4.5 Article

Effects of environmental factors on development of Pyrenopeziza brassicae (light leaf spot) apothecia on oilseed rape debris.

Journal

PHYTOPATHOLOGY
Volume 91, Issue 4, Pages 392-398

Publisher

AMER PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1094/PHYTO.2001.91.4.392

Keywords

ascoma development; ascospores; Cylindrosporium concentricum; exponential model; forecasting

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The development of Pyrenopeziza brassicae (light leaf spot) apothecia was studied on petiole debris from artificially infected oilseed rape leaves incubated at temperatures from 6 to 22 degreesC under different wetness regimes and in 16 h light/8 h dark or continuous darkness. There was no significant difference between light treatments in numbers of apothecia that developed. Mature apothecia developed at temperatures from 5 to 18 degreesC but not at 22 degreesC. The rate of apothecial development decreased as temperature decreased from 18 to 5 degreesC; mature apothecia were first observed after 5 days at 18 degreesC and after 15 days at 6 degreesC. Models were fitted to estimates of the time (days) for 50% of the maximum number of apothecia to develop (t(1); model 1, t(1) = 7.6 + 55.8(0.839)(T)) and the time for 50% of the maximum number of apothecia to decay (t(2); model 2, t(2) = 24.2 + 387(0.730)(T)) at temperatures (T) from 6 to 18 degreesC. An interruption in wetness of the petiole debris for 4 days after 4, 7, or 10 days of wetness delayed the time to observation of the first mature apothecia for approximate to4 days and decreased the number of apothecia produced (by comparison with continuous wetness). A relationship was found between water content of pod debris and electrical resistance measured by a debris-wetness sensor. The differences between values of tl predicted by model 1 and observed values of t(1) were 1 to 9 days. Model 2 did not predict t(2); apothecia decayed more quickly under natural conditions than predicted by model 2.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available