4.7 Article

Botryosphaeriaceae Fungi as Causal Agents of Dieback and Corky Bark in Rambutan and Longan

期刊

PLANT DISEASE
卷 104, 期 1, 页码 105-115

出版社

AMER PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1094/PDIS-02-19-0295-RE

关键词

fruit; fungi; pathogen detection; pathogen diversity; tree fruit; tropical plants

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fungi in the Botryosphaeriaceae family cause dieback, fruit rots, and stem cankers in many tropical fruit trees. To identify which species of Botryosphaeriaceae were present in tropical fruit in Puerto Rico and the symptoms they cause in rambutan and longan, a disease survey was conducted throughout the island from 2008 to 2016. Diseased organs of rambutan, longan, mango, and tangerine were collected and 39 isolates belonging to the Botryosphaeriaceae family were isolated and identified. Phylogenetic analysis of three nuclear genes identified nine species: six Lasiodiplodia spp. and three Neofusicoccum spp. All 39 isolates were inoculated on healthy 1-year-old rambutan and longan seedlings to confirm their pathogenicity. Dieback on both rambutan and longan was observed at 14 days after inoculation (DAI). Fourteen isolates from seven Botryosphaeriaceae species (Lasiodiplodia brasiliensis, L. hormozganensis, L. iraniensis, L. pseudotheobromae, L. theobromae, Neofusicoccum batangarum, and N. parvum) caused dieback in rambutan. Five of these pathogenic isolates were collected from rambutan, four from longan, two from mango, and three from tangerine. Ten isolates of four Lasiodiplodia spp. caused dieback in longan: L. hormozganensis, L. iraniensis, L. pseudotheobromae and L. theobromae,. Of these, three were collected from rambutan, three from longan, one from mango, and three from tangerine. Abundant development of pycnidia on branches, called corky bark, were observed on both rambutan and longan 60 DAI. Cross-inoculations showed that pathogenicity is wide in spectrum, indicating that different planting alternatives should be considered for better crop management.

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

4.7
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