Summary
Eighteen spring wheat cultivars were tested in microfields and race nurseries for their partial resistance PR to wheat leaf rust under low and high disease pressure respectively. Large differences existed between the 18 cultivars, Skalavatis 56 being the most susceptible and Ponta Grossa 1 being the most resistant cultivar. Of the three epidemic parameters, disease severity (DS) at the time that the susceptible check was severely diseased and area under the transformed disease severity curve (AUTC) and the logistic growth rate (r), AUTC and DS were highly correlated. Both seemed to be reliable estimators of PR but DS should be preferred for economical reasons. The logistic growth rate seemed to be unsuitable as an estimator of partial resistance.
High and low disease pressure gave similar cultivar ranking. PR can be screened and selected equally well in race nurseries with low space, low time and low cost input as in microfields with high space, time and cost input.
Cultivar differences in development rate had a large impact on the cultivar differences for amount of disease and can therefore greatly bias the estimation of cultivar resistance. The resistance of early cultivars tended to be underestimated whereas the resistance of late cultivars tended to be overestimated. The effect of differences in developmental rate was most pronounced in the flag leaf. It is advisable to avoid the assessment of disease levels on the flag leaf only and to incorporate in the tests several susceptible and resistant checks that cover the range of development rates in the material to be selected, because otherwise selection for resistance will tend to select also for lateness.
Regression of the epidemiological parameters on three components of partial resistance revealed that latency period (LP) is an important factor in determining the resistance observed in the field explaining on average 67% of the observed variation. Adding infection frequency (IF) and urediosorus size (US) to the linear model increased the proportion of the observed variation in the field explained by the components to 80%. This result supports the idea that the components of PR inherit independently, at least, in part.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bowen K.L., P.S.Teng & A.P.Roels, 1984. Negative plot interference in field experiments with leaf rust of wheat. Phytopathology 74: 1157–1161.
Broers L.H.M., 1987. Relevance of randomizing host genotypes of wheat that are tested for leaf rust resistance in race nurseries. Euphytica 36: 257–263.
Broers L.H.M., 1989a. Influence of development stage and host genotype on three components of partial resistance to wheat leaf rust in spring wheat. Euphytica 44: 187–195
Broers L.H.M., 1989b. Race-specific aspects of partial resistance of wheat to wheat leaf rust Puccinia recondita f.sp. tritici. Euphytica 44: 275–284
Ohm H.W. & G.E.Shaner, 1976. Three components of slow rusting at different growth stages in wheat. Phytopathology 66: 1356–1360.
Parlevliet J.E., 1975. Partial resistance of barley to leaf rust, Puccinia hordei. I. effect of cultivar and development stage on latent period. Euphytica 24: 21–27.
Parlevliet J.E., M.Leyn & A.vanOmmeren, 1985. Accumulating genes for partial resistance in barley to barley leaf rust, Puccinia hordei II. Field evaluation. Euphytica 34: 15–20.
Parlevliet J.E. & A.vanOmmeren, 1975. Partial resistance of barley to barley leaf rust, Puccinia hordei. II. relationship between field trials, micro-plot tests and latent period. Euphytica 24: 293–303.
Parlevliet J.E. & A.vanOmmeren, 1984. Interplot interference and the assessment of barley cultivars for partial resistance to leaf rust, Puccinia hordei. Euphytica 33: 685–697.
Paysour R.E. & W.E.Fry, 1983. Interplot interference: a model for planning field experiments with aerially disseminated pathogens Phytopathology 73: 1014–1020.
Peterson R.F., A.B.Campbell & A.E.Hannah, 1948. A diagrammatic scale of estimating rust intensity on leaves and stems of cereals. Can. J. Res. C26: 496–500.
Rees R.G., J.P.Thompson & E.A.Goward, 1979. Slow rusting and tolerance to rusts in wheat. II The progress and effects of epidemics in Puccinia recondita tritici in selected wheat cultivars. Austr. J. Agric. Res. 30: 421–432.
Shaner G.E., H.W.Ohm & R.E.Finney, 1978. Response of susceptible and slow leaf rusting wheats to infection by Puccinia recondita. Phytopathology 68: 471–475.
Teng P.S., M.J.Blackie & R.C.Close, 1977. A simulation analysis of crop yield loss due to rust disease. Agric. Systems 2: 189–198.
Van derPlank J.E., 1963. Plant diseases: Epidemics and control. Academic Press, New York. 349pp.
Zadoks, J.C., 1963. The use of race nurseries in cereal resistance breeding. Proc. 1st Int Barley Genetics Symp., Wageningen, pp. 242–249.
Zadoks J.C., 1971. Systems analysis and the dynamics of epidemics. Phytopathology 61: 600–610.
Zadoks, J.C., 1972. Reflections on disease resistance in annual crops. In: R.T. Bingham, et al. (Eds.). Biology of rust resistance in forest trees. U.S. Dept. Agr. Forest Serv., Misc. Publ No. 1221: pp 43–63.
Zadoks J.C. & R.D.Schein, 1979. Epidemiology and plant disease management. Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford. 427pp.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Broers, L.H.M. Partial resistance to wheat leaf rust in 18 spring wheat cultivars. Euphytica 44, 247–258 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00037532
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00037532