1982
DOI: 10.1094/phyto-72-816
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Diallel Analysis of Genetic Resistance toCronartium quercuumf. sp.fusiformein Slash Pine

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

1989
1989
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Miyabe ex Shirai f.sp. fusiforme ( Cqf ) genetic interactions with Pinus hosts [ 44 , 45 ] led to mapping of F usiform r ust resistance 1 ( Fr1 ; [ 46 ]) to LG2 [ 47 , 48 ]. P. lambertiana Cr1 for white pine blister rust resistance [ 49 ] was also mapped to the same linkage group using syntenic markers [ 50 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Miyabe ex Shirai f.sp. fusiforme ( Cqf ) genetic interactions with Pinus hosts [ 44 , 45 ] led to mapping of F usiform r ust resistance 1 ( Fr1 ; [ 46 ]) to LG2 [ 47 , 48 ]. P. lambertiana Cr1 for white pine blister rust resistance [ 49 ] was also mapped to the same linkage group using syntenic markers [ 50 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Major importance of additive genetic effects for twist rust susceptibility was confirmed by large differences in GCA estimates of the two sets of parents and nonsignificant SCA effects in controlled crosses. In earlier studies of the inheritance of fusiform rust resistance in slash and loblolly pines, Sluder (1988) and Griggs & Walkinshaw (1982) showed highly significant variation in GCA for this trait and no significant variation in SCA. Because GCA effects were predominant, selection for reduced rust susceptibility based on WP or polycross progeny tests could be easily included in the management of the two existing breeding populations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…The OP families were useful for recognizing resistant and susceptible selections, and the full sib data led Jewell [12] to propose that resistance in slash pine was controlled by a dominant single gene, but later Jewell and Mallett [13], with additional disease data from full-sib seedlings from resistant selections 8-7 and 18-27, deemed resistance in slash pine to be more complex. Kinloch and Walkinshaw [14], in a reanalysis of an earlier study by Griggs and Walkinshaw [15] that used full-sib slash pine families from a five parent diallel cross (including resistant parents, 8-7 and 18-27 used in works [12,13]) challenged with basidiospore inocula derived from two single galls, reported fusiform rust resistance involving dominant single host genes, two in that study, and based on the data hypothesized gene-for-gene interactions. Powers [16] and Kuhlman and Matthews [17] reported methods for the development of single-genotype Cqf isolates with the Kuhlman and Matthews work showing virulence variation among single-genotype isolates derived from the same single gall.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%