ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Evaluation oflocally available tomato varieties and introductions for resistance tobacterial speck andbacterial spot diseases in Tanzania
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Crop Science & Production, Sokoine University of Agriculture P.O. Box 3005, Morogoro, Tanzania
2
Danish Seed Health Centrę for Developing Countries, Department of Plant Biology Plant Pathology Section, The Royal Yeterinary and Agricultural University Thorvaldsensve] 40, Frederiksberg C, DK-1871, Copenhagen, Denmark
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Kenneth C. Shenge
Ahmadu Bello Uniyersity, Department of Crop Protection, PMB 1044, Zaria, Nigeria
 
Journal of Plant Protection Research 2007;47(2):103–111
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Four tomato {Lycopersicon esculentum Mili.) varieties commonly grown by tomato farmers in Tanzania were evaluated for resistance to bacterial speck {Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato) and bacterial spot (Kanthomonas vesicatoria) diseases, along with five introductions under screenhouse andfield conditions. The four tomato varieties were Cal J, Moneymaker, Tanya and Roma YF. Seeds of thetomato yarieties were purchased from seed vendors in the open market. The introductions that wereincluded in the study were Bravo, Taxman, Stampede (from Sakata-Mayford Seeds (Pty) Ltd, SouthAfrica), Torąuay and BSS436 (from Bejo Żaden B.Y, The Netherlands). In the screenhouse, results indicated that all the tomato yarieties were susceptible to the two diseases, and suffered moderate to severeinfection levels. The performance of the introductions against bacterial speck under screenhouse conditions was yariable. All the introductions showed high levels of susceptibility to bacterial spot.Under field conditions, incidence of the diseases was high in all the locally ayailable yarieties tested, ayeraging 87% for bacterial spot and 82.3% for bacterial speck. The results of this study indicate that all the locally ayailable tomato yarieties included in the study were highly susceptible to bacterialspeck and bacterial spot diseases.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors have declared that no conflict of interests exist.
 
REFERENCES (28)
1.
Bashan Y. 1997. Altemative strategies for controlling plant diseases caused by Pseudomonas syringae. p. 575-583. In: "Pseudomonas syringae Pathovars and Related Pathogens. Developments in Plant Pathology" (K. Rudolph, T.J. Burr, J.W. Mansfield, D. Stead, A. Vivian, J. von Kietzell, eds.). Vol.9, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
 
2.
Black R., Seal S., Abubakar Z., Nono-Womdim R., Swai I. 2001. Black spot {Kanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria) of tomato and sweet pepper in Tanzania. Plant Pathol. 50, p. 810.
 
3.
Blancard D. 1997. A Colour Atlas of Tomato Diseases: Observations, Identification and Control. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 212 pp. CAB International 2005. Crop Protection Compendium [CD-ROM]. Wallingford, UK, CAB International.
 
4.
Chambers S.C., Merriman P.R. 1975. Perennation and control of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato. Austr. J. Agric. Res. 26: 657-663.
 
5.
Cooksey D.A., Azad H.R. 1992. Accumulation of copper and other metals of copper resistant plant pathogenic and saprophytic pseudomonads. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 58: 274-278.
 
6.
Dougherty D.E. 1978. Yield reduction in tomato caused by bacterial spot, and disease control with copper sprays. Proc. FI. State Hort. Soc. 91: 291-293.
 
7.
Delahaut K., Stevenson W. 2004. Tomato and pepper disorders: bacterial spot and speck. Cooperative Extension Publication A2604, Uniyersity of Wisconsin-Madison, p. 2.
 
8.
Horsfall J.G., Barret R.W. 1945. An improved system for measuring plant disease. Phytopathol. (Abstract) 35, p. 655.
 
9.
Hulbert S.H., Webb C.A., Smith S.M., Sun Q. 2001. Resistance gene complexes: evoIution and utilization. Ann. Rev. Phytopathol. 39: 285-312.
 
10.
Jones J.B., Stanley C.D., Csizinsky A.A., Kovach S.P., McGuire R.G. 1988. K and N fertilization rates influence susceptibility of trickle irrigation tomato plants to bacterial spot. HortScience 23: 1013-1015.
 
11.
Jones J.B., Pohronezny K.L., Stall R.E., Jones J.P. 1986. Kanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria on tomato crop residue, weeds, seeds and yolunteer tomato plants. Phytopathol. 76:430-434.
 
12.
Kaaya N.K.F., Mortensen C.N., Mabagala R.B., Massomo S.M.S. 2003. A Guide On Seed Borne Bacterial Diseases of Tomato in Tanzania. Technical BuUetin, Danish Govemment Institute of Seed for Developing Countries (DGISP), Copenhagen, 17 pp.
 
13.
Keamey B., Staskawicz B.J. 1990. Widespread distribution and fitness contribution of Kanthomonas avirulence gene avrBs2. Naturę 346:385-386.
 
14.
Kozik E.U. 2002. Studies on resistance to bacterial speck {Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato) cv. Ontario 7710). Plant Breeding 121: 526-530.
 
15.
McGuire R.G., Jones J.B., Stanley C.D., Csizinsky A.A. 1991. Epiphytic populations of Kanthomonas campestris pv uesicatoria and bacterial spot of tomato as influenced by nitrogen and potassium fertilization. Phytopathol. 81: 656-660.
 
16.
Mew T.W., Natural M.P. 1993. Management of Kanthomonas diseases. p 341-362. In: "Kanthomonas" J.G. Swings, E.L. Civerolo (eds.). Chapman & Hall, London.
 
17.
Oldroyd G., Suslow T.V., Staskawicz B., Miyao G. 1997. Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato infecting Pto gene-bearing cultiyars carry functional avrPto in Califomia. (Abstract) Phytopathol. 87, Supplement 72, p. 1.
 
18.
Pemezny K., Kiidela V., Kokoskoya B., Hladka 1. 1995. Bacterial diseases of tomato in the Czech and Sloyak Republics and lack of streptomycin resistance among copper-tolerant bacterial straiiw. Crop Prot. 14 (4): 267-270.
 
19.
Pohronezny K., Yolin R.B. 1983. The effect of bacterial spot on yield and ąuality of fresh market tomatoes. HortScience 18: 69-70. Scott J.W., Jones J.B., Somodi G.C. 1989. Genetic resistance to bacterial spot in tomato. p 73-76. In: "Tomato and Pepper Production in The Tropics". Proceedings of the International Symposium on Integrated Management Practices. 21-26 March, 1988. AYRDC, Taipei, Taiwan.
 
20.
Scott J.W., Jones J.B. 1986. Sources of resistance to bacterial spot (Kanthomonas campestris py. vesicatoria (Doidge) Dye) in tomato. HortScience 21(2): 304-306.
 
21.
Somodi G . C , Jones J.B., Scott J.W. 1996. Relatiorwhip between hypersensitive reaction and field resistance to tomato race 1 of Kanthomonas campestris py. vesicatoria. Plant Dis. 80 (10): 1151-1154.
 
22.
Shenge K.C., Mabagala R.B., Mortensen C.N. Coexistence between neighbours: Pseudomonas syringaepy. tomato and Kanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria, incitants of bacterial speck and spot diseases of tomato. Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Protect., in press.
 
23.
Silva Y.L., Lopes C A . 1995. Pseudomonas syringae py. tomato resistant to streptomycin and oxytetracycline in tomato plants treated or not with agricultural antibiotics. Fitopatol. Brasilia 20: 80-84.
 
24.
Stoli G. 1998. Natural Crop Protection in The Tropics. AGRECOL Magraf Publishers, 188 pp.
 
25.
Tai T.H., Dahlbeck D., Clark E.T., Gajiwala P., Pasion R. 1999. Expression of the Bs2 pepper gene confers resistance to bacterial spot disease in tomato. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sc. USA 96:14153-14158.
 
26.
Yenette J.R., Lamey H.A., Smith R.C. 1996. Bacterial spot and bacterial speck of tomato. North Dakota State Uniyersity Extension Seryices, p. 2.
 
27.
Yu Z.H., Wang J.F., Stall R.E., Yallejos C C 1995. Genomie localization of tomato genes that control a hypersensitiye reaction to Kanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria (Doidge) Dye. Gen. 141: 675-682.
 
28.
Yunis H., Bashan Y., Okon Y., Henis Y. 1980. Weather dependence, yield losses, and control of bacterial speck of tomato caused by Pseudomonas tomato. Plant Dis. 64: 937-939.
 
eISSN:1899-007X
ISSN:1427-4345