论文部分内容阅读
作者用江苏省大豆重花叶(S_A)、轻花叶(S_B)、黄斑坏死(S_C)、顶枯(S_E)以及黑龙江的黄斑花叶(S_D)和顶枯(S_F)的分离物,在菜豆品种“Top Crop”的离体叶鉴定都产生局部枯斑。6个分离物都可以由几种蚜虫(桃蚜、萝卜蚜、苜蓿蚜)传毒,温度钝化点在50～55℃或55～60℃之间,稀释限点为10~(-2)或10~(-3),体外存活期(室温在25℃以上)为24～36小时,电镜下粒体形态都是线条形,它们的寄主范围都很窄,只侵染豆科植物中的少数几个种。这6个分离物都属于大豆花叶病毒。但是它们的寄主范围和在大豆品种上的反应有所不同、S_A和S_B对扁豆的侵染力很强,S_D和S_F不侵染扁豆,S_C和S_E侵染力居中,S_A和S_B在菜豆品种家雀蛋上发生系统花叶,其余四个分离物只在接种叶上出现黄斑和叶脉坏死。温室内测定了37个大豆品种或品系对6个分离物的反应,没有对6个分离物都免疫的品种,6个分离物在1138—2、493—1等9个品种都出现系统花叶,在合丰23、南农133—3、齐黄1号、徐豆1号和科系8号上,6个分离物的反应有稳定的明显的差异。根据6个分离物在大豆品种、扁豆和菜豆(家雀蛋)上的症状反应,认为6个分离物是大豆花叶病毒的6个不同株系,S_A和S_B的性状相似。室内测定同一个株系在不同品种上反应的症状不同,例如南京重型花叶S_A,轻花叶S_B在许多品种上出现系统花叶但在齐黄1号和徐豆1号上形成系统枯斑。黑龙江的顶枯S_F只在合丰23等少数品种上出现顶枯症状,多数品种是系统花叶。因此,症状类型不能代表株系的特征、而是株系与品种组合之间的特异性反应。我们认为用症状的表现来作为株系的名称是不一定确切的。
In this paper, we used S_A, S_B, S_C, S_E and S_D and S_F isolates of Soybean in Jiangsu Province, Identification of isolated leaves of the bean cultivar “Top Crop” all produced a localized blemish. All six isolates could be poisoned by several aphids (Myzus persicae, Myzus persicae, Aphis gossypii) with a temperature passivation point of 50 ~ 55 ℃ or 55 ~ 60 ℃ and a dilution limit of 10 ~ (-2) Or 10 ~ (-3). The in vitro survival time (room temperature above 25 ℃) is 24 ~ 36 hours. Under electron microscope, the morphology of the granules is linear and their host range is very narrow. A few species. All six isolates belong to soybean mosaic virus. However, their host range was different from soybean varieties. S_A and S_B had strong infectivity on lentils, S_D and S_F did not invade lentils, and S_E and S_E had the highest infectivity. Occurred on the house sparrow system mosaic, and the remaining four isolates only in the leaves appear yellow macular and veins necrosis. The reaction of 37 soybean varieties or lines to 6 isolates was determined in the greenhouse, and no isolates were immunized against 6 isolates. Six isolates showed systemic mosaic in 9 varieties (1138-2, 493-1, etc.) , The responses of 6 isolates showed stable and significant differences at Hefeng 23, Nannong 133-3, Qihuang 1, Xu Dou 1 and Branch 8. Six isolates were considered to be six different lines of soybean mosaic virus according to the symptom responses of six isolates on soybean varieties, lentils and kidney beans (house sparrows), and the traits of S_A and S_B were similar. In laboratory, the same strain reacted differently in different varieties. For example, Nanjing heavy mosaic S_A and light mosaic S_B appeared systemic mosaic in many varieties, but formed systemic necrosis on Qihuang 1 and Xu Dou 1 . Heilongjiang top dry S_F Hefeng 23 only appeared in a few varieties of the top deadly symptoms, the majority of species is the system mosaic. Therefore, the type of symptoms can not represent the characteristics of the strains, but the specific reaction between the strains and the variety combinations. We think it is not certain that the name of the strain should be used to express the symptoms.