4.3 Article

Resin Flow, Symptom Development, and Lignin Biosynthesis of Two Pine Species in Response to Wounding and Inoculation with Fusarium circinatum

期刊

PLANT PATHOLOGY JOURNAL
卷 26, 期 4, 页码 394-401

出版社

KOREAN SOC PLANT PATHOLOGY
DOI: 10.5423/PPJ.2010.26.4.394

关键词

Fusarium circinatum; inoculation; lignin; pitch canker; resin; wound

资金

  1. Korea Forest Service [S210608L 0101704C]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Resin flow, symptom development, and lignin biosynthesis in response to wounding and fungal inoculation were investigated in Pinus rigida and Pinus densiflora. The two-year-old seedling stems were subjected to three types of treatments: (i) wounding without inoculation, (ii) wound-inoculation with a conidial suspension of Fusarium circinatum, and (iii) pre-wounding wound-inoculation with the fungus 20 days after the initial wounding. Resin flow from wounding sites was more evident in R rigida than R densiflora in all treatments. The wound-inoculation with the fungus induced almost two-fold higher levels of resin flow than the other treatments in both species. The pre-wounding wound-inoculation appeared to result in a decrease in pitch canker development in the two pine species. Some reductions in disease severity were observed in the pre-wounding wound-inoculated P rigida, showing a mean disease severity of less than 85%, compared with approximately 100% in the wound-inoculated stems. Disease severity was approximately 50% in the wound-inoculated P densiflora, whereas 10% in the pre-wounding wound-inoculated stems. Higher amounts of lignin were found from bark (ca. 40%) than from xylem (ca. 30%). The wound-inoculated bark and the pre-wounding wound-inoculated bark exhibited higher amounts of lignin among the other treatments. These results suggest that the wound-inoculation apparently prompt the increase in resin flow and lignin biosynthesis from the two pine species, and the prior wounding may be involved in decreased disease severity against the further invasion of E circinatum.

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

4.3
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