceolataUnknown
Choi et al. (2020)
Corchorus olitorius (jute)Main 
Coreopsis drummondiiOther
Khatua et al. (2014)
Coriandrum sativum (coriander)Main 
Cosmos bipinnatus (garden cosmos)Wild host 
Crotalaria spectabilis (showy rattlepod)Other
Oliveira et al. (2015)
Cucumis melo (melon)Main 
Cucumis sativus (cucumber)Main 
Cucurbita maxima (giant pumpkin)Main 
Cucurbita moschata (pumpkin)Other 
Cucurbita pepo (marrow)Other
Muradov et al. (2019)
Cullen corylifolium (black-dot)Other 
Cuminum cyminum (cumin)Unknown
Prasad et al. (2017)
Cynara cardunculus var. scolymus (globe artichoke)Main
Taskin and Yikilmazsoy (2015)
Cynoglossum officinale (hound's tongue)Other
Huang et al. (2005)
Datura stramonium (jimsonweed)Wild host 
Daucus carota (carrot)Main 
Dianthus caryophyllus (carnation)Other
Kumar et al. (2015)
Vinod et al. (2015)
Diplotaxis tenuifoliaUnknown
Garibaldi et al. (2005)
Echinacea purpurea (purple coneflower)Other
Pavlović et al. (2008)
Echium vulgare ((common) viper's-bugloss)Other
Río et al. (2005)
Euphorbia pulcherrima (poinsettia)Main
Trinh et al. (2012)
Eustoma grandiflorum (Lisianthus (cut flower crop))Other
Shen et al. (2012)
FagopyronUnknown
Mondal et al. (2002)
Fagopyrum esculentum (buckwheat)Unknown
Lahoz et al. (2007)
Fagopyrum tataricumUnknown
Mondal et al. (2002)
Felicia amelloidesOther
Garibaldi et al. (2004)
Wright et al. (2005)
Foeniculum vulgare (fennel)Main
Choi et al. (2016)
Fragaria ananassa (strawberry)Main
Camele et al. (2006)
Marin and Peres (2020)
Gaillardia aristataUnknown
Garibaldi et al. (2015)
Gaillardia x grandifloraOther 
Gazania (treasure-flower)Unknown
Garibaldi et al. (2001)
Wolcan (2004)
Gazania rigensUnknown
Holcomb (2006)
Gerbera jamesonii (African daisy)Unknown
Wolcan (2004)
Glycine max (soyabean)Main
Pawlowski et al. (2019)
Gossypium (cotton)Main 
Gossypium hirsutum (Bourbon cotton)Unknown
Hu et al. (2018)
Guizotia abyssinica (niger)Other
Bradley et al. (2003)
Helianthus annuus (sunflower)Main
Ekins et al. (2002)
Karimi et al. (2012)
Karov et al. (2011)
Helianthus tuberosus (Jerusalem artichoke)Main 
Helichrysum bracteatumUnknown
Duarte and Barreto (2009)
Garibaldi et al. (2021)
Hibiscus (rosemallows)Unknown
Tripathi et al. (2015)
Hibiscus cannabinus (kenaf)Main 
Hibiscus trionum (Venice mallow)Other
Strauss and Dillard (2009)
Humulus (hop)Main 
Iberis sempervirens (edging candytuft)Other
Garibaldi et al. (2007)
Ipomoea batatas (sweet potato)Main 
Iris (irises)Main 
Lablab purpureus (hyacinth bean)Other
Prova et al. (2014)
Lactuca sativa (lettuce)Main
Shrestha et al. (2018)
Hao and Subbarao (2005)
Wu and Subbarao (2006)
Lagenaria siceraria (bottle gourd)Other 
Lantana camara (lantana)Other
Garibaldi et al. (2008)
Lavandula stoechasOther
Garibaldi et al. (2015)
Lens culinarisUnknown
Ahmed and Akhond (2015)
Mahdikhani and Aghaalikhani (2017)
Lens culinaris subsp. culinaris (lentil)Main 
Lilium (lily)Main 
Lupinus (lupins)Main 
Macleaya cordataUnknown
Zhou et al. (2019)
Malus domestica (apple)Main 
Malvaviscus arboreus var. drummondiiOther 
Marrubium (horehound)Other 
Medicago sativa (lucerne)Main
Gossen et al. (2001)
Melilotus (melilots)Main 
Mentha piperita (Peppermint)Main 
Mentha spicata (Spear mint)Other
Garibaldi et al. (2013)
Mimosa pudica (sensitive plant)Unknown
Borah et al. (2018)
Morus (mulberrytree)Main 
Musa (banana)Main 
Nasturtium officinale (watercress)Unknown
Garibaldi et al. (2019)
Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Main 
OcimumOther 
Ocimum basilicum (basil)Main
Bag and Dutta (2009)
Koike (2000)
Tok (2008)
Olea europaeaUnknown
Ruano-Rosa et al. (2017)
Origanum vulgare (oregano)Unknown
Garibaldi et al. (2007)
Orobanche cumana (sunflower broomrape)Unknown
Ding et al. (2012)
OsteospermumOther
Holcomb (2005)
Wright et al. (2005)
Panax ginseng (Asiatic ginseng)Main 
Papaver pavoninumUnknown
Aghajani and Safaei (2008)
Papaver somniferum (Opium poppy)Main 
Pastinaca sativa (parsnip)Main 
Pelargonium (pelargoniums)Other 
Persea americana (avocado)Main 
Petroselinum crispum (parsley)Other
Kurt et al. (2017)
PetuniaMain 
Petunia hybridaUnknown
Holcomb (2001)
Garibaldi et al. (2009)
Phaseolus (beans)Main 
Phaseolus coccineus (runner bean)Main 
Phaseolus lunatus (lima bean)Main 
Phaseolus radiataMain 
Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Main
Martínez-de et al. (2013)
Muradov et al. (2019)
Luong et al. (2010)
Harikrishnan et al. (2006)
PhloxMain 
Pinellia ternata (east-African arum)Unknown
Wang et al. (2020)
Pistacia vera (pistachio)Other 
Pisum sativum (pea)Main
Islam et al. (2020)
Deng et al. (2021)
Poa annua (annual meadowgrass)Unknown
Aghajani and Safaei (2008)
Prunus (stone fruit)Main 
Prunus avium (sweet cherry)Other
Ferrada et al. (2014)
Serdani and Spotts (2007)
Prunus dulcis (almond)Other 
Prunus persica (peach)Other 
Prunus salicina (Japanese plum)Other
Ferrada et al. (2014)
Pycnosorus globosusUnknown
Wolcan and Grego (2005)
Ranunculus asiaticus (garden crowfoot)Other
Han et al. (2015)
Garibaldi et al. (2003)
Wright et al. (2005)
Ranunculus repens (creeping buttercup)Wild host 
Rhaponticum repens (Russian knapweed)Wild host 
Rheum hybridum (rhubarb)Main 
Ricinus communis (castor bean)Main 
Rosa (roses)Main 
Rosmarinus officinalis (rosemary)Main
Garibaldi et al. (2017)
Putnam (2004)
Garibaldi et al. (2005)
Rubus idaeus (raspberry)Main 
Rumex conglomeratusUnknown
Aghajani and Safaei (2008)
Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Main 
Salvia miltiorrhizaUnknown
Lu et al. (2020)
Salvia splendens (scarlet sage)Unknown
Islam et al. (2019)
Sesamum indicum (sesame)Main 
Silybum marianum (variegated thistle)Unknown
Aghajani and Safaei (2008)
Sinapis arvensis (wild mustard)Unknown
Aghajani and Safaei (2008)
Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Main 
Solanum melongena (aubergine)Main
Kamran et al. (2019)
Solanum tuberosum (potato)Main
Ojaghian (2009)
Ojaghian (2009)
Dutta et al. (2009)
Alam et al. (2021)
Sonchus asper (spiny sow-thistle)Other 
Spinacia oleracea (spinach)Main 
Stevia rebaudianaOther
Koehler and Shew (2014)
Tagetes erecta (Mexican marigold)Other
Rahman et al. (2015)
Thymus citriodorusOther 
Trachelium caeruleumUnknown
Wolcan and Grego (2005)
Trachyspermum ammiWild host 
Trifolium (clovers)Main 
Trifolium alexandrinum (Berseem clover)Unknown
Saira et al. (2017)
Triticum aestivum (wheat)Unknown
Aghajani and Safaei (2008)
Tulipa (tulip)Main 
Urtica dioica (stinging nettle)Unknown
Aghajani and Safaei (2008)
Vaccinium corymbosum (blueberry)Other
Lopez et al. (2015)
Perez et al. (2011)
Vaccinium virgatumOther 
Verbena bonariensis (clusterflower vervain)Unknown
Pieczul (2019)
Vicia faba (faba bean)Main
Chapara et al. (2018)
Karimi et al. (2012)
Vigna angularis (adzuki bean)Main 
Vigna mungo (black gram)Main 
Vigna radiata (mung bean)Main 
Viola (violet)Main 
Vitis vinifera (grapevine)Unknown
Latorre and Guerrero (2001)
Hall et al. (2002)
Xanthium cavanillesiiOther 
Xerochrysum bracteatumOther 
Zea mays (maize)Unknown
Muradov et al. (2019)
Yasmin et al. (2000)
ZinniaMain 

Symptoms

S. sclerotiorum can attack young plants, causing damping-off on sunflowers (Huang and Kozub, 1990), rape (Hims, 1979), tobacco (Ivancheva-Gabrovska et al., 1978) and beans (El-Helaly et al., 1970). More frequently, S. sclerotiorum infects root tissues at later stages of plant growth, causing root rot, basal stem canker, wilt and premature ripening in many hosts, including sunflowers (Dorrell and Huang, 1978; Hoes and Huang, 1985), Jerusalem artichokes (Helianthus tuberosus) (Cassells and Walsh, 1995) and lettuces (Adam and Tate, 1975, 1976). It can also attack above-ground tissues, causing leaf blight, stem blight, blossom rot, head rot and pod rot in many plant species, including sunflowers (Huang, 1983a), safflowers (Muendel et al., 1985), beans (Abawi et al., 1975a), peas (Huang and Kokko, 1992) and rape (Gugel and Morrall, 1986). Damping-off and wilt are caused by myceliogenic germination of sclerotia (Adam and Tate, 1976; Huang and Kozub, 1990). In contrast, diseases of above-ground tissues, such as stem rot, leaf blight, head rot, pod rot and blossom rot, result from infection by airborne ascospores (Huang and Kokko, 1992). Secondary spread of the disease occurs by direct contact with infected tissues during the growing season (Murray et al., 1978; Huang and Hoes, 1980).For most of the hosts, infected roots, stems, leaves and pods first develop water-soaked lesions. The lesions expand and later become brown or bleached. Under conditions of dense canopy and wet weather, fluffy white mycelia are evident on infected tissues. The dense mycelial mats turn from greyish-white into black sclerotia which form on the surface of infected tissues or are embedded within them (Huang, 1977). Plants with root infection often wilt and die prematurely. The affected stems tend to thread and lodge under strong winds. Individual plants, and occasionally an entire crop, can be destroyed by the disease, resulting in the appearance of flat, brown patches in the field later in the growing season.

List of Symptoms/Signs

Symptom or signLife stagesSign or diagnosis
Plants/Fruit/extensive mould  
Plants/Fruit/lesions: black or brown  
Plants/Inflorescence/premature ripening  
Plants/Inflorescence/rot  
Plants/Leaves/abnormal colours  
Plants/Leaves/fungal growth  
Plants/Leaves/necrotic areas  
Plants/Leaves/wilting  
Plants/Roots/necrotic streaks or lesions  
Plants/Roots/rot of wood  
Plants/Roots/soft rot of cortex  
Plants/Seeds/discolorations  
Plants/Seeds/lesions on seeds  
Plants/Seeds/rot  
Plants/Stems/canker on woody stem  
Plants/Stems/discoloration of bark  
Plants/Stems/mould growth on lesion  
Plants/Whole plant/damping off  
Plants/Whole plant/plant dead; dieback  

Prevention and Control

IPM Programmes

An integrated control approach using rotation of 2 years or longer, delayed seeding, increased potassium fertilizer and fungicide spray was effective in reducing sclerotinia incidence and increasing yield in sunflowers in China (Hua et al., 1994).

Cultural and Sanitary Methods

Plant spacing and row direction
For sclerotinia wilt of sunflower originating from root infection (Huang and Dueck, 1980), modifying plant spacing can be effective in reducing primary infection loci (Huang and Hoes, 1980) as well as minimizing the secondary spread of the disease by root contact (Hoes and Huang, 1985). Incidence of sclerotinia wilt of sunflowers was significantly reduced at a spacing of 25 cm or wider between plants (Hoes and Huang, 1985).

Altered plant spacing is also effective in reducing the disease caused by infection of airborne ascospores of Sclerotinia spp. For example, white mould of beans is less severe in wider rows (60-80 cm) than narrow rows (25-30 cm) (Steadman et al., 1973). Changing row direction to reduce disease caused by airborne inoculum was reported for S. sclerotiorum on beans (Haas and Bolwyn, 1973) and S. trifoliorum on forage legumes (Bennett and Elliott, 1972).

Irrigation
High soil moisture is conducive to carpogenic germination of sclerotia of Sclerotinia species. Some studies show that heavy irrigation contributes to increased severity of white mould of beans (Weiss et al., 1980) and sclerotinia stem rot of soyabeans (Grau and Radke, 1984). Carpogenic germination of sclerotia occurred more rapidly in the continuously irrigated soil (Kopmans, 1993). For irrigated crops such as lettuce and dry beans, reducing the number of irrigations during the period with high risk of disease can reduce disease in the absence of rainfall (Steadman, 1979).

Physical barriers and soil solanization
In some regions, soil mulching with transparent polyethylene film can raise soil temperatures, thus adversely affecting the survival of sclerotia. Several reports indicate that solanization was effective in reducing the inoculum of S. sclerotiorum (Porter and Merriman, 1985) and S. minor (Porter and Merriman, 1985). The polyethylene mulching inhibited sclerotial germination, disturbed apothecial formation and trapped ascospores (Ginoux and Blancard, 1984). Honda and Yunoki (1977) demonstrated the use of UV-absorbing film to prevent apothecial production from sclerotia of S. sclerotiorum and to control sclerotinia blossom rot and fruit rot of aubergines and cucumbers in the greenhouse.

Soil amendment
Organic or inorganic matter can be used in the management of soilborne diseases (Sun and Huang, 1985). Huang and Sun (1991) reported that amending soil with a formulated product, S-H mixture (Sun and Huang, 1985) was effective in suppressing apothecial production from sclerotia of S. sclerotiorum. Sharma et al. (1983) found that soil mulches with pine needles or sunflower inflorescence residues reduced incidence of sclerotinia stalk rot and increased yield in cauliflowers. Lumsden et al. (1983) reported a significant reduction in incidence of lettuce drop caused by S. minor, by the incorporation of 10% (w/w) of composted sewage sludge to the greenhouse soil. Asirifi et al. (1994) found that soil amended with fowl manure or alfalfa hay effectively reduced incidence of lettuce drop caused by S. sclerotiorum and increased marketable heads.

Crop rotation
Because of the persistent nature of the Sclerotinia pathogens, crop rotation alone is insufficient to manage the disease in many crops. Morrall and Dueck (1982) found that a 4-year rotation was ineffective for the control of sclerotinia stem rot of rapeseed. Nevertheless, crop rotation is generally considered as a good practice to prevent the build-up of sclerotia in the soil. Kirchner and Pluschkell (1973) found that the severe incidence of sclerotinia stem rot of rape resulted from short and frequent rotations of rape and cabbage. Steadman et al. (1972) suggested that white mould of beans can be managed by a combination of a 3-year rotation, low sowing rates, wide row spacing, reduction of irrigation and removal of crop residues.

Host-Plant Resistance

Genetic resistance (partial physiological resistance)
Differences in susceptibility to S. sclerotiorum, S. minor, or S. trifoliorum were reported in cultivars, breeding lines, and plant introductions of soyabeans (Grau and Bissonnette, 1974; Jiao et al., 1994), beans (Adam et al., 1973), groundnuts (Porter et al., 1975), sunflowers (Orellana, 1975), safflowers (Muendel et al., 1987), rape (Sun et al., 1982), grams (Gurdip-Singh and Gill, 1979), lettuce (Adbul-Madjid et al., 1983) and other crops.

In beans, resistance to white mould was found in some accessions, including Rico 23 and Ex Rico 23 (Tu, 1985; Middleton et al., 1995). Adam et al. (1973) reported that Phaseolus coccineus (scarlet runner bean) is resistant to S. sclerotiorum. From the crossing of Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean) and P. coccineus, B-3749, Abawi et al. (1978) found that the resistance is controlled by a single dominant gene. Other studies showed that resistance to white mould in beans was quantitatively inherited (Coyne et al., 1977) and due primarily to additive gene action (Fuller et al., 1984a).

Sunflower inbred lines CM 392 (Huang, 1980b), CM 526 (Huang, 1980b), CM 361 (Huang, 1980b; Dedio et al., 1983), HA 60 (Rogozheva et al., 1984), and HA 61-1 (Huang 1980b; Noyes and Hancock, 1981) were resistant to sclerotinia wilt caused by S. sclerotiorum. Huang (1980b) found that sunflower hybrids from the cross of resistant inbreds CM 526 x HA 61-1 was also resistant to sclerotinia wilt in the disease nursery. Significant correlation in susceptibility to S. sclerotiorum between parental lines and the derived hybrids was also reported in sunflowers (Grezes-Besset et al., 1994) and Brassica napus (Liu et al., 1991). Resistance to S. sclerotiorum in sunflowers (Dedio, 1992), cauliflowers (Baswana et al., 1991) and lettuces (Madjid, 1981) was polygenically controlled, although resistance controlled by a single recessive gene was also reported for sunflowers (Pirvu et al., 1985).

Culture filtrates of S. sclerotiorum are toxic to host plants (Huang and Dorrell, 1978). Maxwell (1973) found that extracts of hyphae of S. sclerotiorum contained an enzyme which catalyzed the formation of oxalate and acetate from oxaloacetate. The oxalic acid from the pathogen was found to be the main toxic component (Godoy et al., 1990) for inducing wilt symptoms (Huang and Dorrell, 1978; Noyes and Hancock, 1981) and macerating tissues and preparing the substrate for the activity of pectolytic enzymes (Antonova and Bekhter, 1983). Disease tolerance associated with tolerance to oxalic acid was found in bean cultivar Ex Rico-23 (Tu, 1985) and sunflower line HA61 (Noyes and Hancock, 1981). Mullins et al. (1995) reported that the high level of resistance in Brassica napus line HH1 was related to its high sensitivity to oxalic acid, resulting in the rapid production of oxidized phenols around the infection site. Oxalic acid was also used in selection of alfalfa for resistance to S. sclerotiorum and S. trifoliorum (Rowe, 1993).

Disease avoidance
Escape from infection by Sclerotinia species because of specific types of growth habit was found in many crops, including lettuce (Newton and Sequeira, 1972b), sunflowers (Malinina, 1981) and beans (Steadman, 1979; Saindon et al., 1995). Dry beans with an upright or open-bush growth habit are less susceptible to infection by ascospores of S. sclerotiorum than the dense bush or vine-like plants, because the former can create an environment that is not conducive to the production of apothecia and infection of ascospores (Coyne et al., 1974, Casciano and Schwartz, 1985). Deshpande et al. (1995) found that the high incidence of white mould in the cultivar Tara, which has a dense canopy, was associated with its long leaf wetness period. Lettuce drop due to S. sclerotiorum was reduced in cultivars with a raised growth habit (Newton and Sequeira, 1972b). Sunflower plants that were 120-150 cm tall, that have flat inflorescences with correct angle of attachment to the stem and few but erect leaves, exhibit increased resistance to sclerotinia head rot in the field (Malinina, 1981).

Senescent flower tissues play a significant role in initiating infection by ascospores of S. sclerotiorum (Hunter et al., 1978; Huang and Kokko, 1992). Fu (1990) found that the level of resistance to S. sclerotiorum in a petal-less line of rape was 85-95% higher than the petalled varieties.

In some cases, disease avoidance was linked to plant maturity. The low incidence of sclerotinia stem rot in the winter rape cultivar Lindora was due to late flowering (Ahlers, 1986). On the other hand, lines of dry bean with determinate growth habit and early maturity resulted in greater disease avoidance than lines with indeterminate growth habit or late maturity (Steadman et al., 1973; Fuller et al., 1984b). Disease avoidance related to early ripening was also found in some soyabean cultivars (Vidic et al., 1983) and the sunflower cultivar Skoropelyi (Pimakhin et al., 1984).

