Fusarium head blight (FHB) is a serious threat to durum wheat production due to its huge impact on crop yield and quality. Most cultivated durum varieties are susceptible to the disease and durum breeding programs have been challenged by limited sources of FHB resistance. Efforts have been devoted to identify and introgress FHB resistance from tetraploid relatives of durum, such as emmer wheat, into adapted durum varieties. However, the quantitative trait loci (QTL) controlling the FHB resistance in emmer wheat and introgression lines have not been well characterized. In this study, we aimed to identify and map FHB resistance QTL in a population of 186 recombinant inbred lines (RILs) derived from a cross between Joppa, a durum wheat cultivar, and LPA-4, a durum introgression line with FHB resistance derived from the Lebsock/PI 254188//Alkabo crosses. The population was genotyped using a genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) approach for discovery of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers and phenotyped for FHB disease severity in greenhouse and field, and flowering date and plant height in field. A genetic map with a total length of 1125.61 cM was generated with 757 unique SNP markers. QTL analysis identified five LPA-4 derived QTLs for FHB resistance on chromosomes 1B, 3A (QTL3A-1 and 3A-2), 5B and 6B, which explained up to 14.1, 19.8, 10.7, 13.9 and 10.6% of the phenotypic variation for FHB disease severity, respectively. No QTL were identified for flowering date. However, a major QTL for plant height was detected on chromosome 3A, which was mapped close to but not overlapped with the QTL for FHB resistance. This research will facilitate introgression of the identified FHB-resistance QTL into durum wheat breeding programs.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND DISCLAIMER
This material is based upon work partially supported by North Dakota Wheat Commission and the U.S. Department of Agriculture under Agreement No. 59-0206-2-162 (USWBSI). This is a cooperative project with the U.S. Wheat & Barley Scab Initiative. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.