2017
DOI: 10.1093/treephys/tpx123
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Further insights into the components of resistance to Ophiostoma novo-ulmi in Ulmus minor: hydraulic conductance, stomatal sensitivity and bark dehydration

Abstract: Dutch elm disease (DED) is a vascular disease that has killed over 1 billion elm trees. The pathogen spreads throughout the xylem network triggering vessel blockage, which results in water stress, tissue dehydration and extensive leaf wilting in susceptible genotypes. We investigated the differences between four Ulmus minor Mill. clones of contrasting susceptibility to Ophiostoma novo-ulmi Brasier regarding morphological, anatomical and physiological traits affecting water transport, in order to gain a better … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

5
19
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
5
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Since vessel density and vessel diameter showed strong correlations with disease severity (Table 2), there may be opportunities for using these characteristics in preliminary screening procedures. Findings from this study support those of previous authors that resistant elm genotypes generally have smaller vessel diameters/lumens compared with susceptible genotypes (Elgersma, 1970;McNabb et al, 1970;Pita et al, 2018;Sinclair et al, 1975a;Solla & Gil, 2002a). However, the relationship between vessel diameter and disease resistance is not perfect as evident by the correlation (r s = 0.76, p = 0.049) ( Although much of the focus on preliminary screening methods has been on vessel diameter (Sinclair et al, 1975a;Solla & Gil, 2002a), the strongest correlation found in our study between the xylem characteristics examined and mean disease severity rating was for vessel density (r = −0.77, p = 0.04; Table 2).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Since vessel density and vessel diameter showed strong correlations with disease severity (Table 2), there may be opportunities for using these characteristics in preliminary screening procedures. Findings from this study support those of previous authors that resistant elm genotypes generally have smaller vessel diameters/lumens compared with susceptible genotypes (Elgersma, 1970;McNabb et al, 1970;Pita et al, 2018;Sinclair et al, 1975a;Solla & Gil, 2002a). However, the relationship between vessel diameter and disease resistance is not perfect as evident by the correlation (r s = 0.76, p = 0.049) ( Although much of the focus on preliminary screening methods has been on vessel diameter (Sinclair et al, 1975a;Solla & Gil, 2002a), the strongest correlation found in our study between the xylem characteristics examined and mean disease severity rating was for vessel density (r = −0.77, p = 0.04; Table 2).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…However, in a separate study on Ulmus minor, Martín et al (2009) found that the susceptible group had greater mean vessel density in the earlywood compared with the resistant group, but the difference in the latewood was not significant. Additionally, Pita et al (2018) found that under low watering conditions one of the two susceptible cultivars of Ulmus minor examined had significantly greater vessel density than the two resistant cultivars. Vessel density has been associated with resistance to vascular wilts in other woody plants as well.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 92%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The differences in numerous xylem characteristics between tolerant individuals and susceptible ones are probably related to slower propagation of the pathogen in the former. Lower vessel grouping, vessel diameter, proportion of large vessels, pit membrane diameter and pit abundance per vessel-wall area directly restrict pathogen axial and radial spreading (McNabb et al 1970;Solla and Gil 2002a;Martín et al 2009) and indirectly restrict spreading by favoring early closure of stomata in response to mild water stress that prevents bark dehydration (Pita et al 2018). The combination of chemical, physiological and anatomical defenses helps to compartmentalize the pathogen, while initial fungal contention results in greater capacity to maintain fungal restriction later on due to lower declines in sap flow, bark water content, photosynthesis and energy available to fuel secondary metabolism.…”
Section: Scientific Advances To Understand and Manipulate Resistance mentioning
confidence: 99%