American Potato Journal

, Volume 71, Issue 2, pp 99–113 | Cite as

Comparison of the effectiveness of different methods of screening for bacterial soft rot resistance of potato tubers

  • Ewa Łojkowska
  • Arthur Kelman


Tubers from eight potato cultivars (cvs) grown at two different locations in Wisconsin were tested for bacterial soft rot resistance using different inoculation techniques. The procedures included 1) point inoculations of tubers with different inoculum levels followed by incubation in ambient or low oxygen condtions, 2) inoculation of mechanically bruised tubers followed by incubation in a mist chamber, and 3) a standard slice inoculation method.

The point titration test followed by incubation in dew chamber and the mist chamber-bruise test showed similar patterns of resistance for cultivars that were used in these experiments. These two methods are considered to be effective for screening potato tubers for bacterial soft rot resistance. Point titration methods are very useful if only limited numbers of tubers are available. The mist chamber-bruise test is simpler than the other procedures; however, to obtain reproducible results large numbers of tubers are required. Because of the great variability of the results obtained in inoculation of slices, the reliability of this approach can be questioned as a standardized method for evaluation of resistance. Tubers of somatic hybrids ofS. brevidens andS. tuberosum and their sexual progeny were significantly more resistant to bacterial soft rot than tubers of moderately resistant cultivars when evaluated by each of the assay procedures.

Additional Key Words

Erwinia carotovora subsp.carotovora somatic hybrids Solanum brevidens 


Los tubérculos de ocho cultivares (cvs) de papa, producidos en dos diferentes localidades en Wisconsin, fueron probados para resistencia a la pudrición blanda utilizando diferentes técnicas de inoculación. Los procedimientos incluyeron 1) inoculación de ciertas zonas de los tubérculos con diferentes nivelés de inóculo seguida por incubatión bajo condiciones del ambiente o condiciones de baja oxigenación, 2) inoculación de tubérculos magullados mecánicamente seguida por incubación en cámara de nebulización, y 3) un método estándar para inocular rebanadas.

