Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-k8lnt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T01:54:22.161Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of temperature and light intensity on resistance in marrow (Cucurbita pepo) to cucumber mosaic virus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. A. C. Pink  and
D. G. A. Walkey
D. A. C. Pink
Affiliation:
National Vegetable Research Station, Wellesbourne, Warwick, CV35 9EF
D. G. A. Walkey
Affiliation:
National Vegetable Research Station, Wellesbourne, Warwick, CV35 9EF
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Plants of Cucurbita pepoL. cvs Cinderella, Cobham Bush Green and Goldrush were inoculated with cucumber mosaic virus (CMV) and some grown at each of three temperatures (15, 20 and 25 °C) and three light intensities (13, 40 and 120 W/ma). Symptom severity in all three cultivars decreased with increased temperature but only for ovs Cinderella and Cobham Bush Green when the light intensity was raised. In general ov. Cinderella was most resistant and cv. Goldrush most susceptible, except at 25 °C, when most plants were symptomless.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 104 , Issue 2 , April 1985 , pp. 325 - 329
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Austin, R. B. (1966). The influence of the phosphorus and nitrogen nutrients of pea plants in the growth of their progeny. Plant and Soil 24, 359–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, M. W. (1959). Inheritance and nature of cucumber mosaic virus resistance in squash. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Pink, D. A. C. & Walkey, D. G. A. (1984). Resistance in marrow (Gucurbita pepoL.) to different strains of cucumber mosaic virus. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 103, 519–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitrat, M. & De Vaulx, R. D. (1979). Recherche de geniteurs de resistance a l'oidium et aux virus de la mosalque du concombro et de la mosalque de la pasteque ohez Cucurbitasp. Annales de VAmelioration des Plantes 29, 4.Google Scholar
Pound, G. & Cheo, P. C. (1952). Studies on resistance to cucumber virus I in spinach. Phytopathology 42, 301–306.Google Scholar
Prowidenti, R., Robinson, R. W. & Munoeb, H. M. (1978). Resistance in feral species to six viruses infecting cucurbita. Plant Disease Reporter 62, 326—329.Google Scholar
Shifriss, C. & Cohen, S. (1974). An evaluation of Ft populations from a cross between Cucurbita pepoL. and C. moschataDutch, for resistance to cucumber mosaic virus. Euphytica 23, 333–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. B. & Walker, J. C. (1956). Assays for resistance to cucumber mosaic in the pickling cucumber. Phytopathology 46, 519–522.Google Scholar
Tomlinson, J. A., Carter, A. L., Dale, W. T. & Simpson, C. J. (1970). Weed plants as sources of cucumber mosaic virus. Annals of Applied Biology 66, 11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walkey, D. G. A. & Pink, D. A. C. (1984). Resistance in vegetable marrow and other Cucurbitaspp. to two British strains of cucumber mosaic virus. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 102, 197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar