Next Article in Journal
Laboratory and Field Trials to Identify Reduced-Risk Insecticides for the Control of the Golden Twin-Spot Moth Chrysodeixis chalcites (Esper) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Banana Plantations
Next Article in Special Issue
Isolation, Characterization and Phylogenetic Analysis of Stagonospora tainanensis, the Pathogen Causing Sugarcane Leaf Blight in China
Previous Article in Journal
Toxicity and Preventive Activity of Chitosan, Equisetum arvense, Lecithin and Salix Cortex against Plasmopara viticola, the Causal Agent of Downy Mildew in Grapevine
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 12
Issue 12
10.3390/agronomy12123140
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Mitigating against Sclerotinia Diseases in Legume Crops: A Comprehensive Review

by
Augustine Antwi-Boasiako
1,2,
Yu Wang
1,
Harrison Kwame Dapaah
3 and
Tuanjie Zhao
1,*
1
National Center for Soybean Improvement, Key Laboratory of Biology and Genetics and Breeding for Soybean, Ministry of Agriculture, State Key Laboratory of Crop Genetics and Germplasm Enhancement, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China
2
Crops Research Institute, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Kumasi P.O. Box 3785, Ghana
3
Department of Crop and Soil Science Education, Akenten Appiah-Menka University of Skill Training and Entrepreneurial Development (AAMUSTED), Mampong Ashanti P.O. Box 40, Ghana
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2022, 12(12), 3140; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12123140
Submission received: 31 October 2022 / Revised: 30 November 2022 / Accepted: 8 December 2022 / Published: 10 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Diseases of Herbaceous Plants)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Legumes are essential foods for man and animal. They contribute to food security globally. However, they are negatively affected by Sclerotinia diseases caused by Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, which infects over 600 plant species. There is a limited number of review studies on the management of the Sclerotinia sclerotiorum disease in legume crops. Here, we explore earlier studies on the occurrences, yield losses, and other negative effects caused by Sclerotinia spp. in legumes. Additionally, we studied the various strategies used in controlling Sclerotinia sclerotiorum diseases in legume crops. We conclude that the impact of Sclerotinia diseases on legume crops causes an economic loss, as it reduces their quality and yield. Among the management strategies explored, genetic control is challenging due to the limited resistance among germplasm, while biological agents show promising results. Fungicide application is effective during outbreaks of Sclerotinia diseases. Lastly, this review has uncovered gaps in the current knowledge regarding the alleviation of Sclerotinia diseases in legume crops.

1. Introduction

Legumes are ranked third among flowering plants, and they cover 800 genera consisting of 20,000 species [1]. Legumes play central roles largely in food security, ecological sustainability, and crop diversification [2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. Hence, the role of grain legumes in ensuring global food and nutritional security cannot be underestimated, as they serve as food and feed, and are rich sources of protein. Specifically, legumes such as cowpea, jack bean, and soybean are insinuated as the meat for the poor, are substituted as protein sources for the rural poor, and are substantial sources of protein (ranging from 20 to 30% dry weight), vitamins, and minerals [9,10,11]. In other parts of the world, legumes such as cowpea and soybean are used for fortifying babies’ food to improve nutritional levels in diets [12,13,14,15]. Several clinical studies have been conducted on the intake of legumes [16,17,18], with data showing declines in cholesterol, threats related to coronary heart disorder, and type 2 diabetes. Moreover, secondary metabolites are produced by grain legumes, which promote human health [19]. Although legume consumption promotes health, its recommended levels per day have been questioned. Current research establishes that an intake of 50 g per day in adults results in reducing occurrences of coronary heart diseases while saving on cost [20]. Similarly, an intake of 55–70 g per day reduces the risk of hypertension [21]. Hence, it is recommended that we integrate reasonable quantities of legumes into our diet. Also, in farming, legume crops are essential in cereal cropping systems for destroying pathogen in soils while ensuring nitrogen fixation, which accounts for over 70% of the nitrogen required of the plants [22,23]. Thus, it reduces the need for fertilizer application, resulting in a decrease of greenhouse gas emissions [24]. The current agricultural production demand for low input couples with sustainable production systems that support the environment and economies [25]. Specifically, legumes accounts for nearly half of the world’s nitrogen fixation, averaging 20–2000 kg N fixed ha−1 year −1 [26]. Recent studies call for the reintroduction of integrating legumes into crop rotations, based on the positive effects on yields and the quality of features on succeeding crops [27,28]. The yield of wheat was found to be increased after growing legumes, compared to those that were grown after wheat [29]. Consequently, legumes are an ideal crop to be integrated into crop rotation systems, since they promote the growth of other crops such as cereals [30]. Nevertheless, conservation rotation promotes the occurrence of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum in common beans compared to conventional rotation [31]. Sclerotinia disease can cause serious yield loss and seed quality problems. However, there is limited literature on the S. sclerotiorum in legume crops. Specifically, this review seeks to provide detailed information on Sclerotinia sclerotiorum development, its infection, and its effects on the yield of legume crops. Also, it presents the response characters of legume crops to S. sclerotiorum infections. Ultimately, this study aims to provide a comprehensive update on managing S. sclerotiorum in legumes.

2. Sclerotinia sclerotiorum Development and Infection Process

2.1. Sclerotia, Its Development and Survival

Sclerotia formation has been designated three discrete periods (initiation, development, and maturation), and the later stages have been broadened into four categories (condensation, enlargement, consolidation, and pigmentation) [32,33,34]. These various stages embrace biochemical, metabolic, physiological, and morphological transformations, and are influenced by both endogenous and exogenous challenges—for example, ultraviolet radiation, temperature, toxic metals, microbial rivals, and competitors [35,36]. A number of factors, such as temperature, humidity, and wet incubation, are implicated in the germination of sclerotia, as well as the development of ascospore [37,38,39].
The development of sclerotia in S. Sclerotinia is accompanied by the formation of liquid droplets [40] that are seen on the surface of the aerial hyphae, and progress as the sclerotia grow. At the development stage, the exudate droplets are visible by the naked eye on the surface of the hyphae, alongside maturity features such as pigmentation [32]; once the droplets attain maximum capacity, they cease to cultivate. The decrease of moisture, gelling, and the desiccation of the cell walls may involve condensing water from the exudates of the surface of the sclerotia [41]; however, they are only found in the culture due to soil absorption, air-drying effects, and reutilizing sclerotia development [42]. Sclerotial growth is hindered by non-nutritional elements, such as environmental fluctuations (humidity, temperature, light, pH), the metabolites’ organic compounds, metabolism, and organic compounds [32]. For instance, the growth and pathogenicity of S. Sclerotinia are influenced by lower temperatures [43].
The survival of S. Sclerotinia in the soil varies, and is influenced by floods, drought, burial in soil, and excessive soil moisture [44,45]. Also, several other features, such as excessive soil moisture associated with high temperatures and reduced oxygen, limit the existence of sclerotia. Flooding is most essential to sclerotia survival, and it can lead to its decay within 14–45 days [46,47]. The depth at which the sclerotia is placed in the soil affects its survival. Several research studies have demonstrated that sclerotia placed in the upper layers (5 cm) survive less than those placed at a deeper depth (10–30 cm) [47,48]. However, they can improve survival for several years (above five) because they have special abilities that make them resistant to hostile environmental conditions and chemicals [44]. The formation of apothecium and its infection is influenced by the degree of ploughing, and deeper ones decrease sclerotia density [49]; however, this is in contrast to soybean stem rot caused by S. sclerotiorum [50]. In summary, the survival period of sclerotia has been known to range from 1 to 5 years [51,52,53], and even from 5 to 11 years [54,55,56]; this makes it more challenging to control S. sclerotiorum.

2.2. Sclerotinia sclerotiorum Infection Process

The infection process of S. sclerotiorum is determined by the host, the pathogen, and the environment (Figure 1). However, the role of the environment is crucial in disease establishment and progression. For instance, sclerotia will yield apothecia when conditions (moisture and light) are met. Again, S. sclerotiorum ascospore will germinate and cause infection under leaf wetness [39]. The spores released by the apothecia infect the flowers, and the infection is promoted by the plant’s canopy [57]. Later on, the infection may be noticed on the leaves and petioles or blossoms, and then spread to the stems. The stem turns greyish-white and soft. The disease progression results in stems becoming bleached as a result of the stem girdle with lesions, resulting in the wilting and death of the plant [58,59]. Usually, pods of legume plants show whiteness in colour, with a smaller size and few seeds, and they may contain sclerotia. Again, plants may also show signs of stunted growth, premature ripening, and lodging [60]. A high effect of the disease is recorded during the critical stages of blossoming, pod development and grain filling, and symptoms become obvious after flowering. Heavily affected leaves progressively become yellow and brown, and finally drop. Infection on the stems leads to dark brown or pale, water-soaked lesions closer to the soil line. Conversely, different symptoms of the fungus are exhibited by different legume crops.

3. Sclerotinia Disease Occurrence and Yield Losses Caused in Legume Crops

3.1. Pathogens and Host Species

Sclerotiniaceae is a family of the genus sclerotinia. The genus Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary is efficient in colonizing a diverse host range of over 600 plant species [61], attracting over 60 different names [62]. Sclerotinia species attack a wide range of field crops, fruits crops, vegetables, trees, shrubs, ornamental types, and weeds, accounting for yield reductions globally. Sclerotinia spp. are mostly labelled as causing white mold, crown rot, and stem rot in grain legumes, depending on the crop infested [63,64]. The species have been narrowed to three, viz Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, Sclerotinia minor Jagger, and Sclerotinia trifoliorum [65], as supported by other researchers [66,67]. The data on genetics, variation, and anatomical and cultural features make the concept of the three species valid [62]. Out of these types, S. sclerotiorum is noted as the most economically harmful [56,61].
Several pathogens attack legume crops worldwide, including fungi belonging to the genus Sclerotinia, with a wide host variety. Legumes are not spared the negative consequences of Sclerotinia disease. It is known for causing disease among legumes such as groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.), soybean (Glycine max L.), common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), faba bean (Vicia faba L.), alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.), red clover (Trifolium pratense L.), chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), and lupin (Lupinus albus L.) [64,68,69,70,71,72,73,74]. These common legumes are known as grain or food legumes [75]. Sclerotinia sclerotiorum causes a huge economic loss, specifically in legume crops [76]. For example, S. sclerotiorum causes yield reduction, accounting for over USD 200 million every year in soybean in America [77]. Usually, it reduces crop yield, and the seed price is reduced as there are high levels of contamination in the harvested seeds due to the presence of sclerotia [60,72,78].

3.2. Yield Losses and Other Negative Effects by Sclerotinia spp.

The general impacts of S. sclerotiorum on plant growth have been observed. For instance, S. sclerotiorum on plants results in the reduction in the fresh and dry weight of the plant’s shoot and root, with increases in inoculum levels [79]. Similarly, when plants are infected with S. sclerotiorum, it results in the reduction of its chlorophyl content [79]. This is attributed to the degeneration of the chloroplast, as the sclerotinia infection is linked to the secretion of the oxalic acid (OA) by the pathogen which causes the rupturing of the chloroplast membrane. The seed viability and its vigour are negatively affected by S. sclerotiorum, and it is progressive and depends on the inoculum pressure.
Sclerotinia species affect several crops, including legumes such as groundnut, soybean, common bean, faba bean, alfalfa, red clover, and chickpea. These legumes are affected by either one or two of the Sclerotinia species, with varying degrees of yield losses (Table 1). Yield losses due to Sclerotinia diseases in grain legumes vary depending on the prevailing environmental condition; however, more than 50% losses have been recorded (Table 1). Yield losses caused by the disease are within 147–355 kg/ha [78]. It also causes indirect losses, such as reducing the dry weight and oil content of groundnut kernels, and reducing the quality of the pod and fodder. S. sclerotiorum leads to a decrease in their yield components (number of seeds per pod, number of pods per plant, and the 100-seed weight) while affecting their seed quality [62,76]. There is a linear relationship between the degree of infection of S. sclerotiorum and the yield reduction for affected crops [60]. Several attempts have been made to develop and release cultivars exhibiting enhanced resistance [80,81].
In summary, Sclerotinia species cause a serious economic loss to legumes, by reducing their yields and seed quality. The effects of the Sclerotinia species are largely established by the ecological circumstances (humidity, pH, temperature), biological elements (parasitism, host susceptibility), and soil elements (depth). Sclerotinia disease in plants is considered a key problem of concern globally as it reduces yields by 50% [82]. However, there is limited information as to the economic loss and the global spread of Sclerotinia species in lupins, faba beans, and red clover.
Table
Table 1. Sclerotinia spp. disease cause and yield losses estimated in legumes.
Table 1. Sclerotinia spp. disease cause and yield losses estimated in legumes.
Crop (Species) NameSclerotinia spp.Disease NameYield Loss (%)Reference
Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.)Sclerotinia sclerotiorumBlossom blightUp to 100%[83]
Sclerotinia trifoliorum ErikssSclerotinia crown and stem rot (SCSR)2–30%[84]
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum)Sclerotinia sclerotiorumStem rotup to 100%[85,86]
Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de BaryStem rot/White mold30–100%[73,87,88]
Faba bean
(Vicia faba L.)		Sclerotinia trifoliorum EriksStem rotUp to 100%[70]
Sclerotinia sclerotiorumWhite mold-[89]
Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.)Sclerotinia minor Jagger/S. sclerotiorum/Sclerotium rolfsii SaccSclerotinia blightOver 50% yield losses[68,90]
Lupin (Lupinus angustifolius L.)
Lentil (Lens culinaris)		Sclerotinia sclerotiorum
Sclerotinia sclerotiorum		Stem rot
Sclerotinia white mold		16 and 35%[91]
Pea (Pisum sativum L.)Sclerotinia sclerotiorumWhite mold-[92]
Red clover (Trifolium pratense L.)Sclerotinia trifoliorumSclerotinia crown and stem rotHuge loss to foliage and seeds[71]
Soybean (Glycine max L.)Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de BarySclerotinia stem rot>60% yield losses[72]
Sword bean (Canavalia gladiate L.)Sclerotinia sclerotiorumSclerotinia rot [93]

4. Response of Legume Crops to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum Infection

4.1. Plant Symptoms

The symptoms observed on infested legume plants vary, subject to the host plant, prevailing environmental conditions, and infection pathways. The symptoms shown by the plants are uneven, and are usually evident at the flowering stages [58,76]. Different symptoms are observed by different plants infected by S. sclerotiorum [94]. However, the leaves of most infected plants are water-soaked, spreading towards the petiole and towards the stem as a result of cell death [55]. As the disease progresses, the infested plant develops a white cottony growth on the stem, followed by sclerotia development [54,59].

4.2. Physio-Biochemical Performance to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum Infection

The physiology and central metabolism of legume crops are crucial for their response to S. sclerotiorum. They respond to the attack of the pathogen by slowing down or impeding the possible damage. Once legume crops are infected by S. sclerotiorum, it triggers the crop defense system to reduce damage by upregulating the pathways of defense-related genes and downregulating the genes linked to metabolic pathways [95,96]. At this stage, the legume crop’s energy is geared towards identifying the S. sclerotiorum and signaling its defense [56]. Secondary metabolites, such as phenolic and phytoalexins [96], and signaling compounds [97,98], are then produced.
The secondary metabolites (SMs) are involved in a number of processes, such as plant defenses and the termination of infections [99,100]. Legumes have SMs such as phytoalexin, saponins, polyphenolic, and alkaloids in varying content among plant species [101,102]. These SMs gather temporarily at diverse parts of the legume plant, subject to the nature of the stress. To illustrate, there is a high presence of phytoalexins in the leaves when there is a need for antimicrobial action against the phytopathogens [103]. The metabolite oxalic acid also appears to be employed by S. sclerotiorum as a broad-spectrum pathogenicity factor. Infection assays of OA-deficient S. sclerotiorum strains on a range of hosts including G. max, P. vulgaris, Solanum lycospersicum, Brassica napus, Helianthus annuus, and A. thaliana resulted in substantially reduced virulence, demonstrating that OA plays an important role in the infection strategy of S. sclerotiorum across a wide range of host species [104]. These broad-spectrum pathogenicity factors may contribute to the ability of S. sclerotiorum to infect a wide range of plant hosts.
Other studies endorse that in legumes (common bean and soybean), genes of enzymes and non-enzymes including peroxidase (POX), glutathione peroxidase (GPx), polyphenol oxidases (PPO), catalase (CAT), superoxide dismutase (SOD), and ascorbate peroxidase (APX) are linked to the metabolism of ROS, and regulate the formation and performance of the cell wall [97,105]. Thus, they influence the occupancy of the pathogen on the host (legumes).

5. Control Strategies for Managing Sclerotinia sclerotiorum Infection

5.1. Biological Control of Sclerotinia Diseases in Legumes

Biocontrol presents an alternative for the management of S. sclerotiorum by microbes, due to the quest for environmentally friendly options for chemical pesticide usage [106,107] in the absence of host resistance. Strains of bacteria, fungi, nematodes, viruses, and insects are used as biological control agents (BCAs) for managing pathogens. Thus, BCAs are integral components of sustainable agriculture [108,109]. A number of BCAs are identified to control S. sclerotiorum, thus leading to a substantial volume of study on the possible biocontrol for S. sclerotiorum. For instance, BCAs such as Trichoderma spp. [110,111,112] and Coniothyrium minitans [112] are known to control S. sclerotiorum in legume crops (Table 2).
Specifically, Coniothyrium minitans is effective in controlling S. sclerotiorum in soybean (Table 2). It is commercially available globally in the formulation of Contans WG. In soybean plants, the application of Coniothyrium minitans effectively limits apothecia and sclerotia formation by 81% and 50%, respectively [113], while in common beans it reduces the incidence of S. sclerotiorum by 90% [114] (Table 2). The spraying of C. minitans conidia (5 × 106 mL−1) on alfalfa plants for three conservative years resulted in a percentage of diseased pods from 42–72% to 29–38% [115] (Table 2).
Several species of Bacillus are implicated in plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria, and are utilized as BCAs [116] while improving the nutritional properties of Amaranthus hypochondriacus Linn [117]. Similarly, these bacteria have been proven by some researchers [112,118] to have antagonistic effects on the incidence of S. sclerotiorum in some legume crops (Table 2). For instance, Bacillus sp. B19 and Bacillus sp. P12, under a growth chamber, promoted germination ability by 15% while increasing the root and stem length of common beans [118]. Under a growth chamber, Bacillus subtilis impeded the formation of apothecia and sclerotia by 91% and 30%, respectively [113].
Again, Trichoderma, a soil-borne fungus, plays a key role in anti-phytopathogen-employing mechanisms such as antibiosis, induced systematic resistance, mycoparasitism, and competition [119]. Most of the Trichoderma spp. exhibit the parasitism of S. sclerotiorum sclerotia and decrease apothecia mass [120]. This is achieved by suppressing S. sclerotiorum by interfering with the growth of hyphal, parasitising the sclerotia and limiting the formation of apothecia [121,122] without affecting the microbial community [123]. Trichoderma asperellum reduces the apothecia quantity and severity of S. sclerotiorum in common beans at rate of 2 × 1012 spores mL−1 per plot for 2 years during field experiments [120]. Moreover, in chickpeas, T. hamatum and T. koningii resulted in a grain yield of over 50% [124] (Table 2). A strain of T. harzianum T-22 saved soybean plants in the field from S. sclerotiorum, and reduced its severity by 38.5% [112]. However, the commercialization of Trichoderma bioproduct is challenged by inconsistent performance under field conditions and controlled environments [125]. There is a huge amount of data on the use of biological agents in controlling S. sclerotiorum in legumes. On the contrary, there is limited information as to how S. sclerotiorum interacts and resists biocontrol agents. The antifungal action of propolis extract and oregano essential oil declines disease severity by 40% and 60%, respectively, highlighting the potential of biofungicides in controlling S. sclerotiorum [126].
Table
Table 2. Biocontrol agents used in controlling S. sclerotiorum in crops.
Table 2. Biocontrol agents used in controlling S. sclerotiorum in crops.
SpeciesEnvironmentEffectsTested Crop/PathogensReference
Streptomyces albulus CK-15In vitroInhibits germination and formation of sclerotia and the growth of myceliaSclerotinia sclerotiorum[127]
Streptomyces species (S. griseus, S. rochei & S. sampsonii)In vitro & In vivoControls the disease by reducing the viability and germination of sclerotiaGreen bean[128]
Bacillus sp. FSQ1In vivoInhibits the growth and infectionCommon bean[129]
Trichoderma harzianum ESALQ-1306 & Trichoderma asperellum BRM-29104FieldControls S. sclerotiorumCommon bean[123]
Trichoderma hamatum & T. koningii Improves grain yield by 50–100% by controlling Fusarium wiltChickpea[124]
Bacillus velezensisGreenhouseInhibit disease growthLettuce[130]
Arthrobacter FP15 Diminishes disease symptomsLettuce[131]
Bacillus amyloliquefaciensIn vitro & GreenhouseImpedes mycelium growth and limits lesion sizeTomatoes[132]
Bacillus sp. B19 & Bacillus sp. P12Growth chamberImproves crop germination potential by 15% and increases root and stem lengthCommon bean[118]
Pseudomonas cholororaphis PA-23Greenhouse & In vitroSuppresses S. sclerotiorumLettuce[133]
Coniothyrium minitansGrowth chamberReduce disease incidence by 90%Common bean[114]
Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Bacillus subtilis; & Trichoderma harzianumGreenhouseInduced systematic resistance, and suppression of oxalic acid productionPea[134]
Bacillus amyloliquefaciencsIn vitroLimits the effects of pathogensFungal pathogens[135]
Trichoderma asperellumFieldReduction of S. sclerotiorum apothecia number and disease severityCommon bean[120]
Bacillus subtilisGrowth chamberLimit formation of apothecia by 91% and sclerotia by 30%Soybean[112]
Coniothyrium minitansGrowth chamberLower apothecia and sclerotia by 81% and 50% respectivelySoybean[112]
Streptomyces lydicusGrowth chamberDecrease apothecia by 100% and sclerotia by 30%Soybean[112]
Trichoderma harzianum T-22FieldDecrease the disease severity index (DSI) by 38.5%Soybean[112]
Pseudomonas brassicacearum DF41Greenhouse & In vitroSuppresses S. sclerotiorumCanola[136]
Pseudomonas cholororaphis sp. PA-23GreenhouseSuppresses S. sclerotiorumCanola[113]
Trichoderma asperellum & Clonostachys roseaGreenhouseReduction in apothecium countsCommon bean[121]
Mycotoxins (roridin A & roridin D)In vitroInhibitors of S. sclerotiorumSclerotinia sclerotiorum[137]
Coniothyrium minitansFieldSuppress pod rot from 42–72% to 29–38%Alfalfa[115]

5.2. Genetic Improvement of Host Resistance to S. sclerotiorum

The identification of resistance source in legumes to S. sclerotiorum is urgent to ensure the progress of the legume industry. Attempts have been made to develop protocols to screen gene pools (cultivars, landrace and plant introductions) under different environments, to identify resistant genotypes [88,138,139,140]. Unfortunately, a low level of resistance is exhibited by legumes to S. sclerotiorum. For instance, in soybeans, a total of 285 out of 8596 lines were identified as resistant [74], whereas 12 accessions out of 519 common bean germplasm were resistant [141]. Molecular markers have aided in identifying legumes exhibiting partial resistance [141,142].
Analyses of the tolerance of legumes to S. sclerotiorum have shown partial resistance among legumes such as common bean [142] and soybean [143]. A number of previous researchers have reported on mapping quantitative trait loci linked to S. sclerotiorum resistance among legume crops, including common bean [144,145], groundnut [146], chickpea [86], and soybean [147,148]. However, some legume crops, such as faba bean, lentil, and lupin, have their transcriptome available publicly, but there is limited information on studies carried out to elucidate the quantitative trait locus linked to S. sclerotiorum resistance.
With the nature of the pathogen, the breeding programs have low success rates, with no commercial variety available for legume crops (such as soybean, alfalfa, red clovers and faba beans) being resistant to S. sclerotiorum [59,149,150,151,152,153]. On the contrary, groundnut has a commercial variety resistant to the disease, saving the United Sates USD 5 million yearly [154]. Recent studies have identified resistant genes GmGST of glutathione transferase and GmCH1 of chitinase via cloning, which increase resistance to S. sclerotiorum in soybean [155,156]. Similarly, the silencing of the endo-polygalacturonase gene (SsPG1), cellobiohydrolase gene (SsCBH), and oxaloacetate acetylhydrolase gene (SsOAH1) in B. napus led to a reduction in disease by 40%, showing the path in managing the disease via host-induced gene silencing [157]. In common bean, genomic regions WM2.2a and WM2.2b are linked to playing a role in resistance, of which the latter triggers physiological resistance and the former with avoidance mechanisms [158]. Thus, the genes serve as a ground to assist marker-assisted breeding against the disease. The use of cultivars resistant to S. sclerotiorum will reduce dependence on fungicide application [159].

5.3. Chemical Control of Sclerotinia Diseases in Legumes

Fungicides are widely used to manage S. sclerotiorum [160]. This has resulted in a range of fungicides—such as demethylation inhibitors, anilinopyrimidines, benzimidazoles, triazole, strobilurin, pyridine-carboxamide, dicarboxamides, iprodione, and succinate dehydrogenase inhibitors (SDHIs)—on the market, in an attempt to reduces its associated effects on crop yield and quality [160,161,162,163,164,165]. The fungicides’ active ingredients are picoxystrobin, fluazinam, tetraconazole, pyraclostrobin, boscalid, penthiopyrad, trifloxystrobin, fluxapyroxad, prothioconazole, thiophanate methyl, and prothioconazole [76,166,167,168,169,170,171]. The most frequently used fungicides in controlling S. sclerotiorum are dicarboximides and benzimidazoles, with countries reporting some strains showing resistance [172]. In legume crops, a number of fungicides are recommended to manage S. sclerotiorum. For example, in groundnut dicarbixamides, SDHIs and aminipyridines are recommended [173,174]. Chemical fungicides do pose a threat to humans and the environment; hence, there is a search for more safe chemicals which has resulted in a ban on thiophanate methyl and prothioconazole in Europe. Other researchers confirm that the resistance of S. sclerotiorum isolates to these fungicides is seen only in laboratory-induced variants [175]. However, it is advisable to rotate fungicides with diverse ways of actions such as fluazinam and procymidone, since they did not lose the sensitivity until now [176]. The decision on fungicide application is dependent on the economic analysis between its cost and the menace of the disease. To achieve a high impact of the fungicide application, it is required that the moisture level in the field, crop stage, canopy thickness, and the weather forecast for a week ahead be studied. For example, applying fungicides during the bloom period offers the best result. It limits the spread of infection by ascospores in fields. Hence, the time in the flowering periods of legume crops is critical. Others have observed inconsistent results on fungicide efficiency by varying the application time and the type of the fungicides [159,177,178].
Chemicals have been applied to avoid the presence of the disease, and are considered uneconomical by farmers [174,178]. For instance, to achieve a lower rate of disease incidence in soybeans, after the application of thriophanate methyl at either R1 (beginning flower) or R2 (full flowering) there is a need to do a second application two weeks later [179]. Also, they increase farmers’ production costs, as well as cause negative consequences on the ecology as a result of their toxic remains [107,178]. Notwithstanding this, fungicide application is successful and effective in managing S. sclerotiorum [76,180], especially during a disease outbreak in the field. Moreover, the application of machine learning could aid to estimate the S. sclerotiorum disease threshold, to inform spraying decisions [39].

6. Conclusions and Future Perspective

In this review, we provided a comprehensive overview of S. sclerotiorum and its impact on legume crops. Much has been unveiled for the pathogen’s sclerotia, its development, and its survival. We highlighted the strategies available to mitigate the effects of Sclerotinia diseases on legume crops. We conclude that the successful control of the disease demands execution, and a combination of multiple methods largely depending on chemical, biocontrol and genetic resistance.
The harm caused by S. sclerotiorum on legumes are huge, requiring that new, efficient and effective control measures need to be developed against the pathogen. Hence, an effective control strategy needs to be adopted, with an increased display of preventive action against yield loss while promoting crop quality and avoiding resistance to fungicides. In-depth knowledge of the formulation, delivery, and efficient screening protocols under different environments (growth chamber, green house, and field) with consistent results is essential for adopting commercial products for fungicide and biocontrol. Moreover, it is essential to categorize S. sclerotiorum strains during trials, so as to foster the development of resistant cultivars. Future work could provide a detailed understanding of the use of BCAs and the reduced quantity of fungicides, to study their synergistic effects. These approaches could be integrated into cultural practices in an attempt to mitigates the effects of Sclerotinia diseases in legumes. Lastly, advanced breeding techniques could be explored for accelerating the development of legume crops resistant to S. sclerotiorum.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.Z. and A.A.-B.; writing, T.Z., A.A.-B., Y.W. and H.K.D.; funding acquisition, T.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 31871646, 32171965), and the Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Centre for Modern Crop Production (JCIC-MCP) Program.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lewis, G.P.; Schrire, B.; Mackinder, B.; Lock, M. (Eds.) Legumes of the World; Royal Botanic Gardens Kew: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  2. Lemke, R.L.; Zhong, Z.; Campbell, C.A.; Zentner, R. Can pulse crops play a role in mitigating greenhouse gases from North American agriculture? J. Agron. 2007, 99, 1719–1725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Peoples, M.B.; Hauggaard-Nielsen, H.; Jensen, E.S. The potential environmental benefits and risks derived from legumes in rotations. In Nitrogen Fixation in Crop Production; Emerich, D.W., Krishnan, H.B., Eds.; Agronomy Monograph, no. 52; American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 2009; Volume 13, pp. 349–385. [Google Scholar]
  4. Voisin, A.S.; Guéguen, J.; Huyghe, C.; Jeuffroy, M.H.; Magrini, M.B.; Meynard, J.M.; Mougel, C.; Pellerin, S.; Pelzer, E. Legumes for feed, food, biomaterials and bioenergy in Europe: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34, 361–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kissinger, G. Pulse Crops and Sustainability: A Framework to Evaluate Multiple Benefits; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  6. Considine, M.J.; Siddique, K.H.M.; Foyer, C.H. Nature’ s pulse power: Legumes, food security and climate change. J. Exp. Bot. 2017, 68, 1815–1818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Stagnari, F.; Maggio, A.; Galieni, A.; Pisante, M. Multiple benefits of legumes for agriculture sustainability: An overview. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 2017, 4, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Gao, D.; Wang, X.; Fu, S.; Zhao, J. Legume plants enhance the resistance of soil to ecosystem disturbance. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Akpapunam, M.A.; Sefa-Dedeh, S. Jack bean (Canavalia ensiformis) nutrition-related aspects and needed research. Plant Food Hum. Nutr. 1997, 10, 123–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Iqbal, A.; Khalil, I.A.; Ateeq, N.; Khan, M.S. Nutritional quality of important food legumes. Food Chem. 2006, 97, 331–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mooney, H.; Drake, J. Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America and Hawaii; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bressani, R. Nutritive value of cowpea. In Cowpea Research, Production, and Utilization; Singh, S.R., Rachie, K.O., Eds.; John Wiley and Sons Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  13. Suri, D.J.; Tano-Debrah, K.; Ghosh, S.A. Optimization of the nutrient content and protein quality of cereal—Legume blends for use as complementary foods in Ghana. Food Nutr. Bull. 2014, 35, 372–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kumar, S.; Pandey, G. Biofortification of pulses and legumes to enhance nutrition. Heliyon 2020, 6, e03682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Desire, M.F.; Blessing, M.; Elijah, N.; Ronald, M.; Agather, K.; Tapiwa, Z.; Florence, M.R.; George, N. Exploring food fortification potential of neglected legume and oil seed crops for improving food and nutrition security among smallholder farming communities: A systematic review. J. Agric. Sci. Food Res. 2021, 3, 100117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bouchenak, M.; Lamri-Senhadji, M. Nutritional quality of legumes and their role in cardiometabolic risk prevention: A review. J. Med. Food 2013, 16, 185–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Tovar, J.; Nilsson, A.; Johansson, M.; Bjorck, I. Combining functional features of whole-grain barley and legumes for dietary reduction of cardiometabolic risk: A randomized cross-over intervention in mature women. Br. J. Nutr. 2014, 111, 706–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Didinger, C.; Foster, M.T.; Bunning, M.; Thompson, H.J. Nutrition and human health benefits of dry beans and other pulses. In Dry Beans and Pulses: Production, Processing, and Nutrition; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2022; pp. 481–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ku, Y.S.; Ng, M.S.; Cheng, S.S.; Lo, A.W.Y.; Xiao, Z.; Shin, T.S.; Chung, G.; Lam, H.M. Understanding the composition, biosynthesis, accumulation and transport of flavonoids in crops for the promotion of crops as healthy sources of flavonoids for human consumption. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Abdullah, M.M.H.; Hughes, J.; Grafenauer, S. Legume intake is associated with potential savings in coronary heart disease-related health care costs in Australia. Nutrients 2022, 14, 2912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Hartley, M.; Fyfe, C.L.; Wareham, N.J.; Khaw, K.T.; Johnstone, A.M.; Myint, P.K. Association between legume consumption and risk of hypertension in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)-Norfolk Cohort. Nutrients 2022, 14, 3363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hauggaard-Nielsen, H.; Mundus, S.; Jensen, E.S. Nitrogen dynamics following grain legumes and subsequent catch crops and the effects on succeeding cereal crops. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2009, 84, 281–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Watson, C.A.; Reckling, M.; Preissel, S.; Bachinger, J.; Bergkvist, G.; Kuhlman, T.; Lindström, K.; Nemecek, T.; Topp, C.F.E.; Vanhatalo, A.O.; et al. Grain legume production and use in European agricultural systems. Adv. Agron. 2017, 144, 235–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Reckling, M.; Schläfke, N.; Hecker, J.M.; Bachinger, J.; Zander, P.; Bergkvist, G.; Frankow-Lindberg, B.; Båth, B.; Pristeri, A.; Monti, M.; et al. Legume Futures Report 4.2 Generation and Evaluation of Legume-Supported Crop Rotations in Five Case Study Regions Across Europe. 2014. Available online: www.legumefutures.de (accessed on 29 September 2022).
  25. Kebede, E. Grain legumes production in Ethiopia: A review of adoption, opportunities, constraints and emphases for future interventions. Turk. J. Agric. Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 8, 977–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Shah, A.; Nazari, M.; Antar, M.; Msimbira, L.A.; Naamala, J.; Lyu, D.; Rabileh, M.; Zajonc, J.; Smith, D.L. PGPR in agriculture: A sustainable approach to increasing climate change resilience. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 667546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kirkegaard, J.; Christen, O.; Krupinsky, J.; Layzell, D. Break crop benefits in temperate wheat production. Field Crop. Res. 2008, 107, 185–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Luce, M.S.; Grant, C.A.; Zebarth, B.J.; Ziadi, N.; O’Donovan, J.T.; Blackshaw, R.E.; Harker, K.N.; Johnson, E.N.; Gan, Y.; Lafond, G.P.; et al. Legumes can reduce economic optimum nitrogen rates and increase yields in a wheat–canola cropping sequence in western Canada. Field Crop. Res. 2015, 179, 1225. [Google Scholar]
  29. Angus, J.F.; Kirkegaard, J.A.; Hunt, J.R.; Ryan, M.H.; Ohlander, L.; Peoples, M.B. Break crops and rotations for wheat. Crop Pasture Sci. 2015, 66, 523–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Uzoh, I.M.; Igwe, C.A.; Okebalama, C.B.; Babalola, O.O. Legume-maize rotation effect on maize productivity and soil fertility parameters under selected agronomic practices in a sandy loam soil. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 8539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  31. Larney, F.J.; Pearson, D.C.; Li, L.; Blackshaw, R.E.; Lupwayi, N.Z. Conservation management practices and rotations for irrigated dry bean production in southern Alberta. J. Agron. 2015, 107, 2281–2293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Erental, A.; Dickman, M.B.; Yarden, O. Sclerotial development in Sclerotinia sclerotiorum: Awakening molecular analysis of a “Dormant” structure. Fungal Biol. Rev. 2008, 22, 6–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Li, M.; Rollins, J.A. The development-specific protein (Ssp1) from Sclerotinia sclerotiorum is encoded by a novel gene expressed exclusively in sclerotium tissues. Mycologia 2009, 101, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ordóñez-Valencia, C.; Ferrera-Cerrato, R.; Quintanar-Zúñiga, R.E.; Flores-Ortiz, C.M.; Guzmán, G.J.M.; Alarcón, A.; Larsen, J.; García-Barradas, O. Morphological development of sclerotia by Sclerotinia sclerotiorum: A view from light and scanning electron microscopy. Ann. Microbiol. 2015, 65, 765–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bell, A.A.; Wheeler, M.H. Biosynthesis and functions of fungal melanins. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1986, 24, 411–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Liang, Y.; Xiong, W.; Steinkellner, S.; Feng, J. Deficiency of the melanin biosynthesis genes SCD1 and THR1 affects sclerotial development and vegetative growth, but not pathogenicity, in Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2018, 19, 1444–1453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Lane, D.; Denton-Giles, M.; Derbyshire, M.; Kamphuis, L.G. Abiotic conditions governing the myceliogenic germination of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum allowing the basal infection of Brassica napus. Australas. Plant Pathol. 2019, 48, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Shahoveisi, F.; del Río Mendoza, L.E. Effect of wetness duration and incubation temperature on development of ascosporic infections by Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Plant Dis. 2020, 104, 1817–1823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Shahoveisi, F.; Manesh, M.R.; del Río Mendoza, L.E. Modeling risk of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum-induced disease development on canola and dry bean using machine learning algorithms. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Liang, Y.; Strelkov, S.E.; Kav, N.N.V. The proteome of liquid Sclerotial exudates from Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. J. Proteome Res. 2010, 9, 3290–3298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Willetts, H.J.; Bullock, S. Developmental biology of sclerotia. Mycol Res. 1992, 96, 801–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Pandey, M.K.; Sarma, B.K.; Singh, D.P.; Singh, U.P. Biochemical investigations of sclerotial exudates of Sclerotium rolfsii and their antifungal activity. J. Phytopathol. 2007, 155, 84–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rahman, M.M.E.; Suzuki, K.; Islam, M.M.; Dey, T.K.; Harada, N.; Hossain, D.M. Molecular characterization, mycelial compatibility grouping, and aggressiveness of a newly emerging phytopathogen, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, causing white mold disease in new host crops in Bangladesh. J. Plant Pathol. 2020, 102, 775–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wu, B.M.; Subbarao, K.V.; Liu, Y.-B. Comparative survival of sclerotia of Sclerotinia minor and S. sclerotiorum. Phytopathology 2008, 98, 659–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Matheron, M.E.; Porchas, M. Impact of summer flooding on viability of Sclerotinia minor and S. sclerotiorum sclerotia in soil. Plant Health Prog. 2018, 19, 15–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Matheron, M.E.; Porchas, M. Influence of soil temperature and moisture on eruptive germination and viability of sclerotia of Sclerotinia minor and S. sclerotiorum. Plant Dis. 2005, 89, 50–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Cosic, J.; Jurkowic, D.; Vrandecic, K.; Kaucic, D. Survival of buried Sclerotinia sclerotiorum sclerotia in undisturbed soil. Helia 2012, 35, 73–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Duncan, R.W.; Dilantha Fernando, W.G.; Rashid, K.Y. Time and burial depth influencing the viability and bacterial colonization of sclerotia of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2006, 38, 275–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mueller, D.S.; Hartman, G.L.; Pedersen, W.L. Effect of crop rotation and tillage system on sclerotinia stem rot on soybean. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 2002, 24, 450–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kurle, J.E.; Grau, C.R.; Oplinger, E.S.; Mengistu, A. Tillage, crop sequence, and cultivar effects of sclerotinia stem rot incidence and yield in soybean. Agron. J. 2001, 93, 973–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. McLean, D.M. Some experiments concerned with the formation and inhibition of apothecia of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) D. By. Plant Dis. Report. 1958, 42, 409–412. [Google Scholar]
  52. Schwartz, H.F.; Steadman, J.R. Factors affecting sclerotium populations of, and apothecium production by, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Phytopathology 1978, 68, 383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Adams, P.B.; Ayers, W.A. Ecology of Sclerotinia species. Phytopathology 1979, 69, 896–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kamal, M.M.; Savocchia, S.; Lindbeck, K.D.; Ash, G.J. Biology and biocontrol of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary in oilseed Brassicas. Aust. Plant Pathol. 2016, 45, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Smolińska, U.; Kowalska, B. Biological control of the soil-borne fungal pathogen Sclerotinia sclerotiorum—A review. J. Plant Pathol. 2018, 100, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. O’Sullivan, C.A.; Belt, K.; Thatcher, L.F. Tackling control of a cosmopolitan phytopathogen: Sclerotinia. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 707509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Willbur, J.F.; Fall, M.L.; Byrne, A.M.; Chapman, S.A.; McCaghey, M.M.; Mueller, B.D.; Schmidt, R.; Chilvers, M.I.; Muller, D.S.; Kabbage, M.; et al. Validating Sclerotinia sclerotiorum apothecial models to predict sclerotinia stem rot in soybean (Glycine max) fields. Plant Dis. 2018, 102, 2592–2601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Grau, C.R.; Dorrance, A.E.; Bond, J.; Russin, J.S. Fungal diseases. In Soybeans: Improvement, Production, and Uses, 3rd ed.; Boerma, H.R., Specht, J.E., Eds.; American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 2004; Volume 16, pp. 679–763. [Google Scholar]
  59. Willbur, J.; Mccaghey, M.; Kabbage, M.; Smith, D.L. An overview of the Sclerotinia sclerotiorum pathosystem in soybean: Impact, fungal biology, and current management strategies. Trop. Plant Pathol. 2019, 44, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Peltier, A.J.; Bradley, C.A.; Chilvers, M.I.; Malvick, D.K.; Mueller, D.S.; Wise, K.A.; Esker, P.D. Biology, yield loss and control of Sclerotinia stem rot of soybean. J. Integr. Pest Manag. 2012, 3, B1–B7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Liang, X.F.; Rollins, J.A. Mechanisms of broad host range necrotrophic pathogenesis in Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Phytopathology 2018, 108, 1128–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  62. Saharan, G.S.; Mehta, N. Sclerotinia Diseases of Crop Plants: Biology, Ecology and Disease Management; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  63. Bolton, M.D.; Thomma, B.P.H.J.; Nelson, B.D. Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary: Biology and molecular traits of a cosmopolitan pathogen. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2006, 7, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Njambere, E.N.; Peever, T.L.; Vandemark, G.; Chen, W. Genotypic variation and population structure of Sclerotinia trifoliorum infecting chickpea in California. Plant Pathol. 2014, 63, 994–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kohn, L.M. A monographic revision of the genus Sclerotinia. Mycotaxon 1979, 9, 365–444. [Google Scholar]
  66. Willetts, H.J.; Wong, A.L. The biology of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, S. trifoliorum, and S. minor with emphasis on specific nomenclature. Bot. Rev. 1980, 46, 101–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Dong, D.; Sun, S.L.; Du, C.Z.; Xiang, C.; Long, J.C.; Chen, W.D.; Zhu, Z.D. Three Sclerotinia species as the cause of white mold on pea in Chongqing and Sichuan of China. J. Integr. Agric. 2021, 20, 2957–2965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Melzer, M.S.; Smith, E.A.; Boland, G.J. Index of plant hosts of Sclerotinia minor. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 1997, 19, 272–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Huang, H.C.; Kokko, E.G.; Erickson, R.S. Infection of Alfalfa Pollen by Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Phytoparasitica 1997, 25, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lithourgidis, A.S.; Tzavella-Klonari, K.; Roupakias, D.G. The causal fungus of stem rot disease of faba beans in Greece. J. Phytopathol. 2003, 151, 631–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Vilčinskas, E.; Dabkevičienė, G. Qualitative and quantitative characteristics of clover (Trifolium spp.) species in the first year of growing. Zemdirb. Agric. 2009, 96, 170–180. (In Lithuanian) [Google Scholar]
