Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:20:55.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

KSTP 94, an Open-pollinated Maize Variety Has Postattachment Resistance to Purple Witchweed (Striga hermonthica)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 July 2018

Sylvia Mbula Mutinda ,
Joel Masanga ,
J. Musembi Mutuku ,
Steven Runo  and
Amos Alakonya
Sylvia Mbula Mutinda
Affiliation:
Master’s of Science Student, Institute for Biotechnology Research, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Nairobi, Kenya
Joel Masanga
Affiliation:
Doctoral Student, Department of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya
J. Musembi Mutuku
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biosciences Eastern and Central Africa–International Livestock Research Institute (BecA-ILRI) Hub, Nairobi, Kenya
Steven Runo*
Affiliation:
Senior Lecturer, Department of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya
Amos Alakonya
Affiliation:
Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Biotechnology Research, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Nairobi, Kenya, and Postdoctoral Research Fellow, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria
*
*Author for correspondence: Steven Runo, Department of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, Kenyatta University, P.O. Box 43844, 00100 GPO, Nairobi, Kenya. (Email: runo.steve@ku.ac.ke)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Striga spp. are obligate root hemiparasites that constrain cereal production in sub-Saharan Africa. Although purple witchweed [Striga hermonthica (Delile) Benth.] and Asiatic witchweed [Striga asiatica (L.) Kuntze] infect all cereal crops, maize (Zea mays L.) is particularly vulnerable to their infestations. A sustainable control strategy for Striga would be to breed crops with host-based resistance as part of an integrated management plan. In maize, the open-pollinated variety Kakamega Striga-tolerant population of the year 1994 (‘KSTP 94’) has been popularized as a Striga-tolerant/resistant variety. This resistance was earlier reported to result from production of low amounts of sorgomol, a less potent strigolactone. To determine whether KSTP 94 harbors postattachment resistance, we used a soil-free assay based on observation chambers called rhizotrons. We found that the size of Striga seedlings attached to ‘CML 144’ (a susceptible maize inbred line) were 2.5-fold longer than those on KSTP 94. In addition, KSTP 94 had significantly fewer Striga attachments, which corresponded to significantly lower biomass (2.6-fold) compared with CML 144. Histological analysis revealed that the low Striga growth and development while infecting KSTP 94 was due the parasite’s inability to penetrate the host’s endodermis and make effective xylem–xylem connections. We therefore conclude that in addition to preattachment resistance, KSTP 94 exhibits postattachment resistance to S. hermonthica and could therefore be a good genetic source for postattachment resistance breeding.

Keywords

Franck E. DayanColorado State UniversityKSTP 94postattachment Striga resistanceStriga
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 66 , Issue 4 , July 2018 , pp. 525 - 529
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2018 

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.)

References

Amusan, IO, Rich, PJ, Menkir, A, Housley, T, Ejeta, G (2008) Resistance to Striga hermonthica in a maize inbred line derived from Zea diploperennis . New Phytol 178:157–166 Google Scholar
Atera, EA, Ishii, T, Onyango, JC, Itoh, K, Azuma, T (2013) Striga infestation in Kenya: status, distribution and management options. Sustain Agric Res 2:99–108 Google Scholar
Ejeta, G (2007) The Striga scourge in Africa: a growing pandemic. Pages 3–16 in Gressel J ed, Integrating New Technologies for Striga Control: Towards Ending the Witch-Hunt. 1st ed. London: World Scientific CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gobena, D, Shimels, M, Rich, PJ, Ruyter-Spira, C, Bouwmeester, H, Kanuganti, S, Mengiste, T, Ejeta, G (2017) Mutation in sorghum LOW GERMINATION STIMULANT 1 alters strigolactones and causes Striga resistance. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114:4471–4476 Google Scholar
Gurney, AL, Grimanelli, D, Kanampiu, F, Hoisington, D, Scholes, JD, Press, MC (2003) Novel sources of resistance to Striga hermonthica in Tripsacum dactyloides, a wild relative of maize. New Phytol 160:557–568 Google Scholar
Gurney, AL, Slate, J, Press, MC, Scholes, JD (2006) A novel form of resistance in rice to the angiosperm parasite Striga hermonthica . New Phytol 169:199–208 Google Scholar
Gutierrez-Marcos, JF, Pennington, PD, Costa, LM, Dickinson, HG (2003) Imprinting in the endosperm: a possible role in preventing wide hybridization. Biol Sci 358:1105–1111 Google Scholar
Haussmann, BI, Hess, DE, Omanya, GO, Folkertsma, RT, Reddy, BV, Kayentao, M, Welz, HG, Geiger, HH (2004) Genomic regions influencing resistance to the parasitic weed Striga hermonthica in two recombinant inbred populations of sorghum. Theor Appl Genet 109:1005–1016 Google Scholar
Hudson, J (1967) Ecology and Classification of North American Freshwater Invertebrates. 3rd ed. San Diego: Academic. Pp 1022–1194 Google Scholar
Lane, JA, Child, DV, Moore, T, Arnold, GM, Bailey, JA (1997) Phenotypic characterisation of resistance in Zea diploperennis to Striga hermonthica . Maydica 42:45–51 Google Scholar
Lumba, S, Holbrook-Smith, D, McCourt, P (2017) The perception of strigolactones in vascular plants. Nat Chem Bio 13:599–606 Google Scholar
Maiti, RK, Ramaiah, KV, Bisen, SS, Chidley, VL (1984) A comparative study of the haustorial development of Striga asiatica (L.) Kuntze on sorghum cultivars. Ann Bot 54:447–457 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mbuvi, DA, Masiga, CW, Kuria, E, Masanga, J, Wamalwa, M, Mohamed, A, Odeny, DA, Hamza, N, Timko, MP, Runo, S (2017) Novel sources of witchweed (Striga) resistance from wild sorghum accessions. Front Plant Sci 8:116 Google Scholar
Menkir, A (2006) Assessment of reactions of diverse maize inbred lines to Striga hermonthica (Del.) Benth. Plant Breed 125:131–139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohamed, A, Ellicott, A, Housley, TL, Ejeta, G (2003) Hypersensitive response to Striga infection in sorghum. Crop Sci 43:1320–1324 Google Scholar
Rich, PJ, Grenier, C, Ejeta, G (2004) Striga resistance in the wild relatives of sorghum. Crop Sci 44:2221–2229 Google Scholar
Rogers, WE, Nelson, RR (1962) Penetration and nutrition of Striga asiatica . Phytopathology 52:1064–1070 Google Scholar
Teka, HB (2014) Advance research on Striga control: a review. Afr J Plant Sci 8:492–506 Google Scholar
van Dam, NM, Bouwmeester, HJ (2016) Metabolomics in the rhizosphere: tapping into belowground chemical communication. Trends Plant Sci 21:256–265 Google Scholar
Yoneyama, K, Arakawa, R, Ishimoto, K, Kim, H, Xie, X, Nomura, T, Kanampiu, F, Yokota, T, Ezawa, T, Yoneyama, K (2015) Difference in Striga-susceptibility is reflected in strigolactone secretion profile, but not in compatibility and host preference in arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis in two maize cultivars. New Phytol 206:983–989 Google Scholar
Yoneyama, K, Awad, AA, Xie, X, Yoneyama, K, Takeuchi, Y (2010) Strigolactones as germination stimulants for root parasitic plants. Plant Cell Physiol 51:1095–1103 Google Scholar
Yoshida, S, Shirasu, K (2009) Multiple layers of incompatibility to the parasitic witchweed, Striga hermonthica . New Phytol 183:180–189 Google Scholar