Content uploaded by Tamado Tana
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tamado Tana on Mar 01, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Review Article Open Access
Hailu et al., J Plant Pathol Microbiol 2017, 8:9
DOI: 10.4172/2157-7471.1000419
Journal of
Plant Pathology & Microbiology
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
P
l
a
n
t
P
a
t
h
o
l
o
g
y
&
M
i
c
r
o
b
i
o
l
o
g
y
ISSN: 2157-7471
Research Article OMICS International
Volume 8 • Issue 9 • 1000419
J Plant Pathol Microbiol, an open access journal
ISSN: 2157-7471
Keywords: Common blight; Disease rating; Moisture; Phaseolus
vulgaris
Introduction
Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is the most widely produced
and consumed legume worldwide [1] and occupies an important place
in human nutrition. It belongs to the genus Phaseolus, with pinnately
compound trifoliate large leaves [2]. e dietary bre part of the
carbohydrate reduces cholesterol and prevents colon cancer [3], while
18% to 30% dry weight of common beans is protein [4]. It also contains
vitamin B and minerals (namely calcium, copper, magnesium, and zinc)
and sometimes referred to as a near perfect food [4-6].
Common bean production is limited due to dierent biotic and
abiotic factors. Among the abiotic constraints are inadequate total
rainfall, erratic rainfall distribution, periodic water stress, extended
dry spells during the crop critical growth as a result of climate change
[2,7,8]. Low soil fertility, shortage or excess of mineral salts and extreme
lower pH of soil are also the abiotic factors that limit common bean
production [9-11]. e major disease of common bean in east Africa,
especially in Ethiopia, that is targeted for the management is common
bacterial blight (CBB), caused by Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. phaseoloi
(Smith) and Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. phaseoloi var. fuscans
(Burkholder) [12-16].
Depending on susceptibility of common bean varieties and
environmental conditions, CBB may cause yield losses ranging between
10% and 40%, [17-20]. Because common bacterial blight is a warm
weather and higher humidity disease, it can cause the greatest damage
at warm temperature of 28°C to 32°C [21-23]. e bacteria survive at
the temperature ranges of 25°C to 35°C in the eld on infected seed and
plant debris [24-27].
e global surface temperature is projected to increase from 1.8°C
lower scenario to 4°C maximum scenario in 2050s [28]. In arid and semi-
arid agro-ecologies, the temperature is expected to be increased with the
maximum scenario. When temperature is increasing at an alarming rate,
water loss occurs through evapo-transpiration and results in reduction
of soil moisture content with increase in relative humidity. Increasing
temperature until the optimum level for bacterial strains, and increasing
relative humidity creates suitable condition for the development of
CBB epidemics in susceptible common bean varieties [26]. However,
at higher temperature, above the optimum level for bacterial blight
development, especially above 30°C, the heat tolerant, disease resistant
and drought resistant varieties adapt to high temperature and lower
soil water content [29-31]. e drought resistant and disease resistant
common bean varieties develop several adaptation mechanisms that
allow the plant survival during hot and dry conditions [7,32].
e high temperature causes water decit due to excessive
transpiration that could adversely aect the development and function
Effects of Temperature and Moisture on Growth of Common Bean and
Its Resistance Reaction against Common Bacterial Blight (
Xanthomonas
axonopodis
pv.
phaseoli
strains)
Hailu N1*, Fininsa C2, Tana T2 and Mamo G3
1Department of Plant Sciences, Debreberhgan University, Debereberhan, Ethiopia
2School of Plant Sciences, Haramaya University, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia
3Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Abstract
Common bacterial blight (CBB), caused by Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. phaseoli Smith (Xap) and Xanthomonas
axonopodis pv. phaseoli var. fuscan Burkholder (Xapf) is the most serious biotic constraint of common bean
(Phaseolus vulgaris L.) production. Variables temperature and moisture are dominant climate factors that affect
common bean growth as well as the development of CBB epidemics. Two sets of experiments were conducted in
the Plant Pathology Laboratory of Haramaya University) to assess the effect of temperature and moisture on the
resistance level of common bean in 2014 and 2015. In the rst experiment, two common bean varieties (Gofta
and Mexican 142) were inoculated with two bacterial strains (Xap and Xapf) and a control were incubated at
four temperature levels (28°C, 30°C, 32°C and 34°C) in growth chambers. In the second experiment, three-soil
moisture levels (100%, 75% and 50%) were employed to that of experiment one. The treatment combinations were
arranged in factorial completely randomized design (CRD) in the growth chambers for both series of experiments.
The disease rating was signicantly (P<0.05) affected by common bean varieties and temperature levels at 17 days
after inoculation (DAI). Higher disease rating was recorded on the variety Mexican 142 than on Gofta. The highest
(1.75) mean disease rating was recorded at 28°C and the lowest (1.44) at 34°C. The mean disease ratings differed
signicantly among the moisture levels. The highest (2.01) mean disease rating was recorded from 75% moisture
content, while the lowest (1.80) disease rating was obtained from 50% moisture content. The results of these
series of experiments indicated that climate change effects above optimum level would not be favorable for CBB
development in the arid and semi-arid agro ecologies unless new bacterial strains adapted to the drought tolerant
common beans in the area.
*Corresponding author: Hailu N, Department of Plant Sciences, Debreberhgan
University, P.O. Box 445, Debereberhan, Ethiopia, Tel: 82-31-670-5420; E-mail:
negash.hailu17@gmail.com
Received September 05, 2017; Accepted September 22, 2017; Published
September 26, 2017
Citation: Hailu N, Fininsa C, Tana T, Mamo G (2017) Effects of Temperature
and Moisture on Growth of Common Bean and Its Resistance Reaction against
Common Bacterial Blight (Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. phaseoli strains). J Plant
Pathol Microbiol 8: 419. doi: 10.4172/2157-7471.1000419
Copyright: © 2017 Hailu N, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under
the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and
source are credited.
Citation: Hailu N, Fininsa C, Tana T, Mamo G (2017) Effects of Temperature and Moisture on Growth of Common Bean and Its Resistance Reaction
against Common Bacterial Blight (Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. phaseoli strains). J Plant Pathol Microbiol 8: 419. doi: 10.4172/2157-
7471.1000419
Page 2 of 6
Volume 8 • Issue 9 • 1000419
J Plant Pathol Microbiol, an open access journal
ISSN: 2157-7471
of its reproductive organs [30]. In drought resistant varieties, tissue water
content is kept high by restricting excessive vegetative growth and a large
reduction in water potential. e reduction in leaf water potential due
to water stress is linearly correlated with reductions in shoot extension
rate and leaf water content [7,32]. e reduction in shoot growth due
to stress contributes to a build-up of water-economizing traits, such as
specic leaf weight and succulence index [32].
Drought stresses induce genotypic variation of shoot biomass
accumulation, pod, seed number, and biomass partitioning index. In
general, drought resistance mechanisms can include drought escape;
drought avoidance; and drought tolerance [7,32]. Drought escape allows
plants to accelerate their cell cycle with an early owering and maturity,
and rapidly relocates metabolites to seed production [8,30] and away
from leaves and shoot tissues [33,34]. Drought avoidance is the capability
to keep high tissue water potential through increased rooting depth,
hydraulic conductance reduction, and radiation absorption reduction
in leaves, water-loss area reduction, reduced absorption of radiation by
leaf movement, and reduced surface evaporation [7,30,35].
During higher temperature and lower moisture, the disease
resistant varieties will reduce disease development due to mobilization
of resources into host resistance through various mechanisms, such as
reduced stomata density and conductance [30]. Common beans adapt
stress conditions of climate change variables through production of
greater accumulation of carbohydrates such as waxes, extra layers of
epidermal cells, increased ber content and pH change in their cell
cytoplasm [33,34]. Sallam [35] reported that the resistance might be
increased by change of pH of plant cell cytoplasm, due to the increase in
phenolic acid content, resulting in inhibition of pathogen development.
Hence, the accumulation of phenolic compounds at infection site
restricts the development of common bacterial blight causing bacterial
strains since such compounds are toxic to bacterial strains [35].
Changes in climate, such as increasing temperature and reducing
soil moisture, can potentially aect disease development and crop
production [21,36,37]. Crop production in Ethiopia is dependent
on rainfed agriculture, largely at a subsistence level. Hence, change
in weather patterns, particularly rainfall amounts and distribution
as well as temperature could be favourable to CBB development
and can devastate common bean production. e response of CBB
development to increased temperature and reduced moisture needs in
vivo investigation at dierent temperature and moisture levels [36,38].
Knowing the eect of temperature and moisture content on disease
development and resistance expression of common bean varieties enable
to setup resilience strategies of climate change for the management of
bacterial blight of common bean in the ever-changing climate in the
eld conditions.
e objective of this study, therefore, was to assess the eects of
temperature and moisture on disease development and on resistance of
common beans against common bacterial blight.
Materials and Methods
Description of the study area
Isolation, characterization, and identication of bacterial strains
as well as pathogenicity test were conducted in the Plant Pathology
Laboratory of Haramaya University during 2014 and 2015 from
February to June each year. Symptomatic leaves were collected from
the eld experiments of Babile and Haramaya research stations of
Haramaya University during 2014 cropping season. en the two sets
of experiments were conducted in thermoregulated growth chambers.
Pathogen isolation and culturing: Leaves with typical CBB
symptoms (irregular necrotic lesions with yellow borders and water-
soaked spots) were collected from the experimental elds and dried
between paper towels. For some sorts of leaf samples, tissues (0.16 mm2)
were excised from the lesion margin, placed in a drop of distilled water
on Petri dish and macerated with sterilized mortar and pestle. Loopfuls
of macerates were streaked onto nutrient agar (NA) and plates were
incubated at 28°C for 24 h. Yellow, mucoid, xanthomonad-like colonies
were selected from each leaf sample and subcultured on NA [20,36].
Loopfuls of subcultured samples from puried colonies were
streaked onto plates of Milk Tween (MT), a semi-selective media [36]
and of Xanthomonas axonopodis pv phaseoli (Xcp1) medium [39]. e
sample plates were visually assessed for the presence of typical colonies
of Xap and Xapf. e puried bacterial strains were inoculated to YDC
medium in the form of broth media and plate media. Parts of puried
culture were preserved for future use and part of it was inoculated to
the common bean seedlings to demonstrate for fullling the Koch’s
postulate.
Eect of temperature on resistance reactions of common bean
Experimental materials and procedures: Two common bean
varieties Mexican 142 (G11239) and Goa (G2816) were used in the
growth chamber experiment. Mexican 142 is susceptible to CBB, while
Goa is moderately resistant to CBB [40]. Seeds of the two common
bean varieties were disinfected with 2% sodium hypochlorite for
ve minutes and rinsed with three changes of distilled water. ree
disinfected seeds were planted to germinate in 10 to 13 cm diameter
plastic pots containing normal soils of clay, sand, and loam (1: 1: 2 v/v),
respectively [41]. e soil types were mixed, air dried, sterilized and
lled into the pots. e seedlings were thinned to one plant per pot aer
emergence in the growth chamber (Fitotron SANYO LE115XG, UK).
e growth chamber temperatures were maintained at 4 levels: 28°C,
30°C, 32°C and 34°C with 12 h light alternating with 12 h darkness by
modifying the methods used by Mkandawire et al. [41] since the day
and night duration is about 12 h for each.
Inoculation and incubation: e puried cell concentrations
were adjusted with a spectrophotometer to an optical density of 0.05
(600 nm), which corresponds to 107 cfu/ml using distilled sterile water
[41,42]. When the trifoliate leaves of common beans were fully expanded
(12 days old), 2 ml of bacterial suspension per plant was sprayed onto
the aerial parts of the emerged seedling leaves aer rubbing them with
carborandom. e inoculated seedlings were covered with transparent
polyethylene bags for 18 to 48 h aer inoculation to maintain the
required moisture disease development [36]. Inoculated seedlings were
arranged at room temperature with a photoperiod of 12 h of visible light
and 12 h of darkness and relative humidity of 95% [41,43].
Aer 48 h of inoculation, seedlings were arranged at 28°C, 30°C,
32°C and 34°C in a growth chamber at dierent times. Next morning,
they were uncovered, sprayed with a ne mist of water once every 3 h
and then covered again in the evening to maintain high humidity until
the appearance of typical CBB symptoms. Disease reactions (ratings)
were recorded 5 to 17 days aer inoculation (DAI) employed based on
1-4 disease scale by following the procedures of Lopez et al. [42] and
Popovic et al. [44].
Treatments and experimental design: e experiment was
conducted on two common bean varieties (Goa and Mexican
142) against two strains of bacteria (Xap, Xap) and a control at four
temperature levels (28°C, 30°C, 32°C and 34°C). e control seedlings
were inoculated with 0.1% of saline solution. Twenty-four experimental
Citation: Hailu N, Fininsa C, Tana T, Mamo G (2017) Effects of Temperature and Moisture on Growth of Common Bean and Its Resistance Reaction
against Common Bacterial Blight (Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. phaseoli strains). J Plant Pathol Microbiol 8: 419. doi: 10.4172/2157-
7471.1000419
Page 3 of 6
Volume 8 • Issue 9 • 1000419
J Plant Pathol Microbiol, an open access journal
ISSN: 2157-7471
e disease rating was highly signicantly (P<0.01) aected by
common bean varieties at 13 and 17 DAI. Higher disease rating was
obtained on variety Mexican 142 than on Goa. At 17 DAI, the mean
disease rating was lower by 12.6% on the Goa than on Mexican
142 (Table 1). Disease rating was signicantly (P<0.05) aected by
temperature at 13 DAI and (P<0.01) at 17 DAI. Signicantly, higher
mean disease ratings were recorded at 28°C and lower at 34°C at 13
and 17 DAI. ere was no interaction eect between strains of bacteria,
variety of common bean and among temperature levels.
Eect of temperature and moisture on resistance reaction of
common bean
e analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that disease rating of
CBB of common bean during 5-17 DAI responded signicantly to the
main eects of strain, variety, moisture and temperature. Disease rating
was also aected by interaction eect of strain and variety at 13 and 17
DAI, strain, and temperature at 17 DAI and strain and moisture at 13
DAI.
Eect of CBB bacterial strains: e disease rating was highly
signicantly (P<0.001) aected by the main eect of bacterial strain
during all disease recording dates. At 5 DAI, the value of disease rating
caused by both bacterial strains was not signicantly dierent, while
both bacterial strains caused signicantly higher disease rating than
the uninoculated control. During 9-17 DAI, common bean varieties
had higher mean disease ratings caused by common blight strain than
fuscous blight strain. e mean disease ratings caused by bacterial
strains had similar trend of progress during 9-17 DAI.
Eect of common bean varieties, moisture and temperature on
CBB development: e mean disease rating of CBB was signicantly
(P<0.001) aected by the main eect of common bean varieties during
9-17 DAI. e variety Mexican 142 had signicantly higher mean
disease rating than the variety Goa. At 5 DAI, the mean disease rating
of both common bean varieties had no signicant dierence even if the
disease rate on Mexican 142 was higher than on Goa (Table 2). e
mean disease rating recorded on the variety Mexican 142 was higher by
17.3% than on variety Goa at 17 DAI.
e mean disease ratings diered signicantly among the moisture
treatment combinations were arranged in a factorial completely
randomized design (CRD), replicated three times, and repeated.
Eect of temperature and moisture on resistance of common
bean
Treatments and experimental design: e experiment was
conducted on two common bean varieties (Goa, Mexican 142), two
bacterial strains (Xap, Xapf) and a control. e control seedlings were
inoculated with 0.1% of saline solution. Four temperature levels (28°C,
30°C, 32°C and 34°C) and three moisture levels (100%, 75% and 50% of
eld capacity), following the method of Emam et al. [21] were applied
in a factorial completely randomized design. Four factor factorial
combinations of strains (3 levels), varieties (2 levels), temperature (4
levels) and moisture (3 levels), totally 72 treatment combinations were
used. Each treatment combination was replicated three times and
repeated once. e three dierent moisture levels (100%, 75% and
50%) were obtained from the eld capacity (FC) of the soil used in the
experiment following the procedure described by Emam et al. [21] and
Abd El-Aal et al. [11]. e soil used in the experiment had the eld
capacity of soil of 40.9% on a volume basis.
Data collection
Disease, plant height and dry weight data: e disease rating was
recorded from the rst appearance of aerial symptoms four times at
four days intervals (5, 9, 13 and 17) days aer inoculation (DAI). e
reactions of common bean varieties to Xap strains were assessed as
diseased leaf area [41]. Disease rating and determination of resistance
reaction was evaluated based on a 1-4 scale (41). 1=no visual symptoms
or slight marginal necrosis; 2=water-soaking, chlorosis, or necrosis
(blight) in <25% of the inoculated area; 3=25 to 50% blight; and 4 ≥
50% blight. Above soil level plant heights were measured with ruler in
centimeters. Dry weights in grams (g) were measured aer the sample
plants were uprooted at 29 days aer planting (DAP) and oven-dried
(48 h in 75°C of temperature) on the methods described by Eman et
al. [21].
Data analysis
Disease ratings at dierent DAI, plant height (cm) and dry weight
(g) data were subjected to analysis of variance using the PROC GLM
procedure of SAS version 9.1 [45]. Homogeneity of variances was tested
using the procedure described by Gomez and Gomez [46] and as the
test showed homogeneity of variances, combined analysis of the two-
season data was performed. Dierences among treatment means were
compared using the Fisher’s Least Signicant Dierence (LSD) test at
5% level of signicance.
Results
Eect of temperature on resistance expression of common
bean
e evaluation of common bean varieties showed various levels of
resistance against the two bacterial strains of common bean blight. e
disease rating was highly signicantly (P<0.001) aected by bacterial
strains at 9, 13 and 17 days aer inoculation (DAI). Relatively higher
disease rating was recorded in fuscous blight strain than in common
blight strain at 13 and 17 DAI. During the entire disease recording
dates, the disease caused by common blight bacterial strain was more
or less similar with the disease caused by fuscous blight strain although
both bacterial strains had signicantly higher disease rating than
uninoculated controls.
StrainaDays after inoculation
5 9 13 17
Xap 1.19a1.46a1.62a1.81a
Xapf 1.21a1.46a1.65a1.83a
Control 1.00a1.00b1.00b1.04b
LSD (0.05) 0.14 0.21 0.18 0.2
Variety
Gofta 1.10a1.26a1.33b1.46b
Mexican 1.17a1.35a1.51a1.67a
LSD (0.05) 0.112 0.168 0.145 0.16
Temperature(°C)
28 1.139a1.361a1.56a1.75a
30 1.194a1.361a1.42ab 1.53ab
32 1.111a1.306a1.44ab 1.53ab
34 1.083a1.194a1.28b1.44b
LSD (0.05) 0.16 0.24 0.21 0.23
CV (%) 9.82 12.99 10.52 10.67
aXap is Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. phaseoli, Xapf is Xanthomonas axonopodis
pv. phaseoli var. fuscan, LSD is least signicant difference, CV is coefcient of
variation.
Table 1: Disease ratings of CBB caused (Xap, Xapf) on Gofta and Mexican 142
varieties at four temperature levels and during 5 to 17 days after inoculation.
Citation: Hailu N, Fininsa C, Tana T, Mamo G (2017) Effects of Temperature and Moisture on Growth of Common Bean and Its Resistance Reaction
against Common Bacterial Blight (Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. phaseoli strains). J Plant Pathol Microbiol 8: 419. doi: 10.4172/2157-
7471.1000419
Page 4 of 6
Volume 8 • Issue 9 • 1000419
J Plant Pathol Microbiol, an open access journal
ISSN: 2157-7471
contents. On the average, 75% of soil moisture content showed
signicantly higher disease rating than 100 and 50% moisture level
during the entire disease recording dates. Relatively, higher mean
disease ratings were recorded from 100% moisture level than 50% and
a similar trend was exhibited during the entire experimental duration.
e mean disease ratings were in the order of 75%, 100% and 50% of
soil moisture level from the highest to the lowest (Table 2).
e mean disease rating was highly signicantly (P<0.001) aected
by temperature during 13-17 DAI and signicantly (P<0.01) diered at
17 DAP. Signicantly, the highest mean disease rating was recorded at
30°C and the lowest at 34°C during the entire disease recording dates.
Disease rating had similar trend in all temperature levels in the order of
30°C, 28°C, 32°C, and 34°C from the highest to the lowest, respectively
(Table 2). e resistance level of the common bean varieties increased
with increase in temperature and decrease in moisture.
