Der Züchter

, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp 106–114 | Cite as

Die Feldresistenz der Früchte von Wildtomaten gegen parasitische Pilze

  • Gerhard Gr:ummer
  • Elisabeth Günther
Article

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Anonym: Annual report of the Agriculatural Experiment Stations, University of Florida, for the fiscal year ending June 30 (1953).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anonym: Second annual report of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization for the year ending 30th June (1950).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alexander, L. J., andM. M. Hoover: Progress report of national screening committee for disease resistance in the tomato for 1952. Plant Dis. Reptr.37, 317–324 (1953).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alexander, L. J., andM. M. Hoover. Disease resistance in the wild species of tomato. Res. Bull. Ohio Agric. Exp. Sta. No.752 (1955).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonde, R., andE. Murphy: Resistance of certain tomato varieties and crosses to late blight. Maine Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull.497 (1952).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brežnev, D. D.: Sovremennaja klassifikacija rodaLycopersicon Tourn. (Moderne-Klassifikation der GattungLycopersicon Tourn.) Trud. priklad. Bot. Genet. Selekc.31, 5–50 (1954a).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brežnev, D. D.: Ispol zovanie vidovogo i sortovogo sostava tomatov v selekcii. IDie Verwertung der Art-und Sorteneigenschaften der Tomaten für die Züchtung.) Trud. priklad. Bot. Genet. Selekc.31, 64–94 (1954b).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Conover, R. A., andJ. M. Walter: The occurrence of a rulent race ofPhytophthora infestans on late blight resistent tomato stocks. Phytopathology43, 344–345 (1953).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Currence, T. M.: Tomato breeding. In: Kappert-Rudorf, Handb. Pflanzenzüchtung 2. Aufl. Bd. 6, 351–369 (1959).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Day, P. R., J. E. Jenkins, andH. J. Wilcox: A search for resistance toDidymella lycopersici in the tomato. Plant Pathology5, 150–151 (1956).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dennett, R. K.: The association of resistance toFusarium wilt andStemphylium leaf spot in tomato,Lycopersicon esculentum. Proc. Amer. Hort. Sci.56, 353–357 (1950).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Doolittle, S. P.: The use of wildLycopersicon species for tomato disease control. Phytopathology44, 409–414 (1954).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gallegly, M. E.: Physiologic races of the tomato late blight fungus. Phytopathology42, 461–462 (1952a).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gallegly, M. E.: Sources of resistance to two races of the tomato late blight fungus. Phytopathology42, 466 (1952b).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gallegly, M. E.: Late blight fungus races—resistance. W. Va. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull.357 (1953).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gallegly, M. E., andM. E. Marvel: Inheritance of resistance to tomato late blight. Phytopathology44, 489 (1954).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gallegly, M. E., andM. E. Marvel: Inheritance of resistance to tomato race o ofPhytophthora infestans. Phytopathology45, 103–109 (1955).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goodman, O.: Breeding tomatoes to resist blight. Grower47, 179, 181–183 (1957).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grümmer, G., undE. Günther: Spritzversuche zur Bekämpfung der Fruchtfäulen an Tomaten. Nachrichtenbl. f. d. Deutsch. Pflanzenschutzdienst (Berlin)13, 122–126 (1959).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Günther, E. undG. Grümmer: Untersuchungen über die Fruchtfäulen der Tomate. Gartenbauwiss.23, 130–159 (1958).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Günther, E.: Versuche zur vegetativen Annäherung von Tomaten und anderen Solanaceen. Z. f. Pflanzenzücht.39, 325–338 (1958).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Iwanowa, K. W.: Dikorastuŝčie vidy tomata i ich značenie dlja selekzii. (Wildarten der Tomate und ihre Bedeutung für die Züchtung.) Trud. priklad. Bot. Genet. Selekc.31, No. 1, 95–124 (1954).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kelbert, D. G. A., andJ. M. Walter: Manalee, a disease-resistant early tomato. Circ. Fla. agric. Exp. Sta. No. S-72 (1954).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lamm, R.: Self-incompatibility inLycopersicon peruvianum Mill. Hereditas36, 509–511 (1950).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lehmann, Ch.: Das morphologische System der Kulturtomaten. Der Züchter,3. Sonderheft, 1–64 (1955).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    McGuire, D. C., andC. M. Rick: Self-incompatibility in species ofLycopersicon sect.Eriopersicon and hybrids withL. esculentum. Hilgardia23, 101–124 (1954).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rick, A. E., andA. F. Yeager: New Hampshire Surecrop—a new tomato variety highly resistant to late blight and moderately resistant to early blight. Phytopathology47, 28 (1957).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rick, CH. M., andL. Butler: Cytogenetics of the tomato. Adv. Genetics8, 267–382 (1956).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schick, R., K. H. Möller, M. Haussdörfer undE. Schick: Die Widerstandsfähigkeit von Kartoffelsorten gegenüber der durchPhytophthora infestans (Mont.) De Bary hervorgerufenen Krautfäule. Der Züchter28, 99–105 (1958).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    v. Sengbusch, R.: Das Verhalten vonS. racemigerum gegen den Erreger des Tomatenkrebses (Didymella lycopersici). Der Züchter5, 25–26 (1933).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Walter, J. M., andR. A. Conover: Hereditary resistance to late blight of tomato. Phytopathology42, 197–199 (1952).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Walter, J. M., andD. G. A. Kelbert: Manalucie, a tomato with distinctive new features. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. S-59 (1953).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1961

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerhard Gr:ummer
    • 1
  • Elisabeth Günther
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Agrobiologie der Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität GreifswaldGreifswaldDeutschland

Personalised recommendations