WP4 Field experiments with artificial Fusarium inoculation
P3: Mattias Hermann, Germany
P9: Domnica Daniela, Romania
P14: Lenka Nedomova, Czech Republik
P8: Luigi Cativelli, Valeria Terzi, Italy (without artificial inoculation)
Partner
Comparison of planning and course 2008
1. Experimental design: According to Web-application and plan
2. Seeding: As planned, minor differences
3. Inoculation: Nearly as planned, with some problems
4. Trait measurements: Differences due to local circumstances/conditions
First Results
Precision of the experiments?
1. Comparison variances over locations and estimation of Cultivar x Location interaction effects
2. Coefficients of correlations between locations
ANOVA for replicated standard cultivars (PLABSTAT)
Heading daysSource DF MS Var,cp F LSD5Location 2 5758,1 104,4 354,78** 1,67Cultivar 10 491,0 32,6 335,47** 0,87CL interaction 20 26,9 5,1 18,38** 1,51Replic:L 12 16,2 1,3 11,09** 1,02RCL 120 1,5 1,5
Height in cmLocation 2 6154,2 108,3 30,93** 5,86Cultivar 10 1118,2 71,5 24,56** 4,88CL interaction 20 84,4 7,8 1,85* 8,45Replic:L 12 199,0 13,9 4,37** 5,7RCL 120 45,5 45,5
ThousandkernelweightLocation 2 904,3 16,2 72,42** 1,47Cultivar 10 266,2 17,4 52,33** 1,63CL interaction 20 24,8 3,9 4,87** 2,82Replic:L 12 12,5 0,7 2,45** 1,9RCL 120 5,1 5,1
ANOVA continuation
Lodging at maturityDF MS Var,cp F LSD5
Location 2 741,1 13,4 131,06** 0,99Cultivar 10 3,4 0,1 1,91* 0,96CL interaction 20 6,1 0,9 3,47** 1,66Replic:L 12 5,7 0,4 3,22** 1,12RCL 120 1,8 1,8
Panicle number m2
Location 2 1896252,2 34458,1 1794,07** 13,51Cultivar 10 4292,4 212,8 3,90** 23,98CL interaction 20 2913,1 362,5 2,65** 41,54Replic:L 12 1057,0 -3,9 0,96 28,01RCL 120 1100,4 1100,4
Coefficients of correlation (I)
High heritable traitsHeading Testweight
Ger Rom GerCze 0,82 0,77 Cze 0,82Ger 0,67
Thousand kernel weight Lamma colourGer Rom Rom
Cze 0,81 0,69 Ger 0,73Ger 0,65
Plant HeightGer Rom
Cze 0,78 0,55Ger 0,49
Coefficients of correlation (II)
Low heritable traits:
Lodging at maturity Panicle lengthGer Rom Rom
Cze -0,48 -0,32 Cze 0,46Ger 0,37
Panicle number m2 Kernel yieldGer Rom Ger
Cze 0,15 0,22 Cze 0,19Ger 0,10
Conclusions:
Interactions and variances normal as expected;
Good concordance between single experiments in high heritable traits
Inoculation results
1. Romania: Successful, but assessment of field symptoms very difficult, only yes or no; FDK-seed percentages are better in differentiation
2. Czech Republik, Italy and Germany: Nearly no visual symptoms in plots or harvested kernels (but in Aranka)
3. ELISA results are needed for further differentiation
Coefficient of correlation between FHB-scorings and other traits (Romania)
Hea
ding
Pcm
ean
Lodg
ingI
mm
atur
e
Pan
Sha
pe
Hei
ghtc
m
Pan
L cm
Lodg
_mat
ure
Day
s to
mat
urity
Pan
N m
ean
Lem
maC
olou
r
TKW
FDK
%_2
FDK
% _
3
FDK%_2 -0,09 0,03 -0,04 0,03 -0,10 -0,01 -0,03 -0,07 0,13 -0,20 0,14 1,00
FDK% _3 -0,15 0,12 -0,12 0,07 0,02 -0,11 -0,10 -0,13 -0,05 -0,09 -0,01 -0,14 1,00
FHB field score 0,00 0,16 -0,07 0,04 0,01 -0,11 0,01 -0,08 0,02 -0,25 0,23 0,31 0,14
Comparison between inoculated and noninoculated plots (effects of inoculation)
LSD5% inoc non-inocul.
inoc non-inocul.
inoc non-inocul.
Heading 0,87 69 68 52 52 71 70
Heightcm 4,88 90 97 76 80 96 96
Lodg_mature 0,96 8 8 2 2 2 1
PanN mean 23,98 109 61 412 390 72 76
TKW 1,63 32 31 35 35 27 28
Testweight 40 53 49 49
Grain Yield 1389 1622 1098 1392
FDK%_score2 1,00 1,21
FDK% score3 3,08 2,05
FHB field 8,24 7,86
CZ Ger Rom
Summary and conclusions
• Experimental design and realisation good
• Viewable Fusarium infection low, possible reasons are resistances, weather conditions, low virulence of Fusarium isolates used, etc.
• No correlation of Fusarium infection level and other traits, as in other studies
• ELISA results are needed for further differentiation
Many thanks to the sponsors:
The European Commission’s ( Council Regulation
(EC) no. 870/2004),
Peter Koelln KGaA,
Emco spol. s r. o.,
Gemeinschaft zur Förderung der privaten
deutschen Pflanzenzüchtung e.V. (GFP)
Meeting additionally supported by the Association of the
Friends and Promotors of the Julius Kühn-Institute
(GFF) and Peter Koelln KGaA