HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ohm, H.W. Articles by Williams, C.E. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Ohm, H.W. Articles by Williams, C.E. Agricola Articles by Ohm, H.W. Articles by Williams, C.E.

REGISTRATIONS OF GERMPLASMS

Registration of Hessian Fly Resistant Wheat Germplasm Line P921696

^a Dep. of Agronomy, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN 47907
^b Purdue Univ. and USDA-ARS, West Lafayette, IN 47907

^* Corresponding author (hohm{at}purdue.edu)

P921696 soft red winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) germplasm (Reg. no. GP-772, PI 633876) was developed by Purdue University Agricultural Research Programs and USDA-ARS and released in 2003. P921696 has gene H31, located on chromosome 5BS (Williams et al., 2003) that confers resistance to Hessian fly [Mayetiola destructor (Say)] biotype L. The parentage of P921696 is ‘Cardinal’*3/3/‘Knox’//CI 15329/CI 3984. CI 15329 (Lebsock et al., 1972) is a durum wheat (T. durum Desf.) line that is susceptible to Hessian fly. CI 3984 is a durum wheat accession of the USDA National Small Grains Collection, Aberdeen, ID, that was obtained from Tunisia and that is resistant to Hessian fly biotype L (Cambron et al., 1995).

Cambron et al. (1995) suggested that CI 3984 durum wheat, the donor of H31 (Williams et al., 2003), has three genes that condition resistance to biotype L and that they are different than the, as yet unnamed, gene in CI 3146 for resistance to biotype L of Hessian fly. The segregation of testcross F₂ families tested against Hessian fly biotype L was 46 segregating for resistance and two susceptible families, which was tentatively interpreted as a four-gene model, although it was noted that additional testcross data were needed for verification of the number of resistance genes in CI 3984. The number of genes for resistance in CI 3984 was reexamined in a backcross test, reported here, in which CI 3984 was crossed to the Hessian fly susceptible durum wheat line, CI 15329, and the resulting F₁ plants were backcrossed to CI 15329. Sixty-three BC₁F₂ families, of 30 seedlings each, were infested with Hessian fly biotype L and placed in a controlled environment chamber at 19.5 C and 12 h photoperiod. Thirty-two families segregated resistant (normal growth) and susceptible (stunted) plants versus 31 families in which all seedlings were susceptible, indicating a single partially dominant gene for resistance in CI 3984. The reliability of the test was excellent; all 61 seedlings of CI 15329 were susceptible and all 63 seedlings of CI 3984 were resistant. In scoring the number of resistant plants in segregating BC₁F₂ families, 91% of heterozygous plants expressed resistance in this test. In light of this evidence for a single gene for resistance to Hessian fly biotype L in CI 3984, the relationship of this gene with the one for resistance in CI 3146 (Cambron et al., 1995) was reexamined in the testcross CI 3146/CI 3984//CI 15329. Testcross F₂ families of 30 seedlings each were infested with Hessian fly biotype L and placed in a controlled environment chamber at temperature and light conditions as described above, and similar to those described by Ratcliffe et al. (2002). All the 160 testcross F₂ families segregated for resistance and no recombinant susceptible families occurred, which indicates that the single resistance gene of CI 3146 and that of CI 3984 are allelic or very tightly linked. The test was very reliable in that all 261 seedlings of CI 15329 were susceptible, all 254 seedlings of CI 3146 and 263 of the 271 CI 3984 seedlings were resistant. The resistance of CI 3984 was highly effective against Hessian fly populations collected from Maryland, Delaware, South Carolina, and Georgia, as well as biotype D in laboratory tests. The resistance of CI 3146 and CI 3984 were slightly different; all seedlings of CI 3146 were resistant to all four populations and all seedlings of CI 3984 were resistant to three of the populations, but 85% of seedlings of CI 3984 were resistant to the population collected in South Carolina (Ratcliffe et al., 2002). The slight difference between CI 3146 and CI 3984 for the South Carolina population could be explained by sampling error, given that the Hessian fly population is likely heterogeneous for virulence. In view of results of our latter experiments, we believe the 42:2 testcross segregation reported by Cambron et al. (1995) may be due to accidental self pollination of the susceptible testcross parent. In our two latter tests described above, the susceptible line CI 15329 was used only as pollen parent.

The inbred line P921696 is the progeny lineage of an F₆ plant that resulted from plant selection in F₂, F₃, F_4, and F₆ generations for resistance to Hessian fly biotype L during inbreeding in a pedigree breeding method following the second backcross to Cardinal, a soft red winter wheat cultivar that is susceptible to Hessian fly biotypes D and L. Typically, 15 to 30 progeny seedlings from F₂, F₃, F₄, and F₆ (not F₅) plants were infested with biotype L flies and placed in a controlled chamber at 19°C, 10-h photoperiod. Resistant (normal growth) and susceptible (stunted) seedlings were scored at 18 d after infestation, similar to test conditions described previously (Cambron et al., 1995).

Plants of P921696 are similar for plant height and spike and kernel characteristics to the recurrent parent, Cardinal. P921696 is a soft red winter wheat. P921696 has neither been tested in performance trials nor for diseases and pests other than Hessian fly. Stems of P921696 are hollow, anthocyanin is absent. Spikes are awnless, fusiform, and lax. Glumes are glabrous, long, midwide, and white at maturity. Anthers are yellow. Kernels are red, long, and elliptical; crease is midwide and middeep; cheeks are rounded; brush is midsized, midlong, and not collared.

NOTES

Contribution from Purdue Univ. Agric. Res. Programs as Journal Article no. 17188. Registration by CSSA.

Accepted for publication April 30, 2004.

REFERENCES

• Cambron, S.E., F.L. Patterson, H.W. Ohm, R.H. Ratcliffe, and G.G. Safranski. 1995. Genetic analysis of Hessian fly resistance in eight durum wheat introductions. Crop Sci. 35:708–714.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Lebsock, K.L., J.S. Quick, and L.R. Joppa. 1972. Registration of D6647, D6654, D6659, and D6660 durum wheat germplasm. Crop Sci. 12:721.[Free Full Text]
• Ratcliffe, R.H., F.L. Patterson, S.E. Cambron, and H.W. Ohm. 2002. Resistance in durum wheat sources of Hessian fly (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) populations in eastern USA. Crop Sci. 42:1350–1356.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Williams, C.E., C.C. Collier, N. Sardesai, H.W. Ohm, and S.E. Cambron. 2003. Phenotypic assessment and mapped markers for H31, a new wheat gene conferring resistance to Hessian fly (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). Theor. Appl. Genet. 107:1516–1523.[Medline]

This Article Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ohm, H.W. Articles by Williams, C.E. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Ohm, H.W. Articles by Williams, C.E. Agricola Articles by Ohm, H.W. Articles by Williams, C.E.