Skip to main content Accessibility help

Genetic differentiation and diversity of sugarbeet germplasm resistant to the sugarbeet root maggot

  • Karen K. Fugate (a1), Larry G. Campbell (a1), Giovanny Covarrubias-Pazaran (a2), Lorraine Rodriguez-Bonilla (a2) and Juan Zalapa (a2) (a3)...


Germplasm lines with resistance to the sugarbeet root maggot (SBRM) have been developed and released to the public, providing a means to generate hybrids with resistance against the most devastating insect pest of sugarbeet in North America. Effective use of this germplasm, however, requires knowledge of relative strengths of SBRM resistance between lines and knowledge of the diversity and genetic relationships between germplasm. Therefore, field studies comparing SBRM resistance of four released SBRM-resistant germplasm lines (F1015, F1016, F1024 and F1043), a SBRM-resistant parent (PI 179180) and an unreleased SBRM-resistant population (F1055) were performed, and genetic analysis of the diversity and relationships between SBRM-resistant germplasm and their available parents was conducted using simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers. Under natural SBRM infestations, resistant germplasm exhibited significantly less SBRM damage than a susceptible control, with similar, high levels of resistance in F1016, F1024, F1043, F1055 and PI 179180 and lower resistance in F1015. SSR analysis revealed genetic similarities between F1016, F1024 and F1055, while F1015 and F1043 were genetically distinct from these lines. Among resistant genotypes, F1015 and F1043 exhibited greatest and least within-line genetic diversity, indicating greater and lesser inbreeding for F1043 and F1015, respectively. Similarities in damage ratings and genetics for F1016, F1024 and F1055 indicate that these lines are likely to be equally effective at introducing SBRM resistance into elite populations and in combining ability. In contrast, F1043, with its unique parentage and genetic dissimilarity from other resistant lines, provides a genetically distinct, but similarly effective, source of SBRM resistance.


Corresponding author

*Corresponding author. E-mail:


Hide All




Hide All
Callenbach, JA, Frye, RD and Anderson, AW (1973) Sugarbeet root maggot field investigations – 1973. In: Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports, vol. 4. Fargo, ND: Cooperative Extension Service, North Dakota State University, pp. 513.
Campbell, LG (1990) Registration of F1010 sugarbeet germplasm. Crop Science 30: 429430.
Campbell, LG (2005) Sugar beet root maggot. In: Biancardi, E, Campbell, LG, Skaracis, GN and Biaggi, M (eds.) Genetics and Breeding of Sugar Beet. Enfield, NH: Science Publishers, pp. 113114.
Campbell, LG (2017) Sugarbeet root maggot resistance from a red globe-shaped beet (PI 171980). Journal of Sugar Beet Research 54: 5059.
Campbell, LG (2018) Relative performance of resistant and susceptible sugarbeet hybrids in environments with and without sugarbeet root maggot. Journal of Sugar Beet Research 55: 1930.
Campbell, LG and Niehaus, W (2008) Sugarbeet root maggot resistance of hybrids with a maggot resistant pollinator. Journal of Sugar Beet Research 45: 8597.
Campbell, LG, Anderson, AW, Dregseth, R and Smith, LJ (1998) Association between sugar beet root yield and sugar beet root maggot (Diptera: Otitidae) damage. Journal of Economic Entomology 91: 522527.
Campbell, LG, Anderson, AW and Dregseth, RJ (2000) Registration of F1015 and F1016 sugarbeet germplasm with resistance to the sugarbeet root maggot. Crop Science 40: 867868.
Campbell, LG, Miller, J, Rekoske, M and Smith, LJ (2008) Performance of sugarbeet hybrids with sugarbeet root maggot resistant pollinators. Plant Breeding 127: 4348.
Campbell, LG, Panella, L and Smigocki, AC (2011) Registration of F1024 sugarbeet germplasm with resistance to sugarbeet root maggot. Journal of Plant Registrations 5: 241247.
Dray, S and Dufour, A-B (2007) The ade4 package: implementing the duality diagram for ecologists. Journal of Statistical Software 22: 120.
Fugate, KK, Fajardo, D, Schlautman, B, Ferrareze, JP, Bolton, MD, Campbell, LG, Wiesman, E and Zalapa, J (2014) Generation and characterization of a sugarbeet transcriptome and transcript-based SSR markers. The Plant Genome 7: 113.
Hecker, RJ and Ruppel, EG (1988) Registration of Rhizoctonia root rot resistant sugarbeet germplasm FC709. Crop Science 28: 10391040.
Hein, GL, Boetel, MA and Godfrey, LD (2009) Sugarbeet root maggot. In: Harveson, RM, Hanson, LE and Hein, GL (eds.). Compendium of Beet Diseases and Pests, 2nd edn. St. Paul, MN: APS Press, pp. 9597.
Jombart, T (2008) Adegenet: a R package for the multivariate analysis of genetic markers. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 24: 14031405.
Kamvar, ZN, Tabima, JF and Grünwald, NJ (2014) Poppr: an R package for genetic analysis of populations with clonal, partially clonal, and/or sexual reproduction. PeerJ 2: e281.
Khan, M (ed.) (2013) Sugar Beet Production Guide. North Dakota State University & University Minnesota Cooperative Extension Service, Fargo, North Dakota, USA: 99 p.
Peakall, R and Smouse, PE (2006) Genalex 6: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Molecular Ecology Notes 6: 288295.
Prevosti, A, Ocana, J and Alonso, G (1975) Distances between populations of Drosophila subobscura, based on chromosome arrangement frequencies. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 45: 231241.
R Development Core Team (2011) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Zalapa, JE, Cuevas, H, Zhu, H, Steffan, S, Senalik, D, Zeldin, E, McCown, B, Harbut, R and Simon, P (2012) Using next-generation sequencing approaches to isolate simple sequence repeat (SSR) loci in the plant sciences. American Journal of Botany 99: 193208.


Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Fugate et al. supplementary material
Table S1

 Unknown (19 KB)
19 KB

Genetic differentiation and diversity of sugarbeet germplasm resistant to the sugarbeet root maggot

  • Karen K. Fugate (a1), Larry G. Campbell (a1), Giovanny Covarrubias-Pazaran (a2), Lorraine Rodriguez-Bonilla (a2) and Juan Zalapa (a2) (a3)...


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed