Advertisement

Cereal Research Communications

, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 612–619 | Cite as

Occurrence of Barley Pathogenic Pyrenophora Species and Their Mating Types in Hungary

  • A. FicsorEmail author
  • J. Bakonyi
  • M. Csősz
  • A. Tomcsányi
  • J. Varga
  • B. Tóth
Pathology

Abstract

Net blotch and leaf stripe caused by Pyrenophora teres and P. graminea, respectively, are two major foliar diseases of barley. These two species are able to infect wheat, too. The species composition of these pathogens was examined, for the first time, in four different regions of Hungary in 2006–2010. Altogether 204 isolates were obtained from 99 winter barley, 55 spring barley and 50 wheat leaf samples collected in commercial fields and experimental stations, and species assignment was carried out using species-specific PCR reactions. Most isolates belonged to P. teres f. teres (68%), 26% to P. teres f. maculata and only 6% of the isolates were assigned to P. graminea. Interestingly, all but one of the P. graminea isolates came from the western part of Hungary, while both forms of P. teres occurred in each region. The distribution of mating type genes was also examined in 144 isolates. The overall ratio of MAT1 and MAT2 genes in P. graminea, P. teres f. maculata and P. teres f. teres was 5:3, and close to 2:1 and 1:1, respectively. Both MAT1 and MAT2 isolates of each fungal species/form were distributed in almost all regions over several years, indicating a high potential for sexual outcrossing within local populations of these pathogens. Our survey may be helpful to determine priorities in disease resistance breeding programs. Further studies are in progress to examine the population structure of the most abundant pathogen P. teres f. teres.

Keywords

net blotch Pyrenophora teres P. graminea PCR mating type 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arabi M.I.E., Jawhar M., Al-Safadi B., MirAli N. 2004. Yield responses of barley to leaf stripe (Pyrenophora graminea) under experimental conditions in southern Syria. J. Phytopathol. 152:519–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Deadman M.L., Cooke B.M. 1987. Effect of net blotch on growth and yield of spring barley. Annals of Appl. Biol. 110:33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Duczek L.J., Sutherland K.A., Reed S.L., Bailey K.L., Lafond G.P. 1999. Survival of leaf spot pathogens on crop residues of wheat and barley in Saskatchewan. Canadian J. of Plant Pathol. 21:165–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Elliot C.G. 1994. Reproduction in Fungi: Genetical and Physiological Aspects. Chapman & Hall, London, UK.Google Scholar
  5. Ficsor A., Bakonyi J., Tóth B., Tomcsányi A., Palágyi A., Csősz M., Károlyi-Cséplő M., Mészáros K., Vida G. 2010. First report of spot form of net blotch of barley caused by Pyrenophora teres f. maculata in Hungary. Plant Disease 94:1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gómez-Alpizar L., Carbone I., Ristaino J.B. 2007. An Andean origin of Phytophthora infestans inferred from mitochondrial and nuclear gene genealogies. Proc. Natl Acad. of Sci. of the United States of America 104:3306–3311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Khan T.N. 1987. Relationship between net blotch (Drechslera teres) and losses in grain yield of barley in Western Australia. Austr. J. of Agric. Res. 38:671–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kronstad J.W., Staben C. 1997. Mating type in filamentous fungi. Annual Review of Genetics 31:245–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Linde C.C., Selmes H. 2012. Genetic diversity and mating type distribution of Tuber melanosporum and their significance to truffle cultivation in artificially planted truffieres in Australia. Appl. and Environ. Microbiol. 78:6534–6539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mathre D.E. 1982. Compendium of Barley Diseases. APS Press, St. Paul MN, USA, pp. 22–24.Google Scholar
  11. McDonald W.C. 1963. Heterothallism in Pyrenophora teres. Phytopathol. 53:771–773.Google Scholar
  12. Murray G.M., Brennan J.P. 2010. Estimating disease losses to the Australian barley industry. Australasian Plant Pathol. 39:85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Palágyi A., Tomcsányi A. 2006. Natural infections of winter barley by powdery mildew and net blotch from 2003 to 2005. Gyakorlati Agrofórum 6:18–20. (In Hungarian)Google Scholar
  14. Porta-Puglia A., Delogu G., Vannacci G. 1986. Pyrenophora graminea on winter barley seed: effect on disease incidence and yield losses. J. of Phytopathol. 117:26–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ramírez-Camejo L.A., Zuluaga-Montero A., Lázaro-Escudero M., Hernández-Kendall V., Bayman P. 2012. Phylogeography of the cosmopolitan fungus Aspergillus flavus: Is everything everywhere? Fungal Biology 116:452–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rau D., Brown A.H.D., Brubaker C.L., Attene G., Balmas V., Saba E., Papa R. 2003. Population genetic structure of Pyrenophora teres Drechs. the causal agent of net blotch in Sardinian landraces of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Theor. Appl. Genet. 106:947–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rau D., Maier F.J., Papa R., Brown A.H.D., Balmas V., Saba E., Schaefer W., Attene G. 2005. Isolation and characterization of the mating-type locus of the barley pathogen Pyrenophora teres and frequencies of mating-type idiomorphs within and among fungal populations collected from barley landraces. Genome 48:855–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Singh G., Dal Grande F., Cornejo C., Schmitt I., Scheidegger C. 2012. Genetic basis of self-incompatibility in the lichen-forming fungus Lobaria pulmonaria and skewed frequency distribution of mating-type idiomorphs: Implications for conservation. PLoS One 7:e51402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sipos L., Sági G., Varga L. 1989. Attempts to control Pyrenophora teres. Növénytermelés 2:125–129. (in Hungarian)Google Scholar
  20. Sivanesan A. 1987. Graminicolous species of Bipolaris, Curvularia, Drechslera, Exserohilum and their teleomorphs. Mycological Papers 158:180–181.Google Scholar
  21. Smedegård-Petersen V. 1971. Pyrenophora teres f. maculata f. nov. and Pyrenophora teres f. teres on barley in Denmark. Aarsskrift Kongelige Veterinear of Landbohojskole, pp. 124–144.Google Scholar
  22. Smedegård-Petersen V. 1977. Inheritance of genetic factors for symptoms and pathogenicity in hybrids of Pyrenophora teres and Pyrenophora graminea. J. Phytopathol. 89:193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Smedegård-Petersen V. 1978. Genetics of heterothallism in Pyrenophora graminea and P. teres. Transactions of the British Mycological Society 70:99–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Steffenson B.J. 1997. Net blotch. In: Mather D.E. (ed.), Compendium of Barley Diseases. 2nd edn. The American Phytopathological Society, Bozeman, USA, pp. 28–31.Google Scholar
  25. Steffenson B.J., Webster R.K., Jackson L.F. 1991. Reduction in yield loss using incomplete resistance to Pyrenophora teres f. teres in barley. Plant Disease 75:96–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Taylor E.J.A., Stevens E.A., Bates J.A., Morreale G., Lee D., Kenyon D.M., Thomas J.E. 2001. Rapid-cycle PCR detection of Pyrenophora graminea from barley seed. Plant Pathol. 50:347–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Taylor J.W., Jacobson D.J., Fisher M.C. 1999. The evolution of asexual fungi: reproduction, speciation and classification. Annual Reviews of Phytopathol. 37:197–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tomcsányi A., Szeőke K., Tóth, Á. 2006. Protection of winter barley. Növényvédelem 42:87–106. (In Hungarian)Google Scholar
  29. Tóth B., Csősz M., Kopahnke D., Varga J. 2008. First report on Pyrenophora teres causing lesions of wheat leaves in Hungary. Plant Pathol. 57–385.Google Scholar
  30. Williams K.J., Smyl C., Lichon A., Wong K.Y., Wallwork H. 2001. Development and use of an assay based on the polymerase chain reaction that differentiates the pathogens causing spot form and net form of net blotch of barley. Australasian Plant Pathol. 30:37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2014

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Ficsor
    • 1
    Email author
  • J. Bakonyi
    • 2
  • M. Csősz
    • 3
  • A. Tomcsányi
    • 3
  • J. Varga
    • 4
  • B. Tóth
    • 3
  1. 1.Government Office of Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County Plant Protection and Soil Conservation DirectorateSzolnokHungary
  2. 2.Plant Protection Institute, Centre for Agricultural ResearchHungarian Academy of SciencesBudapestHungary
  3. 3.Cereal Research Non-Profit Limited CompanySzegedHungary
  4. 4.Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Science & InformaticsUniversity of SzegedSzegedHungary

Personalised recommendations