Severity of late blight tuber infection caused by US-1 and US-8 genotypes of Phytophthora infestans in 12 potato cultivars

被引:5
|
作者
Medina, MV [1 ]
Platt, HWB [1 ]
Peters, RD [1 ]
机构
[1] Del Monte SA, Corp Desarrollo Agr, Dept Invest, San Jose, Costa Rica
来源
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PLANT PATHOLOGY-REVUE CANADIENNE DE PHYTOPATHOLOGIE | 1999年 / 21卷 / 04期
关键词
late blight; Phytophthora infestans; potato cultivars; US-1; US-8;
D O I
10.1080/07060669909501176
中图分类号
Q94 [植物学];
学科分类号
071001 ;
摘要
Twelve potato cultivars (cvs. AC-Novachip, Atlantic, Chieftain, Kennebec, Ranger Russet, Red Pontiac, Russet Burbank, Russet Norkotah, Shepody, Snowden, Superior, and Yukon Gold) were assessed for their response to inoculation with isolates of US-1 and to US-8 genotypes of Phytophthora infestans. All cultivars (with the exception of cv. Yukon Gold) developed significantly more surface necrosis due to US-8 (20% to 87% surface area necrosis) than US-1 (13% to 46% necrosis). Penetration into the tuber tissue, measured as average depth of interior necrosis of stem, side, and eye regions, also revealed significant differences in the ability of the two genotypes to become established in internal tuber tissues. The cvs. AC-Novachip, Kennebec, Red Pontiac, Russet Burbank, and Russet Norkotah were penetrated more deeply by US-8 than US-1. The other cultivars were penetrated equally by isolates of both genotypes of the pathogen. These results indicate that introduced US-8 populations of P. infestans are more aggressive on tuber tissue than US-1 populations and that most commercially grown cultivars are highly susceptible to infection by US-8.
引用
收藏
页码:388 / 390
页数:3
相关论文
共 49 条
  • [1] Response of tubers of five potato cultivars to co-inoculation with US-1 and US-8 genotypes of Phytophthora infestans
    Medina, MV
    Platt, HW
    Peters, RD
    POTATO RESEARCH, 2000, 43 (02) : 153 - 161
  • [2] Differential activation and suppression of potato defence responses by Phytophthora infestans isolates representing US-1 and US-8 genotypes
    Wang, X.
    El Hadrami, A.
    Adam, L. R.
    Daayf, F.
    PLANT PATHOLOGY, 2008, 57 (06) : 1026 - 1037
  • [3] Response of tubers of five potato cultivars to co-inoculation with US-1 and US-8 genotypes ofPhytophthora infestans
    M. V. Medina
    H. W. (Bud) Platt
    R. D. Peters
    Potato Research, 2000, 43 : 153 - 161
  • [4] Expression of two defense-related genes in potato leaves infected with US-1 and US-8 genotypes of Phytophthora infestans.
    不详
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PLANT PATHOLOGY-REVUE CANADIENNE DE PHYTOPATHOLOGIE, 2005, 27 (01): : 160 - 161
  • [5] Impact of seed potatoes infected with Phytophthora infestans (US-1 or US-8 genotypes) on crop growth and disease
    Platt, HW
    Peters, RD
    Medina, M
    Arsenault, W
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POTATO RESEARCH, 1999, 76 (02) : 67 - 73
  • [6] Front- and back-line defense mechanisms of two potato cultivars to US-1 and US-8 isolates of Phytophthora infestans.
    Wang, X.
    El Hadrami, A.
    Adam, L.
    Daayf, F.
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PLANT PATHOLOGY-REVUE CANADIENNE DE PHYTOPATHOLOGIE, 2006, 28 (02): : 368 - 368
  • [7] Tuber Blight Development in Potato Cultivars in Response to Different Genotypes of Phytophthora infestans
    Rojas, Jorge Alejandro
    Kirk, William W.
    Gachango, Esther
    Douches, David S.
    Hanson, Linda E.
    JOURNAL OF PHYTOPATHOLOGY, 2014, 162 (01) : 33 - 42
  • [8] Impact of seed potatoes infected withPhytophthora infestans (US-1 or US-8 genotypes) on crop growth and disease risk
    H. W. (Bud) Platt
    R. D. Peters
    M. Medina
    W. Arsenault
    American Journal of Potato Research, 1999, 76 : 67 - 73
  • [9] US-8 and US-11 genotypes of Phytophthora infestans from potato and tomato respond differently to commercial fungicides
    Daayf, F
    Platt, HW
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POTATO RESEARCH, 2003, 80 (05) : 329 - 334
  • [10] Efficacy of fungicide mixtures for the management of Phytophthora infestans (US-1) on potato
    Muchiri, F. N.
    Narla, R. D.
    Olanya, O. M.
    Nyankanga, R. O.
    Ariga, E. S.
    PHYTOPROTECTION, 2009, 90 (01): : 19 - 29