Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:20:26.470Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The action of certain chemical substances on the zoospores of Pseudoperonospora Humuli (Miy. et Takah.) Wils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

W. Goodwin ,
E. S. Salmon  and
W. M. Ware
W. Goodwin
Affiliation:
(South-Eastern Agricultural College, Wye, Kent.)
E. S. Salmon
Affiliation:
(South-Eastern Agricultural College, Wye, Kent.)
W. M. Ware
Affiliation:
(South-Eastern Agricultural College, Wye, Kent.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Both Pseudoperonospora Humuli and Phytophihora infestans are extremely susceptible in the zoospore stage to the action of weak solutions of soap or saponin. The zoospores are caused to disintegrate suddenly, apparently by changes in surface tension, within 60 seconds, in solutions containing over 0·1 per cent, soft soap. Those of P. Humuli are more vulnerable than those of P. infestans.

2. The fungicidal action of soap and saponin mixed with certain adherent substances was tested on hop plants.

3. The power of adhesion and the fungicidal efficiency of the mixtures were tested by allowing single drops to dry on the surface of watch glasses and by then adding drops of water containing zoospores.

4. Other substances, e.g. aluminium-lime mixture, glycerine, iodine, bromine, were also found to kill zoospores rapidly.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , January 1929 , pp. 185 - 200
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1929

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

(1)Arcichovskij, V. and Stom, V.Sui la Désinfection de Graines au moyen du Brome. Ann. Inst. d'Essais de Sentences au Jard. Imp. bot. Pierre le Grand. (1915), 3, pt 2.Google Scholar
(2)Bourcart, E.Insecticides, Fungicides, and Weed Killers (1925), 2nd ed. p. 348.Google Scholar
(3)Delacroix, G. and Maublanc, A.Maladies des Plantes cultivées. Maladies parasitaires (1916), p. 109.Google Scholar
(4)Granlund, R.Möllers Deutsche Gärtnerzeitung (1923), 38, 110. Reference in Mitteil. Biol. Reichsanst. f. Land- u. Forstwirtsch. (July, 1925), 26, 51.Google Scholar
(5)Istvánffi, G. de and Pálinkás, G.Études sur le Mildiou de la Vigne. Ann. Inst. Centr. Ampélologique Roy. Hongr. (1913), 4, 69.Google Scholar
(6)Kelsall, A.The Use of Aluminium Sulphate in Place of Copper Sulphate in Insecticide-fungicide Combinations. Acadian Ent. Soc. Proc. (1922), 8, 8–17. Abstr. in Ezper. Sta. Rec. (1924), 51, 55.Google Scholar
(7)Kotte, W.Laboratoriumsversuche zur Chemotherapie der Peronosporakrankheit. Centr. f. Bakt., etc. (1924), Abt. 2, 61, 367–378.Google Scholar
(8)Lindfors, T.Centralsanst. för Jordbruksförsök. Flygblad (1925), 107. Abstr. in Rev. App. Myc. (1926), 5, 236.Google Scholar
(9)Millardet, and Gayon, U.De l'Action du Mélange de Sulfate de Cuivre et de Chaux sur le Mildew. Compt. rend. (1885), 101, 929–932.Google Scholar
(10)Overton, . Microtechnische Mitteilungen aus dem botanischen Laboratorium der Universitat Zurich. Z. wiss. Mikrosk. (1890), 7, 9–16.Google Scholar
(11)Owen, O. The Action of some Chemical Agents on Colletotrichum tabificum. Eleventh Annual Report, Experimental and Research Station, Cheshunt (1925), pp. 116–118.Google Scholar
(11 bis)Pringsheim, E. G.Vergleichende Untersuchungen öber Saatgutdesinfektion. Angew. Bot. (1928), 10, 208’279.Google Scholar
(12)Sayre, J. D. and Thomas, R. C.New Dust Treatments for Oats Smuts. Science (1927), N.S. 66, 398. Abstr. in Rev. App. Myc. (1928), 7, 159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(13)Schmidt, E. W.Die fungizide Wirkung von Seifenlösungen. Ber. Deut. bot. Ges. (1924), 42, S. 131–135.Google Scholar
(14)Wüthrich, E.Ueber die Einwirkung von Metallsalzen und Säuren auf die Keimfähigkeit der Sporen einiger der verbreitetsten parasitischen Pilze unserer Kulturpflanzen. Z. Pflanzenkr. (1892), 2, 16–31, 81–94.Google Scholar