Field assessment of partial resistance to powdery mildew in spring barley

Knudsen, J. C. Nørgaard; Dalsgaard, H. H.; Helms, John A.

doi:10.1007/bf00028562

Cited by 25 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Disease progress curves gave a clear indication of rate and extent of mildew increase on various genotypes . AUDPC values are being employed more and more in identification of partial resistance (Norgaard Knudsen et al ., 1986 ;Southern & Wilcoxson . 1983 ;Wilson & Shaner, 1987 ;Yeh & Bonman, 1980).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of cowpea genotypes for partial resistance to powdery mildew

Raju

Anilkumar

1990

Euphytica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Twenty cowpea germplas lines were assessed under glasshouse conditions for resistance to a field population of powdery mildew fungus Erysiphe polygoni . Genotypes APC 68, 585, 809 and 780 exhibited partial resistance while line APC 703 exhibited absolute resistance . The AUDPC values based on severity ratings were significantly lower in partial resistant lines and there was a good relation of AUDPC values with incidence (r = 0 .88* *), and medium correlation with colony size (r = 0 .57* *) . Peak severity showed medium correlation to colony size (r 0 .59**) and conidia per colony (r = 0 .55**) and high correlation to disease incidence (r = 0 .91**) .

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of cowpea genotypes for partial resistance to powdery mildew

Raju

Anilkumar

1990

Euphytica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Partial resistance to powdery mildew is an important aim for the Tunisian wheat breeding program. Partial resistance provides long term resistance (Wang et al, 2005;Žilvinas and Vytautas, 2008) and allows some epidemic development of disease, but at a reduced level (Nørgaard Knudsen et al, 1986). It can be caused by alteration of one or more of the following component: increased incubation period, increased latent period, reduced infection period, reduced infection size and reduced conidium production (Kinane and Jones, 2000).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Response of Tunisian Durum and Common Wheat Cultivars to Powdery Mildew under Natural Infection

Hammami¹,

Mansouri²,

Rassaa³

et al. 2014

Turkish Journal of Field Crops

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cereal production is an important component of agriculture. Powdery mildew (Erysiphe graminis f. sp tritici Em. Marchal), caused by Blumeria graminis (DC.) E.O Speerf. sp. tritici (Bgt), which is one of the most worldwide devastating diseases of durum and common wheat specially in Tunisia. Several works have discussed plant resistance to mildew and its potential risks but, it was neglected or no study was reported for that in Tunisia. There is an increasing need for studies that address the potential side effects of mildew to different wheat cultivars and their outcome and behave via disease criteria. This study focuses to compare the behave of ten Tunisian wheat cultivars to powdery mildew under field conditions during two successive cropping seasons 2011-2013. Using the 5 disease criteria (infected leaf number, pustules per stem and per leaf, number of spores produced per pustule and AUDPC "Area Under the Disease Progress Curve", based on pustules per leaf) to investigate the plant disease resistance, specially the AUDPC parameter, durum wheat showed susceptibility to natural infection of powdery mildew specially the cultivar Souabaa Eljia with mean AUDPC value of 583.8, while common wheat, the cultivar Hydra, showed resistance with mean AUDPC value of 52.1,while, the improved durum cultivars Nasr and Karim showed an intermediate reaction. Principal Components Analysis (PCA) showed that the variables were grouped in two principal components that explained 76.65% of the total variance. The projection of the point-cloud representing the populations on the plan formed by the principal components «Fact.1» (49.65%), in abscissa, and «Fact.2» (27%) in ordinate, permitted to distribute the accessions in several groups. Two common wheat cultivars (Hydra and Bysra) showed on one hand a high level of resistance to Bgt and on other hand this fungus behaves differently on these cultivars via the conidia production. The cluster analysis suggested that these two cultivars are genetically similar, but the PCA distribute each one in a distinct single group. Hydra affect all the component of resistance tested and seems more efficient than Bysra.

show abstract

“…The average colony size in case of unhampered growth is very small for leaf rust in barley, clearly larger for stem rust in durum wheat, again larger for powdery mildew in barley and much larger (reaching over the whole leaf) for yellow rust in wheat. The interplot interference expressed as underestimation of quantitative resistance seems associated with it, being very large for barley to P. hordei (Parlevliet & Van Ommeren, 1975,1984, much smaller for durum wheat to P graminis (Broers, unpublished data), again smaller for barley to E. graminis powdery mildew (NCrgaard Knudsen et al, 1986) and hardly if at all existing for wheat to P striiformis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From very large in barley to barley leaf rust, (Puccinia hordei (Parlevliet & Van Ommeren, 1975, 1984, to moderate in barley to powdery mildew, Erysiphe graminis f.sp. hordei (NCrgaard Knudsen et al, 1986) and maize -Puccinia sorghi (Randle et al, 1986).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does interplot interference affect the screening of wheat for yellow rust resistance?

1993

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In small plots, adjacent to one another, a representational error can be expected when screening for quantitative forms of resistance to airborne pathogens. The representational error or interplot interference may occur as an underestimation of the level of resistance and/or as an error in the ranking of the entries tested.Four experiments were carried out with wheat (Triticum aestivum) exposed to yellow rust (Puccinia striiformis), three in Kenya, one in Mexico (exp. III).In experiment 157 entries were compared in an unreplicated trial with three adjacent and one isolated plot situation. The range in the standard deviation of and the ranking order for disease severity (DS) between the 57 entries were the same for all plot situations at all observation dates.In experiment II nine entries from experiment I, representing a wide range of quantitative resistance and having a similar heading date, were compared in adjacent plots consisting of two rows of 10 m in eight replicates and isolated plots of one, six and ten rows of 4 m in three replicates. The range in the standard deviation of and the ranking order for DS between the entries were very similar for the four plot situations.The 10 entries in experiment III differed from those in experiment II, but represented a similar wide range of resistance. Three adjacent plot situations of 0.9 x 0.5 m, 0.9 x 2.0 m and 2.7 x 2.0 m, respectively, were compared with one isolated one with plots of 2.7 × 2.0 m. The ranking order was not affected, the range in and the standard deviation of the DS in the isolated plots were slightly larger than in the adjacent plots.In experiment IV two mixtures of two entries each were made. Per mixture one entry was fairly resistant (R) the other rather susceptible (S). Within each mixture the entries had a similar heading date. The ratios of the R:S mixtures were 0:100, 50:50, 67:33, 75:25, 82:18 and 100:0. The DS of each entry was the same as its DS in monoculture irrespective of the mixture ratio. There was no mixture effect on DS.The three experiments in Kenya gave no indication of any interplot interference occurring. In Mexico there was a very slight underestimation of the resistance in adjacent plots. The ranking order was always the same irrespective of the test plot situation. The screening of wheat for yellow rust resistance in small adjacent plots is representative for the farmers fields. This is contrary to what has been found in other windborne pathosystems such as barley-barley leaf rust (strong under estimation of resistance), barley-powdery mildew (some under estimation of resistance and different ranking order) and durum wheat-stem rust (fair under estimation of resistance). 218

show abstract

Field assessment of partial resistance to powdery mildew in spring barley

Cited by 25 publications

References 19 publications

Evaluation of cowpea genotypes for partial resistance to powdery mildew

Evaluation of cowpea genotypes for partial resistance to powdery mildew

Response of Tunisian Durum and Common Wheat Cultivars to Powdery Mildew under Natural Infection

Does interplot interference affect the screening of wheat for yellow rust resistance?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About