4.5 Article

Population Dynamics of Aerial and Terrestrial Populations of Phytophthora ramorum in a California Forest Under Different Climatic Conditions

期刊

PHYTOPATHOLOGY
卷 103, 期 11, 页码 1141-1152

出版社

AMER PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1094/PHYTO-11-12-0290-R

关键词

genetic diversity; genetic structure; multilocus genotypes

资金

  1. SFPUC
  2. USDA Forest Service
  3. Pacific Southwest Research Station
  4. NSF-EID grant [1115607]
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences [1115607] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Division Of Environmental Biology [1115607] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Limited information is available on how soil and leaf populations of the sudden oak death pathogen, Phytophthora ramorum, may differ in their response to changing weather conditions, and their corresponding role in initiating the next disease cycle after unfavorable weather conditions. We sampled and cultured from 425 trees in six sites, three times at the end of a 3-year-long drought and twice during a wet year that followed. Soil was also sampled twice with similar frequency and design used for sampling leaves. Ten microsatellites were used for genetic analyses on cultures from successful isolations. Results demonstrated that incidence of leaf infection tripled at the onset of the first wet period in 3 years in spring 2010, while that of soil populations remained unchanged. Migration of genotypes among sites was low and spatially limited under dry periods but intensity and range of migration of genotypes significantly increased for leaf populations during wet periods. Only leaf genotypes persisted significantly between years, and genotypes present in different substrates distributed differently in soil and leaves. We conclude that epidemics start rapidly at the onset of favorable climatic conditions through highly transmissible leaf genotypes, and that soil populations are transient and may be less epidemiologically relevant than previously thought.

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