1994
DOI: 10.21273/hortsci.29.1.44
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

`Chase' Pinto Dry Bean

Abstract: Additional index words. Phaseolus vulgaris, rust, common bacterial blight, halo blight, bacterial brown spot, white mold The release of 'Chase' fulfills a need in southwestern Nebraska for a Pinto dry bean cultivar (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) with resistance to rust [Uromyces appendiculatus (Pers.) Unger] and several bacterial diseases. Rust, common bacterial blight [Xanthomonas campestris pv. phaseoli (Smith) Dye], and bacterial brown spot (Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae van Hall) diseases have recently reduce… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
27
0

Year Published

1999
1999
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
3
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
(2 reference statements)
0
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, introgressing white mold resistance from P. coccineus accessions G 35171 and PI 433246 and P. dumosus accession G 35877 was not successful, possibly because of elimination of whole chromosomes and/or segments carrying the white mold resistance genes and/or QTL and related incompatibility problems common in interspecies crosses (Manshardt and Bassett, 1984; Singh et al, 2009a). White mold resistance derived from P. vulgaris × P. coccineus populations appeared to be higher and more stable across multilocation greenhouse and field environments (Steadman et al, 2001) than that available in pinto ‘Chase’ (Coyne et al, 1994) and breeding line USPT‐WM‐1 (Miklas et al, 2006a). Singh et al (2009a, 2012) developed white mold resistant interspecific breeding line VRW 32 by recurrent backcrossing of ICA Pijao with P. costaricensis accession G 40604.…”
Section: Germplasm Enhancementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, introgressing white mold resistance from P. coccineus accessions G 35171 and PI 433246 and P. dumosus accession G 35877 was not successful, possibly because of elimination of whole chromosomes and/or segments carrying the white mold resistance genes and/or QTL and related incompatibility problems common in interspecies crosses (Manshardt and Bassett, 1984; Singh et al, 2009a). White mold resistance derived from P. vulgaris × P. coccineus populations appeared to be higher and more stable across multilocation greenhouse and field environments (Steadman et al, 2001) than that available in pinto ‘Chase’ (Coyne et al, 1994) and breeding line USPT‐WM‐1 (Miklas et al, 2006a). Singh et al (2009a, 2012) developed white mold resistant interspecific breeding line VRW 32 by recurrent backcrossing of ICA Pijao with P. costaricensis accession G 40604.…”
Section: Germplasm Enhancementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…USPT-CBB-1 is a pinto breeding line from USDA-ARS, Prosser with growth habit type II, moderate resistance to common bacterial blight, and a susceptible reaction to WM. Interspecific breeding line 92BG-7 derived from a cross between P. vulgaris/ P. coccineus has small black seed, indeterminate type III growth habit, partial resistance to WM, and resistance to BCMV and rust (Miklas et al 1998 (Coyne et al 1994). Like 92BG-7, I9365-25 is an interspecific breeding line derived from the cross between P. vulgaris and P. coccineus.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An integrated strategy encompassing crop rotation, minimum fertilizer rate, reduced irrigation, timely fungicide application, and less susceptible cultivar, is used to manage white mold disease in bean (Schwartz and Steadman, 1989). A few pinto cultivars, Chase (Coyne et al, 1994) and Maverick (Grafton et al, 1997), possess a low level of partial resistance to white mold. Pinto bean cultivars with moderate to high levels of partial resistance have not been developed yet because resistance is difficult to breed for, due in part to low heritability (Fuller et al, 1984; Lyons et al, 1987; Kolkman and Kelly, 2002; Miklas and Grafton, 1992; Miklas et al, 2004; Park et al, 2001).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%