Ecological Effects of Pest Resistance Genes in Managed Ecosystems
January 31 - February 3, 1999 Bethesda, Maryland
Organized by: Information Systems for Biotechnology
REPORT OF THE BERRY WORKING GROUP 1
(Strawberry, Raspberry/Blackberry, Blueberry)
Erin Rosskopf USDA-ARS-USHRL
Group Members
Tom Bewick, University of Massachusetts-Cranberry Experiment Station, weed science
Beth Crandall, DNA Plant Technology Corp., breeding
Jim Hancock, Michigan State University, breeding
Karen Hokanson, USDA-APHIS-PPQ-BSS, ecology, breeding, population genetics
John Lydon, USDA-ARS-PSI-WSL, weed science, bacteriology, disease physiology
Bob Martin, USDA-ARS, virology, ecology, epidemiology
Erin Rosskopf (Group Leader), USDA-ARS-USHRL, mycology, weed science, weed biocontrol
Scott Thenell, DNA Plant Technology Corp., regulatory affairs, bacteriology
Ann Westman, Clemson University, population genetics, breeding, ecology
STRAWBERRY (FRAGARIA)
Strawberries are a relatively recently domesticated crop. The most commonly cultivated strawberry, Fragaria x ananassa, is a hybrid of the North American F. virginiana and the South American F. chiloensis (Maas 1998). These parental species are still grown in some areas and F. virginiana is the primary wild, sexually compatible relative to the cultivated strawberry. In addition to F. virginiana, F. vesca and its subspecies are also present in the United States. Fragaria x ananassa and F. virginiana readily cross. Introgression of pest resistance traits into the wild strawberry population is likely, as substantial amounts of crop-weed introgression has already occurred throughout the midwest, northeast, and southeast United States (Jim Hancock pers. comm.). Introgression has occurred to the extent that it is difficult to find "pure" populations of Fragariae virginiana in many areas. Strawberries suffer from several limiting diseases, insects, nematodes, and weed problems (Table 1).
Table 1. Strawberry pests and status of resistance in cultivated and wild species.1
|
Strawberry Pest |
Status of Resistance in Cultivated Varieties |
Resistance in Wild Relatives |
|
Angular leaf spot (Xanthomonas fragariae2) |
Some cultivars with resistance |
F. moschata tolerant. F. virginiana and F. vesca moderate resistance (Maas 1998; Maas, Pooler, and Galletta 1995) |
|
Leaf scorch (Diplocarpon earlianum2) |
No commercial resistance; Resistance in wild relatives and some non-horticultural varieties (Xue et al. 1996) |
Not reported |
|
Leaf spot (Mycosphaerella fragariae2) |
Commercial cultivars with resistance (Darrow 1962; Horn, Burnside, and Carver1972; Nemec 1971) |
Not reported |
|
Botrytis fruit rot (Botrytis cinerea2) |
3 Engineered resistance; Resistant cultivars |
Not reported |
|
Anthracnose (Colletotrichum spp.2) |
Resistant cultivars through directed breeding (Olcott-Reid and Moore 1995) |
Not reported |
|
Red stele root rot (Phytophthora fragariae var. fragariae2) |
3 Resistance genes identified to races 1 and 2; Resistant cultivars through directed breeding (Scott et al. 1976; 1984) |
F.
virginiana (Gooding 1973)
F. chiloensis (Galletta et al.1994) |
|
Verticillium wilt (Verticillium spp.2) |
3 Engineered resistance; Moderate resistance in some cultivars (Shaw et al. 1997) |
F. chiloensis (Shaw et al. 1996) |
| Black root rot (Pythium ultimum, Rhizoctonia fragariae, and Pratylenchus spp.2) | 3Engineered resistance to Pythium spp.; Moderate, regional resistance in some cultivars (Wing et al. 1995) |
Not reported |
|
Strawberry mottle virus |
3Coat protein mediated resistance |
Not reported |
| Strawberry mild yellow edge virus | 3Coat protein mediated resistance | Not reported |
| Pratylenchus, Aphelenchoides, Xiphinema, Belonolaimus, Meloidogyne2 | 3Protease inhibitor transgenes. Tolerance in some cultivars | F. chiloensis and F. virginiana (Potter and Dale 1994) |
|
Spider mite (Tetranychus urticae2) |
Cultivar resistance (Easterbrook and Simpson 1998) |
F. chiloensis and F. virginiana (Shanks and Moore 1995; Easterbrook and Simpson 1998) |
|
Lygus bugs (Lygus lineolaris2) |
Cultivar resistance |
F . virginiana and F. chiloensis (Maas 1998) |
|
Bud weevil (Anthomonomus signatus) |
No commercial resistance |
Not reported |
|
Flower thrips (Franliniella spp) |
No commercial resistance |
Not reported |
|
Sap beetles (Stelidota geminata) |
No commercial resistance |
Not reported |
|
Root weevils (Otiorynchus spp) |
No commercial resistance |
Not reported |
|
Weeds |
3 Round-Up Ready |
None |
1Farr et al.
1989; additional information compiled from Maas 1998
2 Pest occurs on wild relatives, resistance derived from or identified in
wild populations
3 Under consideration or in development
In addition to those listed above, resistance to root-lesion nematode (Potter and Dale 1994), Phytophthora cactorum, Sphaerotheca macularis, and strawberry aphids (Shanks and Moore 1995) have been identified in cultivars of strawberry. Much of the pest resistance that has been incorporated into strawberry breeding programs has been derived from wild relatives. A substantial effort has been targeted specifically towards Phytophthora fragariae resistance (van de Weg et al. 1997), but in most breeding programs, elite types have been screened after selection for other horticulturally important traits. New efforts to breed for resistance to P. fragariae and P. cactorum are underway (Maas et al. 1993).
Strawberry is considered to be relatively amenable to transformation using Agrobacterium (Nehra et al. 1992), and the technique is being used to genetically engineer virus resistance. Strawberry plants have been transformed using the coat protein gene from strawberry mild yellow edge virus (Finstad and Martin 1995), and resulting plants are being evaluated. Other traits that are currently under investigation include glyphosate resistance, broad-spectrum fungal resistance through the use of the stilbene synthase gene and genes for systemic acquired resistance, and nematode resistance through the use of transgenes producing protease inhibitors (Morgan and Gutterson 1998).
Although sexually compatible relatives to strawberry are found in the United States, they are not considered to be a weed problem in strawberry fields. Cultivated strawberries are not capable of persisting outside the area of cultivation in the California production system, but have been found to escape in many areas of the midwestern and southern United States. Strawberries lack significant weedy characteristics and the addition of pest resistance would be unlikely to substantially increase the crop’s ability to persist.
WHAT IS NEEDED?
The impact that pest populations have on the spread of wild, sexually compatible relatives is not clear. It is assumed that the environment limits the growth and spread of strawberries more than pest pressure. Little evidence of disease has been noted on the leaves and fruit of natural populations, but the root pathogens of wild strawberry have not been characterized at all; therefore broad-spectrum resistance to fungal plant pathogens may or may not provide an advantage. Information is also lacking on the competitive interactions within natural communities, and we do not know if engineered traits could make the strawberry a more effective competitor within its natural community. For example, even if the insertion of a pest resistance gene did not cause wild strawberry to be a significant weed problem in agriculture, are there endangered plants that might be replaced by a more aggressive strawberry? This information could minimize any concerns that the environmental community might voice about minimizing diversity in native plant populations. It would be helpful to determine if broad-spectrum resistance to fungal plant pathogens already occurs in native species.
Experiments are currently underway in which Frageriae chiloensis and F. virginiana growth is being compared in methyl bromide fumigated and non-fumigated soils. This will provide information concerning general pest resistance in the native species. Lists of endangered species and primary locations are maintained by various government agencies. These could provide information concerning the co-existence of wild strawberry relatives and endangered native species.
Strawberry producers have used pest resistance genes incorporated through conventional breeding for several decades. These resistant cultivars have been grown over large acreages for long periods of time, but increased weediness of strawberry has not been observed. There does not appear to be any evidence that there should be concern about the introduction of pest resistance genes in this crop, particularly those that are specific to a single pathogen.
