Euphytica

, Volume 164, Issue 2, pp 531–539 | Cite as

Development of tomato hybrids resistant to tomato leaf curl virus disease in South India

  • K. S. Shankarappa
  • Sriharsha
  • K. T. Rangaswamy
  • D. S. Aswathanarayana
  • H. A. Prameela
  • R. S. Kulkarni
  • V. Muniyappa
  • A. Mohan Rao
  • M. N. Maruthi
Article

Abstract

Resistance to tomato leaf curl virus disease (ToLCVD) in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) is scarce but was developed recently in three open pollinated (OP) varieties (Sankranthi, Nandi and Vybhav), which are now available for cultivation in South India. Hybrids with superior yield capabilities, however, are a preferred choice of cultivation by farmers but hybrids are highly susceptible to ToLCVD. In order to develop virus resistant tomato hybrids, the three OPs were crossed with 12 tomato genotypes with superior agronomic characteristics. From the crosses, 20 hybrids were selected (named BLRH-1 to BLRH-20, Bangalore leaf curl virus-resistant hybrid) and evaluated for their resistance to ToLCVD at the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bengaluru, South India, both through whitefly-mediated inoculations in the glasshouse and natural infection in the field during summer 2005. Their growth and fruit yield parameters were compared against the popularly grown hybrids and OPs. Differences occurred between hybrids in disease incidence, spread, symptom severity and fruit yield. Of the 20 hybrids evaluated, 11 were found resistant to ToLCVD in the field, but only three (BLRH-3, BLRH-9 and BLRH-16) remained resistant when challenged with high virus inoculum pressure in the glasshouse through whitefly-mediated inoculations. None of the six commercially available hybrids tested was found resistant to ToLCVD. An examination of the extent of heterosis in resistant hybrids for both quantitative and qualitative characters over the popularly grown hybrid, US-618, indicated a major improvement in virus resistance, yield and fruit quality. All the twenty hybrids yielded significantly more than US-618, and of these, BLRH-3 and BLRH-16 were considered the best with yields over ca. 60 t/ha and resistant to virus both in the glasshouse and field.

Keywords

Bemisia tabaci Heterosis Hybrids Virus resistance Screening Whitefly 

References

  1. Chakraborthy RK, Nath PS, De BK, Bhattachary I, Mohasin MD (2005) Screening of hybrid cultivars/lines of tomato against leaf curl virus. Environ Ecol 23:633–636Google Scholar
  2. Channarayappa G, Shivashankar , Muniyappa V, Frist RH (1992) Resistance of Lycopersicon species to B. tabaci, a tomato leaf curl virus vector. Can J Bot 70:2184–2192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chowda Reddy RV, Colvin J, Muniyappa V, Seal S (2005) Diversity and distribution of begomoviruses infecting tomato in India. Arch Virol 150:845–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gilbert AW (1912) Mendalian study of tomatoes. Am Breed Assn Mag 7:169–188Google Scholar
  5. Girish Reddy MC, Shankarappa KS, Govindappa MR, Manjunatha Reddy TB, Aswatha Narayana DS, Raghavendra N, Rangaswamy KT, Muniyappa V (2005) Reaction of ruling open pollinated tomato varieties and hybrids to tomato leaf curl virus disease (ToLCVD). J Plant Prot Environ 2:84–91Google Scholar
  6. Hanson PM, Bemacchi D, Green SK, Tanksley SD, Muniyappa V, Padmaja AS, Chen HM, Kuo G, Fang D, Chen JT (2000) Mapping a wild tomato introgression associated with tomato yellow leaf curl virus resistance in a cultivated tomato line. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 125:15–20Google Scholar
  7. Hedrick WP, Booth NO (1907) Mendalian characters in tomatoes. Proc Am Soc Hortic Sci 5:19–24Google Scholar
  8. Holt J, Colvin J, Muniyappa V (1999) Identifying control strategies for tomato leaf curl virus disease using an epidemiological model. J Appl Ecol 36:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kalloo G, Banerjee MK (1990) Transfer of tomato leaf curl virus resistance from Lycopersicon hirsutum f. glabratum to L. esculentum. Plant Breed 105:156–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lapidot M, Friedmann M, Lachman O, Yehezkwel A, Nahon S, Cohen S, Pilowsky M (1997) Comparison of resistance level to tomato yellow leaf curl virus among commercial cultivars and breeding lines. Plant Dis 81:1425–1428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Maruthi MN, Czosnek H, Vidavski FT, Tarba CY, Milo J, Leviatov S, Venkatesh HM, Padmaja AS, Kulkarni RS, Muniyappa V (2003a) Comparison of resistance to Tomato leaf curl virus (India) and Tomato yellow leaf curl virus (Israel) among Lycopersicon wild species, breeding lines and hybrids. Eur J Plant Pathol 109:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maruthi MN, Muniyappa V, Green SK, Colvin J, Hanson P (2003b) Resistance of tomato and sweet-pepper genotypes to tomato leaf curl Bangalore virus and its vector Bemisia tabaci. Int J Pest Manage 49:297–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Muniyappa V, Jalikop SH, Saikia AK, Channarayappa , Shivashankar G, Ishwarabhat A, Ramappa HK (1991) Reaction of Lycopersicon cultivars and wild accessions to tomato leaf curl virus. Euphytica 56:37–41Google Scholar
  14. Muniyappa V, Venkatesh HM, Ramappa HK, Kulkarni RS, Zeidan M, Tarba CY, Ghanim M, Czosnek H (2000) Tomato leaf curl virus from Bengaluru (ToLCV-Ban4): sequence comparison with Indian ToLCV isolates, detection in plants and insects, and vector relationships. Arch Virol 145:1583–1598PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Muniyappa V, Padmaja AS, Venkatesh HM, Sharma A, Chandrashekar S, Kulkarni RS, Hanson PM, Chen JT, Green SK, Colvin J (2002) Tomato leaf curl virus resistant tomato lines TLB111, TLB130 and TLB182. HortScience 37:603–606Google Scholar
  16. Nagaraju N, Venkatesh HM, Warburtan H, Muniyappa V, Chancellor TCB, Colvin J (2002) Farmer’s perception and practices for management of tomato leaf curl virus disease in Southern India. Int J Pest Manage 48(4):333–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nateshan HM, Muniyappa V, Jalikop SH, Ramappa HK (1996) Resistance of Lycopersicon species and hybrids to tomato leaf curl geminivirus. In: Gerling D, Mayer RT (eds) Bemisia 1995: taxonomy, biology, damage, control and management. Intercept Ltd., Andover, pp 369–377Google Scholar
  18. Pico BM, Diez J, Nuez F (1998) Evaluation of whitefly-mediated inoculation techniques to screen Lycopersicon esculenlum and wild relatives for resistance to tomato yellow leaf curl virus. Euphytica 101:259–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ramappa HK, Muniyappa V, Colvin J (1998) The contribution of tomato and alternative host plants to tomato leaf curl virus inoculum pressure in different areas of South India. Ann Appl Biol 133:187–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ranganna S (1986) Manual of analysis of fruit and vegetable products. Tata McGraw-Hill Publisher, New Delhi, 233 ppGoogle Scholar
  21. Rekha AR, Maruthi MN, Muniyappa V, Colvin J (2005) Occurrence of three genotypic clusters of Bemisia tabaci and the rapid spread of the B biotype in south India. Entomol Exp Appl 117:221–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Saikia AK, Muniyappa V (1989) Epidemiology and control of tomato leaf curl virus in Southern India. Trop Agric (Trinidad) 66:350–354Google Scholar
  23. Shankarappa KS, Rangaswamy KT, Aswathanarayana DS, Rekha AR, Raghavendra N, Lakshminarayana Reddy CN, Maruthi MN (2007) Development and optimization of silverleaf assay, protein and nucleic acid based diagnostic techniques for quick and reliable detection and monitoring biotype B of Bemisia tabaci in India. Bull Entomol Res 97(5):503–513PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Turner TH (1953) A study of heterosis in upland cotton. Agron J 45:484–486Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. S. Shankarappa
    • 1
  • Sriharsha
    • 1
  • K. T. Rangaswamy
    • 1
  • D. S. Aswathanarayana
    • 1
  • H. A. Prameela
    • 1
  • R. S. Kulkarni
    • 2
  • V. Muniyappa
    • 1
  • A. Mohan Rao
    • 2
  • M. N. Maruthi
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Plant PathologyUniversity of Agricultural Sciences, GKVKBangaloreIndia
  2. 2.Department of Genetics and Plant BreedingUniversity of Agricultural Sciences, GKVKBangaloreIndia
  3. 3.Natural Resources InstituteUniversity of GreenwichChatham MaritimeUK

Personalised recommendations