Resistance to Tomato spotted wilt virus and Root-Knot Nematode in Peanut Interspecific Breeding Lines C. Corley Holbrook,* Patricia Timper, and Albert K. Culbreath ABSTRACT
higher levels of field resistance to TSWV than Georgia Green or C-99R (Culbreath et al., 1999b). The peanut root-knot nematode is also an important pathogen in many peanut production areas of the world. In the USA, this nematode is a significant pathogen in peanut fields in Georgia (Motsinger et al., 1976), Texas (Wheeler and Starr, 1987), Alabama (Ingram and Rodriguez-Kabana, 1980), and North Carolina (Schmitt and Barker, 1988). The development of resistant cultivars will reduce yield losses and pesticide inputs. Only moderate levels of resistance have been observed in the naturally occurring germplasm of A. hypogaea (Holbrook and Noe, 1992; Holbrook et al., 1996, 2000a,b). However, very high levels of resistance to M. arenaria exist in related Arachis spp. (Baltensperger et al., 1986; Nelson et al., 1989; Holbrook and Noe, 1990). This resistance has been introgressed into A. hypogaea. Stalker et al. (1995) introgressed nematode resistance into A. hypogaea (2n ⫽ 4x ⫽ 40) from A. cardenasii Krapov. and W.C. Gregory (2n ⫽ 2x ⫽ 20). Restoring fertility of triploid F1 hybrids was accomplished by creating hexaploids and then selfing progenies until 40-chromosome progenies were identified. Garcia et al. (1996) reported that this resistance was conditioned by two dominant genes where one gene (Mag) inhibited root galling and another gene (Mae) inhibited egg production by M. arenaria. Resistance to M. arenaria also has been introgressed into A. hypogaea by means of a complex interspecific hybrid from the three nematode-resistant species, A. batizocoi Krapov. and W.C. Gregory, A. cardenasii, and A. diogoi Hoehne (Simpson, 1991). This work resulted in the release of two highly resistant germplasm lines, TxAG-6 and TxAG-7 (Simpson et al., 1993). A backcross breeding program was then used to introgress the root-knot nematode resistance from TxAG-7 into peanut breeding populations (Starr et al., 1995). This work resulted in the release of COAN, the first peanut cultivar with resistance to M. arenaria (Simpson and Starr, 2001). The yield potential of COAN was found to be less than that of its recurrent parent, ‘Florunner’ (Starr et al., 1998), but Church et al. (2000) observed significantly higher yield potential in nematode resistant breeding lines that resulted from two additional backcross generations. Peanut cultivars are not available that have resistance to both TSWV and the root-knot nematode. The objective of this research was to identify peanut breeding lines that have resistance to both pathogens.
The peanut root-knot nematode [Meloidogyne arenaria (Neal) Chitwood race 1] and Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV), genus Tospovirus, are economically significant pathogens of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in the USA. Peanut cultivars are available that have resistance to either the peanut root-knot nematode (PRN) or TSWV, but no cultivars are available that have resistance to both pathogens. The objective of this research was to identify peanut breeding lines that have resistance to both pathogens. We crossed interspecific peanut germplasm with two cultivars that are susceptible to both PRN and TSWV. Progenies were examined in a greenhouse screening system to measure resistance to PRN. Subsequently, this material was evaluated for resistance to TSWV in field plots. Ten breeding lines were identified which exhibited a reduction in nematode reproduction in comparison to the nematode susceptible check ‘Georgia Green’. These breeding lines also exhibited a reduction in incidence of TSWV in comparison to the TSWV susceptible check ‘COAN’. When grown in a field with pressure from both pathogens, these breeding lines had higher yield than cultivars with resistance to only one pathogen. This is the first report of peanut germplasm with resistance to both TSWV and the peanut root-knot nematode and the first report of resistance to TSWV in interspecific peanut germplasm.
S
ince 1985, TSWV has become a major problem in peanut production areas of the USA. The disease is now common in many peanut-growing areas, including Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Texas, and North Carolina, and has become the most important disease problem for many peanut growers (Culbreath et al., 1997a). The primary management tool for TSWV is cultivar selection (Culbreath et al., 1999a). ‘Southern Runner’ (Gorbet et al., 1987) was the first peanut cultivar observed to have a moderate level of resistance to TSWV (Culbreath et al., 1992). Intensive screening programs have resulted in the release of several other TSWV resistant cultivars, including Georgia Browne (Branch, 1994), Georgia Green (Branch, 1996), and Florida MDR 98 (Gorbet and Shokes, 2000a) all of which have a level of TSWV resistance similar to Southern Runner (Culbreath et al., 1994; 1996; 1997b). The multiple disease resistant cultivar C99-R (Gorbet and Shokes, 2000b) was found to have similar incidence of TSWV as Georgia Green when incidence was relatively low, but had lower incidence of TSWV when disease pressure was greater (Wells et al., 2002). The soon to be released cultivars Hull (F89/0L28-H01-7-4-1-2-b3-B) and DP-1 (F86/43-1-1-1-1-1-b2-B) and several breeding lines have C.C. Holbrook and P. Timper, USDA-ARS, P.O. Box 748, Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Tifton, GA 31793; A.K. Culbreath, Univ. of Georgia, Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., P.O. Box 748, Tifton, GA 31793. Received 20 June 2002. *Corresponding author (
[email protected]. edu).
MATERIALS AND METHODS Plants from a population of segregating interspecific genetic material were crossed with the cultivars Florunner (cross 204) and MARC I (cross 209). This interspecific material was ob-
Published in Crop Sci. 43:1109–1113 (2003).
1109
1110
CROP SCIENCE, VOL. 43, MAY–JUNE 2003
tained from North Carolina State University and originated from a cross of A. hypogaea (PI 261942) with A. cardenasii (GKP 10017, PI 262141). Populations from two F1 plants from cross 204 and 10 F1 plants from cross 209 were advanced by single seed descent for two generations. Eight hundred ninetyfour individual F4 plants were harvested. This material was tested for resistance to M. arenaria by means of the greenhouse screening technique described by Holbrook et al. (1983) with three replications. Plants were grown in steam-pasteurized loamy sand (850 g kg⫺1 sand, 110 g kg⫺1 silt, 40 g kg⫺1 clay). Each pot was inoculated with 3500 eggs of M. arenaria race 1 (Gibbs isolate) which had been cultured alternately on tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. cv. Rutgers) and peanut to reduce potential contamination from M. incognita (a parasite of tomato but not peanut). Nematode inoculum was prepared by the NaOCl method (Hussey and Barker, 1973) and applied 10 d after planting. Plants were uprooted and washed clean of soil 68 d after inoculation. The roots were placed in 1000-mL beakers containing 300 mL of 0.05% (v/v) phloxine B solution for 3 to 5 min (Daykin and Hussey, 1985). Each plant was indexed for root galls and egg masses on the basis of the following scale: 0 ⫽ no galls or no egg masses, 1 ⫽ 1 to 2, 2 ⫽ 3 to 10, 3 ⫽ 11 to 30, 4 ⫽ 31 to 100, and 5 ⫽ more than 100 galls or egg masses per root system (Taylor and Sasser, 1978). The 894 F4:5 lines were also planted in single replicate plots at the Gibbs farm in Tift County, GA, in 1999. Plots consisted of two rows 0.8 m apart and 3 m long. Entries were planted at 13 seeds m⫺1. TSWV intensity was evaluated in each plot by a disease intensity rating that represents a combination of incidence and severity as described by Culbreath et al. (1997b). The number of 0.3-m portions of row containing severely stunted, chlorotic, wilted, or dead plants was counted and converted to a percentage of row length for comparison of genotypes. These initial evaluations for resistance to the peanut rootknot nematode and TSWV indicated that this material contained genotypes that possess resistance to both pathogens. Fifteen genotypes were selected for further study. These breeding lines, along with the cultivars Georgia Green and COAN were tested for resistance to M. arenaria by the greenhouse technique described above with 10 replications. Three separate greenhouse studies using complete and incomplete sets of the same genotypes were conducted to further quantify nematode reproduction. Genotypes were planted in completely randomized block designs with eight or nine replications. Germinated seedlings were inoculated with 8100 eggs 14 d after planting. Plants were uprooted 56 d after inoculation. Entire root systems were blotted dry and weighed, and nematode eggs were extracted with 1.0% (v/v) NaOCl and counted. Data for individual plants were converted to egg per gram fresh root before analysis. The same genotypes were also planted on 8 May 2000 and 14 May 2001 in fields with little or no M. arenaria at the Gibbs Farm [Tifton loamy sand (fine, loamy, siliceous, thermic Plinthic Kandindult)] in Tift County, GA. Each test was planted in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Plots consisted of two rows 0.8 m apart and 4.6 m long. Entries were planted at 20 seeds m⫺1. Plots were managed throughout the growing season by standard grower practices and were irrigated as needed. TSWV intensity was evaluated in each plot by the disease intensity rating as previously described. Plots were dug 21 Sept. 2000 and 26 Sept. 2001. The crop was allowed to dry in the field for 6 to 8 d and pods were harvested with a small plot thresher. Pods were dried with forced air (35⬚C) until seed moisture reached about 80 g kg⫺1. These genotypes were also tested by a similar experimental
Table 1. Root galling and Meloidogyne arenaria egg-mass ratings on selected peanut genotypes when tested in the greenhousetrial 1. Genotype Georgia Green C209-4-39 C209-6-28 C209-8-64 C209-7-47 C209-6-60 C209-6-13 C209-6-37 C209-6-49 C209-6-20 C209-6-42 C209-5-43 C209-6-36 C209-6-41 C209-6-43 C209-6-14 COAN LSD (P ⱕ 0.05)
Root-gall index†
Egg-mass index‡
3.8† 3.3 3.1 3.8 3.3 3.2 3.0 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.3 2.8 3.0 1.5 0.4
3.3 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 0.9 0.4
† Root-gall and egg-mass index on 0 to 5 scale: 0, no galls or no eggmasses; 1, 1 to 2; 2, 3 to 10; 3, 11 to 30; 4, 31 to 100; 5, more than 100 galls, or egg masses per root system. ‡ Data are means of 10 replications.
design in a field heavily infested with M. arenaria at the Bowen Farm [Ocilla loamy coarse sand (loamy, siliceous, thermic Aquic Arenic Paleududults)] in Tift County, GA. Plots were planted on 19 May 2000 and dug on 30 Sept. With the exception of no nematicide usage, plots were managed throughout the growing season by standard grower practices and were irrigated as needed. Data were subjected to analysis of variance and genotypic means were compared by Fisher’s protected least significant difference (LSD). Unless otherwise stated, differences referred to in the text were significant at P ⱕ 0.05.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Twelve of the 15 selected breeding lines showed a reduction in galling and egg mass ratings compared to the nematode susceptible check, Georgia Green (Table 1). However, all of these genotypes showed greater galling and egg mass ratings in comparison to the nematode resistant check, COAN. Nematode eggs per gram of fresh root was measured for all breeding lines in the 4th greenhouse trial, and for incomplete sets of these breeding lines in the 2nd and 3rd greenhouse trials (Table 2). Ten breeding lines showed consistent reductions in eggs per gram fresh root in comparison to Georgia Green when tested in at least two separate greenhouse trials. Two of the lines that did not support lower nematode reproduction were among the three lines that did not show reduced galling and egg mass ratings (Table 1). On the basis of nematode eggs per gram of fresh root, none of the breeding lines appear to have a level of resistance as high as the level of resistance in COAN (Table 2). Only moderate levels of resistance to M. arenaria have been reported in A. hypogaea (Holbrook et al., 2000a; b), whereas very high levels of resistance have been observed in wild species (Baltensperger et al., 1986; Nelson et al., 1989; Holbrook and Noe, 1990) and interspecific material (Simpson et al., 1993; Stalker et al., 2002). Resistance to M. arenaria derived from A. carde-
1111
HOLBROOK ET AL.: RESISTANCE TO TSWV AND NEMATODES
Table 2. Meloidogyne arenaria reproduction on selected peanut genotypes when tested in the greenhouse trials 2, 3, and 4. Eggs per gram fresh root Genotype
Trial 2
Trial 3
Trial 4
Georgia Green C209-4-39 C209-5-43 C209-6-13 C209-6-14 C209-6-20 C209-6-28 C209-6-36 C209-6-37 C209-6-41 C209-6-42 C209-6-43 C209-6-49 C209-6-60 C209-7-47 C209-8-64 COAN LSD (P ⱕ 0.05)
4626†
19673‡ 8438 15775 3983 7389
6172† 6634 3313 3552 3756 2101 2209 3332 4436 1590 3345 3300 5137 2484 3266 3665 77 1615
478 431 283
386 351 202 953 71 2093
8950 6869 7311 11493 6214 10425 7407 12513 489 8194
† Data are means of eight replicates. ‡ Data are means of nine replicates.
nasii has been reported to be controlled by simple dominant inheritance of one or two genes with major effects (Garcia et al., 1996; Choi et al., 1999). The breeding lines in the present study have moderate levels of nematode resistance, and all lines are more susceptible than COAN. Nevertheless, the resistance in these breeding lines is likely to have originated from A. cardenasii because the other parent in the original interspecific cross is highly susceptible to M. arenaria (Garcia et al., 1996). They also observed progeny from interspecific crosses with A. cardenasii that exhibited moderate levels of resistance to M. arenaria. These observations indicate that other genes may be involved in the inheritance of nematode resistance in interspecific peanut material. TSWV pressure was much greater in 2000 than in 2001, and there was a genotype ⫻ year interaction (Table 3). In 2000, all breeding lines exhibited a significant Table 3. End of season intensity of TSWV in selected peanut genotypes at Tifton, GA, in 2000 and 2001. Final intensity rating† Entry COAN Georgia Green C209-4-39 C209-7-47 C209-5-43 C209-6-41 C209-6-37 C209-6-49 C209-6-42 C209-6-20 C209-6-36 C209-6-14 C209-6-60 C209-8-64 C209-6-43 C209-6-28 C209-6-13 LSD (P ⱕ 0.05)
2000 58‡ 34 29 32 23 17 12 17 16 17 14 14 12 13 13 12 8 14§
2001 % 17 9 9 3 4 6 8 2 3 2 3 3 6 2 1 3 3 7§
reduction in incidence of TSWV in comparison to the TSWV susceptible check, COAN. Twelve of these lines exhibited a reduction in incidence of TSWV in comparison to the moderately resistant TSWV check, Georgia Green. Fewer differences were observed in 2001. However, all breeding lines had less TSWV incidence in comparison to COAN in both years. The origin of the genes for resistance to TSWV in these breeding lines is not clear. Florunner and MARC I are both highly susceptible to TSWV (Culbreath et al., 1994); therefore, it is likely that the gene(s) for TSWV resistance came from the interspecific parent. PI 261942 is an accession included in the U.S. peanut core collection (Holbrook et al., 1993). The core collection was examined for sources of resistance to TSWV, and this accession was found to be highly susceptible (Anderson et al., 1996). The gene(s) for TSWV resistance likely came from the A. cardenasii accession. However, transgressive segregation for resistance to TSWV is not uncommon, particularly in the heavy selection pressure that is prevalent in peanut breeding nurseries in the southeastern USA. The difference in TSWV pressure between years was also reflected in lower pod yield for each genotype in 2000; however, the genotype ⫻ year interaction effects were not significant (Table 4). All breeding lines exhibited higher yield in comparison to COAN. No difference in yield were observed between the breeding lines and Georgia Green when averaged over both years. This is the first report of peanut germplasm with resistance to both TSWV and the peanut root-knot nematode. In the peanut production region of the southeastern USA, peanut in fields with the peanut root-knot nematode also experience pressure from TSWV. In such a situation, the yield of currently available virus resistant cultivars will be reduced by nematode pressure, and the
Table 4. Pod yield of selected peanut genotypes at Tifton, GA, in 2000 and 2001. Pod yield
Mean Entry 37 22 19 18 14 11 10 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 7 7 5
† Percentage of the total row length with plants severely affected by spotted wilt. ‡ Data are means of three replicates. § Genotype ⫻ year interaction effects were significant (P ⱕ 0.05). Therefore, data were analyzed separately for each year.
2000
2001
Mean
ha⫺1
C209-6-49 C209-6-14 C209-6-13 C209-6-20 C209-6-41 C209-6-42 C209-6-43 C209-6-36 Georgia Green C209-7-47 C209-6-28 C209-6-37 C209-6-60 C209-4-39 C209-8-64 C209-5-43 COAN LSD (P ⱕ 0.05)
4087† 3935 3865 3484 3800 3802 3608 3823 3188 3338 3162 3977 3518 3001 3021 2390 1076
kg 5813 5504 5444 5795 5465 5419 5468 5229 5860 5680 5737 4861 5194 5178 5093 5380 3669
4950 4720 4655 4639 4632 4611 4538 4526 4524 4509 4449 4419 4356 4090 4057 3885 2323 723‡
† Data are means of three replications. ‡ Genotype ⫻ year interaction effects were not significant (P ⱕ 0.05). Therefore, data from the two years were pooled for genotype comparisons.
1112
CROP SCIENCE, VOL. 43, MAY–JUNE 2003
Table 5. Mean yield and final intensity of TSWV of selected peanut genotypes when grown at a location heavily infested with M. arenaria. Genotype 209-6-43 209-6-13 209-6-14 209-8-64 209-6-49 209-6-37 209-7-47 209-6-41 209-6-36 209-6-42 209-6-20 209-6-57 209-6-28 209-4-39 209-5-43 Georgia Green COAN LSD (P ⱕ 0.05)
Yield
TSWV
kg ha⫺1 3096† 2643 2619 2580 2574 2530 2281 2248 2187 2153 2062 2011 1996 1317 1237 1096 897 896
% 10 8 7 12 13 12 21 17 22 12 13 9 16 23 13 22 36 14
† Data are means of three replications.
yield of currently available nematode resistant cultivars will be reduced by TSWV. When grown in a field with pressure from both pathogens, 13 of these breeding lines had higher yield than Georgia Green and COAN (Table 5). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Dr. H. Thomas Stalker at North Carolina State University for providing seeds of the original interspecific genetic material. The contributions and technical support of Shannon Atkinson, David Clements, Vickie Griffin, Dannie Mauldin, Adam K. Montford, Betty Tyler, and William Wilson are greatefully acknowledged. This work was supported in part by the Georgia Peanut Commission.
REFERENCES Anderson, W.F., C.C. Holbrook, and A.K. Culbreath. 1996. Screening the core collection for resistance to tomato spotted wilt virus. Peanut Sci. 23:57–61. Baltensperger, D.D., G.M. Prine, and R.A. Dunn. 1986. Root-knot nematode resistance in Arachis glabrata. Peanut Sci. 13:78–80. Branch, W.D. 1994. Registration of ‘Georgia Browne’ peanut. Crop Sci. 34:1125–1126. Branch, W.D. 1996. Registration of ‘Georgia Green’ peanut. Crop Sci. 36:806. Choi, K., M.D. Burow, G. Church, G. Burow, A.H. Patterson, C.E. Simpson, and J.L. Starr. 1999. Genetics and mechanism of resistance to Meloidogyne arenaria in peanut germplasm. J. Nematol. 31:283–290. Church, G.T., C.E. Simpson, M.D. Burow, A.H. Patterson, and J.L. Starr. 2000. Use of RFLP markers for identification of individuals homozygous for resistance to Meloidogyne arenaria in peanut. Nematologica 2:575–580. Culbreath, A.K., J.W. Todd, W.D. Branch, S.L. Brown, J.W. Demski, and J.P. Beasley, Jr. 1994. Effect of new peanut cultivar Georgia Browne on epidemics of spotted wilt. Plant Dis. 78:1185–1189. Culbreath, A.K., J.W. Todd, S.L. Brown, J.A. Baldwin, and H. Pappu. 1999a. A genetic and cultural package for management of tomato spotted wilt virus in peanut. Biol. Cult. Test 14:1–8. Culbreath, A.K., J.W. Todd, J.W. Demski, and J.R. Chamberlin. 1992. Disease progress of spotted wilt in peanut cultivars Florunner and Southern Runner. Phytopathology 82:766–771. Culbreath, A.K., J.W. Todd, D.W. Gorbet, W.D. Branch, R.K. Sprenkel, F.M. Shokes, and J.W. Demski. 1996. Disease progress of
tomato spotted wilt virus in selected peanut cultivars and advanced breeding lines. Plant Dis. 80:70–73. Culbreath, A.K., J.W. Todd, D.W. Gorbet, S.L. Brown, J.A. Baldwin, H.R. Pappu, C.C. Holbrook, and F.M. Shokes. 1999b. Response of early, medium, and late maturing peanut breeding lines to field epidemics of tomato spotted wilt. Peanut Sci. 26:100–106. Culbreath, A.K., J.W. Todd, D.W. Gorbet, F.M. Shokes, and H.R. Pappu. 1997a. Field performance of advanced runner- and virginiatype peanut breeding lines during epidemics of TSWV. Peanut Sci. 24:123–128. Culbreath, A.K., J.W. Todd, D.W. Gorbet, F.M. Shokes, and H.R. Pappu. 1997b. Field response of new peanut cultivar UF 91108 to tomato spotted wilt virus. Plant Dis. 81:1410–1415. Daykin, M.E., and R.S. Hussey. 1985. Staining and histopathological techniques in nematology, p. 39–48. In K. R. Barker et al. (ed.) An advanced treatise on Meloidogyne. Vol. II: Methodology. North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh. Garcia, G.M., H.T. Stalker, E. Shroeder, and G. Kochert. 1996. Identification of RAPD, SCAR and RFLP markers tightly linked to nematode resistance genes introgressed from Arachis cardenasii to A. hypogaea. Genome 39:836–845. Gorbet, D.W., A.J. Norden, F.M. Shokes, and D.A. Knauft. 1987. Registration of ‘Southern Runner’ peanut. Crop Sci. 27:817. Gorbet, D.W., and F.M. Shokes. 2000a. Florida MDR 98 peanut. UF/ IFAS Agric. Exp. Sta. Cir. S-401. Gorbet, D.W., and F.M. Shokes. 2000b. Florida peanut- C-99R. UF/ IFAS Agric. Exp. Sta. Cir. 1261. 8p. Holbrook, C.C., W.F. Anderson, and R.N. Pittman. 1993. Selection of a core collection from the U.S. germplasm collection of peanut. Crop Sci. 33:859–861. Holbrook, C.C., D.A. Knauft, and D.W. Dickson. 1983. A technique for screening peanut for resistance to Meloidogyne arenaria. Plant Dis. 67:957–958. Holbrook, C.C., and J.P. Noe. 1990. Resistance to Meloidogyne arenaria in Arachis spp. and the implications on development of resistant peanut cultivars. Peanut Sci. 17:35–38. Holbrook, C.C., and J.P. Noe. 1992. Resistance to the peanut rootknot nematode (Meloidogyne arenaria) in Arachis hypogaea. Peanut Sci. 19:35–37. Holbrook, C.C., J.P. Noe, M.G. Stephenson, and W.F. Anderson. 1996. Identification and evaluation of additional sources of resistance to peanut root-knot nematode in Arachis hypogaea L. Peanut Sci. 23:91–94. Holbrook, C.C., M.G. Stephenson, and A.W. Johnson. 2000a. Level and geographical distribution of resistance to Meloidogyne arenaria in the U.S. peanut germplasm collection. Crop Sci. 40:1168–1171. Holbrook, C.C., P. Timper, and H.Q. Xue. 2000b. Evaluation of the core collection approach for identifying resistance to Meloidogyne arenaria in peanut. Crop Sci. 40:1172–1175. Hussey, R.S., and K.R. Barker. 1973. A comparison of methods of collecting inocula for Meloidogyne spp., including a new technique. Plant Dis. Rep. 57:1025–1028. Ingram, E.G., and R. Rodriguez-Kabana. 1980. Nematodes parasitic on peanuts in Alabama and evaluation methods for detection and study of population dynamics. Nematropica 10:21–30. Motsinger, R., J. Crawford, and S. Thompson. 1976. Nematode survey of peanuts and cotton in southwest Georgia. Peanut Sci. 3:72–74. Nelson, S.C., C.E. Simpson, and J.L. Starr. 1989. Resistance to Meloidogyne arenaria in Arachis spp. germplasm. J. Nematol. 21:654–660. Schmitt, D.P., and K.R. Barker. 1988. Incidence of plant-parasitic nematodes in the coastal plain of North Carolina. Plant Dis. 72: 107–110. Simpson, C.E. 1991. Pathways for introgression of pest resistance into Arachis hypogaea L. Peanut Sci. 18:22–26. Simpson, C.E., S.C. Nelson, J.L. Starr, K.E. Woodard, and O.D. Smith. 1993. Registration of TxAG-6 and TxAG-7 peanut germplasm lines. Crop Sci. 33:1418. Simpson, C.E., and J.L. Starr. 2001. Registration of ‘COAN’ peanut. Crop Sci. 41:918. Stalker, H.T., M.K. Beute, B.B. Shew, and K.R. Barker. 2002. Registration of two root-knot nematode-resistant peanut germplasm lines. Crop Sci. 42:312–313. Stalker, H.T., B.B. Shew, M.K. Beute, K.R. Barker, C.C. Holbrook,
HOLBROOK ET AL.: RESISTANCE TO TSWV AND NEMATODES
J.P. Noe, and G. A. Kochert. 1995. Meloidogyne arenaria resistance in advanced-generation Arachis hypogaea ⫻ A. cardenasii hybrids. Proc. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc. 27:24 (abstr.). Starr, J.L., C.E. Simpson, and T.A. Lee, Jr. 1995. Resistance to Meloidogyne arenaria in advanced generation breeding lines of peanut. Peanut Sci. 22:59–61. Starr, J.L., C.E. Simpson, and T.A. Lee, Jr. 1998. Yield of peanut genotypes resistant to root-knot nematodes. Peanut Sci. 25:119– 123.
1113
Taylor, A.L., and J.N. Sasser. 1978. Biology, identification and control of root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne species). North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh. Wells, M.L., A.K. Culbreath, J.W. Todd, S.L. Brown, and D.W. Gorbet. 2002. A regression approach for comparing field resistance of peanut cultivars to tomato spotted wilt tospovirus. Crop Prot. 21:467–474. Wheeler, T.A., and J.L. Starr. 1987. Incidence and economic importance of plant-parasitic nematodes on peanut in Texas. Peanut Sci. 14:94–96.
