Host range, symptom expression and RNA 3 sequence analyses of six Australian strains of Cucumber mosaic virus

We have characterised six Australian Cucumber mosaic virus (CMV) strains belonging to different subgroups, determined by the sequence of their complete RNA 3 and by their host range and the symptoms they cause on species in the Solanaceae, Cucurbitaceae and on sweet corn. These data allowed classification of strains into the known three CMV subgroups and identification of plant species able to differentiate the Australian strains by symptoms and host range. Western Australian strains 237 and Twa and Queensland strains 207 and 242 are closely related members of CMV subgroup IA, which cause similar severe symptoms on Nicotiana species. Strains 207 and 237 (subgroup IA) were the only strains tested which systemically infected sweet corn. Strain 243 caused the most severe symptoms of all strains on Nicotiana species, tomato and capsicum and appears to be the first confirmed subgroup IB strain reported in Australia. Based on pair-wise distance analysis and phylogeny of RNA 3, as well as mild disease symptoms on Nicotiana species, CMV 241 was assigned to subgroup II, as the previously described Q-CMV and LY-CMV.

Row spacing and planting density effects on the growth and yield of sugarcane. 3. Responses with different cultivars.

The promotion of controlled traffic (matching wheel and row spacing) in the Australian sugar industry is necessitating a widening of row spacing beyond the standard 1.5 m. As all cultivars grown in the Australian industry have been selected under the standard row spacing there are concerns that at least some cultivars may not be suitable for wider rows. To address this issue, experiments were established in northern and southern Queensland in which cultivars, with different growth characteristics, recommended for each region, were grown under a range of different row configurations. In the northern Queensland experiment at Gordonvale, cultivars Q187((sic)), Q200((sic)), Q201((sic)), and Q218((sic)) were grown in 1.5-m single rows, 1.8-m single rows, 1.8-m dual rows (50 cm between duals), and 2.3-m dual rows (80 cm between duals). In the southern Queensland experiment at Farnsfield, cvv. Q138, Q205((sic)), Q222((sic)) and Q188((sic)) were also grown in 1.5-m single rows, 1.8-m single rows, 1.8-m dual rows (50 cm between duals), while 1.8-m-wide throat planted single row and 2.0-m dual row (80 cm between duals) configurations were also included. There was no difference in yield between the different row configurations at Farnsfield but there was a significant row configuration x cultivar interaction at Gordonvale due to good yields in 1.8-m single and dual rows with Q201((sic)) and poor yields with Q200((sic)) at the same row spacings. There was no significant difference between the two cultivars in 1.5-m single and 2.3-m dual rows. The experiments once again demonstrated the compensatory capacity that exists in sugarcane to manipulate stalk number and individual stalk weight as a means of producing similar yields across a range of row configurations and planting densities. There was evidence of different growth patterns between cultivars in response to different row configurations (viz. propensity to tiller, susceptibility to lodging, ability to compensate between stalk number and stalk weight), suggesting that there may be genetic differences in response to row configuration. It is argued that there is a need to evaluate potential cultivars under a wider range of row configurations than the standard 1.5-m single rows. Cultivars that perform well in row configurations ranging from 1.8 to 2.0 m are essential if the adverse effects of soil compaction are to be managed through the adoption of controlled traffic.