Reproduced from Crop Science. Published by Crop Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved. ieyaotdb ooaowne ha producers, wheat winter Colorado by adopted widely been have cultivars aphid-resistant Peairs, wheat and Russian (Quisenberry 1998). RWA from damage identified mitigate been to have Colorado Several approaches 2002). management in al., effective et primarily (Berzonsky then, states surrounding since losses and Additional incurred 1987 1998). been from Peairs, have USA and western (Morrison the 1993 of in to losses million in indirect $800 USA and than the direct more estimated in caused reported and first 1986 was It states. neighboring 7 .SgeR. aio,W 31 USA 53711 WI Madison, Rd., Segoe S. 677 (2004). 44:1589–1592  Sci. Crop in Published 2003. Dec. ([email protected]). the 6 and author through Received 646 *Corresponding Committee. supported and 795 Administrative Research Projects Wheat Stn. 80523. Colorado Exp. Agric. CO Colorado Fort Collins, from funding Univ., Fort T.L. State Colorado and Univ., Dep., Rudolph, Colorado Management State J.B. Pest and Dep., Walker, Sci. C.B. Bioagricultural Sci. Peairs, Randolph, F.B. Crop 80523; and CO Collins, Soil Haley, S.D. isolate RWA Hungarian a re- of (2003) virulence Basky reported Colorado. of cently in parent grown donor cultivars Soviet the resistant former 372129, PI the patterns to the from virulent virulence isolate was unique Union One seven one identified. and including were isolates, USA, RWA the eight from tested (1992) Puterka al. isolates. RWA et different bio- among of reports variation few typic relatively been have there (Rondani), 2004). Service, (Colo- Statistics pressure Agricultural RWA consistent rado found more proportion with higher counties a in with cultivars, of resistant planted 25% was with acreage Approximately wheat winter 2002). Colorado 2003–2004 al., the et infesta- (Berzonsky consistent with tions areas production in particularly R and sources. identification resistance rapid new with on of depend cultivars will deployment wheat biotype of new this Development to biotype. resistance new the ( to 94M370 resistance resis- accession, cultivars. one RWA only known susceptible identified of and sources collection tance broader resistant a with of experiment collection screening second A limited seedling greenhouse a standard with new in tests The biotype damage) Colorado. original plant overall the southeastern and than rolling in (leaf injury present new greater induced a was biotype that suggesting RWA 2003 of spring in has biotype observations variation confirm objec- to such Our was isolates. no RWA tive different American elsewhere, North among among reported virulence documented been been in has variation isolates While RWA region. ( Plains wheat Great of pest serious rpSineSceyo America of Society Science Crop usa ha pi [RWA, aphid wheat Russian oprdwt h greenbug, the with Compared Dn4 sinwetaphid wheat ussian ha n te ml risi ooaoand Colorado in grains small other and wheat ct .Hly*FakB eis yti .Wle,JfryB uop,adTriL Randolph L. Terri and Rudolph, B. Jeffrey Walker, B. Cynthia Peairs, B. Frank Haley,* D. Scott eitnegn elydi l u n fthe of one but all in deployed gene resistance curneo e usa ha pi itp nColorado in Biotype Aphid Wheat Russian New a of Occurrence rtcmaestivum Triticum ABSTRACT sa motn eto winter of pest important an is irpi noxia Diuraphis ciahsgraminum Schizaphis . ntewsenUSA western the in L.) Mrvlo]i a is (Mordvilko)] Dn7 Published September,2004 ee,with gene), 1589 rii e itrwetpat n2 pi 03a h Plains- the at 2003 April 29 on plants wheat winter Red Prairie ta. 01 itrweti otesenColorado. southeastern char- symptoms in displayed fields wheat these in winter plants Infested plant 2001) visual al., (Quick Red’ and ‘Prairie et RWA-resistant infestations of fields RWA in damage severe of reports Shufran 1989; al., 1997). et al., be (Bush et to observed re- been considered host-plant have differential been actions no not as has biotypic significance it practical minor from of but collections USA, Plains, RWA Great the in the identified In been isolate. has variation this to resistant Dnx 294994), PI genes resistance (from the carrying to lines virulent while highly 2004) lines be al., et to (Smith shown Chile was in identified recently RWA of i Red. nine rie 107-Prai- TAM the the Yuma-Yumar, of Akron-Ankor, iso- presence of gene: the nearly resistance for Six of differing pairs 559720). (NILs) lines three (PI genic essentially ‘Yuma’ were evaluated and cultivars 495594), ‘TAM (PI screening 501534), (PI seedling 107’ ‘Carson’ greenhouse 584504), our (PI ‘Akron’ in and procedures: controls (Harvey as com- used 220350 are included monly PI cultivars susceptible from four The 1990). gene Martin, resistance (PI uncharac- RWA an ‘Yumar’ carries terized and which 617033), 605390), (PI 632275), ‘Stanton’ (PI and (PI Red 605388)] ‘Ankor’ Prairie 1991; 584505), al., (PI et ‘Halt’ [Quick 372129 the These PI carrying colony. from cultivars new gene the resistant evaluated and four original were the included colony both from screening RWA our with in maintained biotype screened colony. in RWA pots plants original our to barley from contamination and transferred prevent wheat to were cages of RWA mixture These a infested isolate. containing tillers new symptomatic the A several from with CO. selecting RWA hand Collins, first-instar by Fort hundred established to was transferred colony and greenhouse Walsh, County), of (Baca north miles CO five approximately Center Research man fo I226) and 262660), PI (from nwetlnscryn the carrying lines wheat on tnig n efrlig,riigcnenta new a that concern raising rolling), leaf streaking, and white (e.g., stunting, reaction susceptible a of acteristic iuec atrso u rgnlRAioaewt a Colorado. with southeastern isolate in RWA collected the original isolate compare new our to of the conducted patterns report experiments virulence we two paper of this In results present. was biotype RWA Abbreviations: nlt ac hog a 03w eevdmultiple received we 2003 May through March late In iecliaswt nw ecint h rgnlRWA original the to reaction known with cultivars Nine symptomatic from collected were aphids wheat Russian fo I202) and 220127), PI (from usa ha pi slto Procedures Isolation Aphid Wheat Russian AEIL N METHODS AND MATERIALS I,nal sgncln;RA usa ha aphid. wheat Russian RWA, line; isogenic nearly NIL, Dn6 xeiet1 Experiment Dn4 fo I238 rC 6501), CI or 243781 PI (from Dny eitnegns nisolate An genes. resistance Dn1 fo I205)were 220350) PI (from fo I137739), PI (from Dn4 cryn wheat -carrying Dn4 Dn2 Dn4 resistance , RWA Dn5 Dn2 Reproduced from Crop Science. Published by Crop Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved. rdcsCmay ayvle H,treprsprie 1 perlite, parts three OH), Marysville, Horticultural white (Scotts-Sierra severe Company, Mix representing Products Metro 5 26 parts and six spots to of chlorotic 32 composed isolated 21 to with small approximately photoperiod 29 16-h temperatures approximately a under assess temperatures flats to daytime in employed grown were were Wheat isolates. seedlings RWA 1989) two the al., between virulence in et differences Nkongolo by scribed ore a netknt eemn hi epnet the to response their determine to undertaken was sources aaewsbsdo cl f1t ,wt representing chloro- 1 streaking, with white spots severe 9, chlorotic with to plants isolated representing 1 small 9 of and with scale plants a healthy plant on apparently separate Overall based rolling. with leaf was and entries) damage damage susceptible plant overall of for reaction scores of (depending infestation severity after on wk 3 damage Aphid approximately seedling. assessed each of was base RWA the at containing RWA segments both seven leaf to placing four For by planting, approxi- after flats. stage, wk one-leaf 1 in the mately at rows infested were single seedlings isolates, in replication without asnS330891 6 6 5.8 6 2 1.8 4.0 1 5 6 9 3 8 9 8.4 9.0 8 9 8.7 9 8 9 9 8 2 3 2.6 7.3 4.7 2 7 8 3 3 6 0 1.4 2 1 0.5 1.0 2 1 0 1 1 3 3.0 1 3.0 3 3 3.0 3 3 3 3 3 1.6 3 3 Difference 2.5 2.0 1 2 isolate 1 New 2 isolate paired R Original for isolate: 3 2 2 value RWA P original ¶ to S 2 reaction o Resistance rated § score R damage R o Plant rated ‡ Difference score rolling Leaf † R S P isolate entries New R Mean entries S Mean R S R mean Overall S isolate Original Carson Stanton Halt Resistance§ Yumar Yuma Red Prairie 107 TAM Ankor original Akron with infestation artificial following cultivars Entry wheat resistant and susceptible for scores damage plant and rolling Leaf 1. Table suscepti- of reaction of wk three severity on 3 (depending with approximately infestation after design assessed was block were damage complete Aphid entries replications. except randomized and 1, a Exp. culture in in Plant as arranged done 1987. were in infestation began RWA RWA- efforts since breeding program breeding resistance our by used in- sources resistance genotypes These ( a evaluated. with symbol designated were sources resistance known RWA origi- all our cluded of to resistant biotype be to nal known cultivars) and lines, experi- mental accessions, (germplasm genotypes Sixteen isolate. new leaf and and 2, 9 of to 3. scores 7 of includes of rolling scores scores leaf resistance rolling damage and moderate plant 4-6 1, includes of susceptibility to of scores 1 Under scores damage of 1993). rolling plant scores al., leaf damage represented et and plants plant 3 represented 3 (Burd includes and resistance 1 leaves rolling scales, where rolled these apparent 3, tightly no to rolling with and 1 Leaf plants of leaves 1987). scale flat al., a with et on (Webster based death was and stunting, sis, planted were entry each of seeds Twelve isolates. soil. two field sieved the parts three and moss, peat sphagnum part 1590 # P au .0¶0.048# 0.003¶ value tnadgenos edigsreigpoeue a e l nre)wt igepatdmg cr ae nascale a on based score plant-damage single a with entries) ble de- (as procedures screening seedling greenhouse Standard vlaino rae olcino nw resistance known of collection broader a of Evaluation cendcgswr sdt eaaefasifse with infested flats separate to used were cages Screened n e sltso usa ha pi nsadr rehueseln cenn tests. screening seedling greenhouse standard in aphid wheat Russian of isolates new and au o ewe-ru eg,rssatv.ssetbe oprsno endfeec ewe ecint e n rgnlRAisolates. RWA original and new to reaction between difference mean of comparison susceptible) vs. resistant (e.g., between-group for value Dn1 through t etcmaigrato foiia n e W sltsfraletistse ( tested entries all for isolates RWA new and original of reaction comparing test Dn9 xeiet2 Experiment fa)t cmltl old scale. rolled) (completely 3 to (flat) 1 a n na1(m nadto osvrlpromising several to addition in ) nmldmg)t svr aae scale. damage) (severe 9 to damage) inimal Њ .Tesi i was mix soil The C. RPSINE O.4,SPEBROTBR2004 SEPTEMBER–OCTOBER 44, VOL. SCIENCE, CROP ϭ eitn,S resistant, Њ n night and C efrligsoe ln aaescore‡ damage Plant score† rolling Leaf Dn ϭ susceptible. gene aaesoe ewe h w sltsfrsusceptible for isolates two the in between difference scores average damage the of comparisons Group 0.001). h w sltso W nsadr rehueseed- greenhouse standard in RWA of isolates two the nlboyeytwr ohssetbet h e isolate. new the to susceptible both were yet biotype orig- inal the to differently responded 107-Prairie clearly however, TAM Red), Yuma-Yumar, between of (Akron-Ankor, pairs made resistant NILs be and susceptible to The entries. comparisons individual reliable permit not entries. of group 1.4 difference; vs. 5.8 (0.5 score rolling leaf difference; in differences greater difference, this with confirmed entries of groups resistant and score; 3.0 vs. (2.0 score rolling leaf P original for the both than biotype, damage isolate greater new significantly the that induced showed experiment across the scores in average entries The all 1). (Table tests screening ling aeoy3 n ucpiiiyicue aeois4ad5. and 4 categories includes includes susceptibility resistance and moderate 3, 2, category and resis- 1 scale, categories this includes with Under tance death. plants and healthy stunting, chlorosis, apparently streaking, representing 1 with 5, to 1 of g crswr eaae sn ihrspoetdLSD. protected Fisher’s using separated dam- were plant com- Mean scores randomized conducted. a age was 2, ANOVA Exp. design For block analysis. plete factor pairs grouping matched a as the resistance in using by suscepti- tested and was and resistant cultivars of ble rolling groups en- leaf between in scores all damage differences across plant of isolates Significance RWA evaluated. two tries the between scores damage nttt,20) o x.1 ace ar nlss(paired analysis pairs matched a 1, t Exp. For 2000). Institute, et a sdt etdfeecsi efrligadplant and rolling leaf in differences test to used was test) ϭ la ifrnei iuec a bevdbetween observed was virulence in difference clear A h ako nr elcto nti xeietdid experiment this in replication entry of lack The l nlsswr odce sn A-M .40 (SAS 4.02 v. SAS-JMP using conducted were analyses All .0)adpatdmg cr 47v.87score; 8.7 vs. (4.7 score damage plant and 0.003) EUT N DISCUSSION AND RESULTS P ϭ P .4)adpatdmg cr 18vs. (1.8 score damage plant and 0.048) Ͻ ttsia Analyses Statistical n .0)bigsonb h resistant the by shown being 0.001) ϭ xeiet1 Experiment entries). 9 Ͻ 0.001¶ Ͻ 0.001# P Ͻ Reproduced from Crop Science. Published by Crop Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved. usto ucpil nre nlddi h xeiet n npeiu xeiet ihteoiia biotype original 1990). the al., with et experiments (Graybosch previous products in bread and leavened for observation. which this translocation confirm to wheat–rye planned 1BL.1RS are experiment. the a studies the within on Further in leaf score) included carried 3.0 entries damage is susceptible plant vs. of 9.0 subset (2.5 vs. damage 7.3 greater (Ander- score, program rolling slightly breeding earlier our was appeared from there virulent genotypes development carrying more symptom and of is onset isolate the new as the did that data however, The biotype. suggest, to original isolate the new to the resistant of genotypes virulence relative determine to only hte hs w eitnesucsaeallc xrse ihradmr ossetlvlo seedling of level consistent more and higher a expresses is it unclear, is SHZ.W.104 of origin rye. allelic. from exact are transferred the sources While resistance two these however, known, whether not is It 220350). (PI different source a germplasm from ap- Kansas derived resistance from with cultivar isolate University a State Stanton, new on virulent the be to peared Additionally, program. breeding othe to bv,cnim httenwioaeo W svrln H..0.O h ai fterrsls h authors the results, their of basis the On SHZ.W.104. virulent is RWA of isolate new the mentioned that as confirms entries above, resistant and susceptible of groups hsosrain ope ihtecmaio ewe sn iekonrssac ee ( genes resistance known five using between comparison the with coupled observation, This ldn h orei tno) eeaogteentries the among susceptible. were as Stanton), categorized in source (in- the sources cluding gene uncharacterized yet promising several sah n sa 20)peetda leimstudy allelism an by presented report (2002) recent Assad A and 1994). Estakhr al., wheat–rye et 1BL.1RS (Marais the carrying translocation wheat common a to 77 ( rye the intergeneric from through derived transfer was (1998), al. as et Marais denoted by source, single this The in gene 94M370. resistance accession dominant germplasm the was ment h eitnegenes moderately resistance a carrying showed the Genotypes score). few damage (3 a reaction while resistant reaction score) susceptible ( a damage showed significant (4–5 entries not the while of was score Most replications 0.14). damage to plant due for variation 2) (Table entries among nr eeacsinRfrnescore† Reference Gene/accession Entry V 12.3 1.0 3.8 0.8 4.3 scale. damage) (severe 5 to damage) (minimal 1993 1 a al., on rated et 4.0 score Porter Damage † 4.0 4.0 % 1990 245462 CV, Martin, PI and Harvey 1995 (0.01) 1990 Harvey, LSD Martin, and and Harvey Martin (0.05) LSD 220350 PI 3.7 3.7 Mean 222668 PI Yilmaz-4 9914BAK007 262660 PI 3.3 137739 PI 3.7 KS92WGRC25 1994 1993 CO960293-2 al., al., et et Baker 1990 Porter Stanton Martin, and Harvey Betta- 1998 149898 al., 366616 6501 PI et PI CI Baker 220127 PI CO950043 225217 STARS-OK00730 PI STARS-9302W KS94WGRC29 Karee- GH2002-947-1 9914BO015 94M370 gene resistance of scores damage aphid wheat Russian 2. Table eas ftedsg fti xeiet ewr able were we experiment, this of design the of Because h nyetyta hwdrssac nti experi- this in resistance showed that entry only The infcn ifrne ( differences Significant n tests. screen- seedling ing greenhouse standard isolate in aphid new wheat a Russian with of infestation following germplasm and sources n Dn9 Dn9 n Dn8 Dn8 Dn4 eitnegn sdetnieyi our in extensively used gene resistance Dn2 Dn1 Dn6 Dn5 dn3 Dn7 xeiet2 Experiment Dn1 eaecereale Secale , P Dn2 AE TA. E USA HA PI ITP NCOLORADO IN BIOTYPE APHID WHEAT RUSSIAN NEW AL.: ET HALEY i ta. 013.7 2001 al., et Liu uTi,18 4.3 4.3 4.0 1987 Toit, 4.0 Du 1987 Toit, Du 4.0 2001 al., et Liu 1990 Martin, and Harvey 1988 Toit, Du 3.7 1.7 1989 al., et Nkongolo 1998 al., et Marais Ͻ , .0)wr observed were 0.001) dn3 . utvrTurkey cultivar L.) , Dn5 , Dn6 Damage and , P Dn7 ϭ e W ucsflyclnzdteacsindespite relatively accession as the antixenosis, resis- to colonized of due successfully part mode RWA in few its least that at suggest is tance 2003) experiment al., this et in (Anderson source this of observations effects Visual quality adverse serious have to shown been has the Unfortunately, 2003). al., et son eitnet h rgnlboyeo W than RWA of biotype original the to resistance source the as source same the from is it that doubtful rpsdtegn symbol gene the proposed and uiain 03.Ifraino h urn n even- and current the and on Information com- Panhandle 2003). personal munication, USDA-ARS, Nebraska Shufran, the (K. Texas in Western confirmed been have uldsrbto fti e itp speetylacking. presently is biotype new this of distribution tual fgets ikwl eedo te aaeetap- insecticides. management and other on depend will are risk biotype greatest new of the to resistance with cultivars Until of presence the rahs uha ilgclcnrl utrlpractices, cultural control, biological as such proaches, areas in infestations RWA of management developed, ae UD-R,Silae,O)frpoiigse fthe of seed providing for OK) Stillwater, (USDA-ARS, Baker attempts. infestation artificial repeated multiple, nttt,Btlhm ot fia o rvdn edo the of seed providing for Karee- Africa) South Bethlehem, Institute, underway. currently is sources resistance carries that translocation the wheat–rye associated effects 1BL.1RS quality programs the adverse breeding with by in hampered biotype, source be new this may the of use to immediate reaction yet resistant (94M370, highly and a line USA showed the germplasm in One programs breeding elsewhere. by biotype use sources new resistance in of The collection currently broad RWA. a to greatest from virulent the is Plains injury also shown economic has Great region of western This risk USA. the the in of region all cultivars to available virulent commer- cially is in deployed biotype currently sources new resistance RWA This Colorado. in RWA Colorado, southeastern in biotype new iden- initial the RWA since of of period tification time diversity the In biotypic documented. greater well de- is where to world adaptation the of local a from originated have could lydrssac ore ra nrdcinfo areas from introduction an or sources resistance ployed rvoseprmnswt 430hv hw htit that shown have 94M370 with experiments Previous ews otakM.VciTla ACSalGrain (ARC-Small Tolmay Vicki Ms. thank to wish We of biotype new a of presence the confirmed have We h xc rgno h e itp sukon It unknown. is biotype new the of origin exact The Dn7 Dn6 Dn8 eitnegn.Asseai erhfrother for search systematic A gene. resistance n nIaingrpamln eoe as denoted line germplasm Iranian an and ) n Betta- and ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Dn4 CONCLUSIONS Dn9 vrln W ouain also populations RWA -virulent emls ore;M.Cheryl Ms. sources; germplasm Dn7 o hsrssac gene. resistance this for Dn1 Dn7 , Dn2 eitnegene resistance , Dn7 Dn4 , gene) Dn4 Dn5 1591 - , Reproduced from Crop Science. Published by Crop Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved. ryoc,RA,CJ eesn ..Hne,adPJ atr.1990. Mattern. P.J. and Hansen, L.W. Peterson, C.J. R.A., Graybosch, ae,CA,DR otr n ..Wbtr 98 neiac and Inheritance 1998. Webster. J.A. and Porter, D.R. C.A., Baker, uTi,F 98 nte oreo usa ha pi ( aphid wheat Russian of source Another 1988. F. Toit, Du two in resistance of Inheritance 1987. F. Toit, Du varie- wheat Winter 2004. Service. Statistics Agricultural Colorado damage in Variations 1989. Worrall. W.D. and Slosser, J.E. L., Bush, Rus- of Evaluation 1993. Webster. J.A. and Burton, R.L. J.D., Burd, R.I.H. Lamb, R.J. Harris, M.O. Haley, S.D. Ding, H. W.A., Berzonsky, Hungar- between differences status pest and Biotypic 2003. Z. Basky, of Registration 1994. Webster. J.A. and Porter, D.R. C.A., Baker, sah,A,adMT sa.20.Teallcrltosisamong relationships allelic The 2002. Assad. M.T. and A., Estakhr, nesn .. .Pp,JH eg .Thr n ...Lapitan. N.L.V. and Tahir, M. Peng, J.H. Papa, D. G.R., Anderson, otClis O,frpoiigse fte9M7 germ- 94M370 the of seed University, providing source. State for plasm (Colorado CO), Lapitan Collins, Nora Fort Dr. and sources; germplasm STARS-OK00730 and 9914BAK007, 9914BO015, 1592 nwne ha emls.Cra hm 73239 ntdSae ha et .Eo.Etml 80:944–949. Entomol. Econ. J. pest. wheat States United 67:342–349. Chem. quality Cereal end-use germplasm. wheat and winter composition, in glutenin weight molecular 1BL/1RS, high characteristics, solubility protein between Relationships 138:281–284. Sci. Agric. J. genes. known and noxia Colorado 2004). Lakewood. Apr. Service, 6 Statistics verified Agricultural 2004; Jan. 20 (posted wwhtvar.pdf www.nass.usda.gov/co/pub/ at: Available [Online]. Crop ties—2004 82:466–471. Entomol. Econ. Aphididae) J. (Homoptera: aphid Texas. wheat in Russian by caused wheat to 86:974–980. Entomol. Econ. J. resistant measurements. quanti- on plant to ratings tative damage damage of comparisons Aphididae) with hosts (Homoptera: susceptible and aphid wheat sian 59:1152–1158. aphid, Sci. wheat Russian of noxia populations aphis African South and ian MD. Lanham, Ento- Am., in intro- Soc. Publ. an Say Entomol. Thomas for mol., aphid. model 148–157. wheat response Russian p. A pest—The wheat. (ed.) duced Peairs winter F.B. red and a Quisenberry resis- STARS-225217, Aphididae) in (Homoptera: aphid tance wheat Russian of categories 34:1135–1136. Sci. Crop germplasms. resistant wheat aphid wheat Russian STARS-9303W, and STARS-9302W ie oRsinwetahd(ootr:Ahdde.J Econ. J. Aphididae). (Homoptera: aphid 82:1251–1253. wheat Entomol. Russian to lines 22:221–296. Rev. Breed. Plant Porter, resis- insects. for D.R. wheat to Breeding Peairs, tance 2002. Shanower. F.B. T.G. Patterson, and Ratcliffe, F.L. R.H. Ohm, H.W. McKenzie, usa ha pi eitnegnsi w rna ha lines wheat Iranian two in genes resistance aphid wheat Russian 105–106. usa ha pi nwet ho.Ap.Gnt 107:1297–1303. Genet. Appl. Theor. wheat. in aphid wheat Russian of mapping Genetic 2003. eitnein resistance ) Krjmv Hmpea piia) etManage. Pest Aphididae). (Homoptera: (Kurdjumov) rtcmaestivum. Triticum REFERENCES Dn7 y eecnern eitneto resistance conferring gene rye a , eelRs omn 16: Commun. Res. Cereal RPSINE O.4,SPEBROTBR2004 SEPTEMBER–OCTOBER 44, VOL. SCIENCE, CROP rtcmaestivum Triticum Diuraphis In Diur- S.S. ese,JA,KJ trs n ..Bro.18.Patresistance Plant 1987. Burton. R.L. and Starks, K.J. J.A., Webster, usner,SS,adFB eis 98 epnemdlfran for model response A 1998. Peairs. F.B. and S.S., Quisenberry, Johnson, J.J. Clifford, B. Clayshulte, S. Stromberger, J.A. J.S., Weaver. Quick, B. and Peairs, F.B. Meyer, W. Nkongolo, K.K. J.S., Quick, and concept model Response 1998. Peairs. F.B. and W.P., Morrison, germ- wheat two of Registration 1995. Harvey. T.L. and T.J., Martin, knoo .. ..Qik ..Myr n ..Par.18.Rus- 1989. Peairs. F.B. and Meyer, W.L. Quick, J.S. K.K., Nkongolo, hfa,KA,JD ud n ..Wbtr 97 itpcsau of status Biotypic 1997. Webster. J.A. and Burd, J.D. K.A., Shufran, SAS 4. Version guide. graphics and statistics JMP 2000. Institute. SAS variation Biotypic 1992. Burton. R.L. and Burd, J.D. G.J., Puterka, resis- of Detection 1993. Baker. C.A. and Webster, J.A. D.R., Porter, mt,CM,B efy .Safe,P tr,I uekv,adS. and Kubeckova, I. Stary, P. Stauffer, C. Tesfay, B. C.M., Smith, aas .. ..Wses .Hr,adF uTi.19.Associa- 1998. Toit. du F. and Horn, M. Wessels, W.G. transfer G.F., Intergeneric Marais, 1994. Toit. Du F. and Horn, M. G.F., Marais, Microsatellite 2001. Tolmay. V. and Gill, B.S. Smith, wheat C.M. Russian X.M., Liu, to Resistance 1990. Martin. T.J. and T.L., Harvey, akr ikdt i usa ha pi eitnegnsin genes resistance aphid 102:504–510. wheat Genet. Russian Appl. Theor. six wheat. to linked markers 18:127–129. Commun. aphid, tde with studies press). 97(3):(in Entomol. Econ. lssrssatt usa ha pi:K9WR2 and KS92WGRC24 aphid: wheat Russian to resistant plasms noo. noo.Sc mr,Lna,MD. in Lanham, Publ. Amer., Say Soc. Thomas Entomol. aphid. Entomol., wheat Russian pest—The of introduced Registration 2001. Lorenz. K. and Rudolph, J.B. Peairs, quality F.B. and agronomic and reaction aphid wheat Russian 1991. 85:1497–1506. Entomol. Econ. J. Aphididae). green- in 17:227–232. Triticale Commun. and Res. rye, Cereal wheat, tests. of house resistance aphid wheat Lan- sian Am., Soc. wheat Entomol. Russian Entomol., pest—The in introduced Publ. Say an Thomas for aphid. model response A 1–11. p. impact. economic 35:292. Sci. Crop KS92WGRC25. 15:67–71. Soil Plant J. Afr. S. wheat. common in usa ha pi Hmpea piia)ppltosi the in populations Aphididae) (Homoptera: aphid wheat Russian 41:1362–1363. Sci. Crop wheat. Red’ ‘Prairie 31:50–53. Sci. Crop wheat. resistant a of traits (Homoptera: aphid wheat Russian of collection worldwide a in MD. ham, ( genes resistance aphid nt,Cr,NC. Cary, Inst., Plant wheat. hexaploid in aphid wheat Russian 110:157–160. the Breed. to tance piia)ppltosvrln othe to virulent populations Aphididae) tre.20.Ietfcto fRsinwetahd(Homoptera: aphid wheat Russian of Identification 2004. Starkey. ntdSae.J cn noo.90:1684–1689. Entomol. Econ. J. States. United ret ha)o ees o usa ha pi resistance. aphid wheat Russian for gene(s) 113:265–271. a Breed. of Plant wheat) to (rye ino tmrs eitnegn ( gene resistance rust stem of tion irpi noxia Diuraphis irpi noxia Diuraphis nwet( wheat in , Dn5 In ..QiebryadFB eis(ed.) Peairs F.B. and Quisenberry S.S. and Hmpea piia) new a Aphididae), (Homoptera: Dn7 rtcmaestivum Triticum Sr45 ihmpe tutrlloci structural mapped with ) n w usa wheat Russian two and ) Dn4 eitnegn.J. gene. resistance .Cra Res. Cereal ).