© Benaki Phytopathological Institute
Fusarium
and
Rhizoctonia
infecting native Greek tomato varieties
75
and DW of the root system of ‘Chondrokat-
sari Messinias’ were not significantly affected
by the infection of the pathogen. Infection of
var. ‘Katsari Santorinis’ by
F. oxysporum
f. sp.
lycopersici
did not significantly (P < 0.05) af-
fect FW and DW of the aerial parts and the
root system of the experimental plants (Fig-
ure 3).
The number of flowers of ‘Katsari San-
torinis’ plants inoculated with
F. oxyspo-
rum
f. sp.
lycopersici
was significantly (P <
0.05) lower compared to that of the con-
trol plants (Table 3). However,
F. oxysporum
f. sp.
lycopersici
did not significantly affect
the number of flowers of var. ‘Chondrokat-
sari Messinias’ (Table 3).
A
s
,
g
s
and
E
of both tomato varieties were
not significantly (P < 0.05) affected by
F. ox-
ysporum
f. sp.
lycopersici
infection (Table 3).
Pshibytko
et al.
(2006) showed that Fusari-
um wilt led to suppression of the photosyn-
thetic activity of 4- to 6-month-old tomato
plants of var. Kunera. Although, only in the
case of a slowly developed pathogen could
damage the photosystem. Significant differ-
ences in
A
s
, g
s
and
E
between tomato plants
inoculated with
F. oxysporum
f. sp.
lycopersi-
ci
and the non-inoculated controls were re-
ported by Lorenzini
et al.
(1997).
A
s
,
g
s
and
E
,
were negatively affected by
F. oxysporum
f. sp.
lycopersici
infection and correlations
were made between the time post-inocula-
tion (i.e. dpi) and the values of
A
s
,
g
s
and
E
.
As dpi increased,
A
s
,
g
s
and
E
were reduced
(Lorenzini
et al.,
1997). In the present study,
A
s
, g
s
and
E
were measured earlier (i.e. 16 and
27 dpi) than DS and DI (i.e. 40 and 60 dpi).
Even at 40 dpi, DSI and DI on both varieties
were very low (Table 1) which may explain
the insignificant effect of
F. oxysporum
f. sp.
lycopersici
infection on
A
s
,
g
s
and
E
.
Effects of R. solani infection of tomato
plants on biomass production, number
of flowers A
s
, g
s
and E
FW and DW of the aerial parts of var.
‘Chondrokatsari Messinias’ inoculated with
R. solani
were significantly (P < 0.05) low-
er compared to those of the control plants
60 dpi (Figure 4). However,
R. solani
did not
significantly affect FW and DW of the aerial
parts of var. ‘Katsari Santorinis’ even 60 dpi
(Figure 4). No significant (P < 0.05) differenc-
es in FW and DW of roots were observed 60
dpi between the inoculated plants of both
varieties and the controls (Figure 4).
The number of flowers of var. ‘Chon-
drokatsari Messinias’ inoculated with
R. so-
lani
was significantly (P < 0.05) lower com-
pared to the controls (Table 4). However,
tomato plants of var. ‘Katsari Santorinis’ in-
oculated with
R. solani
produced significant-
ly (P < 0.05) more flowers than the control
plants (Table 4).
A
s
, g
s
and
E
of both tomato varieties inoc-
ulated with
R. solani
were significantly (P <
0.05) lower than those of the control plants
(Table 4).
Table 2.
Number of cankers (CN), average canker diameter (ACD; cm) and disease incidence
(DI; % plants with symptoms), on tomato plants of vars ‘Chondrokatsari Messinias’ and ‘Kat-
sari Santorinis’ inoculated with
Rhizoctonia solani
. CN, ACD and DI are means of six replicates
and were recorded 40 and 60 days post inoculation
(dpi). Means followed by different letters
are statistically different according to the Duncan’s Multiple Range test (
P
= 0.05).
Variety
Treatment
CN
ACD
(cm)
DI
(%)
dpi
40
60
40
60
40
60
‘Chondrokatsari Messinias’
Control
0
0
0
0
0
0
R. solani
0.67 a 4.67 b 0.13 a 3.00 bc 33 a 100 b
‘Katsari Santorinis’
Control
0
0
0
0
0
0
R. solani
3.00 b 4.50 b
1.00 ab 4.00 c 100 b 100 b
