Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:21:52.090Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Inheritance of resistance to bacterial blight of cotton: IV. Tanzania selections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

N. L. Innes
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Wad Medani, Republic of the Sudan; and Cotton Research Corporation

Summary

Results of genetical tests in the Sudan are consistent with those of Arnold (1963), who was unable in Tanzania to transfer the bacterial blight intensifier gene, B6, as a separate entity to local cotton. Confirmation was obtained of the presence of B2 in Mwanza Local. The high resistance of UKBR selections from Mwanza Local was found to result from the interaction of B2 with a gene, or complex of genes, occupying the same locus as B6, or closely linked to it. This B6-type gene was obtained by exerting steady selection pressure over a number of years and gradually increasing resistance; it therefore reveals that during the last 50 years blight resistance in African Uplands has evolved per se. Whether all of Knight's (1957) B genes have arisen in such a way, or by point mutation, is conjectural.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1969

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

Arnold, M. H. (1963). The control of bacterial blight in rain-grown cotton. 1. Breeding for resistance in African Upland varieties. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 60, 415–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinkerhoff, L. A. (1963). Variability of Xanthomonas malvacearum. The cotton bacterial blight pathogen. Tech. Bull. Oklahoma State University, T-98, pp. 95.Google Scholar
Dark, S. O. S. & Saunders, J. H. (1958). Progr. Rep. exp. Stas, Republic of the Sudan, 1957–58. Cott. Res. Corp.Google Scholar
Gunn, R. E. & Innes, N. L. (1961). Bacterial blight of cotton. The effect of inoculum concentration upon severity of leaf infection. Cott. Or. Rev. 38, 279–83.Google Scholar
Innes, N. L. (1963). Resistance to bacterial blight of cotton in Albar. Nature, Lond. 200, 387–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Innes, N. L. (1964a). Sudan strains of cotton resistant bacterial blight. Cott. Gr. Rev. 41, 285–91.Google Scholar
Innes, N. L. (1964b). Resistance conferred by new gene combinations to bacterial blight of cotton. Euphytica 13, 3343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Innes, N. L. (1965a). Inheritance of resistance to bacterial blight of cotton. 1. Allen (Gossypium hirsutum) derivatives. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 64, 257–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Innes, N. L. (1965b). Resistance to bacterial blight of cotton. The genes B 9 and B 10. Expl. Agric. 1, 189–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, R. L. (1944). The genetics of blackarm resistance. 4. Gossypium punctatum (Sch. and Thon.) crosses. J. Genet. 46, 127.Google Scholar
Knight, R. L. (1946). Breeding cotton resistant to blackarm disease. (Bact. malvacearum). Emp. J. exp. Agric. 14, 153–74.Google Scholar
Knight, R. L. (1957). Blackarm disease of cotton and its control. Plant Protection Conf., 1956, p. 53. London: Butterworth.Google Scholar
Knight, R. L. & Hutchinson, J. B. (1950). The evolution of blackarm resistance in cotton. J. Genet. 50, 3658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munro, J. M. (1966). Cotton and cotton research in Africa. Field Crop Abstr. 19, 173–82.Google Scholar
Saunders, J. H. & Innes, N. L. (1963). The genetics of bacterial blight resistance. Further evidence on the gene B 6m. Genet. Res., Camb. 4, 382–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spickett, S. G. & Thoday, J. M. (1966). Regular response to selection. 3. Interaction between located polygenes. Genet. Res. 7, 96121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stephens, S. G. (1950). The internal mechanisms of speciation in Gossypium. Bot. Rev. 16, 115–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thoday, J. M. (1961). Location of polygenes. Nature, Lond. 191, 368–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar