Fig 1.
Studied species and their role in the evolutionary history of bread wheat.
The figure is based on information described in Zohary et al. [36], Kilian et al. [44], Chantret et al. [45] and Peng et al. [46]. Genome type and ploidy level are given in brackets, LIGHT GREY = wild species, GREY = domesticated wheat. Dashed lines show the most accepted model of the origin of hexaploid wheat where the ancestral species are tetraploid emmer wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp. dicoccon) and Aegilops tauschii. A more recent model is described in Dvorak et al. [43].
Fig 2.
Collection sites of wild and domesticated wheat.
● = Aegilops, Amblyopyrum and Triticum accessions, except spelt and the winter wheat cultivar Tarso, based on SINGER data base, 2009, species richness of Aegilops and Triticum based on information in Zohary et al. [36] and Van Slageren [51]; LIGHT GREEN = 1–5 species, GREEN = 6–10 species, DARK GREEN = >10 species.
Table 1.
WDV content in exposed plants within each species the wild and domesticated groups.
Fig 3.
Plant response in wild and domesticated species.
BLUE = Mean values and 95% confidence interval (CI) of non-exposed, and RED = exposed plants, GREEN = absolute reduction, PURPLE = proportional reduction of the Aegilops and Triticum taxa for the studied traits. Pairwise comparison (t-test) between non-exposed and exposed plants with Bonferroni correction. dpi refers to days after the end of exposure to viruliferous leafhoppers. * = p<0.05, N.S. = no significance, aMean = -39.8%, 95% CI = 44.0, bMean = -75.0%, 95% CI = 65.7%. cNo surviving plants.
Fig 4.
Plant response in the wild and domesticated groups.
BLUE = Mean values and 95% confidence interval (CI) of non-exposed, and RED = exposed plants, GREEN = absolute reduction, PURPLE = proportional reduction of the wild and domesticated groups for the studied traits. Pairwise comparison (t-test) between non-exposed and exposed plants with Bonferroni correction. dpi refers to days after the end of exposure to viruliferous leafhoppers. * = p<0.05, N.S. = no significance.
Table 2.
Two-way ANOVA results showing the effects of treatment (exposed or non-exposed), species and their interactions as well as the effect of treatment, wild/domesticated status and their interactions on the studied traits.
Table 3.
Plant mortality rate at 112 days after the end of exposure to virouferious leafhoppers.
Fig 5.
Proportional reduction of leaf and tiller number between non-exposed and exposed plants of wild and domesticated species measured at two time points.
All exposed plants of T. urartu and cultivated emmer were dead at the second time point and not included in the figure.
Table 4.
Ranking of the studied species based on their response to WDV infection.