American Potato Journal

, Volume 47, Issue 1, pp 19–34 | Cite as

Genetic variation in a population of tetraploid potatoes: Response to the potato leafhopper and the potato flea beetle

  • L. L. Sanford
  • J. P. Sleesman


Progenies from a group of tetraploid parental clones from the USDA potato breeding program were used to investigate variation in resistance to the potato leafhopper,Empoasca fabae (Harris), and the potato flea beetle,Epitrix cucumeris (Harris). The study utilized two mating designs: i) selfing and testing both the parents and the S1 progeny; and ii) nine clones, used as males, were each crossed to three different clones, and progenies from the resulting families were tested.

Statistically significant differences between families were measured in each test for both insects. Non-additive genetic variance was larger than additive genetic variance in progeny reaction to leafhopper infestation and hopperburin, but was smaller in progeny reaction to flea beetles. Environmental variation contributed heavily to the total variation of plant reaction to both insect species.

Selecting individuals was indicated to be slightly more effective than selecting males on half-sib progeny performance but not as effective as selecting clones on S1 progeny performance. Because of the large environmental variance and small additive variance for both the leafhopper and flea beetle, slow progress in increasing the level of resistance to these two species in this sample population was predicted.

Resistance to leafhopper infestation was genetically quite highly correlated (positive) with resistance to hopperburn, but phenotypically the correlation was considerably smaller. Negative genotypic, phenotypic, and environmental correlations between leafhopper infestation and flea beetle infestation suggest that selecting for resistance to one of these species, in the population sampled for these tests, would tend to increase susceptibility to the other.


Additive Genetic Variance Flea Beetle Parental Clone Family Selection Potato Leafhopper 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Las progenies de un grupo de cepas tetraploides parentales suministrados por el Programa de mejoramiento de papas del Departamento de Agricultura de los EE. UU. fueron usadas para investigar la resistencia a los insectosEmpoasca fabae (Harris) yEpitrix cucumeris (Harris). El estudio utilizó dos procedimientos: 1) autopolinización y el ensayo tanto de los dos progenitores como de la progenie S1; y 2) nueve cepas usadas como machos fueron cruzadas con tres cepas diferentes y la progenie de estaas familias fué ensayada.

Se midieron estadisticamente significanets diferencias entre las familias en cada ensayo por los dos insectos. La variación genética no aditiva en la reacción de la progenie a la infestación y al daño causado porEmpoasca fabae fué mayor que la variación aditiva pero fué menor en la reacción de la progenie aEpitrix cucumeris. Variación ambiental contribuyó mucho a la variación total de la reacción de la planta a las dos especies de insectos.

Seleccionando indivíduos fué un poco más efectivo que seleccionando machos basándose en la acción de la progenie de medio parentazgo pero no fué tan efectivo como seleccionando cepas a base de la acción de la progenie S1. Por razón deu na gran variación ambiental y de una pequeña variación aditiva tanto en el caso deEmpoasca fabae como deEpitrix cucumeris, se predijo un lento progreso en el incremento del nivel de resistencia a estos dos insectos en esta muestra de populación.

La resistencia aEmpoasca fabae estaba correlacionada (positivamente) muy altamente con la resistencia al daño causado por este insecto pero fenotipicamente esta correlación era mucho menor. Las correlaciones negativas genotípicas, fenotípicas y ambientaales entre las infestaciones porEmpoasca fabae y las porEpitrix cucumeris sugieren que seleccionando para la resistencia a una de estas especies, en la populación usada en este ensayo, tendería a incrementar la susceptibilidad a la otra especie.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Allen, T. C. and G. H. Rieman. 1939. Occurrence of hopperburn resistance and susceptibility in the potato. Amer. Potato J. 16: 139–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allen, T. C., G. H. Rieman, and J. S. McFarlane. 1940. Influence of planting date on potato leafhopper population and hopperburn development. Amer. Potato J. 17: 283–286.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carlson, O. V. and E. T. Hibbs. 1962. Direct counts of potato leafhopper,Empoasca fabae, eggs in Solanum leaves. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 55: 512–515.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Comstock, R. E. and H. F. Robinson. 1948. The components of genetic variance in populations of biparental progenies and their use in estimating the average degree of dominance. Biometrics 4: 254–266.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gardner, M. E., Robert Schmidt and F. J. Stevenson. 1945. The Sequoia potato: A recently introduced insect resistant variety. Amer. Potato J. 22: 97–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Granovsky, A. A. and A. G. Peterson. 1954. Evaluation of potato leaf injury caused by leafhoppers, flea beetles, and early blight. J. Econ. Entomol. 47: 894–902.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Horsfall, J. G. and R. W. Barratt. 1945. An improved grading system for measuring plant diseases, Phytopathology 35: 655.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kempthorne, O. 1955. The correlation between relatives in a simple autotetraploid population. Genetics 40: 168–174.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kempthorne, O. 1957. An introduction to genetic statistics. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. 545 p.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Miller, R. L. and E. T. Hibbs. 1963. Distribution of eggs of the potato leafhopper,Empoasca fabae, onSolanum plants. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 56: 737–740.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sleesman, J. P. 1936. Influence of variety on potato leafhopper populations. Ohio Expt. Sta. Bull. 561: 43.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sleesman, J. P. 1937. Variations in potato varieties to potato flea beetle attack. 1937. Ohio Expt. Sta. Bull. 579: 52–53.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sleesman, J. P. 1940. Development of potatoes resistant to leafhoppers. Ohio Expt. Sta. Bull. 617: 26–27.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sleesman, J. P. 1945. Search for a leafhopper resistant potato. Ohio Expt. Sta. Bull. 659: 114–115.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sleesman, J. P. and J. Bushnell. 1937. Variations in nymphal populations of the potato leafhopper on different varieties of potatoes. Amer. Potato J. 14: 242–245.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sleesman, J. P. and F. J. Stevenson. 1941. Breeding a potato resistant to the potato leafhopper. Amer. Potato J. 18: 280–298.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1970

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. L. Sanford
    • 1
  • J. P. Sleesman
    • 2
  1. 1.Crops Research Division, Agriculturual Research ServiceU. S. Department of AgricultureBeltsville
  2. 2.Department of Zoology and EntomologyOhio Agricultural Research and Development CenterWooster

Personalised recommendations