Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:33:04.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Investigations on certain toxic substances obtained from the wheat plant which inhibit the germination of the uredospores of various wheat rusts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. F. Parker-Rhodes
Affiliation:
Agricultural and Horticultural Research Station, Long Ashton, Bristol

Extract

A method is described whereby solutions can be obtained from wheat leaves which are toxic to the spores of rusts. Precautions designed to minimize unknown variable factors affecting the activity of the solutions are described.

It was found that the uredospores used germinated better in extracts from Little Joss wheat infected with Tilletia tritici than in that from healthy plants, this being correlated with the relative susceptibility of the two kinds of plant under field conditions. On the other hand, no correlation was obtained as between four different varieties tested in the healthy state.

A method is described, by which solutions are obtained in which enzymic activity in the course of preparation is reduced to a minimum. It is found that solutions prepared in this way are non-toxic, if obtained from healthy living leaves, though present in decaying leaves. It is deduced that the toxic substances studied are formed in the course of autolysis.

It is found that, using the second method of preparation, solutions obtained from rusted leaves are toxic. An experiment is described in which modifications of the degree to which such toxins are produced by a given amount of rust infection are brought about by different nutritional treatments, excess of potassium and deficiency of minor elements being conducive to the production of toxins.

Experiments are described which demonstrate that the toxins produced by infection with Puccinia glumarum are toxic only to spores of that species, and not to those of P. triticina, and vice versa.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1939

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allen, R. F. (1926). J. agric. Res. 33, 201.Google Scholar
Allen, R. F. (1928). J. agric. Res. 36, 487.Google Scholar
Crépin, C., Bustarret, J. & Chevalier, R. (1938). Ann. Épiphyt. Phytogénét. 3, 321.Google Scholar
Ezekiel, W. N. (1930). Tech. Bull. Minn, agric. Exp. Sta. no. 67.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1930). Statistical Methods for Research Students, 3rd ed. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Johnstone, K. A. H. (1931). J. Pomol. 9, 195.Google Scholar
Klotz, L. J. (1927). Science, 66, 631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, W. (1917). Z. PflKrankh. 27, 80.Google Scholar
Leach, J. G. (1919). Phytopathology, 9, 59.Google Scholar
Nobécourt, L. (1928). Contributions à l'élude de l'immunité chez les végétaux. Tunis.Google Scholar
Porter, C. L. (1924). Amer. J. Bot. 11, 168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharvelle, E. G. (1936). J. agric. Res. 53, 81.Google Scholar
Tims, E. C. (1926). J. agric. Res. 32, 183.Google Scholar
Walker, J. C. & Lindegren, C. C. (1924). J. agric. Res. 29, 507.Google Scholar
Ward, H. M. (1902). Ann. Bot., Lond., 16, 233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weston, W. A. R. D. (1927). Ann. appl. Biol. 14, 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiltshire, S. P. (1915). Ann. appl. Biol. 1, 335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yarwood, C. E. & Childs, J. F. L. (1938). Phytopathology, 28, 723.Google Scholar