Septoria and Stagonospora Diseases of Cereals - CIMMYT ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 1. Disease rating of CIMMYT durum x T. tauschii wheat lines for septoria glume blotch on a 0 to 9 scale where 0 = no disease and 9 = very high disease rating. Rating Rating Rating Mean Entry number day 5 day 8 day 11 rating TAM 107 Susc. Ck 7 7 7 7 Syn-1 Altar 21 3 7 7 6 Syn-2 Altar 219 1 4 6 4 Syn-3 Altar 219 4 6 6 5 Syn-4 Altar 219 7 6 6 6 Syn-5 Altar 224 7 7 7 7 Tx76-40-2 Res. Ck 0 1 1 1 Syn-6 Altar 224 4 3 4 4 Syn-7 Altar 224 3 3 6 4 Syn-8 Altar 221 3 4 6 4 Syn-9 Altar 223 1 2 3 2 Syn-10 Altar 223 2 3 4 3 Syn-11 Altar 192 1 3 4 3 Syn-12 Altar 198 1 3 2 2 Syn-13 Altar 198 0 0 1 1 Syn-14 Altar 198 1 2 2 2 Syn-15 Altar 211 1 3 2 2 Syn-16 Chen 205 7 6 7 7 Syn-17 Chen 205 8 8 8 8 Syn-18 Chen 205 6 7 7 7 Syn-19 Chen 205 5 5 5 5 Syn-20 Chen 205 3 3 5 4 Syn-21 Chen 205 2 3 5 3 Syn-22 Chen 205 5 5 7 6 Syn-23 Chen 205 4 4 6 5 Syn-24 Chen 205 3 3 3 3 Syn-25 Chen 205 5 5 5 5 Syn-26 Chen 215 3 3 3 3 Syn-27 Chen 215 0 2 2 1 Syn-28 Chen 224 7 6 6 6 Syn-29 Chen 224 7 7 4 6 Syn-30 Chen 224 7 7 4 6 Syn-31 Chen 224 4 5 5 5 Syn-32 Chen 224 3 3 4 3 Syn-33 Chen 224 5 5 5 5 Syn-34 Chen 224 3 5 5 4 Syn-35 Chen 224 6 6 6 6 Syn-36 Chen 224 6 6 4 5 Syn-37 Chen 224 7 7 7 7 Syn-38 Chen 224 5 6 6 6 Syn-39 Cndo/R143// Ent “S”/Mex 214 7 6 6 6 Syn-40 “ “ 5 6 5 5 Syn 41 “ “ 3 5 5 4 Syn-43 Cndo/R143// Ent”S”/Mex 221 5 5 5 5 Syn-44 Cndo/R143// Ent”S”/Mex 221 5 4 4 4 Syn-45 “ “ 4 7 7 6 Syn-45 “ “ 3 4 5 4 Syn-46 “ “ 6 7 6 6 Syn-45 Laru’s 309 3 5 5 4 Syn-48 5 6 6 6 Syn-49 “ “ 8 7 8 8 Syn-50 “ “ 2 3 3 3 Evaluating Triticum durum x Triticum tauschii Germplasm for Resistance to Stagonospora nodorum 155 Highly resistant lines were Syn 9, Syn 12, Syn 13, Syn 14, Syn 15, and Syn 27. Their resistance was similar to TX76- 40-2. Moderately resistant lines were Syn 10, Syn 11, Syn 32, and Syn 50. Several other lines also demonstrated a moderate degree of partial resistance. Lines Syn 1 through 15 may have a similar genetic background for the A and B genomes because they all have Altar as the durum parent. Of the resistant lines, the T. tauschii parents were 223 for Syn 9 and 10, 192 for Syn 11, 198 for Syn 12-14 and 211 for Syn 15. ‘Chen’ and ‘Laru’ “S” were the durum parents for Syn 27 and 50 and the T. tauschii lines were 215 and 309, respectively. It appears that at least some of the resistance in this germplasm originated in the T. tauschii lines used to make the amphiploids. Discussion It appears that we have several promising new sources of resistance in a wheat background that can be crossed with our adapted winter wheat. We are presently increasing seed of these 50 lines in our greenhouse. We have crossed several of the best lines for resistance to septoria glume blotch with both hard and soft red winter wheat in our crossing program during 1998/99. Since this germplasm contains sources of resistance to septoria glume blotch which are likely not present in our soft red winter wheat, there may be an opportunity to pyramid genes and make significant improvement in resistance to this disease. Acknowledgment Appreciation is expressed to CIMMYT for developing and sharing the germplasm. References Dantuma, G. 1955. The heavy attack of diseases during the ripening of wheat in 1954. Euphytica 5:94-95. Nelson, L.R., R.D. Barnett, D. Marshall, C.A. Erickson, M.E. McDaniel, W.D. Worrall, N.A. Tuleen, and M.D. Lazar. 1994. Registration of TX76-40-2 wheat germplasm. Crop Sci. 34:1137. Nelson, L.R., and D. Marshall. 1990. Breeding wheat for resistance to Septoria nodorum and Septoria tritici. Advances in Agronomy 44:257-277.
