4.5 Article

Relationship between kernel drydown rate and resistance to gibberella ear rot in maize

期刊

EUPHYTICA
卷 201, 期 1, 页码 79-88

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10681-014-1185-2

关键词

Maize; Gibberella ear rot; Fusarium graminearum; Kernel drydown rate; Indirect selection efficiency; Genotypic correlation

资金

  1. AAFC
  2. Canadian Field Crop Research Alliance (CFCRA) through AAFC's Developing Innovative Agri-Products Initiative of the Growing Canadian Agri-Innovations Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Development of gibberella ear rot (GER) resistant genotypes in maize is important to reduce yield loss and most importantly to avoid mycotoxin contamination of food and feed. The objective of the current study was to investigate the effect of kernel drydown rate (KDD) on GER disease development and to test whether using KDD as an indirect selection trait could warrant selection gains for GER resistance. Six inbred lines with various levels of disease resistance were evaluated for GER silk and kernel resistance and KDD as line per se and testcrosses in one location over three consecutive years. From our results, the genotypes showed significant differences (P < 0.05) to GER and KDD. Heritability estimates were high for GER and were consistently higher than estimates for KDD. Genotypic correlation estimates between GER and KDD, which were averaged over the 3 years were significant (P < 0.01, 0.05) only for kernel inoculated plots and the strength of correlations increased when kernels progress towards maturity. The indirect selection efficiency of KDD as compared to direct selection for GER was less than one but was substantially higher for kernel inoculated plots. Our overall result demonstrated that fast KDD was among the factors that contribute to kernel resistance to GER however its use as an indirect selection trait was less promising. Thus, screening for GER resistance using disease inoculated nurseries still remain to be the most effective method for GER breeding.

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