Resistance of pea genotypes in relation to sporulation by Erysiphe pisi

Banyal, D. K.; Tyagi, Purnima

doi:10.1016/s0261-2194(96)00066-x

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, Tiwari et al (1997a) found little variability in apparent virulence between 31 single colony isolates of E. pisi tested against a set of 14 pea lines that represented the known powdery mildew reaction genotypes. Similarly, Banyal and Tyagi (1997) found no differences in virulence between a number of isolates although they varied somewhat in their ability to produce conidiophores bearing conidia.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Macroscopic and Histological Characterisation of Genes er1 and er2 for Powdery Mildew Resistance in Pea

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fondevilla, S., Carver, T. L. W., Moreno, M. T., Rubiales, D. (2006). Macroscopic and histological characterisation of genes er1 and er2 for powdery mildew resistance in pea. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 115, (3), 309-321 Keywords: grain legumes - haustorium - histology - hypersensitive resistanceIn pea, two single recessive genes, er1 and er2, have been identified for resistance to powdery mildew caused by Erysiphe pisi, but little is known about their mode of action. Pea accessions carrying the genes er1 or er2 and other accessions displaying resistance to powdery mildew in the field were studied. In accessions carrying gene er1, epidermal cell penetration was prevented and very few haustoria or colonies were formed. Under controlled conditions, er1 conferred complete or almost complete resistance to the fungal isolates used and this resistance was not associated with macroscopically visible necrosis. Under field conditions these accessions developed a low level of disease. Resistance in line JI2480 (carrying er2) increased with temperature and leaf age, and complete resistance was expressed only at high temperature (25 ?C) or in mature leaves. This resistance was based mainly on post-penetration cell death, complemented by a reduction of percentage penetration success in mature leaves. Combining the resistance provided by gene er1 and by line JI2480 into new cultivars is likely to increase their level of resistance and enhance durability of the protection.Peer reviewe

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Macroscopic and Histological Characterisation of Genes er1 and er2 for Powdery Mildew Resistance in Pea

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Singh and Singh (1983) observed significant differences in both conidiophore and conidial formation among susceptible, moderately resistant, and highly resistant cultivars. Banyal and Tyagi (1997) also observed a much higher density of conidial production on susceptible cultivars than on a moderately resistant cultivar. ViljanenRollinson et al (1998) reported 25% less conidial production per unit area and 33% less maximum daily conidial production on the partially resistant cultivar Quantum compared with a susceptible cultivar.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Evaluation of components of resistance to powdery mildew in field pea

Xue¹,

Dyck²,

Warkentin³

2004

Can. J. Plant Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field trials were conducted to evaluate 12 field pea (Pisum sativum L.) cultivars and lines (AC Melfort, AC Tamor, Highlight, Tara, 267-PS210713, 89-2910, JI100, JI1543, JI95, JI96, PI273605, PI311112) for resistance to disease progression and components of resistance to powdery mildew (Erysiphe pisi DC.), in comparison to the susceptible check cultivar Radley in 1998 and 1999. The disease progression was measured as area under the disease progress curve (AUDPC) and the components of resistance were leaf area with symptoms (LAS), lesion diameter (LD), lesion numbers (LN), and sporulation (SP). All 12 lines had significantly lower AUDPC, LAS, LN, and SP than the susceptible check, but only five (AC Tamor, Tara, 267-PS210713, 89-2910, JI1543) showed a smaller LD. A greater range of variability was observed for AUDPC, LAS, and LN than for SP among the 12 lines, suggesting that AUDPC, LAS, and LN are more useful for measuring varietal resistance. Since AUDPC, LAS, and LN were highly correlated (P < 0.01), only one component would be required in screening pea lines for powdery mildew resistance. Key words: Powdery mildew, Erysiphe pisi, field pea, Pisum sativum, resistance

show abstract

“…Resistance in lines S 1 143 (highly resistant) and A474-288 (moderately resistant) is expressed by the inhibition of secondary hyphae and conidiophore formation (Singh & Singh, 1983). Differences in sporulation, represented by number of conidiophores bearing conidia per colony, were also detected in a set of pea lines with variable reactions to powdery mildew (Banyal & Tyagi, 1997a). Similarly, the incomplete resistance shown by the pea cultivar Quantum was found to be based on a lower infection efficiency and conidial production accompanied by a longer time to reach maximum conidial production per day (Viljanen-Rollinson et al, 1998).…”

Section: Sources Of Resistancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Banyal and Tyagi (1997a) evaluated the reaction of 25 genotypes of pea to seven single colony isolates of E. pisi collected from different locations in the Lahaul Valley of Hymachal Pradesh (India) and found differences in their ability to produce conidiophores bearing conidia. Tiwari et al (1997a), evaluating pea in the field at different locations, found that some pea lines were susceptible at some locations but resistant at others.…”

Section: Choice Of Appropriate Isolatementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Detached leaf assays for powdery mildew in pea have been highly correlated with reactions observed in whole plants (Warkentin et al, 1995). Cut leaves can be placed in Petri dishes on filter paper or sheets of cotton, containing a solution of 5% of sucrose (Singh & Singh, 1983;Tiwari et al, 1997a;Warkentin et al, 1995) or floating them on this solution or on tap water (Banyal & Tyagi, 1997a). Inoculation methods for detached leaves comprise dusting conidia from infected leaves directly onto them or using a camel hair brush (Tiwari et al, 1997a;Vaid & Tyagi, 1997).…”

Section: In Vitro Assaysmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation