Euphytica

, Volume 143, Issue 1–2, pp 1–8 | Cite as

Pedigree selection for Gibberella ear rot resistance in maize

  • Daniel A. Presello
  • Lana M. Reid
  • Gail Butler
  • Diane E. Mather
Article

Abstract

The pedigree method is often used for developing inbred lines in maize (Zea mays L.). This study was conducted to assess the effectiveness of pedigree selection for improving resistance to Gibberella ear rot in four maize populations. Selection was based on the severity of ear rot symptoms after inoculation with macroconidial suspensions of Fusarium graminearum (Schwabe) into the silk channel (for two populations) and into the developing kernels (for two other populations). Samples of the selfed families (S1 to S5), recovered from remnant seed from the selection programs, were evaluated for disease resistance during three years, using inoculation and evaluation protocols similar to those used during selection. Among-family selection was effective in both of the populations selected after silk inoculation and in one of the populations selected after kernel inoculation. Responses to selection were more evident in later than in earlier generations for both types of inoculation. Changes in the estimated genetic gain over generations were consistent with changes in the variances among families, which tended to increase in early generations and to decrease in later generations. Selection after kernel inoculation seemed to have been more effective than selection after silk inoculation in developing families with more stable resistance. Based on the results obtained here, it seems that responses to family selection could be accelerated without increasing operational costs by increasing selection intensity in later generations and inoculating fewer plants per family.

Keywords

Fusarium graminearum gibberella ear rot maize pedigree selection Zea mays 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allard, R.W., 1960. Principles of Plant Breeding, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Bauman, L.F., 1981. Review of methods used by breeders to develop superior corn inbreds. In Proceedings of Corn Sorghum Industry Research Conference, Vol. 36, pp. 199–208.Google Scholar
  3. Campbell, C.L. & L.V. Madden, 1990. Introduction to plant epidemiology. Wiley-Interscience, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Chiang, M.S., M. Hudon, A. Devaux & I. Ogilvie, 1987. Inheritance of resistance to Gibberella ear rot in maize. Phytoprotection 68: 29–33.Google Scholar
  5. Chungu, C., D.E. Mather, L.M. Reid & R.I. Hamilton, 1996. Inheritance of kernel resistance to Fusarium graminearum in maize. J. Hered 87: 382–385.Google Scholar
  6. De León, C. & S. Pandey, 1989. Improvement of resistance to ear and stalk rots and agronomic traits in tropical maize gene pools. Crop Sci 29: 12–17.Google Scholar
  7. Falconer, D.S. & T.F.C. Mackay, 1981. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, 4th edn., Prentice Hall, Harlow.Google Scholar
  8. Gendloff, E.H., E.C. Rossman, W.L. Casale, T.G. Isleib & L.P. Hart, 1986. Components of resistance to fusarium ear rot in field corn. Phytopathology 76: 684–688.Google Scholar
  9. Gingera, G.R., D.W. Davis & J.V. Groth, 1994. Pedigree selection for improved partial resistance to common leaf rust in sweet corn. Crop Sci. 34: 615–620.Google Scholar
  10. Hallauer, A.R., 1990. Methods used in developing maize inbreds. Maydica 35: 1–16.Google Scholar
  11. Hesseltine, C.W. & R.J. Bothast, 1977. Mold development in ears of corn from tasseling to harvest. Mycologia 69: 328–340.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hunter, R.B., G.N. Atlin & J.F. Muldoon, 1985. Genotype × environment interaction for ear mold resistance and its subcomponents in maize hybrids. Can J Plant Sci 66: 291–297.Google Scholar
  13. Lew, A., A. Adler & W. Edinger, 1991. Moliniformin and the European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis). Mycotoxin Res 7: 71–76.Google Scholar
  14. Ostle, B., 1963. Statistics in research: basic concepts and techniques for research workers. 2nd edn., Iowa State University Press, Ames.Google Scholar
  15. Patterson, H.D. & E.R. Williams, 1976. A new class of resolvable incomplete block design. Biometrika 63: 83–92.Google Scholar
  16. Prelusky, D.B., B.A. Rotter & R.G. Rotter, 1994. Toxicology of mycotoxins. In: J.D. Miller & H.L. Trenholm (Eds.), Grains: Compounds Other than Aflatoxin, Eagan Press, St. Paul, pp. 359–403.Google Scholar
  17. Reid, L.M., R.I. Hamilton & D.E. Mather, 1996. Screening maize for resistance to Gibberella ear rot. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Tech Bull Publ 1996-5E.Google Scholar
  18. Reid, L.M., G. McDiarmid, A.J. Parker, T. Woldemariam & R.I. Hamilton, 2001. CO388 and CO389 corn inbred lines. Can J Plant Sci 81: 457–459.Google Scholar
  19. Reid, L.M., D.E. Mather, A.T. Bolton & R.I. Hamilton, 1994. Evidence for a gene for silk resistance to Fusarium graminearum ear rot of maize. J Hered 85: 118–121.Google Scholar
  20. Reid, L.M., D.E. Mather, R.I. Hamilton & A.T. Bolton, 1992. Diallel analysis of resistance in maize to Fusarium graminearum infection via the silk. Can J Plant Sci 72: 915–923.Google Scholar
  21. Reza Hoshmand, A., 1994. Experimental research design and analysis. A practical approach for agricultural and natural sciences. CRC Press, Boca Raton.Google Scholar
  22. Sutton, J.C., 1982. Epidemiology of wheat head blight and maize ear rot caused by Fusarium graminearum. Can J Plant Pathol 4: 195–209.Google Scholar
  23. Vigier, B., L.M. Reid, K.A. Seifert, D.W. Stewart & R.I. Hamilton, 1997. Distribution and prediction of Fusarium species associated with maize ear rots in Ontario. Can J Plant Pathol 19: 60–65.Google Scholar
  24. Vigier, B., L.M. Reid, L.M. Dwyer, R.C. Sinha, J.T. Arnason & G. Butler, 2001. Maize resistance to Gibberella ear rot: symptoms, deoxynivalenol and yield. Can J Plant Pathol 123: 99–105.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel A. Presello
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lana M. Reid
    • 3
  • Gail Butler
    • 3
  • Diane E. Mather
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.Instituto Nacional de Tecnología AgropecuariaPergaminoArgentina
  2. 2.McGill UniversityMontréalCanada
  3. 3.Agriculture and Agri-Food CanadaOttawaCanada
  4. 4.Molecular Plant Breeding Cooperative Research Centre and School of Agriculture and WineUniversity of Adelaide PMB 1Australia

Personalised recommendations