4.4 Article

Evaluation of wild tomato accessions (Solanum spp.) for resistance to two-spotted spider mite (Tetranychus urticae Koch) based on trichome type and acylsugar content

期刊

GENETIC RESOURCES AND CROP EVOLUTION
卷 64, 期 5, 页码 1011-1022

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10722-016-0421-0

关键词

Insect resistance; Solanum cheesmaniae; S. galapagense; S. pimpinellifolium; Trichomes

资金

  1. AVRDC Innovations Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tomato wild relatives are important sources of resistance to many pests of cultivated tomato [Solanum lycopersicum L. (syn. Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)]. Eleven wild tomato accessions previously identified at AVRDC-The World Vegetable Center as resistant to Bemisia tabaci were evaluated for resistance to the two-spotted spider mite [Tetranychus urticae (Koch.)] based on egg numbers using the leaf disc and Tanglefoot no-choice bioassays, and damage scores in choice bioassays. Highest resistance based on choice and no-choice bioassays was identified in AVRDC S. galapagense accessions VI057400, VI045262, VI037869 and VI037239, and S. cheesmaniae accession VI037240, all of which are new sources of T. urticae resistance. In addition, S. pimpinellifolium accession VI030462 exhibited resistance only in the no-choice bioassay based on egg numbers. Resistance to T. urticae based on the number of eggs from the no-choice bioassays was positively correlated with density of type IV glandular trichomes and negatively correlated with densities of type V trichomes. All resistant accessions accumulated high levels of total acylsugars, which were positively associated with type IV trichomes. There was a significant negative relationship between acylsugar content and T. urticae egg numbers from the no-choice bioassays. There was high correlation between the results from the leaf disc test and the Tanglefoot no-choice bioassay. These findings support the possible presence of broad-based insect and mite resistance in accessions closely related to cultivated tomato.

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

4.4
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