1 / 36

Luis del Río North Dakota State University

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.

danniell
Download Presentation

Luis del Río North Dakota State University

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NCGA 5th Annual Canola Research Conference Canola Pathology Program Research update 2011 Luis del Río North Dakota State University

  2. Disease resistance: • Pre-breeding • Sources of resistance • Breeding lines Disease management: • Epidemiology • Fungicide trials

  3. Pre-breeding - SSR • PI458939 x Ames 26628 • 230 F2 plants inoculated using PIT in greenhouse • 69 F2 plants survived • F6 generation produced • Increasing seeds

  4. Pre-breeding - SSR PI458939 x Ames 26628 Mortality (%) Generations

  5. 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

  6. Evaluation of breeding lines - SSR • 46 NDSU breeding lines with herbicide tolerance • Lab-produced ascospores and natural inoculum • Replicated trial • Incidence, severity, and yield

  7. 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)

  8. Evaluation of breeding lines - SSR Langdon, 2011 Commercial controls Breeding lines Most resistant lines Yield (lb/A)

  9. 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

  10. Identifying sources of resistance – Blackleg 0 3 Delwiche Blackleg scale cotyledon test 7 9 Pictures courtesy of S. Markell

  11. 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)

  12. 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

  13. 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 (%)

  14. Evaluation of breeding lines - Blackleg Langdon, 2011 Commercial controls Breeding lines Most resistant lines Yield (lb/A)

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. Association between flea beetles and blackleg

  20. 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

  21. Association between flea beetles and blackleg Spores alone Flea beetle + spores

  22. Association between flea beetles and blackleg Incidence (%) • Effect of flea beetle on blackleg still not clear and may • depend on inoculum concentration

  23. 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

  24. Prevalence of blackleg pathogenicity groups

  25. 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

  26. 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)

  27. 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)

  28. 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

  29. 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

  30. 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

  31. SSR – Chemical fungicides SSR incidence and severity (average 2008-2011) Percentage from control Fungicides

  32. SSR – Chemical fungicides Yield (average 2008-2011) Percentage from control Fungicides

  33. 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

  34. 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

  35. 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

More Related