4.1 Article

Potato Cultivars Differ in Current Season Potato Virus Y (PVY) Infection

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POTATO RESEARCH
卷 87, 期 1, 页码 19-26

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12230-009-9112-0

关键词

Environment; Northwest; Susceptible

类别

资金

  1. Oregon State University Agricultural Research Foundation
  2. Potato Commissions of Oregon and Washington
  3. Oregon State University
  4. Washington State University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research plots were established in 2004, 2005, and 2006 at Hermiston, Oregon and in 2005 and 2006 in Othello, Washington to determine if potato cultivars differ in current season PVY infection. Eight potato cultivars were used; Gem Russet, GemStar Russet, Russet Norkotah, Shepody, Alturas, Ranger Russet, Umatilla Russet and Russet Burbank. The first four listed produce mild symptoms due to current season infection with PVY. Cultivars were planted in a randomized complete block design with four replications where each block contained a single 50-hill row for each cultivar. Leaf samples were evaluated monthly via ELISA to follow naturally occurring PVY infection. Cultivars that produce mild symptoms had higher current season infection levels. Over the 3 years at Hermiston, Shepody (93.8%), Gem (92.8%), Gemstar (89.8%) and Russet Norkotah (82.7%) had the highest infection levels, while Russet Burbank (68.8%), Umatilla Russet (58.0%), Ranger Russet (49.6%) and Alturas (48.1%) had the least infection. At Othello, infection levels were much lower and cultivar differences were minimal though Gem Russet had the highest current season infection (30.4%), Ranger Russet had the lowest (4.9%) and was significantly lower than Gem Russet and Shepody. Higher levels of infection occurred in 2006 at Hermiston and Othello (77.1% and 18.2%, respectively) compared to 2005 (66.7% and 10.2%, respectively). This is the first report where different cultivars of potatoes, growing side by side, had different levels of PVY infection. Possible explanations for differing current season infection levels between cultivars are discussed.

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

4.1
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