European Journal of Plant Pathology

, Volume 116, Issue 3, pp 177–185

Pathogenic variation in populations of Drechslera teres f. teres and D. teres f. maculata and differences in host cultivar responses

  • J. M. Tuohy
  • M. Jalli
  • B. M. Cooke
  • E. O’ Sullivan


The current study examined the variability in the pathogenicity of populations of Drechslera teres f. teres and D. teres f. maculata (the net and spot forms of D. teres) from Ireland and northern Europe. A population of progeny isolates from a mating of net and spot forms was also examined. Significant variation in virulence was found both between and among net form and spot form isolates (p<0.001). In the Irish population, significant differences were found between the net and spot forms, with the spot form isolates more virulent (p<0.05). Progeny isolates were significantly more virulent than net form or spot form populations (p<0.001). Significant differences were found in cultivar reactions, with cv. Botnia most susceptible to both forms of the pathogen (p<0.001). Cultivar Boreal 94145, although quantitatively resistant, was found to be very susceptible to both forms of the pathogen and to progeny isolates. Cultivars CI 5791, CI 2330 and CI 9819 were all less susceptible to infection by both forms, but were more susceptible to spot form isolates. Significant correlations were found between whole plants and detached leaf experiments for the net form isolates only (p<0.001). This study illustrates the importance of including both net form and spot form isolates in resistance studies and the need for a clearer understanding for the genetic basis of resistance to the net and spot forms. It also highlights the limitations of using a detached leaf assay for screening of net blotch of barley.


barley cultivar detached leaf Drechslera teres net blotch net form spot form virulence 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Afanasenko OS, Hartleb H, Guseva NN, Minarikova V, Janosheva M (1995) A set of differentials to characterise populations of Pyrenophora teres Drechs. for international use. Journal of Phytopathology 143: 501–507Google Scholar
  2. Arabi MI, Sarrafi A, Barrault G, Albertini L (1992) Genetic variability for grain yield and protein content in barley and its modification by net blotch. Plant Breeding 108: 296–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arabi MIE, Al-Safadi B, Charbaji T (2003) Pathogenic variation among isolates of Pyrenophora teres, the causal agent of barley net blotch. Journal of Phytopathology 151: 376–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bates JA, Taylor EJA, Kenyon DM, Thomas JE (2001) The application of real-time PCR to the identification, detection and quantification of Pyrenophora species in barley seed. Molecular Plant Pathology 2: 49–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bockelman HE, Sharp EL, Bjarkp ME (1983) Isolates of Pyrenophora teres from Montana and the Mediterranean region that produce spot-type lesions on barley. Plant Disease 67: 696–697Google Scholar
  6. Brandl F, Hoffman GM (1991) Differenzierung physiologischer Rassen von Drechslera teres (Sacc) Shoem., dem Erreger der Netzfleckenkrankheit an Gerste. Z Pflanzenkrankh und Pflanzenschutz 98: 47–66Google Scholar
  7. Cromey MG, Parkes RA (2003) Pathogenic variation in Drechslera teres in New Zealand. New Zealand Plant Protection 56: 251–256Google Scholar
  8. Deadman ML, Cooke BM (1985) A method of spore production for Drechslera teres using detached barley leaves. Transactions of the British Mycological Society 85(3): 489–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deadman ML, Cooke BM (1986) A comparison of detached leaf, greenhouse and field experiments for screening barley cultivars to Drechslera teres. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 25: 63–70Google Scholar
  10. Douglas GB, Gordon IL (1985) Quantitative genetics of net blotch resistance in barley. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 28: 157–164Google Scholar
  11. Douiyssi A, Rasmusson DC, Roelfs AP (1998) Responses of barley cultivars and lines to isolates of Pyrenophora teres. Plant Disease 82: 316–321Google Scholar
  12. Gupta S, Loughman R (2001) Current virulence of Pyrenophora teres on barley in Western Australia. Plant Disease 85(9): 960–966Google Scholar
  13. Ho KM, Tekauz A, Choo TM, Martin RA (1996) Genetic studies on net blotch resistance in a barley cross. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 76: 715–719Google Scholar
  14. Jalli M, Robinson J (2000) Stable resistance in barley to Pyrenophora teres f. teres isolates from the Nordic-Baltic region after increase on standard host genotypes. Euphytica 113(1): 71–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jonsson R, Säll T, Bryngelsson T (1997) Genetic diversity for random amplified polymorpic DNA (RAPD) markers in two Swedish populations of Pyrenophora teres. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology 22: 258–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jordan VWL (1981) Aetiology of barley net blotch caused by Pyrenophora teres and some effects on yield. Plant Pathology 30: 77–87Google Scholar
  17. Khan TN, Boyd WJR (1968) Long term preservation of Drechslera teres by freeze drying. Phytopathology 58: 1448–1449Google Scholar
  18. Khan TN (1969) Inheritance of resistance to net blotch in barley. 1. Factors affecting the penetrance and expressivity of gene(s) conditioning host resistance. Canadian Journal of Genetics and Cytology 11: 587–591Google Scholar
  19. Khan TN, Boyd WJR (1969) Physiologic specialization in Drechslera teres. Australian Journal of Biological Science 22: 1229–1235Google Scholar
  20. Khan TN (1982) Changes in pathogenicity of Drechslera teres relating to changes in barley cultivars grown in Western Australia. Plant Disease 66: 655–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Khan TN, Tekauz A (1982) Occurrence and pathogenicity of Drechslera teres isolates causing spot-type symptoms on barley in Western Australia. Plant Disease 66: 423–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leisova L, Kucera L, Minarikova V, Ovesna J (2005) AFLP-based PCR markers that differentiate spot and net forms of Pyrenophora teres. Plant Pathology 54: 66–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Parry D (1990) Plant Pathology in Agriculture. Cambridge University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  24. Robinson J, Jalli M (1997) Grain yield, net blotch and scald of barley in Finnish official variety trials. Agricultural and Food Science in Finland 6: 399–408Google Scholar
  25. Scott DB (1991) Identity of Pyrenophora teres isolates causing net-type and spot-type lesions on barley. Mycopathologia 116: 29–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sharma HSS (1984) Assessment of the reaction of some spring barley cultivars to Pyrenophora teres using whole plants, detached leaves and toxin bioassay. Plant Pathology 33: 371–376Google Scholar
  27. Smedegaard-Petersen V (1971) Pyrenophora teres f. maculata f. nov. and Pyrenophora teres f. teres on barley in Denmark (pp. 124–144). Yearbook of the Royal Veterinary and Agricultural Univeristy (Copenhagen)Google Scholar
  28. Smedegaard-Petersen V (1977) Respiratory changes of barley leaves infected with Pyrenophora teres or affected by isolated toxins of the fungus. Physiological Plant Pathology 10: 213–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Steffenson BJ, Webster RK, Jackson LF (1991) Reduction in yield loss using incomplete resistance to Pyrenophora teres f. teres in barley. Plant Disease 75: 96–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tekauz A, Mills JT (1974) New types of virulence in Pyrenophora teres in Canada. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 54: 731–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tekauz A (1985) A numerical scale to classify reactions of barley to Pyrenophora teres. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology 7: 181–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tekauz A (1990) Characterisation and distribution of pathogenic variation in Pyrenophora teres f. teres and P. teres f. maculata from Western Canada. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology 12: 141–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Van der Plank (1968) Plant Diseases: Epidemics and Control. Academic Press, New York, USA, p. 349Google Scholar
  34. Wilcoxson RD, Rasmsusson DC, Treeful LM, Suganda T (1992) Inheritance of resistance to Pyrenophora teres in Minnesota barley. Plant Disease 76: 367–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wu HL, Steffenson BJ, Oleson AE, Zhong S (2003) Genetic variation for virulence and RFLP markers in Pyrenophora teres. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology 25: 82–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zadoks JC, Chang TT, Konzak CF (1974) A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Research 14: 415–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. M. Tuohy
    • 1
  • M. Jalli
    • 2
  • B. M. Cooke
    • 1
  • E. O’ Sullivan
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Biological and Environmental Science, UCD Agriculture and Food Science CentreUniversity College DublinBelfield, Dublin 4Ireland
  2. 2.Boreal Plant Breeding CentreJokionenFinland
  3. 3.Teagasc Crops Research CentreOak Park, CarlowIreland

Personalised recommendations