Disease resistance in cool-season forage range and turf grasses II

Braverman, S. W.

doi:10.1007/bf02861012

Cited by 29 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 185 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additional genetic gains in disease resistance can be made by continued selection for plants free from diseases in breeding programs. Genetic sources of resistance have been reported for almost every disease of economically important cool-season grasses (Braverman, 1986). A similar situation probably exists in warm-season grasses.…”

Section: Disease and Insect Resistancementioning

confidence: 63%

Improving Warm-Season Forage Grasses Using Selection, Breeding, and Biotechnology

Vogel

2015

Native Warm-Season Grasses: Research Trends and Issues

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Disease and Insect Resistancementioning

confidence: 63%

Improving Warm-Season Forage Grasses Using Selection, Breeding, and Biotechnology

Vogel

2015

Native Warm-Season Grasses: Research Trends and Issues

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It is also important to recognize that this genetic correlation may not actually represent linked or pleiotropic loci per se, but may be physiological in nature. If Drechslera has a detrimental eect on forage yield, as occurs for most fungal pathogens (Braverman 1986), some of the genetic variation for forage yield may be caused by Drechslera infection acting to reduce the yield of some families in the original progeny test (Casler 1991) and some populations in the current study (Table 2). Similarly, part of the increases in forage yield observed in this study may be a direct result of increased resistance to Drechslera.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Half‐sib family selection for forage yield in orchardgrass

Casler¹,

Fales²,

McElroy³

et al. 2002

Plant Breeding

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Genetic variation for forage yield of orchardgrass is abundant, but there are few reports of progress from selection for increased forage yield. The objective of this study was to estimate direct effects of selection from one cycle of half‐sib family selection for forage yield in orchardgrass. Eleven selected populations were compared with their parent populations within three maturity groups. Populations were evaluated under hay management at three locations and management‐intensive rotational grazing at two locations. Nine of the 11 selected populations differed, by an average of 7.4%, from their parent population in forage yield. Nine of the selected populations also showed changes in Drechslera leafspot reaction, all indicating a negative genetic correlation with forage yield. Selection for high forage yield tended to result in greater ground cover and later relative maturity. However, changes in net herbage accumulation (NHA) under rotational grazing were generally not significant and were uncorrelated with changes in forage yield, indicating that forage yield of hay plots is not correlated with the NHA of grazed plots. Although genetic gains in forage yield measured under hay management were very favourable relative to other reports from the literature, the lack of correlated progress under grazing management indicates that directed selection for NHA of orchardgrass should be conducted under grazing management.

show abstract

“…Alkaloid production depends on host and endophyte genotype and environmental conditions (Roylance et al 1994, Leuchtmann et al 2000, Wilkinson et al 2000). The high concentrations of multiple types of alkaloids in agronomic grasses may have resulted from limited plant and endophyte genetic diversity in original accessions (Saikkonen 2000) and subsequent inbreeding of cultivars relative to native grasses (Braverman 1986), combined with selection by intense and consistent grazing. Generally, native populations of the perennial ryegrass and tall fescue have much more variable, and often reduced, levels, and fewer types of alkaloids compared with their domesticated counterparts (Leuchtmann et al 2000, Bony et al 2001).…”

Section: Why Are Defensive Mutualisms Rare?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Are endophytic fungi defensive plant mutualists?

Faeth

2002

Oikos

280

269

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Endophytic fungi, especially asexual, systemic endophytes in grasses, are generally viewed as plant mutualists, mainly through the action of mycotoxins, such as alkaloids in infected grasses, which protect the host plant from herbivores. Most of the evidence for the defensive mutualism concept is derived from studies of agronomic grass cultivars, which may be atypical of many endophyte‐host interactions. I argue that endophytes in native plants, even asexual, seed‐borne ones, rarely act as defensive mutualists. In contrast to domesticated grasses where infection frequencies of highly toxic plants often approach 100%, natural grass populations are usually mosaics of uninfected and infected plants. The latter, however, usually vary enormously in alkaloid levels, from none to levels that may affect herbivores. This variation may result from diverse endophyte and host genotypic combinations that are maintained by changing selective pressures, such as competition, herbivory and abiotic factors. Other processes, such as spatial structuring of host populations and endophytes that act as reproductive parasites of their hosts, may maintain infection levels of seed‐borne endophytes in natural populations, without the endophyte acting as a mutualist.

show abstract

Disease resistance in cool-season forage range and turf grasses II

Cited by 29 publications

References 185 publications

Improving Warm-Season Forage Grasses Using Selection, Breeding, and Biotechnology

Improving Warm-Season Forage Grasses Using Selection, Breeding, and Biotechnology

Half‐sib family selection for forage yield in orchardgrass

Are endophytic fungi defensive plant mutualists?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About