4.7 Article

Characterization of Maize Genotypes (Zea mays L.) for Resistance to Striga asiatica and S. hermonthica and Compatibility with Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. strigae (FOS) in Tanzania

期刊

AGRONOMY-BASEL
卷 11, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/agronomy11051004

关键词

host resistance; maize; Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. strigae; Striga; breeding; Tanzania

资金

  1. Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) through the African Centre for Crop Improvement [PASS030]
  2. University of KwaZulu-Natal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to identify maize genotypes with partial resistance to Striga and compatibility with a biocontrol agent. Results showed that FOS treatment significantly enhanced Striga management, and identified 23 maize genotypes with farmer preferred traits.
Striga species cause significant yield loss in maize varying from 20 to 100%. The aim of the present study was to screen and identify maize genotypes with partial resistance to S. hermonthica (Sh) and S. asiatica (Sa) and compatible with Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. strigae (FOS), a biocontrol agent. Fifty-six maize genotypes were evaluated for resistance to Sh and Sa, and FOS compatibility. Results showed that FOS treatment significantly (p < 0.001) enhanced Striga management compared to the untreated control under both Sh and Sa infestations. The mean grain yield was reduced by 19.13% in FOS-untreated genotypes compared with a loss of 13.94% in the same genotypes treated with FOS under Sh infestation. Likewise, under Sa infestation, FOS-treated genotypes had a mean grain yield reduction of 18% while untreated genotypes had a mean loss of 21.4% compared to the control treatment. Overall, based on Striga emergence count, Striga host damage rating, grain yield and FOS compatibility, under Sh and Sa infestations, 23 maize genotypes carrying farmer preferred traits were identified. The genotypes are useful genetic materials in the development of Striga-resistant cultivars in Tanzania and related agro-ecologies.

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

4.7
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