Deutsch
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
Plant Disease 2014-Mar

First Report of Phoma glomerata Associated with the Ascochyta Blight Complex on Field Pea (Pisum sativum) in Australia.

Nur registrierte Benutzer können Artikel übersetzen
Einloggen Anmelden
Der Link wird in der Zwischenablage gespeichert
H Tran
M You
V Lanoiselet
T Khan
M Barbetti

Schlüsselwörter

Abstrakt

The ascochyta blight complex on field pea (Pisum sativum) in Australia causes severe yield loss of up to 60% (1). This blight complex includes a range of different symptoms, including ascochyta blight, foot rot, and black stem and leaf and pod spot (together more commonly known as "black spot disease" in Australia). In Australia, disease is generally caused by one or more of the four fungi: Didymella pinodes, Phoma pinodella, Ascochyta pisi, and P. koolunga (1,2). However, in September 2012, from a field pea disease screening nursery at Medina, Western Australia, approximately 1% of isolates were a Phoma sp. morphologically different to any Phoma sp. previously reported on field pea in Australia. The remaining isolates were either D. pinodes or P. pinodella. Single spore isolations of two isolates of this Phoma sp. were made onto Coon's Agar and DNA extracted. Two PCR primers TW81 (5'GTTTCCGTAGGTGAACCTGC 3') and AB28 (5'ATATGCTTAAGTTCAGCGGGT 3') were used to amplify extracted DNA from the 3' end of 16S rDNA, across ITS1, 5.8S rDNA, and ITS2 to the 5' end of the 28S rDNA. The PCR products were sequenced and BLAST analyses used to compare sequences with those in GenBank. In each case, the sequence had ≥99% nucleotide identity with the corresponding sequence in GeneBank for P. glomerata. Isolates also showed morphological similarities to P. glomerata as described in other reports (3). The relevant information for a representative isolate has been lodged in GenBank (Accession No. KF424434). The same primers were used by Davidson et al. (2) to identify P. koolunga, but neither of our two isolates were P. koolunga. A conidial suspension of 106 conidia ml-1 from a single spore culture was spot-inoculated onto foliage of 20-day-old plants of P. sativum variety WAPEA2211 maintained under >90% RH conditions for 72 h post-inoculation. Symptoms on foliage first became evident by 8 days post-inoculation, consisting of dark brown lesions 1 to 2.5 mm in diameter. P. glomerata was readily re-isolated from infected foliage to fulfill Koch's postulates. No lesions occurred on foliage of control plants inoculated with only deionized water. A culture of this representative isolate has been lodged in the Western Australian Culture Collection Herbarium maintained at the Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia (Accession No. WAC13652). While not reported previously on P. sativum in Australia, P. glomerata has been reported on other legume crop and pasture species in eastern Australia, including Cicer arietinum (1973), Lupinus angustifolius (1982), Medicago littoralis (1983), M. truncatula (1985), and Glycine max (1986) (Australian Plant Pest Database). Molecular analysis of historical isolates collected from P. sativum in Western Australia, mostly in the late 1980s and 1990s, did not show any incidence of P. glomerata, despite this fungus being previously reported on Citrus, Cocos, Rosa, Santalum, and Washingtonia in Western Australia (4). We believe this to be the first report of P. glomerata as a pathogen on field pea in Australia. The previous reports of P. glomerata on other crop legumes in eastern Australia and its wide host range together suggest potential for this fungus to be a pathogen on a range of leguminous genera/species. References: (1) T. W. Bretag et al. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 57:883, 2006. (2) J. A. Davidson et al. Mycologica 101:120, 2009. (3) G. Morgan-Jones. CMI Descriptions of Pathogenic Fungi and Bacteria No.134 Phoma glomerata, 1967. (4) R. G. Shivas. J. Roy. Soc. West. Aust. 72:1, 1989.

Treten Sie unserer
Facebook-Seite bei

Die vollständigste Datenbank für Heilkräuter, die von der Wissenschaft unterstützt wird

  • Arbeitet in 55 Sprachen
  • Von der Wissenschaft unterstützte Kräuterkuren
  • Kräutererkennung durch Bild
  • Interaktive GPS-Karte - Kräuter vor Ort markieren (in Kürze)
  • Lesen Sie wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen zu Ihrer Suche
  • Suchen Sie nach Heilkräutern nach ihrer Wirkung
  • Organisieren Sie Ihre Interessen und bleiben Sie über Neuigkeiten, klinische Studien und Patente auf dem Laufenden

Geben Sie ein Symptom oder eine Krankheit ein und lesen Sie über Kräuter, die helfen könnten, geben Sie ein Kraut ein und sehen Sie Krankheiten und Symptome, gegen die es angewendet wird.
* Alle Informationen basieren auf veröffentlichten wissenschaftlichen Forschungsergebnissen

Google Play badgeApp Store badge