Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:19:51.939Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evalution of Exotic Rust Fungi in the United States for Classical Biological Control of Weeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

William L. Bruckart  and
William M. Dowler
William L. Bruckart
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric-Agric. Res. Serv., Plant Dis. Res. Lab; Fort Detrick, Building 1301; Frederick, MD 21701
William M. Dowler
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric-Agric. Res. Serv., Plant Dis. Res. Lab; Fort Detrick, Building 1301; Frederick, MD 21701
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Evaluation and introduction of exotic plant pathogens for biological control of weeds in the United States takes place at the Plant Disease Research Laboratory (PDRL) in Frederick, MD. Pathogens of target weed species collected overseas are sent to PDRL and evaluated in a containment greenhouse for aggressiveness and specificity toward the target weed. Currently, rust fungi (Uredinales) are evaluated at PDRL for control of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esual L. #4 EPHES), musk thistle [Carduus nutans L. ssp. leiophyllus (Petrovic) Stoj. & Stef. # CRUNU (= C. thoermeri Weinm.)], and yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis L. # CENSO). Determination of host range is central to the evaluation of potential pathogens, but some difficulty has been experienced in obtaining propagative material of important plant species, especially if the plant is threatened or endangered. A proposal is made to organize a seed bank to meet this need.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 34 , Issue S1: Supplement 1: Microbiological Control of Weeds Symposium , 1986 , pp. 11 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 by the 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

1. Andres, L. A. and Goeden, R. D. 1971. The biological control of weeds by introduced natural enemies. Pages 143–164 in Huffaker, C. B., ed. Biological Control. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
2. Charudattan, R. 1982. Regulation of microbial weed control agents. Pages 175–188 in Charudattan, R. and Walker, H. L., eds. Biological Control of Weeds with Plant Pathogens. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
3. Coulson, J. R. and Hagen, J. H. 1983. Biological control programs using natural enemies against insects, weeds and other pests. USDA-ARS. Biological Control Documentation Center. Information Document No. 0006I. 58 pp.Google Scholar
4. Defago, G., Kern, H., Vonmoos, R., and Sedlar, L. 1983. Biological control of Euphorbia weeds: A preliminary study. Page 134. Proc. IV Int. Congr. Plant Pathol., Melbourne, Australia. (Abstr.).Google Scholar
5. DeLoach, C. J. 1976. Considerations in introducing foreign biotic agents to control native weeds of rangelands. Pages 35–50 in Freeman, T. E., ed. Proc. IV Int. Symp. Biol. Control Weeds, Univ. Florida, Gainesville.Google Scholar
6. Foy, C. L., Forney, D. R., and Cooley, W. E. 1983. History of weed introductions. Pages 65–92 in Wilson, C. L. and Graham, C. L., eds. Exotic Plant Pests and North American Agriculture. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
7. Hasan, S. 1980. Plant pathogens and biological control of weeds. Rev. Plant Path. 59:349–356.Google Scholar
8. Kingsolver, C. H., Melching, J. S., and Bromfield, K. R. 1983. The threat of exotic plant pathogens to agriculture in the United States. Plant Dis. 67:595–600.Google Scholar
9. Klingman, D. L. and Coulson, J. R. 1982. Guidelines for introducing foreign organisms into the U.S. for biological control of weeds. Plant Dis. 66:1205–1209.Google Scholar
10. Melching, J. S., Bromfield, K. R., and Kingsolver, C. H. 1983. The plant pathogen containment facility at Frederick, MD. Plant Dis. 67:717–722.Google Scholar
11. Politis, D. J. and Bruckart, W. L. 1983. Host range studies of Puccinia carduorum, a pathogen of Carduus nutans . Phytopathology 73:372 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
12. Politis, D. J. and Bruckart, W. L. 1983. Puccinia carduorum, a potential biocontol agent of musk thistle. Phytopathology 73:822–823 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
13. Politis, D. J., Watson, A. K., and Bruckart, W. L. 1984. Susceptibility of musk thistle and related composites to Puccinia carduorum . Phytopathology 74:687–691.Google Scholar
14. Turner, S. K., Bruckart, W. L., and Fay, P. K. 1983. European rust fungi pathogenic to collections of leafy spurge from the United States. Phytopathology 73: 969 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
15. Urie, A. L., Leninger, L. N., and Zimmer, D. E. 1968. Effects of degree and time of defoliation on yield and related attributes of safflower. Crop Sci. 8:747–750.Google Scholar
16. Wapshere, A. J. 1974. A strategy for evaluating the safety of organisms for biological weed control. Ann. Appl. Biol. 77: 201–211.Google Scholar
17. Wapshere, A. J. 1975. A protocol for programmes for biological control of weeds. PANS 21: 295–303.Google Scholar
18. Wapshere, A. J. 1979. Recent progress in the biological control of weeds. EPPO Bull. 9: 95–105.Google Scholar
19. Watson, A. K. 1976. The biological control of russian knapweed with a nematode. Pages 221–223 in Freeman, T. E., ed. Proc. IV Int. Symp. Biol. Control Weeds, Univ. Florida, Gainesville.Google Scholar
20. Watson, A. K. and Alkhoury, I. 1980. Response of safflower cultivars to Puccinia jaceae collected from diffuse knapweed in eastern Europe. Pages 301–305 in Delfosse, E. S., ed. Proc. V Int. Symp. Biol. Control Weeds, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
21. Zimmer, D. E. and Urie, A. L. 1968. Influence of foliage rust on yield, test weight, and oil percentage of safflower seed. Plant Dis. Rep. 52:876–878.Google Scholar
22. Zwoelfer, H. 1973. Possibilities and limitations in biological control of weeds. EPPO Bull. 3: 19–30.Google Scholar
23. Zwoelfer, H. and Harris, P. 1971. Host specificity determination of insects for biological control of weeds. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 16: 159–178.Google Scholar