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