Agronomic Performance of Flue-Cured Tobacco F1 Hybrids Obtained with Different Sources of Male Sterile Cytoplasm

Open access

Abstract

Four cytoplasmic male sterile (cms) F1flue-cured hybrids cv. Wiaelica × cv. Virginia Golta (VG), the male fertile analogue and the parental varieties were tested at two locations in Poland in a replicated field trial. The cms sources in the hybrids wereN. suaveolens,N. amplexicaulis,N. bigeloviiand aN. tabacumcms mutant. Under the slight to moderate pressure from black root rot present at the trial sites the hybrids showed a moderate tolerance of the disease characteristic of VG as opposed to medium strong susceptibility of Wislica. Apart from the effect of black root rot tolerance the vegetative vigor of the hybrids (plant height, leaf size, earliness) was affected by cytoplasm source. The F1hybrid withN. suaveolens cytoplasm flowered approximately three days later than the remaining hybrids. Of the cms hybrids tested cmsN. bigelovii produced the tallest plants with largest mid-position leaves. Yields of cured leaves were largely influenced by black root rot and were generally higher in VG and in the hybrids than in Wislica. Leaf yields and curability were generally little affected by cms source under low pressure from black root rot. At the site with a relatively high level of black root rot infestation the yields of cmsN. suaveolens were slightly lower but the percentage of light grades slightly higher compared to those of other cms hybrids. CmsN. suaveolens was the best hybrid in terms of money returns at the low black root rot field but it was the poorest hybrid performer under high pressure from the disease. Contents of nitrogen, sugars, nicotine and ash was little affected by source of cms. There was an increased incidence of potato virus Y (PVY) and white spots in cmsN. suaveolens and, to a lesser extent, in cmsN. bigelovii as compared to the remaining disease-free entries.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Aycock M.K. and H.R Erdogan: Influence of five male-sterile cytoplasms on the performance of Maryland tobacco cultivars and hybrids; Md. Agric. Exp. Stn. misc. Publ. (1979) 940.

  • 2. Berbeć A.: Cytological morphological and agronomic properties of alloplasmic strains of tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.) with the cytoplasm of N. knightiana Goodspeed and N. raimondii Macbride; D. Sc. thesis Instytut Uprawy Nawożenia i Gleboznawstwa Puławy H (6) 1994.

  • 3. Berbeć A.: Effect of sixteen different sources of cytoplasmic male sterility (cms) on some traits of a flue-cured tobacco cultivar; CORESTA Congr. Inf. Bull. Lisbon 2000 AP 30 p. 79.

  • 4. Berbeć J.: A cytoplasmic male sterile mutant form of Nicotiana tabacum L.; Z. Pflzucht. 73 (1974) 204-216.

  • 5. BezovaK. K. Skula: Fertile and sterile forms of VP-9 cms tabacum; Bull. Tabak. Priem. 23 (1980) 19-31.

  • 6. Chaplin J.F.: Use of male sterile tobaccos in the production of hybrid seed; Tob. Sci. 8 (1964) 105- 109.

  • 7. Cikov D. and V. Nikova: Male sterility in tobacco. IV. Seed productivity; Genet. Sel. 13-3 (1980) 198-205.

  • 8. Kubo T.: Studies on hybrid breeding by means of cytoplasmic male sterility in flue-cured tobacco; Bull. Iwata Exp. Stn. 17 (1985) 69-138.

  • 9. Povilaitis B.: Crosses between cytoplasmically inhe-rited male sterile cultivars and short-day mutants in Nicotiana tabacum; Lighter 42 (1972) 11-14.

  • 10. Suggs C.W. J.F. Beeman and W.E. Splinter: Physical properties of green Virginia-type tobacco leaves. Part. III. Relation of leaf length and width to leaf area; Tob. Sci. 4 (1960) 194-197.

  • 11. Villares A.E.: Male sterility in tobacco growing. Comparative study of F1 male sterile hybrids with their parents and isogenic lines of normal fertility. Agronomic and qualitative characteristics; Inst. Agron. Mediter Zaragoza M.S. thesis 1987.

  • 12. Yamada T. H. Nakatogawa and T. Kubo: Agronomic characteristics of some cytoplasmic male-sterile lines of Japanese domestic tobacco varieties; Bull. Iwata Tob. Exp. Stn. 16 (1984) 47-57.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


CiteScore 2018: 0.69

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.295
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.491

Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 155 111 2
PDF Downloads 100 78 2