scholarly journals Reaction of winter wheat cultivars to common bunt Tilletia tritici (Bjerk.) Wint. and T. laevis Kühn

2008 ◽  
Vol 43 (No. 4) ◽  
pp. 138-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Dumalasová ◽  
P. Bartoš
Keyword(s):  
Winter Wheat ◽  
Wheat Cultivars ◽  
Common Bunt ◽  
Tilletia Tritici ◽  
Winter Wheat Cultivars ◽  
One Year

Fifteen registered winter wheat cultivars were tested for reaction to common bunt in 2-years trials. A mixture of seven Czech proveniences of common bunt was used for inoculation. Cvs Globus and Bill were most resistant in both years. The reaction of these two cultivars to 16 Czech and German samples of common bunt of different proveniences was also tested. On cvs Globus and Bill only one sample in one year caused bunt incidence 29.3% and 19.3%, whereas the incidence caused by other bunt samples was below 10% and 15%, respectively.

scholarly journals Resistance of some commercial winter wheat cultivars to Tilletia tritici

2007 ◽  
pp. 155-159
Author(s):  
Mirjana Staletic ◽  
Slavisa Gudzic ◽  
Radivoje Jevtic ◽  
Milivoje Milovanovic ◽  
Vesna Stevanovic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Winter Wheat ◽  
Causal Agent ◽  
The Other ◽  
Wheat Cultivars ◽  
Common Bunt ◽  
Tilletia Tritici ◽  
Commercial Cultivars ◽  
Winter Wheat Cultivars

This paper deals with the resistance of twenty commercial winter wheat cultivars to common bunt causal agent (Tilletia tritici). Significant differences among the cultivars concerning the infection percent were observed, as well as the differences in the level of commercial cultivars' resistance to T. tritici. Most of the studied cultivars belonged to susceptible categories, and just few of them to the resistant ones. Cultivar Lasta was classified as highly resistant during the both investigation years in Kragujevac, while in Leposavic Lasta and Tiha were classified as resistant. The other studied cultivars were more or less susceptible.

DESIGNED EXPERIMENTS: DO YOU KNOW WHAT POPULATION YOU ARE SAMPLING FROM?

2018 ◽  
Vol 55 (04) ◽  
pp. 621-636 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARCIN KOZAK ◽  
HANS-PETER PIEPHO
Keyword(s):  
Winter Wheat ◽  
Block Design ◽  
Agricultural Science ◽  
Survey Sampling ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Wheat Cultivars ◽  
Designed Experiments ◽  
Designed Experiment ◽  
Winter Wheat Cultivars ◽  
One Year

SUMMARYConsider a field experiment laid out in a randomized complete block design in which you study three types of fertilizers for two winter wheat cultivars. One year, one location – the experiment is not repeated. You design it and then spend a lot of time and money to conduct it. You cultivate the soil and take care of the plants; you worry about them; you never know what can happen, so you cannot wait for the crop to be harvested. And that day finally comes. The crop is harvested, and everything is fine. And here you are, all went great, you have the data in hands, and now a simple thing to do – analyse them. Well, yes, the experiment was conducted in one year, and you are aware you cannot be sure the outcome would be the same next year or elsewhere, but whatever – suffice it to consider the conclusions as preliminary and get on with the interpretation. Why should you not? It was a properly designed experiment that took samples from the underlying infinite populations of the two winter wheat cultivars in the three water regimes studied. Statistics is here to help you out, is not it? Well, it is not. Statistics will not help you out whether the experiment was poorly designed. Agricultural science literature seldom explains what populations are studied and what types of samples are taken in designed experiments. To fill this gap, we discuss various aspects of the sampling process in designed experiments. In doing so, we look at the survey sampling methodology, a statistical framework for studying finite populations – we do this because survey sampling has developed into the advanced theory of sampling processes, and this background can help us understand the intrinsic aspects of sampling in designed experiments.

scholarly journals Common bunt resistance of Czech and European winter wheat cultivars and breeder lines

2014 ◽  
Vol 50 (No. 3) ◽  
pp. 201-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Dumalasová ◽  
L. Leišová-Svobodová ◽  
P. Bartoš
Keyword(s):  
Winter Wheat ◽  
Field Tests ◽  
Wheat Cultivars ◽  
Common Bunt ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
Breeding Lines ◽  
Close Relationship ◽  
Winter Wheat Cultivars ◽  
European Winter Wheat ◽  
The Mean

Winter wheat cultivars recently registered in the Czech Republic were tested in three-year field tests for resistance to common bunt. Seeds were inoculated with a mixture of local strains of Tilletia tritici and T. laevis. None of the cultivars displayed a higher level of resistance compared with the resistant checks. The mean percentage of bunted ears in the three test series including checks was 39%. Mean bunt infection in resistant and susceptible checks was 2% and 63%, respectively. In the European Tilletia cooperative test performed in Prague-Ruzyně, thirty-five winter wheat cultivars from six countries were tested during 2007–2013. The cultivars Bill, Nadro, Quebon, Samurai, Stava and Tommi exhibited infection levels below 10% in the respective years of the test. Additionally, 75 breeding lines from six countries were tested. Infection levels below 1% were recorded in 56% of the lines and 1–10% levels in 19% of the lines. A close relationship between the resistant cvs. Tommi and Globus was confirmed using SSR allelic markers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document