2005
DOI: 10.1007/s00122-005-2025-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Inheritance of field resistance to Stagonospora nodorum leaf and glume blotch and correlations with other morphological traits in hexaploid wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)

Abstract: Breeding for wheat varieties resistant to Stagonospora nodorum blotch (SNB) is the most sustainable strategy for controlling the disease. In order to map quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for SNB resistance we analysed 204 recombinant inbred lines of the cross between the winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) variety Forno and the winter spelt (Triticum spelta L.) variety Oberkulmer. We determined the level of resistance of adult plants to leaf blotch (SNL) and glume blotch (SNG) as well as morphological traits for… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

10
75
3

Year Published

2007
2007
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 52 publications
(88 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
10
75
3
Order By: Relevance
“…This was achieved by inoculating both flag leaves and glumes of DH genotypes with conidial suspensions at similar maturity. If segregation of morphological traits confounded disease assessment, then QTL for plant height and heading date would be co-located with either flag leaf or glume resistance QTL, as observed in previous studies (1). The phenotyping strategy employed in this study reduced pleiotropic effects of morphological characteristics on disease evaluation and QTL for flag leaf and glume resistance were independent of heading date and plant height.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 51%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…This was achieved by inoculating both flag leaves and glumes of DH genotypes with conidial suspensions at similar maturity. If segregation of morphological traits confounded disease assessment, then QTL for plant height and heading date would be co-located with either flag leaf or glume resistance QTL, as observed in previous studies (1). The phenotyping strategy employed in this study reduced pleiotropic effects of morphological characteristics on disease evaluation and QTL for flag leaf and glume resistance were independent of heading date and plant height.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 51%
“…However, QTL for flag leaf and glume resistance detected in one year but not in another may be unreliable for improving genetic gain. QSnl.daw-2D is in a similar chromosomal position to flag leaf resistance, QSnl.eth-2D, identified in winter wheat and detected in European environments (1). Similarly, a glume resistance QTL in a winter wheat, QSng.pur-2DL was also located in the same position on chromosome 2DL and consistently detected across a range of environments (35).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 56%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The key to developing germplasm with adult plant resistance will be to assess which QTL from different sources are consistently detected across multiple and relevant field environments, deploy them in appropriate genetic backgrounds, and identify which QTL combinations provide significant improvements in SNB resistance. The QTL for flag leaf resistance and associated markers identified in this study can be combined with other QTL (3,13,27,28) to develop new germplasm with improved flag leaf resistance to SNB. The use of molecular markers will be an important tool to track and select QTL combinations in germplasm development and commercial breeding.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…QTL for seedling resistance on chromosomes 6A and 7A were recently identified in association mapping studies (2). QTL for flag leaf resistance were identified on chromosomes 1B, 2A, 2D, 5A, 5B, and 7A (3,13,27) and glume resistance on 2D, 3B, 4B, and 5A (3,25,27,28). The majority of QTL for seedling, flag leaf, and glume resistance from these studies contributed a small proportion (usually <20%) of phenotypic variation.…”
mentioning
confidence: 86%