Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:07:13.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of plant age, temperature and humidity on virulence of Ascochyta caulina on common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Wendy Seel
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Science, School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, St. Machar Drive, Aberdeen, AB24 3UU, United Kingdom
Mohammad Hassan Rashed
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, P.O. Box 91775-1163, Mashhad, Iran
Carlo Leifert
Affiliation:
Nafferton Ecological Farming Group, School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, University of Newcastle, Nafferton Farm, Stocksfields, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE43 7XD, United Kingdom

Abstract

Common lambsquarters is an important annual weed of many crops world-wide. Ascochyta caulina is a plant pathogenic fungus that, under natural conditions, causes necrotic spots on the leaves and stems of Chenopodium species. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of weed growth stage, relative humidity, dew period, and temperature on the infection of A. caulina isolates against common lambsquarters. In greenhouse experiments, replicated groups of common lambsquarters plants were sprayed with different isolates of A. caulina 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 wk after emergence. Both disease severity and pathogen-induced dry weight reduction decreased with plant age. The efficacy of all isolates tested was reduced by high leaf-to-air vapor-pressure deficit. Disease severity was more responsive to relative humidity than temperature. However, a minimum dew period of 6 h was required to cause significant disease severity in common lambsquarters. Among all tested A. caulina isolates, W90–1 gave the highest disease scores under all conditions, with the exception of temperatures ≤15 C.

Type
Weed Management
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

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

Agrios, G. N. 1997. Plant Pathology. 5th ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pp. 11169.Google Scholar
Bostrom, U., Milberg, P., and Fogelfors, H. 2003. Yield loss in spring-sown cereals related to the weed flora in the spring. Weed Sci 51:418424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyette, C. D. and Abbas, H. K. 1995. Weed control with mycoherbicides and phytotoxins. Pages 280299 in ACS Symposium Series: Allelopathy: Organisms Process and Application. Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. E. and Wilcox, W. F. 2003. Effects of humidity on the development of grapevine powdery mildew. Phytopathology 93:11371144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charudattan, R. 2001. Biological control of weeds by means of plant pathogens: significance for integrated weed management in modern agro-ecology. Biocontrol 46:229260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charudattan, R., Walker, H. L., Boyette, C. D., Ridings, W. H., TeBeest, D. O., VanDyke, C. G., and Worsham, A. D. 1986. Evaluation of Alternaria cassiae as a mycoherbicide, for sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) in regional field tests. Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin 317, Auburn, AL: Alabama Agric. Exp. Sta., Auburn University 19 p.Google Scholar
Conley, S. P., Stoltenberg, D. E., Boerboom, C. M., and Binning, L. K. 2003. Predicting soybean yield loss in giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) and common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) communities. Weed Sci 51:402407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elad, Y. 2000. Biological control of foliar pathogens by means of Trichoderma harzianum and potential modes of action. Crop Prot 19:709714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghorbani, R. 2000. Biological control of weed Amaranthus retroflexus by Alternaria alternata . Ph.D. dissertation. University of Aberdeen, Scotland, U.K. Google Scholar
Ghorbani, R., Scheepens, P. C., Zweerde, W. V. D., Leifert, C., McDonald, J., and Seel, W. 2002. Effects of nitrogen availability and spore concentration on the biocontrol activity of Ascochyta caulina isolates in Chenopodium album . Weed Sci 50:628633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghorbani, R., Seel, W., Litterick, A., and Leifert, C. 2000. Evaluation of Alternaria alternata for biological control of Amaranthus retroflexus L. Weed Sci 48:474480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greaves, M. P., Holloway, P. J., and Auld, B. A. 1999. Formulation of microbial herbicides. Pages 203233 in Burges, H. D. ed. Formulation of Microbial Herbicides, Beneficial Organisms and Nematodes. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Green, S., Bourdot, G. W., and Harvey, R. C. 1995. Limitations of in vitro strain screening methods for the selection of Sclerotinia spp. as potential mycoherbicides against the potential weed Ranunculus acris . Biocontrol Sci. Technol 5:147155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenspan, L. 1977. Humidity fixed points of binary saturated aqueous solutions. J. Res. Natl. Bur. Stand. Phys. Chem 81A:8996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, L. G., Pluchett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. Honolulu, HI: University Press of Hawaii. Pp. 8491.Google Scholar
Honga, T. D., Ellisa, R. H., Gunnb, J., and Mooreb, D. 2002. Relative humidity, temperature, and the equilibrium moisture content of conidia of Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) Vuillemin: a quantitative approach. J. Stored Prod. Res 38:3341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadir, J. B., Charudattan, R. A., and Berger, R. D. 2000. Effects of some epidemiological factors on levels of disease caused by Dactylaria higginsii on Cyprus rotundus . Weed Sci 48:6168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempenaar, C., Hordten, M., and Scheepens, P. C. 1996a. Effects of Ascochyta caulina on photosynthesis of leaves of Chenopodium album . New Phytol 132:453457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kempenaar, C., Hordten, M., and Scheepens, P. C. 1996b. Growth and competitiveness of common Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) after foliar application of Ascochyta caulina as a mycoherbicide. Weed Sci 44:609614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuruppu, P. U. and Schneider, R. W. 2001. Temperature effects on development of aerial blight in soybean. Phytopathology 91:S51.Google Scholar
Lawrie, J., Down, V. M., and Greaves, M. P. 2000. Factors influencing the efficacy of the potential microbial herbicide Alternaria alternata (Fr.) Keissler on Amaranthus retroflexus (L). Biocontrol Sci. Technol 10:8187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mabbayad, M. O. and Watson, A. K. 1995. Biological control of Gooseweed (Sphenoclea zeylanica Gaertn) with an Alternaria . Crop Prod 14:429–423.Google Scholar
Mintz, A. S., Heiny, D. K., and Weidemann, G. J. 1992. Factors influencing the biocontrol of tumble pigweed (Amaranthus albus) with Aposphaeria amaranthi . Plant Dis 7:267269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morin, L., Gianotti, A. F., Barker, R., and Johnston, P. R. 1998. Favourable conditions for the bioherbicide candidate Fusarium tumidum to infect and cause severe disease on gorse (Ulex europaeus) in a controlled environment. Biocontrol Sci. Technol 8:301311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, D. S. and Buck, J. W. 2003. Effects of light, temperature, and leaf wetness duration on daylily rust. Plant Dis 87:442445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Netland, J., Dutton, L. C., Greaves, M. P., Baldwin, M., Vurro, M., Evidente, A., Einhorn, G., Scheepens, P. C., and French, L. W. 2001. Biological control of Chenopodium album L. in Europe. Biocontrol 46:175196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearcy, R. W., Ehleringer, J. R., Mooney, H. A., and Rundel, P. W. 1989. Plant physiological ecology: field methods and instrumentation. London, U.K.: Chapman and Hall. Pp. 430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quimby, P. C., DeLoach, C. J., Wineriter, S. A., Goolsby, J. A., Sobhian, R., Boyette, C. D., and Abbas, H. K. 2003. Biological control of weeds: research by the United States Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service: selected case studies. Pest Manag. Sci 59:671680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quimby, P. C., King, L. R., and Grey, W. E. 2002. Biological control as a means of enhancing the sustainability of crop/land management systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ 88:147152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheepens, P. C. 1979. Bestrijding van onkruiden met micro-organismen. Gewasbescherming 10:113117.Google Scholar
Scheepens, P. C., Kempenaar, C., Andreasen, C., Eggers, T. H., Netland, J., and Vurro, M. 1997. Biological control of the annual weed Chenopodium album, with emphasis on the application of Ascochyta caulina as a microbial herbicide. Integr. Pest Manag. Rev 2:16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, P., Richards, C., Buren, L., and Glasgow, L. 2002. Activity of mesotrione on resistant weeds in maize. Pest Manag. Sci 58:981984.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanderae, H. A. and Vankesteren, H. A. 1979. Some pycnidial fungi occurring on Atriplex and Chenopodium . Persoonia 10:267276.Google Scholar
Walker, H. L. and Boyette, C. D. 1986. Influence of sequential dew periods on biocontrol of Sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) by Alternaria cassiae . Plant Dis 70:962963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, B. M., Bruggen, A. H. C., Subbarao, K. V., and Scherm, H. 2002. Incorporation of temperature and solar radiation thresholds to modify a lettuce downy mildew warning system. Phytopathology 92:631636.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, W. M. and Watson, A. K. 1997. Effect of dew period and temperature on the ability of Exserohilum monoceras to cause seedling mortality of Echinochloa species. Plant Dis 81:629634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, W. M., Moody, K., and Watson, A. K. 1996. Responses of Echinochloa species and rice (Oryza sativa) to indigenous pathogenic fungi. Plant Dis 80:10531058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W. M., Sulz, M., Bailey, K. L., and Cole, D. E. 2002. Effect of epidemiological factors on the impact of the fungus Plectosporium tabacinum on false cleavers (Galium spurium). Biocontrol Sci. Technol 12:183194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimdahl, R. C. 1999. Fundamentals of Weed Science. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pp. 145.Google Scholar