4.5 Article

Andean beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) with resistance to the angular leaf spot pathogen (Phaeoisariopsis griseola) in southern and eastern Africa

期刊

EUPHYTICA
卷 136, 期 2, 页码 201-210

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1023/B:EUPH.0000030678.12073.a9

关键词

angular leaf spot; CAL 143; common bean; disease resistance; Phaeoisariopsis griseola; Phaseolus vulgaris

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) are separated into two distinct groups: Andean and Middle American. We identified CAL 143 as the first Andean bean with resistance to angular leaf spot disease caused by Phaeoisariopsis griseola. Angular leaf spot is the most widespread and economically important bean disease in southern and eastern Africa. and it is especially severe on the extensively grown Andean beans. Cal 143 was resistant in Malawi, South Africa, Tanzania, and Zambia, but it was susceptible in Uganda. This was attributed to the presence of races of P. griseola in Uganda not present in the other countries. We identified two additional Andean bean lines, AND 277 and AND 279, with resistance to angular leaf spot in Malawi. We also characterized the virulence diversity of 15 isolates of P. griseola from southern and eastern Africa into nine different races. Five of six isolates from Malawi and two of seven from Uganda, obtained from large-seeded Andean beans, were characterized into four different races considered Andean. These were compatible only or mostly with large-seeded Andean cultivars. The other eight isolates from Uganda, Malawi, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, obtained from a small- or medium-seeded Middle American beans, were characterized into five different Middle American races. These were compatible with Middle American and Andean cultivars. CAL 143 was resistant or intermediate under greenhouse conditions to all but one of the same 15 isolates from southern and eastern Africa, but it was susceptible to an isolate from Uganda obtained from a medium-seeded Middle American bean.

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

4.5
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