4.4 Article

Ceratocystis fimbriata isolates on Mangifera indica have different levels of aggressiveness

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PLANT PATHOLOGY
卷 145, 期 4, 页码 847-856

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10658-016-0873-2

关键词

Ceratocystis wilt; Pathogenicity; Mango

资金

  1. Vale
  2. CNPq
  3. FAPEMIG

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mango is amongst the most exported fruits worldwide and the mango tree has been cultivated in many countries with tropical and subtropical climates. Currently, Ceratocystis wilt caused by Ceratocystis fimbriata is among the most important diseases on mango tree. Planting of resistant genotypes is the best strategy for disease control. In the selection of resistant plants a highly aggressive isolate should be used in inoculations under controlled conditions. Thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate whether there are differences in aggressiveness among isolates of C. fimbriata obtained from diseased mango trees in Brazil. Before inoculation, five randomly selected isolates were tested for sporulation and mycelial growth in different culture media in order to select the best conditions for inoculum production. Twenty-four isolates from the States of So Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Minas Gerais and Mato Grosso do Sul were inoculated in the susceptible mango cultivar Espada. Subsequently, the four most aggressive isolates were inoculated in other five different mango cultivars. The culture media MEA provided the best levels of sporulation and mycelial growth for four of the five tested isolates. Isolates SEMG1-1 from Minas Gerais and SESP8-3 from So Paulo were the most aggressive. The response of cultivars to the most aggressive isolates tested in the present work varied from highly resistant to highly susceptible, 'Uba' being the most resistant regardless of the isolate tested. These results demonstrate that there are significant differences in aggressiveness among C. fimbriata isolates from mango in Brazil, as well as cultivar Au isolate interaction.

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

4.4
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