Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:10:50.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variation in the host-parasite relationship of a crop disease

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

M. H. Arnold  and
S. J. Brown
M. H. Arnold
Affiliation:
Cotton Research Corporation, Cotton Research Station, Namulonge, Uganda
S. J. Brown
Affiliation:
Cotton Research Corporation, Cotton Research Station, Namulonge, Uganda
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Variations in the host–parasite relationship of bacterial blight of cotton, caused by Xanthomonas malvacearum, E. F. Smith (Dowson), axe elucidated in terms of the three main components of variation, namely, genetic variation in the host, genetic variation in the parasite and variations in environment.

Although the relative resistance shown by host varieties differed both with the culture of the pathogen used for inoculation and with the environmental conditions, over-riding patterns of host resistance could be detected, showing that certain varieties maintained their resistance over a wide range of conditions.

It was found that phage type in X. malvacearum was not related to virulence. Moreover, none of the cultures of the pathogen which had been isolated from different sources, could be shown to be identical when inoculated into a range of host varieties under a range of environmental conditions. It was concluded that the pathogen showed continuous variation in virulence and that it would be difficult and of little value to attempt to define races.

Some success was achieved in relating observed variations in the host–parasite relationship to easily measured components of the environment, by using multiple regression analyses. It is suggested that this might provide a means of characterizing the complex variations observed and that the host–parasite relationship could be regarded as a dynamic system, in which disease expression is a function of the interactions of environmental factors and two polygenic systems, that of the host and that of the parasite.

Intrapopulation variances were also studied in the host varieties. A population which showed little variation for resistance under one set of conditions might show considerable variation in a different environment or when inoculated with a different culture. It is suggested that selection for resistance under conditions which favour the expression of variation can lead, by repeated selection and inbreeding, to the production of resistant populations which retain their resistance under conditions in which the parental stocks showed no worthwhile resistance. These conclusions are discussed in relation to problems in resistance breeding and genetics.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 71 , Issue 1 , August 1968 , pp. 19 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

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

Arnold, M. H. (1963). The control of bacterial blight in rain-grown cotton. I. Breeding for resistance in African Upland varieties. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 60, 415–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, M. H. (1965). The control of bacterial blight in rain-grown cotton. II. Some effects of infection on growth and yield. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 65, 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, M. H. & Brown, S. J. (1967). A simple growth cabinet with controlled air temperatures. Emp. Cott. Grow. Rev. 44, 284–8.Google Scholar
Brinkerhoff, L. A. (1963). Variability of Xanthomonas malvacearum: the cotton bacterial blight pathogen. Oklahoma State University Technical Bulletin T-98.Google Scholar
Brown, S. J. (1965). Prog. Rep. Exp. Stns, Emp. Cott. Grow. Corp. 1964–65, Uganda, p. 23.Google Scholar
Cross, J. E. (1963). Pathogenicity differences in Tanganyika populations of Xanthomonas malvacearum. Emp. Cott. Grow. Rev. 40, 125–9.Google Scholar
Cross, J. E. (1964). Field differences in pathogenicity between Tanganyika populations of Xanthomonas malvacearum. Emp. Cott. Grow. Rev. 41, 44–8.Google Scholar
Cross, J. E. & Hayward, A. C. (1964). Relationship between pathogenicity and phagetype in Xanthomonas malvacearum. Emp. Cott. Grow. Rev. 41, 49–50.Google Scholar
Crosse, J. E. & Garrett, Constance M. E. (1963). Studies in the baeteriophagy of Pseudomonas morsprunorum Ps. syringae and related organisms. J. appl. Bad. 26, 159–77.Google Scholar
Gunn, R. E. & Innes, N. L. (1961). Bacterial blight of cotton. Effect of inoculum concentration upon severity of leaf infection. Emp. Coll. Grow. Rev. 38, 279–83.Google Scholar
Hayward, A. C. (1963). Note on bacteriophage typing of African strains of Xanthomonas malvacearum. Emp. Cott. Grow. Rev. 40, 216–18.Google Scholar
Hayward, A. C. (1964). Bacteriophage sensitivity and biochemical group in Xanthomonas malvacearum. J. gen. Microbiol. 35, 287–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SirHutchinson, J. B. (1959). The Application of Genetics to Cotton Improvement, p. 53. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Knight, R. L. (1944). The genetics of blackarm resistance. IV. Gossypium punctatum (Soh. & Thon.) crosses. J. Genet. 46, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, R. L. (1946). Breeding cotton resistant to blackarm disease. Part II. Breeding methods. Emp. J. exp. Agric. 14, 161–74.Google Scholar
Knight, R. L. (1948). The role of major genes in the evolution of economic characters. J. Genet. 48, 370–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knight, R. L. (1956). Blackarm disease of cotton and its control. Plant Protection Conference 1956, pp. 53–9. London: Butterworths Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Knight, R. L. & Hutohinson, J. B. (1950). The evolution of blackarm resistance in cotton. J. Genet. 50, 36–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Last, F. T. (1959). Leaf infection of cotton by Xanthomonas malvacearum (E. F. Sm.) Dowson. Ann. appl. Biol. 47, 647–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, C. (1958). Bacterial boll rot of cotton (Xanthomonas malvacearum (E. F. Smith) Dowson). I. A comparison of two inoculation techniques for the assessment of host resistance. Ann. appl. Biol. 46, 230–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monteith, J. L. (1959). Solarimeter for field use. J. scient. lustrum. 36, 341–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peat, J. E. & Munro, J. M. (1952). Prog. Rep. Exp. Stns Emp. Cott. Grow. Corp. 1950–51, Lake Province, Tanganyika, p. 58.Google Scholar
Saunders, J. H., Innes, N. L. & Gunn, R. E. (1963). Prog. Rep. Exp. Stns, Emp. Cott. Grow. Corp. 1962–63, Sudan, p. 39.Google Scholar
Spickett, S. G. & Thoday, J. M. (1966). Regular responses to selection. 3. Interaction between located polygenes. Genet. Res. 7, 96–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thoday, J. M. (1961). Location of polygenes. Nature Land. 191, 368–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Der Plank, J. E. (1963). Plant Diseases: Epidemics and Control, pp. 171–203. New York and London: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waddington, C. H. (1961). Genetic assimilation. Adv. Genet. 10, 257–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wickens, G. M. (1953). Bacterial blight of cotton. A survey of present knowledge, with particular reference to possibilities of control of the disease in African rain-grown cotton. Emp. Cott. Grow. Rev. 30, 81–101.Google Scholar
Williams, G. C. (1966). Adaptation and Natural Selection, pp. 71–83. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar