External symptoms and histopathological changes following inoculation of elms putatively resistant to Dutch elm disease with genetically close strains of Ophiostoma

Canadian Journal of Botany

Volumn 83, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 656-667

  Et Touil, Abdelali ^a   Rioux, Danny ^b   Mathieu, Fabienne M ^b   Bernier, Louis ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL   (Canada)

^b LAURENTIAN FORESTRY CENTRE   (Canada)

Author keywords

Dutch elm disease; Histopathology; Vascular wilt

Indexed keywords

CLONING; DISEASES; PATHOLOGY;

BARRIER ZONES; DUTCH ELM DISEASE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; VASCULAR WILT;

PLANTS (BOTANY);

DISEASE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; INOCULATION; WILT;

CLONES; DISEASES; PATHOLOGY; PLANTS;

OPHIOSTOMA; OPHIOSTOMA NOVO-ULMI; OPHIOSTOMA ULMI; ULMACEAE; ULMUS; ULMUS AMERICANA; ULMUS PARVIFOLIA;

EID: 26244439473     PISSN: 00084026     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/b05-037     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (48)

1. Banfield, W.M. 1968. Dutch elm disease recurrence and recovery in American elm. Phytopathol. Z. 62: 21-60.
2. Benhamou, N., Lafontaine, J.G., Joly, J.R., and Ouellette, G.B. 1985. Ultrastructural localization in host tissues of a toxic glycopeptide produced by Ophiostoma ulmi, using monoclonal antibodies. Can. J. Bot. 63: 1185-1195.
3. Bernier, L., and Hubbes, M. 1990. Mutations in Ophiostoma ulmi induced by N-methyl-N′-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine. Can. J. Bot. 68: 225-231.
4. Biggs, A.R. 1984. Interacellular suberin: occurrence and detection in tree bark. IAWA (Int. Assoc. Wood Anat.) Bull. 5: 243-246.
5. Boddy, L. 1992. Microenvironmental aspects of xylem defenses to wood decay fungi. In Defense mechanisms of woody plants against fungi. Edited by R.A. Blanchette and A.R. Biggs. Springer Verlag, Berlin. pp. 96-132.
6. Brasier, C.M. 1987. Recent genetic changes in the Ophiostoma ulmi populations: the threat to the future of the elm. In Populations of plant pathogens: their dynamics and genetics. Edited by M.S. Wolfe and C.E. Caten. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, UK. pp. 213-226.
7. Brasier, C.M. 1991. Ophiostoma novo-ulmi sp. nov., causative agent of the current Dutch elm disease pandemics. Mycopathologia, 115: 151-161.
8. Brasier, C.M., and Kirk, S.A. 2001. Designation of the EAN and NAN races of Ophiostoma novo-ulmi as subspecies. Mycol. Res. 105: 547-554.
9. Brasier, C.M., Kirk, S.A., Pipe, N., and Buck, K.W. 1998. Rare interspecific hybrids in natural populations of the Dutch elm disease pathogens Ophiostoma ulmi and O. novo-ulmi. Mycol. Res. 102: 45-57.
10. Campana, R.J., and Stipes, R.J. 1981. Dutch elm disease in North America with particular reference to Canada: success or failure of conventional control methods. Can. J. Plant. Pathol. 3: 252-259.
11. Elgersma, D.M. 1970. Length and diameter of xylem vessels as factors in resistance of elms to Ceratocystis ulmi. Neth. J Plant Pathol. 76: 179-182.
12. Ellmore, G.S., and Ewers, F.W. 1985. Hydraulic conductivity in trunk xylem of elm, Ulmus americana. IAWA (Int. Assoc. Wood Anat.) Bull. 6: 303-307.
13. Et-Touil, A, Brasier, C.M., and Bernier, L. 1999. Localization of a pathogenicity gene in Ophiostoma novo-ulmi and evidence that it may be introgressed from O. ulmi. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 12: 6-15.
14. Fernandez, M.R., and Heath, M.C. 1986. Cytological responses induced by five phytopathogenic fungi in a nonhost plant, Phaseolus vulgaris. Can. J. Bot. 64: 648-657.
15. Gibbs, J.N., Houston, D.R., and Smalley, E.B. 1979. Aggressive and non-aggressive strains of Ceratocystis ulmi in North America. Phytopathology, 69: 1215-1219.
16. Hawkins, S., and Boudet, A. 1996. Wound-induced lignin and suberin deposition in a woody angiosperm (Eucalyptus gunnii Hook.): histochemistry of early changes in young plants. Protoplasma, 191: 96-104.
17. Heybroek, H.M. 1983. Resistant elms for Europe. In Research on Dutch elm disease in Europe. Edited by D.A. Burdekin. London. pp. 108-113.
18. Karnosky, D.F. 1979. Dutch elm disease: a review of the history, environmental implications, control, and research needs. Environ. Conserv. 6: 311-322.
19. Knox, J.P., Linstead, P.J., King, J., Copper, C., and Roberts, K. 1990. Pectin esterification is spatially regulated both within cell walls and between developing tissues of root apices. Planta, 181: 512-521.
20. Lester, D.T., and Smalley, E.B. 1972a. Response of Ulmus pumila and U. pumilia x rubra hybrids to inoculation with Ceratocystis ulmi. Phytopathology, 62: 848-852.
21. Lester, D.T., and Smalley, E.B. 1972b. Variation in ornamental traits and disease resistance among crosses of Ulmus pumila, U. rubra and putative natural hybrids. Silvae Genet. 21: 193-197.
22. Mittempergher, L., and Santini, A. 2004. The history of elm breeding. In New approaches to elm conservation. Edited by L. Gil, A. Solla, and G.B. Ouellette. Invest. Agrar. Sist. Recur. For. 13: 161-177.
23. Ouellette, G.B., and Rioux, D. 1992. Anatomical and physiological aspects of resistance to Dutch elm disease. In Defense mechanisms of woody plants against fungi. Edited by R.A. Blanchette and A.R. Biggs. Springer Verlag, Berlin. pp. 257-308.
24. Pijut, P.M., Lineberger, D., Domir, S.C., Ichida, J.M., and Krause, C.R. 1990. Ultrastructure of cells of Ulmus americana cultured in vitro and exposed to the culture filtrate of Ceratocystis ulmi. Phytopathology, 80: 764-767.
25. Pomerleau, R. 1965. The period of susceptibility of Ulmus americana to Ceratocystis ulmi under conditions prevailing in Quebec. Can. J. Bot. 43: 787-792.
26. Reynolds, E.S. 1963. The use of lead citrate at high pH as an electron-opaque stain in electron microscopy. J. Cell Biol. 17: 208-212.
27. Rioux, D. 1996. Compartmentalization in trees: new finding during the study of Dutch elm disease. In Histology, ultrastructure and molecular cytology of plant-microorganism interactions. Edited by M. Nicole and V. Gianinazzi-Pearson. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands. pp. 211-225.
28. Rioux, D., and Ouellette, G.B. 1989. Light microscope observations of histological changes induced by Ophiostoma ulmi in various nonhost trees and shrubs. Can. J. Bot. 67: 2335-2351.
29. Rioux, D., and Ouellette, G.B. 1991a. Barrier zone formation in host and nonhost trees inoculated with Ophiostoma ulmi. I. Anatomy and histochemistry. Can. J. Bot. 69: 2055-2073.
30. Rioux, D., and Ouellette, G.B. 1991b. Barrier zone formation in host and nonhost trees inoculated with Ophiostoma ulmi. II. Ultrastructure. Can. J. Bot. 69: 2074-2083.
31. Rioux, D., Nicole, M., Simard, M., and Ouellette, G.B. 1998. Immunocytochemical evidence that secretion of pectin occurs during gel (gum) and tylosis formation in trees. Phytopathology, 88: 494-505.
32. Santamour, F.S. 1974. Resistance of new elm hybrids to Dutch elm disease Plant Dis. Rep. 58: 727-730.
33. Shigo, A.L., and Marx, H.G. 1977. Compartmentalization of decay in trees. USDA For. Serv. Bull. 405.
34. Shigo, A.L., and Tippett, J.T. 1981. Compartmentalization of American elm tissues infected by Ceratocystis ulmi. Plant Dis. 65: 715-718.
35. Sinclair, W.A. 1978. Control strategies. In Dutch elm disease, perspectives after 60 years. Edited by W.A. Sinclair and R.J. Campana. Search Agric. 8(5): 6-8.
36. Sinclair, W.A., Zahand, J.P., Melching, J.B. 1975. Anatomical marker for resistance of Ulmus americana to Ceratocystis ulmi. Phytopathology, 65: 349-352
37. Smalley, E.B., and Guries, R.P. 1993. Breeding elms for resistance to Dutch elm disease. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 31: 325-352.
38. Smalley, E.B., Guries, R.P., and Lester, D.T. 1993. American liberty elms and beyond: going from the impossible to the difficult. In Dutch elm disease research. Cellular and molecular approaches. Edited by M.B. Sticklen and J.L. Sherald. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. pp. 26-45.
39. Solla, A., and Gil, L. 2002. Xylem vessel diameter as a factor in resistance of Ulmus minor to Ophiostoma novo-ulmi. For. Pathol. 32: 123-134.
40. Sticklen, M.B., Bolyard, M.G., Hajela, R.K., and Duchesne, L.C. 1991. Molecular and cellular aspects of Dutch elm disease. Phytoprotection, 72: 1-13.
41. Sutherland, M.L., Pearson, S, and Brasier, C.M. 1997. The influence of temperature and light on defoliation levels of elm by Dutch elm disease. Phytopathology, 87: 576-581.
42. Svaldi, R., and Elgersma, D.M. 1982. Further studies on the activity of cell wall degrading enzymes of aggressive and non-aggressive isolates of Ophiostoma ulmi. Eur. J. Forest Pathol. 12: 29-36.
43. Takai, S. 1980. Relationships of the production of the toxin, cerato-ulmin, to synnemata formation, pathogenicity, mycelial habit and growth of Ceratocystis ulmi isolates. Can. J.Bot. 58: 658-662.
44. Townsend, A.M., and Santamour, F.S., Jr. 1993. Progress in the development of disease-resistant elms. Nature (London), 13: 46-50.
45. Townsend, A.M., and Schreiber, L.R. 1976. Resistance of hybrid elm progenies to Ceratocystis ulmi. Phytopathology, 66: 1107-1110.
46. Tyree, M.T., and Sperry, J.S. 1989. Characterization and propagation of acoustic emission signals in woody plants: towards an improved acoustic emission counter. Plant Cell Environ. 12: 371-382.
47. Vance, C.P., Kirk, T.K., and Sherwood, R.T. 1980. Lignification as a mechanism of disease resistance. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 18: 259-288.
48. Zimmermann, M.H., and McDonough, J. 1978. Dysfunction in the flow of food. In Plant disease - an advanced treatise. Vol. III. How plants suffer from disease. Edited by J.G. Horsfall and E.D. Cowling. Academic Press, New York. pp. 117-140.