Abbreviation (ISO4): Chin Agric Sci Bull
Editor in chief: Yulong YIN
Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin >
Main Cultivars of Chinese Cabbage in Chengdu Plain: Identification and Evaluation of Clubroot Resistance
Received date: 2019-01-30
Request revised date: 2019-03-04
Online published: 2020-03-19
Supported by
(2016QNJJ-010)
(2014NZ0042)
Copyright
To clarify the resistance level of Chinese cabbage varieties against clubroot in Chengdu plain, a total of 45 main cultivars of Chinese cabbage were screened for resistance in three counties, Longxing in Chongzhou, Mengyang in Pengzhou and Taixing in Xindu in 2018. The identification was carried out under field condition by using the method of natural infection, and the resistance level analysis was conducted by investigating the symptom on plant roots. The results showed that the resistance level of the tested Chinese cabbage cultivars to clubroot disease was variable. Four cultivars showed immune to clubroot (disease index=0) in the Chongzhou natural disease nursery, and the ratio was 8.9%, and the other cultivars showed susceptibility (35<disease index≤55) or high susceptibility (55<disease index≤100), accounting for 91.1%. The evaluation of resistance identification in Pengzhou showed that six cultivars were immune to clubroot, eleven cultivars were tolerant to clubroot disease (15<disease index≤35), and the remaining twenty eight cultivars were susceptibility or highly susceptibility. But in Xindu, only two cultivars showed immune resistance, sixteen tolerant cultivars were screened out and twenty six cultivars showed susceptibility or high susceptibility. The resistance of most of the cultivars was susceptible to clubroot, and the resistance of some cultivars showed instability in different areas. Only cultivar Meichun and Shangpin exhibited stable immune to clubroot in the three regions, which were suitable for planting in the epidemic areas of clubroot disease, and could be used for further study on resistance breeding.
Key words: Chinese cabbage; clubroot; resistance level; disease index
Wu Wenxian , Zhang Lei , Huang Xiaoqin , Yang Xiaoxiang , Liu Yong . Main Cultivars of Chinese Cabbage in Chengdu Plain: Identification and Evaluation of Clubroot Resistance[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020 , 36(10) : 127 -132 . DOI: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb19010152
表1 供试45个大白菜品种 |
编号 | 材料名称 | 编号 | 材料名称 | 编号 | 材料名称 | 编号 | 材料名称 | 编号 | 材料名称 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 津宝 | 10 | 春月皇丽妃 | 19 | 春秋 | 28 | 强丰 | 37 | 山东19号 |
2 | 德高 | 11 | 强春1号 | 20 | 美春 | 29 | 尚品 | 38 | 福春 |
3 | 春泰 | 12 | 丰抗60 | 21 | 明星 | 30 | 神州 | 39 | 亚春 |
4 | 青华 | 13 | 高晨满月 | 22 | 康根 | 31 | 淑妃 | 40 | 幽研小将 |
5 | 超音速 | 14 | 高丽田皇 | 23 | 秋结实 | 32 | 四季王 | 41 | 冠春 |
6 | 春盛 | 15 | 寒春 | 24 | 秋强 | 33 | 甜脆 | 42 | 兴业 |
7 | 绿美 | 16 | 双丰 | 25 | 秋状元 | 34 | 夏强2号 | 43 | 早皇白 |
8 | 春喜 | 17 | 极越32 | 26 | 冬美 | 35 | 夏优王 | 44 | 华良 |
9 | 绿宝 | 18 | 金秋60 | 27 | 热王 | 36 | 小夏阳 | 45 | 和谐5号 |
表2 不同大白菜品种对根肿病的抗性鉴定结果 |
材料名称 | 病情指数 | 抗性水平 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
崇州 | 彭州 | 新都 | 崇州 | 彭州 | 新都 | ||
津宝 | 58.00±9.29abcd | 60.33±1.81abc | 44.95±9.40abc | HS | HS | S | |
德高 | 64.38±5.62abcd | 68.00±2.17abc | 52.38±1.89abc | HS | HS | S | |
春泰 | 0±0e | 0±0h | 18.67±1.62cd | I | I | T | |
青华 | 60.76±5.86abcd | 74.00±9.54ab | 67.67±6.66ab | HS | HS | HS | |
超音速 | 74.86±15.02abc | 67.00±8.72abc | 49.05±3.92abc | HS | HS | S | |
春盛 | 0±0e | 0±0h | 19.67±5.20cd | I | I | T | |
绿美 | 62.62±4.50abcd | 17.00±0.52efg | 23.68±1.89cd | HS | T | T | |
春喜 | 68.48±10.91abcd | 19.12±8.89efg | 23.43±1.32cd | HS | T | T | |
绿宝 | 63.78±17.02abcd | 16.67±4.62efg | 22.38±1.73cd | HS | T | T | |
春月皇丽妃 | 62.76±15.64abcd | 18.67±2.52efg | 23.67±1.85cd | HS | T | T | |
强春1号 | 85.00±9.85a | 67.00±0abc | 48.24±6.46abc | HS | HS | S | |
丰抗60 | 69.33±7.54abcd | 53.67±9.07bcd | 43.33±2.33abc | HS | S | S | |
高晨满月 | 60.19±10.83abcd | 49.33±3.17bcd | 39.52±2.54bc | HS | S | S | |
高丽田皇 | 60.09±11.63abcd | 52.67±1.87bcd | 43.00±4.11abc | HS | S | S | |
寒春 | 75.81±5.51abc | 18.67±4.62efg | 24.57±7.39cd | HS | T | T | |
双丰 | 61.90±15.28abcd | 38.00±1.38cde | 40.86±2.94bc | HS | S | S | |
极越32 | 72.38±7.28abc | 20.67±0.58efg | 39.86±1.88bc | HS | T | S | |
金秋60 | 65.61±11.17abcd | 68.00±2.02abc | 50.19±1.89abc | HS | HS | S | |
春秋 | 69.71±3.48abcd | 39.67±4.93cde | 37.14±2.43bc | HS | S | S | |
美春 | 0±0e | 0±0h | 0±0d | I | I | I | |
明星 | 65.24±13.67abcd | 49.33±3.17bcd | 39.52±2.54bc | HS | S | S | |
康根 | 60.38±11.46abcd | 64.33±7.16abc | 47.14±2.89abc | HS | HS | S | |
秋结实 | 63.81±4.59abcd | 51.33±1.53bcd | 41.43±1.61bc | HS | S | S | |
秋强 | 63.90±9.39abcd | 41.67±8.08cde | 35.14±7.89bcd | HS | S | S | |
秋状元 | 69.14±6.59abcd | 31.67±1.07de | 32.76±1.29bcd | HS | T | T | |
冬美 | 57.81±15.88abcd | 72.00±7.94ab | 56.67±3.34abc | HS | HS | HS | |
热王 | 69.14±11.38abcd | 36.00±2.43de | 39.86±1.88bc | HS | S | S | |
强丰 | 74.86±16.73abc | 67.00±0abc | 48.24±6.46abc | HS | HS | S | |
尚品 | 0±0e | 0±0h | 0±0d | I | I | I | |
神州 | 54.67±7.57cd | 52.67±1.87bcd | 28.10±1.82cd | S | S | T | |
淑妃 | 53.81±3.60cd | 15.00±1.73efg | 22.33±0.79cd | S | T | T | |
四季王 | 73.90±11.99abc | 43.33±9.40cde | 39.86±1.88bc | HS | S | S | |
甜脆 | 75.33±12.58abc | 50.00±2.18bcd | 30.00±8.68cd | HS | S | T | |
夏强2号 | 73.52±12.74abc | 25.33±7.51ef | 31.90±2.97bcd | HS | T | T | |
夏优王 | 83.33±9.02ab | 80.67±9.71a | 78.71±7.63a | HS | HS | HS | |
小夏阳 | 73.52±15.66abc | 64.33±1.38abc | 47.05±6.39abc | HS | HS | S | |
山东19号 | 73.33±9.87abc | 18.67±2.52efg | 43.00±4.11abc | HS | T | S | |
福春 | 41.90±9.29d | 0±0h | 20.48±1.85cd | S | I | T | |
亚春 | 80.67±12.70abc | 50.33±5.04bcd | 41.05±3.64bc | HS | S | S | |
幽研小将 | 60.76±15.96abcd | 64.00±2.19abc | 46.00±8.72abc | HS | HS | S | |
冠春 | 71.33±14.74abc | 49.67±10.40bcd | 31.14±5.01bcd | HS | S | T | |
兴业 | 64.10±3.46abcd | 22.67±2.06efg | 23.67±1.85cd | HS | T | T | |
早皇白 | 55.04±2.54bcd | 0±0h | 21.57±2.65cd | S | I | T | |
华良 | 60.95±7.87abcd | 52.67±1.87bcd | 43.00±4.11abc | HS | S | S | |
和谐5号 | 59.43±2.45abcd | 52.00±1.04bcd | 42.86±3.22abc | HS | S | S |
注:同列不同小写字母表示差异显著(P<0.05)。 |
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
作者已声明无竞争性利益关系。
[1] |
张凤兰,于拴仓,余阳俊,等.“十二五”我国大白菜遗传育种研究进展[J].中国蔬菜,2017,1(3):16-22.
|
[2] |
龚振平. 大白菜抗病和晚抽薹性状的GWAS分析及其优异资源发掘[D].北京:中国农业科学院,2016:1-24.
|
[3] |
刘达玉,张崟,王代春,等.成都彭州蔬菜产业现状及发展对策[J].中国蔬菜,2012(7):7-9.
|
[4] |
马坡,李晓楠,庞文星,等.芸薹根肿菌SSR标记的开发及遗传多样性研究[J].中国油料作物学报,2018,40(6):872-878.
|
[5] |
王靖,黄云,李小兰,等.十字花科根肿病研究进展[J].植物保护,2011,37(6):153-158.
|
[6] |
李金萍,柴阿丽,孙日飞,等.十字花科蔬菜根肿病研究新进展[J].中国蔬菜,2012,1(8):1-4.
|
[7] |
刘勇,张蕾,黄小琴,等.油菜及十字花科蔬菜苗期根肿病防治技术[J].四川农业科技,2018(9):30.
|
[8] |
|
[9] |
|
[10] |
江莹芬,战宗祥,朴钟云,等.油菜抗根肿病资源创新与利用的研究进展与展望[J].作物学报,2018,44(11):1592-1599.
|
[11] |
白亭亭,杨佩文,李向东,等.不同措施对十字花科作物根肿病控制效果研究[J].西南农业学报,2018,31(4):731-735.
|
[12] |
|
[13] |
|
[14] |
朱明钊,张淑江,张慧,等.大白菜抗根肿病的抗源筛选和分子标记鉴定[J].中国蔬菜,2018(3):40-45.
|
[15] |
甘彩霞,崔磊,袁伟玲,等.湖北长阳山区萝卜根肿病抗性鉴定筛选[J].中国蔬菜,2017(12):41-47.
|
[16] |
彭宇龙,黄云,杨辉.四川省根肿菌的分布和生理小种及品种抗性评估[J].植物保护学报,2018,45(2):299-306.
|
[17] |
刘勇,黄小琴,柯绍英,等.四川主栽油菜品种根肿病抗性研究[J].中国油料作物学报,2009,31(1):90-93.
|
[18] |
王丽丽,王鑫,吴海东,等.我国主要抗根肿病大白菜品种抗性鉴定及评价[J].中国蔬菜,2017,1(8):46-50.
|
[19] |
李宁,赵利民,鱼昭君,等.大白菜品种对陕西省太白县根肿病的抗性鉴定[J].中国农学通报,2015,31(34):173-176.
|
[20] |
曾令益,任莉,刘凡,等.28个大白菜品种对根肿菌不同菌株的抗性反应及抗病基因位点检测[J].中国油料作物学报,2017,39(4):532-639.
|
[21] |
温晨阳,赵英杰,东保柱,等.内蒙古自治区主栽马铃薯品种对黄萎病的抗性鉴定[J].植物保护学报,2018,45(6):1220-1226.
|
[22] |
何虎翼,谭冠宁,何新民,等.马铃薯品种(系)资源的疮痂病抗性鉴定[J].植物遗传资源学报,2017,18(4):786-793.
|
[23] |
邢小萍,袁虹霞,孙君伟,等.河南省小麦主推品种对2种禾谷孢囊线虫的抗性及其评价方法[J].作物学报,2014,40(5):805-815.
|
[24] |
|
[25] |
|
[26] |
|
/
〈 |
|
〉 |