3.8 Proceedings Paper

Influence of fruit cuticle anatomy on peach susceptibility to Monilinia fructicola infection

期刊

X INTERNATIONAL PEACH SYMPOSIUM
卷 1352, 期 -, 页码 107-112

出版社

INT SOC HORTICULTURAL SCIENCE
DOI: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2022.1352.14

关键词

brown rot; phenotypic analysis; fruit skin; resistance; germplasm

资金

  1. MCIN/AEI [RTI-2018-094176-R-C31/C32/C33]
  2. ERDF A way of making EUROPE

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found significant variability in the susceptibility of different peach cultivars to M. fructicola infection in Spain, with a negative correlation between cuticle thickness and density and susceptibility to infection, indicating the influence of the cuticle on resistance to M. fructicola infection.
Brown rot caused by the fungus Monilinia spp., can cause significant losses in stone fruits. Currently M. fructicola and M. laxa are the main species in Spain, and M. fructicola has become dominant in the Ebro Valley. The cuticle of the fruit is the first barrier of protection against external aggressions, so it may have a key role in the susceptibility to Monilinia spp. infection. We studied the variability in the fruit susceptibility to M. fructicola infection in a National Peach Collection at CITA (Zaragoza, Spain) and the influence of the fruit cuticle thickness and density on this susceptibility across three seasons. Results showed a wide variability in the susceptibility of peach cultivars to M. fructicola infection within the collection, consistent between years, which will allow the selection of less susceptible material for use in breeding, as well as the search for genomic markers that influence the control of the tolerance to this fungal infection. On the other hand, the results obtained from the analysis of cuticle thickness and density, indicated a significant negative correlation between cuticle thickness and density and susceptibility to infection, suggesting the influence of the cuticle on the resistance to M. fructicola infection.

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

3.8
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