Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-wpx69 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-07T04:32:06.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Investigations in the Triticinae IV. Disease reactions of species of Triticum and Aegilops and of amphidiploids between them

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

G. D. H. Bell  and
F. G. H. Lupton
G. D. H. Bell
Affiliation:
Plant Breeding Institute, Cambridge
F. G. H. Lupton
Affiliation:
Plant Breeding Institute, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Observations have been made of the seedling reactions of species of Triticum and Aegilops and of amphidiploids between them to races of Puccinia glumarum, P. triticina, P. graminis and Erysiphe graminis. These observations have been compared with field observations on mature plants. The work on P. graminis and much of that on P. triticina was carried out by Dr R. C. McGinnis of the Dominion Rust Research Laboratories, Winnipeg, Canada.

2. Seedling and mature plant resistance to P. glumarum has been found in Triticum monococcum, Aegilops caudata and A. ovata. Resistance was not shown by amphidiploids of T. monococcum and A. caudata with susceptible species of Triticum, but was shown by some amphidiploids involving A. ovata; T. timopheevi and A. speltoides were susceptible to certain races as seedlings but resistant as mature plants in the field.

3. Seedling resistance to all the races of P. triticina used in these investigations was shown by A. caudata and resistance to certain races by certain other species. Amphidiploids involving A. caudata were resistant to all races, but other amphidiploids were resistant to some races and susceptible to others.

4. Seedling and mature plant resistance to P. graminis was shown by A. caudata. A. ovata and A. speltoides were resistant as mature plants, and only slightly infected as seedlings. None of the amphidiploids tested was completely resistant at the seedling stage; certain amphidiploids involving these three species were, however, only slightly infected as mature plants, and may be useful as sources of resistance to race 15B.

5. Resistance to E. graminis was shown by T. carthlicum, T. dicoccum, T. timopheevi and by numerous species of Aegilops. Amphidiploids of T. carthlicum, T. dicoccum, T. timopheevi and A. caudata with diploid wheat species were resistant to E. graminis, but those with susceptible tetraploid wheats were susceptible. Other intergeneric amphidiploids (with two exceptions) were resistant.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , August 1955 , pp. 232 - 246
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1955

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allard, R. W. & Shands, R. G. (1950). Report of the Fifth Western Wheat Conference, U.S. Dep. Agric, Bur. Pl. Ind., Soils Agric. Engineering, Div. Cereal Crops and Diseases, Washington.Google Scholar
Batts, C. C. V. & Elliott, C. S. (1952). Plant Pathology, 1, 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, G. D. H. (1950). J. Agric. Sci. 40, 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catcheside, D. G. (1949). Genetics of Micro-organisms. London: Pitman Press.Google Scholar
Cherewick, W. J. (1944). Canad. J. Res. 22C, 52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chester, K. S. (1946). The Cereal Rusts. Waltham, Mass.: Chronica Botanica Co.Google Scholar
Duff, A. D. S. (1954). Nature, Lond., 173, 779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gassner, G. & Straib, W. (1932). Arb. biol. Abt. (Anst.— Reichanst.), Berl., 20, 141.Google Scholar
Goulden, C. H. (1929). Sci. Agric. 10, 258.Google Scholar
Goulden, C. H., Neatby, K. W. & Welsh, J. N. (1928). Phytopathology, 18, 631.Google Scholar
Hardison, J. R. (1944). Phytopathology, 34, 1.Google Scholar
Hassebrauk, K. (1932). Arb. biol. Abt. (Anst.— Reichanst.), Berl., 20, 165.Google Scholar
Hassebrauk, K. (1939). Arb. biol. Abt. (Anst.— Reichanst.), Berl., 23, 37.Google Scholar
Hayes, H. K., Parker, J. H. & Kurtzweil, C. (1920). J. Agric. Res. 19, 523.Google Scholar
Hiratsuka, N. & Sueoka, M. (1952). Jap. J. Breeding, 1, 199 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Johnston, C. O. (1940). Trans. Kans Acad. Sci. 43, 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Küderling, O. E. (1937). Z. Pflanzenz. 21, 1.Google Scholar
Lowther, C. V. (1951). Plant Dis. Reptr. 35, 480.Google Scholar
McFadden, E. S. (1930). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 22, 1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, E. S. & Rivers, G. W. (1950). Report of the Sixth Hard Red Wheat Improvement Conference, U.S. Dep. Agric Bur. Pl. Ind., Soils Agric. Res. Sta., Lincoln, Neb.Google Scholar
McFadden, E. S. & Sears, E. R. (1946). J. Hered. 37, 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, E. S. & Sears, E. R. (1947). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 39, 1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mains, E. B. (1933). Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., Wash., 19, 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mains, E. B. (1934). Phytopathology, 24, 1257.Google Scholar
Manners, J. G. (1950). Ann. Appl. Biol. 37, 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neatby, K. W. (1936). Phytopathology, 26, 360.Google Scholar
Neatby, K. W. (1942). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 10, 245.Google Scholar
Newton, M. & Cherewick, W. J. (1947). Canad. J. Res. 25C, 73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nover Schichtling, I. (1941). Z. Pflanzenz. 24, 71.Google Scholar
Pugsley, A. T. & Carter, M. V. (1953). Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 6, 335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, G. M. (1916). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 23.Google Scholar
Schichtling, I. (1938). Kühn Archiv. 48, 52.Google Scholar
Sears, E. R. (1941). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 336.Google Scholar
Sears, E. R. (1948). Advanc. Genet. 2, 239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stakman, E. C., Levine, M. N. & Loegering, W. Q. (1944). U.S. Dep. Agric., Bur. Entomol. Plant Quar. E 617.Google Scholar
Straib, W. (1933). Z. Pflanzenz. 18, 223.Google Scholar
Straib, W. (1934). Phytopath. Z. 7, 427.Google Scholar
Straib, W. (1937). Arb. biol. Abt. (Anst.—Reichanst.), Berl., 22, 91.Google Scholar
Vavilov, N. I. (1935). The scientific basis of plant breeding. Translated. Chron. bot. 13, 139 (1949).Google Scholar