4.5 Article

A comparison of wild-type, old and modern tomato cultivars in the interaction with the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Glomus mosseae and the tomato pathogen Fusarium oxysporum f. sp lycopersici

Journal

MYCORRHIZA
Volume 22, Issue 3, Pages 189-194

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00572-011-0393-z

Keywords

Arbuscular mycorrhiza; Bioprotection; Fusarium oxysporum f. sp lycopersici; Glomus mosseae; Tomato cultivars

Funding

  1. Austrian Science Fund [P20923-B17]
  2. Comision Interministerial de Ciencia y Tecnologia
  3. Fondos Europeos de Desarrollo Regional through the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion, Spain [AGL2008-00742]
  4. Junta de Andalucia [BIO 260, P07-AGR-02883]
  5. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P 20923] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P20923] Funding Source: Austrian Science Fund (FWF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The effect of the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis (AM) varies in plant cultivars. In the present study, we tested whether wild-type, old and modern tomato cultivars differ in the parameters of the AM interaction. Moreover, the bioprotective effect of AM against the soilborne tomato pathogen Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici (Fol) was tested in the different cultivars. Ten tomato cultivars were inoculated with the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus (AMF) Glomus mosseae alone or in combination with Fol. At the end of the experiment, AM root colonization, Fusarium infection, and the plant fresh weight was determined. The tomato cultivars differed in their susceptibility to AMF and Fol, but these differences were not cultivar age dependent. In all the cultivars affected by Fol, mycorrhization showed a bioprotective effect. Independent of the cultivar age, tomato cultivars differ in their susceptibility to AMF and Fol and the bioprotective effect of mycorrhization, indicating that the cultivar age does not affect the AM parameters tested in this study.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available