  72. Cunha, W.G.; Tinoco, M.L.P.; Pancoti, H.L.; Ribeiro, R.E.; Aragão, F.J.L. High resistance to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum in transgenic soybean plants transformed to express an oxalate decarboxylase gene. Plant Pathol. 2010, 59, 654–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Abán, C.L.; Taboada, G.M.; Casalderrey, N.B.; Maggio, M.E.; Chocobar, M.O.; Spedaletti, Y.A.; Gonzalez, M.A.A.; Vizgarra, O.V.; Galván, M.Z. Screening common bean germplasm for resistance to genetically diverse Sclerotinia sclerotiorum isolates from Argentina. Acta Sci. Agron. 2020, 42, e42786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Antwi-Boasiako, A.; Zheng, L.; Begum, N.; Amoah, S.; Zhao, T. Progress towards germplasm evaluation and genetic improvement for resistance to Sclerotinia white mold in soybean. Euphytica 2021, 217, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Yorgancilar, M.; Bilgiçli, N. Chemical and nutritional changes in bitter and sweet lupin seeds (Lupinus albus L.) during bulgur production. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 51, 1384–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Derbyshire, M.C.; Denton-Giles, M. The control of sclerotinia stem rot on oilseed rape (Brassica napus): Current practices and future opportunities. Plant Pathol. 2016, 65, 859–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Carpenter, K.A.; Sisson, A.J.; Kandel, Y.R.; Ortiz, V.; Chilvers, M.I.; Smith, D.L.; Mueller, D.S. Effects of Mowing, Seeding Rate, and Foliar Fungicide on Soybean Sclerotinia Stem Rot and Yield. Plant Health Prog. 2021, 22, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Danielson, G.A.; Nelson, B.D.; Helms, T.C. Effect of Sclerotinia Stem Rot on Yield of Soybean Inoculated at Different Growth Stages. Plant Dis. 2004, 88, 297–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  79. Perveen, K.; Haseeb, A.; Shukla, P.K. Effect of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum on the disease development, growth, oil yield and biochemical changes in plants of Mentha arvensis. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2010, 17, 291–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  80. Chamberlin, K.D.; Bennett, R.S.; Damicone, J.P. Registration of ‘VENUS’ peanut. J. Plant Regist. 2017, 11, 33–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Chamberlin, K.D.; Bennett, R.S.; Damicone, J.P. Registration of ‘Lariat’ Peanut. J. Plant Regist. 2018, 12, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Young, C.S.; Smith, J.A.; Watling, M.; Clarkson, J.P.; Whipps, J.M. Environmental Conditions Influencing Apothecial Production and Lettuce Infection by Sclerotinia sclerotiorum in field conditions. In Proceedings of the 6th international Sclerotinia Workshop, York, UK, 8–12 July 2001; pp. 181–182. [Google Scholar]
  83. Gossen, B.D. Blossom blight, a new constraint to alfalfa seed production in Western Canada. In Proceedings of the 12th Eucarpia Meeting of the Group Medicago, Brno, Czech Republic, 2–5 July 1996; Academia, Publishing House of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences: Prague, Czech Republic, 1997; pp. 111–113. [Google Scholar]
  84. Welty, R.E.; Busbice, T.H. Field Tolerance in Alfalfa to Sclerotinia Crown and Stem Rot. Crop Sci. 1978, 13, 508–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Pulse Australia. APB Chickpea IDM Strategies. 2020. Available online: https://www.pulseaus.com.au/growing-pulses/bmp/chickpea/idm-strategies (accessed on 20 July 2022).
  86. Mwape, V.W.; Khoo, K.H.; Chen, K.; Khentry, Y.; Newman, T.E.; Derbyshire, M.C.; Mather, D.E.; Kamphuis, L.G. Identification of Sclerotinia stem rot resistance quantitative trait loci in a chickpea (Cicer arietinum) recombinant inbred line population. Funct. Plant Biol. 2022, 49, 634–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Singh, S.P.; Schwartz, H.F. Breeding common bean for resistance to diseases: A review. Crop Sci. 2010, 50, 2199–2223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Vasconcellos, R.C.; Oraguzie, O.B.; Soler, A.; Arkwazee, H.; Myers, J.R.; Ferreira, J.J.; Song, Q.; McClean, P.; Miklas, P.N. Meta-QTL for resistance to white mold in common bean. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0171685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Chapara, V.; Chittem, K.; Mendoza, L.D.R. First report of white mold caused by Sclerotinia sclerotiorum on faba beans in North Dakota. Plant Dis. 2018, 102, 1669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Porter, D.M.; Melouk, H.A. Sclerotinia blight. In Compendium of Peanut Diseases; Kokkalis-Burelle, N., Porter, D.M., Rodriguez-Kabana, R., Smith, D.H., Subrahmanyam, P., Eds.; APS Press: St. Paul, MI, USA, 1997; pp. 34–36. [Google Scholar]
  91. Simpfendorfer, S.; Heenan, D.P.; Kirkegaard, J.A.; Lindbeck, K.D.; Murray, G.M. Impact of tillage on lupin growth and the incidence of pathogenic fungi in southern New South Wales. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2004, 44, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Islam, M.; Prova, A.; Akanda, A.M.; Hossain, M. First report of white mould caused by Sclerotinia sclerotiorum on pea in Bangladesh. J. Plant Pathol. 2020, 102, 941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Han, I.; Park, K.; Lee, H.; Lee, S.M.; Shin, J.; Choi, S.L. First report of Sclerotinia rot in sword bean caused by Sclerotinia sclerotiorum in South Korea. Plant Dis. 2020, 104, 988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. McLaren, D.L.; Conner, R.L.; Platford, R.G.; Lamb, J.L.; Lamey, H.A.; Kutcher, H.R. Predicting diseases caused by Sclerotinia sclerotiorum on canola and bean—A western Canadian perspective. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 2004, 26, 489–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Rojas, C.M.; Senthil-Kumar, M.; Tzin, V.; Mysore, K. Regulation of primary plant metabolism during plant-pathogen interactions and its contribution to plant defense. Front. Plant Sci. 2014, 5, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Uawisetwathana, U.; Graham, S.F.; Kamolsukyunyong, W.; Sukhaket, W.; Klanchui, A.; Toojinda, T.; Vanavichit, A.; Karoonuthaisiri, N.; Elliott, C.T. Quantitative 1H NMR metabolome profiling of Thai Jasmine rice (Oryza sativa) reveals primary metabolic response during brown planthopper infestation. Metabolomics 2015, 11, 1640–1655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Malenčić, D.; Kiprovski, B.; Popović, M.; Prvulović, D.; Miladinović, J.; Djordjević, V. Changes in antioxidant systems in soybean as affected by Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2010, 48, 903–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Nováková, M.; Šašek, V.; Dobrev, P.I.; Valentová, O.; Burketová, L. Plant hormones in defense response of Brassica napus to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum–Reassessing the role of salicylic acid in the interaction with a necrotroph. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2014, 80, 308–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Van Loon, L.C.; Rep, M.; Pieterse, C.M. Significance of inducible defense-related proteins in infected plants. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2006, 44, 135–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Hartmann, T. From waste products to ecochemicals: Fifty years research of plant secondary metabolism. Phytochemistry 2007, 68, 2831–2846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Gupta, Y.P. Anti-nutritional and toxic factors in food legumes: A review. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 1987, 37, 201–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Böttger, A.; Vothknecht, U.; Bolle, C.; Wolf, A. Plant secondary metabolites and their general function in plants. In Lessons on Caffeine, Cannabis & Co: Plant Derived Drugs and Their Interaction with Human Receptors; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Ahuja, I.; Kissen, R.; Bones, A.M. Phytoalexins in defense against pathogens. Trends Plant Sci. 2012, 17, 73–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Liang, X.; Liberti, D.; Li, M.; Kim, Y.T.; Hutchens, A.; Wilson, R.; Rollins, J.A. Oxaloacetate acetylhydrolase gene mutants of S clerotinia sclerotiorum do not accumulate oxalic acid, but do produce limited lesions on host plants. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2015, 16, 559–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Leite, M.E.; Santos, J.B.; Ribeiro, P.M.; Souza, D.A.; Lara, M.L.V.; Resende, M.L.V. Biochemical responses associated with common bean defence against Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Eur. Plant Pathol. 2014, 138, 391–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Abdalla, S.A.; Algam, S.A.A.; Ibrahim, E.A.; El Naim, A.M. In vitro screening of Bacillus isolates for biological control of early blight disease of tomato in Shambat soil. World J. Agric. Res. 2014, 2, 47–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Fira, D.; Dimkić, I.; Berić, T.; Lozo, J.; Stanković, S. Biological control of plant pathogens by Bacillus species. J. Biotechnol. 2018, 285, 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Busby, P.E.; Soman, C.; Wagner, M.R.; Friesen, M.L.; Kremer, J.; Bennett, A.; Morsy, M.; Eisen, J.A.; Leach, J.E.; Dangl, J.L. Research priorities for harnessing plant microbiomes in sustainable agriculture. PLoS Biol. 2017, 15, e2001793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Umesha, S.; Singh, P.K.; Singh, R.P. Microbial biotechnology and sustainable agriculture. In Biotechnology for Sustainable Agriculture; Woodhead Publishing: London, UK, 2018; pp. 185–205. [Google Scholar]
  110. Gracia-Garza, J.A.; Reeleder, R.D.; Paulitz, T.C. Degradation of sclerotia Sclerotinia sclerotiorum by fungus gnats (Bradysia coprophila) and the biocontrol fungi Trichoderma spp. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1997, 29, 123–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Figueirêdo, G.S.D.; Figueirêdo, L.C.D.; Cavalcanti, F.C.N.; Santos, A.C.D.; Costa, A.F.D.; Oliveira, N.T.D. Biological and chemical control of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum using Trichoderma spp. and Ulocladium atrum and pathogenicity to bean plants. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 2010, 53, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  112. Zeng, W.; Wang, D.; Kirk, W.; Hao, J. Use of Coniothyrium minitans and other microorganisms for reducing Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Biol. Control 2012, 60, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Selin, C.; Habibian, R.; Poritsanos, N.; Athukorala, S.N.; Fernando, D.; de Kievit, T.R. Phenazines are not essential for Pseudomonas chlororaphis PA23 biocontrol of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, but do play a role in biofilm formation. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2010, 71, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Elsheshtawi, M.; Elkhaky, M.T.; Sayed, S.R.; Bahkali, A.H.; Mohammed, A.A.; Gambhir, D.; Mansour, A.S.; Elgorban, A.M. Integrated control of white rot disease on beans caused by Sclerotinia sclerotiorum using Contans® and reduced fungicides application. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2017, 24, 405–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. Li, G.Q.; Huang, H.C.; Acharya, S.N.; Ericson, R.S. Effectiveness of Coniothyrium minitans and Trichoderma atroviride in suppression of sclerotinia blossom blight of alfalfa. Plant Pathol. 2005, 54, 204–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Stefan, M.; Munteanu, N.; Mihasan, M. Application of plant growth-promoting Rhizobacteria to runner bean increases seed Carbohydrate and protein yield. J. Exp. Mol. Biol. 2013, 14, 29–39. [Google Scholar]
  117. Pandey, C.; Bajpai, V.K.; Negi, Y.K.; Rather, I.A.; Maheshwari, D.K. Effect of plant growth promoting Bacillus spp. on nutritional properties of Amaranthus hypochondriacus grains. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2018, 25, 1066–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Sabaté, D.C.; Brandan, C.P.; Petroselli, G.; Erra-Balsells, R.; Audisio, M.C. Biocontrol of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary on common bean by native lipopeptide-producer Bacillus strains. Microbiol. Res. 2018, 211, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Ghorbanpour, M.; Omidvari, M.; Abbaszadeh-Dahaji, P.; Omidvar, R.; Kariman, K. Mechanisms underlying the protective effects of beneficial fungi against plant diseases. Biol. Control 2018, 117, 147–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Geraldine, A.M.; Lopes, F.A.C.; Carvalho, D.D.C.; Barbosa, E.T.; Rodrigues, A.F.; Brandao, R.S.; Ulhoa, C.J.; Junior, M.L. Cell wall-degrading enzymes and parasitism of sclerotia are key factors on field biocontrol of white mold by Trichoderma spp. Biol. Control 2013, 67, 308–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  121. Morandi, M.A.; Costa, L.B. Biological control of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum on beans in field by Trichoderma asperellum and Clonostachys rosea. Biol. Control. Fungal Bact. Plant Pathog. 2009, 43, 243–246. [Google Scholar]
  122. Woo, S.L.; Ruocco, M.; Vinale, F.; Nigro, M.; Marra, R.; Lombardi, N.; Pascale, A.; Lanzuise, S.; Mangaiello, G.; Lorito, M. Trichoderma-based products and their wdespread use in agriculture. Open Mycol. J. 2014, 8, 71–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  123. De Azevedo, S.F.; de Oliveira, V.V.; Carrenho, R.; Rodrigues, V.B.; Junior, M.L.; da Silva, G.F.; Soares, M.A. Influence of the biocontrol agents Trichoderma spp. on the structure and functionality of the edaphic microbial community in common bean cultivars (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) inoculated with Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2021, 168, 104190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Poveda, J. Biological control of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceri and Ascochyta rabiei infecting protected geographical indication Fuentesaúco-Chickpea by Trichoderma species. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2021, 160, 825–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Kumar, S.; Thakur, M.; Rani, A. Trichoderma: Mass production, formulation, quality control, delivery and its scope in commercialization in India for the management of plant diseases. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2014, 9, 3838–3852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Cibanal, I.L.; Fernández, L.A.; Rodriguez, S.A.; Pellegrini, C.N.; Gallez, L.M. Propolis extract combined with oregano essential oil applied to lima bean seeds against Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2022, 164, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Yang, M.; Zhang, W.; Lv, Z.; Shi, L.; Zhang, K.; Ge, B. Evaluation of the inhibitory effects of wuyiencin, a secondary metabolite of streptomyces albulus CK-15, against Sclerotinia sclerotiorum In vitro. Plant Dis. 2022, 106, 156–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Gebily, D.A.S.; Ghanem, G.A.M.; Ragab, M.M.; Ali, A.M.; Soliman, N.E.K.; El-Moity, T.H.A. Characterization and potential antifungal activities of three Streptomyces spp. as biocontrol agents against Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary infecting green bean. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2021, 31, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Villarreal-Delgado, M.F.; Parra-Cota, F.I.; Cira-Chávez, L.A.; Estrada-Alvarado, M.I.; De los Santos-Villalobos, S. Bacillus sp. FSQ1: A promising biological control agent against Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, the causal agent of white mold in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Biol. Bull. 2021, 48, 729–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Kim, Y.T.; Kim, S.E.; Lee, W.J.; Fumei, Z.; Cho, M.S.; Moon, J.S.; Oh, H.; Park, H.; Kim, S.U. Isolation and characterization of a high iturin yielding Bacillus velezensis UV mutant with improved antifungal activity. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0234177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Aggeli, F.; Ziogas, I.; Gkizi, D.; Fragkogeorgi, G.A.; Tjamos, S.E. Novel biocontrol agents against Rhizoctonia solani and Sclerotinia sclerotiorum in lettuce. BioControl 2020, 65, 763–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Farzand, A.; Moosa, A.; Zubair, M.; Khan, A.R.; Massawe, V.C.; Tahir, H.A.S.; Sheikh, T.M.M.; Ayaz, M.; Gao, X. Suppression of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum by the induction of systemic resistance and regulation of antioxidant pathways in tomato using fengycin produced by Bacillus amyloliquefaciens FZB42. Biomolecules 2019, 9, 613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  133. Nandi, M.; Selin, C.; Brawerman, G.; Fernando, W.D.; de Kievit, T. Hydrogen cyanide, which contributes to Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain PA23 biocontrol, is upregulated in the presence of glycine. Biol. Control 2017, 108, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Jain, A.; Singh, A.; Singh, S.; Singh, V.; Singh, H.B. Comparative proteomic analysis in pea treated with microbial consortia of beneficial microbes reveals changes in the protein network to enhance resistance against Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. J. Plant Physiol. 2015, 182, 79–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Li, B.; Li, Q.; Xu, Z.; Zhang, N.; Shen, Q.; Zhang, R. Responses of beneficial Bacillus amyloliquefaciens SQR9 to different soilborne fungal pathogens through the alteration of antifungal compounds production. Front. Microbiol. 2014, 5, 636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  136. Berry, C.; Fernando, W.D.; Loewen, P.C.; De Kievit, T.R. Lipopeptides are essential for Pseudomonas sp. DF41 biocontrol of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Biol. Control 2010, 55, 211–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Xie, L.W.; Jiang, S.M.; Zhu, H.H.; Sun, W.; Ouyang, Y.C.; Dai, S.K.; Li, X. Potential inhibitors against Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, produced by the fungus Myrothecium sp. associated with the marine sponge Axinella sp. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2008, 122, 571–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Botha, C.; McLaren, N.W.; Swart, W.J. Evaluation of greenhouse inoculation techniques used to screen for Sclerotinia stem rot resistance in soybeans. S. Afr. J. Plant Soil. 2009, 26, 48–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Kandel, R.; Chen, C.Y.; Grau, C.R.; Dorrance, A.E.; Liu, J.Q.; Wang, Y.; Wang, D. Soybean resistance to white mold: Evaluation of soybean germplasm under different conditions and validation of QTL. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Chauhan, S.; Katoch, S.; Sharma, S.K.; Sharma, P.N.; Rana, J.C.; Singh, K.; Singh, M. Screening and identification of resistant sources against Sclerotinia sclerotiorum causing white mold disease in common bean. Crop Sci. 2020, 60, 1986–1996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Bakhshi, S.; Zadeh, H.R.Z.; Atghia, O. Molecular identification of bean genotypes for partial resistance to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum based on SCAR markers. J. Plant Pathol. 2020, 102, 369–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Robison, F.M.; Turner, M.F.; Jahn, C.E.; Schwartz, H.F.; Prenni, J.E.; Brick, M.A.; Heuberger, A.L. Common bean varieties demonstrate differential physiological and metabolic responses to the pathogenic fungus Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Plant Cell Environ. 2018, 41, 2141–2154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. McCaghey, M.; Willbur, J.; Ranjan, A.; Grau, C.R.; Chapman, S.; Diers, B.; Groves, C.; Kabbage, M.; Smith, D.L. Development and evaluation of Glycine max germplasm lines with quantitative resistance to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  144. Porto, A.; Cardon, C.H.; Vasconcellos, R.C.; Novaes, E.; Leite, M.E.; Chalfun-Junior, A.; Pereira, W.A.; Santos, J.B. Expression of candidate genes related to white mold resistance in common beans. Trop. Plant Pathol. 2019, 44, 483–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Campa, A.; García-Fernández, C.; Ferreira, J.J. Genome-wide association study (GWAS) for resistance to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum in common bean. Genes 2020, 11, 1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Liang, Y.; Cason, J.M.; Baring, M.R.; Septiningsih, E.M. Identification of QTLs associated with Sclerotinia blight resistance in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2021, 68, 629–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Zhao, X.; Han, Y.; Li, Y.; Liu, D.; Sun, M.; Zhao, Y.; Lv, C.; Li, D.; Yang, Z.; Huang, L.; et al. Loci and candidate gene identification for resistance to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum in soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) via association and linkage maps. Plant J. 2015, 82, 245–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  148. Boudhrioua, C.; Bastien, M.; Torkamaneh, D.; Belzile, F. Genome-wide association mapping of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum resistance in soybean using whole-genome resequencing data. BMC Plant Biol. 2020, 20, 195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Halimi, E.S.; Rowe, D.E.; Pratt, R.G. Responses of alfalfa to stem-tip inoculations with five isolates of Sclerotinia trifoliorum. Crop Sci. 1998, 38, 1179–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Kanbe, M.; Mizukami, Y.; Fujimoto, F. Improvement of resistance to Sclerotinia crown and stem rot of alfalfa through phenotypic recurrent selection. Jpn. Agric. Res. Q. 2020, 36, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  151. Lithourgidis, A.S.; Roupakias, D.G.; Damalas, C.A. Inheritance of resistance to Sclerotinia stem rot (Sclerotinia trifoliorum) in faba beans (Vicia faba L.). Field Crop. Res. 2005, 91, 125–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Mikaliuniene, J.; Lemeziene, N.; Danyte, V.; Suproniene, S. Evaluation of red clover (Trifolium pratense L.) resistance to Sclerotinia crown and root rot (Sclerotinia trifoliorum) in the laboratory and field conditions. Zemdirb. Agric. 