Next Article in Journal
Ticks and Associated Rickettsiae from Domestic Animals in Bhutan
Previous Article in Journal
Machine Learning-Based Characterization of Bacillus anthracis Phenotypes from pXO1 Plasmid Proteins
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Simulation Study to Reveal the Epidemiology and Aerosol Transmission Characteristics of Botrytis cinerea in Grape Greenhouses
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Morpho-Molecular Identification and Pathogenic Characterization of Fusarium and Colletotrichum Species Associated with Intercropped Soybean Pod Decay

1
College of Agronomy, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China
2
Institute of Crop Science, College of Agriculture and Biotechnology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
3
Institute of Economic Crops, Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Science, Nanning 530007, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pathogens 2025, 14(10), 1020; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14101020
Submission received: 12 August 2025 / Revised: 24 September 2025 / Accepted: 2 October 2025 / Published: 8 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Fungal Pathogenicity Factors: 2nd Edition)

Abstract

The fruiting stage of soybean (Glycine max L.) is critical for determining both its yield and quality, thereby influencing global production. While some studies have provided partial explanations for the occurrence of Fusarium species on soybean seeds and pods, the fungal diversity affecting soybean pods in Sichuan Province, a major soybean cultivation region in Southwestern China, remains inadequately understood. In this study, 182 infected pods were collected from a maize–soybean relay strip intercropping system. A total of 10 distinct pod-infecting fungal genera (132 isolates) were identified, and their pathogenic potential on soybean seeds and pods was evaluated. Using morphological characteristics and DNA barcode markers, we identified 43 Fusarium isolates belonging to 8 species, including F. verticillioides, F. incarnatum, F. equiseti, F. proliferatum, F. fujikuroi, F. oxysporum, F. chlamydosporum, and F. acutatum through the analysis of the translation elongation factor gene (EF1-α) and RNA polymerases II second largest subunit (RPB2) gene. Multi-locus phylogenetic analysis, incorporating the Internal Transcribed Spacer (rDNA ITS), β-tubulin (β-tubulin), Glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GADPH), Chitin Synthase 1 (CHS-1), Actin (ACT), Beta-tubulin II (TUB2), and Calmodulin (CAL) genes distinguished 37 isolates as 6 Colletotrichum species, including C. truncatum, C. karstii, C. cliviicola, C. plurivorum, C. boninense, and C. fructicola. Among these, F. proliferatum and C. fructicola were the most dominant species, representing 20.93% and 21.62% of the isolation frequency, respectively. Pathogenicity assays revealed significant damage from both Fusarium and Colletotrichum isolates on soybean pods and seeds, with varying isolation frequencies. Of these, F. proliferatum, F. acutatum, and F. verticillioides caused the most severe symptoms. Similarly, within Colletotrichum genus, C. fructicola was the most pathogenic, followed by C. truncatum, C. karstii, C. cliviicola, C. plurivorum, and C. boninense. Notably, F. acutatum, C. cliviicola, C. boninense, and C. fructicola were identified for the first time as pathogens of soybean pods under the maize–soybean strip intercropping system in Southwestern China. These findings highlight emerging virulent pathogens responsible for soybean pod decay and provide a valuable foundation for understanding the pathogen population during the later growth stages of soybean.

1. Introduction

Soybean (Glycine max L.) is a globally important legume crop which has been cultivated for millennia [1,2,3]. It is a crucial source of plant-based protein (40%) and oil (20%), both essential for human nutrition and animal feed, playing a key role in global food security [4,5]. However, seed-borne diseases caused by various harmful pathogens during the reproductive stages lead to severe economic losses due to significant yield reductions, poor seed quality and compromised marketability [6]. These pathogens such as Fusarium, Colletotrichum, Diaporthe, Sclerotinia, Cercospora, and Phytophthora, have been widely reported to infect various soybean organs [7,8]. Among the most detrimental pathogens, Fusarium and Colletotrichum stand out due to their widespread prevalence and destructive impact on seed development and viability [9,10,11,12]. The genus Fusarium comprises ubiquitous pathogens that affect seeds, soil, and residue, are responsible for complex diseases such as root rot, pod blight, seed rot, and sudden death syndrome, all of which severely diminish germination rates and seedling vigor worldwide [13,14,15,16]. Their genetic diversity and adaptability have been well documented, with distinct species exhibiting pronounced pathogenicity across different regions. For instance, Fusarium proliferatum displays high aggressiveness in Hubei province, China [12], whereas F. oxysporum, F. equiseti, and F. graminearum are particularly pathogenic in Sichuan province [7,17,18,19,20,21]. These fungi frequently exist not only as individual species but also as pathogen complexes, complicating disease management and underscoring the urgent need for precise identification at the species level [22,23,24]. A wide spectrum of Fusarium species, such as F. solani, F. oxysporum, F. acuminatum, F. avenaceum, F. cerealis, F. culmorum, F. equiseti, F. graminearum, F. proliferatum, F. pseudograminearum, F. fujikuroi, F. asiaticum, F. commune, and F. verticillioides, have been associated with soybeans being isolated from various tissues [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32]. Numerous studies investigating cultivar resistance, pathogenicity, distribution and incidence rates provide evidence that colonization of soybean roots by multiple Fusarium species is commonplace.
However, significant knowledge gaps persist regarding the precise roles and pathogenic dynamics of these pathogens, specifically those affecting soybean seeds and pods, and their ultimate impact on seed quality and yield [30,33]. Similarly, Colletotrichum, ranked among the top 10 most significant plant pathogenic fungi globally, poses a substantial threat. Its exceptionally broad host range (infecting over 3000 plant species) and capacity for latent infections make effective control exceptionally challenging [34,35,36]. In soybean, Colletotrichum species can induce anthracnose at all developmental stages [37], with symptoms manifesting as leaf spotting, stem lesions, pod necrosis and premature defoliation, all contributing to considerable yield losses [38]. Crucially, these pathogens are primarily seed-transmitted, and infected seeds lead to damping-off of seedlings and the development of lesions on cotyledons during the V1 and V2 developmental stages [39]. The genetic diversity within this pathogen complex, along with the key epidemiological and biological characteristics of its constituent members, remains poorly characterized, necessitating more precise and comprehensive studies [40,41,42,43,44]. For both Fusarium and Colletotrichum pathogens, accurate identification at the species level is an indispensable foundation for developing effective disease-management strategies. Moreover, traditional morphological methods often prove inadequate due to overlapping characteristics within species complexes [45,46]. Consequently, molecular approaches, particularly multi-locus phylogenetic analysis targeting conserved genes such as Internal transcribed spacer (rDNA ITS), Translation elongation factor gene (EF1-α), RNA polymerases II second largest subunit (RPB2) for Fusarium isolates, and β-tubulin (β-tubulin), Glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GADPH), Chitin Synthase 1 (CHS-1), Actin (ACT), Beta-tubulin II (TUB2), and Calmodulin (CAL) for Colletotrichum isolates [47,48,49], have become the standard for robust species delineation and understanding population dynamics. Such precision is vital for tracking emerging isolates and designing targeted interventions. Intercropping systems are widely adopted due to their efficient utilization of light resources, improvement of soil structure through microbes, significant reduction in weeds and pests, and higher productivity under eco-friendly conditions compared to monoculture systems [21]. In Southwestern China, particularly Sichuan province, the widespread adoption of maize–soybean relay strip intercropping enhances land productivity (high Land Equivalent Ratio, LER > 1.5), soil health, resource-use efficiency, and disease and pest suppression [50,51]. However, the characteristic high humidity, moderate temperatures, and limited sunlight in this region create a microenvironment highly conducive to fungal proliferation, infection, and dispersal [52,53]. Studies confirm that these cool and high humid conditions significantly shape pathogenic fungal communities and intensify disease pressure, posing a persistent threat to soybean production [54]. Emerging evidence suggests that pathogen populations exhibit rapid adaptation, complex genetic diversity, and increased aggressiveness, potentially linked to changing climatic conditions and evolving agricultural practices [55]. Despite this, comprehensive data on the diversity and pathogenicity of seed- and pod- associated fungi, particularly within the distinctive intercropping pattern in Sichuan province, remains limited. Therefore, this study aims to systemically isolate and characterize the mycobiota associated with soybean seeds, focusing on Fusarium and Colletotrichum species, based on multi-locus phylogenetic analysis. Additionally, the in vitro pathogenicity of typically dominant Fusarium and Colletotrichum isolates will be evaluated. The findings of the current study offer valuable insight into the composition and threat level of major seed pathogens in a critical soybean growing region with distinctive intercropping cultivation and are expected to lay a solid scientific foundation for developing disease-management strategies and soybean resistance breeding.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sampling and Fungal Isolation

A survey was conducted at experimental sites to collect soybean pods (R6 stage: Full seed) depicting discoloration, decay, and the presence of mycelium under maize–soybean strip intercropping from five different soybean-cultivating regions (Changzhou, Renshou, Nanchong, Jianyang, and Zigong) in Sichuan province, Southwestern China, in 2023. A total of 182 pods were collected and used for fungal isolation. In brief, the fungal pathogens were isolated by washing pod samples under running tap water, followed by drying, excising into small fragments (4–8 mm), and surface sterilization using 1% sodium hypochlorite (v/v) for 1 min and 75% ethanol (v/v) for 2 min. The small fragments were washed thrice, dried on sterile filter paper, and transferred to potato dextrose agar plates (PDA; potato 200 g L−1, glucose anhydrous 10 g L−1, and agar 15 g L−1). The plates were incubated for 7–15 days at 25 ± 2 °C in complete darkness, and the fungal isolates were purified by transferring active marginal hyphae onto fresh PDA plates [56].

2.2. Morphological Identification of Fungal Population

The morphological identification of fungal isolates was executed by observing colony feature and texture, the length and width of macroconidia, number of septa, conidial shape and size, and growth rate. These fungal isolates were incubated at 25 ± 2 °C and colony growth was recorded after two days of incubation, while the growth rate of Fusarium species were documented after 7 days of incubation in dark conditions. For morphological identification of Colletotrichum species, except for growth rate (two days post-inoculation), the other cultural variables were distinguished after 15 days post-incubation. In addition, the general PDA and species-specific CMC (Carboxymethyl-Cellulose 15.0 g L−1, KH2PO4 monobasic 1.0 g L−1, NH4NO3 1.0 g L−1, yeast extract 1.0 g L−1, and MgSO4·7H2O 0.5 g L−1 in distilled water) media were used for the conidial spore production of Fusarium species. Similarly, PDA medium was utilized to generate enough spores of Colletotrichum species accordingly. The number and size of conidia (n = 50) were recorded carefully for each fungal species by observing them under the accessible compound microscope (Nikon Eclipse 80i, Sendai, Japan) [56].

2.3. Molecular Identification of Fungal Genera

The 7-day-old mycelium of fungal isolates cultured on PDA plates were scraped with disinfected blades to extract the genomic DNA, following the standard manual of the Rapid Fungi Genomic DNA Isolation Kit (Sangon Biotech, Shanghai, China). The quality and quantity of DNA were assessed using a NanoDrop™ 2000 Spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) after extraction. For each fungal genus, specific primer pairs (listed in Table S1) were selected for PCR amplification. A 50 µL unit of reaction mixture was prepared, containing 2 μL of each primer, 25 μL of Taq PCR Master mix, 2 μL of DNA from each isolate, and 19 μL of sterilized water. The Peltier Thermal Cycler (S-1000TM, Bio-Bri, China) was used for amplification, and the temperature conditions for different primers are mentioned in Table S1. The amplified products were subjected to electrophoresis on a 1.0% (w/v) agarose gel in 1 × TAE buffer, and samples were sequenced using the ABI-PRISM 3730 automatic sequencer (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA).

2.4. Phylogenetic Analysis

To evaluate the genetic differences among different fungal genera, molecular evolutionary and phylogenetic analysis were executed. The amplified sequences were trimmed with BioEdit software (developed by Tom Hall; BioEdit free download v.7.0.5.3) and then blasted against multiple databases, including FUSARIUM-ID and Fusarium MLST for Fusarium species [57], and the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) for Colletotrichum species. Additionally, Clustal X 1.83 was used for alignment of sequences of each constructed tree by removing gaps (missing barcode information) and weighing the characters universally. Phylogenetic trees of combined barcode for Fusarium and Colletotrichum species were constructed accordingly using MEGA version X with the Neighbor-Joining method, supported by the Tamura–Nei model, respectively [58]. The constructed tree clades were supported by 1000 bootstrap replicates and resulted sequences were deposited in the NCBI GenBank and TreeBASE (www.treebase.org accessed at 9 October 2024).

2.5. Pathogenicity Test of Isolated Fungi

For pathogenicity tests, seeds of the soybean cultivar ‘Nandou12’ and soybean pods were inoculated with spore suspension of each respective fungal species to fulfill Koch’s postulates, following the method described by [59] with minor modifications. Three representative isolates of each fungal species were selected randomly to analyze their pathogenic impact on seeds and pods, respectively. Fusarium spores were produced by adding 3–5 mycelial disks to 20 mL of PDA or CMC medium and then incubated in orbital shaker at 150 r·min−1 at 25 °C for 7 days. Similarly, spores of Colletotrichum isolates were obtained by scraping fungal mycelium in deionized water. The final spore concentration was adjusted to 1 × 105 spore per mL with double-distilled water (ddH2O) for inoculation. The seeds and pods were subjected to surface sterilization with 1% NaClO and rinsed 3 times for 1 min, followed by air drying under sanitized conditions on double-layered filter paper [60]. Three separate isolates of each inoculated fungal species were used, each containing 15 seeds per plate and 3 pods for each isolate. The seeds and pods were dipped in spore suspension for 15 min to allow disease development [45]. Seeds treated with ddH2O served as the negative control and all plates were incubated in the dark at 25 ± 2 °C for 7 days with 70% relative humidity. After incubation, disease severity index (DSI) was assessed as described by [8] with minor modifications. In addition, the percentage of mycelium coverage area (PMC) and the seed and pod weights were noted. Finally, the tested Fusarium and Colletotrichum pathogens were re-isolated from the inoculated soybean seeds and pods. The DSI and PMC were calculated using the following formulae:
D S I = ( S e v e r i t y   r a t i n g   ×   S e e d / p o d   n u m b e r   p e r   r a t i n g ) ( N u m b e r   o f   t o t a l   s e e d s   ×   h i g h e s t   s e v e r i t y   r a t i n g ) × 100
P M C ( % ) = A r e a   c o v e r e d   b y   m y c e l i u m N u m b e r   o f   t o t a l   s e e d / p o d   s u r f a c e   a r e a × 100

2.6. Data Process and Analysis

The recorded data was processed through Microsoft office excel 2016 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA). The DSI and PMC average values were calculated from independent triplicates in pathogenicity tests. In addition, the seed and pod weights were recorded for each of the representative isolates of Fusarium and Colletotrichum species. The isolation frequency was calculated using the percentage of isolates of each species in the total isolates of the Fusarium or Colletotrichum genus. The statistical analysis was performed by applying Tukey’s test in IBM SPSS Statistics 20 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) to underpin the significant differences (p > 0.05).

3. Results

3.1. Identification of Fungal Species Associated with Intercropped Soybean Pods

In the present study, soybean pods (n = 182) were collected from soybean under maize–soybean strip intercropping pattern and a total of 132 isolates were obtained from infected soybean pods. Upon assessment of morphological characteristics including colonial color and the texture of colonies and mycelium, these isolates were primarily clustered into ten groups (Figure 1A). Furthermore, rDNA ITS fragments were amplified, sequenced, and BLASTn analysis revealed these isolate groups represented ten distinct genera, including Fusarium, Colletotrichum, Phomopsis/Diaporthe, Bipolaris, Nigrospora, Graphium, Clonostachys, Nadulisporium, Alternaria, and Boeremia. Phylogenetic analysis showed that different fungal genera were not separated clearly and clustered with other corresponding reference isolates (Figure 1B, Table S2).
To analyze the isolation frequency of these fungal genera associated with soybean pods, we found that genus Fusarium (32.57%) was frequently isolated from intercropped soybean pods, followed by Colletotrichum (28.03%), Phomopsis/Diaporthe (12.12%), Bipolaris (12.12%), Nigrospora (4.54%), Graphium (3.03%), Clonostachys (3.03%), and Nadulisporium (1.51%). Both Alternaria and Boeremia had the lowest isolation frequencies, accounting for 0.75% (Figure 1C).

3.2. Identification of Fusarium Species Associated with Soybean Pods

To further verify Fusarium species, morphological features of colonies and conidial spores of different Fusarium isolates were observed, as shown in Figure 2A and Table 1. After seven days of incubation, Fusarium isolates displayed a pronounced variation in colony colors, which ranged from pale white, dark violet, and light violet to light pink. The mycelia also exhibited sparse and fluffy white mycelia, dense white or white-purple mixtures. Almost all Fusarium isolates produced pointed and sickle-shaped macroconidia. Based on conidial morphology, size, and colony pigmentation, a total of 43 Fusarium isolates clustered into eight morphological groups.
For molecular validation, the EF1-α and RPB2 genes were amplified, sequenced, and blasted against the Fusarium MLST and FUSARIUM-ID databases. Sequence similarity analysis identified eight distinct Fusarium species: F. verticillioides, F. incarnatum, F. equiseti, F. proliferatum, F. fujikuroi, F. oxysporum, F. chlamydosporum, and F. acutatum. For phylogenetic analysis, maximum-likelihood trees were constructed using combined EF1-α and RPB2 genes. The trees included 43 Fusarium isolates from this study, 17 reference isolates, and Nectriaceae sp. (JF740999.1) serving as an outgroup (Table S3). Phylogenetic analysis clearly resolved the taxonomic relationships and genetic distances among the Fusarium species (Figure 2B). All eight species formed distinct clades, except within two species complexes: the F. equiseti-incarnatum complex (FEIC) and the F. fujikuroiproliferatum complex (FFPC). These species complexes grouped in the same major clade but formed well-supported distinct subclades. Bootstrap support values exceeded 92% for all species and species complex branches. The generated sequences were deposited in GenBank and accession numbers are provided in Table S4.

3.3. Identification of Colletotrichum Species Associated with Soybean Pods

Morphological analysis of 132 fungal isolates identified 37 isolates as Colletotrichum species. Colonies exhibited white, cottony mycelia, while conidia varied in shape (fusiform, cylindrical and oval/ellipsoidal) presented in Figure 3A and Table 2. These isolates were classified into six morphological groups. Furthermore, Colletotrichum species were confirmed using a six-locus molecular approach including rDNA ITS, CHS, GAPDH, ACT, CAL, and TUB2 genes. BLASTn analysis revealed maximum sequence similarity with six distinct Colletotrichum species. Phylogenetic analysis based on these loci employed maximum parsimony and ML methods (1000 bootstrap replicates). The tree included 37 isolates from this study, 12 reference isolates, and Monilochaetes infuscans (CBS:869.96) as an outgroup (Table S5). Our results demonstrated that all isolates clustered within a single major clade but resolved into six well-supported species: C. truncatum, C. karstii, C. cliviicola, C. plurivorum, C. boninense, and C. fructicola, and their accession numbers were obtained from GenBank (Figure 3B, Table S6).

3.4. Isolation Frequency of Fusarium and Colletotrichum Species

For isolation frequency, F. proliferatum (20.93%), F. fujikuroi (16.27%), and F. equiseti (16.27%) were most prevalent, followed by F. acutatum (13.95%), F. verticillioides (9.3%), and F. incarnatum (9.3%) among the Fusarium genus. Compared to other species, F. oxysporum and F. chlamydosporum were the least frequent, with the isolation frequency of 6.97% each (Figure 4A). Among Colletotrichum species, C. fructicola was predominant (21.62%) followed by C. truncatum and C. karstii (18.91% each), C. cliviicola and C. plurivorum (16.21% each). Colletotrichum boninense was the least isolated and accounts for 10.81% of total Colletotrichum isolates (Figure 4B). Hence, the F. proliferatum and C. fructicola were dominant species isolated from soybean pods in Southwestern China.

3.5. Pathogenicity of Fusarium Species on Soybean Pods and Seeds

Pathogenicity assays were conducted to evaluate the effects of Fusarium species on soybean pods (Figure 5 and Table 3) and seeds (Figure S1 and Table S7). As shown in Figure 5, all species successfully penetrated soybean pods, causing varying degrees of internal seed decay. Among them, F. acutatum and F. verticillioides (100%) resulted in complete maximum PMC (100%) followed by F. proliferatum (90.66%), F. equiseti (88.33%), F. oxysporum (55%), F. fujikuroi (46.66%), F. incarnatum (26.66%), and F. chlamydosporum (23.33%). Interestingly, F. proliferatum, F. acutatum, and F. verticillioides exhibited a DSI of 100%, while F. oxysporum had a DSI of 83.33%, and F. fujikuroi, F. chlamydosporum, and F. equiseti all had a DSI of 75%. Fusarium incarnatum showed the lowest DSI (33.33%). Additionally, infected pods exhibited a reduced weight compared to un-inoculated controls, likely due to mycelial overgrowth (Table 1). Internal seed rot was observed with F. proliferatum and F. fujikuroi, while other species caused external rot with minimal discoloration compared to control pods. Seven days post-inoculation, the seeds showed partial to complete coverage by white mycelium (with noted color variation), correlating with species-specific virulence. Fusarium acutatum and F. verticillioides demonstrated maximum PMC, followed by the F. proliferatum, F. oxysporum, and F. equiseti. Similarly, the highest DSI was depicted by F. acutatum and F. verticillioides, followed by the F. chlamydosporum and F. proliferatum. Additionally, we re-isolated these species from the infected pods, and they exhibited the same morphological and molecular characteristics. Overall, our results demonstrate that F. proliferatum, F. acutatum, and F. verticillioides were the most virulent species towards soybean seeds (Figure S1, Table S7).

3.6. Pathogenicity of Colletotrichum Species on Soybean Pods and Seeds

All Colletotrichum species caused diseases on soybean pods, characterized by rotted pods, discoloration, and abundant mycelial coverage on pods (Figure 6). All representative isolates of Colletotrichum species resulted in 100% disease incidence on soybean pods (Table 4). Colletotrichum karstii (91.66%) and C. fructicola (90%) exhibited the highest PMC, followed by C. truncatum and C. cliviicola (both 81.66%). In contrast, C. boninense (11.66%) and C. plurivorum (10%) showed minimal PMC. DSI was highest for C. fructicola (100%) followed by C. truncatum and C. karstii (both 83.33%), C. cliviicola (66.66%), and C. plurivorum and C. boninense (both 33.33%). Similarly, pod weight varied significantly across species. Colletotrichum boninense recorded the highest weight (2.98 g) followed by C. karstii (2.67 g), C. plurivorum (2.59 g), C. cliviicola (2.21 g), C. truncatum (2.16 g), and C. fructicola (2.09 g). Furthermore, internal seed rot with discoloration occurred in pods infected by C. fructicola, C. truncatum, C. karstii, and C. cliviicola, while C. plurivorum and C. boninense caused only external discoloration. Based on disease-severity metrics and symptoms, C. fructicola emerged as the most virulent pathogen on soybean pods (Figure 6). Similarly, Colletotrichum species also caused severe damage to inoculated soybean seeds (Figure S2), with all species covering seeds with mycelium. Among these species, representative isolates of C. fructicola had the highest PMC (100%) followed by C. cliviicola (96.66%) and C. boninense (93.33%). However, maximum DSI occurred in C. fructicola and C. truncatum (both 91.66%), trailed by C. boninense (81.66%), and C. cliviicola (70%). Comparably, C. karstii and C. plurivorum exhibited the lowest pathogenicity, with a DSI of 58.33% and 38.33%, respectively. In contrast, C. plurivorum and C. boninense caused only external damage with slight discoloration (Table S8). Finally, we obtained the same species characterization of inoculated Colletotrichum isolates through re-isolation from infected pods. Thus, C. fructicola was the most virulent species on both soybean pods and seeds.

4. Discussion

It is well known that fungal diseases leading to soybean seed and pod deterioration significantly reduce global yield and quality [61]. Several Fusarium species, including F. fujikuroi, F. graminearum, F. proliferatum, and F. equiseti–incarnatum complex species, have been reported to infect soybean pods, with F. fujikuroi exhibiting the highest aggressiveness under maize–soybean strip intercropping in Southwestern China [8]. Additionally, F. fujikuroi, F. proliferatum, F. verticillioides, F. asiaticum, and F. incarnatum have also been identified as pathogens responsible for seed decay in intercropped soybean [11]. In the present study, we focused on two of the most prevalent genera, Colletotrichum and Fusarium, due to their dominant occurrence and association with soybean pod decay in Sichuan province [8,11]. Through integrated morpho-molecular characterization and multi-locus phylogenetic analysis, we identified eight Fusarium species, including F. verticillioides, F. incarnatum, F. equiseti, F. proliferatum, F. fujikuroi, F. oxysporum, F. chlamydosporum, and F. acutatum. Among these, F. verticillioides, F. oxysporum, F. chlamydosporum, and F. acutatum were reported for the first time as causal agents of soybean pod decay in this region, thereby extending previous findings [8]. Notably, several of these species such as F. oxysporum, F. fujikuroi, F. verticillioides, F. proliferatum, and the F. incarnatum–equiseti species complex (FIEC), as well as F. chlamydosporum have been previously implicated in soybean root rot, seed decay, and pod decay [8,11,25]. Surprisingly, F. acutatum was identified as the novel pathogen infecting soybean pods under maize–soybean strip intercropping in Southwestern China.
Furthermore, species within the genus Colletotrichum ranked as the eighth most devastating and wide-spectrum plant pathogen globally [35], are known to cause anthracnose in soybean and related legumes [62]. This genus has also been reported as the second most abundant genus associated with soybean seed decay in Southwestern China [11]. In this study, we identified six Colletotrichum species, including C. truncatum, C. karstii, C. cliviicola, C. plurivorum, C. boninense, and C. fructicola. Among them, C. truncatum has been documented as a causal agent of soybean pod blight in Chhattisgarh (India) [63] and Brazil [64], while C. plurivorum, a recently classified species, has been associated with soybean disease [65]. Similarly, C. fructicola and C. karstii have been reported to cause anthracnose on soybean leaves and pods, leading to yield loss [66]. Importantly, C. cliviicola, C. boninense, and C. fructicola were newly identified as pathogens of soybean pods in this region. Accurate pathogen identification is vital for effective disease management [40]. Advances in fungal disease identification have significantly improved the ability to identify a wide range of pathogenic plant fungi by employing specific gene sequence analysis and improved molecular techniques [67,68]. It is well established that both Fusarium and Colletotrichum species often appear in complexes, sharing similar morphological characteristics (e.g., colony and spore shape) [69]. To characterize these species, the amplification of two or more genes has emerged as a standard method for accurately identifying specific fungal species within widely spread genera [70]. Through analysis of morphological features, molecular procedures, and phylogenetic analysis of RPB2 and EF1-α gene sequences, we identified 43 different Fusarium species. It is assumed that two sequencing sections, EF1-α and RNA polymerase largest subunit RPB1 and/or RPB2 are indispensable for Fusarium species characterization [71]. Numerous recent studies have used these regions for the precise identification of Fusarium isolates complexes [9,23,24,72]. For Colletotrichum species identification, we used multi-locus analysis of ACT, CHS, ITS, GAPDH, TUB2, and CAL genes. Employing these genes, we identified six different Colletotrichum species, including C. boninense, C. truncatum, C. cliviicola, C. karstii, C. fructicola, and C. plurivorum. A similar method has been used to identify Colletotrichum isolates infecting olive trees and Tea-Oil Camellia (Camellia oleifera C. Abel) [25,26].
Pathogenicity evaluations revealed tissue-specific virulence. Among Fusarium isolates, F. acutatum and F. verticillioides exhibited the highest aggressiveness (PMC and DSI) on soybean seeds. Earlier studies have shown that F. verticillioides can significantly diminish soybean seed quality [52]. Among the representative isolates, C. truncatum and C. fructicola exhibited the greatest virulence when inoculated on soybean seeds. Interestingly, several past studies have identified C. fructicola as a nonhost specific pathogen capable of infecting a number of plants and crops, including blueberry [22], sugarcane [29], and apple [73]. Besides C. truncatum and C. fructicola, our results showed that C. karstii acted as a moderately aggressive pathogen toward soybean pods and seeds. Consistent with our findings, C. karstii has been reported to cause anthracnose in soybean in China [66]. Many studies have documented that soybean pod diseases lead to seed deterioration, negatively affecting seed germination and reducing overall yield in soybean fields [74]. The pathogenicity results from our study confirmed that Fusarium and Colletotrichum isolates are capable of decaying soybean pods and seeds, as indicated by reduced seed weight and increased PMC and DSI, which could directly impact soybean yield. We predict that F. acutatum, F. verticillioides, C. fructicola, and C. truncatum are destructive plant pathogens responsible for soybean pod and seed decay. Therefore, understanding their infection mechanisms through molecular analysis provides critical insights for developing targeted management strategies.

5. Conclusions

This study underscores the significance of pathogen identification and management in reducing yield losses in soybean production. By isolating pathogens from soybean pods across five different locations in Sichuan Province, Southwestern China, we found that Colletotrichum and Fusarium were the most predominant genera. Based on both morphological and molecular characteristics, we identified eight Fusarium species and six Colletotrichum species. Pathogenicity tests revealed that F. verticillioides, F. acutatum, and F. proliferatum in the Fusarium genus, as well as C. fructicola and C. truncatum in the Colletotrichum genus, were the most aggressive. Notably, F. acutatum, C. cliviicola, C. boninense, and C. fructicola were identified for the first time as pathogens of soybean pods under the maize–soybean strip intercropping system in Southwestern China. These findings highlight the serious threat posed by diverse Fusarium and Colletotrichum species to soybean production in this region. Specifically, the environmental conditions characterized by high humidity, frequent rainfall, and relatively low temperatures during pod formation and preharvest stages create a conducive environment for fungal infection and spread. Therefore, this study provides a critical basis for better understanding the pathogen population associated with soybean pods during later growth stages of soybean under maize–soybean relay strip intercropping.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/pathogens14101020/s1. Table S1: The primers used for amplification and identification of Fusarium and Colletotrichum species. Table S2: Reference sequences of rDNA ITS gene from NCBI used for the homology analysis of isolated fungal diversity. Table S3: Reference sequences of RPB2 and of EF1-α gene from Fusarium MLST, GenBank, and FUSARIUM-ID used for the homology analysis of isolated Fusarium species. Table S4: The GenBank accession numbers of RPB2 and EF1-α of Fusarium species obtained from soybean pods. Table S5: Reference gene sequences from NCBI GenBank used for the homology analysis of Colletotrichum species. Table S6: The gene bank accession numbers of CHS, ITS, GADPH, ACT, CAL, and TUB2 gene from NCBI. Table S7: Seed pathogenicity of Fusarium species isolated from intercropped soybean pods. Table S8: Seeds pathogenicity of Colletotrichum species isolated from intercropped soybean pods. Figure S1: Seed symptoms after inoculation with the representative isolates of different Fusarium species from intercropped soybean pods. Figure S2: Seed symptoms after inoculation with the representative isolates of different Colletotrichum species from intercropped soybean pods.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M. and X.C.; methodology, M.M.; software, M.M. and F.Y.; validation, M.M., X.C., and W.Z.; formal analysis, M.M. and T.Y.; investigation, M.M. and X.C.; resources, X.C.; data curation, M.M. and Y.L.; writing—original draft preparation, M.M. and M.N.; writing—review and editing, X.C., Z.S., and M.N.; visualization, X.C., and X.W.; supervision, X.C.; project administration, X.C.; funding acquisition, X.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program (2023YFD1401000), Key Research and Development Plan of Sichuan Province (23ZDYF3037), and Guangxi Key Research and Development Program (AB23026107).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The gene sequence information of Fusarium and Colletotrichum isolates in this study are available in the database of NCBI.

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to Gulshan Irshad for his kind guidance during fungal isolation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest in this work. All forms of financial support are acknowledged in the contributions. This work does not involve any human participants or animals. All authors have offered their consent to submission.

References

  1. Loganathan, M.; Maruthasalam, S.; Shiu, L.Y.; Lien, W.C.; Hsu, W.H.; Lee, P.F.; Yu, C.W.; Lin, C.H. Regeneration of soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill) through direct somatic embryogenesis from the immature embryonic shoot tip. Vitr. Cell. Dev. Biol.-Plant 2010, 46, 265–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kumari, S.; Dambale, A.S.; Samantara, R.; Jincy, M.; Bains, G. Introduction, history, geographical distribution, importance, and uses of soybean (Glycine max L.). In Soybean Production Technology: Physiology, Production and Processing; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2025; pp. 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  3. Modgil, R.; Tanwar, B.; Goyal, A.; Kumar, V. Soybean (Glycine max). In Oilseeds: Health Attributes and Food Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 1–46. [Google Scholar]
  4. Belewu, M.; Belewu, K. Comparative physico-chemical evaluation of tiger-nut, soybean and coconut milk sources. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2007, 5, e787. [Google Scholar]
  5. Pagano, M.C.; Miransari, M. The importance of soybean production worldwide. In Abiotic and Biotic Stresses in Soybean Production; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 1–26. [Google Scholar]
  6. Mishra, R.; Tripathi, M.; Sikarwar, R.; Singh, Y.; Tripathi, N. Soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill): A multipurpose legume shaping our world. Plant Cell Biotechnol. Mol. Biol. 2024, 25, 17–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hosseini, B.; Voegele, R.T.; Link, T.I. Diagnosis of soybean diseases caused by fungal and oomycete pathogens: Existing methods and new developments. J. Fungi 2023, 9, 587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Naeem, M.; Li, H.; Yan, L.; Raza, M.A.; Gong, G.; Chen, H.; Yang, C.; Zhang, M.; Shang, J.; Liu, T. Characterization and pathogenicity of Fusarium species associated with soybean pods in maize/soybean strip intercropping. Pathogens 2019, 8, 245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Arias, M.M.D.; Leandro, L.F.; Munkvold, G.P. Aggressiveness of Fusarium species and impact of root infection on growth and yield of soybeans. Phytopathology 2013, 103, 822–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Barros, G.G.; Zanon, M.S.A.; Chiotta, M.L.; Reynoso, M.M.; Scandiani, M.M.; Chulze, S.N. Pathogenicity of phylogenetic species in the Fusarium graminearum complex on soybean seedlings in Argentina. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2014, 138, 215–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chang, X.; Li, H.; Naeem, M.; Wu, X.; Yong, T.; Song, C.; Liu, T.; Chen, W.; Yang, W. Diversity of the seedborne fungi and pathogenicity of Fusarium species associated with intercropped soybean. Pathogens 2020, 9, 531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zhang, J.; Xue, A.; Cober, E.; Morrison, M.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, S.; Gregorich, E. Prevalence, pathogenicity and cultivar resistance of Fusarium and Rhizoctonia species causing soybean root rot. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2013, 93, 221–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pedrozo, R.; Little, C.R. Fusarium verticillioides inoculum potential influences soybean seed quality. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2017, 148, 749–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Pioli, R.; Mozzoni, L.; Morandi, E. First report of pathogenic association between Fusarium graminearum and soybean. Plant Dis. 2004, 88, 220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Leslie, J.F.; Summerell, B.A. The FusariumLaboratory Manual; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  16. Chiotta, M.L.; Alaniz Zanon, M.S.; Palazzini, J.M.; Scandiani, M.M.; Formento, Á.N.; Barros, G.G.; Chulze, S.N. Pathogenicity of Fusarium graminearum and F. meridionale on soybean pod blight and trichothecene accumulation. Plant Pathol. 2016, 65, 1492–1497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Olszewski, J.; Dzienis, G.; Okorski, A.; Goś, W.; Pszczółkowska, A. Fungal Colonization of the Anatomical Parts of Soybean Seeds Supplied with Different Nitrogen Rates and Inoculated with Bradyrhizobium japonicum. Agriculture 2025, 15, 857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhang, M.; Shi, Z.; Chen, G.; Cao, A.; Wang, Q.; Yan, D.; Fang, W.; Li, Y. Detection and identification methods and control techniques for crop seed diseases. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mancini, V.; Murolo, S.; Romanazzi, G. Diagnostic methods for detecting fungal pathogens on vegetable seeds. Plant Pathol. 2016, 65, 691–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Panwar, S.; Duggirala, K.S.; Yadav, P.; Debnath, N.; Yadav, A.K.; Kumar, A. Advanced diagnostic methods for identification of bacterial foodborne pathogens: Contemporary and upcoming challenges. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2023, 43, 982–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Echarte, L.; Della Maggiora, A.; Cerrudo, D.; Gonzalez, V.; Abbate, P.; Cerrudo, A.; Sadras, V.; Calvino, P. Yield response to plant density of maize and sunflower intercropped with soybean. Field Crops Res. 2011, 121, 423–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Abdelmagid, A.; Hafez, M.; Soliman, A.; Adam, L.R.; Daayf, F. First report of Fusarium sporotrichioides causing root rot of soybean in Canada and detection of the pathogen in host tissues by PCR. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 2021, 43, 527–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chang, K.; Hwang, S.; Conner, R.; Ahmed, H.; Zhou, Q.; Turnbull, G.; Strelkov, S.; McLaren, D.; Gossen, B. First report of Fusarium proliferatum causing root rot in soybean (Glycine max L.) in Canada. Crop Prot. 2015, 67, 52–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhou, Q.; Li, N.; Chang, K.F.; Hwang, S.-F.; Strelkov, S.E.; Conner, R.L.; McLaren, D.L.; Fu, H.; Harding, M.W.; Turnbull, G.D. Genetic diversity and aggressiveness of Fusarium species isolated from soybean in Alberta, Canada. Crop Prot. 2018, 105, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chang, X.; Dai, H.; Wang, D.; Zhou, H.; He, W.; Fu, Y.; Ibrahim, F.; Zhou, Y.; Gong, G.; Shang, J. Identification of Fusarium species associated with soybean root rot in Sichuan Province, China. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2018, 151, 563–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yang, X.; Feng, F. Ranges and diversity of soybean fungal diseases in North America. Phytopathology 2001, 91, 769–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Zhao, L.; Wei, X.; Zheng, T.; Gou, Y.N.; Wang, J.; Deng, J.X.; Li, M.-J. Evaluation of pathogenic Fusarium spp. associated with soybean seed (Glycine max) in Hubei Province, China. Plant Dis. 2022, 106, 3178–3186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Abdelmagid, A.; Hafez, M.; Lawley, Y.; Adam, L.; Daayf, F. First report of Fusarium cerealis causing root rot on soybean. Plant Dis. 2018, 102, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ellis, M.; Arias, M.D.; Jimenez, D.C.; Munkvold, G.; Leandro, L. First report of Fusarium commune causing damping-off, seed rot, and seedling root rot on soybean (Glycine max) in the United States. Plant Dis. 2013, 97, 284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Olszak-Przybyś, H.; Korbecka-Glinka, G.; Patkowska, E. Identification and pathogenicity of Fusarium isolated from soybean in Poland. Pathogens 2023, 12, 1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chang, X.; Naeem, M.; Li, H.; Yan, L.; Liu, T.; Liu, B.; Zhang, H.; Khaskheli, M.; Gong, G.; Zhang, M. First report of Fusarium asiaticum as a causal agent for seed decay of soybean (Glycine max) in Sichuan, China. Plant Dis. 2020, 104, 1542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Chang, X.; Yan, L.; Naeem, M.; Khaskheli, M.I.; Zhang, H.; Gong, G.; Zhang, M.; Song, C.; Yang, W.; Liu, T. Maize/soybean relay strip intercropping reduces the occurrence of Fusarium root rot and changes the diversity of the pathogenic Fusarium species. Pathogens 2020, 9, 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Arias, M.D.; Munkvold, G.; Ellis, M.; Leandro, L. Distribution and frequency of Fusarium species associated with soybean roots in Iowa. Plant Dis. 2013, 97, 1557–1562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Cannon, P.; Damm, U.; Johnston, P.; Weir, B. Colletotrichum: Current status and future directions. Stud. Mycol. 2012, 73, 181–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Dean, R.; Van Kan, J.A.; Pretorius, Z.A.; Hammond-Kosack, K.E.; Di Pietro, A.; Spanu, P.D.; Rudd, J.J.; Dickman, M.; Kahmann, R.; Ellis, J. The Top 10 fungal pathogens in molecular plant pathology. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2012, 13, 414–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. da Silva, L.L.; Moreno, H.L.A.; Correia, H.L.N.; Santana, M.F.; de Queiroz, M.V. Colletotrichum: Species complexes, lifestyle, and peculiarities of some sources of genetic variability. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2020, 104, 1891–1904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sharma, S.; Gupta, G.; Ramteke, R. Colletotrichum truncatum [(Schw.) Andrus & WD Moore], the causal agent of anthracnose of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merrill]—A Review. Soybean Res. 2011, 9, 31–52. [Google Scholar]
  38. Yang, H.C.; Hartman, G.L. Methods and evaluation of soybean genotypes for resistance to Colletotrichum truncatum. Plant Dis. 2015, 99, 143–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Hartman, G.L.; Rupe, J.C.; Sikora, E.J.; Domier, L.L.; Davis, J.A.; Steffey, K.L. Compendium of Soybean Diseases and Pests; American Phytopathological Society: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  40. Cai, L.; Hyde, K.; Taylor, P.; Weir, B.; Waller, J.; Abang, M.; Zhang, J.; Yang, Y.; Phoulivong, S.; Liu, Z. A polyphasic approach for studying Colletotrichum. Fungal Divers. 2009, 39, 183–204. [Google Scholar]
  41. Damm, U.; Woudenberg, J.; Cannon, P.; Crous, P. Colletotrichum species with curved conidia from herbaceous hosts. Fungal Divers. 2009, 39, 45. [Google Scholar]
  42. Hyde, K.; Cai, L.; Cannon, P.; Crouch, J.; Crous, P.; Damm, U.; Goodwin, P.; Chen, H.; Johnston, P.; Jones, E. Colletotrichum—Names in current use. Fungal Divers. 2009, 39, 147–182. [Google Scholar]
  43. Yang, H.C.; Haudenshield, J.; Hartman, G. First report of Colletotrichum chlorophyti causing soybean anthracnose. Plant Dis. 2012, 96, 1699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Yang, H.C.; Haudenshield, J.S.; Hartman, G.L. Colletotrichum incanum sp. nov., a curved-conidial species causing soybean anthracnose in USA. Mycologia 2014, 106, 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Khakimov, A.; Salakhutdinov, I.; Omolikov, A.; Utaganov, S. Traditional and current-prospective methods of agricultural plant diseases detection: A review. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing Ltd.: Bristol, UK, 2022; p. 012002. [Google Scholar]
  46. Dayarathne, M.C.; Mridha, A.U.; Wang, Y. Diagnosis of fungal plant pathogens using conventional and molecular approaches. In Diagnostics of Plant Diseases; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  47. Da Lio, D.; Cobo-Díaz, J.F.; Masson, C.; Chalopin, M.; Kebe, D.; Giraud, M.; Verhaeghe, A.; Nodet, P.; Sarrocco, S.; Le Floch, G. Combined metabarcoding and multi-locus approach for genetic characterization of Colletotrichum species associated with common walnut (Juglans regia) anthracnose in France. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 10765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bhunjun, C.S.; Phukhamsakda, C.; Jayawardena, R.S.; Jeewon, R.; Promputtha, I.; Hyde, K.D. Investigating species boundaries in Colletotrichum. Fungal Divers. 2021, 107, 107–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Fuentes-Aragón, D.; Guarnaccia, V.; Rebollar-Alviter, A.; Juárez-Vázquez, S.B.; Aguirre-Rayo, F.; Silva-Rojas, H.V. Multilocus identification and thiophanate-methyl sensitivity of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides species complex associated with fruit with symptoms and symptomless leaves of mango. Plant Pathol. 2020, 69, 1125–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bo, D.J.; Fu, H.T.; Yi, G.J.; Wen, Y.T.; Xin, S.; Chun, W.X.; Feng, Y.; Liu, J.; Shu Kai, S.K.; Liu WeiGuo, L.W. Maize-soybean strip intercropping: Achieved a balance between high productivity and sustainability. J. Integr. Agric. 2018, 17, 747–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Yang, F.; Wang, X.; Liao, D.; Lu, F.; Gao, R.; Liu, W.; Yong, T.; Wu, X.; Du, J.; Liu, J. Yield response to different planting geometries in maize–soybean relay strip intercropping systems. Agron. J. 2015, 107, 296–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Liu, J.; Deng, J.; Zhang, K.; Wu, H.; Yang, C.; Zhang, X.; Du, J.; Shu, K.; Yang, W. Pod mildew on soybeans can mitigate the damage to the seed arising from field mold at harvest time. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, 64, 9135–9142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Doohan, F.; Brennan, J.; Cooke, B. Influence of climatic factors on Fusarium species pathogenic to cereals. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2003, 109, 755–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Liu, Y.; Wu, D.; Liu, Q.; Zhang, S.; Tang, Y.; Jiang, G.; Li, S.; Ding, W. The sequevar distribution of Ralstonia solanacearum in tobacco-growing zones of China is structured by elevation. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2017, 147, 541–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Jiang, G.; Wei, Z.; Xu, J.; Chen, H.; Zhang, Y.; She, X.; Macho, A.P.; Ding, W.; Liao, B. Bacterial wilt in China: History, current status, and future perspectives. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zhou, Y.; Gong, G.; Cui, Y.; Zhang, D.; Chang, X.; Hu, R.; Liu, N.; Sun, X. Identification of Botryosphaeriaceae species causing kiwifruit rot in Sichuan Province, China. Plant Dis. 2015, 99, 699–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. O’Donnell, K.; Humber, R.A.; Geiser, D.M.; Kang, S.; Park, B.; Robert, V.A.; Crous, P.W.; Johnston, P.R.; Aoki, T.; Rooney, A.P. Phylogenetic diversity of insecticolous fusaria inferred from multilocus DNA sequence data and their molecular identification via FUSARIUM-ID and Fusarium MLST. Mycologia 2012, 104, 427–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kumar, S.; Stecher, G.; Tamura, K. MEGA7: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2016, 33, 1870–1874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gao, X.; Wu, M.; Xu, R.; Wang, X.; Pan, R.; Kim, H.-J.; Liao, H. Root interactions in a maize/soybean intercropping system control soybean soil-borne disease, red crown rot. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e95031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Naeem, M.; Munir, M.; Li, H.; Raza, M.A.; Song, C.; Wu, X.; Irshad, G.; Khalid, M.H.B.; Yang, W.; Chang, X. Transcriptional responses of Fusarium graminearum interacted with soybean to cause root rot. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Miedaner, T.; Bolduan, C.; Melchinger, A. Aggressiveness and mycotoxin production of eight isolates each of Fusarium graminearum and Fusarium verticillioides for ear rot on susceptible and resistant early maize inbred lines. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2010, 127, 113–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wu, C.J.; Chen, H.K.; Ni, H.F. Identification and characterization of Colletotrichum species associated with mango anthracnose in Taiwan. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2020, 157, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Singhmanini, A.; Kotasthane, A.S.; Agrawal, T.; Mahilang, A. Characterization of Colletotrichum species associated with soybean pod blight in soybean growing districts of Chhattisgarh. Indian Phytopathol. 2023, 76, 77–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rogério, F.; Ciampi-Guillardi, M.; Barbieri, M.; Bragança, C.; Seixas, C.; Almeida, A.; Massola, N., Jr. Phylogeny and variability of Colletotrichum truncatum associated with soybean anthracnose in Brazil. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2017, 122, 402–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Rogério, F.; Boufleur, T.R.; Ciampi-Guillardi, M.; Sukno, S.A.; Thon, M.R.; Massola Junior, N.S.; Baroncelli, R. Genome sequence resources of Colletotrichum truncatum, C. plurivorum, C. musicola, and C. sojae: Four species pathogenic to soybean (Glycine max). Phytopathol. 2020, 110, 1497–1499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Luo, M.; Huang, L.; An, X.; Pan, Y.; Wu, S. First Report of Colletotrichum karstii Causing Anthracnose on Soybean in China. Plant Dis. 2024, 108, 2236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Cacciola, S.O.; Gilardi, G.; Faedda, R.; Schena, L.; Pane, A.; Garibaldi, A.; Gullino, M.L. Characterization of Colletotrichum ocimi population associated with black spot of sweet basil (Ocimum basilicum) in Northern Italy. Plants 2020, 9, 654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Guarnaccia, V.; Gilardi, G.; Martino, I.; Garibaldi, A.; Gullino, M.L. Species diversity in Colletotrichum causing anthracnose of aromatic and ornamental lamiaceae in Italy. Agronomy 2019, 9, 613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Liu, F.; Damm, U.; Cai, L.; Crous, P.W. Species of the Colletotrichum gloeosporioides complex associated with anthracnose diseases of Proteaceae. Fungal Divers. 2013, 61, 89–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Summerell, B.A. Resolving Fusarium: Current status of the genus. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2019, 57, 323–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. O’Donnell, K.; Whitaker, B.K.; Laraba, I.; Proctor, R.H.; Brown, D.W.; Broders, K.; Kim, H.S.; McCormick, S.P.; Busman, M.; Aoki, T. DNA sequence-based identification of Fusarium: A work in progress. Plant Dis. 2022, 106, 1597–1609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Neergaard, P.; Neergaard, P. Management of Seed Storage. Seed Pathol. 1977, 1, 574–594. [Google Scholar]
  73. Killebrew, J.; Roy, K.; Lawrence, G.; McLean, K.; Hodges, H. Greenhouse and field evaluation of Fusarium solani pathogenicity to soybean seedlings. Plant Dis. 1988, 72, 1067–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. van Diepeningen, A.D.; Brankovics, B.; Iltes, J.; Van der Lee, T.A.; Waalwijk, C. Diagnosis of Fusarium infections: Approaches to identification by the clinical mycology laboratory. Curr. Fungal Infect. Rep. 2015, 9, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. The obtained mycoflora infecting soybean pods based on morphological features and sequence analysis of rDNA ITS fragments. (A) Colonial morphology of fungal isolates, (B) Phylogenetic tree of fungal isolates constructed using rDNA ITS. (C) The isolation frequency of fungal isolates associated with intercropped soybean pods. The colonies were observed after 7 days of incubation on PDA. The phylogenetic tree including 132 obtained isolates and 25 reference isolates, and an outgroup Monilochaetes infuscans was constructed by MEGA X, with branches showing values >70 were excluded. Bootstrap support values were calculated from 1000 replications. Monilochaetes infuscans was used as outgroup.
Figure 1. The obtained mycoflora infecting soybean pods based on morphological features and sequence analysis of rDNA ITS fragments. (A) Colonial morphology of fungal isolates, (B) Phylogenetic tree of fungal isolates constructed using rDNA ITS. (C) The isolation frequency of fungal isolates associated with intercropped soybean pods. The colonies were observed after 7 days of incubation on PDA. The phylogenetic tree including 132 obtained isolates and 25 reference isolates, and an outgroup Monilochaetes infuscans was constructed by MEGA X, with branches showing values >70 were excluded. Bootstrap support values were calculated from 1000 replications. Monilochaetes infuscans was used as outgroup.
Pathogens 14 01020 g001
Figure 2. Morphological and molecular identification of Fusarium isolates associated with soybean pods. (A) Characterization of colonies and conidium of Fusarium isolates. Typical colonies (Top line: Colony front and Middle line: Colony back) of Fusarium species were observed after 7 days and macroconidia (Bottom line) were visualized under microscopy after 10 days of growth on PDA. Scale bars are 20 μm. (B) Phylogenetic tree of Fusarium isolates based on EF1-α and RPB2 fragments. A maximum-likelihood (ML) tree was constructed by MEGA X (Pennsylvania State University). Bootstrap support values were ≥50% from 1000 replications, which are shown at the nodes. FFPC: Fusarium fujikuroiproliferatum complex; FEIC: Fusarium equisetiincarnatum complex.
Figure 2. Morphological and molecular identification of Fusarium isolates associated with soybean pods. (A) Characterization of colonies and conidium of Fusarium isolates. Typical colonies (Top line: Colony front and Middle line: Colony back) of Fusarium species were observed after 7 days and macroconidia (Bottom line) were visualized under microscopy after 10 days of growth on PDA. Scale bars are 20 μm. (B) Phylogenetic tree of Fusarium isolates based on EF1-α and RPB2 fragments. A maximum-likelihood (ML) tree was constructed by MEGA X (Pennsylvania State University). Bootstrap support values were ≥50% from 1000 replications, which are shown at the nodes. FFPC: Fusarium fujikuroiproliferatum complex; FEIC: Fusarium equisetiincarnatum complex.
Pathogens 14 01020 g002
Figure 3. Morphological and molecular identification of Colletotrichum isolates associated with soybean pods. (A) The morphological traits of Colletotrichum species isolated from soybean. Colonies (Top line: Colony front, Middle line: Colony back, and Bottom line: macroconidia) of Colletotrichum species were examined after 7 days and spores after 15 days of incubation. Scale bars are 20 μm. (B) Phylogenetic tree of Colletotrichum isolates based on rDNA ITS, CHS, GAPDH, ACT, CAL, and TUB2 genes. The tree was constructed using the ML method by MEGA X (Pennsylvania State University). Bootstrap support values were ≥50% from 1000 replications, which are shown at the nodes.
Figure 3. Morphological and molecular identification of Colletotrichum isolates associated with soybean pods. (A) The morphological traits of Colletotrichum species isolated from soybean. Colonies (Top line: Colony front, Middle line: Colony back, and Bottom line: macroconidia) of Colletotrichum species were examined after 7 days and spores after 15 days of incubation. Scale bars are 20 μm. (B) Phylogenetic tree of Colletotrichum isolates based on rDNA ITS, CHS, GAPDH, ACT, CAL, and TUB2 genes. The tree was constructed using the ML method by MEGA X (Pennsylvania State University). Bootstrap support values were ≥50% from 1000 replications, which are shown at the nodes.
Pathogens 14 01020 g003
Figure 4. The isolation frequencies of Fusarium and Colletotrichum species from intercropped soybean pods. (A) Fusarium species and (B) Colletotrichum species.
Figure 4. The isolation frequencies of Fusarium and Colletotrichum species from intercropped soybean pods. (A) Fusarium species and (B) Colletotrichum species.
Pathogens 14 01020 g004
Figure 5. The pathogenicity of representative isolates from each Fusarium species on soybean pods. Soybean pods were inoculated with the selected Fusarium isolates by a pod-soaking inoculation method at a final concentration of 1 × 105 spores per mL. The disease symptoms were observed after 7 days post-inoculation.
Figure 5. The pathogenicity of representative isolates from each Fusarium species on soybean pods. Soybean pods were inoculated with the selected Fusarium isolates by a pod-soaking inoculation method at a final concentration of 1 × 105 spores per mL. The disease symptoms were observed after 7 days post-inoculation.
Pathogens 14 01020 g005
Figure 6. The pathogenicity of each Colletotrichum species representative isolates on soybean pods. Soybean pods were inoculated by the chosen Colletotrichum isolates by using the pod-soaking inoculation method with the final concentration of 1 × 105 spores per mL. The disease symptoms were noted after 7 days post-inoculation.
Figure 6. The pathogenicity of each Colletotrichum species representative isolates on soybean pods. Soybean pods were inoculated by the chosen Colletotrichum isolates by using the pod-soaking inoculation method with the final concentration of 1 × 105 spores per mL. The disease symptoms were noted after 7 days post-inoculation.
Pathogens 14 01020 g006
Table 1. Morphological characters of Fusarium species cultured on PDA medium.
Table 1. Morphological characters of Fusarium species cultured on PDA medium.
SpeciesMacroconidiaColony CharacterizationGrowth Rate (cm/day)
ShapeWidth (μm)Length (μm)Septa
F. equisetiFalcate3.10 ± 0.02 c,
3.02–3.70
39.25 ± 1.81 a,
38.23–45.98
3–5Pale gray color (front), ginger yellowish (back)4.88 ± 0.41 b
F. incarnatumFalcate3.98 ± 0.44 a,
5.67–2.72
36.98 ± 3.63 a,
45.55–36.62
3–4Pale gray color (front), yellowish color (back)5.32 ± 0.39 a
F. verticillioidesFusiform3.40 ± 0.90 b,
3.80–3.33
23.25 ± 0.2 b,
20.21–25.90
2–3Pale gray colonies, reverse pale gray4.90 ± 0.30 b
F. proliferatumFalcate, fusiform3.60 ± 1.12 b,
5.41–2.96
39.12 ± 6.54 a,
48.56–32.66
3–4Pale gray color (front), pale gray (back)4.50 ± 0.03 c
F. fujikuroiFalcate2.42 ± 0.46 e,
3.12–2.28
39.92 ± 1.98 a,
43.82–38.94
3–5Pale gray color (front), pale yellowish color (back)4.76 ± 0.32 c
F. oxysporumFalcate3.10 ± 0.16 c,
2.31–4.82
26.90 ± 1.60 b,
28.62–22.23
3Pale gray (front) pale purple on the back5.40 ± 0.30 a
F. chlamydosporumFalcate3.20 ± 0.82 c,
3.90–3.22
25.45 ± 0.20 b,
28.12–23.95
2–3Brown, light pink (Front) purple (back)5.23 ± 0.01 a
F. acutatumFalcate2.79 ± 1.62 d,
3.20–1.98
23.24 ± 0.8 b,
24.56–20.86
3–5White-gray (front)
purple (back)
4.39 ± 0.02 c
Notes: All data represent the average values from three independent replicates of each Fusarium species. Different lowercase letters within the same column indicate a significant variation, as determined by performingTukey’s test at a significance level of p > 0.05.
Table 2. Morphological characterization of Colletotrichum species cultured on PDA medium.
Table 2. Morphological characterization of Colletotrichum species cultured on PDA medium.
SpeciesConidial ShapeConidia SizeTextureGrowth Rate
(cm/day)
Length (μm)Width (μm)
C. truncatumFusiform23.20 ± 0.56 a
24.65–16.22
5.56 ± 0.35 b
5.90–4.32
Cottony6.90 ± 0.12 a
C. karstiiCylindrical15.5 ± 0.20 b
18.20–14.90
6.80 ± 0.23 a
8.56–5.52
Cottony5.63 ± 0.27 b
C. cliviicolaoval/ellipsoidal13.35 ± 0.02 c
14.22–12.86
3.62 ± 0.06 c
4.56–3.22
Cottony6.12 ± 0.25 a
C. plurivorumFusiform13.75 ± 0.12 c
15.78–12.66
3.4 ± 0.02 c
4.45–3.56
Cottony and white6.30 ± 0.09 a
C. boninenseCylindrical15.10 ± 0.20 b
16.20–14.75
5.30 ± 0.45 b
6.60–4.25
Medium brown6.15 ± 0.02 a
C. fructicolaFusiform12.90 ± 0.32 c
14.56–10.86
6.80 ± 0.23 a
8.56–5.52
Grayish black6.4 ± 0.60 a
Notes: All data are the means of three independent replicates of each Colletotrichum test. Different lowercase letters in the same column reveal a significant variation after Tukey’s test analysis at the level of p > 0.05, n = 50.
Table 3. Pathogenicity of representative isolates from each Fusarium species on soybean pods isolated from intercropped soybean pods.
Table 3. Pathogenicity of representative isolates from each Fusarium species on soybean pods isolated from intercropped soybean pods.
IsolatesPMC (%)DSI (%)Pod Weight (g)
Control (CK)0 ± 0 e0 ± 0 d1.89 ± 0.04 d
F. proliferatum (FS31)90.66 ± 0.40 a96.66 ± 4.71 a1.79 ± 0.31 c
F. proliferatum (FS120)89.66 ± 0.47 a100 ± 0 a1.71 ± 0.05 c
F. proliferatum (FS167)78.33 ± 2.35 a93.33 ± 4.71 a1.74 ± 0.01 c
F. fujikuroi (FS79)43.33 ± 2.35 b66.66 ± 11.78 b2.48 ± 0.27 b
F. fujikuroi (FS101)46.66 ± 4.71 b75 ± 0 ab2.37 ± 0.24 b
F. fujikuroi (FS123)23.33 ± 2.35 c58.33 ± 11.78 b2.71 ± 0.09 b
F. equiseti (FS4)88.33 ± 2.35 a75 ± 11.78 b2.21 ± 0.07 b
F. equiseti (FS65)41.66 ± 2.35 b50 ± 11.78 b2.19 ± 0.02 b
F. equiseti (FS170)21.66 ± 2.35 c50 ± 20.41 b2.13 ± 0.03 b
F. acutatum (FS142)100 ± 0 a100 ± 0 a2.64 ± 0.09 b
F. acutatum (FS151)95 ± 4.08 a100 ± 0 a2.47 ± 0.31 b
F. acutatum (FS155)98.33 ± 2.35 a100 ± 0 a2.57 ± 0.12 b
F. verticillioides (FS42)98.33 ± 2.35 a100 ± 0 a2.29 ± 0.12 b
F. verticillioides (FS89)100 ± 0 a100 ± 0 a2.25 ± 0.04 b
F. verticillioides (FS112)100 ± 0 a100 ± 0 a2.29 ± 0.06 c
F. incarnatum (FS2)26.66 ± 2.35 c33.33 ± 11.78 c3.34 ± 0.19 a
F. incarnatum (FS24)20 ± 4.08 dc25 ± 0 c3.29 ± 0.05 a
F. incarnatum (FS130)18.33 ± 6.23 d33.33 ± 11.78 c3.25 ± 0.06 a
F. oxysporum (FS49)55 ± 4.08 b83.33 ± 11.78 a1.84 ± 0.27 c
F. oxysporum (FS26)45 ± 4.08 b66.66 ± 11.78 b1.86 ± 0.04 c
F. oxysporum (FS132)50 ± 4.08 b58.33 ± 11.78 b1.89 ± 0.16 c
F. chlamydosporum (FS76)18.33 ± 2.35 d75 ± 0 ab1.68 ± 0.16 c
F. chlamydosporum (FS105)23.33 ± 6.23 c50 ± 20.41 b1.57 ± 0.05 c
F. chlamydosporum (FS126)16.66 ± 2.35 d66.66 ± 11.78 b1.69 ± 0.08 c
Notes: The data are the average values from three independent replicates of each Fusarium species. Lowercase letters in the same column indicate significant difference. Significant difference was analyzed using Tukey’s test at the level of p > 0.05. The different lowercase letters highlight the significant differences of each parameter within Fusarium species.
Table 4. Pod pathogenicity of representative isolates of each Colletotrichum species obtained from intercropped soybean pods.
Table 4. Pod pathogenicity of representative isolates of each Colletotrichum species obtained from intercropped soybean pods.
IsolatesPMC (%)DSI (%)Pod Weight (g)
Control (CK)0 ± 0 d0 ± 0 e1.86 ± 0.040 d
C. fructicola (CS15)90 ± 4.08 a100 ± 0 a2.51 ± 0.04 b
C. fructicola (CS93)86.66 ± 6.23 a91.66 ± 11.78 a2.52 ± 0.02 b
C. fructicola (CS169)76.66 ± 2.35 ab100 ± 0 a2.51 ± 0.01 b
C. truncatum (CS03)78.33 ± 4.71 ab75 ± 0 b2.09 ± 0.02 c
C. truncatum (CS61)80 ± 4.08 a83.33 ± 11.78 b2.11 ± 0.01 c
C. truncatum (CS153)81.66 ± 2.35 a66.66 ± 11.7 b2.16 ± 0.08 c
C. karstii (CS13)91.66 ± 2.35 a83.33 ± 11.78 b2.67 ± 0.05 b
C. karstii (CS96)86.66 ± 2.35 a75 ± 0 b2.47 ± 0.08 b
C. karstii (CS158)80 ± 7.07 a75 ± 0 b2.67 ± 0.03 b
C. cliviicola (CS22)81.66 ± 2.35 a66.66 ± 11.78 c2.13 ± 0.12 c
C. cliviicola (CS95)76.66 ± 2.35 ab58.33 ± 11.78 c2.21 ± 0.08 c
C. cliviicola (CS164)65 ± 4.0 b50 ± 20.41 c2.26 ± 0.09 c
C. plurivorum (CS06)10 ± 4.08 c25 ± 0 d2.60 ± 0.02 b
C. plurivorum (CS172)8.33 ± 2.35 c33.33 ± 11.78 d2.59 ± 0.01 b
C. plurivorum (CS180)6.66 ± 2.35 c25 ± 20.41 d2.61 ± 0.01 b
C. boninense (CS94)10 ± 4.08 c33.33 ± 11.78 d2.96 ± 0.01 a
C. boninense (CS118)11.66 ± 6.23 c25 ± 0 d2.98 ± 0.02 a
C. boninense (CS166)10 ± 4.08 c25 ± 0 d2.95 ± 0.03 a
Notes: The data are the mean values from three independent replicates of each Colletotrichum species. Lowercase letters in the same column indicate significant difference. Significant difference was calculated by applying Tukey’s test at the level of p > 0.05. The different lowercase letters represent the significant differences of each parameter among Colletotrichum species.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Munir, M.; Naeem, M.; Wu, X.; Zeng, W.; Sun, Z.; Li, Y.; Yong, T.; Yang, F.; Chang, X. Morpho-Molecular Identification and Pathogenic Characterization of Fusarium and Colletotrichum Species Associated with Intercropped Soybean Pod Decay. Pathogens 2025, 14, 1020. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14101020

AMA Style

Munir M, Naeem M, Wu X, Zeng W, Sun Z, Li Y, Yong T, Yang F, Chang X. Morpho-Molecular Identification and Pathogenic Characterization of Fusarium and Colletotrichum Species Associated with Intercropped Soybean Pod Decay. Pathogens. 2025; 14(10):1020. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14101020

Chicago/Turabian Style

Munir, Maira, Muhammd Naeem, Xiaoling Wu, Weiying Zeng, Zudong Sun, Yuze Li, Taiwen Yong, Feng Yang, and Xiaoli Chang. 2025. "Morpho-Molecular Identification and Pathogenic Characterization of Fusarium and Colletotrichum Species Associated with Intercropped Soybean Pod Decay" Pathogens 14, no. 10: 1020. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14101020

APA Style

Munir, M., Naeem, M., Wu, X., Zeng, W., Sun, Z., Li, Y., Yong, T., Yang, F., & Chang, X. (2025). Morpho-Molecular Identification and Pathogenic Characterization of Fusarium and Colletotrichum Species Associated with Intercropped Soybean Pod Decay. Pathogens, 14(10), 1020. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14101020

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