Seedling Response of Iranian Barley Landraces to Pyrenophora teres f. teres and Pyrenophora teres f. maculata

Abstract

Net blotch caused by Pyrenophora teres is an important pathogen of barley plants worldwide. There are two biotypes of the fungus. Pyrenophora teres f. teres (Ptt) causes the net form of the disease and Pyrenophora teres f. maculata (Ptm) causes the spot form of the disease. Barley landraces are good sources of disease resistance. In this study, seedling response of 25 barley landraces obtained from different regions of northwest Iran to 3 single spore isolates of Ptt and 3 single spore isolates of Ptm were determined under greenhouse conditions. Differences in virulence among the isolates were evident. Some landraces showed different responses to different isolates. Landraces # 9 and # 16 showed moderately resistant reactions to one isolate of Ptt and showed moderately resistant-moderately susceptible reactions to 2 isolates of Ptt. Landraces # 7, # 11, # 15, # 17, # 21, # 22, # 23 and # 25 showed moderately resistant-moderately susceptible reactions to all 3 isolates of Ptt. Landrace # 23 showed resistant-moderately resistant reaction to one isolate of Ptm and showed moderately resistant reactions to 2 isolates of Ptm. Landrace # 16 showed moderately resistant reactions to all isolates of Ptm. Landraces # 11, # 15, # 21 and # 25 showed moderately resistant reaction to one isolate of Ptm and showed moderately resistant-moderately susceptible reactions to 2 isolates of Ptm. Landraces that exhibited reactions between resistant and moderately resistant-moderately susceptible range could be used as a direct seeding material to the field or could be used as breeding materials.

Keywords

• Drechslera teres
• Barley
• Landrace
• Net form of net blotch
• Spot form of net blotch

References

1. Afanasenko O S, Makarova I G & Zubkovich A A (2000) Inheritance of resistance to different Pyrenophora teres Dreschs. strains in barley accession CI 5791. In: Abstracts, Proceedings of 8th International Barley Genetics Symposium, 22-27 October, Adelaide, South Australia. No. 2. 26, 73–75.
2. Aktaş H (1995) Reaction of Turkish and German barley varieties and lines to the virulent strain T4 of Pyrenophora teres. Rachis, 14: 9-13.
3. Allard R W & Bradshaw A D (1964) Implications of genotype-environment interaction in applied plant breeding. Crop Science 4: 503-508.
4. Burdon J J & Silk J (1997) Sources and patterns of diversity in plant-pathogenic fungi. Phytopathology 87: 664-669.
5. Ceccarelli S & Grando S (2000) Barley landraces from the Fertile Crescent. A lesson for plant breeders. In: Genes in the field, On –farm conservation of crop diversity, (S. B. Brush (ed.).Int. Plant Gen. Res. Institute, International Developmet Research Center, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton London New York Washington, D.C. 51-76 p.
6. Chakrabarti N K (1968) Some effects of ultraviolet radiation on resistance of barley to net blotch and spot blotch. Phytopathology 58(4): 467-471.
7. Çelik Oğuz A, Rahimi A & Karakaya A (2017a) Seedling response of Iranian barley landraces to Pyrenophora teres f. teres and Pyrenophora teres f. maculata. ICAFOF-International Conference on Agriculture, Forest Food Sciences and Technologies. 15-17 May 2017. Cappadocia. Turkey.
8. Çelik Oğuz A, Karakaya A, Ergün N & Sayim İ (2017b) Turkish barley landraces resistant to net and spot forms of Pyrenophora teres. Phytopathologia Mediterranea 56(2): 217−223.

9. Douiyssi A, Rasmusson D C & Roelfs A P (1998) Responses of barley cultivars and lines to isolates of Pyrenophora teres. Plant Disease 82: 316-321.
10. Ebrahimi A, Naghavi M R, Sabokdast M, Sarabshelli A M & Ghaderdan K (2013) Evaluation of genetic diversity of Iranian wild barley (Hordeum sp.) and landraces using morphological characters. Iranian Journal of Rangelands and Forests Plant Breeding and Genetic Research 21(1):56-66, En67.
11. Endresen D T F, Street K, Mackay M, Bari A & Pauw D E (2011) Predictive association between biotic stress traits and eco-geographic data for wheat and barley landraces. Crop Science 51: 2036–2055.
12. FAO (2015) http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/ (Access Date: 15.12.2016)
13. Frankel O H & Hawkes J G (1975) Crop Genetic Resources for Today and Tomorrow. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
14. Geçit H H (2016) Serin İklim Tahılları (Buğday, Arpa, Yulaf, Triticale). Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Yayınları, Yayın No:1640. Ankara.
15. Ghazvini H & Tekauz A (2007) Reactions of Iranian barley accessions to three predominant pathogens in Manitoba. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology 29: 69-78.
16. Harlan J R & Zohary D. 1966. Distribution of wild wheats and barley. Science 153:1074–1080.
17. Jana S & Bailey K L (1995) Responses of wild and cultivated barley from West Asia to net blotch and spot blotch. Crop Science 35: 242–246.
18. 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.
19. Khan T N & Boyd W J R (1969) Physiologic specialization in Drechslera teres. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 22: 1229-1235.
20. Khazaei A, Moghaddam M & Noormohammadi S (2012) Genetic diversity among winter barley landraces collected from west of Iran. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences 13(4): 671-683. (In Persian).
21. Khodayari H, Saeidi H, Roofigar A A, Rahiminejad M R, Pourkheirandish M & Komatsuda T. 2012. Genetic Diversity of Cultivated Barley Landraces in Iran Measured Using Microsatellites. International Journal of Bioscience, Biochemistry and Bioinformatics, 2(4): 287-290.
22. Lakew B, Semeane Y & Alemayehu F (1995) Evaluation of Ethiopian barley landraces for disease and agronomic characters. Rachis 14: 21–25.
23. Laurei D A, Snape J W & Gale M D (1992) DNA marker techniques for genetic analysis in barley. In: Barley: Genetics, Biochemistry, Molecular Biology and Biotechnology. Shewry, P.R. (ed), The Alden Press, Ltd, Oxford. 115-132 pp.
24. Legge W G, Metcalfe D R, Chiko A W, Martens J W & Tekauz A. 1996. Reaction of Turkish barley accessions to Canadian barley pathogens. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 76: 927–931.
25. Liu Z, Ellwood S R, Oliver R P & Friesen T L (2011). Pyrenophora teres: profile of an increasingly damaging barley pathogen. Molecular Plant Pathology 12 (1): 1-19.
26. Mathre D E (ed.) (1982) Compendium of Barley Diseases. APS Press. Minnesota,78 pp.
27. McLean M S, Howlett B J & Hollaway G J (2009) Epidemiology and control of spot form of net blotch (Pyrenophora teres f. maculata) of barley: a review. Crop & Pasture Science 60: 303–315.
28. McLean M S, Howlett B J, Turkington T K, Platz G L & Hollaway G J (2012) Spot form of net blotch resistance in a diverse set of barley lines in Australia and Canada. Plant Disease 96: 569–576.
29. Morrell P L & Clegg M T (2007) Genetic evidence for a second domestication of barley (Hordeum vulgare) east of the fertile crescent. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. (PNAS) 104(9): 3289-3294
30. Nesbitt M & Samuel D (1996) From staple crop to extinction? The archaelogy and history of the hulled wheats. In (S. Padulosı, K. Hammer, and J. Heller, eds.) Hulled wheats (Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Hulled Wheats). International Plant Genetics Resources Institute, Rome, Italy. Pp. 41–100.
31. Neupane A, Tamang P, Brueggeman R S & Friesen T L 2015. Evaluation of a barley core collection for spot form of net blotch reaction reveals distinct genotype-specific pathogen virulence and host susceptibility. Phytopathology 105: 509–517.
32. Nevo E (1992) Origin, evolution, population genetics and resources for breeding of wild barley, Hordeum spontaneum, in the Fertile Crescent. In: Barley: genetics, biochemistry, molecular biology and biotechnology, ( P. R. Shewry, ed.). C.A.B. International. 19-43 p.
33. Newton A C, Akar T, Baresel J P, Bebeli P J, Bettencourt E, Bladenopoulos K V, Czembor J H, Fasoula D A, Katsiotis A, Koutis K, Koutsika-Sotiriou M, Kovacs G, Larsson H, Pinheiro de Carvalho M A A, Rubiales D, Russell J, Dos Santos T M M & Vaz Patto M C (2010) Cereal landraces for sustainable agriculture. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 30(2): 237–269
34. Semeane Y (1995) Importance and control of barley leaf blights in Ethiopia. Rachis 14: 83–89.
35. Shipton W A, Khan T N & Boyd W J R (1973) Net blotch of barley. Review of Plant Pathology 52: 269-290.
36. Silvar C, Casas A M, Kopahnke D, Habekus A, Schweizer G, Gracia M P, Lasa J M, Ciudad F J, Molina-Cano J L, Igartua E & Ordon F (2010) Screening the Spanish Barley Core Collection for disease resistance. Plant Breeding 129: 45–52.
37. Tekauz A (1985) A numerical scale to classify reactions of barley to Pyrenophora teres. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology 7:181-183.
38. TUIK (2015) Türkiye istatistik Kurumu. Türkiye’de arpa üretimi https://biruni.tuik. gov.tr/bitkiselapp/bitkisel.zul. (Access Date: 29.12.2016).
39. Vavilov N I (1951) The origin, variation, immunity and breeding of cultivated plants, (translated from the Russian by K. S. Chester). Chronica Botanica 13 (1/6): 1-364 pp.
40. Von Bothmer R (1996) Annalen des Naturhistorischen. In Wien 98B Supplement, 107-116.
41. Yitbarek S, Berhane L, Fikadu A, Van Leur J A G, Grando S & Ceccarelli S (1998) Variation in Ethiopian barley landrace populations for resistance to barley leaf scald and net blotch, Plant Breeding 117: 419-423.
42. Zadoks J C, Chang T T & Konzak C F (1974) A demical code for the growth stages of cereals, Weed Research 14: 415- 421.
43. Zohary D & Hopf M (1993) Domestication of plants in the Old World. The origin and spread of cultivated plants in West Asia, Europe and the Nile Valley. Clarendon Press, Oxford, England.