| Literature DB >> 29085252 |
Dorota Milczarek1, Jarosław Plich1, Beata Tatarowska1, Bogdan Flis1.
Abstract
Cultivating resistant varieties of potato is the most effective and environmentally safe method of protecting against pests and diseases that affect potato crops. Therefore, potato breeding is focused on developing more resistant varieties so that the use of plant health products can be reduced during the cultivation cycle. Resistance to late blight, viruses and nematodes is the most important agricultural requirement. The use of molecular markers allows for the effective selection of resistant genotypes at early stages of breeding. However, the impact of early selection for resistance on the agronomic value of the final selected clones is a cause of concern for breeders. This study investigates the relationship between the presence of the combined resistance genes H1, Ry-fsto and Rpi-phu1, which confer resistance to nematodes, potato virus Y and late blight, respectively, and certain agricultural traits. The agronomic performance of most clones with and without the identified resistance genes was similar in terms of tuber yield, tuber size, tuber shape regularity, eye depth and tuber defect intensity. Some combinations with Ry-fsto may produce higher yields but may also be associated with more tuber defects. No negative relationships were observed between the combined resistance genes H1 + Ry-fsto + Rpi-phu1 and potato quality.Entities:
Keywords: MAS; Solanum tuberosum; breeding; combined resistance; quality
Year: 2017 PMID: 29085252 PMCID: PMC5654467 DOI: 10.1270/jsbbs.17035
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Breed Sci ISSN: 1344-7610 Impact factor: 2.086
Crosses and progenitors, including their resistance genes and the number of evaluated progeny genotypes
| Progeny | Female parent | Resistance genes | Male parent | Resistance genes | Number of progeny clones |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | Batja | 04-IX-4 | 51 | ||
| II | PS 1761 | 04-IX-21 | 83 | ||
| III | TG 97-403 | PS 1763 | 74 | ||
|
| |||||
| Total | 208 | ||||
Number of clones with the identified resistance genes H1, Ry-f and Rpi-phu1
| Identified resistance genes | Batja × 04-IX-4 | PS 1761 × 04-IX-21 | TG 97-403 × PS 1763 | ∑ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | – | 10 | 21 | |
| – | 20 | 8 | 28 | |
| 14 | 24 | 7 | 45 | |
| – | – | 13 | 13 | |
| 12 | – | 7 | 19 | |
| – | 21 | 6 | 27 | |
| – | – | 11 | 11 | |
| none | 14 | 18 | 12 | 44 |
Mean values and standard deviations of the agronomic traits in the evaluated progenies
| Progeny | Cross | Total tuber yield (kg/plant) | Tuber size | Regularity of tuber shape | Eye depth | Defects of tubers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | Batja × 04-IX-4 | 1.0 ± 0.5 | 4.7 ± 1.9 | 6.0 ± 0.6 | 5.2 ± 1.9 | 3.2 ± 1.0 |
| II | PS 1761 × 04-IX-21 | 1.2 ± 0.6 | 4.5 ± 1.6 | 6.1 ± 0.6 | 5.5 ± 1.3 | 2.8 ± 1.1 |
| III | TG 97-403 × PS 1763 | 1.1 ± 0.4 | 5.2 ± 1.2 | 6.3 ± 0.7 | 6.3 ± 0.7 | 3.9 ± 0.4 |
Nine-grade scale (9 = the largest size, the most regular shape, the shallowest eyes);
Four-grade scale (1 = high intensity of serious defects, 4 = no defects).
Mean values and standard deviations of agronomic traits of clones with and without the identified resistance genes (progeny I: Batja × 04-IX-4)
| Presence of resistance genes | Total tuber yield (kg/plant) | Tuber size | Regularity of tuber shape | Eye depth | Defects of tubers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.92 ± 0.41 A | 4.7 ± 1.8 A | 6.0 ± 0.5 A | 5.3 ± 1.8 A | 3.3 ± 1.0 AB | |
| 1.04 ± 0.42 A | 4.6 ± 1.9 A | 6.0 ± 0.6 A | 5.2 ± 1.8 A | 3.5 ± 0.8 A | |
| 0.97 ± 0.49 A | 4.9 ± 1.7 A | 6.0 ± 0.6 A | 5.0 ± 2.0 a | 3.1 ± 1.1 AB | |
| none | 1.04 ± 0.48 A | 4.8 ± 2.0 A | 5.9 ± 0.7 A | 5.2 ± 1.8 A | 2.9 ± 1.0 B |
See the footnotes to Table 3.
Mean values with the same letter do not differ at p = 0.05.
Mean values and standard deviations of the agronomic traits of clones with and without the identified resistance genes (cross II: PS 1761 × 04-IX-21)
| Presence of resistance genes | Total tuber yield (kg/plant) | Tuber size | Regularity of tuber shape | Eye depth | Defects of tubers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.33 ± 0.64 A | 4.6 ± 1.8 a | 6.1 ± 0.6 A | 5.5 ± 1.2 A | 2.6 ± 1.0 B | |
| 1.08 ± 0.45 B | 4.5 ± 1.5 A | 6.2 ± 0.6 A | 5.5 ± 1.3 A | 2.9 ± 1.1 A | |
| 1.37 ± 0.54 A | 4.3 ± 1.4 A | 6.0 ± 0.6 A | 5.4 ± 1.2 A | 2.9 ± 1.1 AB | |
| none | 0.98 ± 0.50 B | 4.4 ± 1.7 A | 6.2 ± 0.5 A | 5.7 ± 1.2 A | 3.0 ± 1.0 A |
See the footnotes to Tables 3 and 4.
Mean values and standard deviations of the agronomic traits of clones with and without the identified resistance genes (cross III: TG 97-403 × PS 1763)
| Presence of resistance genes | Total tuber yield (kg/plant) | Tuber size | Regularity of tuber shape | Eye depth | Defects of tubers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.85 ± 0.27 CD | 5.0 ± 1.2 a | 6.5 ± 0.8 AB | 6.5 ± 0.6 A | 3.9 ± 0.4 A | |
| 1.06 ± 0.46 BCD | 5.2 ± 1.1 A | 5.9 ± 0.7 B | 6.0 ± 0.8 A | 3.8 ± 0.7 A | |
| 0.94 ± 0.37 BCD | 4.8 ± 1.0 A | 6.4 ± 0.5 ab | 6.5 ± 0.4 A | 3.9 ± 0.5 A | |
| 1.26 ± 0.46 AB | 5.2 ± 1.3 A | 6.2 ± 0.7 AB | 6.1 ± 0.7 A | 3.8 ± 0.5 A | |
| 0.78 ± 0.33 D | 5.0 ± 1.3 A | 6.8 ± 0.6 A | 6.6 ± 0.5 A | 3.9 ± 0.5 A | |
| 1.54 ± 0.40 A | 5.5 ± 0.9 A | 6.1 ± 0.5 ab | 6.1 ± 0.6 A | 4.0 ± 0.0 A | |
| 1.16 ± 0.32 ABC | 5.4 ± 1.3 A | 6.3 ± 0.7 ab | 6.2 ± 0.7 A | 3.9 ± 0.4 A | |
| none | 0.88 ± 0.27 CD | 5.3 ± 1.3 A | 6.4 ± 0.8 AB | 6.4 ± 0.6 A | 4.0 ± 0.2 A |
See the footnotes to Tables 3 and 4.