中国农业科学 ›› 2022, Vol. 55 ›› Issue (21): 4118-4130.doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2022.21.003
收稿日期:
2022-07-18
接受日期:
2022-08-11
出版日期:
2022-11-01
发布日期:
2022-11-09
通讯作者:
张木清
作者简介:
杜金霞,E-mail:基金资助:
DU JinXia(),LI YiSha,LI MeiLin,CHEN WenHan,ZHANG MuQing()
Received:
2022-07-18
Accepted:
2022-08-11
Online:
2022-11-01
Published:
2022-11-09
Contact:
MuQing ZHANG
摘要:
【目的】甘蔗白条病是影响甘蔗产业的一种重要细菌检疫性病害,选择抗病品种可有效降低病害的发生。了解甘蔗基因型的白条病抗性,规范抗性评价方法,为甘蔗白条病抗病种质资源的选育和利用提供依据。【方法】以桂糖46号分离得到的黄单胞菌株JG43菌株为接种病原,采用截头法人工接种于70个不同基因型的甘蔗上。通过蘸有细菌悬浮液(108 CFU/mL)的剪刀剪切甘蔗生长点上方,并用棉花吸取500 μL细菌悬浮液置于斜切面上。分别于接种后14、28、42、56和70 d,对每个甘蔗基因型的发病情况进行调查,计算发病率(incidence,IC)。根据甘蔗白条病严重度评判标准计算病情指数(disease index,DI)和病害进展曲线下面积(area under the disease progress curve,AUDPC)。利用SPSS 25.0软件分别进行方差分析、主成分分析和判别分析。其中,采用一般线性模型和类型Ⅲ的平方和模型进行方差分析,以IC、DI和AUDPC作为因变量,基因型、区组及接种后时间为固定因子。原始数据经过标准化(Z-score)处理后,通过KOM和Bartlett球体检验法进行主成分分析。运用DPS 9.50软件的WPGMA法,计算欧几里得距离(Euclidean metric)进行聚类分析。以聚类分析结果中的不同抗性等级作为分组变量,AUDPC、IC和DI作为自变量,根据Fisher准则进行判别分析,计算分类准确率。【结果】接种14 d,部分基因型叶片开始发病,出现1—2条铅笔状条纹;接种28 d,条纹数增多且逐步向边缘扩展;接种42 d,叶片黄化或白化症状从边缘逐步向叶脉扩展;接种56 d,叶片向内卷曲枯死;接种70 d时,发病严重的甘蔗整株枯萎死亡。方差分析发现,不同基因型(genotype,Gen)、接种后持续时间(days post-inoculation,Dpi)及其互作(Gen×Dpi)对IC、DI和AUDPC均具有极显著影响(P<0.01),其中,总方差的42%归因于接种后时间效应,表明不同接种时间甘蔗基因型的抗性反应存在显著差异。接种56 d,病害的发生达到相对稳定状态,这一时期的病害数据经平均值多重比较后能较好地进行甘蔗基因型间的抗性划分。判别分析与聚类分析的结果基本一致,将70个基因型分为5个不同抗病等级,包括高抗基因型15份、抗病基因型14份、中抗基因型15份、感病基因型11份、高感基因型15份。【结论】通过截头法人工接种进行甘蔗抗白条病鉴定时,以接种56 d基因型的IC、DI和AUDPC作为抗性鉴定评价指标,在聚类分析的基础上增加判别分析,可以提高试验结果的准确性。筛选出中蔗9号、中蔗4号、中蔗2号、GUC19、GUC8、云瑞03-103、云瑞05-649、云瑞05-182、云瑞05-367、云瑞89-159、福农11-601、福农09-4059、桂糖02-467、桂糖08-297、新台糖22号等15个高抗品种,可进一步用于甘蔗抗白条病育种研究。
杜金霞,李奕莎,李美霖,陈文浛,张木清. 甘蔗不同基因型对白条病抗性的评价[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(21): 4118-4130.
DU JinXia,LI YiSha,LI MeiLin,CHEN WenHan,ZHANG MuQing. Evaluation of Resistance to Leaf Scald Disease in Different Sugarcane Genotypes[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2022, 55(21): 4118-4130.
表2
接种14、28、42、56和70 d时病情指数(DI)、发病率(IC)和病害进展曲线下面积(AUDPC)的方差分析"
变异来源 Source of variation | 自由度 DF | 均方 Mean square | F值 F value | 方差占比 SS (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
发病率Incidence | ||||
基因型Genotype | 69 | 3479.33 | 10.56*** | 18.98 |
接种后时间Days post-inoculation | 4 | 135402.62 | 410.83*** | 42.82 |
区组Block | 2 | 66.04 | 0.20ns | 0.01 |
基因型×接种后时间Genotype×Days post-inoculation | 276 | 916.66 | 2.78*** | 20.00 |
误差Error | 698 | 329.58 | 18.19 | |
病情指数Disease index | ||||
基因型Genotype | 69 | 2647.15 | 12.00*** | 20.13 |
接种后时间 Days post-inoculation | 4 | 96849.43 | 438.91*** | 42.69 |
区组Block | 2 | 176.95 | 0.80ns | 0.04 |
基因型×接种后时间Genotype×Days post-inoculation | 276 | 663.09 | 3.01*** | 20.17 |
误差Error | 698 | 220.66 | 16.97 | |
病害进展曲线下面积Area under the disease progress curve | ||||
基因型Genotype | 69 | 1825929.17 | 12.11*** | 21.12 |
接种后时间 Days post-inoculation | 4 | 62974060.05 | 417.56*** | 42.22 |
区组Block | 2 | 89025.78 | 0.59ns | 0.03 |
基因型×接种后时间Genotype×Days post-inoculation | 276 | 410381.89 | 2.72*** | 18.99 |
误差Error | 698 | 150813.87 |
表3
发病率和病情指数在接种后不同时间点主成分的特征值、贡献率、累计贡献率、因子权重和成分载荷矩阵"
参数 Parameter | 第1主成分 Component 1 | 第2主成分 Component 2 | 第3主成分 Component 3 |
---|---|---|---|
IC-14 dpi | 0.565 | 0.692 | 0.297 |
IC-28 dpi | 0.777 | 0.465 | -0.014 |
IC-42 dpi | 0.807 | -0.125 | -0.468 |
IC-56 dpi | 0.801 | -0.421 | -0.043 |
IC-70 dpi | 0.540 | -0.591 | 0.524 |
DI-14 dpi | 0.577 | 0.670 | 0.291 |
DI-28 dpi | 0.773 | 0.510 | 0.006 |
DI-42 dpi | 0.817 | -0.110 | -0.483 |
DI-56 dpi | 0.801 | -0.442 | -0.136 |
DI-70 dpi | 0.602 | -0.550 | 0.504 |
特征值Eigenvectors | 5.11 | 2.46 | 1.17 |
贡献率Contribution rate (%) | 51.10 | 24.56 | 11.74 |
累计贡献率Accumulative contribution rate (%) | 51.10 | 75.66 | 87.40 |
因子权重Factor weight (%) | 58.47 | 28.10 | 13.43 |
表4
甘蔗基因型的聚类分析与判别分析"
供试基因型 Tested genotypes | 亲本组合 Parental combination | 病害发展 曲线下面积 AUDPC | 发病率 IC (%) | 病情指数 DI | 聚类分析 Cluster group | 判别分类 Discriminate group | 后验概率 Posterior probability |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
中蔗9号 ZZ9 | 新台糖25号×云瑞89-7 ROC25×YR 89-7 | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 | HR | HR | 1.000 |
中蔗4号 ZZ4 | 新台糖25号×云瑞89-7 ROC25×YR 89-7 | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 | HR | HR | 1.000 |
中蔗2号 ZZ2 | 新台糖25号×云瑞89-7 ROC25×YR 89-7 | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 | HR | HR | 1.000 |
中蔗6号 ZZ6 | 新台糖25号×云瑞89-7 ROC25×YR 89-7 | 770.00±22.17 | 44.44±9.62 | 38.89±11.71 | MR | MR | 0.954 |
中蔗5号 ZZ5 | 新台糖22号×云瑞03-103 ROC22×YR03-103 | 466.67±20.42 | 33.33±0.00 | 31.11±3.85 | R | R | 0.975 |
GUC33 | CP49-50×CP96-1252 | 1843.33±38.53 | 66.67±8.86 | 63.33±2.14 | HS | HS | 1.000 |
GUC19 | CP49-50×CP96-1252 | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 | HR | HR | 1.000 |
GUC3 | CP88-1762×CP96-1252 | 980.00±16.81 | 33.33±8.86 | 33.33±2.86 | MR | MR | 0.956 |
