4.7 Article

Screening triploid hybrids of 'Lakeland' limequat for resistance to citrus canker

期刊

PLANT DISEASE
卷 88, 期 10, 页码 1056-1060

出版社

AMER PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1094/PDIS.2004.88.10.1056

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Resistance of citrus genotypes to Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri, the cause of Asiatic citrus canker (ACC), was evaluated by injection infiltration of 10(3) and 10(4) CFU/ml through stomates on the abaxial surface of immature leaves. Citrus genotypes for screening comprised two autotetraploids and nine triploid hybrids of 'Lakeland' limequat (Citrus aurantifolia x Fortunella japonica) and their progenitors ('Lakeland' limequat, the autotetraploids 'Femminello' lemon (Citrus limon) and 'Giant Key' lime (C. aurantifolia), and the somatic hybrids 'Key' [also known as 'Mexican'] lime + 'Valencia' orange and 'Hamlin' orange + 'Femminello' lemon). 'Meiwa' kumquat (Fortunella crass folia) and 'Pineapple' sweet orange (C. sinensis) were used as known resistant and susceptible standards, respectively. Lesion number per inoculation site and bacterial population per lesion were recorded 15 to 19 days after inoculation. The assay was performed four times during a spring-summer-fall period under greenhouse conditions. Canker lesions were consistently produced by stomatal inoculation with 10(4) but not 10(3) CFU/ml. Susceptible and resistant genotypes were separated based on lesion number per inoculation site and bacterial population per lesion. Spearman's rank correlation analysis for lesion numbers on 15 genotypes common to all four assays showed significant correlations among the genotype rankings. Genotype rankings were also significantly correlated between the two bacterial population assays. Lesion number per inoculation site is sufficient for assessment of resistance of citrus genotypes to ACC without the necessity of conducting bacterial population assays. 'Lakeland' limequat is a promising seed parent for breeding acid citrus fruit that is resistant to ACC.

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