Advertisement

Euphytica

, Volume 186, Issue 3, pp 655–669 | Cite as

Application of multi-phase experiments in plant pathology to identify genetic resistance to Diaporthe toxica in Lupinus albus

  • R. B. CowleyEmail author
  • G. J. Ash
  • J. D. I. Harper
  • A. B. Smith
  • B. R. Cullis
  • D. J. Luckett
Article

Abstract

Phenotyping assays in plant pathology using detached plant parts are multi-phase experimental processes. Such assays involve growing plants in field or controlled-environment trials (Phase 1) and then subjecting a sample removed from each plant to disease assessment, usually under laboratory conditions (Phase 2). Each phase may be subject to non-genetic sources of variation. To be able to separate these sources of variation in both phases from genetic sources of variation requires a multi-phase experiment with an appropriate experimental design and statistical analysis. To achieve this, a separate randomization is required for each phase, with additional replication in Phase 2. In this article, Phomopsis leaf and pod blight (caused by Diaporthe toxica) of Lupinus albus was used as a case study to apply a multi-phase experimental approach to identify genetic resistance to this pathogen, and demonstrate the principles of sound experimental design and analysis in detached plant part assays. In seven experiments, 250 breeding lines, cultivars, landraces, and recombinant in-bred lines from a mapping population of L. albus were screened using detached, inoculated leaves, and/or pods. The experimental, non-genetic variance in Phase 2 varied in magnitude compared to the Phase 1 experimental, non-genetic variance. The reliability of prediction for resistance to Phomopsis pod blight was high (mean of 0.70 in seven experiments), while reliability of prediction for leaf assays was lower (mean 0.35–0.51 depending on the scoring method used).

Keywords

ASReml-R Broad-leaf lupin Detached leaf assay Detached pod assay Phomopsis leptostromiformis 

Abbreviations

DLA

Detached leaf assay

DPA

Detached pod assay

NSW

New South Wales, Australia

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was partly funded by the Grains Research & Development Corporation of Australia (GRDC). Neil Coombes is thanked for help with DiGGer. Mark Richards, David Roberts, and Cina Zachariah provided technical assistance, and Hua’an Yang (Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia, Perth) provided seeds of the lupin recombinant in-bred lines in the mapping population. Thanks are extended to the anonymous reviewers whose constructive comments greatly aided this manuscript.

References

  1. Adhikari KN, Buirchell BJ, Thomas GJ, Sweetingham MW, Yang H (2009) Identification of anthracnose resistance in Lupinus albus L. and its transfer from landraces to modern cultivars. Crop Pasture Sci 60:472–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balducchi AJ, McGee DC (1987) Environmental factors influencing infection of soybean seeds by Phomopsis and Diaporthe species during seed maturation. Plant Dis 71:209–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baranski R, Kramer R, Klocke E (2006) A laboratory leaf assay of carrot susceptibility to Botrytis cinerea. J Phytopathol 154:637–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brien CJ, Bailey RA (2006) Multiple randomizations. J Roy Stat Soc B 68:571–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butler DG, Cullis BR, Gilmour AR, Gogle BJ (2009a) ASReml-R reference manual, release 3. Technical Series QE02001, Queensland Department of Primary IndustriesGoogle Scholar
  6. Butler DG, Tan MK, Cullis BR (2009b) Improving the accuracy of selection for late maturity α-amylase in wheat using multi-phase designs. Crop Pasture Sci 60:1202–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cowley RB, Ash GJ, Harper JDI, Luckett DJ (2010) Evidence that Diaporthe toxica infection of Lupinus albus is an emerging concern for the Australian lupin industry. Australas Plant Path 39:146–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cowling WA, Allen JG, Wood PM (1988) Resistance to Phomopsis stem blight reduces the lupinosis toxicity of narrow-leafed lupin stems. Aust J Exp Agr 28:195–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dracup M, Kirby MEJ (1996) Lupin development guide. University of Western Australia, Perth, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  10. Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics, 4th edn. Longmans green. Harlow, Essex, UKGoogle Scholar
  11. Faluyi MA, Mather DE, Atlin GN, Merrick LC, Paulitz TC (1993) Field evaluation of seed, pod, and stem rot in white lupine germplasm. Plant Dis 77:926–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. FAO–Unesco (1974) Soil map of the world, vol 1. Legend, UNESCO, ParisGoogle Scholar
  13. Herath IHMHB, Stoddard FL, Marshall DR (2001) Evaluating faba beans for rust resistance using detached leaves. Euphytica 117:47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jaarsveld ABV, Knox-Davies PS (1974) Resistance of lupins to Phomopsis leptostromiformis. Phytophylactica 6:55–60Google Scholar
  15. Kochman J (1957) Studies on the patchiness of lupin stems caused by Phomopsis leptostromiformis (Kuhn) Bubak. Acta Agrobot 6:117–143Google Scholar
  16. Luckett DJ, Cowley RB, Richards MF, Roberts DM (2009) Breeding Lupinus albus for resistance to the root pathogen Pleiochaeta setosa. Eur J Plant Pathol 125:131–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mann G, Diffey S, Allen H, Pumpa J, Nath Z, Morell MK, Cullis BR, Smith A (2008) Comparison of small-scale and large-scale mixing characteristics: Correlations between small-scale and large-scale mixing and extensional characteristics of wheat flour dough. J Cereal Sci 47:90–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mariani BM, Manmana PN, Stefanini R (1983) Efficiency of linear and multi-phase regression methods to evaluate genotype-environment interaction for grain yield and protein content in Italian durum wheat varieties. Zeitschrift fur Pflanzenzuchtung 90:56–67Google Scholar
  19. McGee DC (1986) Prediction of Phomopsis seed decay by measuring soybean pod infection. Plant Dis 70:329–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McIntyre GA (1955) Design and analysis of two-phase experiments. Biometrics 11:324–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mrode RA (2005) Linear models for the prediction of animal breeding values 2nd edition. CABI Publishing, Cambridge MA, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Phan HTT, Ellwood SR, Adhikari K, Nelson MN, Oliver RP (2007) The first genetic and comparative map of White Lupin (Lupinus albus L.): Identification of QTLs for anthracnose resistance and flowering time, and a locus for alkaloid content. DNA Res 14:59–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shankar M, Cowling WA, Sweetingham MW (1995) Variation and stability of virulence in isolates of Diaporthe toxica. In: 10th Biennial Australasian Plant Pathology Society Conference, Abstract No. 213. Lincoln University, Christchurch, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  24. Shankar M, Sweetingham MW, Buirchell B, Cowling WA (2002) Evidence that resistance to phomopsis stem and pod blight in Lupinus angustifolius cv. Tanjil is controlled by different genes. In: Plant breeding for the 11th millennium: 12th Australasian Plant Breeding Conference. Perth, Australia, pp 429–431Google Scholar
  25. Smith AB, Cullis BR, Appels R, Campbell AW, Cornish GB, Martin D, Allen HM (2001) The statistical analysis of quality traits in plant improvement programs with application to the mapping of milling yield in wheat. Aust J Agr Res 52:1207–1219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Smith AB, Cullis BR, Thompson R (2005) The analysis of crop cultivar breeding and evaluation trials: an overview of current mixed model approaches. J Agr Sci 143:449–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Smith AB, Lim P, Cullis BR (2006) The design and analysis of multi-phase plant breeding experiments. J Agr Sci 144:393–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sweetingham MW, Jones RA, Brown AG (1998) Diseases and pests. In: Gladstones JS et al (eds) Lupins as crop plants: biology, production, and utilization. Cab International, Wallingford, UK, pp 263–289Google Scholar
  29. Twizeyimana M, Ojiambo PS, Ikotun T, Hartman GL, Bandyopadhyay R (2007) Comparison of field, greenhouse, and detached-leaf evaluations of soybean germplasm for resistance to Phakopsora pachyrhizi. Plant Dis 91:1161–1169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Williamson PM, Highet AS, Gams W, Sivasithamparam K, Cowling WA (1994) Diaporthe toxica sp. nov., the cause of lupinosis in sheep. Mycol Res 98:1364–1368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wood PM, Allen JG (1980) Control of ovine lupinosis: use of a resistant cultivar of Lupinus albus—cv. Ultra. Aust J Exp Agr Ani Husb 20:316–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wood P, Sivasithamparam K (1989) Diaporthe woodii (anamorph Phomopsis leptostromiformis)—A toxigenic fungus infecting cultivated lupins. Mycopathologia 105:79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wood JT, Williams ER, Speed TP (1988) Non-orthogonal block structure in two-phase designs. Aust New Zeal J Stats 30A:225–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. B. Cowley
    • 1
    Email author
  • G. J. Ash
    • 1
  • J. D. I. Harper
    • 1
  • A. B. Smith
    • 2
  • B. R. Cullis
    • 3
  • D. J. Luckett
    • 1
  1. 1.EH Graham Centre for Agricultural Innovation (An Alliance Between NSW Department of Primary Industries and Charles Sturt University)Wagga WaggaAustralia
  2. 2.School of Mathematics and Applied StatisticsFaculty of Informatics University of WollongongWollongongAustralia
  3. 3.School of Mathematics and Applied StatisticsFaculty of Informatics University of Wollongong and Mathematics, Informatics and Statistics, CSIROWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations