Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T20:00:47.474Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Histological And Ultrastructural Changes In Leaves Of Resistant And Susceptible Chickpea Cultivars To Ascochyta Rabiei (Pass.) Labr

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2020

H. Ilarslan
Affiliation:
Ankara University, Faculty of Science, Department of Biology, 06110, Ankara, TURKEY
B.F.S. Dolar
Affiliation:
Ankara University, Faculty of Science, Department of Biology, 06110, Ankara, TURKEY
Get access

Extract

The Ascochyta blight caused by Ascochyta rabiei ( Pass.) Labr. is a serious foliar fungal disease of chickpea (Cicer arientinum L.). The histo- and cytopathological examination of hostpathogen interactions was conducted in resistant ( ELC-195) and susceptible (Canitez-87) cultivars of chickpea at 3, 5, 7 days after inoculation with A. rabiei. Several histological studies have been made with A. Rabiei. No ultrastructural studies comparing the resistant and susceptible reactions of chickpea to A. rabiei have been reported.

The hypersensitive response (HR) is a very common reaction in resistant chickpea plants challenged with A. Rabiei. The FfR has also been associated with defence reactions which is phytoalexin synthesis. Phytoalexins are compounds, synthesised in host plant cells, after infection, which have antimicrobial properties. Fligh concentrations are often found in nearby necrotic cells which prevents further growth of the A. Rabiei in resistance chickpea.

A. rabiei produce typical appressorium formation for cuticle penetration but stomata penetration have been observed in some micrographs (Fig.l).

Type
Application Of Correlative Microscopy To Studies Of Plant Cell Function
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America

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

1.Pandey, B.K. et al., J. Phytopath. 119 (1987)88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.B. Hohl, et al., J. Phytopath. 129(1990)31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Dolar, F.S. and Gürcan, A., J. Turk. Phytopath. 22(1993)17.Google Scholar
4.This research was supported by a grant from Ankara University Research Fund, Turkey (94-05-03-01).Google Scholar