RASPBERRY/BLACKBERRY (RUBUS)
Cultivated raspberries and blackberries are a diverse group. Most species have perennial root systems and biennial canes; however, some produce perennial canes, and others annual canes. Species producing edible raspberries that are used commercially include R. idaeus subsp. vulgatus, R. idaeus subsp. strigosus, R. occidentalis, and R. glauca. Commercial blackberries are most commonly in the subgenus R. eubatus. Hybrids between blackberries and raspberries are also commonly grown. Several Rubus species are found wild within the United States. Crosses within each subgenus are common and crosses between the subgenera are viable at higher ploidy levels. Diploid hybrids between R. subg. Ideobatus and R. subg. Eubatus are usually sterile.
Raspberries suffer from a variety of diseases, the most important of which are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Raspberry and blackberry pests.*
|
Rubus Pest |
Status of Resistance |
|
Anthracnose (Elsinoe veneta 1) |
Available through conventional breeding |
|
Cane blight (Leptosphaeria coniothyrium1) |
Red raspberry-R. pileatus hybrids |
|
Spur blight (Didymella applanata1) |
Conferred through "H gene." Rubus spp. |
|
Gray mold and Fruit rot (Botryotinia fuckeliana1) (anamorph: Botrytis cinerea) |
Engineered |
|
Orange rust (Arthuriomyces peckianus and Gymnoconia nitens 1) |
Blackberry and red raspberry |
|
Phytophthora root rot (Phytophthora spp. 1) |
Cultivars of red raspberry |
|
Bluestem (Verticillium spp. 1) |
None |
|
Raspberry bushy dwarf virus |
Engineered |
* Ellis et
al. 1991
1 reported from wild relatives
Wild brambles are a problem weed in raspberry and blackberry production. Cultivated bramble primocanes are controlled in some areas using herbicide application. This practice accounts for a large portion of the weed management as well. In addition, weed control between rows is achieved through clean tilling, mulch, and herbicide application. Herbicides that are used to control Rubus spp. include imazapyr, sulfometuron-methyl, glyphosate, tebuthiuron, picloram, and hexazinone. Genes for resistance to pests, such as aphid and raspberry bushy dwarf virus resistance, were incorporated into raspberry cultivars and have been used since the 1940’s. There is no evidence that these traits have caused an increase in the weediness of the species grown as crops. Red raspberry is not a weedy plant in areas where it has been grown commercially since the 1920’s. There is also no evidence that these resistance traits have conferred any advantage to wild populations.
Most of the diseases that occur on cultivated Rubus spp. are likely to occur on the native wild relatives as well (Farr et al. 1989). Accordingly, most of the resistance genes that have been incorporated into commercially-grown species have been derived from wild relatives. Since the resistance genes introduced through breeding efforts have come from native species, there is a high degree of familiarity with the traits that are being used in genetic engineering. However, there is the possibility that genes conferring broad-spectrum resistance could contribute to weediness of native species, but this risk is difficult to assess because little information exists concerning the impact that pathogen complexes have on wild relatives.
Introgression of pest resistance traits into wild Rubus populations is very likely and has occurred where commercial varieties are the same species as the native Rubus. In areas where different species exist together, introgression is also likely to occur, but at a slower rate. The consequences of pest resistance genes moving into the native species are considered to be of minimal risk in cases in which similar resistance phenotypes already occur in native species. Herbicide resistance would not be recommended.
WHAT IS NEEDED?
An extensive literature search on the occurrence of pathogens and pests on native species would contribute significantly to determining the impact of broad-spectrum resistance genes. For example, it would be important to determine if the Himalaya berry (R. porcerus) is sexually compatible with native and commercial Rubus spp.. While the majority of diseases found on cultivated red raspberry (R. idaeus) and blackcap (R. occidentalis) also occur on wild relatives, no information is available that would indicate whether or not these pests are limiting the spread of the wild species.
A survey of the authorities on Rubus spp. could be implemented to determine what "anecdotal" information exists about pest epidemics in native Rubus. When information is lacking, disease surveys could be conducted. Experiments could be conducted using a large number of genotypes of a single potentially weedy species. These plants could be used to screen for levels of resistance that might occur in native populations. Plants could be inoculated with a wide range of potential pathogens to determine if broad-spectrum resistance already exists. Due to the wide range of genetic variability within species and the distribution of native species, small-scale field trials to determine the extent of resistance in natural populations are less applicable than trials that test a wide range of genotypes.
BLUEBERRY (VACCINIUM)
Four species of blueberries are cultivated: highbush (V. corymbosum), lowbush (V. myrtilloides and V. angustifolium), and rabbiteye (V. ashei) (Caruso and Ramsdell 1995). Highbush blueberries are the most commonly cultivated of the group, with approximately 100 cultivars; the most common is Bluecrop. More than 20 cultivars of rabbiteye have been developed, and although cultivars of lowbush blueberry have been developed, these are rarely planted. Highbush and rabbiteye blueberries are planted in rows, which may be in raised beds. Low vigor canes are removed annually from highbush types everywhere, and bushes are regularly hedged in the southeast. Lowbush blueberries are allowed to grow in natural stands. These are managed with mowing or burning to rejuvenate stands.
Weed management is extremely important in blueberry production; the plants are not strong competitors with most weeds. Pre-plant weed control is of utmost importance. In established fields, mulching, cultivation, and herbicide application are used in an integrated approach to weed management.
Feral blueberries are not found in agricultural fields and would be unlikely to become weeds due to the introduction of pest resistance traits. Highbush blueberries are very closely related to wild relatives, and lowbush blueberries are undomesticated from a breeding standpoint. Pests occurring on blueberries in commercial areas occur on other native species (Table 3) (Farr et al. 1989). Blueberry viruses, such as shoestring and leaf mottle, have been documented in wild populations.
Table 3. Blueberry pests.
|
Blueberry Pest |
Status of Resistance |
|
Phytophthora root rot (Phytophthora cinnamomi1) |
Some (highbush and rabbiteye) |
|
Botrytis blight (Botrytis cinerea1) |
None |
|
Mummy berry (Monilinia vaccinii-corymbosi1) |
None |
|
Stem blight (Botryosphaeria dothidea 1) |
Limited (highbush) |
|
Stem canker (Botryosphaeria corticis1) |
Limited (highbush) |
|
Bacterial canker (Pseudomonas syringae) |
Highbush only |
|
Blueberry scorch carlavirus1 |
Highbush only |
|
Blueberry shock ilarvirus |
|
|
Blueberry shoestring sobemovirus1 |
Highbush |
|
Xiphenema americanum, Pratylenchus penetrans, and Meloidogyne carolinensis 1 |
Cultivars available |
1 pests known to occur on other Vaccinium spp.
Introgression of pest resistance traits into wild Vaccinium is assumed to be due to their genetic similarity. Numerous hybrid swarms between cultivated and wild species exist in Michigan. However, it is highly unlikely that additional traits would lead to an increase in weed problems with this group.
In the case of all three of the berry groups discussed, it is unlikely that pest resistance genes that target a single pathogen or group of insects would cause significant increases in weed problems. There is concern, however, about broad-spectrum resistance genes. It was determined that a simple survey of authorities should be made to increase our knowledge base. A single question could be posed:
"What diseases, nematodes, or insect pests have you observed on native species of Rubus, Fragariae, or Vaccinium? Based on information from your observations (not lists of diseases in the literature), please indicate the relative abundance or impact of these pests on the native species."
References:
Caruso FL and Ramsdell DC. 1995. Compendium of blueberry and cranberry diseases. St. Paul, MN: APS Press.
Darrow GM. 1962. Fairfax strawberry-its origin and use in breeding. Fruit Varieties Journal 16:23-28.
Easterbrook MA and Simpson DW. 1998. Resistance to two-spotted mite Tetranychus urticae in strawberry cultivars and wild species of Frageria and Potentilla. Journal of Horticulture Science & Biotechnology 73:531-535.
Ellis MS, Converse RH, Williams RN, and Williamson B. 1991. Compendium of raspberry and blackberry diseases and insects. St. Paul, MN: APS Press.
Farr DF, Bills GF, Chamuris GP, and Rossman AY. 1989. Fungi on plant and plant products in the United States. St. Paul, MN: American Phytopthological Society.
Finstad K. and Martin RR. 1995. Transformation of strawberry for virus resistance. Acta Horticulturae 385:86-90.
Galletta GJ, Maas JL, and Enns JM. 1994. Strawberry cultivar and selection red stele screening at USDA-Beltsville IN 1993-1994. Advances in Strawberry Research 13:40-43.
Gooding HJ. 1973. Methods of evaluating strawberry plants as sources of field resistance to Phytophthora fragariae Hickman. Euphytica 22:141-149.
Horn NL, Burnside KR, and Carver RB. 1972. Control of the crown rot phase of strawberry anthracnose through sanitation, breeding for resistance, and benomyl. Plant Disease Reporter 56:515-519.
Maas JL. 1998. Compendium of strawberry diseases. St. Paul, MN: APS Press.
Maas JL, Pooler MR, and Galletta GL. 1995. Bacterial angular leaf spot disease of strawberry: Present status and prospects for control. Advances in Strawberry Research 14:18-24.
Maas JL, Zhong L, and Galletta GJ. 1993. In vitro screening of strawberry plant and root cultures for resistance to Phytophthora fragaria and P. cactorum. Acta Horticultura 348:496-499.
Morgan A and Gutterson N. 1998. Genetic Engineering as an Alternative to Methyl Bromide Fumigation. In Proceedings of the annual research conference on methyl bromide alternatives and emissions reductions. Crop Protection Coalition, US EPA, and USDA.
Nehra NS, Kartha KK, and Stushnoff C. 1992. Plant biotechnology and strawberry improvement. Advances in Strawberry Research 11:1-11.
Nemec S. 1971. Studies on resistance of strawberry varieties and selections to Mycosphaerella fragariae in southern Illinois. Plant Disease Reporter 55:573-576.
Olcott-Reid B and Moore JN. 1995. Field resistance of strawberry cultivars and selections to anthracnose fruit rot, leather rot, and gray mold in Arkansas. Fruit Varieties Journal 49:4-13.
Potter JW and Dale A. 1994. Wild and cultivated strawberries can tolerate or resist root-lesion nematode. HortScience 29:1074-1077.
Scott DH, Draper AD, and Galletta GJ. 1984. Breeding strawberries for red stele resistance. Plant Breeding Reviews 2:195-214.
Scott DH, Draper AD, and Maas JL. 1976. Mass screening of young strawberry seedling for resistance to Phytophthora fragaria Hickman. HortScience 11:257-258.
Shanks CH Jr and Moore PP. 1995. Resistance to twospotted spider mites and strawberry aphid in Fragaria chiloensis, F. virginiana, and F. x ananassa clones. HortScience 30:596-599.
Shaw DV, Gubler WD, Hansen J, and Larson KD. 1997. Response to family selection for field resistance to Verticillium dahliae in California strawberries. Journal of the American Society of Horticultural Science 122:653-655.
van de Weg WE, Henken B, and Giezen S. 1997. Assessment of the resistance to Phytophthora fragariae var. fragariae of the USA and Canadian differential series of strawberry genotypes. Journal Phytopathology 145:1-6.
Wing KB, Pritts MP, and Wilcox WF. 1995. Field resistance of 20 strawberry cultivars to black root rot. Fruit Varieties Journal 49:94-98.
Xue AG, Sutton JC, Dale A, and Sullivan JA. 1996. Differences in virulence of Diplocarpon earlianum isolates on selected strawberry cultivars. Phytoprotection 77:113-118.
1Group Report from the "Workshop on Ecological Effects of Pest Resistance Genes in Managed Ecosystems," in Bethesda, MD, January 31 - February 3, 1999. Sponsored by Information Systems for Biotechnology.
| If you have come to this page from an outside location click here to get back to mindfully.org |
