Advertisement

American Journal of Potato Research

, Volume 87, Issue 2, pp 177–187 | Cite as

Phenotypic Expression of Resistance to Phytophthora infestans in Processing Potatoes in Argentina

  • Adriana B. Andreu
  • Daniel O. Caldiz
  • Gregory A. ForbesEmail author
Article

Abstract

Ten potato cultivars were evaluated in Argentina for foliage and tuber susceptibility to Phytophthora infestans, the oomycete pathogen causing late blight. Pathogen isolates collected from two major potato production regions in the country were polymorphic for specific virulence and isozyme banding patterns, although diversity was found among and not within specific locations. Four of the cultivars were found to be highly resistant in foliage, having little disease in the field and greenhouse and race-specific resistance is suspected. One of these is Russet Burbank, which is highly susceptible in the United States. Cultivar Shepody was the most susceptible and was assigned a value of 8, which was used together with area under disease progress curve values to calculate scale values of the other cultivars on a 1 to 9 susceptibility scale (where 9 is highly susceptible). Cultivar Ranger Russet had values of about 2.5 and resistance could be race-non-specific. The other cultivars for which race incompatibility did not appear to be a problem had susceptibility values between 4 and 8. Foliage susceptibility values for greenhouse and field were correlated. Foliage and tuber susceptibility were also correlated, although with exceptions and only one cultivar, Innovator, was highly resistant in tubers. The two isolates chosen for assessment of foliage susceptibility in the greenhouse differed for aggressiveness in separate tests where components were measured; however, no cultivar-by-isolate interaction was measured. Cultivars with high levels of putative race-specific foliage resistance should be used with constant monitoring in Argentina.

Keywords

Aggressiveness Host resistance Late blight Potato Solanum tuberosum Phytophthora infestans 

Resumen

Se evaluaron diez cultivares de papa en Argentina para susceptibilidad de follaje y tubérculo a Phytophthora infestans, el oomiceto patógeno causante del tizón tardío. Aislamientos del patógeno colectados de dos regiones importantes productoras de papa en el país fueron polimórficos para virulencia específica y para patrones de bandas de isoenzimas, aunque la diversidad que se encontró fue entre y no dentro de localidades específicas. Se encontró que cuatro de los cultivares fueron altamente resistentes en follaje, con poca enfermedad en el campo e invernadero, sospechándose de resistencia específica a razas. Una de ellas es Russet Burbank, que es altamente susceptible en los Estados Unidos. El cultivar Shepody fue el mas susceptible, con un valor de 8, que se usó junto con los valores del área bajo la curva de progreso de la enfermedad para calcular valores de escala de los otros cultivares en una escala de susceptibilidad de 1 a 9 (donde 9 es altamente susceptible). El cultivar Ranger Russet tuvo valores cercanos a 2.5 y la resistencia pudo ser no específica para razas. Los otros cultivares, para los cuales la incompatibilidad de las razas no parecía ser problema, tuvieron valores de susceptibilidad entre 4 y 8. Se correlacionaron los valores de susceptibilidad del follaje para el invernadero y el campo. Así también se correlacionó la susceptibilidad de follaje y tubérculo, aunque con excepciones y solo un cultivar, Innovator, fue altamente resistente en tubérculos. Los dos aislamientos escogidos para análisis de susceptibilidad del follaje en el invernadero difirieron en agresividad en pruebas separadas en las que se midieron los componentes; no obstante, no se midió la interacción cultivar-aislamiento. Los cultivares con altos niveles de supuesta resistencia del follaje específica a razas deberían de usarse con monitoreo constante en Argentina.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by McCain Argentina S.A. Special thanks are due to McCain Argentina field workers for their cooperation in collecting and transporting leaf and tuber samples to the University laboratory.

References

  1. Andreu, A.B., and D.O. Caldiz. 2006. Early management of late blight (Phytophthora infestans) by using systemic fungicides applied to seed potato tubers. Crop Protection 25: 281–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrivon, D., R. Pelle, and D. Ellisseche. 2006. Assessing resistance types and levels to epidemic diseases from the analysis of disease progress curves: principles and application to potato late blight. American Journal of Potato Research 83: 455–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bathia, S.K., and R.J. Young. 1985. Reaction of potato tuber slices to Phytophthora infestans in relation to physical age. American Potato Journal 62: 471–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black, W., C. Mastenbroek, W.R. Mills, and L.C. Peterson. 1953. A proposal for an international nomeclature of races of Phytophthora infestans and genes controlling immunity in Solanum demissum derivates. Euphytica 2: 173–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caldiz, D.O. 2006. Producción, cosecha y almacenamiento de papa en la Argentina. Capital Federal, Argentina: McCain Balcarce; BASF Argentina.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, C.L., and L.V. Madden. 1990. Introduction to plant disease epidemiology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Carmona, D., M.A. Huarte, G. Arias, A. López, A.M. Vincini, H.A. Alvarez Castillo, P. Manetti, S. Capezio, E. Chaves, M. Torres, J. Eyherabide, J. Mantecón, L. Chichón, and D. Fernández. 2003. Integrated pest management in Argentina. Integrated pest management in the global arena. UK: CABI.Google Scholar
  8. Caten, C.E., and J.L. Jinks. 1968. Spontaneous variability of single isolates of Phytophthora infestans. I. Cultural variation. Canadian Journal of Botany 46: 329–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daayf, F., and H.W. Platt. 2000. Changes in metalaxyl resistance among glucose phosphate isomerase genotypes of Phytophthora infestans in Canada during 1997 and 1998. American Journal of Potato Research 77: 311–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dorrance, A.E., and D.A. Inglis. 1998. Assessment of laboratory methods for evaluating potato tubers for resistance to late blight. Plant Disease 82: 442–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Flier, W.G., L.J. Turkensteen, G.B.M. van den Bosch, P.F.G. Vereijken, and A. Mulder. 2001. Differential interaction of Phytophthora infestans on tubers of potato cultivars with different levels of blight resistance. Plant Pathology 50: 292–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Flier, W.G., G.B.M. van den Bosch, and L.J. Turkensteen. 2003. Stability of partial resistance in potato cultivars exposed to aggressive strains of Phytophthora infestans. Plant Pathology 52: 326–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Forbes, G.A., M.G. Chacón, H.G. Kirk, M.A. Huarte, M. Damme, S. Distel, G.R. Mackay, H.E. Stewart, R. Lowe, J.M. Duncan, H.S. Mayton, W.E. Fry, D. Andrivon, D. Ellissèche, R. Pellé, H.W. Platt, G. MacKenzie, T.R. Tarn, L.T. Colon, D.J. Budding, H. Lozoya-Saldaña, A. Hernandez-Vilchis, and S. Capezio. 2005. Stability of resistance to Phytophthora infestans in potato: an international evaluation. Plant Pathology 54: 364–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fry, W.E. 1975. Integrated effects of polygenic resistance and a protective fungicide on development of potato late blight. Phytopathology 65: 908–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fry, W.E. 1978. Quantification of general resistance of potato cultivars and fungicide effects for integrated control of potato late blight. Phytopathology 68: 1650–1655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fry, W.E., N.J. Grünwald, D.E.L. Cooke, A. McLeod, G.A. Forbes, and K. Cao. 2009. Population Genetics and population diversity of Phytophthora infestans. In Oomycete genetics and genomics: Biology, interactions with plants and animals, and toolbox, ed. K. Lamour, and S. Kamoun, 139–162. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Goodwin, S.B., R.E. Schenider, and W.E. Fry. 1995a. Use of cellulose-acetate electrophoresis for rapid identification of allozyme genotypes of Phytophthora infestans. Plant Disease 79: 1181–1185.Google Scholar
  18. Goodwin, S.B., L.S. Sujkowski, and W.E. Fry. 1995b. Rapid evolution of pathogenicity within clonal lineages of the potato late blight disease fungus. Phytopathology 85: 669–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gregory, P.H. 1948. The multiple-infection transformation. Annals of Applied Biology 35: 412–417.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hansen, J.G., M. Koppel, A. Valskyte, I. Turka, and J. Kapsa. 2005. Evaluation of foliar resistance in potato to Phytophthora infestans based on an international field trial network. Plant Pathology 54: 169–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huarte, M.A. 2002. Niveles Disponibles de Resistencia al Tizón Tardío en Latinoamérica. In: Memorias del Taller Internacional Complementando la Resistencia al Tizón (Phytophthora infestans) en los Andes, Lima, Perú.Google Scholar
  22. Jenkins, J.C., and R.K. Jones. 2003. Classifying the relative host reaction in potato cultivars and breeding lines to the US-8 strain of Phytophthora infestans in Minnesota. Plant Disease 87: 983–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kapsa, J. 2002. Varietal resistance of potatoes to late blight and chemical protection strategy. Journal of Plant Protection Research 42: 101–107.Google Scholar
  24. Kirk, W.W., F.M.A. El-Samen, J.B. Muhinyuza, R. Hammerschmidt, D.S. Douches, C.A. Thill, H. Groza, and A.L. Thompson. 2005. Evaluation of potato late blight management utilizing host plant resistance and reduced rates and frequencies of fungicide applications. Crop Protection 24: 961–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mantecon, J.D. 1998. Potential yield losses caused by late blight in Argentina during the last decade. Fungicide & Nematicide Test 53: 202–204.Google Scholar
  26. Micheletto, S., M. Andreoni, and M.A. Huarte. 1999. Vertical resistance to late blight in wild potato species from Argentina. Euphytica 112: 133–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Micheletto, S., R. Boland, and M.A. Huarte. 2000. Argentine wild diploid Solanum species as sources of quantitative late blight resistance. Theoretical Applied Genetics 101: 902–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Naerstad, R., A. Hermansen, and T. Bjor. 2007. Exploiting host resistance to reduce the use of fungicides to control potato late blight. Plant Pathology 56: 156–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Platt, H.W., and G. Tai. 1998. Relationship between resistance to late blight in potato foliage and tubers of cultivars and breeding selections with different resistance levels. American Journal of Potato Research 75: 173–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Porter, L.D., D.A. Inglis, and D.A. Johnson. 2004. Identification and characterization of resistance to Phytophthora infestans in leaves, stems, flowers, and tubers of potato clones in the Pacific Northwest. Plant Disease 88: 965–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tooley, P.W., W.E. Fry, and M.J.V. Gonzalez. 1985. Isozyme characterization of sexual and asexual Phytophthora infestans. Journal of Heredity 76: 431–435.Google Scholar
  32. Toxopeus, H.J. 1961. On the inheritance of tuber resistance of Solanum tuberosum to Phytophthora infestans in the field. Euphytica 10: 307–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Van Damme, M., and A. Ridao. 1994. Determination of races and mating type of Phytophthora infestans isolated in Argentina. Fitopatología 29: 78.Google Scholar
  34. Van Damme, M., S. Capezio, and M.A. Huarte. 1998. Phenotypes of Phytophthora infestans isolated in Argentina during 1994–1996: mating type, metalaxyl reaction and isozyme analysis. Fitopatología 33: 53.Google Scholar
  35. Vleeshouwers, V.G., W. van Dooijeweert, F. Govers, S. Kamoun, and L.T. Colon. 2000. The hypersensitive response is associated with host and nonhost resistance to Phytophthora infestans. Planta 210: 853–864.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Yuen, J.E., and G.A. Forbes. 2009. Estimating the level of susceptibility to Phytophthora infestans in potato genotypes. Phytopathology 99: 782–786.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Potato Association of America 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adriana B. Andreu
    • 1
  • Daniel O. Caldiz
    • 2
  • Gregory A. Forbes
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Instituto de Investigaciones BiológicasUniversidad Nacional de Mar del PlataMar del PlataArgentina
  2. 2.División Agronomía McCain Argentina SABalcarceArgentina
  3. 3.International Potato CenterLima 12Peru

Personalised recommendations