Assessment of the Seedling Reactions of Some Hulless Barley Genotypes to Drechslera teres f. maculata

Abstract

The seedling reactions of three barley cultivars, one hulless barley cultivar, two candidate hulless barley lines and nine hulless barley genotypes were determined under greenhouse conditions to ten isolates of Drechslera teres f. maculata, the causal agent of spot form of net blotch. Isolates were obtained from Ankara, Çankırı, Eskişehir, Kayseri, Konya and Şanlıurfa provinces. The reactions of the cultivars and hulless cultivar ranged between suscepible-resistant. The reactions of the hulless candidate lines and genotypes ranged between resistant-moderately resistant-moderately susceptible with the exception of Candidate line 8 which showed a moderately susceptible reaction to the 3 isolates. There were differences among the reactions of the cultivars and genotypes to the isolates of the fungus. Isolates showed some differences in pathogenicity for each cultivar. Generally, resistance was found among the hulless barley cultivars and genotypes to Drechslera teres f. maculata. Tomarza isolate was the most virulent isolate.

Keywords

• Barley, Drechslera teres, Pyrenophora teres, net blotch, disease resistance, Turkey

References

1. Aktaş H, (1987). Untersuchungen Uber Die physiologi-sche Variationen von Drechslera teres (Sacc.) Sho-emaker an der Mittelanatolien angebauten Gersten und die Feststellung der Reaktionen der Gerstensor-ten gegen diesen Erreger. Journal of Turkish Phyto-pathology 16:53 – 65.
2. Aktaş H, (1995). Reaction of Turkish and German barley varieties and lines to the virulent strain T4 of Pyrenophora teres. Rachis 14 (1/2): 52-65.
3. Aktaş H, (1997). Untersuchungen Nuber die Netz-fleckenkrankheiten (Drechslera teres Shoem. f.sp. teres Smedeg. D. Teres Shoem. f.sp. maculata Smedeg.) an Gerste. Journal of Turkish Phyto-pathology 26: 17 – 22.
4. Yalcın E, Sayim İ, Ergun N, (2011). Effect of defatting on some functional properties of whole grain barley flours. Polish Journal of Food and Nutrition Sci-ences 61 (Suppl. 1):113.
5. FAO, (2011). http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/default.aspx
6. Gamba F, Tekauz A, (2000). First report of differential virulence in Uruguayan isolates of Pyrenophora te-res. In: Logue S, editor. 8th International Barley Genetics Symposium 22-27 October 2000; Ade-laide, South Australia: pp. 113-114.
7. Geçit H, Emeklier Y, İkincikarakaya S, Adak MS, Kolsarıcı Ö, Ekiz H, Altınok S, Sancak C, Sevimay CS, Kendir H, (2009). Tarla Bitkileri. Ankara. Tur-key: Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Yayınları.
8. Harlan JR, (1992). Crops and man. 2nd ed. Wisconsin. USA: American Society of Agronomy, Crop Sci-ence Society of America.

9. Karakaya A, Akyol A, (2006). Determination of the seedling reactions of some Turkish barley cultivars to the net blotch. Plant Pathology Journal 5(1): 113-114.
10. Kün E, (1996). Tahıllar-1 (Serin İklim Tahılları). Anka-ra. Turkey: Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Yayınları.
11. Liu Z, Elwood SR, Oliver RP, Friesen TL, (2011). Pyre-nophora teres: profile of an increasingly damaging barley pathogen. Molecular Plant Pathology 12: 1-19.
12. Mathre DE, (1982). Compendium of barley diseases. Minnesota: APS Press..
13. Mızrak G, Yalvaç K, (2001). Ülkemizde buğday ve arpa tarımının bugünkü durumu ve geleceği. Ziraat Mühendisliği 332: 7-15.
14. Newman CW, Newman RK, (2008). Barley for Food and Health Science, Technology, and Products. New Jersey: Wiley.
15. Shipton WA, Khan TN, Boyd WJR, (1973). Net blotch of barley. Review of Plant Pathology 52: 269 – 290.
16. Tan A, (1998). Current status of plant genetic resources conservation in Turkey. In: Zencirci N, Kaya Z, An-ikster Y, Adams WT, editors. The Proceeding of In-ternational Symposium on In situ Conservation of Plant Genetic Diversity, 4-8 November 1996; An-talya, Turkey. pp. 5-16.
17. Taşkoparan H, Karakaya A, (2009). Assessment of the seedling reactions of some barley cultivars to Drechslera teres f. maculata. Selçuk Tarım ve Gıda Bilimleri Dergisi 23(50): 60-62.
18. Tekauz A, (1985). A numerical scale to classify reac-tions of barley to Pyrenophora teres. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology 7: 181 – 183.
19. Tekauz A, (1990). Characterization and distribution of pathogenic variation in Pyrenophora teres f. teres and Pyrenophora teres f. maculata from Western Canada. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology 12: 141-148.
20. Yalçın E, Çelik S, Akar T, Sayim İ, Köksel H, (2006). Kavuzsuz Arpanın Önemi, Beta- glukan ve Besin Lif içerigi. In: Hububat 2006, Hububat Ürünleri Teknolojisi Kongresi, 7-8 Eylül 2006; Gaziantep Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Gıda Mühendis-liği Bölümü. pp. 399-403.
21. Zadoks JC, Chang TT, Konzak CF, (1974). A decimal code for the growths stages of cereals. Weed Re-search 14:41.