4.7 Article

Systemic effects of Heterobasidion annosum s.s. infection on severity of Diplodia pinea tip blight and terpenoid metabolism in Italian stone pine (Pinus pinea)

Journal

TREE PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 28, Issue 11, Pages 1653-1660

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/treephys/28.11.1653

Keywords

cross-induction; fungal pathogens; host-mediated interactions; systemic induced resistance; systemic induced susceptibility; terpenes

Categories

Funding

  1. Regione Toscana, Italy
  2. Forest Monitoring Program (ARSIA-META)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Three-year-old seedlings of Pinus pinea L. were inoculated near the stem base with one of two Heterobasidion annosum (Fr.) Bref. sensu stricto (s.s.) strains belonging to two populations: the North American P-group (NAm-P) and the European P-group (Eur-P). The NAm-P strain caused smaller H. annosum stem lesions than the Eur-P strain. Three weeks after the stein inoculations with H. annosum, apical shoots were inoculated with Diplodia pinea (Desmaz.) J. Kick. Basal stern infection with H. annosum resulted in D. pinea causing longer necrotic lesions in the shoots, indicating systemic induced susceptibility (SIS) to this shoot blight pathogen. Furthermore, stern induction with the NAm-P strain resulted in higher susceptibility to D. pinea than stem induction with the Eur-P strain. Total terpene accumulation was suppressed by about 50% in the shoots under attack by D. pinea when seedlings were induced with H. annosum. Total terpene concentration in shoots inoculated with D. pinea was negatively correlated with lesion size, both overall and by stern treatment. Stem base inoculation with H. annosum induced whole-plant changes in terpenoid profiles, but these were not associated with the SIS phenotype. We discuss our findings on modulation of systemic response of P. pinea to fungal attack in the context of tripartite ecological interactions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available