Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nswdpe.intersearch.com.au/nswdpejspui/handle/1/15432
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorDron, Nicole-
dc.contributor.authorBithell, Sean-
dc.contributor.authorSutton, Tim-
dc.contributor.authorHobson, Kristy-
dc.date.accessioned2024-10-01T04:52:19Z-
dc.date.available2024-10-01T04:52:19Z-
dc.date.issued2019-
dc.identifier.issn2208-8199-
dc.identifier.urihttps://nswdpe.intersearch.com.au/nswdpejspui/handle/1/15432-
dc.description.abstractKey findings •The level of waterlogging tolerance in Pulse Breeding Australia (PBA) chickpea material is minimal. •A source of phytophthora root rot (PRR) resistance in the wild Cicer backcross 04067-81-2-1-1(B) has positive waterlogging tolerance and outperformed the moderately resistant variety Yorker[PBR] and the susceptible Rupali[PBR] following two days of waterlogging and Phytophthora in combination. •In the presence of PRR (Phytophthora medicaginis), inoculum dry root weight decreased in the wild Cicer backcross by 26% (93.7 mg) after incurring an additional two days waterlogging, and 51% (62.3 mg) after six days waterlogging when compared to and inoculated control under normal soil moisture conditions (126.2 mg)en
dc.publisherDepartment of Primary Industriesen
dc.subjectchickpea, controlled environment, disease, phytophthora, phytophthora root rot, PRR, resistant, root weight, Tamworth, variety, waterloggingen
dc.titleThe impact of waterlogging on phytophthora root rot resistance in chickpeaen
dc.title.alternativeNorthern NSW research results 2019en
dc.typeBook chapteren
Appears in Collections:DPI Agriculture - Southern and Northern Research Results [2011-present]

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat  
NRR-2019-P03-Dron-+.pdf287.18 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Who's citing