Septoria and Stagonospora Diseases of Cereals - CIMMYT ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Selecting Wheat for Resistance to Septoria/Stagonospora in Patzcuaro, Michoacan, Mexico 141 Table 1. Response of 11 wheat lines to natural infection by Septoria/Stagonospora, in regard to flag leaf severity (FLS in %), yield, percentage loss, in field plots either protected or unprotected with fungicide, in Pátzcuaro, Michoacan. México, during 1994, 1995, and 1996. Yield (kg/ha) % Entry Cross/Selection history CC * % ** UP % Yield loss % Flag leaf 1 CURINDA Tolerant check 2875 e *** 100 2042 d 100 29 28 2 BATAN Susceptible check 3521 b 122 2271 c 111 36 23 3 IAS20/H567.71/5* IAS20 CM78A-544-7B-1Y-1B-1Y-2B-1Y-0B 3826 b 133 3694 a 181 4 1 4 CHIL//ALD/PVN CM92801-65Y-0M-0Y-4M-0RES 2820 e 98 1590 e 78 44 36 5 THB/CNT 7 CM 830057-0Z-0A-1A-1A-1A-0Y 2632 f 92 2243 c 110 15 10 6 LIRA/TAN//SPB CM96824-U-0Y-0H-0SY-4M-0RES 2792 f 97 1847 d 90 34 18 7 ALD/PVN//YMI 6 CM 91065-2M-0M-0Y-0M-2Y-0B-5PZ 3681 b 128 2681 b 131 27 3 8 BAU/MILAN CM103873-2M-030Y-020Y-010M-4Y-0M 3312 c 115 1986 d 97 40 15 9 ISEPTON89-82E/BR6//PF83144 F32938-2M-0AL-0AL-0AL-4Y-0M 3049 d 106 3014 b 148 1 1 10 BOW/MII//RES/NAC/3/PFAU CM1033644-2FC-0M-1FC-0C 4432 a 154 2688 d 132 39 8 11 CAR853/COC//VEE/3/E7408/PAM//HORK/PF73226 CM80174-32Y-04M-0Y-3M-1M-0M 3854 b 134 2292 d 112 41 24 LSD 498 545 Mean 3344 2396 C.V. 10 16 Yield (kg/ha) % Entry Cross/Selection history CC * % ** UP % Yield loss % Flag leaf 1 CURINDA Tolerant check 4153 c 100 3125 a 100 25 18 2 BATAN Susceptible check 3492 e 84 2285 c 73 35 53 3 IAS20/H567.71/5* IAS20 CM78A-544-7B-1Y-1B-1Y-2B-1Y-0B 4521 b 108 3375 a 108 35 26 4 CHIL//ALD/PVN CM92801-65Y-0M-0Y-4M-0RES 4007 d 96 2722 b 87 32 45 5 THB/CNT 7 CM 830057-0Z-0A-1A-1A-1A-0Y 4035 d 97 3153 a 101 22 21 6 LIRA/TAN//SPB CM96824-U-0Y-0H-0SY-4M-0RES 3854 d 92 2986 a 96 22 30 7 ALD/PVN//YMI 6 CM 91065-2M-0M-0Y-0M-2Y-0B-5PZ 4722 b 114 2875 a 92 39 16 8 BAU/MILAN CM103873-2M-030Y-020Y-010M-4Y-0M 3952 d 95 3333 a 102 20 13 9 ISEPTON89-82E/BR6//PF83144 F32938-2M-0AL-0AL-0AL-4Y-0M 4007 d 97 3368 a 108 17 5 10 BOW/MII//RES/NAC/3/PFAU CM1033644-2FC-0M-1FC-0C 5292 a 127 3236 a 104 39 13 11 CAR853/COC//VEE/3/E7408/PAM//HORK/PF73226 CM80174-32Y-04M-0Y-3M-1M-0M 4549 b 110 3222 a 103 29 21 LSD 484 592 Mean 4235 3045 C.V. 8 13 * (CC) Chemical control and (UP) Unprotected. ** Percentage relative to the tolerant check, Curinda M87. *** Values followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 probability level. 1994 1995
Session 6C — R.M. Gonzalez I., S. Rajaram, and M. van Ginkel 142 Table 1. Continued... Yield (kg/ha) % Entry Cross/Selection history CC * % ** UP % Yield loss % Flag leaf 1 CURINDA Tolerant check 2896 c 100 2826 c 100 3 40 2 BATAN Suscepible check 2038 e 70 1637 f 57 19 61 3 IAS20/H567.71/5* IAS20 CM78A-544-7B-1Y-1B-1Y-2B-1Y-0B 3359 b 116 3173 a 112 6 27 4 CHIL//ALD/PVN CM92801-65Y-0M-0Y-4M-0RES 2644 d 91 2289 e 81 13 75 5 THB/CNT 7 CM 830057-0Z-0A-1A-1A-1A-0Y 3206 b 111 2766 c 98 14 31 6 LIRA/TAN//SPB CM96824-U-0Y-0H-0SY-4M-0RES 2710 d 94 2655 c 94 2 62 7 ALD/PVN//YMI 6 CM 91065-2M-0M-0Y-0M-2Y-0B-5PZ 3961 a 137 3291 a 116 17 28 8 BAU/MILAN CM103873-2M-030Y-020Y-010M-4Y-0M 3028 c 105 2326 d 82 23 10 9 ISEPTON89-82E/BR6//PF83144 F32938-2M-0AL-0AL-0AL-4Y-0M 3146 b 109 2847 b 101 10 22 10 BOW/MII//RES/NAC/3/PFAU CM1033644-2FC-0M-1FC-0C 3456 b 119 3185 a 113 26 38 11 CAR853/COC//VEE/3/E7408/PAM//HORK/PF73226 CM80174-32Y-04M-0Y-3M-1M-0M 3156 b 110 2852 b 101 28 33 LSD 412 345 Mean 3094 2713 C.V. 9 11 * (CC) Chemical control and (UP) Unprotected. ** Percentage relative to the tolerant check, Curinda M87. *** Values followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 probability level. years Curinda, when unprotected, yielded on average 2688 kg/ha, expressing a 19% loss (Table 2). Several lines were also superior to the check in yield, and suffered less yield loss. In this study percent flag leaf area affected correlated negatively with yield loss (-0.71 to -0.83; Table 3). This negative correlation appears strong and reliable over years. Although grain yield of most lines tested varied over years depending on climatic and production conditions (Figure 1), in general their performance relative to the resistant check Curinda showed impressive consistency over time. In contrast, the susceptible check Batan yielded less every year as a percentage of the check (Tables 1 and 2; Figure 1), and seemed to be losing its resistance progressively. The plots protected with fungicide provide a partial expression of each line’s yield potential in the absence of disease stress. However, other abiotic stresses, such as soil acidity and nutrient imbalances related to leaching following excessive rain, also reduce yield in this high rainfall environment. The difference between the protected and unprotected plots provides a measure of yield loss due to disease. Mean yield losses were in the 10-32% range. The line ISEPTON89-82E/BR6//PF83144 experienced the lowest loss (10%), while the susceptible check Batan suffered the highest (32%). 1996 Comparing protected and unprotected plots provides a measure of the contribution of resistance or tolerance to yield. If the yield difference is small (i.e. the loss is small), the genotype tested apparently has a certain level of resistance/tolerance that enables it to express most, if not all, of its yield potential. However, useful information can also be gained from direct comparison of lines in a disease-prone setting, in companion plots without the use of fungicides, in particular when screening germplasm to identify potential varieties. This is less expensive than also growing protected plots, and hence allows larger numbers of entries to be tested. To be acceptable to farmers, a variety must yield the same or better than the commercial check variety. Candidate varieties can be acceptable
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: 140 Selecting Wheat for Resistance
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 and 162: 154 Evaluating Triticum durum x Tri
Page 163 and 164: 156 Sources of Resistance to Septor
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?