• <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.

    亚洲图色成人| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线 | 久久久成人免费电影| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 在线观看人妻少妇| 亚洲怡红院男人天堂| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线 | 国产精品无大码| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 婷婷色麻豆天堂久久| 国产成人a区在线观看| videossex国产| 少妇的逼好多水| 亚洲18禁久久av| 美女黄网站色视频| 免费不卡的大黄色大毛片视频在线观看 | 欧美+日韩+精品| 欧美97在线视频| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 人妻系列 视频| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区国产| 色播亚洲综合网| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 国产精品无大码| 91av网一区二区| 亚洲av二区三区四区| 欧美人与善性xxx| 中文字幕久久专区| 丝袜喷水一区| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| 草草在线视频免费看| 内射极品少妇av片p| 日本猛色少妇xxxxx猛交久久| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂 | 美女高潮的动态| 简卡轻食公司| 国产美女午夜福利| 舔av片在线| 天堂√8在线中文| 久久国产乱子免费精品| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄| 国产极品天堂在线| 男的添女的下面高潮视频| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 天堂中文最新版在线下载 | 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 一本久久精品| 欧美激情在线99| 一级毛片 在线播放| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| av免费观看日本| .国产精品久久| 国产欧美日韩精品一区二区| 真实男女啪啪啪动态图| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 成年av动漫网址| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看| 久久国内精品自在自线图片| 男人爽女人下面视频在线观看| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 日韩强制内射视频| 天堂√8在线中文| 床上黄色一级片| 九色成人免费人妻av| 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 | 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观| 身体一侧抽搐| 免费无遮挡裸体视频| 91狼人影院| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 夫妻午夜视频| 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看| 国产在视频线在精品| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 国产av国产精品国产| 国产精品人妻久久久影院| 国产 亚洲一区二区三区 | www.av在线官网国产| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 尤物成人国产欧美一区二区三区| 嘟嘟电影网在线观看| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 免费观看无遮挡的男女| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 九色成人免费人妻av| 日本猛色少妇xxxxx猛交久久| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 日日啪夜夜撸| 婷婷色麻豆天堂久久| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 国产日韩欧美在线精品| 久久久久久久国产电影| 在现免费观看毛片| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 能在线免费看毛片的网站| 能在线免费看毛片的网站| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 高清欧美精品videossex| 亚洲国产色片| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式| 亚洲人成网站在线观看播放| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品 | 夜夜爽夜夜爽视频| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 天堂网av新在线| kizo精华| 91狼人影院| 国产精品99久久久久久久久| 亚洲国产精品国产精品| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网 | 高清毛片免费看| 简卡轻食公司| 午夜爱爱视频在线播放| 国产综合精华液| 高清日韩中文字幕在线| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 高清日韩中文字幕在线| 亚州av有码| 国产精品三级大全| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 天堂√8在线中文| 国产精品一及| 777米奇影视久久| 男女边摸边吃奶| 22中文网久久字幕| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 日日啪夜夜爽| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 美女xxoo啪啪120秒动态图| 激情五月婷婷亚洲| 国产精品一及| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 精品午夜福利在线看| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 亚洲av电影在线观看一区二区三区 | 久久国内精品自在自线图片| 亚洲最大成人手机在线| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 午夜免费观看性视频| 极品教师在线视频| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 美女高潮的动态| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频 | 麻豆国产97在线/欧美| 日韩成人av中文字幕在线观看| 观看美女的网站| 日本爱情动作片www.在线观看| 亚洲国产精品成人综合色| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 色视频www国产| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 免费大片黄手机在线观看| 大陆偷拍与自拍| 男女边摸边吃奶| 一级二级三级毛片免费看| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 99热这里只有是精品50| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 免费播放大片免费观看视频在线观看| 一边亲一边摸免费视频| 成人毛片a级毛片在线播放| 1000部很黄的大片| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 精品一区二区免费观看| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 大片免费播放器 马上看| 精品久久久久久久末码| 久久久久精品性色| 亚洲精品456在线播放app| 成年免费大片在线观看| 亚洲av在线观看美女高潮| 午夜久久久久精精品| 欧美+日韩+精品| 熟女电影av网| 亚洲欧洲国产日韩| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 热99在线观看视频| 青春草亚洲视频在线观看| 国产视频首页在线观看| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 黑人高潮一二区| 国产av不卡久久| 久久99热这里只频精品6学生| 97热精品久久久久久| 亚洲精品第二区| 特大巨黑吊av在线直播| 国产成人精品一,二区| 亚洲欧美成人精品一区二区| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添av毛片| 免费大片黄手机在线观看| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 最近中文字幕高清免费大全6| 一本久久精品| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 色5月婷婷丁香| 一个人看的www免费观看视频| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 国产在线男女| 免费观看精品视频网站| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 极品教师在线视频| 日韩在线高清观看一区二区三区| 国产有黄有色有爽视频| 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| eeuss影院久久| 青春草亚洲视频在线观看| av国产久精品久网站免费入址| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 99热这里只有精品一区| 亚洲性久久影院| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 欧美日韩视频高清一区二区三区二| 大香蕉97超碰在线| 99热全是精品| 99久久人妻综合| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| 波多野结衣巨乳人妻| 大话2 男鬼变身卡| 国产午夜精品久久久久久一区二区三区| av国产免费在线观看| 色哟哟·www| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 日韩av在线大香蕉| 丰满少妇做爰视频| 午夜精品在线福利| 久久草成人影院| 91精品一卡2卡3卡4卡| 大陆偷拍与自拍| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 久久99热这里只有精品18| av在线天堂中文字幕| 乱系列少妇在线播放| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 国产黄片美女视频| 国产乱人视频| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 亚洲精品国产av蜜桃| 久久久久国产网址| 久久久久精品久久久久真实原创| 亚洲国产最新在线播放| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| 中文天堂在线官网| 日本免费a在线| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 美女内射精品一级片tv| 成年女人在线观看亚洲视频 | 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看| 97在线视频观看| 亚洲成人一二三区av| 特级一级黄色大片| 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| 狠狠精品人妻久久久久久综合| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 日韩欧美精品v在线| videossex国产| 男女那种视频在线观看| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 国精品久久久久久国模美| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂 | 大片免费播放器 马上看| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 校园人妻丝袜中文字幕| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| ponron亚洲| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av| 国产黄片视频在线免费观看| 国语对白做爰xxxⅹ性视频网站| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| av线在线观看网站| 日韩电影二区| av福利片在线观看| 久久99热这里只有精品18| 欧美成人a在线观看| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| 久久久欧美国产精品| 国产高清不卡午夜福利| 99久久精品热视频| 欧美zozozo另类| 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 精品酒店卫生间| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| or卡值多少钱| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 久久精品久久久久久久性| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看| 亚洲最大成人av| 国产免费又黄又爽又色| 国产黄色免费在线视频| 免费观看性生交大片5| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 午夜激情欧美在线| 男女边摸边吃奶| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 少妇的逼水好多| 国产成人精品婷婷| 免费看日本二区| 一级毛片黄色毛片免费观看视频| 69人妻影院| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 男人舔奶头视频| 简卡轻食公司| 韩国高清视频一区二区三区| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看 | 赤兔流量卡办理| 亚洲精品成人久久久久久| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 两个人视频免费观看高清| 精品久久久噜噜| 亚洲乱码一区二区免费版| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 亚洲伊人久久精品综合| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 国内精品一区二区在线观看| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 真实男女啪啪啪动态图| 久久这里只有精品中国| 欧美3d第一页| h日本视频在线播放| 麻豆国产97在线/欧美| 水蜜桃什么品种好| av线在线观看网站| 免费少妇av软件| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 国产精品人妻久久久影院| 国产淫片久久久久久久久| 免费观看精品视频网站| 永久免费av网站大全| 国产成人91sexporn| 日本爱情动作片www.在线观看| 国产黄色视频一区二区在线观看| 日韩视频在线欧美| 1000部很黄的大片| 日韩欧美三级三区| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 国产色婷婷99| 黑人高潮一二区| 99热这里只有是精品在线观看| 成人亚洲精品一区在线观看 | 黄色配什么色好看| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影 | 日本免费在线观看一区| av在线播放精品| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 精品国产露脸久久av麻豆 | 韩国av在线不卡| 国产永久视频网站| 一夜夜www| av专区在线播放| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 建设人人有责人人尽责人人享有的 | 国产午夜福利久久久久久| 中国国产av一级| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 成年av动漫网址| 中文字幕av成人在线电影| 毛片女人毛片| 亚洲色图av天堂| 一个人免费在线观看电影| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 亚洲怡红院男人天堂| 97热精品久久久久久| 十八禁国产超污无遮挡网站| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 激情五月婷婷亚洲| 久久99热这里只频精品6学生| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99 | 国产欧美另类精品又又久久亚洲欧美| av在线播放精品| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花 | 国产av在哪里看| 亚洲精品久久午夜乱码| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| kizo精华| 国产精品福利在线免费观看| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频 | 久久97久久精品| 日韩电影二区| av在线观看视频网站免费| 老司机影院成人| 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| 免费看美女性在线毛片视频| 91精品一卡2卡3卡4卡| 精品国产三级普通话版| 久久久久久久久久久丰满| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 久久久久九九精品影院| 亚洲在久久综合| 亚洲国产av新网站| 一级黄片播放器| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 尾随美女入室| 久久久久久伊人网av| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| av免费在线看不卡| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| 精品久久久久久电影网| 高清毛片免费看| 欧美日韩精品成人综合77777| 国产91av在线免费观看| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 亚洲精品456在线播放app| 国产av在哪里看| 国产精品一二三区在线看| 日韩av在线免费看完整版不卡| 国内精品宾馆在线| 22中文网久久字幕| 亚洲精品456在线播放app| 黄片无遮挡物在线观看| 国产黄色视频一区二区在线观看| 男的添女的下面高潮视频| 午夜视频国产福利| 嫩草影院精品99| 国产午夜精品论理片| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 免费无遮挡裸体视频| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| ponron亚洲| 国内精品宾馆在线| 蜜臀久久99精品久久宅男| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区| 亚洲精品国产av蜜桃| 国产永久视频网站| 777米奇影视久久| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 人妻制服诱惑在线中文字幕| 日韩大片免费观看网站| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区| 亚洲图色成人| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费| 亚洲综合色惰| 精品久久久久久久末码| 免费观看精品视频网站| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 一级二级三级毛片免费看| 国产精品蜜桃在线观看| 一个人看的www免费观看视频| 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 99热这里只有精品一区| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 午夜福利在线在线| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| 久久99热这里只有精品18| 国产探花在线观看一区二区| 亚洲av一区综合| 免费av不卡在线播放| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 如何舔出高潮| 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| av专区在线播放| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 大香蕉97超碰在线| 男人舔奶头视频| 久久久久久久国产电影| 日韩中字成人| 精品一区二区三卡| 男女边吃奶边做爰视频| 白带黄色成豆腐渣| 老司机影院成人| ponron亚洲| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 少妇丰满av| 一级毛片aaaaaa免费看小| 国产亚洲最大av| 亚洲精华国产精华液的使用体验| 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 免费大片黄手机在线观看| 一区二区三区乱码不卡18| 久久精品久久精品一区二区三区| 大香蕉久久网| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 亚洲成人一二三区av| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 成年女人在线观看亚洲视频 | 有码 亚洲区| 少妇熟女aⅴ在线视频| 午夜精品在线福利| 久久国产乱子免费精品| 亚洲在线观看片| 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看 | 两个人视频免费观看高清| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人 | .国产精品久久| 亚洲四区av| 中文欧美无线码| 亚洲成人一二三区av| 日韩精品有码人妻一区| 久久这里有精品视频免费| 舔av片在线| 高清午夜精品一区二区三区| 久久久久精品性色| 午夜福利网站1000一区二区三区| 麻豆av噜噜一区二区三区| 精品人妻视频免费看| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 天堂√8在线中文| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱| 大片免费播放器 马上看| av天堂中文字幕网| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 久久精品人妻少妇| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| 亚洲精品乱码久久久久久按摩| 亚洲综合精品二区| 在线a可以看的网站| 一二三四中文在线观看免费高清| 男人爽女人下面视频在线观看| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 久久6这里有精品| 国产av码专区亚洲av| 欧美成人a在线观看| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 亚洲精品影视一区二区三区av| 天堂中文最新版在线下载 | av国产免费在线观看| 亚洲成人一二三区av| 汤姆久久久久久久影院中文字幕 | 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| 99久国产av精品国产电影| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃 | 欧美日本视频| 国产在视频线精品| 国产永久视频网站| 久久久久久久国产电影| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99 | 亚洲性久久影院| 99久国产av精品国产电影| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 国产视频内射| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 国产探花在线观看一区二区| 一个人观看的视频www高清免费观看| 欧美xxⅹ黑人| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| eeuss影院久久| 国产在线男女| 最近最新中文字幕免费大全7| 天堂av国产一区二区熟女人妻| 一级毛片黄色毛片免费观看视频| 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| 久久久久久久久大av| 欧美激情国产日韩精品一区| 国产人妻一区二区三区在| 久久99热这里只有精品18| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| 日韩欧美精品免费久久| 中文欧美无线码| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看 | 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 日韩不卡一区二区三区视频在线| 干丝袜人妻中文字幕| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 日本一本二区三区精品| 久久97久久精品| 免费大片黄手机在线观看| 日韩av在线大香蕉| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 三级毛片av免费| 免费av毛片视频|