GUC37 | CP88-1762×CP96-1252 | 692.22±9.75 | 50.00±0.00 | 50.00±0.00 | MR | MR | 0.844 |
GUC2 | CP88-1762×CP96-1252 | 1524.44±58.72 | 88.89±19.25 | 73.33±11.54 | HS | HS | 1.000 |
GUC23 | HoCP01-157×CP14-096 | 1329.97±50.26 | 66.67±8.87 | 56.67±20.81 | HS | HS | 0.978 |
GUC1 | HoCP01-157×CP14-096 | 295.56±17.44 | 61.11±4.69 | 42.22±6.78 | S | S | 0.987 |
GUC16 | HoCP01-157×CP14-096 | 420.00±14.00 | 66.67±28.87 | 33.33±11.55 | S | S | 0.996 |
GUC8 | HoCP01-157×CP14-096 | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 | HR | HR | 1.000 |
供试基因型 Tested genotypes | 亲本组合 Parental combination | 病害发展 曲线下面积 AUDPC | 发病率 IC (%) | 病情指数 DI | 聚类分析 Cluster group | 判别分类 Discriminate group | 后验概率 Posterior probability |
GUC34 | CP00-1100×Q209 | 592.67±27.59 | 66.67±28.87 | 50.00±17.32 | S | S | 0.995 |
GUC13 | CP00-1100×Q209 | 323.56±25.03 | 17.78±6.77 | 10.67±2.24 | R | R | 0.828 |
GUC9 | CP00-1100×Q209 | 379.17±14.36 | 19.44±1.35 | 18.61±2.01 | R | R | 0.969 |
GUC15 | CP89-2143×CP72-1210 | 1617.78±61.23 | 50.00±0.00 | 46.67±5.77 | MR | HS | 0.640 |
GUC35 | CP89-2143×CP72-1210 | 626.89±6.45 | 33.33±0.00 | 31.11±3.85 | R | R | 0.831 |
GUC25 | CP89-2143×CP72-1210 | 601.11±2.00 | 31.67±0.00 | 26.67±6.46 | R | R | 0.831 |
云瑞03-394 YR 03-394 | 德蔗93-88×云瑞99-634 Dezhe 93-88×YR 99-634 | 373.33±6.94 | 44.44±9.62 | 35.56±7.69 | R | R | 0.885 |
云瑞07-4677 YR 07-4677 | 德蔗93-88×云斑F299-546 Dezhe 93-88×Yunban F299-546 | 560.00±5.06 | 50.00±5.00 | 40.00±3.00 | MR | MR | 0.725 |
云瑞06-4674 YR 06-4674 | 德蔗93-88×云斑F299-546 Dezhe 93-88×Yunban F299-546 | 1680.00±24.29 | 66.67±8.86 | 60.00±4.64 | HS | HS | 1.000 |
云瑞06-2416 YR 06-2416 | 德蔗93-94×云斑F303-917 Dezhe 93-94×Yunban F303-917 | 1353.33±7.05 | 66.67±8.86 | 60.00±6.45 | HS | HS | 0.981 |
云瑞05-770 YR 05-770 | 德蔗93-88×云瑞03-409 Dezhe 93-88×YR 03-409 | 684.44± 8.58 | 66.67±8.86 | 53.33±3.09 | S | S | 0.993 |
云瑞05-784 YR 05-784 | 新台糖10号×云瑞03-403 ROC10×YR 03-403 | 1765.56±46.79 | 72.22±5.45 | 70.00±21.86 | HS | HS | 1.000 |
云瑞05-649 YR 05-649 | 新台糖10号×云瑞03-117 ROC10×YR 03-117 | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 | HR | HR | 1.000 |
云瑞05-367 YR 05-367 | 新台糖10号×云瑞03-405 ROC10×YR 03-405 | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 | HR | HR | 1.000 |
云瑞03-425 YR 03-425 | 新台糖10号×云瑞99-546 ROC10×YR 99-546 | 816.67±34.63 | 50.00±6.67 | 50.00±6.67 | MR | MR | 0.925 |
云瑞03-417 YR 03-417 | 新台糖10号×云瑞99-546 ROC10×YR 99-546 | 1306.67±34.63 | 83.33±28.86 | 73.33±8.86 | HS | HS | 0.993 |
云瑞05-49 YR 05-49 | 新台糖23号×崖城90-56 ROC23×Yacheng 90-56 | 1505.78±42.16 | 66.67±8.86 | 62.22±1.17 | HS | HS | 0.999 |
云瑞03-103 YR 03-103 | CP72-1210×湛蔗74-141 CP72-1210×Zhanzhe 74-141 | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 | HR | HR | 1.000 |
云瑞05-182 YR 05-182 | 未知Unknown | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 | HR | HR | 1.000 |
云瑞89-159 YR 89-159 | 未知Unknown | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 | HR | HR | 1.000 |
云瑞05-179 YR 05-179 | 云瑞99-178×德蔗93-88 YR99-178×DZ93-88 | 618.31±5.78 | 50.00±0.00 | 39.44±5.85 | MR | MR | 0.816 |
新台糖10号ROC10 | 新台糖5号×F152 ROC5×F152 | 230.22±5.46 | 44.44±9.62 | 22.22±2.23 | R | R | 0.988 |
新台糖22号ROC22 | 新台糖5号×69-463 ROC5×69-463 | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 | HR | HR | 1.000 |
新台糖23号ROC23 | F166×74-575 | 318.89±4.53 | 27.78±5.46 | 27.78±5.46 | R | R | 0.999 |
新台糖7号ROC7 | F160×60-2321 | 626.67±6.05 | 68.33±5.17 | 45.00±3.47 | S | S | 0.996 |
新台糖1号ROC1 | F146×P58-19 | 85.56±4.30 | 27.78±5.46 | 12.22±3.47 | R | R | 0.999 |
新台糖16号ROC16 | F171×74-575 | 1610.00±28.49 | 83.33±8.87 | 76.67±5.17 | HS | HS | 1.000 |
新台糖25号ROC25 | 79-6048×69-463 | 132.22±15.10 | 27.78±5.46 | 12.22±3.47 | R | R | 0.999 |
福农94-0744 FN 94-0744 | 新台糖1号×崖城 73-512 ROC1×Yacheng 73-512 | 2061.13±96.83 | 66.67±7.74 | 63.33±5.08 | HS | HS | 1.000 |
福农99-20169 FN 99-20169 | 新台糖10号×CP84-1198 ROC10×CP84-1198 | 836.11±43.28 | 44.44±9.62 | 39.44±5.85 | MR | MR | 0.979 |
供试基因型 Tested genotypes | 亲本组合 Parental combination | 病害发展 曲线下面积 AUDPC | 发病率 IC (%) | 病情指数 DI | 聚类分析 Cluster group | 判别分类 Discriminate group | 后验概率 Posterior probability |
福农36号 FN 36 | 新台糖10号×桂糖91-116 ROC10×GT 91-116 | 1050.00±0.00 | 50.00±0.00 | 50.00±0.00 | MR | MR | 0.982 |
福农41号 FN 41 | 新台糖20号×粤糖91-976 ROC20×Yuetang 91-976 | 1054.67±36.29 | 44.44±9.62 | 44.44±9.62 | MR | MR | 0.998 |
福农11号 FN 11 | 新台糖20号×粤糖91-976 ROC20×Yuetang 91-976 | 863.33±44.56 | 66.67±8.87 | 56.67±2.81 | S | S | 0.982 |
福农10-2819 FN 10-2819 | 新台糖22号×CP93-1634 ROC22×CP93-1634 | 963.67±31.74 | 34.44±15.03 | 29.22±13.33 | MR | MR | 0.951 |
福农5号 FN 5 | 新台糖22号×崖城73-512 ROC22×Yacheng 73-512 | 124.44±17.43 | 27.78±5.45 | 17.78±6.77 | R | R | 0.999 |
福农83-36 FN 83-36 | CP49-50×福农 57-18 CP49-50×FN 57-18 | 1656.67±7.39 | 72.22±5.45 | 72.22±5.45 | HS | HS | 1.000 |
福农95-1702 FN 95-1702 | CP72-1210×粤糖73-204 CP72-1210×Yuetang 73-204 | 941.11±9.76 | 66.67±8.87 | 56.67±2.81 | S | S | 0.963 |
福农10-14405 FN 10-14405 | 粤糖91-976×闽糖86-05 Yuetang 91-976×Mintang 86-05 | 886.67±23.46 | 50.00±6.67 | 40.00±3.33 | MR | MR | 0.969 |
福农09-4059 FN 09-4059 | 粤糖93-159×云瑞91-790 Yuetang 93-159×YR 91-790 | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 | HR | HR | 1.000 |
福农09-7111 FN 09-7111 | 桂糖96-44×新台糖11号 GT 96-44×ROC11 | 1376.67±29.23 | 66.67±8.86 | 50.00±6.05 | HS | HS | 0.996 |
福农11-2907 FN 11-2907 | 桂糖96-211×云瑞 05-679 GT 96-211×YR 05-679 | 361.67±44.56 | 58.33±8.86 | 51.67±2.81 | S | S | 0.969 |
福农07-3206 FN 07-3206 | 90-1211×77-797 | 343.00±9.11 | 50.00±0.00 | 38.33±2.88 | R | R | 0.626 |
福农7409 FN 7409 | 福农95-1702×崖城84-153 FN 95-1702×Yacheng 84-153 | 886.67±11.16 | 44.44±9.62 | 28.89±2.09 | MR | MR | 0.985 |
福农11-601 FN 11-601 | 未知Unknown | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 | HR | HR | 1.000 |
桂糖08-297 GT 08-297 | 新台糖1号×粤糖91-976 ROC1×Yuetang 91-976 | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 | HR | HR | 1.000 |
桂糖02-237 GT 02-237 | 新台糖1号×粤糖91-976 ROC1×Yuetang 91-976 | 1050.00±6.73 | 50.00±0.00 | 43.33±5.77 | MR | MR | 0.987 |
桂糖00-245 GT 00-245 | 新台糖10号×CP72-1210 ROC10×CP72-1210 | 295.56±7.77 | 38.89±9.62 | 35.56±3.84 | R | R | 0.988 |
桂糖04-1001 GT 04-1001 | 新台糖22号×桂糖92-66 ROC22×GT 92-66 | 622.22±9.23 | 44.44±8.86 | 35.56±6.05 | MR | MR | 0.750 |
桂糖04-1045 GT 04-1045 | 新台糖23号×桂糖42号 ROC23×GT 42 | 1438.89±18.26 | 66.67±8.86 | 56.67±2.21 | HS | HS | 0.998 |
桂糖02-467 GT 02-467 | 新台糖23号×CP84-1198 ROC23×CP84-1198 | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 | 0.00±0.00 | HR | HR | 1.000 |
桂糖46号 GT 46 | 新台糖25号×粤糖 85-177 ROC25×Yuetang 85-177 | 1378.86±5.31 | 90.00±8.49 | 45.66±3.47 | HS | HS | 1.000 |
桂糖05-2605 GT 05-2605 | 粤糖85-177×CP57-614 Yuetang 85-177×CP57-614 | 222.23±5.31 | 50.00±0.00 | 23.89±3.47 | R | R | 0.933 |
桂糖02-390 GT 02-390 | 粤糖85-177×桂糖92-66 Yuetang 85-177×GT 92-66 | 1057.78±13.47 | 72.22±0.00 | 53.33±5.77 | S | S | 0.597 |
桂糖05-2743 GT 05-2743 | 新台糖23号×HoCP93-750 ROC23×HoCP93-750 | 1096.67±27.08 | 66.67±8.86 | 56.67±2.81 | S | S | 0.699 |
桂糖03-91 GT 03-91 | 新台糖10×桂糖73-167 ROC10×GT73-167 | 1252.22±17.07 | 50.00±0.00 | 50.00±0.00 | MR | MR | 0.990 |
桂糖07-713 GT 07-713 | 未知Unknown | 435.56±15.54 | 77.78±8.49 | 62.22±3.79 | S | S | 1.000 |
表5
供试基因型间抗白条病的差异"
抗性等级 Grade of resistance | 供试基因型 Tested genotype | 数量 Number | 平均值多重比较 Mean multiple comparison | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
发病率 IC | 病情指数 DI | 病害进展曲线下面积 AUDPC | |||
高抗HR | ZZ9、ZZ4、ZZ2、GUC19、GUC8、YR03-103、YR05-649、YR05-182、YR05-367、YR89-159、ROC22、FN11601、FN09-4059、GT02-467、GT08-297 | 15 | 0.00±0.00A | 0.00±0.00A | 0.00±0.00A |
抗R | ZZ5、GUC13、GUC9、YR03-394、ROC10、ROC23、ROC25、ROC1、FN5、FN07-3206、GT05-2605、GT 00-245、GUC25、GUC35 | 14 | 34.98±11.52B | 24.75±9.95B | 300.13±44.99B |
中抗/中感 MR/MS | ZZ6、GUC3、GUC37、YR07-4677、YR05-179、YR03-425、FN10-14405、FN10-2819、FN7409、FN99-20169、FN41、FN36、GT04-1001、GT02-237、GT03-91 | 15 | 48.17±6.06C | 32.59±7.79C | 670.49±83.57C |
感病S | GUC34、GUC1、GUC16、YR05-770、ROC7、FN95-1702、FN11、FN11-2907、GT02-390、GT05-2743、GT07-713 | 11 | 53.72±6.97D | 43.76±9.30D | 916.07±65.59D |
高感HS | GUC33、GUC23、GUC2、YR06-4674、YR06-2416、YR05-49、YR05-784、YR03-417、ROC16、FN09-7111、FN83-36、FN94-0744、GT04-1045、GT46、GUC15 | 15 | 68.05±13.81E | 57.47±12.62E | 1658.16±138.68E |
[14] | GARCES F F, GUTIERREZ A, HOY J W. Detection and quantification of Xanthomonas albilineans by qPCR and potential characterization of sugarcane resistance to leaf scald. Plant Disease, 2013, 98(1): 121-126. |
[15] | LOPES S A, DAMANN K E, HOY J W, GRISHAM M P. Infectivity titration for assessing resistance to leaf scald among sugarcane cultivars. Plant Disease, 2001, 85(6): 592-596. |
[16] | 吴广悦, 李奕莎, 李美霖, 张桂英, 陈保善, 张木清. 广西蔗区甘蔗白条病菌的鉴定与致病力分析. 植物病理学报, 2022, 52(1): 9-16. |
WU G Y, LI Y S, LI M L, ZHANG G Y, CHEN B S, ZHANG M Q. Identification and pathogenicity analysis of Xanthomonas albilineans causing sugarcane leaf scald in Guangxi. Acta Phytopathologica Sinica, 2022, 52(1): 9-16. (in Chinese) | |
[17] | 傅华英, 张婷, 彭文静, 段瑶瑶, 许哲昕, 林艺华, 高三基. 甘蔗新品种(系)苗期白条病人工接种抗性鉴定与评价. 作物学报, 2021, 47(8): 1531-1539. |
FU H Y, ZHANG T, PENG W J, DUAN Y Y, XU Z X, LIN Y H, GAO S J. Identification of resistance to leaf scald in newly released sugarcane varieties at seeding stage by artificial inoculation. Acta Agronomica Sinica, 2021, 47(8): 1531-1539. (in Chinese) | |
[18] | ROTT P, FLEITES L, MARLOW G, ROYER M, GABRIEL D W. Identification of new candidate pathogenicity factors in the xylem-invading pathogen Xanthomonas albilineans by transposon mutagenesis. Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions, 2011, 24(5): 594-605. |
[19] | 肖春芳, 王甄, 张宏, 闫雷, 沈艳芬. 不同马铃薯品种对晚疫病的田间抗性评价. 中国植保导刊, 2022, 42(5): 44-48+19. |
XIAO C F, WANG Z, ZHANG D H, YAN L, SHEN Y F. Field resistance evaluation of potato cultivars to late blight. China Plant Protection, 2022, 42(5): 44-48+19. (in Chinese) | |
[20] | ZHU Y, ABDELRAHEEM A, WHEELER T A, DEVER J K, WEDEGAERTNER T, HAKE K D, ZHANG J F. Interactions between cotton genotypes and Fusarium wilt race 4 isolates from Texas and resistance evaluation in cotton. Crop Science, 2021, 61(3): 1809-1825. |
[21] | 赵丽红. 棉花黄萎病抗性评价关键技术及分子检测方法研究[D]. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2016. |
ZHAO L H. Study on key technology of cotton verticillium wilt resistance evaluation and molecular identification method[D]. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 2016. (in Chinese) | |
[1] | KHAN A, JIANG H T, BU J Y, ADNAN M, GILLANI S W, HUSSAIN M A, ZHANG M Q. Untangling the rhizosphere bacterial community composition and response of soil physiochemical properties to different nitrogen applications in sugarcane field. Frontiers in Microbiology, 2022, 13: 1-12. |
[2] | LUGTENBERG B. Principles of plant-microbe interactions. Microbes for Sustainable Agriculture. Springer Nature, 2015. 17-24. |
[3] | ZHANG R Y, SHAN H L, LI W F, CANG X Y, WANG X Y, YIN J, LUO Z M, HUANG Y K. First report of sugarcane leaf scald caused by Xanthomonas albilineans in the province of Guangxi, China. Plant Disease, 2017, 101(8): 1541. |
[4] | LING H L, NTAMBO M S, ROTT P C, WANG Q N, LIN Y H, FU H Y, GAO S J. Molecular detection and prevalence of Xanthomonas albilineans, the causal agent of sugarcane leaf scald, in China. Crop Protection, 2018, 109: 17-23. |
[5] | FLEITES L A, MENSI I, GARGANI D, ZHANG S, ROTT P, GABRIEL D W. Xanthomonas albilineans OmpA1 appears to be functionally modular, and both the OMC and C-like domains are necessary for leaf scald disease of sugarcane. Molecular Plant- Micorobe Interactions, 2013, 26(10): 1200-1210. |
[6] | DUAN Y Y, ZHANG Y Q, XU Z X, LIN Y, MAO L R, WANG W H, DENG Z H, HUANG M T, GAO S J. First report of Xanthomonas albilineans causing leaf scald on two chewing cane clones in Zhejiang province, China. Plant Disease, 2021, 105(2): 485. |
[7] | BIRCH R G. Xanthomonas albilineans and the antipathogenesis approach to disease control. Molecular Plant Pathology, 2001, 2(1): 1-11. |
[8] | CERVANTES-ROMERO B, PEREZ-RODRIGUEZ P, ROTT P, VALDEZ-BALERO A, OSNAYA-GONZALEA M, ROBLEDO-PAZ A, HERNANDEZ-JUAREZ C, CROSSA J, ROSAS-SAITO G H, SILVA-ROJAS H V. Distribution, phylogeny, and pathogenicity of Xanthomonas albilineans causing sugarcane leaf scald in Mexico. Crop Protection, 2021, 150(2): 105799. |
[9] | DAUGROIS J H, BOISNE-NOC B R, CHAMPOISEAU B P, BULLET P, ROTT P. The revisited infection cycle of xanthomonas albilineans, the causal agent of leaf scald of sugarcane. Functional Plant Science & Biotechnology, 2012, 6(2): 91-97. |
[10] | PATRO T S S K, RAO G V N. Reaction of sugarcane clones to leaf scald disease incited by Xanthomonas albilineans. Journal of Mycology and Plant Pathology, 2006, 36(2): 241-243. |
[11] | EGAN B T. Evaluation of the aluminum cap method for leaf scald disease resistance testing in Queensland. Proceedings of the International Society of Sugarcane Technologists, 1969, 13: 1153-1158. |
[12] | ROTT P, SOUPA D, BRUNET Y, FELDMANN P, LETOURMY P. Leaf scald (Xanthomonas albilineans) incidence and its effect on yield in seven sugarcane cultivars in Guadeloupe. Plant Pathology, 1995, 44(6): 1075-1084. |
[13] | GUTIERREZ A, GARCES F F, HOY J W. Evaluation of resistance to leaf scald by quantitative PCR of Xanthomonas albilineans in sugarcane. Plant Disease, 2016, 100(7): 1331-1338. |
[22] | REIS E M, ZANATTA M, CARREGA P, PEIS A C. Asian soybean rust control efficacy calculated with AUDPC and with final severity data. Summa Phytopathology, 2022, 48(1): 28-31. |
[23] | IRFAQ M, AJAB M, MA H X, KHATTAK G. Assessment of genes controlling area under disease progress curve (AUDPC) for stripe rust (P. Striiformis F. Sp. Tritici) in two wheat (Triticum Aestivum L.) crosses. Cytology Genetics, 2009, 4: 25-38. |
[24] | ZHANG R Y, WANG X Y, SHAN H L, LI J, LI W F, CANG X Y, LUO Z M, YIN J, HUANG Y K. Identification and phylogenetic analysis of Xanthomonas albilineans (Ashby) dowson based on multiple gene sequences in Yunnan Province, China. Sugar Tech, 2019, 21(5): 1-8. |
[25] | NTAMBO M S, MENG J Y, ROTT P C, ROYER M, LIN L H, ZHANG H L, GAO S J. Identification and characterization of Xanthomonas albilineans causing sugarcane leaf scald in China using multilocus sequence analysis. Plant Pathology, 2019, 68(2): 269-277. |
[26] | 李文凤, 单红丽, 张荣跃, 仓晓燕, 王晓燕, 尹炯, 罗志明, 黄应昆. 广西蔗区检测发现检疫性病害甘蔗白条病. 中国农学通报, 2018, 34(13): 144-149. |
LI W F, SHAN H L, ZHANG R Y, CANG X Y, WANG X Y, YIN J, LUO Z M, HUANG Y K. Sugarcane leaf scald disease found in Guangxi sugarcane region. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2018, 34(13): 144-149. (in Chinese) | |
[27] | RICAUD C, RYAN C, RICAUD C, EGAN B T, GILLASPIE A G, HUGHES C G. Disease of Sugarcane Major Disease. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Press, 1989: 39-58. |
[28] | COMSTOCK J C. Outbreak of leaf scald of sugarcane, caused by Xanthomonas albilineans, in Florida. Plant Disease, 1992, 76(4): 426. |
[29] | CERVANTES-ROMERO B, PEREZ-RODRIGUES P, ROTT P, VALDEZ-BALERO A, SILVA-ROJAS H V. Distribution, phylogeny, and pathogenicity of Xanthomonas albilineans causing sugarcane leaf scald in mexico. Crop Protection, 2021, 150(2): 105799. |
[30] | PAN Y B, GRISHAM M P, BURNER D M. A polymerase chain reaction protocol for the detection of Xanthomonas albilineans, the causal agent of sugarcane leaf scald disease. Plant Disease, 1997, 81(2): 189-194. |
[31] | LAKSHMANAN P, GEIJSKES R J, AITKEN K S, GROF C L P, BONNETT G D, SMITH G R. Sugarcane biotechnology: The challenges and opportunities. In Vitro Cellular Developmental Biology Plant, 2005, 41: 345-363. |
[1] | 王秀秀,邢爱双,杨茹,何守朴,贾银华,潘兆娥,王立如,杜雄明,宋宪亮. 陆地棉种质资源表型性状综合评价[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(6): 1082-1094. |
[2] | 王梦蕊, 刘淑梅, 侯丽霞, 王施慧, 吕宏君, 苏晓梅. 番茄颈腐根腐病抗性鉴定技术的建立及抗性种质资源筛选[J]. 中国农业科学, 2022, 55(4): 707-718. |
[3] | 聂兴华, 郑瑞杰, 赵永廉, 曹庆芹, 秦岭, 邢宇. 利用荧光SSR分子标记评估中国栗属植物遗传多样性[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(8): 1739-1750. |
[4] | 李凯峰,尹玉和,王琼,林团荣,郭华春. 不同马铃薯品种挥发性风味成分及代谢产物相关性分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(4): 792-803. |
[5] | 李浩,韦本辉,黄金玲,李志刚,王令强,梁晓莹,李素丽. 粉垄对甘蔗根系结构发育及呼吸代谢相关酶活性的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(3): 522-532. |
[6] | 李敏, 苏慧, 李阳阳, 李金鹏, 李金才, 朱玉磊, 宋有洪. 黄淮海麦区小麦耐热性分析及其鉴定指标的筛选[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(16): 3381-3392. |
[7] | 庄昕波,陈银基,周光宏. 改性甘蔗膳食纤维对猪肉肌原纤维蛋白凝胶特性的影响[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(15): 3320-3330. |
[8] | 区惠平,周柳强,黄金生,朱晓晖,曾艳,彭嘉宇,谢如林,谭宏伟,李忠宁,沈小微,刘昔辉. 基于甘蔗产量与土壤磷素平衡的磷肥施用量研究[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(13): 2818-2829. |
[9] | 王萱萱,刘春宇,谢贝昱,张淑淑,王丹阳,朱振元. 碱提甘蔗皮多糖提取工艺、初步结构及其对α-葡萄糖苷酶的抑制作用[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(12): 2653-2665. |
[10] | 周一帆,杨林生,孟博,战健,邓燕. 中国甘蔗主产区产量差及影响因素分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(11): 2377-2388. |
[11] | 张斌斌,蔡志翔,沈志军,严娟,马瑞娟,俞明亮. 观赏桃种质资源表型性状多样性评价[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(11): 2406-2418. |
[12] | 王珊珊,赵晨辉,李红莲,张冰冰,梁英海,宋宏伟. 东北地区10份李种质资源果实香气成分分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(11): 2476-2486. |
[13] | 张晓,李曼,刘大同,江伟,张勇,高德荣. 扬麦系列品种品质性状分析及育种启示[J]. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(7): 1309-1321. |
[14] | 宋鸽,史东梅,曾小英,蒋光毅,江娜,叶青. 紫色土坡耕地耕层质量障碍特征[J]. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(7): 1397-1410. |
[15] | 徐默然,蔺瑞明,王凤涛,冯晶,徐世昌. 103份小麦品种(系)抗条锈性和遗传多样性评价及基因检测[J]. 中国农业科学, 2020, 53(4): 748-760. |
|