سطوح نسبی مقاومت به بلایت باکتریایی در تعدادی از ارقام و ژنوتیپ‌های انتخابی گردو

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی سابق کارشناسی ارشد ، گروه گیاه‌پزشکی، دانشکده کشاورزی و صنایع غذایی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران

2 دانشیار، پژوهشکده میوه‌های معتدله و سردسیری، موسسه تحقیقات باغبانی، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، کرج

3 استاد، گروه گیاه‌پزشکی، دانشکده کشاورزی و صنایع غذایی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران

4 کارشناس دفتر امور فناوری، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، تهران

10.22067/jpp.2021.68825.1012

چکیده

کاشت ارقام مقاوم یکی از مهم­ترین راهکارهای کنترل بیماری بلایت باکتریایی گردو با عامل Xanthomonas arboricola pv. juglandis است. در این تحقیق، سطوح نسبی مقاومت به بلایت باکتریایی در برگ و میوه نارس برخی ارقام تجاری و ژنوتیپ­های انتخابی گردو در دو سال تکرار بررسی شد. ارقام و ژنوتیپ­های مورد بررسی شامل KZ3، 88-2، 88-1، G3، SHK2، C25، H2-1، H1-7، H1-1 و رقمShinova  بوده و ارقام تجاری Serr، Hartley و Chandler به­عنوان شاهد به­کار برده شدند. برای ارزیابی مقاومت میوه نارس، علاوه بر مواد فوق، ارقام و ژنوتیپ­های Vina، Round de montignac (RDM)، Lara، G4، G5، B10، K15، H1-8 و H2-12 نیز گنجانده شدند. از میان مواد گیاهی ارزیابی شده، چهار ژنوتیپ داخلی KZ3، 88-2، 88-1 و G3 در سال 1398معرفی شدند. مخلوط جدایه­های باکتری عامل با منشا قزوین، کرج، زنجان و ارومیه در تهیه مایه تلقیح به­کار برده شد. ارزیابی مقاومت برگ در شرایط گلخانه و با اسپری نهال­های پیوندی انجام شد و بررسی مقاومت میوه نارس در شرایط آزمایشگاهی و با مایه­زنی میوه­های 45 روزه صورت گرفت. بر اساس نتایج، شدت بلایت برگ و میوه نارس در ارقام و ژنوتیپ­های مختلف در هر دو سال ارزیابی متفاوت بود. نتایج تجزیه مرکب داده‌ها نشان داد که ژنوتیپ­های G3 (الوند) و 88-2 (پرشین) حساس­ترین و رقم Hartley مقاوم­ترین برگ و ژنوتیپ­های H1-1 و SHK2 به­ترتیب حساس­ترین و مقاوم­ترین میوه نارس را داشتند. میانگین شدت بلایت برگ و میوه نارس در سال­های اول و دوم تفاوت معنی­داری نداشت. بر اساس مقایسه ارقام صورت گرفته در این تحقیق، ارقام داخلی تازه معرفی شده پرشین، کاسپین، الوند و چالدران از نظر مقاومت نسبی برگ به­ترتیب حساس، نسبتاً مقاوم، حساس و نسبتاً حساس و از نظر مقاومت نسبی میوه نارس به­ترتیب مقاوم، مقاوم، نسبتاً مقاوم و حساس بودند. ارتباط آماری بین شدت بلایت برگ و میوه نارس دیده نشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Relative Resistance Level to Bacterial Blight in a Number of Walnut Cultivars and Selected Genotypes

نویسندگان [English]

  • roghayeh mohammadi 1
  • mansureh keshavarzi 2
  • nader hassanzadeh 3
  • darab hassani 2
  • Afagh farhadnejad 4
1 Graduated of Plant Pathology Plant Pathology Department, Agriculture and Food Sciences College, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Cold and Temperate Fruit Center, Horticultural Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Karaj, Iran
3 Professor, Plant Pathology Department, Agriculture and Food Sciences College, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
4 Technology Office, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Introduction: The major disease of Persian walnut is walnut blight caused by the bacterium Xanthomonas arboricola pv. juglandis. This disease limits walnut production in many regions of the world in particular those with warm and humid springs. All succulent tissues including recent shoots, fruits and catkins may be attacked but their sensitivity decreases over time. Symptoms on leaves begin as small, water-soaked spot that can expand to form angular necrotic lesions surrounded by a yellow hallo. Infection on the hull of the unripe fruits is initiates as a dark spot, which rapidly creates dark sunken lesions. If fruit infection occurs before shell hardening, the kernels are usually destroyed, infection after shell hardening results in dark kernels and poor-quality nuts, while the kernel is until consumable. The main current strategy for walnut blight control is to protect succulent tissues by copper-based sprays from bud-burst. However, multiple copper sprays do not always control the disease and there is the risk of development of copper resistant bacterial strains. Cultivation of resistant cultivars is the most practical, environmental friendly and economical approach for controlling of this disease. So far, there have not been any cultivar completely resistant or immune to this disease. However, variation in susceptibility level has been shown to occur, worldwide. The objective of this study was to determine leaf and unripe fruit resistance of Iranian promising walnut genotypes in response to controlled inoculation with X. arboricola pv. juglandis in orchard and laboratory conditions.
Material and Methods: In this research, the relative resistance of leaf and unripe fruits to bacterial blight were studied in a number of promising walnut genotypes replicated during two years of 2015 and 2016. The local genotypes have been selected through massive surveys of native orchards in different provinces of the country. The main selective criterion for walnut selection was late leafing trait. In addition, correlation between leaf blight and unripe fruit blight severities were studied. The material included H1-7, H2-1, SHK2, Vina, Round de montignac (RDM), Lara, G4, G5, B10 and K15 genotypes and cultivars. From this material, KZ3, 88-2, 88-1 and G3 were registered and released in year 2019. Also, Serr, Chandler and Hartley cvs. were used as controls. A mixture of four local bacterial isolates originated from Qazvin, Karaj, Zanjan and Urmie was used as inoculum. The bacterial strains have already been characterized using different phenotypical and molecular tests. They were cultured on Nutrient Agar (NA) plates at 28 ℃. After 72 hours of cultivation, the colonies were suspended in distilled water; the concentration of the suspensions was read by spectrophotometer and after equalization, mixed and used as inoculum. Assessing leaf resistance was performed by spraying one year old grafted seedlings in glasshouse condition and lesion area was recorded 21 days after inoculation. Three leaves (contacting leaflets) of three seedlings were used per genotype. Assessing unripe fruit resistance was achieved by inoculating 45 days old fruits in laboratory condition and lesion diameter data was read 15 days after inoculation. 15 fruits per genotype were used and three lesions were created in each fruit. Statistical analysis of data was performed by Duncan Multiple test range using SAS software.
Result and Discussion: Based on the results, leaf and unripe fruit blight severities were different among different cultivars and genotypes in both years of evaluation. Combined analysis of blight severity data indicated that G3 (Alvand) and 88-2 (Persian) genotypes had the most leaf blight severity and thus, rated as the most susceptible, while Hartley cultivar had the least leaf blight severity and thus, as the most resistant. Based on combined analysis of data, H1-1 and SHK2 genotypes had the most blight diameters of unripe fruits and thus rated as the most susceptible and resistant genotypes, respectively. Leaves of newly released cultivars of Persian, Caspian, Alvand and Chaldoran were rated as susceptible, relatively resistant, susceptible and relatively susceptible, respectively. On the other hand, unripe fruits of Persian, Caspian, Alvand and Chaldoran were classified as resistant, resistant, relatively resistant and susceptible, respectively. Mean leaf blight severities were not different between the two years of study and also there was no difference between unripe fruit severities between two years of the experiment. No significant correlation was found between leaf blight and unripe fruit blight severities. 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Cultivar
  • susceptibility
  • Walnut
  • Xanthomonas arboricola pv. juglandis
  • Akça Y., Yuldaşulu Y.B., Murad E., and Vahdati K. 2020. Exploring of Walnut Genetic Resources in Kazakhstan and Evaluation of Promising Selections. International Journal of Horticultural Science and Technology 7: 93-102.
  • Aleta N., Ninot A., Moragrega C., Liorente I., and Montesinos E. 2001. Blight sensitivity of Spanish selections of Juglans regia. Acta Horticulturae 544: 353-362.
  • Amani B. 1987. Walnut rot. Iranian Journal of Plant Pathology 13: 14-23. (In Persian with English abstract).
  • 2018. FAO Statistics, FAOSTAT.
  • Ashrafi G., Keshavarzi M., and Hasanzadeh N. 2010. Identification of agent and distribution of walnut bacterial blight in Ilam province. Proceedings of the 19th Iranian Plant Protection Congress, Tehran, p. 404. (In Persian with English abstract)
  • Bandi A., Heves M., Szani Z., and Toth M. 2010. Assessment of bacterial blight tolerance of Persian walnut based on immature fruit test. Available in: notulaebiologicae.ro
  • Belisario A., Are M., Palangio C.S., and Zonia A. 1997. Walnut blight in the genus Juglans. Acta Horticulturae 442: 357-359.
  • Belisario A., Zoina A., Pezza L., and Luongo L. 1999. Susceptibility of species of Juglans to pathovars of Xanthomonas campestris. European Journal of Plant Pathology 29: 75-80.
  • Eskandari S., Khakvar R., and Torchi M. 2018. Detection of bacterial blight of walnut in northweat of Iran and investigation of its pathogenicity on different native walnut cultivars. Biochemistry and Cell Archives 18: 1785-1788.
  • Frutos D., Ruiz L., and López G. 2010. Finding sources of Persian walnut (Juglans regia) resistant to arboricola pv. juglandis. Available in: http://www.cost873.ch/_uploads/_files/DFrutos_Walnut Germplasm Resources.pdf.
  • Germain E. 1997. Genetic improvement of the Persian walnut (Juglans regia). Acta Horticulturae 442: 21-31.
  • Gibson M.P. 1967. The mandarin walnut. Annual Report of North Nut Growers Association 58: 105-109.
  • Giura S., Valeriu G.M., and Mitrea R. 2016. Reaction of walnut native genotypes to key attack of Xanthomonas campestris juglandis under climatic condition of Valcea area. Annals of the University of Craiova-Agriculture, Montanology, Cadastre Series: XLVI: 131.
  • Golmohammadi M., Alizade A., and Rahimian H. 2002. Homogeneity of walnut blight isolates from central and north provinces of Iran. Iranian Journal of Plant Pathology 38: 11-20. (In Persian with English abstract)
  • Jiang S., Han S., Cao G., Zhang F., and Wan X. 2019b. Evaluating walnut for resistance to walnut blight and comparisons between artificial assays and filed studies. Australian Plant Pathology 48: 221-231.
  • Jiang S., Han S., He D., Cao G., Xiao K., Yi J., and Wan X. 2019a. The accumulation of phenolic compounds and increased activities of related enzymes contribute to early defence against walnut blight. Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology 108:
  • Keshavarzi M. 2008. Fungal and bacterial diseases of walnut trees in Tehran, Zanjan, Kordesta, West Azarbijan and Damghan provinces. Proceedings of the First National Walnut Symposium, Hamedan, p. 49. (In Persian with English abstract)
  • Lang MD., Hills JL., and Evans KE. 2006. Preliminary studies toward managing walnut blight in Tasmania. Acta Horticulturae 705: 451-456.
  • López MM., Frutos D., Moragrega C., Arrieta A., Cambronero D., Carrillo A., López G., Lacasa C., and Frutos C. 2007. Evaluation of selections of native walnuts from Asturias for susceptibility to a. pv. juglandis in controlled environment. Available in: http://www.cost873.ch/_uploads/_files/m_lopezXaj_Murcia.pdf
  • Lovera M., Arquero O., Serrano N., and Trapero A. 2008. Walnut blight (Xanthomonas arboricola juglandis): Factors that influence the disease. Available in: http://www.cost873.ch/_ uploads/_files/m_Athens_Abstracts_FinalBook.pdf
  • Mahsul F., Rahimian H., Magidee E., and Gafaree H. 1989. Investigation on walnut bacterial blight in Mazandaran province. Proceedings of 9th Iranian Plant Protection Congress, Karaj, p. 148. (In Persian with English abstract)
  • Marias P., Donatella C., and Cennaro C. 1997. Susceptibility of walnut varieties to Gnomonia leptostyla and Xanthomonas campestris pv. juglandi Acta Horticulturae 442: 379-382.
  • McNeil D.L., Romero S., Kandula J., Stark C., Stewart A., and Larsen S. 2001. Bacteriophages, a potential biocontrol agent against walnut blight. New Zealand Plant Protection 54: 220-224.
  • Melotto M., Underwood W., and He S.Y. 2008. Role of stomata in plant innate immunity and foliar bacterial diseases. Annual Review of Phytopathology 46: 101-122.
  • Miller P.W., and Bollen W.B. 1946. Walnut Bacteriosis and Its Control. US Dapartment of Agriculture and Plant Industry, Soils and Agricultural Engineering, Oregon.
  • Mitrovic M., Miletic R., Lukic M., Rakicevic M., and Blagojevic M. 2009. Pomological /phenological properties of walnut selections. Acta Horticulturae 825: 187-190.
  • Mohammadipur M. Walnut bacterial blight in East-Azarbijan province. Proceedings of the 16th Iranian Plant Protection Congress, Tabriz, p. 386. (In Persian with English abstract)
  • Murlean E.N., and Chorth M.N. 1977. Understanding the disease cycle of walnut blight. Diamond Walnut News, Oct, Pp. 12-14.
  • Musavi F., Keshavarzi M., Haghjouyan R., and Sobhani A. 2015. Repeatability of laboratory and inoculation on accessing susceptibility of walnut unripe fruits to bacterial blight and relationship between resistance and total phenols. Seed and Plant Improvement Journal 31: 581-594. (In Persian with English abstract)
  • Najafi S.H., Aminian H., Marefat A., Etebarian H.R., and Gafaree H. 2008. A survey on bacterial and fungal diseases in Zanjan province. Proceedings of 18th Iranian Plant Protection Congress, Hamedan, p. 41. (In Persian with English abstract)
  • Ninot A., Aleta N., Moragrega C., and Montesinos E. 2002. Evaluation of a reduced copper spraying program to control bacterial blight of walnut. Plant Disease 86: 583-587.
  • Özaktan H., Erdal M., Akkopru A., Aslan E. 2008. Evaluation of susceptibility of some walnut cultivars to arboricola pv. juglandis by immature nut test. Available in: http://www.cost873.ch /_uploads /_files/Ozaktan_WalnutSusceptibility.pdf
  • Radix P., Siegel-Murandi F., and Charlot G. 1994. Walnut blight: development of fruit infection in two orchards. Crop Protection 13: 629-
  • Ramsey H.J. 1908. The possibilities of walnut blight control by the use of immune varieties. Pacific Rural Press 75: 212-213.
  • Rico A., and Preston G. 2011. The metabolic interface between Pseudomonas syringae and plant cells. Current Opinion in Microbiology 14: 31-38.
  • Rudolph B.A. 1933. Bacteriosis of English walnut in California and its control. California Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 564: 3-88.
  • Shijiao Jiang S., Han S., He D., Cao G. and Wan X. 2019. Evaluating walnut (Juglans) for resistance to walnut blight and comparisons between artificial inoculation assays and field studies. Australian Journal of Plant Pathology 48: 221-231.
  • Silsepur L., Keshavarzi M., Hassani D., and Hashemi M. 2010. Necessity of different walnut organs evaluation for selection of blight resistant cultivars. Iranian Journal of Plant Pathology 46: 325-329. (In Persian with English abstract)
  • Silsepur L., Keshavarzi M., Hassani D., and Hashemi M. 2012. Reaction of a number of walnut genotypes/cultivars to bacterial blight disease caused by Xanthomonas arboricola juglandis. Seed and Plant Improvement Journal 28: 395-405. (In Persian with English abstract)
  • Solar A., Jakopic J., Veberic R., and Stampar F. 2007. Phenolic compounds as a potential marker of walnut resistance against Xanthomonas arboricola juglandis. Available in: http:// www.cost873.ch/_up_loads/_files/ m_Solar_murcia.pdf
  • Soltani G., and Aliabadi A. 1992. Genetic diversity of walnuts in response to bacterial blight. Proceedings of 15th Iranian Plant Protection Congress, Kermanshah, p. 243. (In Persian with English abstract)
  • Szani Z. 2009. Biotic and abiotic stress factors influence on walnut varieties bred in Central Europe. Cereal Research Communications Supplement 37: 329-332.
  • Tamponi G., and Donati G. 1990. Walnut cultivars susceptibility to Xanthomonas juglandis. Acta Horticulturae 284: 301-302.
  • Teviotdale B.L., Schroth M.N., and Mulrean E.M. 1985. Bark, fruit and foliage diseases. In: Walnut Orchard Management. Ramos D.E. Ed., The Regents of The University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Oakland, Publication 21410, pp. 153-157.
  • Thiesz R., Bandi A., Tóth M and, Balog A. 2007. Epidemiological survey of Xanthomonas arboricola pv. juglandis and Gnomonia leptostyla on natural population of walnut (Juglans regia) in Eastern Transylvania. International Journal of Horticultural Science 13: 7-11.
  • Tsiantos J., Vagelas I.K., Rumbos C.I., Chatzaki A., Rouskas D., and Gravanis F.T. 2008. Evaluation of resistance of cultivated walnut varieties and selections to Xanthomonas arboricola juglandis in Greece. Available in: http://www.cost873. ch/_uploads/_files/Tsiantos_Walnut ResistanceInGreek_Varieties.pdf
  • Vagelas I.K., Rumbos C.I., and Tsiantos J. 2012. Variation in disease development among Persian walnut cultivars, selections and crosses when inoculated with Xanthomonas arboricola juglandis. Plant Pathology 94: 57-61.
  • Woeste K.E., McGranahanan G.H., and Schroth M.N. 1992. Variation in Persian walnuts in response to inoculation with Xanthomonas campestris juglandis. Journal of American Society for Horticultural Sciences 117: 527-531.
  • Yang H., Han S., Jiang S., Cao G., Wan X., Chen L., Xiao J., and Zhu P. 2021. Resistance evaluation of walnut against Xanthomonas arboricola and the correlation between leaf structure and resistance. Forest Pathology online: 1-12.