4.6 Article

Peanut improvement: production of fertile hybrids and backcross progeny between Arachis hypogaea and A. kretschmeri

期刊

FOOD SECURITY
卷 1, 期 4, 页码 457-462

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12571-009-0041-z

关键词

Groundnut; Wild species; Arachis kretschmeri; Interspecific hybridization; Embryo germination

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There are only a few reports of successful crosses between cultivated peanut (Arachis hypogaea L., section Arachis) and wild species from sections other than section Arachis. Many of the wild Arachis species harbor important traits necessary for the improvement of peanut. For example, Arachis kretschmeri Krapov., W. C. Gregory & C. E. Simpson (section Procumbentes) can grow under water-logged conditions and has been identified as one of the few wild species of Arachis with resistance to late leaf spot (LLS) and peanut rosette disease. Peanut rosette, caused by a combination of viruses, is an economically important disease only in Africa, while LLS, caused by Cercosporidium personatum, is an important fungal disease in Asia and the Americas as well as Africa. Interspecific hybrids between A. hypogaea and A. kretschmeri were produced by applying growth regulators to pollinated pistils and hybrid plants were obtained by germinating embryos in vitro. A total of seven hybrids were produced and confirmed by Simple Sequence Repeat (SSR) analysis. All hybrids were fertile, although initially slow growing. F-1 hybrids were backcrossed to A. hypogaea and all plants in the F1BC1 generation were single-seeded with a prominent beak, characteristic of A. kretschmeri, but many of the F1BC2 pods were double-seeded resembling A. hypogaea. F1BC2 plants were moderately resistant to LLS. When a large number of seeds are obtained, the progeny will be screened for resistance to both LLS and rosette disease. Thus crosses with species outside the section Arachis may not only confer disease resistance but will also broaden the genetic base of cultivated peanut.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据