4.7 Article

Potential of Different Actinidia Genotypes as Resistant Rootstocks for Preventing Kiwifruit Vine Decline Syndrome

期刊

HORTICULTURAE
卷 8, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/horticulturae8070627

关键词

canopy; germplasm; kiwifruit; Moria; root system; resistance; tolerance

资金

  1. Friuli Venezia Giulia region (Italy)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Kiwifruit Vine Decline Syndrome (KVDS) is causing significant losses in Italian kiwifruit cultivation. The syndrome is caused by soil-borne pathogens and waterlogging, resulting in root decay and canopy decline. Tolerant rootstocks have been identified as a promising tool for controlling the disease. Three potentially resistant genotypes have been identified after a two-year study.
Kiwifruit Vine Decline Syndrome (KVDS) is currently affecting Italian kiwifruit cultivation, causing dramatic yield and economic losses. The syndrome's aetiology is due to soil-borne pathogens and waterlogging, leading to the decay of roots and then the canopy. Current knowledge about the disease is limited, and the techniques to control the syndrome are ineffective. The use of tolerant rootstocks is one of the most promising tools. Six genotypes of Actinidia were tested for two years at four infected experimental sites in Friuli Venezia Giulia (NE Italy). Plant evaluation and analysis were carried out on the root system and the vegetative parts. At all experimental sites, three genotypes, all belonging to the A. macrosperma group, grew normally. In contrast, plants of A. polygama died earlier and those of A. chinensis var. deliciosa 'Hayward' declined during the first year. A. arguta 'Miss Green' survived the first year but started to decline during the second year. After two years of study, we were able to identify three putative resistant genotypes: A. macrosperma accession numbers 176 and 183, and 'Bounty71', which will be a useful resource as rootstocks or as parents for breeding owing to their potential genetic resistance traits.

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