Next Article in Journal
How Many Acerola (Malpighia emarginata DC.) Fruit Are Required for Reliable Postharvest Quality Assessment?
Previous Article in Journal
Transcriptome Analysis Reveals Potential Mechanism of Regulating Fruit Shape of ‘Laiyang Cili’ Pear with Calyx Excision Treatment
Previous Article in Special Issue
In Vitro Sensitivity of Isolates of Neopestalotiopsis rosae, Causal Agent of Strawberry Crown Rot, to Usnic Acid
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Horticulturae
Volume 11
Issue 8
10.3390/horticulturae11080940
horticulturae-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Acrostalagmus luteoalbus as the Novel Causing Agent of Root Rot on Strawberry and In Vitro Screening of Effective Fungicides

by
Lei Zhang
1,
Chongyi Fu
2,
Hongling Zhang
1,
Zhengnan Li
1 and
Pingping Sun
1,*
1
College of Horticulture and Plant Protection, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot 010018, China
2
Institute of Vegetable and Flower Research, Inner Mongolia Academy of Agriculture & Animal Husbandry Sciences, Hohhot 010031, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Horticulturae 2025, 11(8), 940; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11080940
Submission received: 31 May 2025 / Revised: 2 August 2025 / Accepted: 6 August 2025 / Published: 8 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Management of Pathogens in Horticultural Crops)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

In November 2022, black-root and stem-rot symptoms were observed on the strawberry cultivar ‘Ssanta’ in Hohhot, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, China. In order to identify the causing agent of strawberry root rot, and select effective fungicides for controlling this disease, this study was carried out. The associated fungi were isolated from diseased strawberry plants, and the isolate that fulfilled Koch’s postulates was further identified based on morphological characteristics, together with the internal transcribed spacer regions and 28S rDNA sequences; then, the inhibitory activities of 11 commercial fungicides on the pathogenic strain were screened based on the mycelium growth method. Results showed that six candidate strains were isolated from diseased strawberry, and only the isolate CMGF-A caused typical root and stem rot on strawberry. The CMGF-A showed typical morphology of Acrostalagmus species, and sequence analyses revealed it as A. luteoalbus. The prochloraz was selected as the primary fungicide for effectively controlling CMGF-A, while tebuconazole, thiophanate-methyl, and difenoconazole·azoxystrobin could be used as alternatives. A. luteoalbus was previously reported to cause potato tuber disease, and red rust of needle mushroom, this work is the first report of A. luteoalbus causing strawberry root rot worldwide. This study provided helpful information for the diagnosis and management of strawberry root rot disease.

1. Introduction

Strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa Duchesne), a hybrid species in the Rosaceae family, is an economically important fruit worldwide. It is reported that the world production of strawberries reached 9.6 million tons in 2022, led by China (35% of the total world production), the United States (13.17%), and Turkey (7.63%) (https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL, accessed on 30 April 2025). Strawberry plants are affected by a large number of diseases caused by fungi. On the list of the Common Names of Plant Diseases prepared by the American Phytopathological Society (https://www.apsnet.org/edcenter/resources/commonnames/Pages/Strawberry.aspx, accessed on 31 May 2025), 48 diseases of strawberry were recorded associated with 67 species of fungal pathogens, including the common ones like black root rot caused by Rhizoctonia fragariae and anthracnose caused by Colletotrichum acutatum [1] (Supplementary Table S1). Actually, the list of the pathogenic fungi of strawberry should be much longer, as novel ones were identified over years, and some non-listed pathogens were novel species and some were novel genera; for example, the pathogens of Bionectria ochroleuca [2], Neopestalotiopsis clavispora [3], and Phytopythium helicoides [4] were novel genera, causing strawberry root rot disease.
Strawberry root rot is one of the major limiting factors in the strawberry industry; the infected plants show rotten roots and stem tissues, and the disease causes significant losses in the strawberry industry. Numerous pathogens have been reported as the causing agent of strawberry root and stem rot, including Rhizoctonia sp. [2,5,6], Fusarium sp. [7,8,9,10], Pestalotiopsis clavispora (Neopestalotiopsis clavispora) [3,11,12,13], N. rosae [14], Macrophomina phaseolina [15,16], Phytopythium helicoides [17], Pythium helicoides [4], Ilyonectria macrodidyma [18,19], Ceratobasidium sp. [20], and Dactylonectria species [21,22]. In this work, we identified Acrostalagmus luteoalbus, as the novel causing agent of strawberry root rot. Previously, A. luteoalbus has been reported to produce enzymes and antimicrobial secondary metabolite [23,24,25], and to cause potato tuber diseases and red rust in Flammulina velutipes [26,27]. It is the first report of A. luteoalbus infecting strawberry.
The application of fungicides remains the most effective measure for controlling strawberry root rot, and various fungicides have been proven effective in managing strawberry root rot [28]. The toxicity of fungicides varies significantly among various pathogenic fungal strains [29]; thus, conducting a sensitivity analysis of the fungicide agents against the targeted pathogens is key to achieving efficient and long-lasting control of strawberry root rot.
Proper identification of pathogens, sanitation, and fungicide usage is essential to prevent losses from strawberry root rot disease during production. The current study was conducted to identify the pathogenic fungi causing strawberry root rot, and screen for effective fungicides in both in vitro and greenhouse treatments for their effectiveness against strawberry root rot. This research is fundamental for sustaining strawberry production and meeting market demands while minimizing economic setbacks for growers.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample Collection and Isolation of the Fungi

