- Chinese Core Journal
- Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD) Source journal
- Journal of Citation Report of Chinese S&T Journals (Core Edition)
| Citation: |
XU Xiuyu, ZHANG Weiqiang, HUANG Yuhui, GAN Xianhua, ZHONG Chonglu, ZHANG Huaxin. Comparison of identification methods of bacterial wilt resistance in Casuarinaceae and screening of resistant germplasm resources[J]. Journal of South China Agricultural University, 2017, 38(4): 87-94. DOI: 10.7671/j.issn.1001-411X.2017.04.015
|
To select convenient, accurate and reliable identification methods of bacterial wilt resistance in Casuarinaceae, identify and evaluate the bacterial wilt resistance of Casuarinaceae germplasm resources in China, and screen out highly resistant clones.
Based on the screening techniques of Casuarinaceae resistant lines as well as the identification methods of bacterial wilt in other plants, such as Lycopersicon esculentum, Nicotiana and Eucalyptus, we designed eight different approaches to inoculate Ralstonia solanacearum into Casuarinaceae. The effects of using hydroponic rooting seedling, twig, lignified green branch, lignified brown branch, bacterial wilt crude toxin, and root with or without injure of potted seedlings in inoculation on bacterial wilt resistance identification were studied.
After injured root inoculation of potted seedling, the mortalities of different Casuarinaceae clones ranged from 25.79% to 83.06% with significant differences among A14, K18 and G1, 30 clones(P < 0.05). After hydroponic inoculation of lignified brown branch, the disease indexes of different clones ranged from 2.16 to 69.48 with significant differences among A14, K18 and G1, 30 clones(P < 0.05). These two inoculation approaches enabled effective discrimination between resistant and infected clones, and had highly significant positive correlation (r=0.856 5). Non-injured root inoculation of potted seedling, hydroponic inoculation of rooting seedling and tender branch did not result in significantly differences in disease resistance among clones(P > 0.05), and they couldn't help with effective identification of bacterial wilt resistance in Casuarinaceae. Inoculation of lignified green branch only resulted in small differences among clones, and therefore it led to difficulties in classification and could easily cause detection error. The concentration of bacterial wilt crude toxin was hard to control during inoculation. Using hydroponic inoculation of lignified brown branch, 53 Casuarinaceae clones were evaluated and 12 highly resistant clones such as X1, 30, hybrid and G1 clones were screened out.
Injured root inoculation of potted seedling and hydroponic inoculation of lignified brown branch are both preferred inoculation approaches for identifying bacterial wilt resistance of Casuarinaceae. The rest inoculation approaches tested in this study were not suitable for identification of bacterial wilt resistance in Casuarinaceae.
| [1] |
SALANOUBAT M, GENIN S, ARTIGUENAVE F, et al. Genome sequence of the plant pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum[J]. Nature, 2002, 415(6871): 497-502. doi: 10.1038/415497a
|
| [2] |
乔俊卿, 陈志谊, 刘邮洲, 等.茄科作物青枯病研究进展[J].植物病理学报, 2013, 43 (1): 1-10. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GDNY200502022.htm
|
| [3] |
郭权, 梁子超.木麻黄抗青枯病品系的筛选技术和综合防治措施[J].林业科技通讯, 1986(4): 7-9. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-LYKT198604003.htm
|
| [4] |
王军.影响木麻黄青枯病抗性测定的几项因素研究[J].林业科学, 1996, 32(3): 225-229. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-LYKE603.005.htm
|
| [5] |
何学友.木麻黄病害研究概述[J].防护林科技, 2007(2): 27-30. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-FHLK200702012.htm
|
| [6] |
黄金水, 何益良, 郑辉棋.几种木麻黄抗病虫性调查报告[J].福建林业科技, 1985, 12(2): 41-45. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-FJLK198502004.htm
|
| [7] |
魏素梅, 谭天泳.木麻黄地理种源的苗期试验[J].林业科学研究, 1990, 3(2): 119-126.
|
| [8] |
梁子超, 陈小华.木麻黄抗青枯病品系的筛选[J].华南农学院学报, 1984, 5(1): 53-59. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HNNB198401007.htm
|
| [9] |
彭国强.木麻黄抗青枯病无性系造林对比试验[J].广东林业科技, 2000, 16(3): 35-37. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GDLY200003007.htm
|
| [10] |
柯玉铸, 黄金水, 林延生, 等.普通木麻黄抗逆无性系的筛选[J].福建林业科技, 1994, 21(1): 39-43. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-FJLK401.006.htm
|
| [11] |
苗立祥. 番茄抗青枯病的AFLP分子标记及其相关基因的克隆[D]. 杭州: 浙江大学, 2008.
|
| [12] |
梁子超, 王祖太.粗杂木麻黄对青枯病抗性的测定[J].热带林业科技, 1982(1): 31-34. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-RDLY198201005.htm
|
| [13] |
陈炳铨, 张景宁.木麻黄无性系对青枯菌抗性及菌株变异初探[J].广东林业科技, 1995, 11(2): 33-36. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GDLY502.007.htm
|
| [14] |
刘勇, 秦西云, 李文正, 等.抗青枯病烟草种质资源在云南省的评价[J].植物遗传资源学报, 2010, 11(1): 10-16. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZWYC201001003.htm
|
| [15] |
尹贤贵, 王小佳, 张赟, 等.我国番茄青枯病及抗病育种研究进展[J].云南农业大学学报, 2005, 20(2): 163-167. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YNDX200502003.htm
|
| [16] |
张燕玲, 贺红, 吴立蓉, 等.广藿香抗青枯病离体筛选技术的研究[J].广西植物, 2009, 29(5): 678-682. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GXZW200905026.htm
|
| [17] |
王艳丽. 桉树抗青枯病的鉴定及其抗病机制研究[D]. 石家庄: 河北农业大学, 2010.
|
| [18] |
王胜坤. 桉树青枯菌菌株致病力分化、吸附识别及PCR快速检测研究[D]. 北京: 中国林业科学研究院, 2007.
|
| [19] |
YAMAZAKI H. Relation between resistance to bacterial wilt and calcium nutrition in tomato seedlings[J]. Jarq-Japan Agric Res Quart, 2001, 35(3): 163-169. doi: 10.6090/jarq.35.163
|
| [20] |
王军, 苏海, 邓志文.青枯假单胞杆菌对木麻黄致病机理的初步研究[J].森林病虫通讯, 1997(2): 21-22. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SLBC702.010.htm
|
| [21] |
罗焕亮, 王军, 邵志芳, 等.木麻黄青枯菌的根表吸附及根内增殖与其致病性关系[J].林业科学研究, 2002, 15(1): 21-27. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-LYKX200201003.htm
|
| [22] |
李广存, 金黎平, 谢开云, 等.马铃薯青枯病抗性鉴定新方法[J].中国马铃薯, 2006, 20(3): 129-134. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-MLSZ200603000.htm
|
| [23] |
徐燃, 贺红, 邓素坚, 等.青枯菌侵染广藿香的组织病理学研究[J].广州中医药大学学报, 2013, 30(2): 236-239. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-REST201302028.htm
|
| [24] |
种藏文, 卢同, 李本金, 等.甘薯青枯菌粗毒素的制备及热、紫外线、酶对粗毒素生物活性的影响[J].福建农业学报, 1998, 13(1): 36-40. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-FJNX801.005.htm
|
| [25] |
袁宗胜, 刘芳, 胡方平.花生离体培养条件下不同外植体对青枯菌粗毒素的抗性反应[J].福建农业学报, 2010, 25(5): 618-622. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-FJNX201005018.htm
|
| [26] |
COUTINHO T A, ROUX J, RIEDEL K H, et al. First report of bacterial wilt caused by Ralstonia solanacearum on eucalypts in South Africa[J]. Forest Pathol, 2000, 30(4): 205-210. doi: 10.1046/j.1439-0329.2000.00205.x
|
Supported by: Beijing Renhe Information Technology Co., Ltd. 
DownLoad: