4.7 Article

Factors affecting concentrations of airborne conidia of Oidium sp among poinsettias in a greenhouse

Journal

PLANT DISEASE
Volume 84, Issue 10, Pages 1089-1095

Publisher

AMER PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1094/PDIS.2000.84.10.1089

Keywords

powdery mildew

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Atmospheric concentrations of Oidium sp. conidia in two research greenhouses containing infected poinsettias were monitored to investigate the role of environment in prompting conidial release and dissemination. Hourly concentrations of conidia of Oidium sp. were estimated using a Burkard volumetric spore sampler. The influence of temperature on disease development was studied by placing healthy poinsettias in each greenhouse for 7-day periods, removing them, and recording the days to the appearance of the first colony. When averaged over 5 December to 1 June, atmospheric conidial concentrations in greenhouse (GH) 2 were greatest during 1000 to 1800 hours with a peak (325 conidia/m(3)h) occurring at 1200 hours. In GH 11, peak concentrations occurred at 1300 hours (65 conidia/m(3)/h) and 1600 hours (75 conidia/m3/h). Large numbers of conidia were sampled (greater than or equal to 100/m(3)) within I-h periods, indicating conidial release events (CREs). Fluctuations in relative humidity (RH) (either positive or negative) prompted CREs. In both greenhouses, the highest number of CREs (up to 23) occurred following RH fluctuations of 5 to 15%. Watering resulted in an immediate increase (less than or equal to 25%) followed by a rapid decrease in RH (less than or equal to 32%) beginning 1 to 2 h later. In GH 2 and GH 11, 89 and 48%, respectively, of the CREs occurred within 3 h following greenhouse watering. When greenhouse temperatures exceeded 25 degrees C for 21 days in May (GH 2) and 19 days in March (GH 11), atmospheric conidial concentrations were reduced 80 and 75% from the previous months, respectively.

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