4.5 Article

Dose-dependent mortality of the noble crayfish (Astacus astacus) to different strains of the crayfish plague (Aphanomyces astaci)

期刊

JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY
卷 115, 期 -, 页码 86-91

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jip.2013.10.009

关键词

Genotype; Virulence; Zoospore dosage; Resistance

类别

资金

  1. University of Eastern Finland (Innovative Research Initiative project)
  2. Ministry of Forestry and Agriculture of Finland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several reports of the European crayfish species carrying a latent infection of the crayfish plague (Aphanomyces astaci) have emerged and the discussion has focused especially on the lowered virulence of As-genotypes behind decreased mortality. The aim of this study was to compare the killing rate of different A. astaci strains in controlled infection experiments. Two separate infection experiments with three A. astaci strains (UEFT2B (As), Evira6462/06 (As) and UEF8866-2 (PsI)) were made to compare the noble crayfish populations from the Lake Viitajarvi, Tervo, (Expt I) and the Lake Mikitanjarvi, Hyrynsalmi (Expt II). In the Expt III, the Lake Koivujarvi population noble crayfish were infected with A. astaci strains UEF8866-2 (PsI) and Evira6462/06 (As) using different dosages (1, 10, 100 and 1000 spores ml(-1)) of A. astaci zoospores. The results confirmed that PSI-genotype strain is highly virulent and kills all the crayfish within a few days. The tested two As-genotype strains caused the mortalities more slowly, and part of the challenged crayfish survived until the end of the follow-up period. Our results also confirmed the variance of virulence among A. astaci strains within the As-genotype and demonstrated that the mortality is dependent on the number of zoospores used in the infections. It also appeared, that some noble crayfish populations show increased resistance towards the crayfish plague, especially against the As-genotype of A. astaci. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据