156 Sources of Resistance to Septoria passerinii in Hordeum vulgare and H. vulgare subsp. spontaneum H. Toubia-Rahme and B.J. Steffenson (Poster) North Dakota State University, Department of Plant Pathology, Fargo, ND, USA Abstract Septoria speckled leaf blotch (SSLB), incited by Septoria passerinii and Stagonospora avenae f. sp. triticea, has become one of the most serious diseases of barley in the Upper Midwest region of the USA. In barley SSLB can cause significant losses in both the yield and quality. The major malting and feed barley cultivars in the Upper Midwest are very susceptible to SSLB. Resistance breeding is the most effective strategy for controlling this disease. A diverse group of barley germplasm including Hordeum vulgare subsp. spontaneum accessions, advanced midwestern breeding lines, and commercial cultivars was evaluated at the seedling stage in the greenhouse for reaction to S. passerinii. Of 200 accessions tested, 79 were found resistant. Most of H. vulgare subsp. spontaneum accessions (17 of 24) were resistant to S. passerinii. These accessions all originated from the Middle East, except one that was from Tibet. Most of the advanced midwestern breeding lines found resistant to this pathogen have Gloria”S”/Copal”S” (an ICARDA/CIMMYT barley line) in their pedigree, which is believed to be a source of resistance to S. passerinii. From this study, it is evident that many barley accessions possess resistance to S. passerinii. Additional evaluations will be made on this germplasm to S. avenae f. sp. triticea to identify accessions that possess effective resistance to both SSLB pathogens. Septoria speckled leaf blotch (SSLB), caused by Septoria passerinii and Stagonospora avenae f. sp. triticea, has become an increasingly important disease of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) over the past decade in the Upper Midwest region of the USA. In surveys of North Dakota barley fields in 1998, S. passerinii and S. avenae f. sp. triticea were recovered from 45% and 37% of leaves exhibiting leaf spot symptoms, respectively (Krupinsky and Steffenson, this volume). Yield losses of 20% have been recorded in barley due to S. passerinii infection (Green and Bendelow, 1961). In recent trials conducted in North Dakota, yield losses of 23% to 38% were observed in Robust barley infected with SSLB (J. Lukach and B. Steffenson, unpublished data). In addition to reducing yield, SSLB also reduces kernel plumpness and malt extract, which are important malt quality characters (Green and Bendelow, 1961). Host plant resistance provides the most practical and environmentally safe method of disease control. Unfortunately, all major malting and feed barley cultivars in the Upper Midwest region are susceptible to SSLB. The objectives of this study were to 1) identify sources of resistance to S. passerinii in commercial barley cultivars, agronomically advanced midwestern breeding lines, and Hordeum vulgare subsp. spontaneum accessions; and 2) evaluate previously reported sources of S. passerinii resistance to a midwestern isolate of this pathogen. Materials and Methods In total, 200 barley entries including 24 H. vulgare subsp. spontaneum accessions were evaluated at the seedling stage in the greenhouse. Five seeds of each entry were planted in pots (10 x 10 cm) filled with a potting mix consisting of peat moss (75%) and perlite (25%). Slow-release (14-14- 14, N-P-K, 2 g/pot) and watersoluble (15-0-15, N-P-K, 2 g/pot) fertilizers were added at the time of planting. All seedlings were grown in the greenhouse at 20±3ºC with a 14-h photoperiod. The fungal isolate (ND97-15) used in this study was obtained from naturally infected barley leaves collected from a commercial field in Bottineau county, North Dakota, in 1997. For inoculum production, the isolate was grown on yeast malt agar (YMA) (Eyal et al., 1987) in plastic Petri dishes at 21ºC with a 12-h photoperiod (cool-white fluorescent tubes). When pycnidia developed and sporulated, mass spore transfers were made by removing with a sterile needle cirrhi from pycnidia and transferring them to other YMA plates. After 4-5 days of incubation under the same conditions, pycnidia were harvested by flooding the surface of the plates
Page 1 and 2:
Septoria and Stagonospora Diseases
Page 3 and 4:
ii The Organizing Committee express
Page 5 and 6:
iv 87 Genetic Variability in a Coll
Page 7 and 8:
vi Foreword In the mid-1970s the id
Page 9 and 10:
2 Opening Remarks — S. Rajaram ar
Page 11 and 12:
4 Opening Remarks — S. Rajaram Ta
Page 13 and 14:
6 Opening Remarks — S. Rajaram cu
Page 15 and 16:
8 Opening Remarks — S. Rajaram br
Page 17 and 18:
10 Opening Remarks — S. Rajaram T
Page 19 and 20:
12 Opening Remarks — S. Rajaram t
Page 21 and 22:
14 Opening Remarks — S. Rajaram C
Page 23 and 24:
16 Opening Remarks — S. Rajaram r
Page 26 and 27:
Session 1: Pathogen Biology Biology
Page 28 and 29:
Table 2. The Septoria tritici/Stago
Page 30 and 31:
Molecular Analysis of a DNA Fingerp
Page 32 and 33:
histidine kinase in yeast, although
Page 34 and 35:
According to the previous observati
Page 36 and 37:
cultivars. The presence of pycnidia
Page 38 and 39:
Provided that S. nodorum fungal gen
Page 40 and 41:
;; yy ;; yy 6 28% 1 32% ;y; ; y y ;
Page 42 and 43:
Table 1. Sources of isolates or DNA
Page 44 and 45:
Septoria/Stagonospora Leaf Spot Dis
Page 46:
Interrelations among Septoria triti
Page 49 and 50:
42 Session 2 — B.M. Cunfer disper
Page 51 and 52:
44 Session 2 — B.M. Cunfer beyond
Page 53 and 54:
46 Aggressiveness of Phaeosphaeria
Page 55 and 56:
48 Session 2 — P. Halama, F. Lala
Page 57 and 58:
50 Growth of Stagonospora nodorum L
Page 59 and 60:
52 Session 3A — G.H.J. Kema and E
Page 61 and 62:
54 A Possible Gene-for-Gene Relatio
Page 63 and 64:
56 Diallel Analysis of Septoria Tri
Page 65 and 66:
58 Session 3A — X. Zhang, S.D. Ha
Page 67 and 68:
60 Session 3A — L. Gilchrist, C.
Page 69 and 70:
62 Session 3A — L. Gilchrist, C.
Page 71 and 72:
64 Session 3B — E. Arseniuk and P
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
68 Cultivar variances Cultivar vari
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
72 Session 3B — N.E.A. Murphy, R.
Page 81 and 82:
74 Inheritance of Septoria Nodorum
Page 83 and 84:
76 Session 3B — N.E.A. Murphy, R.
Page 85 and 86:
78 Session 4 — B.A. McDonald, C.C
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
84 Session 4 — E. Arseniuk, H.S.
Page 93 and 94:
86 Session 4 — C. Cowger, C.C. Mu
Page 95 and 96:
88 each isolate. Two of the probes
Page 97 and 98:
90 Mating Type-Specific PCR Primers
Page 99 and 100:
92 Session 4 — Bennett, R.S., S.-
Page 101 and 102:
94 Session 5 — M.W. Shaw and the
Page 103 and 104:
96 Session 5 — M.W. Shaw The path
Page 105 and 106:
98 Spore Dispersal of Leaf Blotch P
Page 107 and 108:
Session 5 — C.A. Cordo, M.R. Sim
Page 109 and 110:
102 Epidemiology of Seedborne Stago
Page 111 and 112: Session 5 — D.A. Shah and G.C. Be
Page 113 and 114: 106 Session 6A / Session 6B — J.M
Page 119 and 120: Session 6A / Session 6B — C.C. Mu
Page 125 and 126: 118 Session 6C — M. van Ginkel an
Page 135 and 136: Session 6C — G. Shaner 128 An exa
Page 137 and 138: Session 6C — G. Shaner 130 Anothe
Page 139 and 140: Session 6C — M. Díaz de Ackerman
Page 141 and 142: 134 Septoria tritici Resistance Sou
Page 143 and 144: Session 6C — L. Gilchrist et al.
Page 145 and 146: Session 6C — L. Gilchrist et al.
Page 147 and 148: 140 Selecting Wheat for Resistance
Page 149 and 150: Session 6C — R.M. Gonzalez I., S.
Page 151 and 152: Session 6C — R.M. Gonzalez I., S.
Page 153 and 154: Session 6C — R. Loughman, R.E. Wi
Page 155 and 156: 148 Field Resistance of Wheat to Se
Page 157 and 158: 150 Using Precise Genetic Stocks to
Page 159 and 160: Session 6C — C.M. Ellerbrook, V.
Page 161: 154 Evaluating Triticum durum x Tri
Page 165 and 166: Session 6C — H. Toubia-Rahme and
Page 167 and 168: 160 Partial Resistance to Stagonosp
Page 169 and 170: Session 6C — C.G. Du, L.R. Nelson
Page 171 and 172: Session 6C — D.E. Fraser, J.P. Mu
Page 173 and 174: Session 6C — C.G. Du, L.R. Nelson
Page 175 and 176: Session 6C — M. Mincu 168 Arcsin
Page 177 and 178: 170 Comparison of Greenhouse and Fi
Page 179 and 180: Session 6C — S.L. Walker, S. Leat
Page 181 and 182: Session 6D — L.N. Jørgensen, K.E
Page 183 and 184: 176
Page 185 and 186: Concluding Remarks — Z. Eyal 178
Page 191 and 192: 184 Dr. Patrice Halama Professor In
Page 193 and 194: 186 Dr. Hala Toubia-Rahme Research
show all

Septoria and Stagonospora Diseases of Cereals - CIMMYT ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?