4.1 Article

Pathogenicity and epidemiology of Botryosphaeriaceae species isolated from grapevines in Australia

期刊

AUSTRALASIAN PLANT PATHOLOGY
卷 42, 期 5, 页码 573-582

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13313-013-0221-3

关键词

Grapevine trunk disease; Grapevine canker; Dieback; Decline; Botryosphaeria canker; Eutypa; Epidemiology

资金

  1. Winegrowing Futures Program
  2. NWGIC
  3. Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation (GWRDC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Botryosphaeriaceae species are among the most common fungi isolated from grapevine (Vitis vinifera) cankers in Australia. Thirty-eight isolates comprising eight Botryosphaeriaceae species isolated from grapevine cankers throughout New South Wales and South Australia were used in a pathogenicity study on mature wood of 15-year-old Chardonnay grapevines. Experiments showed that all eight species were able to infect grapevines under field conditions causing vascular discoloration and/or staining of the wood (lesions). However, differences in pathogenicity were evident among strains and species (P < 0.001). Neofusicoccum parvum and Lasiodiplodia theobromae were the most pathogenic based on lesion length, followed by Neofusicoccum australe, Botryosphaeria dothidea and Diplodia mutila and thereafter by Dothiorella viticola, Dothiorella iberica and Diplodia seriata, which were the least pathogenic. Growth rates also differed significantly among species depending on temperature (P < 0.001). Lasiodiplodia theobromae and B. dothidea grew optimally between 29 and 30 A degrees C, Diplodia and Neofusicoccum spp. between 25 and 27 A degrees C, and Dothiorella spp. at temperatures between 22 and 24 A degrees C. Temperature-growth relationships correlated well with previous data on the prevalence and distribution of Botryosphaeriaceae species in Australian vineyards. Due to their pathogenicity, prevalence, distribution and tolerance to a wide range of environmental conditions, the Botryosphaeriaceae pose a significant threat to the Australian wine industry.

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

4.1
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