• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Genetic analysis of the maximum germination distance of Striga under Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. strigae biocontrol in sorghum

    2018-07-09 11:02:30EmmanuelMremaHusseinShimelisMarkLaingLearnmoreMwadzingeni
    Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2018年7期

    Emmanuel Mrema , Hussein Shimelis Mark Laing Learnmore Mwadzingeni

    1 University of KwaZulu-Natal/African Centre for Crop Improvement, Scottsville 3209, South Africa

    2 Tumbi Agricultural Research Institute, Tabora, Tanzania

    1. Introduction

    Sorghum (Sorghum bicolour (L.) Moench, 2n=2x=20) is one of the key food security crops in sub-Sharan Africa(SSA) and Asia. In SSA, sorghum productivity is affected by Striga infestation, drought, birds, and storage pests.Striga hermonthica (Del.) Benth and Striga asiatica (L.)Kuntze are obligate root parasites that cause severe yield losses in sorghum and other cereal crops including rice(Oryza glaberrima Steudel and O. sativa L.), pearl millet(Pennisetum glaucum L.), and maize (Zea mays L.) (Riches 2003; Rodenburg et al. 2015).

    Integrated Striga management (ISM) involving combined use of resistant varieties, biological control agents, cultural practices, and chemical control minimizes losses caused by the parasitic weeds (Hearne 2009). Breeding for Striga resistance in sorghum is an economically and environmentally sustainable management option (Ejeta 2007). Components of Striga resistance in sorghum include low haustorium initiation factor (LHF), mechanical barriers, inhibition of germ tube exoenzymes by root exudates, phytoalexin synthesis, incompatibility, antibiosis, insensitivity to Striga toxins, and Striga avoidance through various root growth habits (Wegmann 1996). Sorghum genotypes with low Striga germination stimulant or LHF have been reported to support few or no Striga attachments (Hess et al. 1992; Ejeta et al. 1997). The maximum germination distance (MGD)of Striga can effectively be screened for using the agar-gel assay developed by Hess et al. (1992). The technique involves spreading of preconditioned Striga seeds onto agar in Petri dishes followed by sowing of sorghum seeds and measuring of the maximum distance between sorghum rootlets and germinated Striga seeds. This is referred to as the MGD. Genotypes with a germination distance below 10 mm are classified as low germination stimulants offering considerable resistance against parasitism (Ejeta 2000).

    The nature and magnitude of gene action influencing economic traits are key determinants of breeding procedures to follow. Several minor genes have been reported to be linked to enhanced germination of Striga (Vogler et al.1996). Haussmann et al. (1996) reported the influence of quantitative genetic variation and preponderance of additive genetic effects on the stimulation of S. hermonthica seed germination. Partial or complete dominant genes for Striga resistance were also reported on sorghum hybrids derived from crosses between resistant and susceptible parents(Obilana 1984). Estimation of these gene effects can effectively be achieved through generation mean analysis(GMA) based on the following six generations: female parent(P1), male parent (P2), F1progenies, F2segregants, and backcrosses to P1(BCP1) and P2(BCP2) (Anderson and Kempthorne 1954; Hayman 1958). The analysis is effective when the parents are divergent, possessing complementary and favourable alleles. It has been widely used to study gene action controlling Striga resistance in sorghum(Gamble 1962), maize (Badu-Apraku et al. 2013), and rice(Gurney et al. 2006). The mode of gene action controlling MGD of Striga in sorghum is not well documented, yet it is a necessary guide to Striga resistance breeding.

    Development of Striga resistant sorghum genotypes that are compatible with Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. strigae(FOS), a biocontrol agent, is a novel ISM option against the obligate parasite (Rebeka et al. 2013). Pathogenic isolates of FOS are effective bio-herbicides, especially when integrated with other control practices (Rebeka et al. 2013).FOS is host specific, pathogenic, and highly destructive against Striga. It is also easy to mass-produce (Ciotola et al. 2000). Flowing seed treatment, the fungus proliferates in the rhizosphere of sorghum plants, and subsequently parasitizes Striga plants, stopping them from successfully attacking roots of the host plant (Rebeka 2007). Despite its potential, the effectiveness of FOS application to sorghum populations in Tanzania is yet to be explored. Selection of desirable parents, their crosses and backcross derivatives with reduced MGD and compatible with FOS may provide a foundation for ISM. This requires understanding of the genetic variability and inheritance of MGD of Striga among the selected genotypes (Mrema et al. 2017).

    Promising sorghum genotypes with high FOS compatibility were identified under controlled evaluation conditions(Mrema et al. 2017). The lines possessed farmers’ preferred traits including adaptation to rain-fed conditions, while some had better yields and FOS compatibility (Mrema et al. 2016).Establishing the gene action influencing MGD of Striga among the selected lines could fill the current knowledge gap on the best breeding methodology to adopt in order to advance both Striga resistance and FOS compatibility.Therefore, this study aimed to determine the gene action controlling the MGD of S. hermonthica and S. asiatica from selected sorghum genotypes combined with FOS treatment using the generation mean analysis procedure.

    2. Materials and methods

    2.1. Plant materials and crosses

    Twelve parents with high general and specific combining ability for the number of days to 50% flowering, seed yield per plant, and Striga resistance were used in this study (Mrema et al. 2017). Table 1 presents details of the studied genotypes. These lines were resistant to both S. hermonthica and S. asiatica and were compatible with FOS. Additionally, the lines harboured key traits preferred by farmers in semi-arid areas of Tanzania (Mrema et al.2016). The 12 parents were divided into two equal sets of females and males, which were crossed using a bi-parental mating design, producing six F1families. The families were subsequently selfed to produce F2families and remnant seed was preserved for evaluation. F1progeny families were backcrossed to their respective parents to generate backcross to parent one (BCP1) and backcross to parent two (BCP2) derivatives. These constituted the six basic generations, P1, P2, F1, BCP1, BCP2, and F2which weresubjected to generation mean analysis.

    Table 1 Names and attributes of parental sorghum genotypes used for crosses

    2.2. Bio-control agent and inoculum preparation

    A pathogenic strain of F. oxysporum f. sp. strigae (FOS)originally isolated from sorghum fields infested with Striga in northeastern lowlands of Ethiopia was used as a bio-control agent for Striga management (Rebeka et al.2013). Taxonomic identification of FOS was confirmed by the Phytomedicine Department of Humboldt University in Berlin, Germany. The isolate was maintained on special nutrient agar (SNA) medium at –40°C. Pure Fusarium chlamydospores from cultures grown on potato dextrose agar (PDA) were sampled and mass-produced at Plant Health Products (Pty) Ltd., KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa and preserved by the Discipline of Plant Pathology, University of KwaZulu-Natal.

    2.3. Experimental site

    The six generations consisting of female parents (P1) and male parents (P2), F1progenies, F2segregants, backcrosses to P1(BCP1) and backcrosses to P2(BCP2) were evaluated to determine the MDG of S. hermonthica and S. asiatica and to evaluate their compatibility with FOS. The study was conducted at the Plant Pathology screen house facility and the laboratory of the African Seed Health Centre, Crop Science Department of Sokoine, University of Agriculture in Tanzania.

    2.4. Experimental design and trial establishment

    MGD of S. hermonthica and S. asiatica from sorghum genotypes was evaluated using an agar-gel assay developed by Hess et al. (1992) in two sets of experiments.One set involved S. hermonthica and the other set had S. asiatica, and both were with and without FOS treatments.The experiments were conducted using a split plot design with three replications. FOS treatment was the main-plot and genotypes were the sub-plots. Striga seeds were surface-sterilized by soaking in a 1% sodium hypochlorite solution for 5 min and then washing with distilled water using a filter paper on a funnel until the chlorine odour disappeared. Two layers of circular filter paper were placed in a Petri dish base of 9 cm diameter and wetted with distilled water. Discs with 5-mm filter paper were arranged on a moist paper in the Petri dish lid. Sterilized and dried Striga seeds were sprinkled onto the discs and the Petri dishes were covered with the lid. The Petri dishes were kept under dark conditions by covering them with aluminium foil. The Striga seeds were then incubated at 25°C for 15 days.The preconditioned Striga seeds were randomly sown into water agar in Petri dishes followed by planting a sterilised sorghum seed at the centre of each dish. Another set was sown with Striga and sorghum seeds dressed with 75 mg of FOS spores. Both sorghum and Striga seeds were left to germinate for 15 days and the MGD was determined at 5 days after germination.

    2.5. Data analysis

    Separate analysis of variance as well as test for normality and homogeneity of variances were conducted, followed by combined analysis of variance using the general linear model procedure (PROC GLM) in SAS ver. 9.3(SAS Institute 2011). The following model was used:Yijk=μ+Gi+Ej+G×E+rk(E)+eijk; where, Yijk, response on MGD of ith generation in jth FOS interaction of kth replication; μ,overall mean; Gi, generation mean; Ej, jth FOS interaction;G×E, generation×FOS interaction; rk, kth replication within FOS; and eijk, residual factor. Independent samples t-test was used to assess the significance of FOS treatment on MGD.

    Data were subjected to GMA according to Mather and Jinks (1971). The PROC GLM and PROC REG procedures were performed using SAS as described by Kang (1994). The following genetic model was used:Y=m+aa+bd+a2aa+2abad+b2dd, where, a and b are the coefficients for a and d, respectively; Y, generation mean;m, mean of the F2generation as the base population and intercept value; a, additive genetic effect; d, dominance genetic effect; aa, additive×additive gene interaction effect; ad, additive×dominance gene interaction effect; dd,dominance×dominance gene interaction effect. A stepwise linear regression model was used to estimate the additive and dominance parameters. The parameters of the model were tested sequentially, starting with additive effects in order to determine the magnitude of additive, dominance,and epistatic genetic effects as described by Ceballos et al.(1998). The importance of the gene effects was estimated as the ratio of the sums of squares of each component over the total sums of square. Significance of the genetic estimates was determined by dividing the estimated parameter values with their standard errors and was considered significant if the value exceeded 1.96 (Singh and Chaudhary 1995).

    3. Results

    3.1. Analysis of variance for MGD of Striga among sorghum families, with and without FOS

    The MGD of the two Striga species differed significantly(P<0.01) among six generations of the six families evaluated with and without FOS application (Table 2). Under S. hermonthica infestation, most families interacted significantly with FOS application except for the crosses AS435×AS426 and 4567×AS426. Almost similar observations were made under S. asiatica infestation where the crosses 675×654, 1563×AS436, and 4567×AS424 showed significant interaction of the generation with FOS treatment.

    3.2. Mean response of the tested sorghum population to FOS treatment under Striga infestation

    Mean MGD and pair-wise contrasts among sorghum families evaluated, with and without FOS treatments, are presented in Table 3. There were significant differences among sorghum generation under infestation by the two Striga species with and without FOS. Application of FOS significantly reduced MGD in all other families except for AS435×AS426 and 4567×AS426 under S. hermonthica treatment, and in AS435×AS426 and 4567×AS426 under S. asiatica infestation. In addition, FOS-treated entries had shorter MGD as compared to their untreated controls.

    3.3. Generation mean analysis of MGD of S. hermonthica and S. asiatica

    Generation mean analysis for MGD of S. hermonthica and S. asiatica, with and without FOS, is presented in Table 4.Additive, dominance or epistatic genetic effects contributed significantly to the outcome of MGD among sorghum populations, evaluated with and without FOS. Additive genetic effects made highly significant contributions to MGD in both treatments for all families under infestation by thetwo Striga species. Under S. hermonthica infestation with FOS treatment, significant dominance genetic effects were recorded in families 675×654, 3424×3993, 1563×AS436,and 4567×AS424, while additive×additive gene effects were significant in all crosses due to FOS treatment.Additive×dominance interaction effects were significant contributors to genetic variation for MGD in AS435×AS426,4567×AS426, 3424×3993, 1563×AS436, and 3984×672 under S. hermonthica infestation with FOS treatment.Dominance×dominance interaction had significant influence on the expression of MGD for all tested populations, with and without FOS treatment. Under S. asiatica infestation and FOS treatment, significant contributions of dominance genetic effect were recorded in families 675×654,3424×3993, and 4567×AS424. Additive×dominance interaction effects contributed significantly to genetic variation for MGD in 1563×AS436 and 3984×672 under S. asiatica infestation with and without FOS treatment.Dominance×dominance interaction had significantly higher effects on MGD in both treatments.

    Table 2 Mean squares and significance tests of the effect of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. strigae (FOS) on germination distance between sorghum seed and the most distantly germinated Striga seed in six families of sorghum

    Table 3 Mean maximum germination distance of Striga among six sorghum families with (+) and without (–) Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. strigae (FOS) application

    Table 4 Mean squares and significance tests for the maximum germination distance between the sorghum seed and the most distantly germinated Striga seed evaluated with (+) and without (–) Fusarium oxysporum application in six families of sorghum

    3.4. Relative contribution of the genetic effects on MGD of S. hermonthica and S. asiatica

    The relative contributions of gene effects on MGD of the two Striga species in treatments with and without FOS are presented in Table 5. Additive, dominance, and epistatic genetic effect were significant, for most families with and without FOS treatment. Under S. hermonthica infestation,additive genetic effects contributed up to 29.97 and 33.61%of the total genetic variation for MGD, while under S. asiatica infestation, it contributed up to 31.89 and 29.02% of the total genetic variation with and without FOS, respectively,observed from the cross 1563×AS436. On the other hand,dominance and additive×dominance genetic effects made small contributions to the total genetic variation. Notably,high dominance genetic contributions of 20.05 and 31.87%were recorded under S. hermonthica infestation and 21.36 and 33.78% were recorded under S. asiatica infestation on the family 4567×AS424 with and without FOS, respectively.Further, under S. hermonthica infestation, additive×additive gene effects contributed up to 49.38 and 43.32% of the total genetic variation observed in the family 3424×3993 with and without FOS, respectively. Dominance×dominance interaction made higher contributions of 62.98 and 50.88%to the total genetic variation for MGD observed on the family AS435×AS426, with and without FOS in all tested families,respectively. Under S. asiatica infestation, these two families also had relatively high relative contribution of both additive×additive and dominance×dominance interactions.For both Striga species, additive×dominance interaction made little contribution to the total genetic variation for MGD in all tested families.

    4. Discussion

    4.1. Analysis of variance and mean response of the tested sorghum population to FOS treatment under Striga infestation

    Significant differences in MGD of the two Striga species were observed among the six generations of the sorghum families evaluated with and without FOS application. Results indicated the presence of extensive variability for LFH and FOS compatibility, which could be useful for breeding. These findings concurred with Hess et al. (1992) who reported variation in MGD among sorghum genotypes evaluated with S. hermonthica infestation in an agar-gel assay. Existence of crosses, such as 675×654, 1563×AS436, and 4567×AS424,that interacted significantly with FOS application under both S. hermonthica and S. asiatica infestation could allow selection of transgressive segregates, as well as parental lines that have high general combining ability for combined Striga resistance and FOS compatibility. Mrema et al. (2017)recently reported presence of sorghum genotypes that are compatible with FOS. Variability in MGD of Striga observedacross generations in the current study indicates presence of variable gene interactions influencing the inheritance of MGD, hence, hybridisation and subsequent selection could produce improved varieties.

    Table 5 Relative contribution of genetic effect (%) for the maximum germination distance between the sorghum seed and the most distant germinated Striga seed evaluated with (+) and without (–) Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. strigae (FOS) in six sorghum populations

    Reduced MGD in FOS-treated entries confirms the fungus’ effectiveness as a bio-herbicide. FOS colonises sorghum roots and the rhizosphere such that when LHF is secreted, FOS degrades it to product that do not trigger Striga germination. This reduces stimulation of Striga germination by reducing LHF concentration, contributing to the antagonistic effects of FOS against the parasitic weed. Sorghum genotypes exhibiting MGD below 10 mm were reported to be Striga resistant (Ejeta 2000). These genotypes support few or no Striga (Ejeta et al. 1997).Therefore, selection of individual plants with desirable characteristics within families with a reduced MGD and with high compatibility with FOS would control Striga infestation(Ejeta 2000; Mrema et al. 2017). In this case, superior segregates exhibiting short MGD (≤10 mm) can best be selected from the F2generations where recombination frequency is the highest. The families AS435×AS426 and 4567×AS426, which exhibited no significant reduction of MGD following FOS application may be discarded from the breeding program since they may be susceptible to Striga attack and could be incompatible with the bio-control agent.

    Currently, there are no reports of negative effects of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. strigae on sorghum or related cereal crops. Recent studies indicated that FOS promotes the abundance of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in the rhizospheres of sorghum (Rebeka et al. 2013; Mrema et al.2017) and maize (Zimmermann et al. 2016; Shayanowako et al. 2017) enhancing agronomic performance of both crops. The host range of FOS is relatively narrow, which is presently confined to attacking three species of Striga including S. hermonthica, S. asiatica, and S. gesneroides parasitizing cereal and legume crops (Marley et al. 2005;Elzein and Kroschel 2006). However, it is not possible to rule out the possibility of emergence of mutant strains of FOS that can be pathogenic to sorghum or related crops.Therefore, further monitoring, evaluation, and knowledge would be valuable to detect any new pathogenic strains of F. oxysporum against sorghum or related cereal crops.Also, genomic diagnostic tools should be integrated with pathogenicity evaluation for early detection and to devise controlling strategies against any possible new pathogenic strains of FOS.

    4.2. Generation mean analysis and relative contribution of the genetic effects on MGD of S. hermonthica and S. asiatica

    The type and magnitude of gene action controlling key economic traits influence the response from selection and choice of the breeding methodology for quantitative traits. Additive gene action denotes heritable variation that can be transferred and traced to subsequent generations(Ceballos et al. 1998). Successful selection of Striga resistant and FOS compatible lines that combine additive genes contribute to favourable trait expression in a desirable direction. Sorghum families exhibiting predominantly dominance, over-dominance and/or epistatic gene effects can be ideal for selection of best specific combiners that result in transgressive segregates or for development of superior hybrids. In the case of dominance, dominant allele at each locus influence trait expression more strongly than the recessive allele, while epistatic gene interaction involves genes that can promote or suppress traits encoded by another gene(s) at different loci (Mather and Jinks 1971;Ceballos et al. 1998).

    The significate contribution of additive, dominant, and epistatic genetic effects on the MGD of Striga among sorghum populations, with and without FOS implies that several breeding methodologies stretching from direct selection, hybridisation, and early generation selection could advance the trait. This allows for either effective transfer of additive genes from some of the parents evaluated or exploitation of heterosis exhibited by some families such as 675×654, 3424×3993, 1563×AS436, and 4567×AS424. Thus, chances are high for identifying unique parents and superior hybrids for commercialisation through crossing divergent but complementary parents. The family 1563×AS436 that exhibited high additive genetic contribution to the expression of MGD of the two Striga species could be key in passing on cumulative additive genes for MGD to next generations, and gain from selection from this family could be high. On the other hand, the family 4567×AS424 that exhibited high dominance genetic contributions to the expression of MGD under S. hermonthica infestation and S. asiatica infestation with and without FOS application could be a good source of parents for hybrid breeding to exploit heterosis. Overall, additive and non-additive genetic effects contributed highly to the total genetic variation for MGD. Additive gene effects and epistasis were reported to have higher contribution than dominance gene action in breeding for Striga resistance in sorghum (Kulkarni and Shinde 1985). Findings from the present study concur with the later study that reported Striga resistance to be controlled by both additive and non-additive gene action. This outcome suggests the possibility of fixing additive genes through recurrent selection.

    5. Conclusion

    The present study examined the genetic effects controlling the MGD among sorghum genotypes. Additive,additive×additive, and dominance×dominance genetic effects were responsible for most of the genetic variation present for MGD in the evaluated sorghum families.Dominance and additive×dominance genetic effects made minor contributions in the test populations. FOS treatment enhanced the expression of additive, additive×additive, and dominance×dominance genes, which had complementary effects on reducing MGD. FOS application increased contribution of additive genetic effects, raising the possibility of breeding for Striga resistant sorghum genotypes with FOS compatibility. This will allow deployment of superior sorghum cultivars with reduced MGD and compatible with the bioagent for ISM in Striga prone environments in Tanzania.Crosses 1563×AS436, 4567×AS424, and 3984×672 were identified to have reduced MGD in sets with S. asiatica and S. hermonthica through FOS application. These crosses are useful genetic resources to advance in ISM in the semi-arid regions of Tanzania.

    Acknowledgements

    The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) is gratefully acknowledged for financial support of the study through the African Centre for Crop Improvement (ACCI).Thanks are due to the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture Livestock and Fisheries, and the Government of Tanzania, for giving study leave to the first author.

    Anderson V L, Kempthorne O. 1954. A model for the study of quantitative inheritance. Genetics, 39, 883–898.

    Badu-Apraku B, Yallou C G, Oyenkunle M. 2013. Genetic gains from selection for high grain yield and Striga resistance in early maturing maize cultivars of three breeding periods under Striga-infested and Striga-free environments. Field Crops Research, 147, 54–67.

    Ceballos H, Pandey S, Narro L, Perez-Velazquez J C. 1998.Additive, dominance and epistatic effects for maize grain yield in acid and non-acid soils. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 96, 662–668.

    Ciotola M, Ditommaso A, Watson A K. 2000. Chlamydospore production, inoculation methods and pathogenicity of Fusarium oxysporum M12-4A, a bio-control for Striga hermonthica. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 10,129–145.

    Ejeta G. 2007. The Striga scourge in Africa - A growing pandemic. In: Ejeta G, Gressel J, eds., Integrating New Technologies for Striga Control Towards Ending the Witch-Hunt. World Scientific Publishing, USA. pp. 3–16.

    Ejeta G, Butler L G, Hess D E, Obilana T, Reddy B V. 1997.Breeding for Striga resistance in sorghum. In: Rosenow D T, ed., Proceeding International Conference on Genetic Improvement of Sorghum and Pearl Millet. Lubbock, TX,USA.

    Ejeta G, Mohammed A, Rich P, Melake-Berhan A, Housley T L, Hess D E. 2000. Selection for specific mechanisms of resistance to Striga in sorghum. In: Haussmann B I G, Koyama M L, Grivet L, Rattunde H F, Hess D E, eds.,Breeding for Striga Resistance in Cereals. Proceedings of A Workshop. IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria, 18–20 August 1999.Margraf, Weikersheim, Germany.

    Elzein A, Kroschel J. 2006. Host range studies of Fusarium oxysporum Foxy 2: An evidence for a new forma specialis and its implications for Striga control. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection, 20, 875–887.

    Gamble E E. 1962. Gene effects in corn (Zea mays L.). I.Separation and relative importance of gene effects for yield.Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 42, 339–348.

    Gurney A L, Slate J, Press M C, Scholes J D. 2006. A novel form of resistance in rice to the angiosperm parasite Striga hermonthica. New Phytologist, 169, 199–208.

    Haussmann B I G, Hess D E, Reddy B V S, Welz H G, Geiger H H. 1996. Quantitative-genetic parameters for resistance to Striga hermonthica in sorghum. In: Moreno M T, Cubero J I,Berner D, Joel D, Musselman L J, Parker C, eds., Advances in Parasitic Plant Research. Proceedings of the Sixth International Parasitic Weed Symposium, Cordoba, Spain.

    Hayman B I. 1958. The separation of epistatic from additive and dominance variation in generation mean analysis.Heredity, 12, 371–390.

    Hearne S. 2009. Control - The Striga conundrum. Pest Management Sciences, 65, 603–614.

    Hess D E, Ejeta G, Butler L G. 1992. Selecting sorghum genotypes expressing a quantitative biosynthetic trait that confers resistance to Striga. Phytochemistry, 31, 493–497.

    Kang M S. 1994. Applied Quantitative Genetics. Department of Agronomy, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

    Kulkarni N, Shinde V. 1985. Genetic analysis of Striga resistance in sorghum parameters of resistance. The Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding, 45, 545–551.

    Marley P, Kroschel J, Elzien A. 2005. Host specificity of Fusarium oxysporum Schlect (isolate PSM 197), a potential mycoherbicide for controlling Striga spp. in West Africa.Weed Research, 45, 407–412.

    Mather K, Jinks L. 1971. Biometrical Genetics. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, USA.

    Mrema E, Shimelis H, Laing M, Bucheyeki T. 2016. Farmers’perceptions of sorghum production constraints and Striga control practices in semi-arid areas of Tanzania.International Journal of Pest Management, 63, 146–156.

    Mrema E, Shimelis H, Laing M, Bucheyeki T. 2017. Screening of sorghum genotypes for resistance to Striga hermonthica and S. asiatica and compatibility with Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. strigae. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica (Section B- Soil and Plant Science), 67, 395–404.

    Obilana A B. 1984. Inheritance of resistance to Striga (Striga hermonthica Benth.) in sorghum. Protection Ecology, 7,305–311.

    Rebeka G. 2007. Survey of pathogenic fungi on Striga in North Shewa, Ethiopia and assessment for their biocontrol potential. MSc thesis, Alemaya University, Ethiopia.

    Rebeka G, Shimelis H, Laing M D, Tongoona P, Mandefro N. 2013. Evaluation of sorghum genotypes compatibility with Fusarium oxysporum under Striga infestation. Crop Science, 53, 385–393.

    Riches C. 2003. Integrated Management of Striga Species on Cereal Crops in Tanzania. Dfid Crop Protection Program,Final Technical Report, Project R7564. Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwhich, Chatham, Kent, UK.

    Rodenburg J, Cissoko M, Kayeke J, Dieng I, Khan Z R, Midega C A O, Onyuka E A, Julie D, Scholes J D. 2015. Do NERICA rice cultivars express resistance to Striga hermonthica (Del.)Benth and Striga asiatica (L.) Kuntze under field conditions.Field Crops Research, 170, 83–94.

    SAS Institute. 2011. SAS 9.3 Software. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.

    Shayanowako A, Shimelis H, Laing M, Mwadzingeni L. 2017.Resistance breeding and biocontrol of Striga asiatica (L.)Kuntze in maize: A review. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica(Section B - Soil & Plant Science), 67, 1–11.

    Singh R K, Chaudhary B D. 1995. Biometrical Methods in Quantitative Genetic Analysis. Kalyani, Ludhiana, India.

    Vogler R K, Ejeta G, Butler L G. 1996. Inheritance of low production of Striga germination stimulant in sorghum. Crop Science, 36, 1185–1191.

    Wegmann K. 1996. Biochemistry of host/parasite relations.In: Sixth Parasitic Weed Symposium, Cordoba, Spain.Eberhard-Karls University, Institute of Chemical Plant Physiology, èbingen, Germany.

    Zimmermann J, Musyoki M K, Cadisch G, Rasche F. 2016.Biocontrol agent Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. strigae has no adverse effect on indigenous total fungal communities and specific AMF taxa in contrasting maize rhizospheres.Fungal Ecology, 23, 1–10.

    国产毛片a区久久久久| 成人无遮挡网站| 日韩av在线大香蕉| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频 | 2022亚洲国产成人精品| 精品熟女少妇av免费看| 高清午夜精品一区二区三区| 国产黄片美女视频| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| h日本视频在线播放| 一个人看的www免费观看视频| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 欧美日本视频| av在线亚洲专区| 看黄色毛片网站| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 亚洲在线观看片| 国产探花在线观看一区二区| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 亚洲国产精品国产精品| 别揉我奶头 嗯啊视频| 亚洲精品一区蜜桃| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 在线观看人妻少妇| 真实男女啪啪啪动态图| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 国产色婷婷99| av专区在线播放| 一级毛片aaaaaa免费看小| 一级毛片aaaaaa免费看小| 天堂网av新在线| 能在线免费观看的黄片| 日韩欧美精品免费久久| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久| 日韩伦理黄色片| 日韩伦理黄色片| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 美女黄网站色视频| 精品午夜福利在线看| 欧美另类一区| 亚洲最大成人av| av一本久久久久| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 一级二级三级毛片免费看| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 两个人视频免费观看高清| 一二三四中文在线观看免费高清| 欧美zozozo另类| 天天躁日日操中文字幕| 性插视频无遮挡在线免费观看| 97热精品久久久久久| 精品久久久久久久末码| 春色校园在线视频观看| 国产人妻一区二区三区在| 色视频www国产| 亚洲精品国产av蜜桃| 99久久人妻综合| 国产综合懂色| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| 欧美潮喷喷水| 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| 色综合色国产| 大话2 男鬼变身卡| 街头女战士在线观看网站| 亚洲精品乱码久久久久久按摩| 自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 国产精品一及| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久 | or卡值多少钱| av在线播放精品| 六月丁香七月| 日本一二三区视频观看| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 亚洲不卡免费看| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 国产一区有黄有色的免费视频 | 欧美区成人在线视频| 精品一区二区三区人妻视频| 国产av在哪里看| 国产精品av视频在线免费观看| 日日撸夜夜添| 一级片'在线观看视频| 国产视频首页在线观看| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 老司机影院成人| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| av在线老鸭窝| 久久久久久久久中文| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 成人毛片60女人毛片免费| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 中国国产av一级| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 亚洲av一区综合| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 韩国高清视频一区二区三区| 99久久人妻综合| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 免费无遮挡裸体视频| av在线蜜桃| av在线观看视频网站免费| 91aial.com中文字幕在线观看| 日日撸夜夜添| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区 | 午夜福利在线在线| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久 | 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放| 高清欧美精品videossex| 久久99热6这里只有精品| 精品亚洲乱码少妇综合久久| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 看免费成人av毛片| 国产免费福利视频在线观看| 日韩欧美精品v在线| 国产精品人妻久久久影院| 一级二级三级毛片免费看| 久久午夜福利片| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 亚洲精品国产av蜜桃| 精品一区二区三卡| 少妇高潮的动态图| 中文天堂在线官网| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 乱人视频在线观看| 一本久久精品| 韩国高清视频一区二区三区| 真实男女啪啪啪动态图| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看 | 国产高潮美女av| 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看| 日日撸夜夜添| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx在线观看| 国产黄色小视频在线观看| 91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| 乱系列少妇在线播放| 久久久久久久大尺度免费视频| 一级毛片aaaaaa免费看小| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 欧美区成人在线视频| 波多野结衣巨乳人妻| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 国产亚洲5aaaaa淫片| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 99热6这里只有精品| 亚洲av在线观看美女高潮| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 亚洲av国产av综合av卡| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 偷拍熟女少妇极品色| 久久久久九九精品影院| 免费看日本二区| 一级毛片aaaaaa免费看小| 免费无遮挡裸体视频| 亚洲精品久久久久久婷婷小说| 亚洲av男天堂| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 99久国产av精品国产电影| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 国产极品天堂在线| 亚州av有码| av卡一久久| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 联通29元200g的流量卡| 久久久久久久久久久免费av| 中文字幕av成人在线电影| 亚洲一级一片aⅴ在线观看| 国产综合精华液| 男人爽女人下面视频在线观看| 久久草成人影院| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线 | 国产乱来视频区| 十八禁国产超污无遮挡网站| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放| 22中文网久久字幕| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片 精品乱码久久久久久99久播 | 深夜a级毛片| 高清av免费在线| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 精品久久久久久成人av| kizo精华| 男人舔奶头视频| 美女主播在线视频| 亚洲精品国产成人久久av| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 欧美xxⅹ黑人| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放| 亚洲精品第二区| 日韩伦理黄色片| 97在线视频观看| 老司机影院成人| 免费少妇av软件| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 亚洲av.av天堂| 天天躁日日操中文字幕| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 联通29元200g的流量卡| 国产有黄有色有爽视频| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区国产| 老女人水多毛片| 国产成人精品福利久久| 中文欧美无线码| 最近视频中文字幕2019在线8| 日本一二三区视频观看| 精品亚洲乱码少妇综合久久| 看免费成人av毛片| 国产黄频视频在线观看| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 在线 av 中文字幕| 国产高清三级在线| 国产成人精品久久久久久| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 嫩草影院入口| 亚洲精品国产av蜜桃| 特级一级黄色大片| 免费看a级黄色片| 国产亚洲最大av| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 免费人成在线观看视频色| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人 | 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 久久久久久伊人网av| 一区二区三区乱码不卡18| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 午夜福利视频精品| 内地一区二区视频在线| 看免费成人av毛片| 久久99蜜桃精品久久| 日本免费a在线| 嘟嘟电影网在线观看| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 国产黄频视频在线观看| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 国产单亲对白刺激| 十八禁网站网址无遮挡 | 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 亚洲丝袜综合中文字幕| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花 | 一级毛片 在线播放| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 美女国产视频在线观看| 婷婷色综合www| 国产探花在线观看一区二区| 边亲边吃奶的免费视频| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 午夜久久久久精精品| 一级毛片黄色毛片免费观看视频| 国产成人91sexporn| 97热精品久久久久久| 尤物成人国产欧美一区二区三区| 久久久久久久久久人人人人人人| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 成人午夜高清在线视频| 99久国产av精品| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 超碰97精品在线观看| 国产在线男女| 国产av在哪里看| 一级二级三级毛片免费看| 99久国产av精品| 黄色一级大片看看| 热99在线观看视频| 国产免费视频播放在线视频 | 黄片无遮挡物在线观看| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 干丝袜人妻中文字幕| 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| 午夜福利高清视频| av一本久久久久| 久久精品久久久久久久性| 人妻制服诱惑在线中文字幕| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 亚洲高清免费不卡视频| videos熟女内射| 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 美女被艹到高潮喷水动态| 久久热精品热| av在线天堂中文字幕| 91精品国产九色| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜 | 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| www.av在线官网国产| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| 亚洲不卡免费看| 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看| 日本猛色少妇xxxxx猛交久久| 能在线免费观看的黄片| 午夜视频国产福利| 只有这里有精品99| 两个人视频免费观看高清| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| 欧美xxⅹ黑人| 国产高清国产精品国产三级 | 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 色哟哟·www| 国产免费视频播放在线视频 | 日本与韩国留学比较| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 国产在视频线在精品| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线 | 老师上课跳d突然被开到最大视频| av网站免费在线观看视频 | 建设人人有责人人尽责人人享有的 | 色网站视频免费| 97超视频在线观看视频| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱| 在线免费观看的www视频| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 欧美人与善性xxx| 亚洲综合色惰| 简卡轻食公司| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 国产精品无大码| 春色校园在线视频观看| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| kizo精华| 免费播放大片免费观看视频在线观看| 久久久久网色| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添av毛片| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 国产午夜精品论理片| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 日本免费a在线| 国产单亲对白刺激| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| 国产av国产精品国产| 成年女人在线观看亚洲视频 | 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9| 老司机影院成人| 日本熟妇午夜| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片 精品乱码久久久久久99久播 | 日韩欧美三级三区| 国产成人aa在线观看| 搞女人的毛片| 亚洲一级一片aⅴ在线观看| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 亚洲国产成人一精品久久久| 国产成人精品久久久久久| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 成人综合一区亚洲| 街头女战士在线观看网站| 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| 国产黄色免费在线视频| 欧美成人a在线观看| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 一级毛片 在线播放| 人妻系列 视频| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花 | 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 国产淫语在线视频| 国产黄频视频在线观看| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 最近最新中文字幕免费大全7| 青春草国产在线视频| 在线a可以看的网站| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久 | 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 成年女人看的毛片在线观看| 色哟哟·www| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 午夜福利高清视频| 国产免费视频播放在线视频 | 又粗又硬又长又爽又黄的视频| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频 | 国产成人精品福利久久| 亚洲国产欧美人成| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式| freevideosex欧美| 一区二区三区乱码不卡18| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 美女国产视频在线观看| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 在线天堂最新版资源| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 日韩视频在线欧美| 国产不卡一卡二| 一级黄片播放器| 日本免费在线观看一区| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 精品久久久久久久久亚洲| 久99久视频精品免费| 欧美区成人在线视频| 日本免费a在线| 国产探花在线观看一区二区| 日本与韩国留学比较| 午夜免费激情av| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 国产成年人精品一区二区| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 亚洲乱码一区二区免费版| 午夜免费激情av| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区| 色综合站精品国产| 真实男女啪啪啪动态图| 97人妻精品一区二区三区麻豆| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 色综合色国产| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 少妇丰满av| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 欧美日韩视频高清一区二区三区二| av专区在线播放| 亚洲av福利一区| 日本三级黄在线观看| 日本与韩国留学比较| 在现免费观看毛片| 老司机影院毛片| 欧美zozozo另类| 色5月婷婷丁香| 精品久久久久久久久av| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂 | 嫩草影院精品99| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 久久久成人免费电影| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 午夜免费激情av| 黄色一级大片看看| 免费大片18禁| 日韩电影二区| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 熟妇人妻不卡中文字幕| 免费高清在线观看视频在线观看| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 欧美三级亚洲精品| av国产久精品久网站免费入址| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 舔av片在线| 欧美潮喷喷水| 免费不卡的大黄色大毛片视频在线观看 | 97超碰精品成人国产| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 欧美高清性xxxxhd video| 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看| 99热全是精品| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线 | 在线a可以看的网站| 卡戴珊不雅视频在线播放| 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 免费人成在线观看视频色| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 99久久人妻综合| 日本午夜av视频| 国产69精品久久久久777片| 男人舔奶头视频| 能在线免费观看的黄片| 身体一侧抽搐| 婷婷色综合www| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| 亚洲国产精品成人综合色| 免费大片黄手机在线观看| 欧美日韩视频高清一区二区三区二| 国产亚洲精品av在线| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 亚洲丝袜综合中文字幕| 高清av免费在线| 免费观看精品视频网站| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 欧美极品一区二区三区四区| 美女主播在线视频| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 亚洲精品久久久久久婷婷小说| 午夜爱爱视频在线播放| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 精品久久久久久久末码| 色综合色国产| 一二三四中文在线观看免费高清| 免费大片黄手机在线观看| 日本免费a在线| 国产探花极品一区二区| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添av毛片| 嫩草影院精品99| 尾随美女入室| 欧美日韩视频高清一区二区三区二| 中文资源天堂在线| 免费看美女性在线毛片视频| 久久久久久久久久成人| av在线天堂中文字幕| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 精品一区在线观看国产| 91精品一卡2卡3卡4卡| 青春草亚洲视频在线观看| 日韩成人伦理影院| 一级二级三级毛片免费看| 欧美人与善性xxx| 偷拍熟女少妇极品色| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放| 美女xxoo啪啪120秒动态图| 91狼人影院| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| av在线亚洲专区| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 亚洲av一区综合| 日本熟妇午夜| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| h日本视频在线播放| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频 | 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器| 国产永久视频网站| 99热6这里只有精品| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 高清毛片免费看| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片 精品乱码久久久久久99久播 | 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 一夜夜www| 久久久久国产网址| 丝袜美腿在线中文| h日本视频在线播放| 亚洲va在线va天堂va国产| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃 | 乱系列少妇在线播放| 国产黄色免费在线视频| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 美女主播在线视频| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 免费不卡的大黄色大毛片视频在线观看 | .国产精品久久| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 天堂中文最新版在线下载 | 激情 狠狠 欧美| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 国产有黄有色有爽视频| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 91午夜精品亚洲一区二区三区| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 国产亚洲5aaaaa淫片| 亚洲国产成人一精品久久久| 久久久久久伊人网av| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| 国产av国产精品国产| 国产高清不卡午夜福利| 久久久色成人| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 久久精品久久久久久久性| 日韩伦理黄色片| 午夜久久久久精精品| 少妇的逼好多水| 伦精品一区二区三区| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 黄色日韩在线| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 国产亚洲5aaaaa淫片| 久久久久久久国产电影| 国产 亚洲一区二区三区 | 国产久久久一区二区三区| 免费电影在线观看免费观看| av专区在线播放| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 三级经典国产精品|