In November 2022, wilted strawberry transplants were observed on ‘Ssanta’ cultivar in some greenhouse nurseries in Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China. These strawberry transplants were cultivated for annual winter production, and as many as 20% of the plants were affected in severe greenhouses. The infected plants showed wilted leaves and could be easily removed from the soil, and there were symptoms of chlorosis on the leaves and dark rot on roots and stems. The whole diseased strawberry plants were collected, and the disease margins were used for pathogen isolation.
The margin tissues were surface-sterilized by immersing in 1% NaClO for 3 min, 75% ethanol for 30 s, followed by rinsing three times with sterile distilled water, and incubated on Rose Bengal Agar medium (Hope Bio-Technology Co., Ltd., Qingdao, China) at 25 °C in the dark. Frontier mycelia grown from the diseased margins on the plates were transferred onto fresh potato dextrose agar (Hope Bio-Technology Co., Ltd., Qingdao, China) medium, grown for 14 days at 28 °C for conidia generation. Serial dilutions of the conidia were then performed to obtain single conidium isolates. Single conidium cultures were maintained on PDA medium and incubated at 25 °C, which were used for pathogenicity tests.

2.2. Pathogenicity Tests

The pathogenicity levels of the isolated conidia were tested on disease-free strawberries (F. ananassa ‘Ssanta’) following Bhunjun et al. [30]’s protocol, with minor modifications. Healthy strawberry plants (‘Ssanta’) were dug out from soil were washed with running water to get rid of mud, and the old and lower leaves were cut off to minimize water loss. The trimmed strawberry plants were then sanitized by immersing in 1% NaClO for 3 min, 75% ethanol for 30 s, followed by rinsing 3 times with sterile distilled water. On each sanitized plant, a wound the size of a pinhole was induced at the base of the stems using sterilized inoculating needles, and a fungal cake of 6 mm in diameter from well-grown plates, cultured on PDA medium for 7 days, was placed on the wound. The fungal disk and the plant were wrapped with sterile wet degreasing cotton and sealed with preservative film to secure the treatment. The treated plants were maintained in a pallet with two layers of gauze, and incubated in an illumination incubator with a 16 h light/8 h dark cycle and 85% humidity at 25 °C for 14 days. Healthy plants treated with PDA disks were the control. Each treatment was replicated three times with six biological replicates. The pathogenic fungi were reisolated from symptomatic strawberries and identified based on morphological and molecular analysis, thereby fulfilling Koch’s postulates.

2.3. Identification of Pathogenic Fungus

The pathogenic isolate was cultured on PDA for 7 days for the morphological observation, and the mycelium and spores were observed under Optical Microscope (Nikon, Digital Sight DS-U3, Tokyo, Japan).
The mycelia of the pathogenic fungi were collected and grounded in liquid nitrogen for total DNA extraction using a fungal DNA extraction kit (Sangon biotech, Beijing, China). Using the genomic DNA as template, the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region and the large subunit of 28S rDNA (LSU) fragments were amplified with the universal primer pairs ITS1 (5′-TCCGTAGGTGAACCTGCGG-3′) and LR5F (5′-GCTATCCTGAGGGAAAC-3′), respectively [31]. The PCR reaction mixture was as follows: 2× M5 Hipper superlumen Mix 10 μL, ddH2O 7 μL, DNA template 1 μL, upstream and downstream primers 1 μL each. Reaction conditions: 95 °C for 3 min; 94 °C 25 s, 55 °C 30 s, 72 °C 40 s, 35 cycles; 72 °C for 10 min. The PCR products were separated on 1.2% agarose gel, and the target fragments were recovered and purified using an agarose gel purification kit (TianGen, Beijing, China), and sent to Sangon biotech (Shanghai, China) for Sanger sequencing. The obtained sequences were submitted to NCBI BLASTn for retrieving homologous sequences, identifying the genes. Phylogenetic trees based on the ITS and LSU sequences were built by MEGA 11.0 with the neighbor joining method with bootstrap values as 1000 replicates.

2.4. In Vitro Screening of Effective Fungicides

The in vitro mycelial growth method were used to evaluate the sensitivities of the isolated pathogenic fungus to 11 commonly used fungicides, which are typically employed for controlling root rot and other common plant diseases. The tested fungicides included 25% prochloraz emulsifiable concentrate (EC) (Yongnong Biosciences Co., Ltd., Shaoxing, China); 43% tebuconazole suspension concentrate (SC) (Zhejiang Weiyuan Tiansheng Crop Technology Co., Ltd., Deqing, China); 70% thiophanate-methyl wettable powder (WP) (Shandong Xinxing Pesticide Co., Ltd., Qingzhou, China); 10% difenoconazole·azoxystrobin aqueous solution (AS) (Shandong Qilin Agrochemical Co., Ltd., Qilin, China); 25% pyraclostrobin SC (Shandong Zouping Pesticide Co., Ltd., Zouping, China); 64% oxadixyl·mancozeb WP (Syngenta (Suzhou) Crop Protection Co., Ltd., Suzhou, China); 30% propiconazole·difenoconazole EC (Foshan Yinghui Crop Science Co., Ltd., Foshan, China); 25% triadimefon WP (Sichuan Jiadel Technology Development Co., Ltd., Chengdu, China); 3% metalaxyl·hymexazol AS (Tianjin Lvneng Chemical Co., Ltd., Tianjin, China); 0.3% matrine EC (Yangling Fuji Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Yangling, China); and 1.5% matrine·osthol AS (Shanxi Dewei Bencao Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Yuncheng, China).
Each fungicide was diluted to a serial of concentrations and added into melted PDA at approximately 50 °C, making PDA with different concentrations of fungicides. The pathogenic fungus was grown on PDA medium at 25 °C for 10 days, and a mycelial plug (6 mm in diameter) was inoculated onto the center of each plate (9 cm in diameter). Each concentration was replicated 3 times, with PDA plates without fungicides serving as blank controls. Ten days after incubation at 25 °C in darkness, colony diameters (cm) were measured in perpendicular directions using the cross method when the control plates reached the full plates. The mycelial growth inhibition rate was calculated as follows [32]:
Mycelial growth inhibition rate (%) = [(Control colony diameter − Treated colony diameter)/(Control colony diameter − 0.6)] × 100

2.5. Statistical Analysis

All experimental data were processed and statistically analyzed using SPSS 22.0 and Excel 2016, Duncan Waller test was performed for means separation at a significance level of p ≤ 0.05, and regression equations (Y = aX + b) were established between the logarithm of fungicide concentrations and the corresponding mycelial growth inhibition rates: the log of treatment concentrations (mg/L) were plotted on the X-axis and the corresponding inhibition rates on the Y-axis. The correlation coefficient (R) was computed, and the EC50 values of each tested agent against pathogenic strain mycelial growth were derived from the equation.

3. Results

3.1. Isolation and Pathogenicity of Strains Causing Strawberry Root Rot

Six strains with different colony characters were isolated from the disease margins; they were labeled as CMGF-A to CMGF-F. Each of them was inoculated onto healthy strawberry plants for pathogenic strains screening. The strawberry plants inoculated with the strain CMGF-A developed typical root and rot symptoms, 10 days after inoculation, the symptom of necrosis appeared on the stems and roots, with the extension of culture time, the symptom turned to brown or dark brown, while the control treatments and plants inoculated with other five isolates were asymptomatic all the time (Figure 1).

3.2. Identification of the Pathogenic Fungi

The pathogenic fungus was identified based on morphology and conserved gene fragments. The pathogenic fungus CMGF-A displayed circular growth and covered the whole plate (9 cm) in 7 to 10 days when cultured on PDA. The color of its colony changed slightly, from orange to brick red, as the culture time increased, with the colony color gradually deepening to a rust-like red; the color of the colony edge, however, was white (Figure 2A,B). Optical Microscope observation of its conidiophores and coniida showed that the conidiophores were erect, generally straight, and pale brown in color. The phialides were arranged in whorls of 1–3 along the main stipe and its branches, and were narrowly flask-shaped, pale orange, measuring 9–16 × 2–4 μm, up to 1 μm near the aperture (Figure 2C). The conidia were ovoid with slimy heads, pale orange, and 2.3–2.5 × 1.5–2 μm in dimensions (Figure 2D). These characteristics of CMGF-A were suggestive of the typical description of A. luteoalbus provided by Zare et al. [33], who transferred this species to genus Acrostalagmus from genus Verticillium, based on their molecular studies.
Fragments of about 520 bp and 560 bp were amplified via PCR using primers ITS1 and LR5F, respectively. The PCR fragments were sequenced, and the sequences were deposited in NCBI GenBank database under the accession numbers of PQ495804 and PQ495807. Through BLASTn search, ITS genes and LSU genes of A. luteoalbus were retrieved. For ITS genes, the highest nucleotide sequence identity (100%, 527/527 nt) was observed between GMFG-A (accession no. PQ495804) and three other strains of A. luteoalbus: HN17112 (MK880298), PTV-1 (GU813970), and IR3 (KT824244). While for LSU genes, the highest nucleotide sequence identity of 99.65% (nt 565/567) was observed between GMFG-A (PQ495807) and other 20 strains of A. luteoalbus 18MPT92 (OM189524), 18MPT135 (OM189525), CBS112.16 (MH866166), CBS:121213 (LR025806), CBS:149685 (OQ990042), CBS:222.60 (LR025794), CBS236.55 (MH869007), CBS325.61 (MH869638), CBS330.52 (MH868598), CBS388.65(MH870266), CBS:577.78B (LR025801), CNUFC-YR537-1 (MH482855), ColD_PAV32 (PV474610), HF3P36 (OP179211), MUT (KP671745), Sp18 (MZ269297), V205 (KJ443141), V206 (KJ443142), V209 (KJ443145), and XG379b (PV578295). The results indicated that GMFG-A showed high sequence homology with A. luteoalbus.
Using sequences of ITS and LSU from 13 representatives of the Acrostalagmus spp., Colletotrichum spp., and Verticillium spp., phylogenetic trees were reconstructed (Figure 3), the trees showed that CMFG-A was closely related to Acrostalagmus spp., and clustered together with A. luteoalbus V208, which was discovered in soda soil in Russia [34].
The CMGF-A was identified as A. luteoalbus based on colony characteristics, sporulation morphology, and analyses of ITS and LSU sequences. Furthermore, its re-isolation from infected roots fulfilled Koch’s postulates, thereby confirming its pathogenicity.

3.3. Regression Equation of Test Fungicides

With EC50 as the primary indicator, control efficiency of the 11 fungicides against the CMGF-A was evaluated (Table 1, Supplementary Figure S1). Regression equations were built between the fungicide concentration and the growth rate of CMGF-A mycelium (Table 1). The results indicated that prochloraz had the highest inhibitory activity against CMGF-A, with a EC50 of 0.0119 mg/L. Tebuconazole, thiophanate-methyl, difenoconazole·azoxystrobin, pyraclostrobin, and oxadixyl·mancozeb had considerable inhibitory activity to CMGF-A, for their EC50 values ranged from 4.06 to 52.66 mg/L. The EC50 for propiconazole·difenoconazole and triadimefon were 111.11 mg/L and 193.17 mg/L, respectively, suggestive of less inhibitory activity. Matrine and matrine·osthol had no inhibitory activity to the mycelium growth of CMGF-A.

4. Discussion

A. luteoalbus was identified and confirmed as a novel causal agent of root rot in this work. On the list of strawberry diseases mentioned above (Supplementary Table S1), there were 67 species of fungal pathogens, of which 10 species belonged to the phylum Oomycota, 5 to the Basidiomycota, 1 to the Olpidiomycota, 5 to the Mucoromycota, while 46 species belonged to the Ascomycota. The phylum Ascomycota, which form the largest phylum within the kingdom Fungi, obviously also harbors the highest number of pathogenic species. A. luteoalbus CMGF-A was of the phylum Ascomycota as well. Most strains in the genus Acrostalagmus were alkali-tolerant [35,36] or alkalophilic [37], widely distributed in different ecological environments, including forests [38], sand-ridge state [39], and marine [40,41] and polar ecosystems [25]. The A. luteoalbus were used in producing a variety of enzymes [23,24] and secondary metabolites [25], which showed significant cytotoxicity against cancer cell lines [42,43]. A. luteoalbus was previously reported to cause potato tuber disease [26], and red rust of needle mushroom (Flammulina velutipes) [27]. The synonyms and combinations of A. luteoalbu included Botrytis lateritia, Sporotrichum hippocastani, S. lateritium, S. luteoalbum, S. luteoalbum, S. thuemenii, S. vile, V. lateritium, V. luteoalbum, and V. vile as checked at the MycoBank database (https://www.mycobank.org/, accessed on 31 May 2025), so far none of them were recognized as a pathogenic fungi of strawberry. Related strains of Verticillium albo-atrum and V. dahliae are well known to be associated with Verticillium wilt in strawberry. In this study, A. luteoalbus was identified and confirmed as a novel causal agent of root rot in strawberry plants.
Chemical control remains the primary strategy for controlling strawberry root diseases [28]. We evaluated the efficacy of 11 commercial fungicides on inhibiting the mycelium growth of A. luteoalbus CMGF-A in vitro. The results indicated that prochloraz had the highest inhibitory efficacy against CMGF-A, with the lowest EC50 value among tested fungicides, while tebuconazole, thiophanate-methyl, and difenoconazole·azoxystrobin showed notable efficacy, with the EC50 values below 10 mg/L. Based on these results, we recommended prochloraz as the primary fungicides for controlling A. luteoalbus, while tebuconazole, thiophanate-methyl, and difenoconazole·azoxystrobin serve as viable alternatives. These results are consistent with previous research that prochloraz resulted in considerably lower disease incidence caused by Neopestalotiopsis rosae [28]. Interestingly, matrine·osthol and matrine showed considerable inhibitory activity to the mycelium growth of strawberry root rot caused by Fusarium solani and F. oxysporum [44], but no inhibitory activity against A. luteoalbus CMGF-A. So, as the sensitivity of fungicides differs among different pathogens, more detailed work on selecting fungicides based on different pathogens is needed. Furthermore, microbial fungicides like Bacillus subtilis, B. polymyxa, Trichoderma harzianum, and Aureobasidium pullulans have been successfully employed in field applications for strawberry root rot control [44,45]. Integrating chemical and biological fungicides in rotation could enhance long-term disease management and reduce the risk of pathogen resistance. Further work exploring the integrated approaches for sustainable controlling of A. luteoalbus is needed.

5. Conclusions

In summary, our study elucidated that A. luteoalbus as the novel causing agent of strawberry root rot, and prochloraz is recommended as the primary fungicides for controlling A. luteoalbus, while tebuconazole, thiophanate-methyl, and difenoconazole·azoxystrobin serve as viable alternatives. This finding will provide the information necessary to determine the pathogenic factor of strawberry root rot, and provide useful information for the diagnosis and management of strawberry root rot diseases.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/horticulturae11080940/s1, Figure S1: Effect of 11 fungicides and their concentrations on the mycelial growth of Acrostalagmus luteoalbus CMGF-A cultured on PDA for 10 days; Table S1: The diseases of strawberry and the associated pathogenic fungi reported.

Author Contributions

Methodology, L.Z., C.F., H.Z., Z.L. and P.S.; investigation, C.F. and P.S.; resources, C.F.; writing—original draft preparation, L.Z., C.F., H.Z., Z.L. and P.S.; writing—review and editing, P.S. and L.Z.; funding acquisition, L.Z. and P.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Young Scientific and Technological Talents Program in Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (NJYT23079), Natural Science Foundation of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (2022QN03018, 2024MS03056), Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region’s Directly Affiliated Universities Basic Research Funding (BR230128).

Data Availability Statement

The original data presented in the study are openly available in public resources.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
A. luteoalbusAcrostalagmus luteoalbus
PDAPotato Dextrose Agar Medium
ECEmulsifiable Concentrate
SCSuspension Concentrate
WPWettable Powder
ASAqueous Solution
Co., Ltd.Company Limited
ITSInternal Transcribed Spacer
LSUThe Large Subunit of 28S
EC50Half Maximal Effective Concentration
PCRPolymerase Chain Reaction
DNADeoxyribonucleic Acid

References

  1. Husaini, A.; Neri, D.; Garrido, C.; González-Rodríguez, V.E.; Carbu, M.; Husaini, A.M.; Cantoral, J.M. Fungal Diseases of Strawberry and their Diagnosis. In Strawberry: Growth, Development and Diseases; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  2. Zhang, X.Y.; Huo, H.L.; Zhao, Z.Y.; Dong, B.Z.; Wang, W. First Report of a Root rot Caused by Binucleate Rhizoctonia AG-A on Strawberries in Inner Mongolia, China. Plant Dis. 2016, 100, 1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Gilardi, G.; Bergeretti, F.; Gullino, M.L.; Garibaldi, A. First Report of Neopestalotiopsis clavispora Causing Root and Crown Rot on Strawberry in Italy. Plant Dis. 2019, 103, 2959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ishiguro, Y.; Otsubo, K.; Watanabe, H.; Suzuki, M.; Nakayama, K.; Fukuda, T.; Fujinaga, M.; Suga, H.; Kageyama, K. Root and crown rot of strawberry caused by Pythium helicoides and its distribution in strawberry production areas of Japan. J. Gen. Plant Pathol. 2014, 80, 423–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Borrero, C.; Avilés-García, I.; López, N.; Avilés, M. First Report of Root Rot on Strawberry Caused by Binucleate Rhizoctonia AG-K in Spain. Plant Dis. 2018, 103, 376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Baiswar, P.; Ngachan, S.V. First Report of Root and Collar Rot of Strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa) Caused by Ceratobasidium sp. AG-B(o) (Binucleate Rhizoctonia) in India. Plant Dis. 2017, 102, 1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Pastrana, A.M.; Capote, N.; De los Santos, B.; Romero, F.; Basallote-Ureba, M.J. First report of Fusarium solani causing crown and root rot on strawberry crops in southwestern Spain. Plant Dis. 2014, 98, 161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sun, X.; Xin, Z.; Xin, X.; Wu, B. First Report of Strawberry Root Rot Caused by Fusarium falciforme in China. Plant Dis. 2024, 108, 2233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Payán-Arzapalo, M.A.; López-Cuén, P.I.; Vega-Gutiérrez, T.A.; Molina-Cárdenas, L.; López-Orona, C.A.; Valenzuela-Tirado, G.A.; Tirado-Ramírez, M.A. First report of Fusarium falciforme causing root rot and wilt on strawberry in Sinaloa, Mexico. Plant Dis. 2024, 108, 2223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Shrestha, U.; Dee, M.E.; Littrell, J.; Rice, J.H.; Ouma, W.; Ownley, B.H.; Butler, D.M. First report of root rot of strawberry caused by Fusarium cugenangense, a member of the F. oxysporum species complex, in Tennessee, USA. Plant Dis. 2024, 108, 2238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chamorro, M.; Aguado, A.; De los Santos, B. First report of root and crown rot caused by Pestalotiopsis clavispora (Neopestalotiopsis clavispora) on strawberry in Spain. Plant Dis. 2016, 100, 1495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Obregón, V.G.; Meneguzzi, N.G.; Ibañez, J.M.; Lattar, T.E.; Kirschbaum, D.S. First report of Neopestalotiopsis clavispora causing root and crown rot on strawberry plants in Argentina. Plant Dis. 2018, 102, 1856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Park, K.; Han, I.; Lee, S.M.; Choi, S.L.; Kim, M.C.; Lee, H. Crown and root rot of strawberry caused by Neopestalotiopsis clavispora in Korea. Korean J. Mycol. 2019, 47, 427–435. [Google Scholar]
  14. Sun, Q.; Harishchandra, D.; Jia, J.; Zuo, Q.; Zhang, G.; Wang, Q.; Yan, J.; Zhang, W.; Li, X. Role of Neopestalotiopsis rosae in causing root rot of strawberry in Beijing, China. Crop Prot. 2021, 147, 105710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Duzan, H.M.; Abied, M.A. First report of Macrophomina phaseolina causing crown and root rot of strawberry in Tripoli, Libya. J. Appl. Plant Prot. 2020, 9, 83–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Qamar, M.I.; Ghanzafar, M.U.; Abbas, M.F.; Zainab, R.; Andleeb, S.; Shafiq, M.; Mushtaq, S.J. First report of Macrophomina phaseolina causing crown and root rot on strawberry in Sargodha, Pakistan. Plant Dis. 2019, 103, 1420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zhang, G.; Peng, W.J.; Xu, Z.Q.; Xu, H.; Feng, X.H. First report of Phytopythium helicoides causing crown and root rot on strawberry in China. ACTA Phytopathol. Sin. 2023, 53, 990–993. [Google Scholar]
  18. Habibi, A.; Ghaderi, F. First record of Dactylonectria macrodidyma causing black root rot on strawberry. Mycol. Iran. 2020, 7, 241–246. [Google Scholar]
  19. Weber, R.W.; Entrop, A.-P. Dactylonectria torresensis as the main component of the black root rot complex of strawberries and raspberries in Northern Germany. Erwerbs-Obstbau 2017, 59, 157–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wilhelm, S.; Nelson, P.E.; Thomas, H.E.; Johnson, H. Pathology of strawberry root rot caused by Ceratobasidium species. Phytopathology 1972, 62, 700–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chen, Q.; Yin, S.L.; Zhang, X.G.; Ma, X.Y.; Zhong, S.; Zhang, G.Z. Dactylonectria species associated with black root rot of strawberry in China. Australas. Plant Pathol. 2021, 50, 501–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Vigliecca, M.; González, P.; Machín, A.; Vicente, E.; Silvera-Pérez, E. First report of root and crown rot caused by Dactylonectria novozelandica on strawberry in Uruguay. Agrociencia Urug. 2022, 26, e962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Amatayakul, T. The synthesis of fibrinolysin by fungi. Ohio J. Sci. 1955, 55, 343–353. [Google Scholar]
  24. Rojas, N.L.; Voget, C.E.; Hours, R.A.; Cavalitto, S.F. Purification and characterization of a novel alkaline α-L-rhamnosidase produced by Acrostalagmus luteo albus. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2011, 38, 1515–1522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Shi, T.; Li, X.Q.; Wang, Z.M.; Zheng, L.; Yu, Y.Y.; Dai, J.J.; Shi, D.Y. Bioactivity-guided screening of antimicrobial secondary metabolites from Antarctic cultivable fungus Acrostalagmus luteoalbus CH-6 combined with molecular networking. Mar. Drugs 2022, 20, 334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Chudinova, E.M.; Vedmedenko, D.V.; Platonov, V.A.; Elansky, A.S.; Belosokhov, A.F.; Elansky, S.N. First report of potato tuber disease caused by Acrostalagmus luteoalbus. J. Plant Pathol. 2022, 104, 1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhang, G.Z.; Tang, C.Y. First Report of Acrostalagmus luteo-albus Causing Red Rust of Needle Mushroom (Flammulina velutipes) in China. Plant Dis. 2015, 99, 158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Acosta-González, U.; Leyva-Mir, S.G.; Silva-Rojas, H.V.; Rebollar-Alviter, A. Preventive and curative effects of treatments to manage strawberry root and crown rot caused by Neopestalotiopsis rosae. Plant Dis. 2024, 108, 1278–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. da Costa, C.A.; Reis, A.; Mizubuti, E.S.; Lourenco, V., Jr. Sensitivity of Septoria lycopersici Speg. isolates to fungicides in Brazil. Crop Prot. 2025, 190, 107059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bhunjun, C.S.; Phillips, A.J.; Jayawardena, R.S.; Promputtha, I.; Hyde, K.D. Importance of molecular data to identify fungal plant pathogens and guidelines for pathogenicity testing based on Koch’s Postulates. Pathogens 2021, 10, 1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Nguyen, T.T.; Hee Lee, S.; Jeong Jeon, S.; Burm Lee, H. First records of rare ascomycete fungi, Acrostalagmus luteoalbus, Bartalinia robillardoides, and Collariella carteri from freshwater samples in Korea. Mycobiology 2019, 47, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wang, X.; He, C.; Zhang, P.; Zhao, L.; Liu, W.; Jin, N.; Guo, Y. Isolation, identification, and in vitro fungicide screening of the pathogen associated with pear dry blight. Pathogens 2025, 14, 432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zare, R.; Gams, W.; Schroers, H.-J. The type species of Verticillium is not congeneric with the plant-pathogenic species placed in Verticillium and it is not the anamorph of ‘Nectria’ inventa. Mycol. Res. 2004, 108, 576–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Grum-Grzhimaylo, A.A.; Georgieva, M.L.; Bondarenko, S.A.; Debets, A.J.; Bilanenko, E.N. On the diversity of fungi from soda soils. Fungal Divers. 2016, 76, 27–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bondarenko, S.; Georgieva, M.; Bilanenko, E. Alkalitolerant micromycetes in acidic and neutral soils of the temperate zone. Microbiology 2016, 85, 737–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bondarenko, S.A.; Ianutsevich, E.A.; Sinitsyna, N.A.; Georgieva, M.L.; Bilanenko, E.N.; Tereshina, B.M. Dynamics of the cytosol soluble carbohydrates and membrane lipids in response to ambient pH in alkaliphilic and alkalitolerant fungi. Microbiology 2018, 87, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Rojas, N.L.; Cavalitto, S.F.; Cabello, M.; Hours, R.A.; Voget, C.E. Alkaline polysaccharidases produced in solid state cultures by alkalophilic fungi isolated from Argentina. J. Pure. Appl. Microbiol. 2008, 2, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  38. Kavitha, P.G.; Sudha, A.; Devi, P.A.; Kumaran, K. A comparative study on Forest soil microbial diversity and biomass in Nilgiri biosphere of southern India. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2020, 9, 3701–3715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Monoson, H.L.; Conway, T.D.; Nelson, R.E. Four endoparasitic nematode destroying fungi isolated from Sand Ridge State Forest soil. Mycopathologia 1975, 57, 59–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Nguyen, M.T.; Thomas, T. Diversity, host-specificity and stability of sponge-associated fungal communities of co-occurring sponges. PeerJ 2018, 6, e4965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Youssef, F.S.; Simal-Gandara, J. Comprehensive overview on the chemistry and biological activities of selected alkaloid producing marine-derived fungi as a valuable reservoir of drug entities. Biomedicines 2021, 9, 485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wang, F.Z.; Huang, Z.; Shi, X.F.; Chen, Y.C.; Zhang, W.M.; Tian, X.P.; Li, J.; Zhang, S. Cytotoxic indole diketopiperazines from the deep sea-derived fungus Acrostalagmus luteoalbus SCSIO F457. Bioorganic Med. Chem. Lett. 2012, 22, 7265–7267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Yu, G.; Wang, Y.; Yu, R.; Feng, Y.; Wang, L.; Che, Q.; Gu, Q.; Li, D.; Li, J.; Zhu, T. Chetracins E and F, cytotoxic epipolythiodioxopiperazines from the marine-derived fungus Acrostalagmus luteoalbus HDN13-530. RSC Advances 2018, 8, 53–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ren, J.; Liu, Z.; Wang, Y.; Feng, J.; He, J.; Wu, H.; Ma, Z. Indoor screening of biofungicides for strawberry root rot and verification of field control efficacy. Chin. J. Pestic. Sci. 2022, 24, 1456–1465. [Google Scholar]
  45. Iqbal, M.; Jamshaid, M.; Zahid, M.A.; Andreasson, E.; Vetukuri, R.R.; Stenberg, J.A. Biological control of strawberry crown rot, root rot and grey mould by the beneficial fungus Aureobasidium pullulans. BioControl 2021, 66, 535–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Horticulturae 11 00940 g001
Figure 1. The pathogenicity test of CMGF-A on strawberry plants. Notes: (A) plant uninoculated; (B) plant with CMGF-A.
Figure 1. The pathogenicity test of CMGF-A on strawberry plants. Notes: (A) plant uninoculated; (B) plant with CMGF-A.
Horticulturae 11 00940 g001
Horticulturae 11 00940 g002
Figure 2. Morphology of the pathogenic fungi CMGF-A. Notes: (A) front side of the colony on a PDA; (B) back side of the colony. (C) Conidiophores; (D) conidia. Scale bar = 10 μm.
Figure 2. Morphology of the pathogenic fungi CMGF-A. Notes: (A) front side of the colony on a PDA; (B) back side of the colony. (C) Conidiophores; (D) conidia. Scale bar = 10 μm.
Horticulturae 11 00940 g002
Horticulturae 11 00940 g003
Figure 3. The phylogenetic trees inferred from ITS (A) and 28S rDNA (B) sequences of representative fungi strains.
Figure 3. The phylogenetic trees inferred from ITS (A) and 28S rDNA (B) sequences of representative fungi strains.
Horticulturae 11 00940 g003
Table 1. Regression equations of 11 fungicides against A. luteoalbus CMGF-A.
Table 1. Regression equations of 11 fungicides against A. luteoalbus CMGF-A.
Fungicides TestedConcentration Tested (mg/L)Regression
Equation		Correlation Coefficient (R2)EC50 Value
(mg/L)
prochloraz EC0.01, 0.1, 0.5, 1, 10y = 0.1983x + 0.88140.99940.0119
tebuconazole SC0.5, 1, 5, 25, 50y = 0.3622x + 0.27960.97974.0617
thiophanate-methyl WP0.5, 1, 5, 25, 50y = 0.5752x + 0.12180.96664.5446
difenoconazole·azoxystrobin WP0.5, 1, 5, 25, 50y = 0.3092x + 0.27730.92945.2517
pyraclostrobin SC0.5, 1, 5, 25, 50y = 0.235x + 0.13210.998336.7901
oxadixyl·mancozeb WP0.5, 1, 5, 25, 50y = 0.2448x + 0.07860.904752.6635
propiconazole·difenoconazole EC0.5, 1, 5, 25, 50y = 0.2211x + 0.04770.9757111.1162
triadimefon WP0.5, 1, 5, 25, 50y = 0.1667x + 0.11890.8238193.1738
metalaxyl·hymexazol AS0.5, 1, 5, 25, 50y = 0.0747x + 0.09280.97052.8064 × 105
matrine EC0.5, 1, 5, 25, 100y = 0.0302x + 0.08450.96005.8272 × 1013
matrine·osthol AS0.5, 1, 5, 25, 100y = 0.0227x + 0.01110.92213.1719 × 1021
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

Zhang, L.; Fu, C.; Zhang, H.; Li, Z.; Sun, P. Acrostalagmus luteoalbus as the Novel Causing Agent of Root Rot on Strawberry and In Vitro Screening of Effective Fungicides. Horticulturae 2025, 11, 940. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11080940

AMA Style

Zhang L, Fu C, Zhang H, Li Z, Sun P. Acrostalagmus luteoalbus as the Novel Causing Agent of Root Rot on Strawberry and In Vitro Screening of Effective Fungicides. Horticulturae. 2025; 11(8):940. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11080940

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Lei, Chongyi Fu, Hongling Zhang, Zhengnan Li, and Pingping Sun. 2025. "Acrostalagmus luteoalbus as the Novel Causing Agent of Root Rot on Strawberry and In Vitro Screening of Effective Fungicides" Horticulturae 11, no. 8: 940. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11080940

APA Style

Zhang, L., Fu, C., Zhang, H., Li, Z., & Sun, P. (2025). Acrostalagmus luteoalbus as the Novel Causing Agent of Root Rot on Strawberry and In Vitro Screening of Effective Fungicides. Horticulturae, 11(8), 940. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11080940

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