Claim · model-written summary
Disease defeat in the identified resistance sources did not exceed 1.0 point in peak disease years.
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentComparatorSettingQualifier
Verbatim
e0“The degree of their defeat in the years with the maximum development of the disease did not exceed 1.0 point.”
t0“Raspberry”
Title
Raspberry breeding for resistance to fungal diseases
Maksim Podgaeckiy; Sergey Evdokimenko Agrarian Bulletin of the 2022. doi:10.32417/1997-4868-2022-226-11-58-69
Other claims from this paper (9)
- Association Raspberry genotype susceptibility to fungal disease depended on climatic conditions.
- Observation Ivan Kupala, Patritsiya, Lavina, Brigantina, Sputnitsa and Newburg were sources of resistance to didymella.
- Observation Selections 11-126-1, 8-10x-1 and 18-11-2 were sources of didymella resistance.
- Observation Mariya, Glen Ample, Meteor and Zhuravlik were sources of anthracnose resistance.
- Observation Cowichan, Mariya, Zhuravlik and Selection 11-126-1 were sources of septoria spot resistance.
- Observation Four listed crossing combinations were most promising for didymella resistance.
- Observation Five listed crossing combinations were most promising for anthracnose resistance.
- Observation Ulybka × Vol’nitsa and Gusar × Vol’nitsa were most promising for septoria spot resistance.
- Observation Five hybrid fund forms were valuable starting material for breeding resistance to major pathogens.