Susceptibility of Some <i>Lilac</i> Cultivars and Other Members of the Oleaceae to <i>Phytophthora ramorum</i>

Shishkoff, Nina

doi:10.1094/php-2007-1101-02-rs

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 9 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2008; Riedel et al. 2009), Camellia (Shishkoff 2006) and Lilac (Shishkoff 2007) species. Asymptomatic plants may also be an issue for quarantine authorities where plant release is based on the visible expression of disease symptoms.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Potential susceptibility of Australian flora to a NA2 isolate of Phytophthora ramorum and pathogen sporulation potential

Ireland¹,

Hüberli²,

Dell³

et al. 2011

Forest Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

infection of some species has been found to play a crucial role in transmission of the pathogen in the 76 UK (Rhododendron spp.) and California (Umbellularia californica, California Bay Laurel; and 77Notholithocarpus densiflorus, Tanoak) by providing key sources of inoculum that drive epiphytotics 78 (Goheen et al. 2002;Brasier et al. 2004; Davidson et al. 2005). Detached foliar assays have been used 79 by a number of authors to assess susceptibility and sporulation potential of a range of species to P. 80 ramorum in vitro (Parke et al. 2002;Denman et al. 2005a;Hansen et al. 2005;Denman et al. 2006a; 81 Hüberli et al. 2008). These methods have been confirmed as a good indicator of field susceptibility 82 when compared with natural infection and other methods of inoculation . 83Australian quarantine restricts the entry of all materials which fall into known host genera of P. Experimental design 97In vitro leaf inoculations of Australian native plants were used to determine potential foliar 98 susceptibility to P. ramorum and sporangia production potential in 22 experiments between April 2008 99 and October 2009 at Davis, California, USA (Table 1). Potential foliar susceptibility was tested by 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Branches of each individual were collected the day before inoculations were undertaken and cut 145 stems and branches were kept in deionised water overnight. Before inoculation, leaves were cut at the 146 base of the petiole from branches, rinsed with deionised water and placed on paper towels to air-dry. 147Mature, fully expanded leaves were used for all species. Juvenile-aged leaves were tested for 24 of the 148 test species, as well as for R. 'Colonel Coen'. Juvenile leaves were included to account for overall 149 susceptibility of the test plants and to test for differences in susceptibility between leaf ages. 150 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 either DiPel (Bacillus thuringiensis; Abbot Laboratories, Chicago IL, USA) at 1.6 to 3.9 ml/l of water 154 and Vegol (canola oil; Lilly Miller Brands, Clackamas OR, USA) at 3.9 to 19.5 ml/l or Sunspray Oil 155 (Paraffinic Oil; Sun Refining & Marketing Co., Philadelphia PA, USA) at 6.5 ml/l during the "summer" 156 and with Conserve SC (Spinosad; Dow Agrosciences LLC, Indianapolis IN, USA) at 1.7 ml/l and 157Bonide All Seasons Spray Oil (Petroleum Oil, Oriskany NY, USA) at 10 ml/l during the "winter" 158 inoculations. These species wer...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of other studies have used a constant temperature, ranging from 17°C (Werres et al. 2001) to 24°C (Shishkoff 2007), with the majority of studies incubating material at approximately 20°C (Denman et al. 2005a; Shishkoff 2006; Hüberli et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential susceptibility of Australian flora to a NA2 isolate of Phytophthora ramorum and pathogen sporulation potential

Ireland¹,

Hüberli²,

Dell³

et al. 2011

Forest Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The sporulation potential of this pathogen on most native Californian plants is still poorly understood (Davidson et al, 2005;Fichtner et al, 2012). Despite the fact that the pathogen has been isolated from over 100 ornamental plant species (Anonymous, 2007(Anonymous, , 2019, disease susceptibility and especially transmission potential are known only for a handful of plant species traded and sold as ornamentals (Kaminski and Wagner, 2008;Linderman and Davis, 2007;Parke et al, 2004;Shishkoff, 2007;Tooley et al, 2004;Widmer, 2010).…”

Section: P Ramorum Has Been Unwittingly Introduced Into Both Europementioning

confidence: 99%

Pathogenicity and infectivity of Phytophthora ramorum vary depending on host species, infected plant part, inoculum potential, pathogen genotype, and temperature

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A total of 25 ornamental plant species representing 10 families were inoculated using three genotypes, each representing one of the genetic lineages NA1, NA2, and EU1 of the pathogen Phytophthora ramorum. Leaves were inoculated using suspensions with two zoospore concentrations and exposure at three temperatures, while stems were inoculated using agar plugs colonized by mycelia. Susceptibility was determined by measuring either the success of pathogen reisolation or lesion length caused by the pathogen. Infectivity was determined by counting sporangia in washes of inoculated leaves or stems. Results from all three pathogen genotypes combined were used to rank each of the 25 plant species for susceptibility and infectivity, while pooled results per genotype from all 25 hosts combined were employed for a preliminary comparison of pathogenicity and infectivity among genotypes. Statistical analyses showed that leaf results were affected by the concentration of zoospores, temperature, plant host, pathogen genotype, and by the interaction between host and pathogen genotype. Stem results were mostly affected by host and by the interaction between host and pathogen genotype. Hosts ranked differently when looking at the various parameters, and differences in rankings were also significant when comparing stem and leaf results. Differences were identified among the 25 hosts and the three pathogen genotypes for all parameters: results can be used for decision‐making regarding regulations or selection of plants to be grown where infestations by P. ramorum are an issue.

show abstract

“…A number of fungicides have been tested on foliage for their efficacy against P. ramorum and their ability to suppress symptoms (2,4,7,8,18). However, the roots of many plants can also become infected by P. ramorum (9,10,12), and the effect of fungicides on root infection or the production of inoculum from roots is not known.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Growth-inhibiting Fungicides Affect Detection of Phytophthora ramorum from Infected Foliage and Roots

Shishkoff

2014

Plant Health Progress

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Growth-inhibiting fungicides are used routinely to control common and regulated Oomycete pathogens. This study investigated whether such fungicides could affect detection of Phytophthora ramorum from plant tissue, both foliage and roots. Whole plants of Rhododendron × ‘Cunningham's White’ were inoculated with P. ramorum and treated 3 days later with fosetyl-Al, mefenoxam, or propamocarb. The foliage was sampled over time to see if fungicides prevented successful culturing of the pathogen from infected leaf tissue or interfered with detection using real-time PCR or ELISA. Mefenoxam significantly reduced the ability to culture the pathogen from leaves for the first 6 weeks while recovery from leaves treated with other fungicides did not differ from water-treated controls; detection using PCR or ELISA was not affected by fungicide application. The roots of Viburnum cuttings were inoculated with P. ramorum and then treated 4 days later with fosetyl-Al, mefenoxam, or propamocarb. The amount of inoculum in flow through water samples taken weekly for 5 weeks was quantified and percent root colonization determined at the end of the experiment. Propamocarb had no effect on inoculum production or root infection, while viable inoculum production was significantly decreased in fosetyl-Al- or mefenoxam-treated plants over 5 weeks, and root colonization was significantly decreased. Accepted for publication 23 January 2014. Published 18 March 2014.

show abstract

Susceptibility of Some Lilac Cultivars and Other Members of the Oleaceae to Phytophthora ramorum

Cited by 11 publications

References 9 publications

Potential susceptibility of Australian flora to a NA2 isolate of Phytophthora ramorum and pathogen sporulation potential

Potential susceptibility of Australian flora to a NA2 isolate of Phytophthora ramorum and pathogen sporulation potential

Pathogenicity and infectivity of Phytophthora ramorum vary depending on host species, infected plant part, inoculum potential, pathogen genotype, and temperature

Growth-inhibiting Fungicides Affect Detection of Phytophthora ramorum from Infected Foliage and Roots

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About