Potato Research

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 301–309 | Cite as

The susceptibility of potato cultivars to gangrene in laboratory tests in relation to origin of tubers, damage, method of inoculation and test centre

  • S. F. Carnegie
  • P. T. Gans
  • G. J. Jellis
  • G. Little
  • C. Logan
  • R. L. Wastie
Article

Summary

Undamaged and damaged tubers of 10 cultivars were inoculated withPhoma foveata by two methods at five test centres over three years. Damaging tubers before inoculation increased the discrimination between cultivars. While this increase was small with tubers rolled in cornmealsand cultures, it was often substantial with those dipped in a suspension of comminuted agar cultures. Correlations between centres for the four tests were significant (P<0.05) and were highest for tubers inoculated with cornmeal-sand with or without damage. The gangrene scores of the cultivars in the four tests were correlated (P<0.05) with their field susceptibility ratings but there was a strong interaction between cultivar reaction and year of test. When tubers grown in Cumbria and Midlothian were tested at one centre over two years, the gangrene scores were also correlated (P<0.05).

Additional key words

Phoma foveata Foister disease resistance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, M. J., 1980. The significance of tuber damage and inoculum concentration ofPhoma exigua var.foveata in the development of gangrene in stored potato tubers.Annals of Applied Biology 95: 31–40.Google Scholar
  2. Anonymous, 1974. Report on a national damage survey 1973. Potato Marketing Board, Oxford, England, 37 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Anonymous, 1987. Classified list of potato varieties, England and Wales, 1988. National Institute of Agricultural Botany, Cambridge, England, 11 pp.Google Scholar
  4. Bain, R. A., J. H. Lennard & R. L. Wastie, 1988. The influence of cultivar and mechanical damage on the relationship between inoculum concentration ofPhoma exigua var.foveata on potato tubers and gangrene development.Plant Pathology 37: 265–270.Google Scholar
  5. Croke, F. M., 1980. Studies on the aetiology and life cycle of the potato gangrene pathogen. Ph.D. Thesis, Queen's University of Belfast.Google Scholar
  6. Gray, E. J. & M. I. Paterson, 1971. The effect of the temperature of potato tubers on the incidence of mechanical damage during grading and of gangrene (caused byPhoma exigua) during storage.Potato Research 14: 251–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jellis, G. J., 1978. Determining the susceptibility of potato clones to gangrene (Phoma exigua var.foveata).Potato Research 21: 135–143.Google Scholar
  8. Jellis, G. J., 1981. Differential interaction between two potato cultivars and two isolates ofPhoma exigua var.foveata.Potato Research 24: 89–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jellis, G. J., 1982. Laboratory assessments of the susceptibility of potato tubers to gangrene (Phoma exigua var.foveata).Plant Pathology 31: 171–177.Google Scholar
  10. Langton, F. A., 1971. The development of a laboratory test for assessing potato varietal susceptibility to gangrene caused byPhoma exigua var.foveata.Potato Research 14: 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rogers, W. G. & R. J. Killick, 1975. Factors affecting the assessment of resistance of potatoes to gangrene (Phoma exigua var.foveata).Annals of Applied Biology 81: 51–59.Google Scholar
  12. Todd, J. M. & J. W. Adam, 1967. Potato gangrene: some inter-connected sources and factors.Proceedings of the 4th British Insecticide and Fungicide Conference, pp. 276–284.Google Scholar
  13. Wastie, R. L., P. D. S. Caligari, H. E. Stewart & G. R. MacKay, 1988. Assessing the resistance to gangrene of progenies of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) from parents differing in susceptibility.Potato Research 31: 355–365.Google Scholar
  14. Wellving, A., 1976. Studies on the resistance of potato to storage rots caused byPhoma exigua var.foveata andFusarium spp. Svalov, Sweden: The Swedish Seed Association, 112 p.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. F. Carnegie
    • 1
  • P. T. Gans
    • 2
  • G. J. Jellis
    • 3
  • G. Little
    • 4
  • C. Logan
    • 4
  • R. L. Wastie
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for ScotlandEdinburghScotland
  2. 2.National Institute of Agricultural BotanyCambridgeEngland
  3. 3.Plant Breeding International CambridgeCambridgeEngland
  4. 4.Plant Pathology Research DivisionDepartment of Agriculture for Northern IrelandNorthernIreland
  5. 5.Scottish Crop Research Institute, PentlandfieldRoslinScotland

Personalised recommendations