Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:06:36.569Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On forms of the hop (Humulus lupulus L.) resistant to mildew (Sphaerotheca humuli (DC.) Burr.).

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

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

Extract

In certain seasons very severe losses are caused to the hop-crop by the depredations of the mildew Sphaerotheca Humuli (DC.) Burr. Among hop-growers in England this mildew is commonly spoken of as “mould” when it occurs on the leaves or the female inflorescences (“burr”) of the hop-plant, and as “red mould” when it attacks the stipular bracts and bracteoles of the strobiles (“hops”) (1).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , December 1917 , pp. 455 - 460
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1917

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

LITERATURE CITED

1.Hammoňd, W. H.On Red Mould in Hops. Journ. S. E. Agric. Coll., Wye, IX, 19, 1900.Google Scholar
2.Blodgett, F. M. Hop Mildew. Bull. 328, Cornell Univ. Agric. Exper. Station, 1913.Google Scholar
3.Blodgett, F. M. Further Studies on the Spread and Control of Hop Mildew. Bull. 395, N. Y. Agric. Exper. Station, 1915.Google Scholar
4.Salmon, E. S.Notes on the Hop Mildew. Journ. Agric. Science, II, 327, 1907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Salmon, E. S.A Monograph of the Erysiphaceae. Mem. Torrey Bot. Club, IX, 49, 1900.Google Scholar
6.Salmon, E. S.Supplementary Notes on the Erysiphaceae. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club, XXIX, 87, 1902.Google Scholar
7.Salmon, E. S.The Erysiphaceae of Japan. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club, XXVII, 437, 1900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Salmon, E. S.The Erysiphaceae of Japan, II. Annal. Mycolog., III, 252, 1905.Google Scholar
9.Salmon, E. S.Cultural Experiments with the Barley Mildew, Erysiphe Graminis DC. Annal. Mycolog., II, 70, 1904.Google Scholar
10.Eyre, J. Vargas and Salmon, E. S.The Fungieidal Properties of certain Spray Fluids. Journ. Agric. Science, VII, 477, 1916.Google Scholar
11.Neger, F. W.Beiträge zur Biologie der Erysipheen. Flora, XC, 245, 1902.Google Scholar
12.Biffen, R. H.Studies in the Inheritance of Disease-Resistance. Journ. Agric. Science, II, 109, 1907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Reed, G. M.Infection-experiments with the Powdery Mildew of Wheat. Phytopathology, II, 81, 1912.Google Scholar
14.Wawilow, N.Beiträge zur Frage über die verschiedene Widerstandsfähigkeit der Getreide gegen parasitische Pilze. Arb. d. Versuchsst. f. Pflanzenz. Moskau. landwirtsch. Inst., Folge 1, 1913.Google Scholar
15.Hennings, P.Fungi japonici. Engler’s Bot. Jahrb., XXVIII, 271, 1900.Google Scholar