4.5 Article

Stable resistance in barley to Pyrenophora teres f. teres isolates from the Nordic-Baltic region after increase on standard host genotypes

期刊

EUPHYTICA
卷 113, 期 1, 页码 71-77

出版社

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBL
DOI: 10.1023/A:1003912825455

关键词

Hordeum vulgare; net blotch; resistance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Results from tests of a mixture of Finnish net blotch, Pyrenophora teres Drechs. f. teres Smedeg., isolates on a differential series of barley seedlings, comprising 17 genotypes, indicated that patterns of infection response (IR) and percentage leaf area damaged (PLAD) were unaffected by differences in seedling size. Variation of the concentration of inoculum between 1,250 conidia ml(-1) and 20,000 conidia ml(-1) produced similar patterns of IR and PLAD on the differential series. IR and PLAD scored on the second seedling leaf differentiated resistance to P. teres f. teres among the genotypes better than on the first seedling leaf. In a second experiment, 120 single-spore P. teres f. teres isolates from Finland, Sweden, Norway, Latvia, Estonia and Ireland were used in tests conducted in the greenhouse to differentiate them in terms of virulence reaction on seedlings of six differential barley genotypes. Each isolate was tested directly following isolation from the leaf material and after having passaged each through barley cvs. Arve or Pohto, to produce 360 isolates in total. Virulence of the isolates differed significantly on the members of the differential series, but differences associated with country of origin and passaging, and interactions, were small. It is concluded that little variation between virulence of P. teres f. teres isolates is evident over a large geographic area, incorporating Nordic and Baltic countries, and Ireland. Barley genotype response to P. teres f. teres appeared to be of more significance than relative virulence of the pathogen isolates. This could simplify breeding barley for improved resistance to this phytopathogen.

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