|Title:||本省絲瓜病毒種類之鑑定及其病徵比較||Other Titles:||Identification and Comparison of Different Viruses on Symptom Expression in Loofah||Authors:||黃秋雄
|Keywords:||病毒鑑定;瓜類病毒;病徵比較;絲瓜;Virus identification;cucurbit viruses;loofah;vegetable sponge||Issue Date:||10-Dec-1987||Publisher:||農業試驗所||Journal Volume:||36||Journal Issue:||4||Start page/Pages:||413-420||Source:||中華農業研究||Abstract:||
75年夏從南投縣中興新村附近三處絲瓜栽培園及雲林縣絲瓜栽培區五個栽培園採集百餘個罹病葉片樣品，經酵素結合抗體檢定(enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay,ELISA)所得結果，發現樣品中感染矮南瓜黃化嵌紋病毒(ZYMV)之比率最高(97%)，其次為西瓜嵌紋病毒-1(WMV-1)(83%)，再其次為胡瓜嵌紋病毒(CMV)(9%)，但未測到西瓜嵌紋病毒-2(WMV-2)及胡瓜綠斑嵌紋病毒(CGMMV)。再從樣品中挑選不同病徵型之樣品35個，經人工接種到矮南瓜上，結果僅18個接種成功。從18個樣品所得分離株經瓊脂免疫擴散法測定的結果，發現其中8個樣品與ZYMV，8個與WMV-l，1個與WMV-l及ZYMV之抗血清形成明顯沈澱帶，另一個則與獲自甜瓜之新病毒(未鑑定)抗血清形成沈澱帶。由以上兩項結果，可以推知本省絲瓜上至少有ZYMV,WMV-l及CMV等三種已鑑定病毒及一個未鑑定病毒。將不同病毒接種到絲瓜上，發現ZYMV在二種供試之圓筒絲瓜上造成嚴重嵌紋或皺縮之病徵，此種病徵與在田間所觀察之嵌紋皺縮型病徵無差異，但在農友七美及稜角絲瓜上病徵不明顯;WMV-l依不同分離株可造成嵌紋，輕微斑紋或不明顯病徵;CMV在接種初期，可使葉片形成不規則黃斑，但後期病徵轉輕，甚至不明顯;CGMMV則不感染。至於未鑑定的新病毒所造成的病徵與WMV-l者相似，唯較輕微。若以WMV-l和ZYMV同時接種，則病徵與單獨接種ZYMV所造成的病徵無異，因之，推測田間嚴重型病徵主要由ZYMV所造成。在供試的四個品種中，農友七美及稜角絲瓜對WMV-l及ZYMV似乎較具有抵抗性。綜合以上結果，目前本省絲瓜發生主要之病毒以ZYMV最普遍且嚴重，其次為WMV-l，再其次為CMV，至於其他病毒有待於進一步調查。
In the summer of 1986, 101 loofah (Luff a cylindrica Roem) leaf samples with mild to severe mosaic, and/or rugose symptoms were collected from Nan-tou and Yun-lin areas. The samples were proceeded to assay the presence of zucchini yellow mosaic virus (ZYMV), watermelon mosaic virus-1 (WMV-1), watermelon mosaic virus-2 (WMV-2), cucumber mosaic virus (CMV) and cucumber green mottle mosaic virus (CGMMV) by ELISA. In the meanwhile, 35 samples with different types of symptoms were selected and inoculated onto zucchini seedlings for the purpose of virus detection by SDS-immunodiffusion tests, however, there were only 18 virus isolates recovered after inoculation. Based on ELISA and SDS-immunodiffusion tests, there were at least four viruses, ie. , ZYMV, WMV-1, CMV and one unidentified virus, occurring on loofah plants in the fields. Results also showed that ZYMV was the most common virus presented in the fields following WMV-1 and CMV, and the presence of the unidentified virus, so far, is still unknown. Symptoms produced on loofah plants indicated that ZYMV caused severe mosaic and rugose symptoms similar to those observed in the fields, WMV-1 and the unidentified virus only produced mosaic, CMV caused chlorotic or irregular mottling during the earier stage but becoming mild or disappeared later. Generally, mixed infections of ZYMV and WMV-1 produced symptoms similar to those caused by ZYMV alone indicating that the severe mosaic or rugose symptoms observed in the fields were mainly due to ZYMV. Of the 4 Luff a spp. tested, all were susceptible to CMV although the symptoms were masked at the late stage or during the summer season. Cultivars of Luff a cylindrica '7 Beauty' and Luff a acutangula seemed to be somewhat tolerant to ZYMV and WMV-1. Based on these studies, we, therefore, conclude that ZYMV and WMV-1 are the two major viruses threatening the current commercial cultivars of loofah plants in Taiwan.
|Appears in Collections:||1.台灣農業研究(1950～迄今)|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.