Summary
Glasshouse-grown seedling tubers of 22 progenies from parents differing in resistance toFusarium coeruleum andF. sulphureum (Gibberella cyanogena) were wound-inoculated with a cornmeal + sand culture of one or other of these dry rot pathogens. WithF. coeruleum, differences between progenies were due entirely to differences in the general combining abilities (gca) of the parents. Parental and gca values were highly correlated, as were the mean resistance of a progeny and that of its parents. WithG. cyanogena the agreement between replicates was poor and differences between progenies were less clear. It is suggested that different resistance mechanisms operate against these two pathogens.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Corsini, D. & J. J. Pavek, 1986.Fusarium dry rot resistant potato germplasm.American Potato Journal 63: 629–638.
Griffing, B., 1956. Concept of general and specific combining ability in relation to diallel crossing systems.Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 9: 463–493.
Siegfried, R. & E. Langerfeld, 1978. Vorläufige Untersuchungen über die Produktion von Toxinen durch Fäuleerreger bei Kartoffeln.Potato Research 21: 335–339.
Tivoli, B., K. Abdul Razzaq, B. Jouan & E. Lemarchand, 1986. Étude comparée des capacités infectieuses des différentes espèces ou variétés deFusarium responsables de la pourriture sèche des tubercules de pomme de terre.Potato Research 29: 13–32.
Wastie, R. L., P. D. S. Caligari, Helen E. Stewart & G. R. Mackay, 1988. Assessing the resistance to gangrene of progenies of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) from parents differing in susceptibility.Potato Research 31: 355–365.
Wastie, R. L., Helen E. Stewart & J. Brown, 1989. Comparative susceptibility of some potato cultivars to dry rot caused byFusarium sulphureum andF. solani var.coeruleum.Potato Research 32: 49–55.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wastie, R.L., Bradshaw, J.E. Inheritance of resistance toFusarium spp. in tuber progenies of potato. Potato Res 36, 189–193 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02360527
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02360527