La prueba de dosificación de zonas seguida por incubación en cámara de formatión de rocío y la prueba de las magulladuras en cámara de nebulización mostraron formas similares de resistencia para los cultivares utilizados en estos experimentos. Se considera que estos dos métodos son efectivos para la evaluatión y selection de tubérculos de papa para resistencia a la pudrición blanda bacteriana. Los métodos de dosificación de zonas son muy útiles si se tiene un limitado número de tubérculos disponibles. La prueba de las magulladuras en cámara de nebulización es más simple que los otros procedimientos. Sin embargo, para obtener resultados reproducibles, se requieren numerosos tubérculos. Debido a la gran variatión en los resultados obtenidos en la inoculación de rebanadas, la confianza en este método puede ser cuestionada como un método estandarizado para la evaluatión de resistencia. Tubérculos de híbridos somáticos deS. brevidens yS. tuberosum y su progenie sexual fueron significativamente más resistentes a la pudrición blanda bacteriana que los tubérculos de cultivares moderadamente resistentes cuando se les evaluó por cada uno de los métodos ensayados.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Austin, S., M. Ehlenfeldt, M. Baer and J.H. Helgeson. 1986. Somatic hybrids produced by protoplast fusion betweenS. tuberosum andS. brevidens: phenotypic variation under field conditions. Theor Appl Genet 71:682–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Austin, S., E. Łojkowska, M.K. Ehlenfeldt, A. Kelman and J.P. Helgeson. 1988. Fertile interspecific somatic hybrids ofSolanum: a novel source of resistance toErwinia soft rot. Phytopathology 78:1216–1220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bain, R.A. and M.C.M. Perombelon. 1988. Effect of methods of testing on the resistance of tubers of different cultivars to soft rot caused byErwinia carotovora subsp.atroseptica. Plant Pathol 37:431–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bartz, J.A. and A. Kelman. 1986. Effect of air-drying on soft rot potential of potato tubers,Solanum tuberosum, inoculated by immersion in suspensions ofErwinia carotovora. Plant Disease 69:128–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bowman, A., C.B. Bus, P. Jellema and A. Schepers. 1987. Reducing blackleg spread in potato by harvesting system, pp. 427–428.In: 10th Triennial Conf European Assoc Potato Res, Aalborg, Denmark.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bourne, W.F., D.C. McCalmont and R.L. Wastie. 1981. Assessing potato tubers for susceptibility to bacterial soft rot (Erwinia carotovora subsp.atroseptica). Potato Res 24:409–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buelow, F.H., E.A. Maher and A. Kelman. 1986. Assessment of bacterial soft rot potential in potatoes, pp. 440–455.In: Engineering for poatoes, B.F. Cargill, (ed.). Michigan State University and American Society of Agricultural Engineers. St. Joseph, MI.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burton, W. and M.J. Wigginton. 1970. The effect of a film of water on oxygen status of potato tubers. Potato Res 13:180–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Conover, N.P. 1980. Practical non parametric statistics. pp. 229–245. M. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Corsini, D. and J. Pavek. 1986. Bacterial soft-rot resistant potato germplasm. Am Potato J 63:417 (Abstract).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cother, E.J. and B.R. Cullis. 1987. Seed tuber susceptibility toErwinia chrysanthemi: evaluation of altered tuber physiology as a means of reducing incidence and severity of soft rot. Potato Res 30:229–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cuppels, D.A. and A. Kelman. 1974. Evaluation of selective media for isolation of soft rot bacteria from soil and plant tissue. Phytopathology 64:468–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    De Boer, S.H. and A. Kelman. 1978. Influence of oxygen concentration and storage factors on susceptibility of potato tubers to bacteria soft rot (Erwinia carotovara). Potato Res 21:65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dobias, K. 1976. Methoden zur Prufung der Resistenz von Kartoffeln gegen den Erreger der Knollennassfäule. Tag-Ber., Akad. Landwirtsch.-Wiss. 140:221–230.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gotz, J., E. Ratuszniak, H. Henniger and J. Komorowska-Jedrys. 1983. Die Mischinokulation mitErwinia carotovora undFusarium spp. zur Bestimmung der Fäulniswiderstandsfähigkeit von Kartoffelsorten. Tag-Ber., Akad. Landwirtsch.-Wiss. 216:429–440.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hidalgo, D.A. and E. Echandi. 1983. Influence of temperature and length of storage on resistance of potato to tuber rot induced byErwinia chrysanthemi. Am Potato J 60:1–17.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kelman, A., R.G. McGuire and KC. Tzeng. 1989. Reducing severity of bacterial soft rot by increasing the concentration of calcium in potato tubers. pp. 102–123.In: Soilborne Plant Pathogens: Management of Diseases with Macro- and Microelements. A.W. Englehard (Ed.). APS Press, American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kleinhempel, D. and J. Goetz. 1984. Problems in assessing susceptibility of potato cultivars to tuber soft rot. pp. 386–387.In: 9th Triennial Conf European Assoc Potato Res, Interlaken, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Knowles, N.R., W.M. Iritani, L.D. Weiler and D.C. Gross. 1982. Susceptibility of potato to bacterial rot and weight loss as a function of wound-healing interval and temperature. Am Potato J 59:515–522.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kolattukudy, P.E. 1981. Structure, biosynthesis and biodegradation of cutin and suberin. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 32:539–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Krause, B., T. Koczy, J. Komorowska-Jedrys and E. Ratuszniak. 1982. Laboratory determinations of tuber resistance to the chief storage rots in a world collection of potato varieties. Biul Inst Ziemniaka 27:111–134. (In Polish, English Summary).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Krause, B. and E. Ratuszniak. 1986. Drum test for the assessment of complex resistance of potato tubers to the storage rots. Biul. Inst. Ziemniaka 34:51–60. (In Polish, English Summary).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lapwood, D.H., P.I. Read and J. Spokes. 1984. Methods for assessing the susceptibility of potato tubers of different cultivars to rotting byErwinia carotovora subsp.atroseptica andcarotovora. Plant Pathol 33:13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lewosz, J., E. Łojkowska and M. Hołubowska. 1985. Physiological predisposition of potato tubers to soft rot. Ziemniaka 30:49–58.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lewosz, W. 1987. Influence of some herbicides on the incidence of blackleg and soft rot. p. 216.In: 10th Triennial Conf European Assoc Potato Res, Aalborg, Denmark.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Logan, C. 1985. Problems associated with testing cultivars for susceptibility to blackleg and soft rot. pp. 77–78.In: Rep Internat Conf on Potato Blackleg Disease. D.C. Graham and M.D. Harrison (eds.). Potato Marketing Board, England.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Łojkowska, E. and M. Hołubowska. 1992. The role of polyphenol oxidase and peroxidase in potato resistance to soft rot caused byErwinia carotovora. J Phytopathology 136:319–328.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Łojkowska, E. and J. Lewosz. 1985. The effect of wound-healing and of certain chemicals on electrolyte release from discs of potato by enzymes ofErwinia carotovora. Potato Res 28:131–143.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lyon, G.D. 1989. The biochemical basis of resistance of potato to soft rotErwinia spp.-a review. Plant Pathol 38:313–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Maher, E.A. and A. Kelman. 1983. Oxygen status of potato tuber tissue in relation to maceration by pectic enzymes ofErwinia carotovora. Phytopathology 73:536–539.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Maher, E.A. and A. Kelman. 1985. Factors affecting susceptibility of stored potato tubers toErwinia carotovora. pp. 21–22.In: Rep Internat Conf on Potato Blackleg Disease. D.C. Graham and M.D. Harrison (eds.). Potato Marketing Board, England.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    McGuire, R.G. and A. Kelman. 1986. Calcium in potato tuber cell wall in relation to tissue maceration byErwinia carotovora pv.atroseptica. Phytopathology 76:401–406.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ostergaard, S.P. and J.B. Henriksen. 1981. Influence of harvest temperature and precipitation on wastage during storage, pp. 161–162.In: 8th Triennial Conf European Assoc Potato Res, Munchen, Bundesrepublik Deutschland.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rhodes, M.J. and L.S.C. Wooltorton. 1978. The biosynthesis of phenolic compounds in wounded plant storage tissue. pp. 243–287.In: Biochemistry of wounded plant tissue. G. Kahl (ed.). Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Thomson, N.F., R.F. Evert, E.A. Maher and A. Kelman. 1987. Suberization in bruised and cut potato tubers, pp. 142–143.In: 10th Triennial Conf. European Assoc. Potato Res, Aalborg, Denmark.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tzeng, K.C., R. McGuire and A. Kelman. 1990. Resistance of tubers from different potato cultivars to soft rot caused byErwinia carotovora subsp.atroseptica. Am Potato J 67:287–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wastie, R.L. and G.R. Mackay. 1985. Breeding for resistance to blackleg: the present and the future, pp. 75–77.In: Report of the International Conference on Potato Blackleg Disease. D.C. Graham and M.D. Harrison (eds.). Potato Marketing Board, England.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wastie, R.L. and G.R. Mackay. 1987. Testing clones for resistance to tuber soft rot (Erwinia carotovora subsp.atroseptica) by vacuum infiltration. pp. 192–193.In: 10th Triennial Conf European Assoc Potato Res, Aalborg, Denmark.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Weber, Z. 1987. Health condition of mother tubers at harvest time and latent infection of potato daughter tubers caused byErwinia carotovora ssp.atroseptica (E.c.a.),Erwinia carotovora ssp.carotovora (E.c.c). pp. 212–213.In: 10th Triennial Conf European Assoc Potato Res, Aalborg, Denmark.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ewa Łojkowska
    • 1
  • Arthur Kelman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant PathologyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadison

Personalised recommendations