Biological Control

Species of Sclerotinia are difficult to control because they produce sclerotia which are well adapted to survive under adverse environmental conditions. However, numerous reports indicate that some of the mycoparasites may have potential for use as biocontrol agents for sclerotinia diseases. Among these mycoparasites, the basic biology and ecology of Sporidesmium sclerotivorum [Teratosperma sclerotivora] and Coniothyrium minitans have been the most thoroughly studied (Ayers and Adams, 1981; Whipps and Budge, 1993).

In the USA, Adams and Ayers (1982) studied lettuce drop caused by S. minor and found that a single treatment with Sporidesmium sclerotivorum [Teratosperma sclerotivora], at a rate of 100 or 1000 macroconidia per gram of soil, was effective in reducing the disease incidence by 40-83% in four consecutive crops. Another study showed that one application of S. sclerotivorum significantly reduced the incidence of lettuce drop for the first three crops; disease levels in the fourth and fifth crops were similar to those in the control plots after an increase in indigenous populations of the hyperparasite in the untreated plots (Adams and Fravel, 1990). Biological control of lettuce drop by S. sclerotivorum may be economically feasible because of the lasting effect of the control, the high cash value of the crop and the relatively low cost of treatment.

Coniothyrium minitans was effective for control of sclerotinia wilt of sunflowers in the field (Huang, 1980a; McLaren et al., 1994), and against white rot of soyabean (Sesan and Csep, 1992) and lettuce drop caused by S. sclerotiorum in the greenhouse (Budge and Whipps, 1991). Huang (1980a) conducted a 3-year study in a field naturally infested with S. sclerotiorum and found that application of C. minitans to the seed furrow reduced the incidence of sclerotinia wilt of sunflower by 42 to 56% compared with untreated plots. This finding was further confirmed in other studies in Canada (McLaren et al., 1994) and Russia (Bogdanova et al., 1986). Studies in the UK revealed that incorporating C. minitans into the soil before planting reduced the incidence of lettuce drop and increased the marketable yield of lettuce under greenhouse conditions (Whipps and Budge, 1992). Studies in the Netherlands indicated that treatment with C. minitans effectively controlled white mould of caraway caused by S. sclerotiorum (Verdam et al., 1993; Evenhuis et al., 1995).

In Canada, Huang and Kozub (1991b) observed that C. minitans was associated with the decline of sclerotinia wilt of sunflowers and thus offered long-term benefits in suppressing the sclerotinia population. The wilt decline phenomenon was persistent, and even adding sclerotia to the soil at the seeding stage did not significantly increase disease (Huang and Kozub, 1991b; McLaren et al., 1994). In Germany, Pfeffer and Luth (1990) reported that the decline of crown and stem rot of red clover caused by S. trifoliorum was associated with an increased population of C. minitans.

The success of biological control of sclerotinia lettuce drop using Sporidesmium sclerotivorum [Teratosperma sclerotivora] (Adams and Ayers, 1982; Adams and Fravel, 1990) and sclerotinia wilt of sunflower using Coniothyrium minitans (Huang 1980a; McLaren et al., 1994) has depended on a good basic understanding of the ecological relationships between the hyperparasites and their hosts (Adams et al., 1984; Whipps and Gerlagh, 1992). In their natural habitat both mycoparasites can destroy sclerotia (Hoes and Huang, 1975; Adams and Ayers, 1981). Ayers and Adams (1979a) observed that S. sclerotivorum grew well on living sclerotia but grew slowly on heat-killed sclerotia and did not grow at all on many common mycological media. Macroconidia of S. sclerotivorum germinated and infected sclerotia of S. minor in the soil (Ayers and Adams, 1979b; Adam, 1989), resulting in the production of about 15 000 new macroconidia on each infected sclerotium (Adams et al., 1984). More importantly, mycelia of S. sclerotivorum grew through the soil and infected other healthy sclerotia of S. minor (Ayers and Adams, 1985; Adam, 1987). In addition to the reduction of initial inoculum density of S. minor, S. sclerotivorum was able to parasitize new sclerotia produced on diseased lettuce in the field (Adams and Ayers, 1982; Adams and Fravel, 1990).

Although C. minitans attacks both growing hyphae (Huang and Hoes, 1976; Huang and Kokko, 1988) and sclerotia of S. sclerotiorum (Campbell, 1947; Ghaffar, 1972; Huang and Kokko, 1987), the control of sclerotinia wilt of sunflowers is achieved only through the reduction of sclerotia, the primary inoculum (Huang, 1980a). The mycoparasite is ineffective in preventing secondary spread of the disease by root-to-root contact (Huang, 1980a).

There are several reports on successful biological control of diseases caused by airborne ascospores of S. sclerotiorum. Zhou and Reeleder (1989) found that spraying spores of Epicoccum purpurascens [Epicoccum nigrum] on snap beans at the flowering stage significantly reduced white mould under both greenhouse and field conditions. Xue et al. (1991) reported a 20-25% reduction in sclerotinia disease of oilseed rape by spraying the plants with Bacillus cereus. In a greenhouse study, Huang et al. (1993b) reported that spraying pea plants with an antagonistic strain of Bacillus cereus was effective in reducing incidence of pod rot caused by infection with airborne ascospores of S. sclerotiorum. Control of ascospore infection may be feasible by application of biocontrol agents to senescent tissues such as flower petals (Zhou and Reeleder, 1991; Hutchins and Archer, 1994).

Some reports indicate that seed treatment with a biocontrol agent (Illipronti and Machado, 1993) or a combination of a biocontrol agent and a fungicide (Zazzerini and Tosi, 1985b) is effective in controlling sclerotinia diseases. Treatment of cucumber seeds with Trichoderma viride reduced sclerotinia disease and increased yield (Fedorinchik and Buga, 1972). Incidence of sclerotinia wilt of sunflowers is reduced by seed treatment with Bacillus subtilis (Zazzerini and Tosi, 1985a), Pseudomonas fluorescens, P. putida (Expert and Digat, 1995) or a combination of Trichoderma viride and iprodione (Zazzerini and Tosi, 1985b).
Figueiredo et al. (2010) found that eight isolates of Trichoderma spp. showed antagonistic potential against S. sclerotiorum infecting bean in vitro. In vivo, application of isolate 3601 gave a 37.04% reduction in pathogenicity.
Microscopic studies showed that Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain PA-23 inhibited the germination of S. sclerotiorum ascospores on petals in greenhouse and field conditions, compared to the complete colonization of petals which was observed 48 h after application of ascospores alone. Field studies over a period of two years indicated that disease control with PA-23 and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens (BS6) was comparable to that achieved with the fungicide Rovral Flos (iprodione). There was no significant difference between single- and double-spray application of PA-23 and BS6 in the management of canola stem rot. Results suggest that P. cholororaphis PA-23 and B. amyloliquefaciens BS6 can be used to control Sclerotinia stem rot of canola under field conditions (Fernando et al., 2007).

Chemical Control

Due to the variable regulations around (de-)registration of pesticides, we are for the moment not including any specific chemical control recommendations. For further information, we recommend you visit the following resources:
PAN pesticide database (www.pesticideinfo.org)
Your national pesticide guide

Impact

Introduction

Sclerotinia diseases may affect both yield and quality of crops; the range of crop losses can vary from 0 to100% (Purdy, 1979) depending upon factors such as crop species/cultivars, locations and environmental conditions. Quantitative assessment of disease data is necessary to judge the relative economic importance of the Sclerotinia disease on a particular crop in a specific region. Generally, the importance of a disease is assessed based on the amount of disease including prevalence, incidence and severity. This relevant data is then quantitatively translated into a value reflecting crop loss (Wheeler, 1969). Thus, comprehensive disease survey data is essential in assessing crop losses from a particular disease (James, 1974). In addition to crop loss assessment by disease survey, it is also important to conduct field experiments for characterizing the quantitative relationship between disease incidence/severity and decline in crop yield and quality (James, 1974).Although the host range of S. sclerotiorum is extremely wide, the data on disease survey and yield losses are available in only a few economically important crops such as oilseeds, pulses, forage legumes and vegetables.

Canola/Rapeseeds (Brassica napus and B. rapa)

Sclerotinia stalk rot caused by S. sclerotiorum occurs in all rapeseed/canola-producing countries in North America, Europe and Asia. In North America, canola is the most important oilseed crop in Canada, with limited acreage in several states in the USA. All the cultivars currently grown in Canada are of canola-quality (zero erucic acid in the oil and glucosinolate in the meal) (Martens et al., 1984). Canola production area is centralized within the Canadian western provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The total area for canola production in this region increased from 0.7 million ha in 1976 to 3.5 million ha in 1996 (Anon., 1997). Sclerotinia stem rot has been prominent in the major rapeseed growing areas of Alberta, Saskatchewan (Dueck, 1977) and Manitoba (Mathur and Platford, 1994). The disease can cause considerable losses in canola/rapeseed yields, whereby additional losses may be surmounted by contamination by sclerotia of S. sclerotiorum in harvested crops which can subsequently result in rejection of the infested seeds destined for export (Dueck, 1977). In western Canada in 1982, the estimated loss of canola/rapeseed crops due to Sclerotinia stem rot was over $15 million Canadian dollars (Martens et al., 1984). Morrall et al. (1984) studied the relationship between yield of rapeseed and the percentage of plants infected with S. sclerotiorum and found that the estimated percentage yield loss was generally 0.4 to 0.5 x % infected plants. This formula has been widely used in Canada in the estimation of canola yield loss due to Sclerotinia stem rot.There are numerous survey reports on Sclerotinia stem rot of canola within the three Canadian prairie provinces. In the Peace River region of Alberta, Sclerotinia stem rot was found in 35% of fields surveyed in 1988, where the average incidence of the disease was 5% per field (Harrison, 1989). In 1993, the disease was found in 44% of the canola fields surveyed with a low incidence of disease <14%), which suggested that fungicide control for this disease was not justifiable in the Peace River region (Turkington and Harrison, 1994). In the south-central region of Alberta, stem rot was found in all of the 35 canola fields surveyed in 1990 (Slopek and Anderson, 1991). The incidence of disease varied from 0.2 to 46%, averaging 8.8% per field with estimated yield losses ranging from 3.5 to 4.4% (Slopek and Anderson, 1991). In the southern region of Alberta, Sclerotinia stem rot is most detrimental to irrigated canola. In 1984, the disease was prevalent in 68% of 68 canola fields surveyed with an average disease incidence of 17.8% for each field (Huang et al., 1988b). The severity of the disease was most prominent in 9% of the surveyed fields which had more than 50% of infected plants (Huang et al., 1988b). In 1988, Sclerotinia stem rot was found in 25% of the 12 canola fields surveyed in southern Alberta but the disease incidence was low, averaging 1.1% per field (Huang and Phillippe, 1989). In Saskatchewan, stem rot of canola/rapeseed occurred in 62% of the fields surveyed in 1975, with a mean percentage infection of 1.9% (Morrall et al., 1976). Reduction in yield per plant varied from 22.2 to 54.5% and the loss in harvested yield varied from 11.1 to 14.9% (Morrall et al., 1976). In five fields sampled to determine yield loss in the Melfort area of north-eastern Saskatchewan in 1976, 24 to 42% of the plants were infected. Loss in yield in this area ranged from 15 to 28% (Dueck, 1977). Although the disease does not affect oil and protein content, its most serious effect on quality is the contamination of seeds by sclerotia of S. sclerotiorum (Morrall et al., 1976). In 1982, stem rot was prevalent in 32% of the 53 canola fields sampled with minor crop damage (Petrie, 1985). In 1994, the disease occurred in 74% of the 141 canola fields surveyed and disease incidence varied from 0 to 37%, averaging 4% (Petrie, 1995). In 1999, Sclerotinia stem rot was observed in 97% of the 74 canola fields surveyed and the disease incidence ranged from 0 to 51% for main stem lesions and 0 to 40% for upper branch/pod lesions (Pearse et al., 2000). The overall incidence for the province was 13% main stem lesions and 9% upper branch/pod lesions and the estimated yield loss was 10% in 1999 (Pearse et al., 2000). Sclerotinia stem rot of canola is one of the most prevalent diseases in Manitoba. Survey results in1993 showed that the disease occurred in 94% of the 89 canola fields surveyed with a mean disease incidence of 29% for the surveyed area (Mathur and Platford, 1994). The estimated yield loss in 1993 was15% for the province (Mathur and Platford, 1994). In 1998, 278 canola fields in the eastern/interlake, southwest, northwest and central regions of Manitoba were surveyed (McLaren and Platford, 1999). The prevalence of Sclerotinia stem rot ranged from a maximum incidence of 92% of the surveyed fields in the southwest region to a lower incidence of 63% in the eastern/interlake region with a provincial mean of 82% (McLaren and Platford, 1999). Mean disease incidence ranged from 8% in the eastern/interlake region to 16% in both the southwest and northwest regions. The provincial mean disease incidence in 1998 was 13%, which caused an estimated yield loss of 6% (McLaren and Platford, 1999). In 1999, a total of 235 canola fields was surveyed and the prevalence of the disease ranged from a high of 64% in the eastern/interlake region to 53% in the southwest region with a provincial mean of 60% (McLaren and Platford, 2000). Mean disease incidence for 1999 ranged from 10% in the eastern/interlake region to 6% in the southwest region and the provincial mean disease incidence was 8% which caused an estimated yield loss of 4% (McLaren and Platford, 2000).In the USA, Sclerotinia stem rot of canola (S. sclerotiorum) has been found in Georgia, North Dakota and Minnesota. Surveys in North Dakota during 1991-1997 showed that in August and September, the disease incidence varied from 7.1% in 1991 to 18.7% in 1993, with an average of 13.2% over 6 years (Lamey, 1999). A disease incidence of 30% or higher was recorded in 8, 13 and 16% of fields surveyed in North Dakota in 1995, 1996 and 1997, respectively, and in 15 and 26% of fields in Minnesota in 1996 and 1997, respectively. Yield losses due to this disease were estimated at 5.0-13.1% in North Dakota, and 11.2-13.2% in Minnesota (Lamey, 1999). However, yield losses in fields with over 30% incidence in North Dakota were estimated at 32.2% in 1995, 25.4% in 1996, and 29.4% in 1997, whereas losses in fields with over 30% incidence in Minnesota were 27.4% in 1996 and 29.4% in 1997 (Lamey, 1999). In Georgia, Sclerotinia stem rot is potentially detrimental to winter canola (Brassica napus); losses reached 100% of the total crop yield during a severe outbreak of the disease observed in some cultivars in northern Georgia (Brenneman et al., 1991). In Europe, Sclerotinia stem rot is prominent on winter rape in many countries. The disease is of particular importance in the UK (Fitt et al., 1997), particularly in the south of England (Sweet et al., 1992). Fitt et al. (1997) reported that the estimated area of winter oilseed rape in the UK for 1987 and 1991 was 393,000 ha and 452,000 ha, respectively, with an estimated yield loss of 1.77 k tons and 36.60 k tons, respectively, due to stem rot. Using survey data and yield loss coefficients to estimate losses of winter oilseed rape in the UK, it was concluded that annual losses to Sclerotinia stem rot were £30-85 million, with fungicide expenditures ranging from £3 million to £9 million, during 1987-95 (Fitt et al., 1997). Results of a field trial on winter rape at Rosemaund in 1991 showed that the incidence of Sclerotinia stem rot was correlated with crop yield (Sweet et al., 1992). The Limerick cultivar presented a low incidence of disease (30%), resulting in a 7% yield loss. The Cobra cultivar exhibited a moderate disease incidence (50.5%), resulting in a 22% yield loss. The Tapido cultivar was found to produce a high disease incidence of 98.8%, causing a 60% reduction in yield (Sweet et al., 1992). In Germany, the annual incidence of Sclerotinia stem rot in rapeseed was found to range from 20 to 25%, with a potential yield loss of over 90% in years with severe infestations (Kruger, 1983). In field trials of winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus), Luth et al. (1993) found that application of 40 or 80 S. sclerotiorum sclerotia per square m reduced rape yields by 11 and 15%, respectively. Another field study showed that spraying rape plants with vinclozolin was effective in reducing stem rot, but this treatment was economical only where more than 25% of the plants were infected (Kruger and Stoltenberg, 1983). In Belgium, the field trials conducted in the period 1988-93 showed that yield losses of winter rape due to Sclerotinia stem rot varied between growing seasons and regional crop fields, with occasional yield losses exceeding 1000 kg/ha (Couvreur and Herman, 1994). Couvreur and Herman (1993) observed that application of the growth regulator triapenthenol increased the incidence of Sclerotinia stem rot, leading to heavy yield losses in rape cultivars that are of canola-quality. In central Sweden, the severity of Sclerotinia stem rot of spring rape caused estimated yield reductions of 50% in some cases during the 1984 growing season (Sigvald, 1985). In Poland, S. sclerotiorum was noted to cause a significant decrease in seed yield of winter rape (Brassica napus) (Starzycka et al., 1998). In Italy, losses of rape (Brassica napus) to S. sclerotiorum were generally limited as plants were attacked at an advanced growth stage (pod ripening stage) (Zazzerini and Tosi, 1985). Rapeseed is an important oilseed crop in China. The production area for this crop increased from 14,000 ha in 1981-83 to 3.9 million ha during the early1990&apos;s (Lo and Zhou, 1994). Sclerotinia stem rot of rapeseed caused by S. sclerotiorum was found in 25 provinces and was particularly severe in the mid-Yangtze River region (including Henan, Hubei, Hunan and Jianxi provinces) and the southeast, coastal region (including Anhui, Jiangsu, Zhejiang and Fujian provinces) (Li and Zhou, 1979). In the early 1990&apos;s, the disease was prevalent in 70% (2.7 million ha) of the 3.9 million ha of the entire rapeseed production area in China (Lo and Zhou, 1994). The annual average disease incidence was about 10-30% and reached 80% in severe areas such as Hubei, Jiangsu, Henan provinces (Lo and Zhou, 1994). Yield reduction was estimated at 10-70% and reduction of oil content was estimated at 1-5% (Lo and Zhou, 1994). Another report indicated that the annual incidence of Sclerotinia stem rot in China was estimated at 10-80% with yield losses ranging from 5 to 30% (Liu and Ma, 1998). Zhang et al. (1999) conducted an 8-year survey in the Lixiahe area of Jiangsu and found that the annual incidence of S. sclerotiorum on rape in this area was approximately 20% with yield losses of 15-30%. In Nepal, Chaudhury (1993) found that S. sclerotiorum caused a 75% loss of grain yield in diseased plants of rape and mustard.

Sunflower

Sclerotinia disease of sunflower occurs in many countries including China, India, Iran, Turkey, Australia, Austria, France, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Denmark, Czechoslovakia, Russia, Caucasus, Tanzania, South Africa, Canada, the USA, Argentina, Peru and Chile (Wu, 1990). S. sclerotiorum can cause two distinct diseases of sunflower - wilt and head rot. In countries such as Canada, the USA and Russia, the predominant disease was Sclerotinia wilt which was due to infection of sunflower roots by myceliogenically germinated sclerotia of S. sclerotiorum (Huang and Dueck, 1980). In Argentina, France and Japan, the predominant disease was Sclerotinia head rot which was caused by infection by ascospores produced from carpogenically germinated sclerotia (Acimovic, 1984; Kondo et al., 1988). S. sclerotiorum is a major pathogen of sunflower in North America. It is prevalent in all sunflower producing areas in Canada and the USA. In Canada, both wilt and head rot can occur in the same field, although the former is generally more important than the latter (Huang, 1983). A study in Manitoba, the main sunflower production province in Canada, indicated that reduction of seed yield was related to the time of infection by the pathogen (Dorrell and Huang, 1978). Seed yields were reduced more than 70% when wilting occurred within 4 weeks of flowering. This yield reduction was primarily due to a reduction in seed weight. Based on yields from healthy plants, the field with 60% of wilted plants had a 37.2% reduction in seed yield (Dorrell and Huang, 1978). Oil content increased from 32.7% for plants wilted in the first two weeks, to 46.4% when wilting was delayed until 8 weeks after flowering. Protein content of oil-free meal was fairly stable and averaged 53.1%, during the first 5 weeks, but increased to 57.7% thereafter. Fatty acid composition was relatively unaffected by wilting as linoleic acid content varied from 74.4 to 76.8%. Thus, the seed oil was considered to be of excellent quality regardless of when wilting occurred (Dorrell and Huang, 1978). Another study in Manitoba revealed that between-row spacing (30, 60 or 90 cm) and within-row spacing (15, 25, 36 or 47 cm) affected wilt development and yield of sunflowers grown in a field infested with S. sclerotiorum (Hoes and Huang, 1985). Seed yield was correlated with the percentage of wilted nonproductive sunflower plants. An increase of between-row spacing to 60 or 90 cm and within-row spacing to 36 or 47 cm decreased the percentage wilted nonproductive plants and increased yield. Yields were maximized at 26,000-49,000 plants/ha (Hoes and Huang, 1985). A field trial on biocontrol of Sclerotinia wilt of sunflower in 1976 in Manitoba presented a seed yield of 1213 kg/ha in the control plots with 43% of wilted plants. In contrast, a seed yield of 1495 kg/ha was obtained in a Coniothyrium minitans-treated plot with 25% of wilted plants (Huang, 1980).A survey in Manitoba during 1975 revealed a greater predominance for Sclerotinia wilt over Sclerotinia head rot (Hoes and Huang, 1976). Sunflower crops with trace <1% of wilted plants) or light (1-10%) incidence of wilt produced an average seed yield of 1360 kg/ha, whereas crops with moderate (11-40%) to very severe (>80%) incidence of wilt produced an average seed yield of 800 kg/ha (Hoes and Huang, 1976). In1994, Sclerotinia wilt occurred in 78% of the 49 fields inspected, with Sclerotinia head rot occurring in 68% of the 25 fields inspected in Manitoba and southeastern Saskatchewan (Rashid and Platford, 1995). One of the fields had 50% of plants with Sclerotinia wilt and two fields had 30 to 50% of plants with Sclerotinia head rot. Yield losses in these two fields exhibiting severe head rot were estimated at 30% (Rashid and Platford, 1995). In 1995, Sclerotinia wilt was prevalent in 74% of the fields surveyed with the wilt incidence ranging from trace to 20%, whereas Sclerotinia head rot was prevalent in 21% of the fields surveyed with incidence ranging from trace to 5% (Rashid and Platford, 1996). In Alberta, 89% of the sunflower fields surveyed in 1989 had Sclerotinia wilt and 22% of the fields had Sclerotinia head rot (Huang and Phillippe, 1990). The incidence of wilt varied from 0.7 to 54%, averaging 14.5% per field and the incidence of head rot was less than 1% (Huang and Phillippe, 1990). In addition to wilt of adult plants, S. sclerotiorum is also noted to cause pre-and post-emergence damping-off of sunflower under Canadian prairie conditions (Huang and Dueck, 1980; Huang and Kozub, 1990). During 1995-97, in field trials conducted in Manitoba, S. sclerotiorum reduced emergence of sunflowers by 79-86%, resulting in yield losses of 54-86% (Rashid and Swanson, 1999).In the USA, Sclerotinia wilt caused by S. sclerotiorum is a predominant disease in the major sunflower production areas of North Dakota, South Dakota and Minnesota. Surveys of these states in 1984 showed that Sclerotinia wilt was observed in 48% of surveyed fields and affected an estimated 3.1% of the entire crop, whereas head rot was observed in only 5% of surveyed fields and affected only 0.05% of crops assessed (Gulya and MacArthur, 1984). However, due to a severe outbreak of Sclerotinia head rot of sunflower in 1986, the disease was found in 98% of surveyed fields in eastern North Dakota (Gulya and Vick, 1986). An estimated 10.2% of the crop in this region was affected, which represented a 200-fold increase in Sclerotinia head rot of sunflower over that recorded in 1984 (Gulya and Vick, 1986).Sclerotinia wilt and head rot have caused significant losses to sunflower crops in the USA. Purdy (1979) reported that an estimated 1% of total crops in the USA have been lost to Sclerotinia diseases annually, translating to a monetary loss of $3 million in US dollars. An early report by Young and Morris (1927) showed that loss of sunflower plants due to Sclerotinia wilt ranged from 0.1 to 80% in commercial fields in Montana. In addition to Sclerotinia wilt, Sclerotinia head rot of sunflower causes significant reduction in seed yield per head, seed weight, number of seeds per head and oil content. Studies in the Dakotas and Minnesota regions revealed that there was a 34% decrease in seed yield of rotted heads. Yield reduction in these instances were caused primarily by a decrease in the number of seed per head and, to a lesser extent, by lower seed weight (Gulya and Vick, 1986). Furthermore, head rot was noted to cause a small but significant reduction in oil content in an oilseed type of sunflower (Gulya and Vick, 1986).Sclerotinia head rot of sunflower caused by S. sclerotiorum presents a significant problem in Argentina, a major sunflower producing country in South America. Studies of sunflower in S. sclerotiorum-infested and non-infested plots revealed that an increased incidence of plants with head rot accurately correlated to certain crop characteristics which include a reduction in seed yield (r = 0.76), increase in dockage (r = 0.67), and reduction in oil acidity levels (r = 0.58) (Sala et al., 1996). Compared with the healthy control, plants with mid-stalk rot caused by S. sclerotiorum ascospore infection resulted in a 35% reduction in seed yield, 24% reduction in number of seeds per head, and 15% reduction in 1000-seed weight (Sala et al., 1994). Loss in seed yield was also correlated with lesion length. For each 10 cm increase in the length of the stalk lesion, the reduction in seed yield, number of seeds per head and 1000-seed weight was 7.7, 6.2 and 3.8%, respectively (Sala et al., 1994). China ranks as the fourth largest sunflower producing country in the world (Liu and Li, 1988). A comprehensive survey on diseases of sunflower in various regions of China revealed that S. sclerotiorum, Alternaria helianthi, Septoria helianthi and Orobanche coerulescens were the most important problems of sunflower, causing 10-50% losses in yield, and even crop failure in some areas in some years (Liu and Li, 1988). In northern China, a loss of up to 45% in sunflower yield due to S. sclerotiorum infection has been documented (Hua et al., 1987). In Hokkaido, Japan, head rot caused by S. sclerotiorum was more widely spread than instances of Sclerotinia wilt. The incidence of head rot varied from 40 to 90%, occasionally reaching complete infestation, whereas the incidence of wilt was constantly less than 15% (Kondo et al., 1988).In Australia, both S. sclerotiorum and S. minor are important pathogens of sunflower (Allen et al., 1983; Sedun and Brown, 1989). In northern Victoria, Australia, stem rot caused by S. minor was reported as a major factor limiting sunflower production (Clarke et al., 1993). Both short season and long season cultivars exhibited greater yield losses in instances of infection prior to late flowering (GS 4.5). Moreover, the greater the number of plants affected by stem rot prior to this stage, the higher the yield loss.In Europe, wilt of sunflower caused by S. sclerotiorum is very important in Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary (Voros, 1983) and Yugoslavia (Acimovic, 1980) as well as the former USSR (Bogdanova et al., 1986; Yakutkin and Tavolzhanskri, 1999). Sclerotinia wilt of sunflower was reported as the most important disease causing the largest yield losses in Romania (Gheorghies and Roman, 1988). In experiments with sunflower hybrids and lines under conditions of high natural infection in Romania, a higher infection intensity resulted in reduced head diameter, grain weight and kernel size (Barnaveta et al., 1992). In Bulgaria, sunflower wilt caused by S. sclerotiorum resulted in lower seed weight, in addition to a reduction in seed size and oil and protein contents; however, no change in oil and protein quality was observed in plants surveyed (Ivanov et al., 1989). In Russia, the most widespread and severe pests of sunflower were white rot or wilt (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum), grey rot (Botrytis cinerea), downy mildew (Plasmopara halstedii), black spot (Phoma macdonaldii) and broomrape (Orobanche cumana), which could lead to yield losses of 60% or more (Yakutkin and Tavolzhanskri, 1999). A field trial on Sclerotinia wilt of sunflower revealed that seed yield was 2870 kg/ha in the plot with 58.8% of wilted plants but was 4190 kg/ha in the plot with 7.4% of wilted plants (Bogdanova et al., 1986). Sclerotinia wilt of sunflower was prominent in Portugal (Barros, 1980), but it was of only minor importance in Italy (Zazzerini, 1980). In the sunflower producing areas of France (Lagarde, 1994) and Belgium (Cors and Cartrysse, 1993), S. sclerotiorum was important for its infection of the terminal bud, neck and capitulum in sunflower.Reports of Sclerotinia disease of sunflower are scarce in Africa. One report from South Africa showed that up to 50% of sunflower seeds from S. sclerotiorum-infected heads contained mycelium of the pathogen, without any sign of visible infection (Anon., 1981).

Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius)

Safflower is primarily used as an oilseed crop. S. sclerotiorum has been reported as a pathogen of safflower in India, Australia, Israel, the USA and Canada (Wu, 1990). In Canada, Sclerotinia head rot is the most important disease of safflower. Field trials in Alberta in 1982 showed that incidence of head rot varied from 6 to 62% for two cultivars with corresponding yield losses of 81 kg/ha and 678 kg/ha, respectively (Muendel et al., 1985a). In addition, diseased plants averaged 4.4% less oil in the infected seed compared with healthy seeds of the corresponding cultivar or lines (Muendel et al., 1985a). The line Lesaf 34C-00 was registered as cultivar Saffire, which is the first Canadian safflower cultivar with good field resistance to Sclerotinia head rot (Muendel et al., 1985b).

Soyabean

Sclerotinia stem rot of soyabean caused by S. sclerotiorum has been reported in the USA, Canada, Hungary, China, Japan and South Africa (Wu, 1990). Numerous reports have noted losses of soyabean to this disease in the USA but only a few reports in other countries. In the USA, Sclerotinia stem rot is considered one of the most important soyabean diseases in many states. In Illinois, the disease was commonly observed in soyabean crops between 1946 and 1950 (Chamberlain, 1951). A field trial conducted in east-central Illinois indicated that the incidence of Sclerotinia stem rot in five soyabean cultivars ranged from 2 to 45% for Probst, 0 to 65% for P9381, 0 to 68% for P9342, 1 to 93% for Yale and 0 to 95% for A3304 (Hoffman et al., 1998). Regression analysis of yields in relation to disease incidences for each cultivar was significant; for every 10% increase in Sclerotinia stem rot incidence, yields were reduced by 147, 194, 203, 254 and 263 kg/ha for Probst, A3304, P9342, Yale and P9381, respectively. Disease incidence was also negatively correlated to seed germination for all cultivars with the exception of Probst. In addition, higher disease infestation reduced oil content and seed weight in cultivars P9381 and Yale. Disease incidence reduced seed quality for all cultivars with the seedborne incidence of S. sclerotiorum of 0.3, 0.3, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.7% in A3304, P9381, Yale, Probst and P9342, respectively (Hoffman et al., 1998). In Iowa, the incidence of Sclerotinia stem rot was generally high in northern Iowa but low in central Iowa, with disease incidence of susceptible standards >60% and <30%, respectively (Yang et al., 1999). Based on regression analyses of disease incidence and crop yield, loss of seed yield was estimated to range from 170 to 335 kg/ha for each proportionate10% incidence of disease (Yang et al., 1999).In Michigan, a 1985 field trial revealed that the incidence of Sclerotinia stem rot in16 soyabean cultivars varied from 0 to 52%; as a consequence, a 10% increase in disease resulted in reduction in yield by 7.8% in comparison with the maximum yield (3024 kg/ha) (Chun et al., 1987). In Wisconsin, a 1977 field study of six soyabean cultivars indicated that disease severity indices were greater for all cultivars planted at row widths of 25-38 cm than at 76 cm as a trend observed in 2 years of the of 3-year study. Disease severity indices and yield were negatively correlated (Grau and Radke, 1984). The mean disease severity indices for narrow row (38 cm row spacing) and wide row (76 cm row spacing) was 60 and 21, respectively, and the mean yield was 42% lower at narrow row widths compared with wide row widths (Grau and Radke, 1984). The study also showed that disease severity was greater in irrigated plots than plots that were non-irrigated, either before or after flowering. A reduction in irrigation before the early flowering improved crop yields by 10-22% (Grau and Radke, 1984).In Canada, soyabean is mainly produced in Ontario. Field trials at Wallaceburg, Ontario from 1985 to 1987 and 1990 showed that yield loss from Sclerotinia stem rot (S. sclerotiorum) may be reduced by planting cultivars that are more resistant to the disease, earlier maturing and more tolerant to lodging (Buzzell et al., 1993). Reports on yield losses of soyabean due to Sclerotinia stem rot (S. sclerotiorum) are scarce in countries outside North America. In Brazil, Sclerotinia stem rot of soyabean was first reported in 1920 and the disease caused severe losses in seed yield (>30%) in the Ponta Grossa region in 1978 (Nasser et al., 1995). As an important soyabean pathogen, S. sclerotiorum has been noted to cause severe losses in the Heilongjiang province of northern China (Li and Fu, 1981). In South Africa, Sclerotinia stem rot of soyabean was reported as a serious new disease in the Badfontein area of the Lydenburg District (Thompson and Van der Westhuizen, 1979).

Groundnut

Sclerotinia blight of groundnut presents an important problem in the USA, Argentina, China and Mauritius (Wu, 1990). In the USA, Sclerotinia blight of groundnut is caused by S. minor (Porter and Beute, 1974), whereas in Argentina, the disease is due to S. sclerotiorum and S. minor (Marinelli et al., 1998). Since its first report in Virginia in 1971 (Porter and Beute, 1974), Sclerotinia blight of groundnut has become widespread in Virginia, North Carolina (Beute et al., 1975), Oklahoma (Wadsworth and Melouk, 1985) and Texas (Woodard and Simpson, 1993). In Virginia and North Carolina, losses of up to 50% have been documented in some fields (Beute et al., 1975). The disease has become a major problem for groundnut production in the Southern Plains. In recent years, a third of the total 105,000 acres of groundnut in Oklahoma and more than 20,000 acres of groundnut in Texas have been infested by Sclerotinia blight. Some fields have suffered yield reductions of up to 25% (Hardin, 1991). Sclerotinia blight was reported to reduce groundnut production in North Carolina by 2% in 1976, resulting in an estimated loss of $1.9 million (US) (Purdy, 1979). Similarly, Sclerotinia blight was noted to cause a 5% loss in groundnut production in Virginia in 1976 with an estimated loss of $3 million (US) (Purdy, 1979).Studies in Argentina during 1991-94 in 41 commercial fields in the southern region of the province of Cordoba led to the conclusion that Sclerotinia blight caused by S. sclerotiorum and S. minor comprised a major threat to groundnut crops (Marinelli et al., 1998). S. sclerotiorum was more important than S. minor in the groundnut growing region of Argentina (Marinelli and March, 1996). In new groundnut fields of less than five years, Sclerotinia blight ranged from 1 to 4% with yield losses ranging from 30 to100 kg/ha (Marinelli et al., 1998). However, in fields in which the sequencing of crops has been the same during the last 15 years, Sclerotinia blight varied from 5 to 45%, and yield losses between 100 and 870 kg/ha (Marinelli et al., 1998).

Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)

World production of common bean are centralized in 12 regions: Brazil, Mexico, Eastern Africa, North America, Eastern Europe, the African Great Lakes, the Southern Cone of South America, Central America and the Caribbean, West Asia, Western Europe, South Africa and Andean (Bolivia, Columbia) (Pachico, 1989). Brazil, Mexico and Eastern Africa are the most important regions which contribute to half of the world production of bean (Pachico, 1989) and Mexico is also a major contributor to bean production, the production area being 2 million ha in 1975 (Crispin and Campos, 1976). White mould of common bean occurred in most of the bean producing regions including Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Peru, Columbia, Venezuela, Latin America, Asia, Africa, Europe, Australia and North America (Schwartz and Steadman, 1989). Both S. sclerotiorum and S. minor were causal agents of white mould of bean in Australia (Wong, 1978) but in other countries, the disease was mainly due to infection by S. sclerotiorum.White mould of bean was reported to cause significant crop damage in numerous states including Florida, Michigan, New York, Nebraska, Colorado and California (Purdy, 1979). The annual losses to dry bean and snap bean in the USA were estimated at 3.5 and 2.0%, respectively (Purdy, 1979). In New York State, S. sclerotiorum can be a problem of snap bean and dry bean. The pathogen can cause severe economic losses on snap bean as commercial bean processing plants are able to legally reject truckloads of bean with more than 2% infected pods (Hunter et al., 1984). Reports indicate that white mould caused a drastic reduction of snap bean production during the 1970&apos;s in New York State (Abawi and Grogan, 1975). In Nebraska, white mould was reported to cause an estimated 20% loss in bean in 1973 (Lumsden et al., 1975). The disease was also observed to be a major problem of dry bean in the irrigated areas of western Nebraska (Kerr et al., 1978). Surveys conducted in 1970-1973 showed that white mould was present in all irrigated bean fields surveyed, with the disease severity varying between fields. Infection in each field ranged from 2 to 92%, with annual averages of 33, 16, 15 and 45%, respectively (Kerr et al., 1978). The average for four years was 30% infection. The yield losses were 14, 6, 14 and 19%, respectively, during the period 1970-1973 with an average yield loss of 13%. Compared with healthy plants, plants infected with white mould caused a 16% reduction in seed weight, 28% reduction in seed number and 27% reduction in pod number (Kerr et al., 1978). Farm surveys of irrigated regions in Colorado showed that losses of pinto bean from white mould ranged from 0 to 80% (Burke et al., 1957). The average estimated loss in yield was 658 kg/ha (Burke et al., 1957). In Florida, white mould caused an estimated 5-10% annual loss in bean production and 6% loss in grade each year (Purdy, 1979). In Virginia, white mould caused 30% losses in bean crops during 1916 (Zaumeyer and Thomas, 1957). In Canada, white mould (S. sclerotiorum) is prominent in all major bean production regions including Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The disease is prevalent in navy bean fields in southwestern Ontario (Haas and Bolwyn, 1972). A reported average of 20% of the 50,000 ha of navy bean in Ontario was affected yearly (Tu, 1986). Studies of four navy bean cultivars in 1979 and 1980 showed that white mould incidence varied from 6% to 92% with yield losses varying from <5% to 85% (Tu, 1987). Another report indicated that, compared with healthy plots, plots comprising 50% of infected bean plants caused a 44.5% reduction in seed yield (Wallen and Sutton, 1967). Dry bean yield losses varied considerably, reaching 100% in some fields in Ontario (Hall, 1988). In Alberta, white mould of dry bean is serious because the crop is grown under sprinkler irrigation, which creates conducive conditions for development of the disease. A survey conducted during 1984-1987 showed that white mould of dry bean occurred in all the fields surveyed in southern Alberta (Huang et al., 1988a). The proportion of infected plants varied between fields, ranging from 10 to 46% in 1984 and from 9 to 38% in 1985. Another survey in 1999 indicated that white mould was found in all of the bean fields surveyed; 27% of fields surveyed were of moderate infestation (ranging from 11-25% of infected plants), whereas 14% of fields surveyed were of high infestation (ranging from 26 to 50% of infected plants) (Huang and Erickson, 2000). White mould also posed a significant threat to dry bean production in Manitoba (Xue et al., 1997) and southwestern Saskatchewan. In 1996, the disease was found in 9% of the dry bean fields surveyed in Manitoba with the incidence of disease varying in these fields from 11 to 85%, with average incidence of 55% (Xue et al., 1997).In South America, white mould (S. sclerotiorum) is an important disease of bean in Mexico (Crispin and Campos, 1976) and Brazil (Nasser et al., 1995). In Mexico, white mould has been one of the major diseases of bean since 1955 (Crispin and Campos, 1976). In Brazil, S. sclerotiorum was first reported in 1920. During the last two decades of the 20th century, white mould frequently caused reductions of 40 to 70% in yields for dry bean grown under irrigation in the Cerrados region (Nasser et al., 1995).In Australia, white mould was considered to be the most serious disease of bean in Tasmania (Wong et al., 1980), Victoria (Merriman et al., 1979) and Queensland (Pegg, 1965). Surveys conducted in the Northwest Coast districts of Tasmania in 1977-78 showed that white mould of green bean was caused by S. sclerotiorum and S. minor with both pathogens often coexisting within a particular crop (Wong, 1978). Disease incidence varied amongst bean fields, ranging from 0 to 21% (Wong, 1978). Another survey in 1978 and 1979 showed that the highest incidence of white mould in a particular bean crop was 86%, effectively causing a 64% yield loss (Wong et al., 1980). Estimated reductions in yield are approximated to range from 0.2 to 0.8% for a corresponding percentage of bean crop infected by S. sclerotiorum depending on the severity of the disease (Wong, 1978). Similarly, estimated yield reductions due to a corresponding percentage of infected plants by S. minor were found to range between 0.6 and 0.8%. Furthermore, yield losses caused by S. sclerotiorum are due mostly to pod rots, whereas losses caused by S. minor are due mainly to wilt and premature death, consequently reducing the proportion of pods reaching maturation (Wong, 1978). In Queensland, yield losses in navy beans due to white mould caused by S. sclerotiorum was found to reach as high as 100% (Pegg, 1965). A field trial in Australia demonstrated that resistance of bean cultivars to S. sclerotiorum resulted in a reduction in yield loss (Middleton et al., 1995). In other Asian countries, white mould (S. sclerotiorum) was reported to occur annually on bean in Hokkaido, Japan and is considered one of the most serious problems in bean production, causing losses in yield of about 36% in severe infestations (Akai, 1981).In Europe, an outbreak of S. sclerotiorum on bean in Germany in 1984 caused a yield loss of over 42% (Rudolph, 1986). Another report in the Netherlands showed that S. sclerotiorum caused yield reductions of 15-30% in 1983 (Ester and Gerlagh, 1984). In Africa, yield loss to white mould caused by S. sclerotiorum was estimated at 5% in a green bean crop in the eastern Cape Province of South Africa in 1988 (Denner et al., 1992). In bean growing areas of northeastern Tanzania, white mould (S. sclerotiorum) has caused severe losses in recent years (Mushi and Ngulu, 1995).

Pea (Pisum sativum)

Sclerotinia stem rot of pea caused by S. sclerotiorum has been recorded in Argentina, Peru, Chile, Denmark, England, Holland, Australia, the USA, Bermuda, Taiwan, India and Canada (Wu, 1990). The pathogen can attack dry and processing peas. In the USA, pea is an important crop in many states including Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Michigan and Colorado. In 1964, approximately 95% of seed and dry field peas, and 35% of processing peas, in the USA were produced in Washington, Oregon and Idaho (Hampton and Ford, 1965). Sclerotinia stem rot caused by S. sclerotiorum was prevalent in these states. A 4-year survey showed that Sclerotinia stem rot is the second most prevalent disease in pea crops in Idaho (Fenwick, 1969). Another survey in eastern Washington and Oregon in 1964 showed that the disease was observed in 15 of the 61 surveyed fields of irrigated seed peas (Hampton and Ford, 1965). The average disease incidence was 65%, resulting in increased cullage of harvested seed in addition to reducing seed yield (Hampton and Ford, 1965). In Michigan, Sclerotinia wilt was found in five pea fields in a 1955 survey and was considered a potentially important pea disease in the state (Lockwood et al., 1957). In 1967, a processing pea field in northern Colorado was largely non-harvestable due to high incidence of Sclerotinia wilt (Oshima and Dickens, 1968). Dry field pea is an important crop in western Canada. The total production area for the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba in 1996 was 0.53 million ha with a farm gate value of $257 million in Canadian dollars (Anon., 1997). In Manitoba in 1987, Sclerotinia stem rot (S. sclerotiorum) was observed in one field of dry pea near Winnipeg, damaging 55% of the entire crop (Platford, 1988). In 1992, the disease was observed in 54% of the 35 dry pea fields surveyed with the disease severity varying from light to moderately severe (Zimmer and Platford, 1993). These instances represent the first incidence where Sclerotinia stem rot became a significant problem of dry pea in Manitoba (Zimmer and Platford, 1993). In 1994, the disease occurred in 61% of the 33 dry pea fields surveyed, representing the third most common disease of dry pea in Manitoba (Xue et al., 1995). Two of the fields in the Cypress and Glenboro areas had 100% of infected plants, resulting in an estimated yield loss of over 70% (Xue et al., 1995). In Saskatchewan, Sclerotinia stem rot of dry pea occurred in 22% of the fields surveyed but the incidence was light, averaging 0.07 infected plants/m² (Mckenzie and Morrall, 1973). The 1973 survey showed that the disease was common in the Bellevue and Nipawin regions of Saskatchewan with an average disease incidence of 3.0 plants/m² in Bellevue and 4.1 plants/m² in Nipawin (Mckenzie and Morrall, 1975). Sclerotinia stem rot of dry pea was found at low levels in northeastern Saskatchewan in 1990 (Berkenkamp and Kirkham, 1991). In Alberta, Sclerotinia stem rot of dry pea was widespread in southern (Sumar et al., 1982; Huang and Erickson, 1996), central (Orr and Burnett, 1993) and the Peace River (Harrison and Laflamme, 1996) regions but the incidence was generally light. In central Canada, the damage of pea by S. sclerotiorum was also light in Ottawa Valley, Ontario (Wallen, 1961). In eastern Canada, a pea field with 60% of Sclerotinia pod rot and about 10% in adjacent fields were reported in Nova Scotia (Hockey, 1955).In the UK, Sclerotinia stem rot (S. sclerotiorum) became a problem in parts of northeastern Scotland after the introduction of vine pea as an agricultural crop (Jones and Gray, 1977). In India, Sclerotinia stem rot (S. sclerotiorum) is one of the most important diseases of pea grown in the northwestern hills region of Uttar Pradesh (Sharma, 1985) and the Indian Punjab (Sharma and Gill, 1996). A loss of up to 51% was reported in green pod yield of garden pea crops grown under garden hill conditions (Sharma and Kanwar, 1989). The disease also poses a serious threat to pea crops grown in the mid hills and low hills of Himachal, potentially causing complete crop failure in some instances (Kapoor et al., 1990). Results of a chemical control trial in garden pea demonstrated that an increased Sclerotinia stem rot incidence was found to reduce pea pod yield (Sharma and Kanwar, 1989). Furthermore, a maximum yield of 90 q/ha was obtained in the absence of disease (Sharma and Kanwar, 1989).

Lucerne (Medicago sativa)

S. sclerotiorum and S. trifoliorum are important pathogens of lucerne, causing crown and stem rot (Gilbert, 1987; Pratt and Rowe, 1995) and blossom blight (Holley et al., 1996). S. trifoliorum specifically attacks forage legumes such as lucerne whereas S. sclerotiorum attacks a wide range of plant species (Kohn, 1979; Rhodes and Gilbert, 1990). Sclerotinia crown and stem rot is a serious disease of lucerne in the temperate regions of the USA, potentially causing extensive loss of lucerne stands under favourable conditions (Rhodes and Gilbert, 1990). The disease caused an estimated annual loss of trace to 9% in lucerne production in North Carolina and an annual loss of 0.1% in New Jersey (Purdy, 1979). The disease is of particular importance in lucerne seed fields in the USA (Gilbert, 1991) and Canada (Gossen, 1997).In Canada, lucerne blossom blight caused by S. sclerotiorum and Botrytis cinerea was first identified in 1993 and the disease can cause up to 100% yield loss in seed crops in the Canadian prairies (Gossen, 1997). In 1995, incidence of blossom blight caused by S. sclerotiorum was reported to be 15% in central Saskatchewan, 6% in central Manitoba and 8% in Peace River, Alberta (Gossen et al., 1996). A survey of flower samples collected at mid-blossom period in 1998 showed that the average disease incidence was 10% in Saskatchewan and 22% in Manitoba (Gossen and Platford, 1999). In 1999, S. sclerotiorum was the dominant pathogen in the 27 lucerne seed fields surveyed in Saskatchewan with seven fields exhibiting severe infestation (>45%) (Wong et al., 2000).

Potato

Potato stem blight caused by S. sclerotiorum has been reported in many countries including Algeria, Chile, Peru, Columbia, the USA, France, Scotland, Germany, Greece, Holland, Italy, Tanganyika, Russia (Wu, 1990) Canada (Huang et al., 1996) and South Africa (Denner et al., 1992). In Florida, USA, the disease has caused an annual reduction of 5-10% in potato production, valued at $12-15 million (US) in addition to a 40% reduction in quality valued at $4 million (Purdy, 1979). In Washington, stem blight has caused an annual loss of 0.1-1.0% in potato production valued at $0.2 to 2 million (Purdy, 1979). As a more extreme example, a potato field in the eastern Cape Province near Hankey, South Africa, was destroyed by S. sclerotiorum in 1989 (Denner et al., 1992). The disease developed rapidly and destroyed 80-90% of the potato crop within 18 days.Potato is an important crop in southern Alberta, Canada. Despite the high incidence and widespreaded occurrence of the diseases caused by S. sclerotiorum on crops such as dry bean, sunflower, safflower and canola grown in this region, the incidence of stem blight of potato by this pathogen was <1% in a total of 433 seed potato fields surveyed during 1992-1995 (Huang et al., 1996).

Sweet potato

Sclerotinia rot is one of the most significant diseases of sweet potato in New Zealand (Broadhurst et al., 1997). A field study in 1996 showed significant differences in the levels of diseased vine tissue between cultivars. The Toka Toka Gold cultivar (NZ) had a high level of diseased tissue (33%). 93N9/2 (Taiwan) and Owairaka Red (NZ) cultivars exhibited moderate levels of infections (11 and 8%, respectively), and Beauregard cultivar (USA) only revealed a low level of diseased vine tissue (1%) (Broadhurst et al., 1997).

Lettuce

Lettuce is a common host of S. sclerotiorum and S. minor. The disease causes significant losses in lettuce yields worldwide (Subbarao, 1998) and is of particular importance in the USA, Canada, Bermuda, Brazil, Chile, Peru, Romania, France, Germany, Italy, Kenya, Mauritius, Australia and New Zealand (Wu, 1990). An annual loss of crop yields due to lettuce drop (S. sclerotiorum) was 5% in California, 10% in New Jersey, 0.5% in Orange County, New York and 25-30% in Osewego, New York (Purdy, 1979). Annual loss due to lettuce drop in Osewego, New York, was estimated at $1 million (Purdy, 1979). Altitude affected the development of lettuce drop (S. sclerotiorum) in Hawaii; it caused a 0.5% yield reduction in a field at an altitude of 1400 ft whereas a 20% loss was reported in another field at 2000 ft (Cho, 1979). Lettuce drop due to S. minor is also a significant disease in the USA. For example, annual losses due to lettuce drop caused by S. minor was estimated at 10% in New Jersey (Adam and Tate, 1975). In 1971, the 10% loss of the lettuce crop amounted to a $0.3 million loss to growers in New Jersey (Adam and Tate, 1975). Similarly, a loss of up to 75% of the lettuce crop due to S. minor was reported in Pennsylvania (Beach, 1921). Annual production of lettuce in Salinas Valley, California, totals approximately 22,000 ha. Incidence of lettuce drop due to S. minor was found to vary from 0 to 30% with losses of $185/ha in Salinas Valley (Marcum et al., 1977).Although current records in Canada indicate a nationwide distribution of S. sclerotiorum in lettuce crops, distribution of S. minor is limited to Ontario (Jarvis, 1985) and Quebec (Reeleder and Charbonneau, 1987). In Quebec, lettuce drop caused by S. sclerotiorum appears in most lettuce fields within the province (Crete, 1979). Surveys in 1985 and 1986 showed that yield losses of lettuce due to S. sclerotiorum were 0.3% in 1985 and 1.7% in 1986 whereas yield losses due to S. minor were 1.7-9.5% in 3 fields in 1985 (Reeleder and Charbonneau, 1987). In Ontario, lettuce drop was caused by both S. minor and S. sclerotiorum, the former species being more prevalent than the latter (Melzer et al., 1993). A loss of up to 50% due to S. minor occurred in Essex County, Ontario in 1984 (Jarvis, 1985). In 1986, a survey in New Brunswick revealed lettuce drop (S. sclerotiorum) in a 12 ha field in southeast New Brunswick but the economic loss to this disease was minimal (Rankin, 1987).In Australia, lettuce drop and white mould of bean, caused by S. sclerotiorum, were considered to be two of the most detrimental diseases affecting vegetable crops in Victoria (Merriman et al., 1979). The disease also caused substantial losses of lettuce on the North Adelaide Plain of Australia (Sitepu and Wallace, 1982). In Israel, the incidence of lettuce drop (S. sclerotiorum) was 0-0.2% in the fields with a lower inoculum (average 0.4-3.5 ascospores/plate) and 1.5 and 2.5% in those with a higher inoculum (mean 22 and 62 ascospores/plate) (Ben-Yephet and Siti, 1987). Another study showed that lettuce drop (S. sclerotiorum) decreased the total yield by 30% in unsprayed control plots; soil treatment with metham-sodium killed 85% of sclerotia of S. sclerotiorum in the top 10 cm of soil, reducing the yield loss in lettuce crop to 4%, correspondingly increasing the number of marketable plants (Ben-Yephet et al., 1986).

Cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata) and Cauliflower (B. oleracea var. botrytis)

S. sclerotiorum is an important pathogen of cruciferous vegetables such as cabbage and cauliflower in Australia, Bermuda, France, Mauritius, Venezuela, Peru, Israel, Turkey, China, Singapore, India (Wu, 1990) and Nepal. In the USA, the annual loss of cabbage to white blight or Sclerotinia rot was 1% (Purdy, 1979). The disease particularly affected cabbage seed production in western Washington (Gabrielson et al., 1973). An increase of 18% of seed yield was obtained in a cyanamide-treated plot with 3 plants infected on main stems per 150 ft-row, compared with the control plot where 53 plants were infected on main stems per 150 ft-row (Gabrielson et al., 1973). In New York, white blight (S. sclerotiorum) was unusually serious in the central and western regions of the state (Dillard and Hunter, 1986). White blight of cabbage has caused serious losses in the field, in storage and under transit and market conditions (Dillard and Hunter, 1986). Sclerotinia rot (S. sclerotiorum) can cause serious economic losses of cauliflower in New South Wales, Australia (Letham et al., 1976). In the absence of fungicide treatment, the level of Sclerotinia infected cauliflower plants reached 78.3 and 85.8% in 1969 and 1973, respectively (Letham et al., 1976). The disease was also significant on cauliflower crops in India (Shyam et al., 1994) and Turkey (Esiyok et al., 1996). During the 1991-92 growing season in Himachal Pradesh, India, cauliflower plants killed by S. sclerotiorum ranged from 0.5 to 70% with corresponding losses in seed yield ranging from 2 to 280 kg/ha (Shyam et al., 1994). In Nepal, Sclerotinia rot of cauliflower caused a 17% loss of seed yield under natural epiphytotic conditions at the Pakhribas Agriculture Centre during 1991-92 (Duwadi et al., 1993).

Tomato

Stem rot and fruit rot of tomato caused by S. sclerotiorum has been reported in many countries including Australia, Bermuda, the USA, Israel, New Zealand and Tanganyika (Wu, 1990). In Florida, USA, the disease reduced annual tomato production by 4-6% valued at $8-10 million, with a corresponding 5% decrease in quality, generating an additional loss of $2.5 million (Purdy, 1979). Stem rot and fruit rot of tomato (S. sclerotiorum) is a potential concern in growing fields in New South Wales, Australia (Letham et al., 1976). The level of Sclerotinia infected tomato plants was reported to reach 44.8 and 51.5% in 1970 and 1972, respectively, in the absence of fungicide treatment (Letham et al., 1976).

Aubergine

Stem and fruit rot of aubergine caused by S. sclerotiorum has been reported in Palestine (Wu, 1990), the USA (Purdy, 1979), India (Kapoor, 1988) and China (Li et al., 1996). The disease was estimated to cause an average yield loss of 1.5% in aubergine annually in the USA (Purdy, 1979). In Himachal Pradesh, India, a survey in 1987 showed that the incidence of Sclerotinia wilt (S. sclerotiorum) was more than 40% in a seed crop of aubergine (Kapoor, 1988). Seeds extracted from diseased fruits scored 500 mg in 1000-seed weight and 0% in seed germination but seeds from healthy fruits were 3200 mg in 1000-seed weight and 100% in seed germination (Kapoor, 1988).

Pepper (Capsicum)

Sclerotinia stem rot of pepper has been reported in numerous states in the USA including Florida, Iowa, Texas, Massachusetts Connecticut, Ohio (Yanar et al., 1996) and New Mexico (Wu, 1990). In 1992, a field in southwest Ohio had 10-20% of pepper seedlings infected by S. sclerotiorum 10 days after transplanting (Yanar et al., 1996). Another field of processing pepper northwest Ohio had an estimated 30-40% loss due to Sclerotinia stem rot (Yanar et al., 1996).

Celery

Sclerotinia rot of celery caused by S. sclerotiorum has been reported in Argentina, Bermuda, Canada, UK, the USA and Germany (Wu, 1990). The pathogen is important to celery because it can cause disease under field, greenhouse and storage conditions. In the USA, Sclerotinia rot was reported to infect celery in the greenhouse in New Jersey, in fields in Florida and in storage/transit in California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New York and Louisiana (Poole, 1922). Surveys in 1919 and 1920 in these states showed that celery losses due to Sclerotinia rot during shipment varied from negligible losses to 100% (Poole, 1922).

Carrot

Cottony soft rot caused by S. sclerotiorum has been reported in Australia, Bermuda, Canada, the USA, Chile, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Norway, Russia (Wu, 1990) Finland (Cam et al., 1993), Romania (Tasca et al., 1979) and New Zealand (Brash, 1996). In Canada, cottony soft rot of carrot (S. sclerotiorum) is considered a serious storage disease in Alberta (Howard and Schaupmeyer, 1979), Manitoba (Pritchard et al., 1992), Ontario and Quebec. As the most detrimental storage disease of carrot in Alberta, Sclerotinia soft rot has been noted to cause losses as high as 30-50% in carrot crops stored 3 months or more (Anon., 1975). Losses of up to one-third of stored carrots have been reported in Manitoba in recent years (Finlayson et al., 1989a). Experiments in a field artificially infested with S. sclerotiorum revealed that a cultivar with 62.8% of infected root at harvest caused 64.4% of losses due to root decay after a 3-month storage period at 5-6°C (Finlayson et al., 1989b). The cooling time of carrot crops in commercial storage was a significant factor in disease development; an increase in time required for carrot to reach an optimal storage temperature of 1°C consequently increased the incidence of Sclerotinia rot (Pritchard et al., 1992). Thus, rapid cooling following harvest most effectively abates the spread of cottony soft rot in stored carrot. In southwestern Quebec, cottony soft rot (S. sclerotiorum) was reported to occur in 2% of the carrot fields surveyed in 1988 and 1989, with the disease incidence observed at 13% in 1988 and 15% in 1989 (Arcelin and Kushalappa, 1991). Studies in Finland in 1995 and 1996 showed that the incidence of cottony soft rot (S. sclerotiorum) of carrot was dependent on the frequency of carrot cultivation in the previous 4-5 years (Suojala and Tahvonen, 1999). In carrots from fields without a history of carrot cultivation in the previous 5 years, the disease incidence was 24%, compared with 49% from fields with a history of carrot cultivation (Suojala and Tahvonen, 1999). Although S. sclerotiorum is considered to be the most common pathogen of storage carrot in New Zealand (Brash, 1996) and Romania (Tasca et al., 1979), storage losses in carrot crops due to S. sclerotiorum was modest in the growing regions of Normandy, France (Cam et al., 1993).

Summary

S. sclerotiorum and S. minor are economically important plant pathogens with a wide host range and a wide geographic distribution. They attack numerous important crops in various parts of the world, causing crop losses under field, storage and transit/market conditions. Crop losses due to Sclerotinia diseases are highly variable, ranging from negligible to 100%. The economic impact of Sclerotinia diseases on a particular crop in a specific region can only be properly assessed when data are available from extensive surveys on the prevalence, incidence and severity of the disease and from thorough studies of relationships between disease levels and crop losses. Most of the reports presented emphasize the disease status and yield losses, with very few examples showing impact of Sclerotinia diseases on losses in crop quality. The overall impact of the Sclerotinia disease to a specific crop would be better assessed if data on quality losses were also available.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

History

Published online: 19 September 2022

Language

English

Authors

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

VIEW ALL METRICS

SCITE_

Citations

Export citation

Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.

EXPORT CITATIONS

View Options

View options

Get Access

Login Options

Restore your content access

Enter your email address to restore your content access:

Note: This functionality works only for purchases done as a guest. If you already have an account, log in to access the content to which you are entitled.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share on social media

Related Articles

Skip the navigation