4.5 Article

Postdispersal Infection and Disease Development of Pyrenophora semeniperda in Bromus tectorum Seeds

期刊

PHYTOPATHOLOGY
卷 106, 期 3, 页码 236-243

出版社

AMER PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1094/PHYTO-09-15-0229-R

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Agriculture [JFSP-2011-S-2-6]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Ascomycete fungus, Pyrenophora semeniperda, attacks a broad range of cool-season grasses. While leaf and predispersal infection of seeds (i.e., florets containing caryopses) have been previously characterized, little is known about the pathogenesis of mature seeds following dispersal. In this study, we examined infection and disease development of P. semeniperda on dormant seeds of Bromus tectorum. Inoculated seeds were hydrated at 20 degrees C for up to 28 days. Disease development was characterized using scanning electron and light microscopy. P. semeniperda conidia germinated on the seed surface within 5 to 8 h. Hyphae grew on the seed surface and produced extracellular mucilage that eventually covered the seed. Appressoria formed on the ends of hyphae and penetrated through the lemma and palea, stomatal openings, and broken trichomes. The fungus then catabolized the endosperm, resulting in a visible cavity by 8 days. Pathogenesis of the embryo was associated with progressive loss of cell integrity and proliferation of mycelium. Beginning at approximately day 11, one to several stromata (approximately 150 gm in diameter and up to 4 mm in length) emerged through the lemma and palea. Degradation of embryo tissue was completed near 14 days. Conidiophores produced conidia between 21 and 28 days and often exhibited Y-shaped branching. This characterization of disease development corrects previous reports which concluded that P. semeniperda is only a weak seed pathogen with infection limited to the outermost seed tissues. In addition, the time required for disease development explains why infected dormant or slow-germinating seeds are most likely to experience mortality.

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