2015, 102, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  153. McCaghey, M.; Willbur, J.; Smith, D.L.; Kabbage, M. The complexity of the Sclerotinia sclerotiorum pathosystem in soybean: Virulence factors, resistance mechanisms, and their exploitation to control Sclerotinia stem rot. Trop. Plant Pathol. 2019, 44, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Bennett, R.S.; Chamberlin, K.D.; Damicone, J.P. Sclerotinia blight resistance in the US peanut mini-core collection. Crop Sci. 2010, 58, 1306–1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Yang, X.; Yang, J.; Li, H.; Niu, L.; Xing, G.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, W.; Zhao, Q.; Li, Q.; Dong, Y. Overexpression of the chitinase gene CmCH1 from Coniothyrium minitans renders enhanced resistance to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum in soybean. Transgenic Res. 2020, 29, 187–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Zou, J.; Li, W.; Zhang, Y.; Song, W.; Jiang, H.; Zhao, J.; Zhan, Y.; Teng, W.; Qiu, L.; Zhao, X.; et al. Identification of glutathione transferase gene associated with partial resistance to Sclerotinia stem rot of soybean using genome-wide association and linkage mapping. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2021, 134, 2699–2709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Wu, J.; Yin, S.; Lin, L.; Liu, D.; Ren, S.; Zhang, W.; Meng, W.; Chen, P.; Sun, Q.; Fang, Y.; et al. Host-induced gene silencing of multiple pathogenic factors of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum confers resistance to Sclerotinia rot in Brassica napus. Crop J. 2021, 10, 661–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Oladzadabbasabadi, A.; Mamidi, S.; Miklas, P.N.; Lee, R.; McClean, P. Linked Candidate Genes of Different Functions for White Mold Resistance in Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L) are Identified by QTL-Based Pooled Sequencing. 2019. Preprint. Available online https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340203599_Linked_candidate_genes_of_different_functions_for_white_mold_resistance_in_common_bean_Phaseolus_vulgaris_L_are_identified_by_QTL-based_pooled_sequencing (accessed on 1 June 2022).
  159. Huzar-Novakowiski, J.; Paul, P.A.; Dorrance, A.E. Host resistance and chemical control for management of Sclerotinia stem rot of soybean in Ohio. Phytopathology 2017, 107, 937–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  160. Khangura, R.; Beard, C. Managing Sclerotinia Stem Rot in Canola. Department of Agriculture and Food. Australian Government. 2015. Available online: https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/canola/managing-sclerotinia-stem-rot-canola (accessed on 8 February 2022).
  161. Ma, H.X.; Chen, Y.; Wang, J.X.; Yu, W.Y.; Tang, Z.H.; Chen, C.; Zhou, M.G. Activity of carbendazim, dimethachlon, iprodione, procymidone and boscalid against Sclerotinia stem rot in Jiangsu Province of China. Phytoparasitica 2009, 37, 421–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Benigni, M.; Bompeix, G. Chemical and biological control of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum in witloof chicory culture. Pest Manag. Sci. 2010, 66, 1332–1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Attanayake, R.N.; Jiang, D.H.; del Rio Mendoza, L.; Chen, W. Genetic diversity and population differentiation of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum collected from canola in China and in USA. Phytopathology 2011, 101, S10. [Google Scholar]
  164. Kuang, J.; Hou, Y.P.; Wang, J.X.; Zhou, M.G. Sensitivity of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum to fludioxonil: In vitro determination of baseline sensitivity and resistance risk. Crop Prot. 2011, 30, 876–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Xu, C.Y.; Hou, Y.P.; Wang, J.X.; Yang, G.F.; Liang, X.Y.; Zhou, M.G. Activity of a novel strobilurin fungicide benzothiostrobin against Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Pestic. Biochem. Phys. 2014, 115, 32–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Li, J.L.; Liu, X.Y.l.; Di, Y.L.; Liang, H.J.; Zhu, F.X. Baseline sensitivity and control efficacy of DMI fungicide epoxiconazole against Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2015, 141, 237–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Matheron, M.E.; Porchas, M. Activity of boscalis fenhexamid, fluazunam fludioxonil, and vinclozolin on growth od Sclerotinia minor and S. sclerotirum od Sclerotinia stem rot of canola. Plant Dis. 2004, 88, 665–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  168. Bradley, C.A.; Lamey, H.A.; Endres, G.J.; Henson, R.A.; Hanson, B.K.; McKay, K.R.; Halvorson, M.; LeGare, D.G.; Portter, P.M. Efficacy of fungicides for control of Sclerotinia stem rot of canola. Plant Dis. 2006, 90, 1129–1134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  169. Zhou, F.; Liang, H.J.; Di, Y.L.; You, H.; Zhu, F.X. Stimulatory effects of sublethal doses of dimethachlon on Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Plant Dis. 2014, 98, 1364–1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  170. Hou, Y.P.; Mao, X.W.; Wu, L.Y.; Wang, J.X.; Mi, B.; Zhou, M.G. Impact of fluazinam on morphological and physiological characteristics of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Pestic. Biochem. Phys. 2019, 155, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Albert, D.; Dumonceaux, T.; Carisse, O.; Beaulieu, C.; Filion, M. Combining Desirable Traits for a Good Biocontrol Strategy against Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Zhang, X.; Xu, J.; Muhayimana, S.; Xiong, H.; Liu, X.; Huang, Q. Antifungal effects of 3-(2-pyridyl)methyl-2-(4-chlorphenyl) iminothiazolidine against Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Pest Manag. Sci. 2020, 76, 2978–2985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Ryley, M.J.; Kyei, N.A.; Tatnell, J.R. Evaluation of fungicides for the management of sclerotinia blight of peanut. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 2000, 51, 917–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Smith, D.L.; Garrison, M.C.; Hollowell, J.E.; Isleib, T.G.; Shew, B.B. Evaluation of application timing and efficacy of the fungicides fluazinam and boscalid for control of Sclerotinia blight of peanut. Crop Prot. 2008, 27, 823–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Liu, Y.H.; Liu, H.P.; Li, X.F.; Han, J.C.; Liu, H.Q. Biological, physiological and biochemical characteristics of procymidone-resistant Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull. 2010, 26, 277–281. [Google Scholar]
  176. Lehner, M.S.; Paula Júnior, T.J.; Silva, R.A.; Vieira, R.F.; Carneiro, J.E.S.; Schnabel, G.; Mizubuti, E.S.G. Fungicide sensitivity of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum: A thorough assessment using discriminatory dose, EC50, high-resolution melting analysis, and description of new point mutation associated with thiophanate-methyl resistance. Plant Dis. 2015, 99, 1537–1543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  177. Smith, D.L.; Chapman, S.; Conley, S.P. Evaluation of “curative” fungicide treatments for control of Sclerotinia stem rot of soybean in Wisconsin, 2014. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 2015, 9, FC028. [Google Scholar]
  178. Mueller, B.; Smith, D.L.; Willbur, J.; Chapman, S. Evaluation of foliar fungicides for control of Sclerotinia stem rot of soybean in Arlington Wisconsin, 2015. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 2016, 10, FC050. [Google Scholar]
  179. Mueller, D.S.; Bradley, C.A.; Grau, C.R.; Gaska, J.M.; Kurle, J.E.; Pedersen, W.L. Application of thiophanate-methyl at different host growth stages for management of Sclerotinia stem rot in soybean. Crop Prot. 2004, 23, 983–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Paula Júnior, T.J.D.; Vieira, R.F.; Rocha, P.R.R.; Bernardes, A.; Costa, É.L.; Carneiro, J.E.S.; Vole, F.X.R.; Zambolim, L. White mold intensity on common bean in response to plant density, irrigation frequency, grass mulching, Trichoderma spp., and fungicide. Summa Phytopathol. 2009, 35, 44–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 12 03140 g001 550
Figure 1. Infection process of S. sclerotiorum.
Figure 1. Infection process of S. sclerotiorum.
Agronomy 12 03140 g001
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Antwi-Boasiako, A.; Wang, Y.; Dapaah, H.K.; Zhao, T. Mitigating against Sclerotinia Diseases in Legume Crops: A Comprehensive Review. Agronomy 2022, 12, 3140. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12123140

AMA Style

Antwi-Boasiako A, Wang Y, Dapaah HK, Zhao T. Mitigating against Sclerotinia Diseases in Legume Crops: A Comprehensive Review. Agronomy. 2022; 12(12):3140. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12123140

Chicago/Turabian Style

Antwi-Boasiako, Augustine, Yu Wang, Harrison Kwame Dapaah, and Tuanjie Zhao. 2022. "Mitigating against Sclerotinia Diseases in Legume Crops: A Comprehensive Review" Agronomy 12, no. 12: 3140. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12123140

APA Style

Antwi-Boasiako, A., Wang, Y., Dapaah, H. K., & Zhao, T. (2022). Mitigating against Sclerotinia Diseases in Legume Crops: A Comprehensive Review. Agronomy, 12(12), 3140. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12123140

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop