Abstract
Abstract Fusarium head blight (FHB) is a widespread disease of small‐grain cereals and can cause substantial losses in grain yield. To assess quantitative genetic parameters as a basis for an efficient breeding programme for resistance, 100 triticale (× Triticosecale Wittm.) genotypes were tested in various environments and artificially inoculated at anthesis with an aggressive isolate of Fusarium culmorum. A visual rating (1–9 scale) was used to assess head blight infection. Five grain yield traits relative to an uninoculated control were also measured. The mean value of the average rating, calculated from four or five readings, was 4.4. It ranged from 3.0 to 5.9 and showed continuous variation. Infection caused a 48% reduction of mean kernel weight per spike, which was the result of 26% fewer kernels per spike and a 32% lower 1000‐kernel weight. The 50‐ml kernel weight was affected by only 20%. The range and genotypic variation was highest for relative kernel weight per spike. For all relative grain yield traits, the most important source of variation was the environment, followed by genotype‐environment interaction, with genotype generally coming last. In contrast, genotypic variation was the most important factor for the disease rating, which also had the highest heritability (h 2 = 0.89). Phenotypic correlations between the average head blight rating and relative grain yield traits were moderate (r = 0.42–0.57). In conclusion, an average disease rating provides a quantitative assessment of resistance and is suitable for screening large numbers of genotypes. Relative kernel weight per spike gives a ranking of the genotypes that is very similar to the visual score.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 12
Claim · model-written summary
Average head blight rating was 4.4, spanning 3.0 to 5.9 with continuous variation.
- Taxon
- triticale
×Triticosecalet0 - Outcome
- average ratinge0
- Value
- 4.4e0
- Qualifier
- ranged from 3.0 to 5.9 and showed continuous variatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“triticale”
e0“The mean value of the average rating, calculated from four or five readings, was 4.4. It ranged from 3.0 to 5.9 and showed continuous variation”
Claim · model-written summary
Infection reduced mean kernel weight per spike by 48%.
- Taxon
- triticale×Triticosecalet0
- Treatment
- Infectione0
- Outcome
- mean kernel weight per spikee0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 48%e0
- Comparator
- uninoculated controle1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“triticale”
e0“Infection caused a 48% reduction of mean kernel weight per spike”
e1“relative to an uninoculated control”
Claim · model-written summary
Infection led to 26% fewer kernels per spike.
- Taxon
- triticale×Triticosecalet0
- Treatment
- inoculatede1
- Outcome
- kernels per spikee0
- Direction
- fewere0
- Value
- 26%e0
- Comparator
- uninoculated controle1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“triticale”
e0“26% fewer kernels per spike”
e1“relative to an uninoculated control”
Claim · model-written summary
Infection lowered 1000-kernel weight by 32%.
- Taxon
- triticale×Triticosecalet0
- Treatment
- inoculatede1
- Outcome
- 1000‐kernel weighte0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 32%e0
- Comparator
- uninoculated controle1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“triticale”
e0“32% lower 1000‐kernel weight”
e1“relative to an uninoculated control”
Claim · model-written summary
Infection affected 50-ml kernel weight by 20%.
- Taxon
- triticale×Triticosecalet0
- Treatment
- inoculatede1
- Outcome
- 50‐ml kernel weighte0
- Value
- 20%e0
- Comparator
- uninoculated controle1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“triticale”
e0“The 50‐ml kernel weight was affected by only 20%”
e1“relative to an uninoculated control”
Claim · model-written summary
Relative kernel weight per spike had the highest range and genotypic variation.
- Taxon
- triticale×Triticosecalet0
- Outcome
- range and genotypic variatione0
- Direction
- higheste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“triticale”
e0“The range and genotypic variation was highest for relative kernel weight per spike”
Claim · model-written summary
Environment contributed most to variation in relative grain yield traits, then genotype-environment interaction, then genotype.
- Taxon
- triticale×Triticosecalet0
- Outcome
- relative grain yield traitse0
- Qualifier
- environment, followed by genotype‐environment interaction, with genotype generally coming laste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“triticale”
e0“For all relative grain yield traits, the most important source of variation was the environment, followed by genotype‐environment interaction, with genotype generally coming last”
Claim · model-written summary
Genotypic variation contributed most to disease rating.
- Taxon
- triticale×Triticosecalet0
- Outcome
- disease ratinge0
- Direction
- most importante0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“triticale”
e0“genotypic variation was the most important factor for the disease rating”
Claim · model-written summary
Disease rating had the highest heritability, 0.89.
- Taxon
- triticale×Triticosecalet0
- Outcome
- heritabilitye0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 0.89e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“triticale”
e0“the disease rating, which also had the highest heritability (h 2 = 0.89)”
Claim · model-written summary
Average head blight rating and relative grain yield traits had moderate phenotypic correlations of 0.42–0.57.
- Taxon
- triticale×Triticosecalet0
- Outcome
- Phenotypic correlationse0
- Value
- 0.42–0.57e0
- Comparator
- relative grain yield traitse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“triticale”
e0“Phenotypic correlations between the average head blight rating and relative grain yield traits were moderate (r = 0.42–0.57)”
Claim · model-written summary
Average disease rating provides a quantitative resistance assessment suitable for screening many genotypes.
- Taxon
- triticale×Triticosecalet0
- Outcome
- quantitative assessment of resistancee0
- Comparator
- large numbers of genotypese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“triticale”
e0“an average disease rating provides a quantitative assessment of resistance and is suitable for screening large numbers of genotypes”
Claim · model-written summary
Relative kernel weight per spike ranks genotypes very similarly to visual score.
- Taxon
- triticale×Triticosecalet0
- Outcome
- ranking of the genotypese0
- Comparator
- visual scoree0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“triticale”
e0“Relative kernel weight per spike gives a ranking of the genotypes that is very similar to the visual score”
The same questions in other papers
infection · yield · x Triticosecale (triticale)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
inoculation · yield · x Triticosecale (triticale)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.