Advertisement

American Journal of Potato Research

, Volume 87, Issue 3, pp 310–314 | Cite as

Effect of Potato Virus Y on Yield of a Clonal Selection of Russet Norkotah

  • Jonathan L. WhitworthEmail author
  • Phillip B. Hamm
  • Chris S. McIntosh
Brief Communication

Abstract

Successful selections of Russet Norkotah lines have produced larger, more vigorous vines and higher yields than the standard Russet Norkotah (RN). Potato Virus Y (PVY), while producing mild or “latent” symptoms in this cultivar, has been shown to significantly reduce yields. To determine PVY’s effect on yield of a RN selection, PVY infected RN and Russet Norkotah selection 3 (RN3) yields were compared after planting in Hermiston, Oregon in 2001, 2003, and 2006. After emergence, individual plants were ELISA tested for PVY multiple times during the growing season to confirm infection. Plants were categorized when infected; 1) current season, 2) seed borne or 3) “no PVY”. At harvest, total and marketable yield data were collected. RN3 produced higher total yields than RN, regardless of infection categories. Highest yield reductions of RN and RN3 due to PVY were in the following order; seed borne PVY >>current season PVY >>no PVY.

Keywords

Clonal line selection Current season virus Seed borne virus PVY 

Resumen

Las selecciones exitosas de líneas de Russet NorKotah han producido follajes más grandes y vigorosos, y mayores rendimientos, que la Russet NorKotah (RN) convencional. El virus Y de la papa (PVY), mientras produce síntomas ligeros o “latentes” en esta variedad, se ha demostrado que reduce significativamente los rendimientos. A fin de determinar el efecto del PVY sobre el rendimiento de una selección de RN, se compararon los rendimientos entre RN infectada y una selección 3 de NorKotah (RN3), después de plantar en Hermiston, Oregon, en 2001, 2003 y 2006. Después de la emergencia se hicieron pruebas de ELISA para PVY muchas veces a plantas individuales durante el período de crecimiento para confirmar la infección. Cuando se infectaron, las plantas se categorizaron: 1) durante el crecimiento, 2) de la semilla, o 3) “no PVY”. A la cosecha se tomaron datos de rendimiento total y comercial. RN3 produjo mayor rendimiento total que RN, independientemente de las categorías de infección. Las más altas reducciones en el rendimiento de RN y RN3 debido a PVY fueron en el siguiente orden; PVY proveniente de semilla >>PVY por infección de campo >>no PVY.

References

  1. Crosslin, J.M., P.B. Hamm, D.C. Hane, J. Jaeger, C.R. Brown, P.J. Shiel, P.H. Berger, and R.E. Thornton. 2006. The occurrence of PVYO, PVYN, and PVYN:O strains of Potato virus Y in certified potato seed lot trials in Washington and Oregon. Plant Disease 90: 1102–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Draper, M.D., J.S. Pasche, and N.C. Gudmestad. 2002. Factors influencing PVY development and disease expression in three potato cultivars. American Journal of Potato Research 79: 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hamm, P.B., D.C. Hane, M.J. Pavek, L.D. Leroux, S.L. Gieck, and N.L. David. 2010. Potato cultivars differ in current season potato virus Y (PVY) infection. American Journal of Potato Research 87: 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hane, D.C., and P.B. Hamm. 1999. Effects of seedborne potato virus Y infection in two potato cultivars expressing mild disease symptoms. Plant Disease 83: 43–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Henn, R.A., J.G. Phillips, and R.G. Brown. 2006. Russet Norkotah: A potato cultivar latently infected by PVYO. American Journal of Potato Research 72: 630.Google Scholar
  6. JMP. 2006. Statistical Discovery. Version 6. Statistical Analysis System Institute Inc.Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Johansen, R., B. Farnsworth, D. Nelson, G. Secor, N. Gudmestad, and P. Orr. 1988. Russet Norkotah: A new russet-skinned potato cultivar with wide adaptation. American Journal of Potato Research 65: 597–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Miller, J., D.C. Scheuring, J.P. Miller, and G.C.J. Fernandez. 1999. Selection, evaluation, and identification of improved Russet Norkotah Strains. American Journal of Potato Research 76: 161–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Miller, J., G.C.C. Tai, B. Ouellette, and J.P. Miller 2004. Discriminating Russet Norkotah intraclonal selections using canonical and cluster analysis. American Journal of Potato Research 203–207.Google Scholar
  10. NASS. 2008. National Ag. Statistics Service, Crop Production Report, Fall Potatoes: Percent of Varieties Planted, 2008 Crop. Pg. 22. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CropProd//2000s/2008/CropProd-12-11-2008.pdf Accessed 2-17-2010.
  11. Nolte, P., J.L. Whitworth, M.K. Thornton, and C.S. McIntosh. 2004. Effect of seedborne Potato virus Y on performance of Russet Burbank, Russet Norkotah, and Shepody potato. Plant Disease 88: 248–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. PAA. 2008. Certified seed acres (by variety), U.S. Potato Association of America. http://potatoassociation.org/Industry%20Outreach/seed.html. Accessed 27 August 2009.
  13. Rykbost, K.A., D.C. Hane, P.B. Hamm, R. Voss, and D. Kirby. 1999. Effects of seedborne potato virus Y on Russet Norkotah performance. American Journal of Potato Research 76: 91–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Walkey, D. 1991. The plant virus groups infecting angiosperms. In Applied Plant Virology 44–45.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Potato Association of America 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan L. Whitworth
    • 1
    Email author
  • Phillip B. Hamm
    • 2
  • Chris S. McIntosh
    • 3
  1. 1.USDA-ARS, Aberdeen Research & Extension CenterAberdeenUSA
  2. 2.Oregon State UniversityHermistonUSA
  3. 3.University of IdahoMoscowUSA

Personalised recommendations