FINAL REPORT CIM00011: Root Disease Component CIMMYT GRDC Alliance Project

desertdysfunctionalInternet και Εφαρμογές Web

4 Δεκ 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 10 μήνες)

79 εμφανίσεις



FINAL REPORT CIM00011: Root Disease Component CIMMYT
GRDC Alliance Project


Prepared by Dr Julie Nicol, CIMMYT Soil Borne Wheat Pathologist, Turkey.
21/06/08


This overview will be divided into 3 component (A,B and C);

A. ANNUAL DELIVERY OF ROOT DISEASE

RESISTANCE GERMPLASM
TO AUSTRALIA

As indicated in the Final GRDC Report the following deliveries were made to
Australia to the AWCC, and the breeders and pathologists were infromed of these.

Att#1 151 SW lines in 2003

Att#4 86 SW lines in later 2006/2007

Att#5 28 SW lines, 25 WW lines, 12 Durum SW lines, and 6 Durum WW lines.


From these lines and those already housed in the AWCC, 2 nurseries were distributed
in Australia;

1. 1st Root Disease Resistance Nursery (1st RDRN, 57 entries) elaborated in B

1. 1s
t Root Rot Nematode Australia (1st RRNEMA, 38 entries) elaborated in C


Unfortunately the last delivery at the end of the project (Att#5) was not increased by
AWCC due to insect problems, however more germplasm will be sent to replace this.


One of the cha
llenges with these nurseries is to ensure the update and usability of
them for the breeders, and in future it is recommended that these materials are sent
only from CIMMYT Mexico in consolidated shipments designated as part of the new
Soil Borne Pathogen G
RDC CIMMYT Alliance Project.



B. REACTION OF CURRENT AND NEW ROOT DISEASE RESISTANT
SOURCES FROM THE 1st ROOT DISEASE RESISTANCE NURSERY
-

1st
RDRN (Att#2) IN BOTH AUSTRALIAN AND INTERNATIONAL
LOCATIONS


Objective:

To understand the usability of the cur
rent and new sources of root disease
resistance through the development and collation from the '1st Root Disease
Resistance Nursery' screened in different regions of Australia and OS. This nursery
is a compilation of all of the known existing sources of

Root Disease Resistance (both
parental and breeding lines). This nursery was screened especially by specific disease
specialists in different regions.


The data for the 57 entries of 1st RDRN has only most recently been collated, due to
mentioned probl
ems with seed increase in Australia of the nursery and also the effects
of the drought on collection of data in 2006. The objective of this nursery was to
collect Root Disease Resistant data from the currently known globally published
sources of root d
isease resistance. This data was collected from various regions in
Australia and overseas to identify the lines performed well across regions and
diseases. It is important to note these lines are sources and only some of them are
highly adapted breedin
g lines.


In Australia there was much interest in taking part in the nursery with 16 collaborators
joining the project (Att#6). Several of the collaborators assessed this nursery for traits
other than root diseases which enhanced the data set for the bree
ders and pathologist
alike.


With respect to responses (Att#8);

75% (12 out of 16) have returned nursery data

12% (2 out of 16) failed to respond

12% (2 out of 16) were unable to provide any data due to staff changes

For overseas collaborators who receive
d the seed later than Australian counterparts,
46% (6 out of 13) have responded and the rest are still screening or planning to screen
the nursery.


It should be mentioned that one of the significant
challenges

which has been clearly
demonstrated

by this w
ork is the problems with data variation between replicates,
consistent screening methods and data
interpretation

to enable relative comparison of
collaborator information
. In this work all attempts have been made to collect highly
replicated data with st
andard check lines. All protocols of collaborators were
recorded, and data analysed and as much as possible standardized in resistance rating
system in collaboration with each collaborator (as given in Att#9a). S
everal
collaborators
(myself included),

indicate they like to repeat the data at least twice to
be sure of the responses. As can been seen in Att#9b, in some cases 3
-
4
collaborators screened the same disease, however the data was not consistent between
collaborators and in this case the rati
ng was given a ?. This further supports the fact
that several years of data, and
preferably

both greenhouse and field data is needed to
be sure the trait
data can be correctly interpreted
.


Key results from the 1st RDRN from Australia indicate (Att#9)
;

1. E
xcluding

standard checks more than 40%
(20/50) of the lines were found to have
resistance to two or more root diseases in Australia (CCN, CR, RLN).

2. Excluding standard checks 38%
(19/50) of the lines had resistance to at least one
root disease.

3.
66% (33/50) had resistance to one or more root disease in addition to several other
valuable breeding traits (eg Yield, Yellow Rust, Low LMA etc
-

see Att#9a).

4. The limited yield data on the adapted lines clearly indicates the yield advantage

-

59% of th
e lines in the nursery are higher yielding than Sunva
le, however more
data.

5. Several of the synthetic hexaploids (entries

17 &
31) from CIMMYT have good
resistan
ce to CCN in addition to other root diseases and valuable traits.

Also the
CreR

source (entr
y 1) from rye is also effective, howeve
r

Cre2

and
Cre7
resistant sources appear ineffective.

6. Several of the lines in the nursery offer resistance against Fusarium Head Scab at a
similar level to Sumai
-
3,
including

two synthetic derivatives from Mexico (
entry
41 & 52) which are both in reasonably adapted backgrounds.

7. It cannot be assumed from observations in CIMMYT that sources with combined
CR and FHS will have the same reaction in Australia. Some of the lines did (as
in point 6), as well as the co
mmonly accepted

CR sources (2
-
49, Sunco, Sun23
&

Ventura) also illustrating FHS resistance. However in some cases this did not
o
ccur indicating careful screen
ing and validation is required.

8. Sun23 was found to be an
outstanding

line for Root Disease wit
h CCN, CR, RLN
and FHS resistance along with many other valuable traits.

9. With respect to CR resistance several known sources have been validated in
addition to confirmed data of pyramided resistance to other Soil Borne
Pathogens from Mexico. Under fiel
d conditions 43% have resistance equivalent
to the best known source (Sunco) and under greenhouse screening around 22
-
28% express resistance with some of these being in common.

10. With respect to the limited CR SSR marker data from both Sunco and 2
-
49 it

can
be said;

a. as expected Sunco, 2
-
49 had the 2B+ allele from Sunco

b. Potch (a South African line entry 43), had 2B from Sunco and 1D from 2
-
49,
and also phenotypically was found to be good for CR.

c. Chirya (a Chinese line entry 53) a CR and FHS soru
ce from CIMMYT also
appears to have 1A from 2
-
49 marker.

d. Several of the double haploids for RLN (entries 11
-
14) appear to have the 1A
2
-
49 marker, which was not expected based on the pedigree.

e. The Queensland line Baxter (entry 45)
phenotypically

goo
d for CR also has
the 1D 2
-
49 allele, similarly most
likely

related to its pedigree.

11
. Unfortunately

greenhouse screening data

from Australia

have not been
contributed for RLN
-

either
P. thornei

or
P. neglectus
. This is a great pity as
many of the line
s in the nursery have been included for this purpose, especially
with the aim to pyramid with CR resistance. The breeders were keen for this
work to be done, however
due to staff changes, restricted
resources
and drought
in 2006 this was not possible.



C
. REACTION OF ROOT DISEASE RESISTANCE TRAITS WITH THE 1st
ROOT ROT NEMATODE NURSERY AUSTRALIA
-

1st RRNEMA (Att#3) .


Objective:

to provide to the
principally

the breeding community confirmed sources of
advanced breeding lines from CIMMYT for various Roo
t Diseases.


In Australia 14 collaborators requested see of this nursery (Att#6), with more than
half being breeders who planned to assess the nursery under field conditions for
overall performance

and reaction to some of the root disease traits.

With re
spect to responses (Att#8);

21% (3 out of 14)
did not respond to email requests to report on the data

14%
(2 out of 14) were unable to screen the nursery in the end due to staff changes

30%
(4 out of 14) did provide data on the nursery

35% (5 out of 14) di
d not provide

any data.


One of the major problems with this nursery is that seed was distributed in 2006, and
many planted but suffered drought, hence could not report on the materials. Several
of these planted again in 2007, however only some reported

on the performance of
material. Furthermore several staff changes in various
institutions

lead to materials
not being evaluated at all. Thanks are given to Dr Meiqin Li
(AGT Narrabri)
for
sending extra sets of germplasm to interested collaborators for
the 2007 season.


Nevertherless from the four sets of data which were returned (Att#10), with three of
them evaluating the material for their field
performance

against CR;

1. More than 54% (19 out of 35) of the nursery had confirmed field resistance to
Su
nco from AGT N
arrabri results;

17% (6 out of 35) had better

CR
performance than Sunco, and 37% (13 out of 35) were equivalent to Sunco.

2. More than 51% (18 out of 35) of the nursery had confirmed field resistance to
Sunco

from Syngenta Narrabri resul
ts;

34% (12 out of 35) had better
performance than Sunco, and 17% (6 out of 35) were equivalent to Sunco.

3. Only 28% (10 out of 35) of the nursery had
confirmed

resistance equivalent to
Sunco from LRC.

4. Of the 3 data sets collected for CR under field
co
nditions
26% (9 out of
35) of the
entries were in agree
ance with each other for CR (these are highlighted in
Yellow in Att#10), whilst 40% (14 out of 35) did not give the same rating.
This infers it is essential to collect multiple sets of data over se
asons and
locations to be sure of the results.

5. Manisha Shanker and Robin Wilson send data from quarantine site relating to basic
phenotype. Several of the lines were harvested and promoted for further
evaluation. AGT (Meiqin Li) and Damien Herde (LRC
) are continuing to
evaluate the performance of this material for both disease and overall
performance
. Several other breeders indicated they were doing the same (Peter
Martin, Russell Eastwood), however no additional data is
available

at this time.

6. M
any of these lines were specifically
chosen

for Australia due to confirmed data
from Mexico both for CR and RLN. Unfortunately, as with the RDRN, no one
evaluated this nursery for RLN resistance or tolerance in Australia, principally
due to staff changes

and the drought in 2006
, which is a pity.

7.
Concluding

from the limited data returned it can be said;

a. Two highly
adapted

synthetic

derivatives (Entry 1 & 26) offer additional
sources of CR resistance. The SABUF...(Entry 26) was also present in the 1s
t RDRN
and is confirmed for CR resistance by various Australian collaborators. Furthermore
both of these lines have been found to have FHS resistance.

b. Two Chinese lines with FHS (Entry 15 & 17) also in adapted backgrounds
provide additional sources of

CR resistance. CHIRYA.3 (Entry 17) was also present
in the 1st RDRN and is
confirmed for

CR resistance by various Australian
collaborators.

c. Six advanced high
yielding

lines with CIMMYT/Australian pedigrees
including 6 selections of GS50A/SUNCO/CUNNI
NGHAM (Entries 6, 7, 9, 10 & 11)
and one SUNCO/PASTOR (Entry 13) have higher yields than Sunco (from Mexico)
and provide very good level of CR resistance. The Entries 6 and 7 also have
confirmed RLN
-

P. thornei

tolerance from the 1st RDRN data, and alt
hough it was
not provided from Australia the data from Turkey indicated
P. thornei

resistance in
entries 6, 7 and 11.


Publications and presentations

1. One paper has been published from the International Wheat Congress in Argentina, 2007 (Att#11)

2. One
paper has been accepted to be presented at the International Wheat Genetics Symposium,
Australia August 2008 (Att#7)

Technical details of the project and updates of information have been sent to the CIMMYT User group
website and presentations made in accor
dance with the routine schedule.