Inheritance of downy mildew resistance in Indian cauliflower (group III)
- 58 Downloads
Inheritance of downy mildew (Peronospora parasitica) resistance in three resistant x susceptible crosses, one susceptible x susceptible and one resistant x resistant cross were studied in Indian cauliflower (Group III) over the two years (1990 and 1991). No significant difference was observed between the years for various estimates and hence pooled data are presented. Downy mildew resistance in crosses cc×HR 5-4 and 3-5-1-1×244 (R×S) is governed by single dominant gene PPA3 but in cross cc×244 (R×S), recessive epistasis was observed. The resistance level was not improved in both the cc×3-5-1-1 (R×R) and 244×267-6-9 (S×S) crosses. Exploitation of downy mildew resistance from cc and 3-5-1-1 in F1 hybrid is explained in detail.
Key wordsIndian cauliflower Brassica oleracea downy mildew Peronospora parasitica inheritance of resistance
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Barnes, W.C., 1968. Development of downy mildew resistant broccoli, cabbage, and collards. Hort Science 3: 110.Google Scholar
- Mahajan, V., 1989. Screening of cauliflower germplasm lines against downy mildew (Peronospora parasitica). M.Sc. Thesis, Post Graduate School, IARI, New Delhi.Google Scholar
- Natti, J.J. & J.D. Atkin, 1960. Inheritance of downy mildew resistance in broccoli. Phytopath. 50: 241.Google Scholar
- Natti, J.J., M.H. Dickson & J.D. Atkin, 1967. Resistance of Brassica oleracea varieties to downy mildew. Phytopath. 57: 144–147.Google Scholar
- Niu, X.K., H. Leung & P.H. Williams, 1982. Sources and nature of seedling resistance to downy mildew and turnip mosaic in Chinese cabbage (Brassica campestris spp. Pekinensis). Cruciferae Newsletter No. 7:57.Google Scholar
- Panse, V.G. & P.V. Sukhatme, 1967. Statistical Methods for Agricultural Workers. 2nd Ed. ICAR, New Delhi, pp. 152–157.Google Scholar
- Singh, R., B.M. Trivedi, H.S. Gill & B. Sen, 1987. Breeding for resistance to black rot, downy mildew and curd blight in Indian cauliflower. Cruciferae Newsletter No. 12: 96–97.Google Scholar