online ISSN:2312-3389 print ISSN:2312-3370 DOI:10.15407/agrisp


Archive of Agricultural Science and Practice Journal issues

List of all issues / Content of issue 2018-3 / Abstract & References of Article 1
A. G. Zelya 1*, G. V. Zelya 1 , T. M. Oliynyk 2 , L. A. Pylypenko 3 , M. P. Solomiyciuk 1 , R. O. Kordulean 1 , A. M. Skoreyko 1 , Yu. M. Bunduc 1 , V. M. Ghunchak 1

1 Ukrainian Scientifi c Research Plant Quarantine Station, Institute of Plant Protection, NAAS, Boyany
2 Institute for Potato Research, NAAS, Nemishaeve
3 National Academy of Agrarian Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv


Received September 06, 2018 / Received October 06, 2018 / Accepted November 21, 2018
Aim. To evaluate potato breeding material for resistance to pathotypes of Synchytrium endobioticum (Schilbersky) Percival (1909) known to be present in Ukraine (pathotypes 1(D 1 ), 11, 13, 18 and 22); to identify resistant registered and potential varieties for the usage in the national wart disease eradication programs and to recommend these se- lected (potential and registered) potato varieties for the breeding program targeted on the development of multiple resistance against pathotypes of S. endobioticum present in Ukraine. Methods. Evaluation of the potato breeding material and registered potato varieties for the resistance against common pathotype 1 (D 1 ) and four aggressive pa- thotypes of S. endobioticum (pathotypes 11, 13, 18 and 22) in climatic chamber and greenhouse tests of Ukrainian Scientifi c Research Plant Quarantine Station of Institute of Plant Protection NAAS (Boyany, Ukraine) following the Spieckermann and Glynne-Lemmerzahl methods (EPPO Standard PM7/28(2)). Field trials on naturally infected soils were conducted according to standard methods adapted to national requirements in the area of Chernivtsi, Zakarpattia and Ivano-Frankivsk regions. Results. 3,736 samples of potato breeding material from six breeding institutions of Ukraine were tested for resistance against S. endobioticum during 2011–2017 in the western region of the country. Among all samples tested, 3,389 were identifi ed as resistant to the widely spread pathotype 1 in the preliminary climatic chamber and greenhouse tests, and 130 of them proved to be resistant under fi eld conditions. Five out of 41 Ukrainian registered potato varieties (Bazys, Hlazurna, Solokha, Bozhedar and Santarka) were found to be resistant to all 5 pathotypes tested (1 (D 1 ), 11, 13, 18 and 22). Conclusions. The 130 samples of potato breed- ing material (which were found to be resistant against the common pathotype 1 of S. endobioticum in the laboratory, greenhouse as well as in the fi eld trials) were recommended for the state variety registration and further usage in an eradication program to localize potato wart outbreaks of the western part of Ukraine. The screening tests revealed that the national breeding program targeted on resistance against S. endobioticum pathotype 11 was the most effec- tive (49 % of samples tested proved to be resistant against this pathotype), whereas it was the least effective against pathotype 18, namely only 30 % of samples resistant. It was speculated that such a dissimilarity may be related to the differences in the genetic material used in the breeding process at various institutions, and which may be the subject of further analysis in order to improve the results of breeding programs. The already registered potato variet- ies Bazys, Hlazurna, Solokha, Bozhedar and Santarka which were found to have a multiple resistance to common pathotype 1 and four local aggressive pathotypes of S. endobioticum (11, 13, 18 and 22) were recommended for use in the breeding process as sources of resistance and also for the eradication programs in the western region of Ukraine, where S. endobioticum is mostly distributed (2409 hectares or 98 %).
Key words: potato, wart disease, pathotypes, screening, resistance, breeding.

1. Baliuk S. Edaphic resources of Ukraine: state and mea- sures on their improving. Visnyk ahrarnoi nauky. 2010; (6):6-7.
2. Baliuk S, Nosko B, Vorotyntseva L. Regulation of fertility of soils and effi ciency of fertilizers in conditions of climate fl uctuations. Visnyk ahrarnoi nauky. 2018;(4):5-12.
3. Velychko VA. Ecology of soil fertility. K.: Ahrarna nauka, 2010:274 p.
4. Hospodarenko HM. Fundamentals of integrated appli- cation of fertilizers. K.: CLSC Nichlava, 2002;344:45-58.
5. Dehodiuk EH, Dehodiuk SE. Ecological-technogenic safety of Ukraine. K.: EKMO, 2006:306 p.
6. Ivashchenko OO., Ivashchenko OO. Ways of adapting agriculture in climate change conditions. Collection of scient. works of NSC Institute of Agriculture of NAAS. Kyiv, 2008:5-21.
7. Medvedev VV, Laktionova LV, Dontsova TN. Aqueous properties of Ukraine's soils and moisture supply of agricultural crops. Kharkiv, Apostroph, 2011:223 p.
8. Medvedev VV. Soil heterogeneity and accurate agri- culture. Part 1. Introduction to the problem. Kharkiv: 13 typographia Publishing House, 2007:296 p.
9. Petrychenko VF, Lykhochvor VV. Plant cultivation. Tech- nologies of cultivating agricultural crops. Lviv: NVF Ukrayinski tekhnolohii, 2014:1040 p.
10. Petrychenko VF, Baliuk SA, Nosko BS. Increasing agri- culture resistance in global warming conditions. Visnyk ahrarnoi nauky. 2013;(9):5-12.
11. Petrychenko VF, Kaminsky VF, Patyka VP. Leguminous crops and sustainable development of agroecosystems. Kormy i kormovyrobnytstvo. 2003;51:3-6.
12. Kohut BM, Semenov VM. Soil organic matter. M.: GEOS, 2015:233 p.
13. Bohovin A, Ptashnik M. Infl uence of agricultural mea- sures on ecobiomorphic structure and productivity of self-relative reliable ecosystems on the largest ground lands of forest land. Visnyk ahrarnoi nauky, 2018;(6):12-8.
14. Volkogon V, Pyrig O, Brytan T. Directedness of soil- microbiological processes under the infl uence of orga- nic and mineral fertilizers. Visnyk ahrarnoi nauky, 2018;(6):5-11.
15. Hamayunova VV, Fedorovych HT. Agriculture ecolo- gization - the way to restoring soil fertility. Bulletin of Sumy National Agrarian University. Series "Ahronomia i biolohia", 2013; 3(25):64-7.
16. Kaminsky F. Scientifi c grounds of biological farming in climate change conditions. Collection of scient. works of NSC Institute of Agriculture of NAAS. Kyiv: VP Edelveis, 2016;(1):156 p.
17. Plant production of Ukraine. 2017: statistical com- pilation. State Statistics Committee of Ukraine. Kyiv. Derzhanalitinform, 2018:222 p.
18. Hospodarenko GM, Prokopchuk IV. Transformation of acid-base properties of the soil for a long fertilizer application in fi eld crop rotation. Bulletin of Uman National University of Horticulture, 2014;(1):8-12.
19. Petrychenko VF, Babych AO, Kolisnyk SI et al. Impact of liming, mineral fertilizers and inoculation on soil fertility and soy performance in the Forest-Steppe conditions. Collection of sci. works of the Institute of Agriculture of NAAS. Kyiv. Nora-print, 2000;(3-4):15-9.
20. Bardgett RD. The biology of soil. A community and ecosystem approach. Oxford University Press, 2005:254 p.
21. Gruver JB. Prediction, Prevention and Remediation of Soil Degradation by Water Erosion. Nature Education Knowledge, 2013;4(12):2.
22. Jean de la Paix Mupenzi, Lanhai Li, Jiwen Ge, Achal Varenyam, Gabriel Habiyaremye, Nzayisenga Theoneste, Kamanzi Emmanuel Assessment of soil degradation and chemical compositions in Rwandan tea-growing areas. Geoscience Frontiers, 2011;2(4):599-607. doi. org/10.1016/j.gsf.2011.05.003.
23. Gyssels G, Poesen J, Bochet E, Li Y. Impact of plant roots on the resistance of soils to erosion by water: a review. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment, 2005;29(2):189-217. 09133305pp443ra.
24. Thompson LM, Trou FR. Soils and their fertility. M.: Kolos, 1982:460 p.
25. York LaM, Carminati A, Mooney SJ, Ritz K, Bennett MJ. The holistic rhizosphere: integrating zones, processes, and semantics in the soil infl uenced by roots. J. Exp. Bot., 2016;67(12):3629-43. doi:10.1093/jxb/erw108.
26. Friedrich T, Derpsch R, Kassam A. Overview of the Global Spread of Conservation Agriculture. Field Act. Sci. Rep. 2012;(6):1-7.
27. Agriculture, forestry and fi shery statistics: 2017 edition. Luxembourg: Publications European Union, 2017:177 p.
28. Report and recommendations on organic farming. USDA. Washington DC: USA, 1980:94 p.
29. Status of the World's Soil Resources. Main Report. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy, 2015:608 p.
30. LUCAS - The EU's land use and land cover survey. Eurostat. Luxembourg: European Union, 2017.
31. Denmark's Report for the State of the World's Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. The Danish AgriFish Agency. The State of the World's Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture in Denmark. 2016:43 p.
32. Kopilov EP. Soil fungi as biotic factor of infl uence on plants. Silskohospodarska mikrobiologia, 2012;(15-16): 7-28.
33. Khaziev FKh. Methods of soil enzymology. M.: Nauka, 2005:252 p.
34. Povkh OV, Merlenko IM. State of microbiocenosis of turf- podzolic sandy soil under the impact of organic fertilizers and microbiological preparations. Bulletin of the Sumy National Agrarian University. Series "Ahronomia i bio- lohia", 2013;3(25):61-4.
35. Nadtochiy P, Trembitsky V. Acid-base buffering capacity and the liming of acid soils in Polissya: actual problems of agroecology. Visnyk DAU, 2003;(2):3-17.