Interaction eect of strain and temperature: e analysis of
variance revealed that the disease rating of CBB of common bean was
signicantly aected by the interaction eects of strain with variety
at 13 and 17 DAI, strain with moisture at 13 DAI and strain with
temperature at 17 DAI. e highest CBB disease rate (2.3) was recorded
in response to combined eect of the medium moisture content (75%)
with common blight strain at 13 DAI. At each moisture content level,
the highest disease rating was caused by common blight strain, followed
by fuscous blight strain and lowest disease rating was from the control
plants (Table 3).
e highest CBB rate at 13 and 17 DAI was recorded in response
to interaction eect of the common bean variety Mexican 142 with
common blight bacterial strain, followed by interaction eect of variety
Mexican 142 with fuscous blight strain. e lowest CBB rating occurred
in response to interaction eect of uninoculated control plants of both
varieties (Table 4). At each variety level, the highest disease was caused
by common blight strain, followed by fuscous blight strain and lowest
disease rate was from control plants (Table 4). At each strain level,
higher disease rate was recorded from the variety Mexican 142 than
variety Goa during 13 and 17 DAI.
e highest (2.6) CBB disease rating at 17 DAI was recorded in
response to interaction eect of the temperature level of 30°C with
common blight strain, while the lowest (1) CBB rating was occurred
in response to the interaction eect of uninoculated control plants with
the highest temperature level (Table 5). At each temperature level, the
higher disease rating was caused by common blight strain, followed
by fuscous blight strain and the lowest disease rating was from control
plants. At each strain level, the highest (2.6) disease rating was recorded
from temperature level of 30°C by common blight strain and the lowest
(1.9) disease rating from highest temperature level (34°C) by fuscous
blight strain.
Discussion
Growth chamber evaluation of the susceptibility of common bean
varieties showed that the variety Goa was less susceptible to Xap
strains than the variety Mexican 142 although disease-rating values of
both bacterial strains were very similar in both varieties. e results
of this study showed that the variety Goa was less susceptible at all
temperature levels, with its mean disease rating value of 1.46, while the
variety Mexican 142 was more susceptible at all temperature levels with
disease rating value of 1.67 at 17 DAI in temperature eect experiment.
At higher temperature le vels, the variety Goa had more spiny structures
Variety 1-4 disease rating scale
5 9 13 17
Mexican 1.29a1.57a1.76a2.03a
Gofta 1.26a1.35b1.52b1.73b
LSD(0.05) 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.09
Moisture (%)
100 1.25b1.43b1.56b1.82b
75 1.39a1.54a1.81a2.01a
50 1.19b1.41b1.56b1.80b
LSD (0.05) 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.12
Temperature (°C)
28 1.33a1.56a1.72a1.98a
30 1.39a1.59a1.85a2.08a
32 1.21b1.40b1.56b1.80b
34 1.17b1.30b1.43b1.66b
LSD (0.05) 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.14
CV (%) 9.82 12.99 10.52 10.68
LSD is least signicant difference, and CV is coefcient of variation. Means
followed by the same letter for each factor are not signicantly different at 5%
level of signicance.
Table 2: Main effects of common bean variety, moisture content and temperature
levels on disease development of common bacterial blight of common beans (1-4
disease rating scale) during 5-17 days after inoculation (DAI).
Moisture (%) 1-4 disease rating scales by bacterial strains
aXap bXapf Control
100 1.9c 1.7d 1.1e
75 2.3a 2.1b 1.1e
50 1.8d 1.8d 1.1e
LSD (0.05) 0.12
CV (%) 21.14
aXap is Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. phaseoli, bXapf is Xanthomonas axonopodis
pv. phaseoli var. fuscan, LSD is least signicant difference, and CV is coefcient
of variation. Means followed by the same letter for each factor are not signicantly
different at 5% level of signicance.
Table 3: Interaction effects of moisture content and bacterial strain on disease
development of common bacterial blight of common beans at 13 days after
inoculation (DAI).
Variety 13 days after inoculation 17 days after inoculation
Xap Xapf Control Xap Xapf Control
Gofta 1.8c 1.7c 1.1d 2.1c 2.0c 1.1d
Mexican 142 2.2a 2.0b 1.1d 2.6a 2.4b 1.1d
LSD (0.05) 0.11 0.1
CV (%) 21.14 17.12
Xap is Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. phaseoli, Xapf is Xanthomonas axonopodis
pv. phaseoli var. fuscan, LSD is least signicant difference, and CV is coefcient
of variation.
Table 4: Interaction effects of common bean varieties and bacterial strains on
disease development of common bacterial blight (1-4 rating scale) of common
beans at 13 and 17 DAI.
Temperature (°C) 1-4 scale disease ratings caused by bacterial strains
Xap Xapf Control
28 2.5a 2.3a 1.1d
30 2.6a 2.5a 1.2d
32 2.2b 2.1b 1.1d
34 2.0b 1.9c 1.0d
LSD (0.05) 0.2173
CV (%) 17.72
Xap is Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. phaseoli, Xapf is Xanthomonas axonopodis
pv. phaseoli var. fuscan, LSD is least signicant difference, and CV is coefcient
of variation. Means followed by the same letter for each factor are not signicantly
different at 5% level of signicance.
Table 5: Interaction effects of temperature and bacterial strain on disease
development of common bacterial blight of common beans 17 days after inoculation
(DAI).
Citation: Hailu N, Fininsa C, Tana T, Mamo G (2017) Effects of Temperature and Moisture on Growth of Common Bean and Its Resistance Reaction
against Common Bacterial Blight (Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. phaseoli strains). J Plant Pathol Microbiol 8: 419. doi: 10.4172/2157-
7471.1000419
Page 5 of 6
Volume 8 • Issue 9 • 1000419
J Plant Pathol Microbiol, an open access journal
ISSN: 2157-7471
on the stems and on the underside of leaves that might have contributed
to the less susceptibility of Goa than variety Mexican 142. Fininsa and
Tefera [40] found a similar result in earlier investigation of susceptibility
of some bean varieties to Xap under eld conditions where the variety
Goa was found resistant and the variety Mexican 142 was susceptible.
It can be concluded that the disease development is dependent on the
resistance level of common bean varieties, temperature and moisture
levels vis-à-vis all environmental conditions are constant.
e results of the present study showed 10% reduction in the
average dry weight of the two common bean varieties under the rapid
warming scenario (30°C to 34°C) and dry weight reduction by 2.5%
under lower case warming scenario (30°C to 32°C). e relationship
between temperature levels and crop yields was used to assess the eects
of changes in average weather on crop yields. e dry weight reduction
may have a similar trend to the ndings of Schlenker and Roberts [37]
who found important impacts under climate change for soybeans that
imply a 33% reduction in yields under the slower warming scenario. e
disease resistance and drought resistance levels of the common bean
varieties increased with increase in temperature and decrease in soil
moisture content. Particularly, increase in temperature and decrease in
moisture content reduced disease development due to mobilization of
resources into the host resistance through various mechanisms, such
as reduced stomata density and conductance in disease resistant and
drought tolerant varieties. e result of current study is in agreement
with the reports of Beebe et al. [7] who reported that common beans
adapt stress conditions due to climate change variables through
production and accumulation of carbohydrates, such as waxes, extra
layers of epidermal cells, increased ber content and pH change in their
cell cytoplasm. Beebe et al. [8] also dened drought tolerance as the
capability of plants to resist the stress by adjusting cell osmosis, cell
plasticity, and cell size. Sallam [35] reported that the host resistance
might be increased by change in pH of plant cell cytoplasm, due to the
increase in phenolic acid content, resulting in inhibition of pathogen
development. Hence, the accumulation of phenolic compounds at
infection site has been correlated with restriction of Xap development
since such compounds are toxic to Xap [35].
e results of the experiment indicated that the higher case scenario
climate change events above optimum level would not be favorable
for common bacterial blight development in common bean growing
agro-ecologies unless the adaptation of the pathogen to the stress
adapted common beans. ere might be risk of common bacterial
blight epidemic development during temperature increase due to
climate change at middle altitudes and highlands since higher scenario
of climate change events warm highland areas in the future. However,
common bacterial blight epidemic development could be minimized by
using drought tolerant and disease resistant common bean varieties. In
addition, eco-friendly integrated disease management strategies have to
be developed and implemented.
Conclusion
When bacterial strains were inoculated into fresh culture media,
there was no immediate increase in cell number until the inoculated
cells synthesized new cell components in the lag phase of bacterial
growth. During the exponential growth phase, common blight strain
grew at a faster rate than fuscan blight strain at regular intervals at the
same temperature. A wider variation in growth of bacterial strains was
observed at dierent temperature ranges during earlier exponential
phase and narrower variation in growth during stationary phase due to
depletion of essential nutrients and accumulation of wastes.
Growth chamber evaluation of the susceptibility of common bean
varieties showed that the variety Goa was less susceptible to Xap
strains than the variety Mexican 142. At higher temperature levels,
the variety Goa had more spiny structures on the stems and on the
underside of leaves that might have contributed to the less susceptibility
of Goa than variety Mexican 142. e disease resistance and drought
resistance levels of the common bean varieties increased with increase
in temperature and decrease in soil moisture content. Particularly,
increase in temperature and decrease in moisture content reduced
disease development due to mobilization of resources into the host
resistance through various mechanisms, such as reduced stomata
density and conductance in disease resistant and drought tolerant
varieties.
Acknowledgements
We thank Haimanot Bizuneh, Yegle Gebremariam, Martha Wondimu,
Adisalem Ali and Abraham Negash for their assistance in laboratory works and
data collection. The project was nanced by Haramaya University Research Ofce
and Debere Berhan University.
References
1. Sarikamis G, Yasar F, Bakir M, Kazan K, Ergül A (2009) Genetic characterization
of green bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) genotypes from eastern Turkey. Genetics
Mol Res 8: 880-887.
2. Buruchara R, Mukankusi C, Ampofo K (2010) Bean disease and pest
identication and management. In: the handbooks for small-scale seed
producers. International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). Kampala,
Uganda. pp.1-67.
3. Fivawo NC, Msolla SN (2011) The diversity of common bean landraces in
Tanzania. Tanzania J Nat Appl Sci 2: 337-351.
4. Scarafoni A, Magni C, Duranti M (2007) Molecular nutraceutics as a mean
to investigate the positive effects of legume seed proteins on human health.
Trends Food Sci Technol 18: 454-463.
5. Choung MG, Choi BR, An YN, Chu YH, Cho YS (2003) Anthocyanin prole of
Korean cultivated kidney bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). J Agric Food Chem 51:
7040-7043.
6. Bindera J (2009) Technical report on analysis of haricot bean production,
supply, demand and marketing issues in Ethiopia. Ethiopia Commodity
Exchange Authority, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. p. 67.
7. Beebe SE, Rao IM, Cajiao C, Grajales M (2008) Selection for drought
resistance in common bean also improves yield in phosphorus limited and
favorable environments. Crop Sci 48: 582-592.
8. Beebe SE, Rao IM, Blair MW, Acosta-Gallegos JA (2013) Phenotyping common
beans for adaptation to drought. Frontier Physiol 4: 1-20.
9. Mwangombe AW, Wagara IN, Kirnenju JW, Bwuchara RA (2007) Occurrence
and severity of angular leaf spot of common bean in Kenya as inuenced by
geographical location, altitude and agroecological zones. Plant Pathol J 6: 235-
241.
10. Katungi E, Farrow A, Chianu J, Sperling L, Beebe S (2009) Baseline research
report on common bean in eastern and southern Africa: a situation and outlook
analysis of targeting breeding and delivery efforts to improve the livelihoods of
the poor in drought prone areas. ICRISAT, Kampala, Uganda. p. 139.
11. Abd El-Aal H, El-Hwat N, El-Hefnawy W, Medany M (2011) Effect of sowing
dates, irrigation levels and climate change on yield of common bean (Phaseolus
vulgaris L.). American-Eurasian J Agric Environ Sci 11: 79-86.
12. Fininsa C, Tefera T (2002) Inoculum sources of bean anthracnose and their
effect on bean epidemics and yield. Trop Sci 42: 30-34.
13. Fininsa C, Yuen J (2002) Temporal progression of bean common bacterial blight
(Xanthomonas campestris pv. phaseoli) in sole and intercropping systems. Eur
J Plant Pathol 108: 485-495.
14. Tadesse T, Ahmed S, Gorfu D, Beshir T, Fininsa C, et al. (2009) Review of
research on diseases food legumes. In: Tadesse A (ed). Increasing crop
production through improved plant protection. Proceeding of the 14th annual
conference of the plant protection society of Ethiopia (PPSE), Ethiopia.
15. Lemessa F, Sari W, Wakjira M (2011) Association between angular leaf spot
Citation: Hailu N, Fininsa C, Tana T, Mamo G (2017) Effects of Temperature and Moisture on Growth of Common Bean and Its Resistance Reaction
against Common Bacterial Blight (Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. phaseoli strains). J Plant Pathol Microbiol 8: 419. doi: 10.4172/2157-
7471.1000419
Page 6 of 6
Volume 8 • Issue 9 • 1000419
J Plant Pathol Microbiol, an open access journal
ISSN: 2157-7471
(Phaeoisariopsis griseola (Sacco) Ferraris) and common bean (Phaseolus
vulgaris L.) Yield Loss at Jimma, Southwestern Ethiopia. Plant Pathol J 110:
57-65.
16. Amin M, Fitsum S, Selvaraj T, Mulugeta N (2014) Field management of
anthracnose (Colletotrichum lindemuthianum) in common bean through
fungicides and bioagents. Adv Crop Sci Technol 2: 124-129.
17. Abo-Elyousr KA (2006) Induction of systemic acquired resistance against
common blight of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) caused by Xanthomonas
campestris pv. phaseoli. Egypt J Phytopathol 34: 41-50.
18. Fininsa C (2003) Relationship between common bacterial blight severity and
bean yield loss in pure stand and bean-maize intercropping systems. Int J Pest
Manage 49: 177-185.
19. Mutlu N, Vidaver AK, Coyne DP, Steadman JR, Lambrecht PA, et al. (2008)
Differential pathogenicity of Xanthomonas campestris pv. phaseoli and
X. fuscans subsp fuscans strains on bean genotypes with common blight
resistance. Plant Dis 92: 546-554.
20. Popovic T, Balaz J, Nikolic Z, Starovic M, Gavrilovic V, et al. (2010) Detection
and identication of Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. phaseoli on bean seed
collected in Serbia. Afr J Agric Res 5: 2730-2736.
21. Emam Y, Shekoofa A, Salehi F, Jalali AH (2010) Water stress effects on two
common bean cultivars with contrasting growth habits. American-Eurasian J
Agric Environ Sci 9: 495-499.
22. Harveson RM (2009) Common bacterial blight of dry beans and its management
in Nebraska. Extension is a Division of the Institute of Agriculture and Natural
Resources at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln Cooperating with the
Counties and the United States Department of Agriculture. Extension letter,
Nebraska University Nebraska, USA. G1956.
23. Schwartz HF, Brick MA, Harveson RM, Franc GD (2011) Bacterial diseases
of beans. Extention Bulletin, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, USA.
Extension Bulletin 562A.
24. Gent DH, Lang JM, Schwartz HF (2005) Epiphytic survival of Xanthomonas
axonopodis pv. allii and X. axonopodis pv. phaseoli on leguminous hosts and
onion. Plant Dis 89: 558-564.
25. Nunes WMC, Corazza MJ, Souza CD, Tsai SM, Kuramae EE (2008)
Characterization of Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. phaseoli isolates. Summa
Phytopathol 34: 228-231.
26. Torres JP, Maringoni AC, Silva TAF (2009) Survival of Xanthomonas axonopodis
pv. phaseoli var. fuscans in common bean leaets on soil. J Plant Pathol 91:
195-198.
27. Zhang S, Palmateer AJ, Pernezny K, Jones JB (2009) Common bacterial blight
of snap bean in Florida. One of a series documents of the Plant Pathology
Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service letter, University of Florida,
Florida, USA. P. 10.
28. IPCC (Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change) (2007) Climate change:
Mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of
the intergovernmental panel on climate change. IPCC, Cambridge University
Press, New York, USA. p. 987.
29. Porch TG, Jahn M (2001) Effects of high-temperature stress on
microsporogenesis in heat-sensitive and heat-tolerant genotypes of Phaseolus
vulgaris. Plant Cell Environ 24: 723-731.
30. Tsukaguchi T, Kawamitsu Y, Takeda H, Suzuki K, Egawa Y (2003) Water status
of ower buds and leaves as affected by high temperature in heat-tolerant and
heat-sensitive cultivars of snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Plant Prod Sci
6: 24-27.
31. Porch TG, Bernsten R, Rosas JC, Jahn M (2007) Climate change and the
potential economic benets of heat-tolerant bean varieties for farmers in
Atlántida, Honduras. J Agric Univ P.R. 91: 133-148.
32. Asfaw A, Blair MW (2014) Quantication of drought tolerance in Ethiopian
common bean varieties. Agric Sci 5: 124-139.
33. Blum A (2005) Drought resistance, water use efciency and yield potential. Are
they compatible, dissonant or mutually exclusive? Aust J Agric Res 56: 1159-
1168.
34. Nakayama N, Saneoka H, Moghaieb REA, Premachandra GS, Fujita K
(2007) Response of growth, photosynthetic gas exchange, translocation of
13C-labelled photosynthate and N accumulation in two soybean (Glycinemax
L. Merrill) cultivars to drought stress. Int J Agric Biol 9: 669-674.
35. Sallam NM (2011) Biological control of common blight of bean (Phaseolus
vulgaris) caused by Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. phaseoli by using the
bacterium Rahnella aquatilis. Arch Phytopathol Plant Prot 44: 1966-1975.
36. Osdaghi E, Alizadeh AI, Shams-Bakhsh M, Reza Lak M (2009) Evaluation of
common bean lines for their reaction to the common bacterial blight pathogen.
Phytopathol Mediterr 48: 461-468.
37. Schlenker W, Roberts MJ (2009) Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe
damages to U.S. crop yields under climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
106: 1594-1598.
38. Strange RN, Scott PR (2005) Plant disease: A threat to global food security.
Annu Rev Phytopathol 43: 83-116.
39. Sheppard JW, Kurowski C, Remeeus PM (2007) Detection of Xanthomonas
axonopodis pv. phaseoli and Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. phaseoli var. fuscans
on Phaseolus vulgaris. International Rules for Seed Testing. International Seed
Testing Association (ISTA), Bassersdorf, Switzerland. p. 21.
40. Fininsa C, Tefera T (2006) Multiple disease resistance in common bean
genotypes and their agronomic performance in eastern Ethiopia. Int J Pest
Manage 52: 291-296.
41. Mkandawire ABC, Robert BM, Pablo G, Paul G, Robert LG (2004) Genetic
diversity and pathogenic variation of common blight bacteria (Xanthomonas
campestris pv. phaseoli and X. campestris pv. phaseoli var. fuscans) suggests
pathogen coevolution with the common bean. Phytopathol 94: 593-603.
42. Lopez R, Asensio C, Gilbertson RL (2006) Phenotypic and genetic diversity in
strains of common blight bacteria (Xanthomonas campestris pv. phaseoli and
X. campestris pv. phaseoli var. fuscans) in a secondary center of diversity of
the common bean host suggests multiple introduction events. Phytopathol 96:
1204-1213.
43. Jacques MA, Josi K, Darrasse A, Samson R (2005) Xanthomonas axonopodis
pv. phaseoli var. fuscans is aggregated in stable biolm population sizes in the
phyllosphere of eld-grown beans. Appl Environ Microbiol 71: 2008-2015.
44. Popovic T, Starovic M, Aleksic G, Zivkovic S, Josic D, et al. (2012) Response
of different beans against common bacterial blight disease caused by
Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. phaseoli. Bulgarian J Agric Sci 18: 701-707.
45. SAS (Statistical Analysis System) (2003) SAS/STAT Guide for Personal
Computers, version 9.1 edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
46. Gomez KA, Gomez AA (1984) Statistical procedures for agricultural research.
(2nd edn), John Willey and Sons, Inc. New York, USA. p. 680.
Citation: Hailu N, Fininsa C, Tana T, Mamo G (2017) Effects of Temperature
and Moisture on Growth of Common Bean and Its Resistance Reaction against
Common Bacterial Blight (Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. phaseoli strains). J
Plant Pathol Microbiol 8: 419. doi: 10.4172/2157-7471.1000419
