Advertisement

Euphytica

, Volume 174, Issue 2, pp 231–238 | Cite as

Yield response and Stenocarpella ear rot reaction among selected maize inbred lines and top cross hybrids

  • Lieketso Moremoholo
  • Hussein Shimelis
  • Phatu William Mashela
Article

Abstract

Stenocarpella ear rot of maize caused by Stenocarpella maydis (Berk.) Sutton is one of the most important ear rot diseases in South Africa. The objective of this study was to identify suitable maize inbred lines and top cross hybrids with Stenocarpella ear rot resistance and high grain yield. The study was conducted using 54 inbred lines and 54 top crosses with selected standard checks under natural and artificial disease inoculations. A split-plot design was used with three replications. There were considerable variations among tested inbred lines and top crosses for Stenocarpella ear rot resistance and grain yield. Two promising inbred lines GCI-35 and GCI-50 were selected possessing resistance to Stenocarpella ear rot and increased grain yield. Inbred line GCI-35 had a grain yield of 6.31 and 6.27 t/ha under natural and artificial inoculations, respectively. Line GCI-50 yielded 5.8 and 5.7 t/ha when tested under natural and artificial disease infestations, respectively. Two top cross hybrids GCT-14 and GCT-30 were selected with greater grain yield and high level of Stenocarpella ear rot resistance. Top cross entry GCT-14 yielded 7.5 and 9.33 t/ha, respectively, whereas GCT-30 had yield of 7.65 and 9.21 t/ha, respectively. The selected inbred lines and top cross hybrids will be useful in maize improvement for Stenocarpella ear rot resistance and increased grain yield in South Africa or other similar environments.

Keywords

Inbred lines Resistance breeding Stenocarpella maydis Top cross hybrids Zea mays 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The Government of Lesotho and the Maize Trust of South Africa are sincerely thanked for financial support of this study.

References

  1. Agrobase (2005) Agrobase generation II user’s manual. Agronomix Software, ManitobaGoogle Scholar
  2. Bänzinger M, Diallo AO (2004) Progress in developing drought and N stress tolerant maize cultivars for eastern and southern Africa. In: DK Friesen, AFE Palmer (eds) Integrated approaches to higher maize productivity in the new millennium. Proceedings of the 7th eastern and southern Africa regional maize conference, CIMMYT/KARI, Nairobi, Kenya, pp 189–194Google Scholar
  3. Bensch MJ (1995) An evaluation of inoculation techniques inducing Stenocarpella maydis ear rot in maize. S Afr J Plant Soil 12:172–174Google Scholar
  4. Dorrance AE, Hinkelmawn KH, Warren HL (1998) Diallel analysis of Diplodia ear rot resistance in maize. Plant Dis 82:699–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Enerson PM, Hunter RB (1980) Differential apparent infection rates of ear mould incited by Gibberella zeae between two artificially inoculated hybrids of maize. Can J Plant Sci 60:1459–1461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Flett BC, McLaren NW (1994) Optimum disease potential for evaluating Stenocarpella maydis ear rot resistance in corn hybrids. Plant Dis 78:587–589Google Scholar
  7. Malvick D (2000) Corn diseases in Illinois in 2000. University of Illinois Cooperative Extension Service, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  8. Mesterhazy A (1982) Resistance of corn to Fusarium ear rot and its relation to seedling resistance. Phytopathology 103:218–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Muller GJ (1976) A compendium of corn diseases. The American Phytopathological Society, USAGoogle Scholar
  10. Nowell DC (1990) Modified breeding strategies for ear rot resistance in maize under reduced tillage. In: Proceedings of the ninth South African maize breeding symposium, 20–22 March, Pietermaritzburg, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  11. Ooka JJ, Kommedahl T (1977) Kernels infested with Fusarium moniliforme in corn cultures with opaque-2 endosperm or male-sterile cytoplasm. Plant Dis Rep 61:162–165Google Scholar
  12. Rheeder JP, Marais WFO, Van Wyk PS, Du Toit W, Pretorius AJ, Van Schalkwyk DJ (1990) Incidence of Fusarium and Diplodia species and other fungi in naturally infected grain of South African maize cultivars. Phytophylactica 22:97–102Google Scholar
  13. Rossouw JD, Van Rensburg JBJ, Van Deventer CS (2002) Breeding for resistance to ear rot of maize caused by Stenocarpella maydis (Berk.) Sutton. Evaluation of selection criteria. S Afr J Plant Soil 4:182–187Google Scholar
  14. SAS Institute (2004) Base SAS 9.1.3: procedures guide. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  15. Smith DR, White DG (1988) Diseases of corn. In: Sprague GF (ed) Corn and corn improvement. Madison, Wisconsin, pp 736–740Google Scholar
  16. Snedecor WG, Cochran WG (1989) Statistical methods, 8th edn. Iowa State University Press, AmesGoogle Scholar
  17. Sutton BC, Waterston JM (1966) Diplodia maydis: CMI descriptions of pathogenic fungi and bacteria no. 84. CAB International, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Thompson DL, Villena WL, Maxwell JD (1971) Correlation between Diplodia stalk and ear rot of corn. Plant Dis Rep 55:158–162Google Scholar
  19. Van Rensberg JBJ, Ferreira MJ (1996) Resistance of elite inbred lines to isolates of Stenocarpella maydis (Berk.) Sutton. S Afr J Plant Soil 14:89–93Google Scholar
  20. Warren HL (1982) Registration of H110 and H111 maize germplasm. Crop Sci 22:1270–1271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wiser WJ, Krammer HH, Ullstrup AJ (1960) Evaluating inbred lines of corn for resistance to Diplodia ear rot. Agron J 52:624–626Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lieketso Moremoholo
    • 1
  • Hussein Shimelis
    • 1
  • Phatu William Mashela
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Agricultural Sciences and AgribusinessUniversity of KwaZulu-NatalScottsvilleRepublic of South Africa
  2. 2.School of Agricultural and Environmental SciencesUniversity of LimpopoSovengaRepublic of South Africa

Personalised recommendations