Advertisement

Cereal Research Communications

, Volume 35, Issue 4, pp 1653–1659 | Cite as

Adaptation and Competition of Cochliobolus sativus Isolates on Barley

  • M. I. E. ArabiEmail author
  • M. Jawhar
Article

Abstract

The competitive and adaptive capacity of Cochliobolus sativus were determined using the two major pathotypes in populations on barley in Syria Pt1 and Pt4, which differed widely in their virulence. Following greenhouse co-inoculation with the two pathotypes, Pt4 frequency average increased from the first to the last of four infection cycles, but decreased for Pt1. The number of lesions caused by Pt4 was individually higher than their mixture on both barley cultivars, Bowman and WI 2291. Moreover, the number of lesions was increased over the four cycles on both cultivars. The results suggest that isolates of different pathotypes would adapt at different rates in a mixed environment due to competitive advantage imposed by their virulence properties.

Keywords

spot blotch Cochliobolus sativus barley adaptation competition 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anonymous, 1988’ STAT-ITCF, Programme, MICROSTA, realized by ECOSOFT, 2 nd Ver.’ (Institut Technique des Cereals et des Fourrages: Paris) pp. 55.Google Scholar
  2. Arabi, M.I.E., Jawhar, M. 2003. Pathotypes of Cochliobolus sativus (spot blotch) on barley in Syria. Journal of Plant Pathology 85:193–196.Google Scholar
  3. Arabi, M.I.E., Jawhar, M. 2004. Identification of Cochliobolus sativus (spot blotch) isolates expressing differential virulence on barley genotypes in Syria. Journal of Phytopathology 152:461–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arabi, M.I.E., Jawhar, M. 2007. Molecular and pathogenic variation identified among isolates of Cochliobolus sativus. Australasian of Plant Pathology 36:7–21.Google Scholar
  5. Briggs, S.P., Johal, G.S. 1994. Genetics patterns of plant host-parasite interactions. Trends in Genetics 10:12–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fetch, T.C., Steffenson, B.J. 1999. Rating scales for assessing infection responses of barley infected with Cochliobolus sativus. Plant Disease 83:213–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Flor, H.H. 1956. The complementary genetic systems in flax and flax rust. Advance in Genetics 8:29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Strelkov, S., Lamari, E. 2003. Host-parasite interactions in tan spot (Pyrenophora tritici-repentis) of wheat. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology 25:339–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Valjavec-Gratian, M., Steffenson, B.J. 1997. Pathotypes of Cochliobolus sativus on barley in North Dakota. Plant Disease 81:1257–1278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Watson, I.A. 1970. Changes in virulence and population shifts in plant pathogens. Annals Review of Phytopathology 8:209–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Wilcoxon, R.D., Rasmusson, D.C., Miles, M.R. 1990. Development of barley resistance to spot blotch and genetics of resistance. Plant Disease 74:207–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Yang, G., Rose, M.S., Turgeon, B.G., Yoder, O.C. 1996. A polyketide synthase is required for fungal virulence and production of the polyketide T-toxin. Plant Cell 8:2139–2150.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Zhong, S., Steffenson, B.J. 2001. Virulence and molecular diversity in Cochliobolus sativus. Phytopathology 91:469–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AECS Department of Mol. Biol. & BiotechnologyDamascusSyria

Personalised recommendations