4.2 Article

Analysis of the species spectrum of the Diaporthe/Phomopsis complex in European soybean seeds

期刊

MYCOLOGICAL PROGRESS
卷 19, 期 5, 页码 455-469

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11557-020-01570-y

关键词

Diaporthaceae; Molecular phylogeny; Morphological characteristics; Seed decay

类别

资金

  1. Projekt DEAL
  2. Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and Food Security Center (FSC) of University of Hohenheim

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phytopathogenic fungal species of the Diaporthe/Phomopsis complex (DPC) are associated with three highly destructive diseases on soybean: seed decay, pod and stem blight, and stem canker. They are responsible for poor seed quality and significant yield reduction in most soybean-producing areas. Precise identification and classification of DPC species are important in understanding the epidemiology of disease and to develop effective control measures. Although cultural and morphological characteristics of DPC-associated pathogens have been described, establishing a more accurate taxonomic framework seems necessary for a revaluation of the taxonomy and phylogeny of DPC species. In this study, we focused on morphological and molecular analyses of species from DPC-damaged European soybean seeds obtained from several locations throughout Europe. Colony characteristics, conidia dimensions, existence of alpha- and beta-conidia, and formation of perithecia were evaluated in order to assign the isolates to a species morphologically. Phylogenetic relationships were determined based on sequences from beta-tubulin (TUB), translation elongation factor 1-alpha (TEF1), and nuclear ribosomal DNA internal transcribed spacers (ITS). All isolates were tested for pathogenicity on soybean with positive results. In this study, we present updated taxonomic data by combining morphological observations and molecular tools which placed 32 Diaporthe isolates into four DPC species: D. longicolla, D. caulivora, D. eres, and D. novem, which are well-known soybean pathogens.

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

4.2
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