slide1 l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Luis del Río North Dakota State University PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Luis del Río North Dakota State University

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 36

Luis del Río North Dakota State University - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 148 Views
  • Uploaded on

NCGA 5 th Annual Canola Research Conference. Canola Pathology Program. Research update 2011. Luis del Río North Dakota State University. Disease resistance:. Pre-breeding. Sources of resistance. Breeding lines. Disease management:. Epidemiology. Fungicide trials.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Luis del Río North Dakota State University' - danniell


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

NCGA 5th Annual Canola Research Conference

Canola Pathology Program

Research update 2011

Luis del Río

North Dakota State University

slide2

Disease resistance:

  • Pre-breeding
  • Sources of resistance
  • Breeding lines

Disease management:

  • Epidemiology
  • Fungicide trials
slide3

Pre-breeding - SSR

  • PI458939 x Ames 26628
  • 230 F2 plants inoculated using PIT in greenhouse
  • 69 F2 plants survived
  • F6 generation produced
  • Increasing seeds
slide4

Pre-breeding - SSR

PI458939 x Ames 26628

Mortality (%)

Generations

slide5

Identifying sources of resistance - SSR

  • USDA collection of Brassica napus
  • 300 lines evaluated for reaction to S. sclerotiorum using PIT
  • DNA samples extracted for association mapping
  • analysis
  • 3200 DArT markers used on population.
  • Data is being analyzed
slide6

Evaluation of breeding lines - SSR

  • 46 NDSU breeding lines with herbicide tolerance
  • Lab-produced ascospores and natural inoculum
  • Replicated trial
  • Incidence, severity, and yield
slide7

Evaluation of breeding lines - SSR

Sclerotinia stem rot incidence and severity in field trial. Langdon, 2011

Commercial controls

Breeding lines

SSR severity

l.s.d. (P=0.05) for incidence = 12%

Incidence (%)

Severity (1-5)

slide8

Evaluation of breeding lines - SSR

Langdon, 2011

Commercial controls

Breeding lines

Most resistant lines

Yield (lb/A)

slide9

Evaluation of breeding lines - SSR

Reaction of elite canola breeding lines to Sclerotinia stem rot in field conditions. Langdon, 2011

Lines

Incidence (%)

Severity (1-5)

2009

2010

2009

2010

2011

2011

11

4

-

11

15

10

0.3

0.1

-

0.3

0.4

0.2

9092

9023

9200

Check 1

Check 2

Trial mean

12

82

14

22

30

33

0.3

3.4

0.4

0.8

1.3

1.3

3

12

6

14

16

16

0.3

0.4

0.2

0.4

0.6

1.6

slide10

Identifying sources of resistance – Blackleg

0

3

Delwiche Blackleg scale cotyledon test

7

9

Pictures courtesy

of S. Markell

slide11

Identifying sources of resistance – Blackleg

Reaction of B. juncea accessions to inoculations with L. maculans at cotyledon stage.

1Phenotypic reaction: R = Resistance (0-2); I = Intermediate

resistance (3-6); and S = Susceptible (7-9)

slide12

Identifying sources of resistance – Blackleg

Materials that exhibited resistant reaction to different pathogenicity groups of L. maculans

Pathogenicity groups

Plant

introductions

2

3

4

T

181057

426356

426384

459007

478332

633106

-

R

-

-

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

-

R

R

-

-

R

R

-

R

R

R

slide13

Evaluation of breeding lines – Blackleg

Langdon, 2011

Commercial controls

Breeding lines

Severity

l.s.d. (P=0.05) for incidence = 24%

Severity (1-5)

Incidence (%)

slide14

Evaluation of breeding lines - Blackleg

Langdon, 2011

Commercial controls

Breeding lines

Most resistant lines

Yield (lb/A)

slide15

Evaluation of breeding lines – Blackleg

Reaction of canola breeding lines to blackleg in field conditions. Langdon, 2011

Lines

Incidence (%)

Severity (1-5)

2009

2010

2009

2010

2011

2011

28

27

30

25

32

33

32

1.7

2.8

2.4

1.7

1.6

2.1

2.0

4082

9023

9224

9067

Check1

Check 2

Trial mean

31

95

-

77

70

93

72

2.0

1.6

-

1.2

0.8

0.9

1.0

29

36

41

44

49

53

55

0.5

1.0

1.3

1.3

1.0

2.0

1.8

slide16

Disease resistance – Summary

  • Sclerotinia stem rot:
  • SSR-resistant B. napus population developed
  • Association mapping on B. napusPI collection in
  • progress
  • Best NDSU breeding lines identified
  • Blackleg:
  • B. junceaaccessions with resistance to PG2, PG-3, PG4,
  • and PG-T identified
  • Best NDSU breeding linesidentified
slide17

Disease Management

  • Epidemiology
    • Association between flea beetle and blackleg
    • Prevalence of blackleg pathogenicity groups
  • Fungicide trials
    • SSR- biologically-based fungicides
    • SSR- chemical fungicides
    • Chemical control of blackleg
slide18

Association between flea beetles and blackleg

  • Field trial in Langdon using cages
  • - Ten treatments, six replications
  • - Cages 20 x 5 ft
  • - Inoculated with spores or not
  • - 0 to 1,000 beetles per cage
  • - Cages lifted after 6th leaf stage
  • - Incidence and severity
  • measured before swath
slide20

Association between flea beetles and blackleg

  • GHSE trials
  • - Inoculated with spores or not
  • - Beetles allowed to feed before and after
  • inoculation
  • - Incidence and severity at flowering
  • - Three replications, trials repeated six
  • times
slide21

Association between flea beetles and blackleg

Spores alone

Flea beetle + spores

slide22

Association between flea beetles and blackleg

Incidence (%)

  • Effect of flea beetle on blackleg still not clear and may
  • depend on inoculum concentration
slide23

Prevalence of blackleg pathogenicity groups

  • Isolates collected from leaves from 54 fields
  • from seven ND counties between 2007 and 2008
  • Virulence profiles based on reaction on three
  • differentials: Westar, Glacier, and Quinta
slide25

Prevalence of blackleg pathogenicity groups

  • Eleven different PGs were detected affecting
  • canola foliage
  • PG-1 is most prevalent pathotype on leaves
  • although it can’t cause severe stem cankers
  • Ability to cause stem cankers not determined on newer PGs
slide26

SSR – Biologically-based fungicides

  • Polyversum (P. oligandrum) 1.5 and 3 oz, 30BF and/or at F
  • Serenade (2-3 qt at F)
  • Endura (6 oz) and Quash (2 oz) as controls

a

ab

ab

abc

abc

abc

abc

bcd

bcd

cd

cd

d

SSR incidence (%)

Severity (1-5)

slide27

SSR – Biologically-based fungicides

  • Endura, Polyversum (1.5 oz 30BF), Quash + Polyversum

a

ab

abc

abc

abcd

abcd

cd

bcd

cd

cd

d

d

Yield (lb/A)

slide28

a

b

SSR – Chemical fungicides

  • Langdon, 2011
  • Factorial study (18 trt)

Fungicide

Doses

Time of application

Topsin (T)

Endura (E)

Proline (P)

Quash (Q)

Switch (S)

Omega (O)

Tank mixes

20 fl oz

6 oz

5 fl oz

3 oz

6 oz

13.5 floz

50-50

F & F+7

F

F

F

F

F

F

slide29

SSR – Chemical fungicides

  • Intermediate level of disease pressure
  • Double applications (T+T, T+E, T+P) better

a

a

a

ab

ab

ab

ab

ab

abc

abc

abcd

abcd

abcd

abcd

abcd

SSR incidence (%)

Severity (1-5)

bcd

d

cd

slide30

SSR – Chemical fungicides

  • Higher yields with (T+E)*2, (T+P)*2, and E

a

a

a

ab

ab

abc

abcd

abcd

abcde

bcde

bcde

bcde

cde

cde

cde

cde

cde

Yield (lb/A)

cde

slide31

SSR – Chemical fungicides

SSR incidence and severity (average 2008-2011)

Percentage from control

Fungicides

slide32

SSR – Chemical fungicides

Yield (average 2008-2011)

Percentage from control

Fungicides

slide33

Blackleg –fungicide trials

  • Greenhouse seed treatment study:
  • Two experimental compounds on Westar
  • Seedlings inoculated at cotyledon stage
  • Replicated trial repeated three times
  • Disease incidence and severity at flowering
  • Foliar fungicide application in field:
  • Langdon commercial fields
  • Collaborators did not get to plant
slide34

Disease management- Summary

SSR:

  • Biological fungicides have potential
  • Tank mixing fungicides help reduce cost and
  • provide similar levels of control
  • Mixes combine fungicides from different FRAC
  • groups to reduce selection pressure on pathogen

Blackleg:

  • Seed treatment not effective
  • Foliar fungicide alone or in combination with
  • seed treatments in greenhouse
slide35

Acknowledgements

  • Canola Research Team:

Achala Nepal Dante Marino

  • PragyanBurlakoti Shanna Mazurek
  • Susan Ruud
  • DimuthuWijeyaratneAbhishek Kumar
  • Mr. Curt Doetkott
  • Dr. MukhlesurRahman
  • Mr. Scott Halley, Langdon REC
  • Dr. Michael Wunsch Carrington REC
  • Dr. Brian Jenks, North Central REC
  • USDA-ARS/Sclerotinia Initiative
  • North Dakota Canola Growers Association