Published online 16 January 2008
Published in Crop Sci 48:213-222 (2008)
© 2008 Crop Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
Evaluation of Fusarium Head Blight Resistance in Tetraploid Wheat (Triticum turgidum L.)
R. E. Olivera,
X. Caia,
T. L. Friesenc,
S. Halleyd,
R. W. Stackb and
S. S. Xuc,*
a Dep. of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, ND 58105
b Dep. of Plant Pathology, North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, ND 58105
c USDA-ARS, Northern Crop Science Lab., P.O. Box 5677, Fargo, ND 58105
d Langdon Research Extension Center, North Dakota State Univ., Langdon, ND 58249. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this article is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
* Corresponding author (steven.xu{at}ars.usda.gov).
 |
ABSTRACT
|
|---|
Durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L. subsp. durum) production in North America in recent years has been seriously threatened by epidemics of Fusarium head blight (FHB), caused mainly by Fusarium graminearum Schwabe [teleomorph Gibberella zeae (Schw.) Petch]. Deployment of FHB-resistant cultivars has been considered the most effective and cost-efficient strategy to combat this disease; however, progress in developing FHB-resistant durum wheat cultivars has been hindered by a lack of effective sources of resistance. The objective of this study is to identify tetraploid wheat germplasm that could be used to enhance FHB resistance in durum wheat. We evaluated FHB reactions in 376 accessions of five cultivated subspecies of T. turgidum, including Persian wheat [T. turgidum subsp. carthlicum (Nevski) Á. Löve and D. Löve], cultivated emmer wheat [T. turgidum subsp. dicoccum (Schrank ex Schübler) Thell.], Polish wheat [T. turgidum subsp. polonicum (L.) Thell.], Oriental wheat [T. turgidum subsp. turanicum (Jakubz.) Á. Löve and D. Löve], and Poulard wheat (T. turgidum L. subsp. turgidum). We used point inoculation to evaluate resistance to the spread of infection over three greenhouse seasons and used the grain inoculum method of inoculation to evaluate putatively resistant accessions in two field locations. Preliminary evaluation data showed that 16 T. turgidum subsp. carthlicum and 4 T. turgidum subsp. dicoccum accessions consistently exhibited resistance or moderate resistance to FHB. These accessions likely carry genetic resistance to FHB and could be used directly in breeding programs to enhance FHB resistance in durum wheat.
Abbreviations: DON, deoxynivalenol • FHB, Fusarium head blight • HMW, high molecular weight • LMW, low molecular weight • NSGC, National Small Grain Collections • QTL, quantitative trait loci
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
|
|---|
We thank Jana M. Hansen for preparing inoculum used in the greenhouse evaluation. We thank Dana M. Weiskopf, Danielle J. Holmes, and Adam R. Little for their technical assistance in the greenhouse and field evaluations. This material is based on work supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Agreement No. 0506-XU-103 and CRIS Project No. 5442-22000-026-00D. This is a cooperative project with the U.S. Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative.
|
NOTES
|
|---|
All rights reserved. No part of this periodical may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Permission for printing and for reprinting the material contained herein has been obtained by the publisher.
Received for publication March 7, 2007.
Evaluation of Fusarium Head Blight Resistance in Tetraploid Wheat (Triticum turgidum L.)
R. E. Olivera,
X. Caia,
T. L. Friesenc,
S. Halleyd,
R. W. Stackb and
S. S. Xuc,*
a Dep. of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, ND 58105
b Dep. of Plant Pathology, North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, ND 58105
c USDA-ARS, Northern Crop Science Lab., P.O. Box 5677, Fargo, ND 58105
d Langdon Research Extension Center, North Dakota State Univ., Langdon, ND 58249. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this article is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
* Corresponding author (steven.xu{at}ars.usda.gov).
Durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L. subsp. durum) production in North America in recent years has been seriously threatened by epidemics of Fusarium head blight (FHB), caused mainly by Fusarium graminearum Schwabe [teleomorph Gibberella zeae (Schw.) Petch]. Deployment of FHB-resistant cultivars has been considered the most effective and cost-efficient strategy to combat this disease; however, progress in developing FHB-resistant durum wheat cultivars has been hindered by a lack of effective sources of resistance. The objective of this study is to identify tetraploid wheat germplasm that could be used to enhance FHB resistance in durum wheat. We evaluated FHB reactions in 376 accessions of five cultivated subspecies of T. turgidum, including Persian wheat [T. turgidum subsp. carthlicum (Nevski) Á. Löve and D. Löve], cultivated emmer wheat [T. turgidum subsp. dicoccum (Schrank ex Schübler) Thell.], Polish wheat [T. turgidum subsp. polonicum (L.) Thell.], Oriental wheat [T. turgidum subsp. turanicum (Jakubz.) Á. Löve and D. Löve], and Poulard wheat (T. turgidum L. subsp. turgidum). We used point inoculation to evaluate resistance to the spread of infection over three greenhouse seasons and used the grain inoculum method of inoculation to evaluate putatively resistant accessions in two field locations. Preliminary evaluation data showed that 16 T. turgidum subsp. carthlicum and 4 T. turgidum subsp. dicoccum accessions consistently exhibited resistance or moderate resistance to FHB. These accessions likely carry genetic resistance to FHB and could be used directly in breeding programs to enhance FHB resistance in durum wheat.
Abbreviations: DON, deoxynivalenol • FHB, Fusarium head blight • HMW, high molecular weight • LMW, low molecular weight • NSGC, National Small Grain Collections • QTL, quantitative trait loci
|
INTRODUCTION
|
|---|
FUSARIUM HEAD BLIGHT (FHB) caused mainly by Fusarium graminearum Schwabe [teleomorph Gibberella zeae (Schw.) Petch] is one of the most destructive fungal diseases of wheat worldwide. The disease affects both hexaploid common wheat (Triticum aestivum L., 2n = 6x = 42, AABBDD) and tetraploid durum wheat (2n = 4x = 28, AABB) and has caused serious losses in grain yield and quality (Bai and Shaner, 1994; McMullen et al., 1997; Stack, 2003). The disease infection occurs when there are elevated humidity levels during anthesis stage and results in shriveled, lightweight kernels, reduced seed germination, seedling blight, and poor stands (Sutton, 1982; Tuite et al., 1990; Bai and Shaner, 1994; Parry et al., 1995). Accumulation of mycotoxins, including deoxynivalenol (DON), further reduces grain quality and poses a health risk to potential consumers (McMullen et al., 1997; Bai et al., 2001; Dexter and Nowicki, 2003). Total economic impacts due to FHB in the northern Great Plains have been estimated at $6.2 billion from 1993 through 2001 (Nganje et al., 2004).
Host resistance has been considered the most effective and cost-efficient strategy to combat FHB (Bai and Shaner, 1994; Parry et al., 1995; Miedaner, 1997; Rudd et al., 2001); however, only limited resources of resistance are available. Resistant sources have been identified in hexaploid wheat, including the Chinese cultivar Sumai 3 and its derivatives (Bai et al., 2003), several Japanese accessions (Mesterhazy, 1997; Ban, 2000; Rudd et al., 2001), the Brazilian cultivar Frontana (Singh et al., 1995; Gilbert et al., 1997; Mesterhazy, 1997), and Eastern European germplasm, such as ‘Praag 8’ (Mentewab et al., 2000). However, sources of resistance are limited in durum wheat (Stack, 1988; Stack et al., 2002; Buerstmayr et al., 2003), and attempts to transfer resistance from hexaploid sources are confounded by differences in ploidy levels. Therefore, the most useful source of FHB resistance for durum wheat breeding might be from other cultivated tetraploid wheat subspecies.
Although the durum wheat germplasm collections are generally susceptible to FHB, other tetraploid wheat subspecies within the primary gene pool of durum wheat offer an alternative source of FHB resistance. In addition to durum wheat, tetraploid wheat with AABB genomes has seven other subspecies, including Persian wheat [T. turgidum subsp. carthlicum (Nevski) Á. Löve and D. Löve], wild emmer wheat [T. turgidum subsp. dicoccoides (Körn. ex Asch. and Graebner) Thell.], cultivated emmer wheat [T. turgidum subsp. dicoccum (Schrank ex Schübler) Thell.], Polish wheat [T. turgidum subsp. polonicum (L.) Thell.], Oriental wheat [T. turgidum subsp. turanicum (Jakubz.) Á. Löve and D. Löve], Georgian emmer wheat [T. turgidum subsp. paleocolchicum (Menabde) Á. Löve and D. Löve], and Poulard wheat (T. turgidum L. subsp. turgidum) (van Slageren, 1994).
Thus far, reactions to FHB in these tetraploid wheats have been extensively evaluated only in wild emmer wheat. Miller et al. (1998) evaluated 282 wild emmer accessions from the USDA National Small Grain Collections (NSGC) for resistance to the spread of infection and identified 10 accessions that were more resistant than the best available durum wheat. Buerstmayr et al. (2003) evaluated 151 wild emmer accessions originating from different geographical areas in Israel and Turkey and identified eight accessions resistant to FHB. However, the FHB resistance in wild emmer has not been used for breeding FHB resistance in durum wheat partially due to linkage drag of wild characters. Other tetraploid wheat subspecies have not been systematically evaluated for reaction to FHB, although resistance has been sporadically identified in Persian wheat and cultivated emmer wheat (Gagkaeva, 2003; Gladysz et al., 2004; Clarke et al., 2004; Somers et al., 2006).
The USDA NSGC currently maintains 97 accessions of Persian wheat, 620 of cultivated emmer wheat, four of Georgian emmer wheat, 81 of Polish wheat, 110 of Oriental wheat, and 458 of Poulard wheat (http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?410371). Our main objective is to identify useful sources of FHB resistance for durum wheat breeding programs by systematically evaluating reactions to FHB in these collections. Identification and utilization of novel sources of resistance may facilitate the development of durum wheat cultivars with robust and durable resistance to FHB.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS
|
|---|
Plant Materials
Seeds of approximately 600 tetraploid wheat accessions were provided by Dr. Harold Bockelman, NSGC, USDA-ARS, Aberdeen, ID, and were planted in the greenhouse for evaluation of the Type II resistance. A total of 376 accessions with spring growth habit were successfully evaluated in the greenhouse (Table 1
), including 75 accessions of Persian wheat, 178 of cultivated emmer wheat, 36 of Polish wheat, 16 of Oriental wheat, and 71 of Poulard wheat. We failed to evaluate the other accessions for FHB resistance because of their poor germination, winter growth habit, and high susceptibility to powdery mildew under the greenhouse environments. The common wheat cultivars Sumai 3 and Alsen were used as resistant controls and the common wheat cultivar Russ as susceptible control.
Greenhouse Evaluation
Greenhouse assessments were conducted to evaluate resistance to the spread of infection within the spike. This type of FHB resistance has been termed Type II resistance (Schroeder and Christensen, 1963; Wang and Miller, 1988; Mesterhazy, 1995). In the first season (spring 2004), accessions were evaluated using a nonreplicated design. Accessions exhibiting less than 30% FHB severity were evaluated in one or two additional seasons (winter 2004 and spring 2005) using a randomized complete block design with three replicates. Plants were grown in deep tree pots, two to three plants per pot, in a greenhouse supplemented with artificial light for a 16-h photoperiod. Inoculum was prepared in a concentration of 50,000 spores mL–1 from three strains of pathogenic F. graminearum. Inoculation was performed using the single-spikelet inoculation method described by Stack et al. (2002), by injecting 10 µL of the suspension into one floret of a single central spikelet per spike at anthesis. Approximately 28 spikes per accession in three replicates were inoculated. Following inoculation, the temperature was kept at 22 to 25°C and high relative humidity was maintained by lightly misting and covering the inoculated spikes with a plastic tent for 72 h. Disease was assessed by visually counting the number of diseased spikelets per spike at 14 and 21 d postinoculation. Total spikelet numbers in each of the inoculated spikes were also recorded. The accessions with a resistance level comparable to the resistant controls were considered as resistant to FHB, while the accessions with a resistance level lower than the resistant controls, but significantly higher than the susceptible control, were considered to have moderate resistance.
Field Evaluation
Accessions showing consistent resistance in greenhouse evaluations were evaluated for Type I resistance (resistance to primary infection) and Type II resistance in mist-irrigated field nurseries at two locations (Fargo and Langdon, ND) in the summer of 2005. In both locations, each of the accessions was grown in plots that consisted of a 1.2-m row spaced 0.30 m apart. The grain inoculum method of inoculation was used, as described by Stewart (2003). At about 3 wk before the earliest genotypes started to flower, autoclaved barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) seed infected with three strains of pathogenic F. graminearum was evenly distributed among field plots at a rate of 35.63 g m–2 (3.31 g ft–2). Plots were then misted for 5 min in 15-min intervals for 12 h daily (2200 to 1000 hours), until 14 d after anthesis of the late genotypes. Because environments were very different among field locations, the mist period was adjusted when daily temperatures are low or natural rain events occurred. The Langdon environment typically had much less evaporation than the Fargo environment, thus water tended to accumulate on the surface when the maximum daily air temperatures were less than the 30-yr normal and precipitation events occurred. In these circumstances, the mist cycles were decreased to 5 min per 60 min until the water accumulation on the soil surface subsided and discontinued completely during precipitation events.
At anthesis, 25 spikes in each of the accessions were tagged. At 21 d postanthesis, disease severity on tagged spikes was scored using a visual scale, described by Stack and McMullen (1998). The percentage of infected spikelets on each of the sampled heads was visually estimated based on 10 categories of infection (0, 7, 14, 21, 33, 50, 66, 75, 90, and 100%). Disease severity was calculated by averaging the severities of all heads. Additionally, incidence was calculated, based on the proportion of spikes showing any level of disease symptoms.
Data Analysis
For each greenhouse season, an ANOVA was conducted on both number and percentage of infected spikelets. An ANOVA was also conducted on FHB severity for each of the two field locations. Fisher's protected LSD was used for mean separation between accessions (Steel et al., 1997). All data analysis was conducted using the Statistical Analysis System version 8.2 (SAS Institute, 1999).
|
RESULTS
|
|---|
Greenhouse evaluation showed that 376 tetraploid wheat accessions displayed a broad range of FHB reactions, from resistant to highly susceptible in each season. We observed that 90 accessions had average disease severity of less than 30% at 3 wk postinoculation in two or three greenhouse seasons (Table 2
), suggesting that some of these accessions might possess Type II resistance. Greenhouse evaluation data showed that different subspecies exhibited a different average reaction to FHB (Fig. 1
). At 3 wk postinoculation, 16 T. turgidum subsp. turanicum and 71 T. turgidum subsp. turgidum accessions had overall average FHB severity over 50% with ranges of 12.97 to 100.00% and 11.54 to 100.00%, respectively. Thirty-six T. turgidum subsp. polonicum accessions had an average FHB severity of approximately 40% with a range of 9.03 to 100.00%. However, 75 T. turgidum subsp. carthlicum and 178 T. turgidum subsp. dicoccum accessions had average FHB severity at approximately 30 and 32%, respectively (Fig. 1). Of the 90 accessions with low levels of infection (<30%), 40 were T. turgidum subsp. carthlicum, 36 T. turgidum subsp. dicoccum, 11 T. turgidum subsp. polonicum, one T. turgidum subsp. turgidum, and two T. turgidum subsp. turanicum accessions (Table 2).
View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1. Mean Fusarium head blight severity of tetraploid wheat accessions by subspecies. Data includes all accessions evaluated, based on disease severity in the greenhouse at 3 wk postinoculation. Genotype classes CART, DICC, POLO, TURA, TURG, R, and S represent T. turgidum subsp. carthlicum, T. turgidum subsp. dicoccum, T. turgidum subsp. polonicum, T. turgidum subsp. turanicum, T. turgidum subsp. turgidum, and resistant and susceptible controls, respectively.
|
|
Based on evaluation data from the greenhouse experiments and seed availability, 82 accessions with putative Type II resistance, along with an additional 31 accessions exhibiting resistance in one or two seasons but with infections that were slightly higher than 30% in another season, were selected for evaluation in field nurseries at two locations (Langdon and Fargo, ND) in the summer of 2005 (Table 3
). Eighteen accessions could not be evaluated in Fargo, due to early senescence or poor plant growth, but the remaining 95 accessions were evaluated in both locations. The plant growth and disease development differed considerably in the two locations due to different environmental conditions. Several accessions showed a higher level of FHB severity and incidence in Langdon than in Fargo. Nevertheless, evaluation data showed that a majority of the accessions had consistent reactions in both locations. Forty-two accessions had significantly (P = 0.05) higher levels of FHB severity than the resistant control Sumai 3 at both locations (Table 3). And, 24 accessions, including 15 T. turgidum subsp. carthlicum (PI61102, PI78812, PI94748, PI94749, PI94750, PI94751, PI94752, PI115816, PI283888, PI283889, PI286070, PI352278, PI352281, PI532517, and PI532518) and nine T. turgidum subsp. dicoccum (CI3686, CI7685, CI14085, CI14086, CI14135, PI40919, PI94669, PI191390, and PI217637), had FHB severity similar to Sumai 3 in both locations (Table 3). Since most of these accessions also consistently showed resistant reactions in two or three greenhouse seasons, these germplasms would be candidates for further investigation. Field evaluation showed that 16 T. turgidum subsp. polonicum and two T. turgidum subsp. turgidum accessions exhibited a highly susceptible reaction in either one or two locations (Table 3).
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 3. Incidence and mean Fusarium head blight severity of tetraploid wheat accessions in field nurseries in 2005.
|
|
A small number of accessions exhibited different reactions to FHB at different locations. Most noticeably, 16 accessions (PI94754, PI182471, PI532507, CI7686, CI7779, CI14133, CI14971, CI14972, PI41025, PI74108, PI94615, PI94663, PI191781, PI254214, PI254215, PI272564) showed susceptible reactions in Langdon (30.36–100.00%) but showed resistant reactions (0.68–13.18%) in Fargo. On the contrary, only one accession (T. turgidum subsp. dicoccum PI 191091) showed a distinctly resistant reaction in Langdon (11.92%) but had a susceptible reaction in Fargo (44.32%). The higher level of the FHB severity and incidence in Langdon suggested that the weather and other environmental factors in Langdon were more favorable for disease development. Compared to Fargo, Langdon had a relatively cold average temperature during the summer. A majority of the accessions had anthesis approximately 2 to 3 wk later in Langdon than in Fargo. Growers incurred a serious FHB epidemic in the Fargo area in 2005 due to consistently occurring precipitation events and high humidity levels in late June when a majority of durum and bread wheat cultivars were at heading and anthesis growth stages. However, it was unusually hot and dry in July in Fargo. Since the majority of the tetraploid wheat accessions in the Fargo nursery had heading dates in the early and middle of July, plant growth and disease development were adversely affected by the dry and hot weather conditions. Thus, the evaluation data collected from the Langdon nursery in this study might more truly reflect genetic resistance or susceptibility for most of the accessions. Among the 18 accessions which were only evaluated in the Langdon nursery, five T. turgidum subsp. carthlicum (PI286071, PI532477, PI532487, PI532489, and PI585018) and three T. turgidum subsp. dicoccum (PI94680, PI190922, and PI190926) had FHB severity similar to Sumai 3. These accessions might also be useful germplasm for FHB resistance.
|
DISCUSSION
|
|---|
Durum wheat production in North America has been seriously threatened by FHB epidemics. A high level of FHB resistance is not available in this crop. The durum wheat breeding program at North Dakota State University (NDSU) has screened approximately 6000 durum wheat accessions from the world collections during the last decade and has not identified any accessions with FHB resistance (Elias et al., 2005). By screening an additional 1500 accessions from the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) and the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), the NDSU durum wheat breeding program identified only five Tunisian lines with a moderate level of Type II resistance (Elias et al., 2005). The shortage of FHB resistance in durum wheat might be due to its tetraploid nature and narrow genetic base compared to hexaploid common wheat. Durum wheat is mainly used for pasta products, accounting for only 4% of the total wheat acreage worldwide (Gill et al., 2004). Thus, the number of breeding programs for durum wheat has been much smaller than those for bread wheat. The world durum wheat germplasm collections probably consist mainly of old and modern cultivars which were developed by the limited number of durum breeding programs.
Compared to durum wheat, a relatively modern crop, the other five cultivated T. turgidum subspecies are ancient cereal crops. Triticum turgidum subsp. dicoccum, known as cultivated emmer, is among the earliest domesticated plants. Triticum turgidum subsp. carthlicum, along with T. turgidum subsp. polonicum and T. turgidum subsp. turanicum, was cultivated in southwest Asia. Triticum turgidum subsp. turgidum was native to Mediterranean countries (National Plant Germplasm System, http://www.ars-grin.gov/npgs). At the present time, some of these subspecies, such as T. turgidum subsp. dicoccum, are still grown in the Middle East, Europe, and the United States on a very limited scale (Stallknecht et al., 1996). Since the collections of these subspecies were not developed from modern breeding programs, they might preserve some desirable FHB resistance genes which might be useful for including in modern durum wheat breeding programs.
In this study, we evaluated 376 tetraploid wheat accessions belonging to T. turgidum subsp. carthlicum, T. turgidum subsp. dicoccum, T. turgidum subsp. polonicum, T. turgidum subsp. turanicum, and T. turgidum subsp. turgidum for FHB resistance in greenhouse and field nurseries. These studies are the first systematic and extensive exploration on this group of germplasm collections for reactions to FHB. In this evaluation, we observed that 16 T. turgidum subsp. carthlicum (PI61102, PI78812, PI94748, PI94749, PI94750, PI94751, PI94752, PI115816, PI283888, PI283889, PI286070, PI352278, PI352279, PI352281, PI532517, and PI532518) and four T. turgidum subsp. dicoccum (CI7685, CI14086, CI14135, and PI191390) accessions consistently exhibited medium or high levels of resistance to FHB across different environments. These accessions might carry genetic resistance to FHB. Since both T. turgidum subsp. carthlicum and T. turgidum subsp. dicoccum are in cultivated form and have the same genomes as durum wheat, the genetic resistance could be transferred to durum by conventional breeding approaches. Nsarellah et al. (2003) transferred Hessian fly resistance from T. turgidum subsp. carthlicum to durum wheat using multiple backcross methodology. Somers et al. (2006) demonstrated that the FHB resistance from T. turgidum subsp. carthlicum could be expressed in durum wheat when they mapped the FHB resistance quantitative trait loci (QTL) using a double haploid population derived from a cross of durum wheat x T. turgidum subsp. carthlicum.
The results from this study revealed that different subspecies exhibited different reactions to FHB. The accessions with consistent FHB resistance in different environments were mainly identified in T. turgidum subsp. dicoccum and T. turgidum subsp. carthlicum. Among the five subspecies investigated in this study, T. turgidum subsp. dicoccum showed the greatest variations among the accessions in plant growth, maturity, and plant and spike morphology. It is known that T. turgidum subsp. dicoccum is genetically and morphologically similar to wild emmer and most accessions have tough glumes and semifree or nonfree threshing spikes. Because the FHB resistance has been identified in wild emmer accessions, it was not surprising that four out of 178 T. turgidum subsp. dicoccum accessions were identified to be resistant to FHB.
Of 20 accessions with consistent FHB resistance in greenhouse and field evaluations, 16 belong to T. turgidum subsp. carthlicum. We speculate that the high frequency of FHB resistance in T. turgidum subsp. carthlicum accessions might be due to the limited genetic variability among the collections of this subspecies. There are a total of 97 T. turgidum subsp. carthlicum accessions currently maintained in the NSGC. Although the genetic diversity of these collections has not been investigated, we observed that T. turgidum subsp. carthlicum accessions had much less variation in plant and spike morphology than the other four subspecies. In addition, we analyzed high molecular weight (HMW) and low molecular weight (LMW) glutenin subunits of 95 T. turgidum subsp. carthlicum accessions and found that most accessions showed the same banding profiles of HMW and LMW glutenin subunits (S.S. Xu and D.L. Klindworth, unpublished data, 2005). Therefore, most T. turgidum subsp. carthlicum accessions might have the same or similar genotypes. It is possible that most of the resistant accessions might carry the same genes or QTL for FHB resistance.
A few accessions of T. turgidum subsp. polonicum, T. turgidum subsp. turgidum, and T. turgidum subsp. turanicum showed moderate or high levels of Type II resistance in greenhouse evaluations (Table 2). However, some of these accessions screened in field nurseries exhibited susceptible reactions in either one or both locations (Table 2 and Table 3). Limited sources of FHB resistance in T. turgidum subsp. polonicum, T. turgidum subsp. turgidum, and T. turgidum subsp. turanicum might be due to similar causes of susceptibility as durum wheat, such as the tetraploid level or their narrow genetic base. Since only 36 T. turgidum subsp. polonicum, 16 T. turgidum subsp. turanicum, and 71 T. turgidum subsp. turgidum accessions were screened in this study, failure to discover FHB resistance in three subspecies might also be due to the small number of accessions screened.
Disease development of FHB is highly affected by environmental factors. It is a common problem to have some genotypes show considerable variation of FHB reactions in different field environments. Continuous hot and dry weather conditions not only inhibit FHB development, but also caused the plants to senesce prematurely. In addition, in the mist-irrigated field nurseries, many tetraploid wheat accessions were seriously affected by foliar diseases such as tan spot [caused by Pyrenophora tritici-repentis (Died.) Drechs.], Stagonospora nodorum blotch [caused by Phaeosphaeria nodorum (E. Mull.) Hedjar.], leaf rust (caused by Puccinia triticina Eriks.), and stem rust (caused by P. graminis Pers.:Pers. f. sp. tritici Eriks. and E. Henn). Serious infection from these foliar diseases on some lines may have contributed to the early senescence of the some plants. In the field evaluation, we often observed that although some accessions had only minimal infection at 14 d postanthesis, the entire spikes were senesced when the disease reaction was scored at 21 d postanthesis. Therefore, it was difficult to determine if the spikes died of actual FHB disease infection or early senescence.
Due to the complex and elusive nature of FHB resistance and the inherent difficulty in screening tetraploid wheat genotypes, we suggest that this study only provides preliminary observation of FHB reactions in this group of tetraploid wheat germplasm. We are continuing to evaluate the accessions with putative FHB resistance using multiple-year and multiple-location experiments. In the meanwhile, we have successfully developed three doubled haploid populations from F1 hybrids of three T. turgidum subsp. carthlicum accessions (PI61102, PI94748, PI94749) with a North Dakota leading durum cultivar Lebsock to characterize the genetics of the resistance genes in these accessions using molecular markers. We expect that this effort will provide an additional tool for identification of useful sources of FHB resistance specifically for durum wheat breeding.
We thank Jana M. Hansen for preparing inoculum used in the greenhouse evaluation. We thank Dana M. Weiskopf, Danielle J. Holmes, and Adam R. Little for their technical assistance in the greenhouse and field evaluations. This material is based on work supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Agreement No. 0506-XU-103 and CRIS Project No. 5442-22000-026-00D. This is a cooperative project with the U.S. Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative.
All rights reserved. No part of this periodical may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Permission for printing and for reprinting the material contained herein has been obtained by the publisher.
Received for publication March 7, 2007.
|
REFERENCES
|
|---|
- Bai, G.H., L.F. Chen, and G.E. Shaner. 2003. Breeding for resistance to Fusarium head blight of wheat in China. p. 296–317. In K.J. Leonard and W.R. Bushnell (ed.) Fusarium head blight of wheat and barley. APS Press, St. Paul, MN.
- Bai, G.H., R. Plattner, A. Desjardins, and F. Kolb. 2001. Resistance to Fusarium head blight and deoxynivalenol accumulation in wheat. Plant Breed. 120:1–6.[CrossRef]
- Bai, G., and G. Shaner. 1994. Scab of wheat: Prospects for control. Plant Dis. 78:760–766.
- Ban, T. 2000. Analysis of quantitative trait loci associated with resistance to Fusarium head blight caused by Fusarium graminearum Schwabe and of resistance mechanisms in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Breed. Sci. 50:131–137.
- Buerstmayr, H., M. Stierschneider, B. Steiner, M. Lemmens, M. Griesser, E. Nevo, and T. Fahima. 2003. Variation for resistance to head blight caused by Fusarium graminearum in wild emmer (Triticum dicoccoides) originating from Israel. Euphytica 130:17–23.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
- Clarke, J., J. Thomas, G. Fedak, D. Somers, J. Gilbert, C. Pozniak, M. Fernandez, and A. Comeau. 2004. Progress in improvement of Fusarium resistance of durum wheat. p. 43. In S.M. Canty et al. (ed.) Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. Fusarium Head Blight, Orlando, FL. 11–15 Dec. 2004. Michigan State Univ., East Lansing.
- Dexter, J.E., and T.W. Nowicki. 2003. Safety assurance and quality assurance issues associated with Fusarium head blight in wheat. p. 420–460. In K.J. Leonard and W.R. Bushnell (ed.) Fusarium head blight of wheat and barley. APS Press, St. Paul, MN.
- Elias, E.M., F.A. Manthey, R.W. Stack, and S.F. Kianian. 2005. Breeding efforts to develop Fusarium head blight resistant durum wheat in North Dakota. p. 25–26. In S.M. Canty et al. (ed.) Proc. Natl. Fusarium Head Blight Forum, Milwaukee, WI. 11–13 Dec. 2005. Michigan State Univ., East Lansing.
- Gagkaeva, T.Y. 2003. Importance of Fusarium head blight in Russia and the search for new sources of genetic resistance in wheat and barley. p. 219–222. In S.M. Canty et al. (ed.) Proc. Natl. Fusarium Head Blight Forum, Bloomington, MN. 13–15 Dec. 2003. Michigan State Univ., East Lansing.
- Gilbert, J., G. Fedak, J.D. Procunier, T. Aung, and A. Tekauz. 1997. Strategies for breeding for resistance to Fusarium head blight in Canadian spring wheat. p. 47–51. In H.J. Dubin et al. (ed.) Fusarium head scab: Global status and future prospects, El Batan, Mexico. 13–17 Oct. 1996. CIMMYT, Mexico.
- Gill, B.S., R. Appels, A.-M. Botha-Oberholster, C.R. Buell, J.L. Bennetzen, B. Chalhoub, F. Chumley, J. Dvo
ák, M. Iwanaga, B. Keller, W. Li, W.R. McCombie, Y. Ogihara, F. Quetier, and T. Sasaki. 2004. A workshop report on wheat genome sequencing: International Genome Research on Wheat Consortium. Genetics 168:1087–1096.[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Gladysz, C., M. Lemmens, and H. Buerstmayr. 2004. QTL mapping of novel resistance sources in tetraploid wheat. p. 63. In S.M. Canty et al. (ed.) Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. on Fusarium Head Blight, Orlando, FL. 11–15 Dec. 2004. Michigan State Univ., East Lansing.
- McMullen, M., R. Jones, and D. Gallenberg. 1997. Scab of wheat and barley: A re-emerging disease of devastating impact. Plant Dis. 81:1340–1348.[CrossRef]
- Mentewab, A., H.N. Rezanoor, N. Gosman, A.J. Worland, and P. Nicholson. 2000. Chromosomal location of Fusarium head blight resistance genes and analysis of the relationship between resistance to head blight and brown foot rot. Plant Breed. 119:15–20.[CrossRef]
- Mesterhazy, Á. 1995. Types and components of resistance to Fusarium head blight of wheat. Plant Breed. 114:377–386.[CrossRef]
- Mesterhazy, Á. 1997. Breeding for resistance to Fusarium head blight of wheat. p. 79–85. In H.J. Dubin et al. (ed.) Fusarium head scab: Global status and future prospects. Mexico, CIMMYT.
- Miedaner, T. 1997. Review: Breeding wheat and rye for resistance to Fusarium diseases. Plant Breed. 116:201–220.[CrossRef]
- Miller, J.D., R.W. Stack, and L.R. Joppa. 1998. Evaluation of Triticum turgidum L. var. dicoccoides for resistance to Fusarium head blight and stem rust. p. 292–293. In A.E. Slinkard (ed.) Proc. 9th Int. Wheat Genetics Symp. III, Saskatoon, SK. 2–7 Aug. 1998. Univ. of Saskatchewan Ext. Press, Saskatoon.
- Nganje, W.E., S. Kaitibie, W.W. Wilson, F.L. Leistritz, and D.A. Bangsund. 2004. Economic impacts of Fusarium head blight in wheat and barley: 1993–2001. Agribusiness and Applied Economics Rep. No. 538. North Dakota State Univ., Fargo.
- Nsarellah, N., A. Amri, M.M. Nachit, M. El Bouhssini, and S. Lhaloui. 2003. New durum wheat with Hessian fly resistance from Triticum araraticum and T. carthlicum in Morocco. Plant Breed. 122:435–437.[CrossRef]
- Parry, D.W., P. Jenkinson, and L. McLeod. 1995. Fusarium ear blight (scab) in small grain cereals: A review. Plant Pathol. 44:207–238.[CrossRef]
- Rudd, J.C., R.D. Horsley, A.L. McKendry, and E.M. Elias. 2001. Host plant resistance genes for Fusarium head blight: Sources, mechanisms, and utility in conventional breeding systems. Crop Sci. 41:620–627.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- SAS Institute. 1999. SAS/STAT user's guide, releases: 8.2, 8.1, 8.0. SAS Inst., Cary, NC.
- Schroeder, H.W., and J.J. Christensen. 1963. Factors affecting resistance of wheat to scab caused by Gibberella zeae. Phytopathology 53:831–838.[Web of Science]
- Singh, R.P., H. Ma, and S. Rajaram. 1995. Genetic analysis of resistance to scab in spring wheat cultivar Frontana. Plant Dis. 79:238–240.
- Somers, D.L., G. Fedak, J. Clarke, and W. Cao. 2006. Mapping of FHB resistance QTLs in tetraploid wheat. Genome 49:1586–1593.[Medline]
- Stack, R.W. 1988. Response of durum wheat to head blight. Biolological and Cultural Tests for Control of Plant Diseases 3:39.
- Stack, R.W. 2003. History of Fusarium head blight with emphasis on North America. p. 1–34. In K.J. Leonard and W.R. Bushnell (ed.) Fusarium head blight of wheat and barley. APS Press, St. Paul, MN.
- Stack, R.W., E.M. Elias, J. Mitchell Fetch, J.D. Miller, and L.R. Joppa. 2002. Fusarium head blight reaction of Langdon durum–Triticum dicoccoides chromosome substitution lines. Crop Sci. 42:637–642.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Stack, R.W., and M.P. McMullen. 1998. A visual scale to estimate severity of Fusarium head blight in wheat. Circ. PP-1095. Available at www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/plantsci/smgrains/pp1095w.htm (verified 25 Oct. 2007). North Dakota State Univ. Ext. Serv., Fargo.
- Stallknecht, G.F., K.M. Gilbertson, and J.E. Ranney. 1996. Alternative wheat cereals as food grains: Einkorn, emmer, spelt, kamut, and triticale. p. 156–170. In J. Janick (ed.) Progress in new crops. ASHS Press, Alexandria, VA.
- Steel, R.G.D., J.H. Torrie, and D.A. Dickey. 1997. Principles and procedures of statistics: A biometrical approach. 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
- Stewart, A.J. 2003. Fusarium head blight of wheat. Available at www.uky.edu/Ag/Wheat/wheat_breeding/FHB.htm (verified 15 Nov. 2007). Dep. of Agronomy, Univ. of Kentucky, Lexington.
- Sutton, J.C. 1982. Epidemiology of wheat head blight and maize ear rot caused by Fusarium graminearum. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 4:195–209.
- Tuite, J., G. Shaner, and R.J. Everson. 1990. Wheat scab in soft red winter wheat in Indiana in 1986 and its relation to some quality measurements. Plant Dis. 74:959–962.[CrossRef]
- van Slageren, M.W. 1994. Wild wheats: A monograph of Aegilops L. and Amblyopyrum (Jaub. & Spach) Eig (Poaceae). Wageningen Agriculture Univ. Papers 94-7. Wageningen, the Netherlands.
- Wang, Y.Z., and J.D. Miller. 1988. Screening techniques and sources of resistance to Fusarium head blight. p. 239–250. In A.R. Klatt (ed.) Wheat production constraints in tropical environments. CIMMYT, Mexico.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
P. P. Jauhar, S. S. Xu, and P. S. Baenziger
Haploidy in Cultivated Wheats: Induction and Utility in Basic and Applied Research
Crop Sci.,
May 11, 2009;
49(3):
737 - 755.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. G. Chu, T. L. Friesen, J. D. Faris, and S. S. Xu
Evaluation of Seedling Resistance to Tan Spot and Stagonospora nodorum Blotch in Tetraploid Wheat
Crop Sci.,
May 1, 2008;
48(3):
1107 - 1116.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
