4.5 Article

Characteristics and distribution of Colletotrichum species in coffee plantations in Hainan, China

期刊

PLANT PATHOLOGY
卷 68, 期 6, 页码 1146-1156

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ppa.13028

关键词

coffee; Colletotrichum species; morphological analysis; multilocus phylogenetic analysis; pathogenicity

资金

  1. National KeyResearch and Development Program of China [2018YFD0201100]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Anthracnose caused by Colletotrichum species is a serious disease on a range of economically important hosts. To determine the Colletotrichum species in coffee plantations in Hainan, China, 55 isolates were obtained from Coffea arabica (arabica) and C. canephora var. robusta (robusta) in five counties. Initially, partial sequences of glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH) were used to measure fungal genetic diversity. Then a subset of 23 isolates was selected to represent the range of genetic diversity, varieties and geographic origin for further multilocus phylogenetic analyses. These isolates belong to eight known Colletotrichum species from three Colletotrichum species complexes, including gloeosporioides (C. endophytica, C. fructicola, C. ledongense, C. siamense and C. tropicale), boninense (C. karstii), gigasporum (C. gigasporum), and one singleton species (C. brevisporum). Of these, C. siamense was isolated in all sampled counties and C. fructicola was identified in three counties. The other six species were isolated only in one or two counties. Only C. siamense and C. fructicola were isolated from arabica, whereas all eight species were isolated from robusta. Occurrence of C. brevisporum, C. endophytica, C. ledongense and C. tropicale in coffee has not been reported previously. Pathogenicity tests showed that all eight species were pathogenic to coffee leaves and fruit. In vitro tests showed that Colletotrichum isolates from coffee in Hainan were most sensitive to prochloraz, less sensitive to carbendazim, propiconazole and difenoconazole, and least sensitive to myclobutanil.

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