Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T11:09:29.581Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biology of Host Range Testing for Biocontrol of Weeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Gregory J. Weidemann  and
David O. Tebeest
Gregory J. Weidemann
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Pathol., Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
David O. Tebeest
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Pathol., Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The determination of host range is an important component in developing a plant pathogen for use as a bioherbicide. The safety of non-target economic and wild plants must be assured before experimental release and commercial use. In contrast to other methods of weed control, the genetic variability and genetic stability of both the weed and the biological control agent must be considered. Schemes to determine host range generally assume a close phylogenetic relationship between the weed host and its co-evolved pathogens. Therefore, testing generally is based on inoculation of genetically related plant species and progresses to more distantly related species until the host range is circumscribed. Several potential weaknesses in these schemes will be illustrated with examples using specific biological control agents. Future tests must place greater emphasis on testing taxa representing the full range of genetic diversity within the biogeographic area of intended use.

Keywords

Biological controlmycoherbicide
Type
Feature
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , September 1990 , pp. 465 - 470
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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. Barrett, S.C.H. 1982. Genetic variation in weeds. p. 73–98 in Charudattan, R. and Walker, H. L., eds. Biological Control of Weeds with Plant Pathogens. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
2. Baum, B. R., and Savile, D.B.O. 1985. Rusts (Uredinales) of Triticeae: Evolution and extent of coevolution, a cladistic analysis. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 91:367–394.Google Scholar
3. Brian, P. W. 1976. The phenomenon of specificity in plant disease. p. 15–22 in Wood, R.K.S. and Granti, A., eds. Specificity in Plant Diseases. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Burdon, J. J. 1982. The effect of fungal pathogens on plant communities. p. 99–112 in Newman, E. I., ed. The Plant Community as a Working Mechanism. Blackwell Sci. Publ., Oxford, England.Google Scholar
5. Burdon, J. J., and Marshall, D. R. 1981. Biological control and the reproductive mode of weeds. J. Appl. Ecol. 18:649–658.Google Scholar
6. Burdon, J. J., and Roelfs, A. P. 1985. Isozyme and virulence variation in asexually reproducing populations of Puccinia graminis and P. recondita on wheat. Phytopathology 75:907–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Burdon, J. J., and Shattock, R. C. 1980. Disease in plant communities. p. 145–219 in Coaker, T. H., ed. Appl. Biol., Vol. V. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
8. Burdon, J. J., Groves, R. H., and Cullen, J. M. 1981. The impact of biological control on the distribution and abundance of Chondrilla juncea in southeastern Australia. J. Appl. Ecol. 18:957–966.Google Scholar
9. Burnett, J. H. 1975. Mycogenetics. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
10. Caten, C. E. 1981. Parasexual processes in fungi. p. 191–214 in Gulland, K. and Oliver, S. G., eds. The Fungal Nucleus. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
11. Charudattan, R. 1990. Release of fungi: large-scale use of fungi as biological weed control agents in Marois, J. and Browning, A., eds. Risk Assessment in Agricultural Biotechnology. (In press).Google Scholar
12. Chilvers, G. A., and Brittain, E. G. 1972. Plant competition mediated by host-specific parasites–a simple model. Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 25:749–756.Google Scholar
13. Daniel, J. T., Templeton, G. E., Smith, R. J. Jr., and Fox, W. T. 1973. Biological control of northern jointvetch in rice with an endemic fungal disease. Weed Sci. 21:303–307.Google Scholar
14. Dinoor, A., and Eshed, N. 1984. The role and importance of pathogens in natural plant communities. Ann. Rev. Phytopathol. 22:443–466.Google Scholar
15. Dinoor, A., and Eshed, N. 1987. The analysis of host and pathogen populations in natural ecosystems. p. 75–88 in Wolfe, M. S. and Caten, C. E., eds. Populations of Plant Pathogens: Their Dynamics and Genetics. Blackwell Sci. Publ., Oxford.Google Scholar
16. Emge, R. G., Melching, J. S., and Kingsolver, C. H. 1981. Epidemiology of Pucinnia chondrillina, a rust pathogen for the biological control of rush skeletonweed in the United States. Phytopathology 71:839–843.Google Scholar
17. Eshed, N., and Dinoor, A. 1980. Genetics of pathogenicity in Puccinia coronata: pathogenic specialization at the host genus level. Phytopathology 70:1042:1046.Google Scholar
18. Harris, P., and Zwolfer, H. 1968. Screening of phytophagous insects for biological control of weeds. Can. Entomol. 100:295–303.Google Scholar
19. Hasan, S. 1972. Specificity and host specialization of Puccinia chondrillina . Ann. Appl. Biol. 72:257–263.Google Scholar
20. Huffaker, C. B. 1962. Some concepts on the ecological basis of biological control of weeds. Can. Entomol. 94:507–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Hull, V. J., and Groves, R. H. 1973. Variation in Chondrilla juncea L. in southeastern Australia. Aust. J. Bot. 21:113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Keen, N. T., and Staskawicz, B. 1988. Host range determinants in plant pathogens and symbionts. Ann. Rev. Microbiol. 42:421–440.Google Scholar
23. Kirkpatrick, T. L., Templeton, G. E., TeBeest, D. O., and Smith, R. J. Jr. 1982. Potential of Colletotrichum malvarum for biological control of prickly sida. Plant Dis. 66:323–325.Google Scholar
24. LeBaron, H. M., and Gressel, J. 1982. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
25. Leonard, K. J. 1982. The benefits and potential hazards of genetic heterogeneity in plant pathogens, p. 99–112 in Charudattan, R. and Walker, H. L., eds. Biological Control of Weeds with Plant Pathogens. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
26. Levin, D. A. 1975. Pest pressure and recombination systems in plants. Am. Nat. 109:437–451.Google Scholar
27. McVean, D. N. 1966. Ecology of Chondrilla juncea L. in South-eastern Australia. J. Ecol. 54:345.Google Scholar
28. Polhill, R. M., and Raven, P. H. 1981. Advances in Legume Systematics Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Surrey, England.Google Scholar
29. 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
30. Schroeder, D. 1983. Biological control of weeds. p. 47–78 in Fletcher, W. W., ed. Recent Advances in Weed Research. Comm. Agric. Bur. Kew, Surrey, England.Google Scholar
31. Tanksley, S. D., and Orton, T. J. 1983. Isozymes in Plant Genetics and Breeding, Part A. Elsevier Sci. Publ., Amsterdam.Google Scholar
32. TeBeest, D. O. 1988. Additions to the host range of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides g. sp. aeschynomene . Plant Dis. 72:16–18.Google Scholar
33. Templeton, G. E., TeBeest, D. O., and Smith, R. J. Jr. 1984. Biological weed control in rice with a strain of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (Penz.) Sacc. used as a mycoherbicide. Crop Prot. 3:409–422.Google Scholar
34. Templeton, G. E., and Weidemann, G. J. 1986. Biological Weed control p. 99–109 in Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science, 3rd Ed. South. Weed. Sci. Soc., Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
35. Turgeon, G., and Yoder, O. C. 1985. Genetically engineered fungi for weed control. p. 221–230 in Cheremisinoff, P. N. and Onellete, R. P., eds. Biotechnology: Applications and Research. Technomic Publ. Co., Lancaster, PA.Google Scholar
36. Wapshere, A. J. 1973. A comparison of strategies for screening biological control organisms for weeds. p. 151–158 in Dunn, P. H., ed. Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. Biol. Control Weeds. Comm. Agric. Bur., Kew, Surrey, England.Google Scholar
37. Wapshere, A. J. 1974. A strategy for evaluating the safety of organisms for biological weed control. Ann. Appl. Biol. 77:210–211.Google Scholar
38. Wapshere, A. J. 1982. Biological control of weeds. p. 47–56 in Holzner, W. and Numata, N., eds. Biology and Ecology of Weeds. W. Junk Publ., Hague.Google Scholar
39. Wapshere, A. J. 1983. Problems in the use of plant biochemistry for establishing the safety of biological control agents for weeds: The Chondrilla and Echium/Heliotropium cases. Entomophaga 28:287–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40. Watson, A. K. 1984. Host specificity of plant pathogens in biological weed control. p. 577–586 in Delfosse, E. S., ed. Proc. VI Int. Symp. Biol. Control Weeds. Agric. Can., Can. Gov. Publ. Cent, Ottawa.Google Scholar
41. Weidemann, G. J., TeBeest, D. O., and Cartwright, R. D. 1988. Host specificity of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides f. sp. aeschynomene and C. truncatum in the Leguminosae. Phytopathology 78:986–990.Google Scholar