Sowing / transplanting tolerant or resistant varieties to pathogens
1. Presentation
Characterization of the technique
Description of the technique:
Photo credits: G. Dubon
| Jacques Girard | Chambre d'agriculture du Calvados | j.girard(at)calvados.chambagri.fr | Caen (14) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Julien Halska | INRA | julien.halska(at)grignon.inra.fr | Dijon (21) |
| Irène Félix | Arvalis Plant Institute | I.FELIX(at)arvalisinstitutduvegetal.fr | Boigneville (91) |
| Marie-Hélène Jeuffroy | INRA | marie-helene.jeuffroy@grignon.inra.fr | Grignon (78) |
The use of tolerant or resistant varieties to pathogens allows reducing the number and doses of treatments, or to skip treatments (treatment trigger thresholds reached later or not reached). The classification of varieties according to their susceptibility to diseases likely to attack the species is generally available from advisory structures (lack of references for some diseases of grain legumes, flax, beet, etc.). An important issue is to preserve the effectiveness of resistances as long as possible, especially monogenic resistances. For this, resistance genes must be varied over time, during rotations, and in space, on the crop area within a territory, inside a plot (varietal associations), or even within the variety itself thanks to multilined varieties or populations (a very little spread practice).
Example of implementation: The myvar tool from Terres Inovia helps to choose varieties of soybean, sunflower, winter/spring rapeseed, oilseed flax and hemp using many criteria, including disease resistances and their durability management.
Details on the technique:
Resistant varieties are not always easily available from seed sales organizations.
Implementation period On established crop
The rotation scale is mentioned because it is one of the levels for managing resistance durability.
Spatial scale of implementation Plot
Farm
Territory
The farm and territory scales are mentioned because they are levels for managing resistance durability.
Application of the technique to...
All crops: Sometimes difficult generalization
Lack of references or resistant varieties for some diseases of grain legumes, flax, beet, etc.
All soil types: Easily generalizable
A compromise may be necessary between adaptation to soil type and disease susceptibility.
All climatic contexts: Easily generalizable
A difficulty is to adapt the resistance level to the regional risk because information is often missing. A compromise may be necessary between climate adaptation and disease susceptibility.
Regulation
POSITIVE influence
The choice of varieties resistant to certain pests and/or lodging is the subject of several CEPP sheets:
- Action n°17: Reduce the number of fungicide treatments by using potato varieties with low susceptibility to late blight
- Action n°29: Reduce the number of treatments by using soft wheat varieties fairly resistant to pests and lodging
- Action n°47: Fight against virus of turnip yellowing on rapeseed by choosing a fairly resistant variety
- Action n°48: Reduce the number of treatments against various diseases by using fairly resistant sugar beet varieties
2. Services provided by the technique
3. Effects on the sustainability of the cropping system
"Environmental" criteria
Effect on air quality: Increasing
acidification: DECREASE
phytosanitary emissions: DECREASE
GHG emissions: DECREASE
particulate emissions: DECREASE
Effect on water quality: Increasing
N.P.: DECREASE
pesticides: DECREASE
turbidity: DECREASE
Effect on fossil resource consumption: Variable
fossil energy consumption: VARIABLE
phosphorus consumption: DECREASE
Other: No effect (neutral)
Reduction via reduced fungicide use
Reduction if number of treatment passes is reduced. Minor reduction of CO2 emissions if number of passes is reduced. No apparent effect on N2O.
"Agronomic" criteria
Productivity: Variable
Despite progress, tolerant or resistant varieties are reputed sometimes to be less productive or yield lower quality (e.g. bread wheat instead of superior bread wheat). They are therefore underused. However, this is less and less true for wheat. This is confirmed for barley and beet (double tolerant varieties rhizomania / rhizoctonia), but not for rapeseed.
Soil fertility: Increasing
Possible effect via reduced fungicide use which reduces pressure on soil fungi. Poorly documented effect (or on products now banned). Product approval rules have included requirements on this criterion.
Water stress: No effect (neutral)
Functional Biodiversity: Increasing
Probable improvement of fungal diversity (especially soil) and possibly other species disturbed by fungicides (invertebrates, possibly natural enemies). Poorly documented effect.
Other agronomic criteria: Increasing
Risk of overcoming varietal resistances and tolerances: Increase
The more they are implemented, the higher the risk of overcoming. Pathogen strain evolution can be very rapid (case of wheat yellow rust) and varietal resistances can sometimes be overcome in a few years (examples of Toisondor in 2007-2008 and bermude in 2011 in Calvados).
Need to manage varietal resistances and tolerances: Increase
The more they are implemented, the higher the risk of overcoming. It is therefore necessary to take measures to vary selection pressures, and thus the resistances and tolerances implemented over time and space. The risk of overcoming monogenic resistances is higher, but they are easier to select. Relatively little information is disseminated to farmers on resistance characteristics. However, information seems well communicated for rapeseed phoma and wheat yellow rust.
"Economic" criteria
Operating costs: Decreasing
Reduction by reducing fungicide use (if resistant variety seeds are not more expensive).
Mechanization costs: Variable
Reduction if number of treatment passes is reduced.
Margin: Increasing
Improvement, except if the resistant variety is really less productive.
Other economic criteria: Increasing
Cost of varietal selection: Increase
The high cost of varietal selection requires that seed user demand is well formulated and that the potential market is sufficient to ensure breeders a return on investment.
Market opportunities: variable
Good quality tolerant or resistant varieties are well accepted by downstream sectors. In soft wheat, there are multi-resistant varieties classified as superior bread wheat. However, market opportunities can be problematic for some tolerant / resistant varieties.
"Social" criteria
Working time: Variable
Possible reduction if fewer passes.
Peak period: Decreasing
Effect on farmer health: Variable
Stress: Variable
Stress from seeing neighboring farmers treat and not intervening. But peace of mind seeing own fields healthy while neighbors have problems with non-resistant varieties.
Observation time: Variable
Possible increase but not systematic if switching from a strategy with systematic treatments to a threshold-based treatment trigger strategy.
4. Favored or disadvantaged organisms
Favored pests
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|
Disadvantaged pests
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lupin anthracnose | pathogen (pest) | ||
| Faba bean anthracnose | pathogen (pest) | ||
| Common bunt of wheat | pathogen (pest) | Winter soft wheat: Crousty and Lévy are little susceptible, Apache a bit more but results quite variable. Spelt and einkorn are less affected than wheat. | |
| Foot break | pathogen (pest) | Lin resistances are generally insufficient. | |
| Cercospora leaf spot | pathogen (pest) | On beet. There are also double resistant varieties to Cercospora leaf spot and Rhizomania. | |
| Ergot | pathogen (pest) | Cereal varieties with reduced glume opening duration and/or adapted to pedoclimatic conditions to avoid floret sterility. | |
| Silver scurf | pathogen (pest) | Potato | |
| Common scab | pathogen (pest) | Potato | |
| Fusiform helminthosporiosis | pathogen (pest) | Maize: specific and quantitative resistances. Advice: diversify resistance sources | |
| Pea apical yellowing | pathogen (pest) | ||
| Potato late blight | pathogen (pest) | ||
| Sunflower downy mildew | pathogen (pest) | ||
| Potato golden nematode | pest, predator or parasite | ||
| Collar nematode | pest, predator or parasite | There are resistant beet varieties and tolerant varieties | |
| Cyst nematode | pest, predator or parasite | On beet | |
| Beet powdery mildew | pathogen (pest) | ||
| Crucifer powdery mildew | pathogen (pest) | ||
| Cereal powdery mildew | pathogen (pest) | ||
| Flax powdery mildew | pathogen (pest) | ||
| Pea powdery mildew | pathogen (pest) | tolerant varieties | |
| Crucifer phoma | pathogen (pest) | On crucifers and sunflower. Alternate varieties with specific resistance (Rlm1 and Rlm4 already overcome in many growing areas). There are varieties with quantitative resistance. | |
| Take-all | pathogen (pest) | On cereals | |
| Ramularia leaf spot of barley | pathogen (pest) | On barley (under evaluation) | |
| Brown Rhizoctonia | pathogen (pest) | Beet | |
| Rhynchosporium | pathogen (pest) | Barley, rye, triticale | |
| Brown rust | pathogen (pest) | Cereals | |
| Crown rust | pathogen (pest) | Winter oat | |
| Beet rust | pathogen (pest) | ||
| Faba bean rust | pathogen (pest) | ||
| Stem rust | pathogen (pest) | Rye | |
| Yellow rust | pathogen (pest) | Durum wheat, soft wheat, spelt, einkorn | |
| Sclerotinia | pathogen (pest) | Soybean: tolerant varieties. On Sunflower | |
| Cereal dwarf yellowing virus | pathogen (pest) | Soft wheat, durum wheat, barley | |
| Barley mosaic virus | pathogen (pest) | ||
| Cereal mosaic virus | pathogen (pest) | Soft wheat, durum wheat, barley. In wheat, varieties Garcia, PR22R58, Accroc, Musik, Scenario are little susceptible. | |
| Beet yellow vein virus | pathogen (pest) |
Favored Natural enemies
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|
Disadvantaged natural enemies
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|
Favored climatic and physiological accidents
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Details |
|---|
Adverse climatic and physiological accidents
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Details |
|---|
5. For further information
- Choice of forage species and varieties
- -GNIS
GNIS, Website, 2011
- Spring rapeseed: establishment/varieties
- -CETIOM
CETIOM, page visited 08/03/2011, Website, 2011
- How to choose your varieties well?
- -Technical Institute of Beetroot
La Technique Betteravière, no. 940 of 7 December 2010, Press article, 2010
- Soft wheat varieties dossier
- -ARVALIS
Perspectives Agricoles no. 378, May 2011, pp 21-57, Press article, 2011
- Ecophyto R&D: part 1. Expert group "stakeholders". January 2010.
- -Barbier J.-M. (Montpellier Supagro); Bonicel L. (Montpellier Supagro); Dubeuf J.-P. (INRA); Guichard L. (INRA); Halska J. (INRA); Meynard J.-M. (INRA); Schmidt A. (INRA)
INRA, Book, 2010
- Technical guide 2011 Einkorn
- -SEM-Partners
SEM-Partners, Technical brochure, 2011
- Faba bean cultivation in organic farming
ITAB, Arvalis, UNIP, Technical brochure, 2009
- Disease resistance to preserve potentials
- -GNIS educational space
GNIS, page visited 08/03/2011, Website, 2011
- The protein pea in organic farming
- -Biarnès V. (UNIP); Carrouée B. (UNIP); Bouttet D. (Arvalis); Chaillet I. (Arvalis); Fontaine L. (ITAB)
ITAB, Arvalis, UNIP, Technical brochure, 2009
- The technical sheets of the study station on biological, integrated and reasoned control
- -REDON Nord Pas-de-Calais
FREDON Nord Pas-de-Calais, page visited 08/04/2011, Website, 2011
- Alternative methods to fight diseases in arable crops
- -Delos M. (SRPV DRAF Midi-Pyrénées); Eychenne N. (FREDEC Midi-Pyrénées); Folcher L. (FREDEC Midi-Pyrénées); Debaeke P. (INRA-ENSAT); Laporte F. (SRPV DRAF Midi-Pyrénées); Raulic I. (SRPV DRAF Midi-Pyrénées); Maumené C. (Arvalis); Naïbo B. (Arvalis); Pinochet X. (CETIOM)
Phytoma no. 567, 01/2004, pp14-18, Press article, 2004
- Winter flaxseed: varieties, establishment
- -CETIOM
CETIOM, page visited 08/03/2011, Website, 2011
- Spring flaxseed 2007
- -CETIOM and ITL
CETIOM and ITL, Technical brochure, 2007
- Cereal diseases. Activate all agronomic levers.
- -Arvalis
Arvalis, Press article, 2010
- Cereal diseases. Recognize and decide
- -Arvalis - Regional Chambers of Agriculture of the Pays de la Loire
Arvalis - Regional Chambers of Agriculture of Pays de la Loire, Technical brochure, 2009
- Principles of phytopathology and plant disease control
- -Roger Corbaz
Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, Book, 1990
- Resistant or tolerant varieties
- -French Association for Plant Protection, coordination: Jean-Louis Bernard
French Association for Plant Protection. AFPP guide working group, provisional document as of 12 February 2011, Technical brochure, 2011
6. Keywords
Bioaggressor control method: Genetic control
Mode of action: Mitigation
Type of strategy regarding pesticide use: Substitution
Annexes
S'applique aux cultures suivantes
- Garlic
- Oat
- Red beet
- Durum wheat
- Soft wheat
- Camelina
- Carrot
- Hemp
- Cabbage
- Forage cabbage
- Rapeseed
- Einkorn
- Fenugreek
- Faba bean
- Vetch
- Bean
- Lentil
- Flax
- Lupin
- Melon
- Millet
- Miscanthus
- Mohar
- Turnip
- Mustard
- Niger
- Onion
- Poppy
- Pea
- Phacelia
- Leek
- Pea
- Chickpea
- Potato
- Meadow
- Radish
- Sainfoin
- Lettuce
- Buckwheat
- Rye
- Soybean
- Silage sorghum
- Grain sorghum
- Tobacco
- Sunflower
- Clover
- Triticale
- Vetch
Défavorise les bioagresseurs suivants
- Lupin anthracnose
- Faba bean anthracnose
- Common bunt of wheat
- Foot break
- Cercospora leaf spot
- Ergot
- Silver scab
- Common scab
- Fusiform helminthosporiosis
- Apical yellowing of pea
- Potato late blight
- Sunflower downy mildew
- Cyst nematode
- Golden nematode of potato
- Collar nematode
- Beet powdery mildew
- Cereal powdery mildew
- Crucifer powdery mildew
- Flax powdery mildew
- Pea powdery mildew
- Crucifer phoma
- Take-all
- Barley ramularia leaf spot
- Brown Rhizoctonia
- Rhynchosporium
- Brown rust
- Crown rust
- Beet rust
- Faba bean rust
- Stripe rust
- Yellow rust
- Sclerotinia
- Cereal yellow dwarf virus
- Barley mosaic virus
- Cereal mosaic virus
- Beet yellow vein virus
