American elm cultivars: Variation in compartmentalization of infection by Ophiostoma novo-ulmi and its effects on hydraulic conductivity

Forest Pathology

Volumn 47, Issue 6, 2017, Pages

  Beier, G L ^a   Held, B W ^a   Giblin, C P ^a   Cavender Bares, J ^a   Blanchette, R A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPARTMENTALIZATION; CULTIVAR; DECIDUOUS TREE; DISEASE RESISTANCE; DISEASE SEVERITY; DISEASE TRANSMISSION; FUNGAL DISEASE; FUNGUS; HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY; INFECTIOUS DISEASE; INOCULATION; MORPHOLOGY; XYLEM;

OPHIOSTOMA NOVO-ULMI; ULMUS AMERICANA;

EID: 85026295009     PISSN: 14374781     EISSN: 14390329     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/efp.12369     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Baayen, R. P., Ouellette, G. B., & Rioux, D. (1996). Compartmentalization of decay in carnations resistant to Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. dianthi. Phytopathology, 86, 1018–1031.
2. Banfield, W. M. (1968). Dutch elm disease recurrence and recovery in American elm. Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin, 568, 60pp.
3. Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B Statistical Methodology, 57, 289–300.
4. Boddy, L. (1991). Microenvironmental aspects of xylem defenses to wood decay fungi. In R. A. Blanchette, & R. A. Biggs (Eds.), Defense mechanisms of woody plants against fungi (pp. 96–127). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.
5. Bonsen, K. J. M., Scheffer, R. J., & Elgersma, D. M. (1985). Barrier zone formation as a resistance mechanism of elms to Dutch elm disease. IAWA Bulletin, 6, 71–77.
6. Buisman, C. (1935). The anatomy of wood of elms infected with Graphium ulmi. Plantenzickten, 41, 104–120.
7. Edwards, J., Pascoe, I. G., & Salib, S. (2007). Impairment of grapevine xylem function by Phaeomoniella chlamydospora infection is due to more than physical blockage of vessels with ‘goo’. Phytopathologia Mediterranea, 46, 87–90.
8. Elgersma, D. M. (1970). Length and diameter of xylem vessels as factors in resistance of elms to Ceratocystis ulmi. Netherlands Journal of Plant Pathology, 76, 179–182.
9. Ellmore, G. S., & Ewers, F. W. (1986). Fluid flow in the outermost xylem increment of a ring-porous tree, Ulmus Americana. American Journal of Botany, 73, 1771–1774.
10. Harrington, T. C. (1981). Cycloheximide sensitivity as a taxonomic character in Ceratocystis. Mycologia, 73, 1123–1129.
11. Inch, S. A., & Ploetz, R. C. (2012). Impact of laurel wilt, caused by Raffaelea lauricola, on xylem function in avocado, Persea americana. Forest Pathology, 42, 239–245.
12. Joseph, G., Kelsey, R. G., & Thies, W. G. (1998). Hydraulic conductivity in roots of ponderosa pine infected with black-stain (Leptographium wageneri) or annosus (Heterobasidion annosum) root disease. Tree Physiology, 18, 333–339.
13. Li, M., Lopez, R., Venturas, M., Martin, J. A., Dominguez, J., Gordaliza, G. G., … Rodriguez-Calcerrada, J. (2016). Physiological and biochemical differences among Ulmus minor genotypes showing a gradient of resistance to Dutch elm disease. Forest Pathology, 46, 215–228.
14. MacHardy, W. E., & Beckman, C. H. (1973). Water relations in American elm infected with Ceratocystis ulmi. Phytopathology, 63, 98–103.
15. Martin, J. A., Solla, A., Ruiz-Villar, M., & Gil, L. (2013). Vessel length and conductivity of Ulmus branches: Ontogenetic changes and relation to resistance to Dutch elm disease. Trees, 27, 1239–1248.
16. McNabb Jr, H. S., Heybroek, H. M., & Macdonald, W. L. (1970). Anatomical factors in resistance to Dutch elm disease. Netherlands Journal of Plant Pathology, 76, 196–204.
17. Morris, H., Brodersen, C., Scharze, F. W. M. R., & Jansen, S. (2016). The parenchyma of secondary xylem and its critical role in tree defense against fungal decay in relation to the CODIT model. Frontiers in Plant Science, 7, 1665.
18. Murata, M., Matsuda, Y., Yamada, T., & Ito, S. (2009). Differential spread of discoloured and non-conductive sapwood among four Fagaceae species inoculated with Raffaelea quercivora. Forest Pathology, 39, 192–199.
19. Murata, M., Yamada, T., Matsuda, Y., & Ito, S. (2007). Discoloured and non-conductive sapwood among six Fagaceae species inoculated with Raffaelea quercivora. Forest Pathology, 37, 73–79.
20. Ouellet, C. E., & Pomerleau, R. (1965). Recherches sur la résistance de l'orme d'Amerique au Ceratocystis ulmi. Canadian Journal of Botany, 43, 85–96.
21. Ouellette, G. B., & Rioux, D. (1992). Anatomical and physiological aspects of resistance to Dutch elm disease. In R. A. Blanchette, & R. A. Biggs (Eds.), Defense mechanisms of woody plants against fungi (pp. 257–301). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.
22. Pearce, R. B. (1996). Antimicrobial defences in the wood of living trees. New Phytologist, 132, 203–233.
23. Pomerleau, R. (1965). The period of susceptibility of Ulmus americana to Ceratocystis ulmi under conditions prevailing in Quebec. Canadian Journal of Botany, 43, 787–792.
24. Pope, S. A. (1943). Some studies on the Dutch elm disease and the causal organism. PhD Thesis. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
25. Rioux, D., & Ouellette, G. B. (1989). Light microscope observations of histological changes induced by Ophiostoma ulmi in various nonhost trees and shrubs. Canadian Journal of Botany, 67, 2335–2351.
26. Rioux, D., & Ouellette, G. B. (1991). Barrier zone formation in host and nonhost trees inoculated with Ophiostoma ulmi. I. Anatomy and histochemistry. Canadian Journal of Botany, 69, 2055–2073.
27. Schneider, C. A., Rasband, W. S., & Eliceiri, K. W. (2012). NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years to image analysis. Nature Methods, 9, 671–675.
28. Shigo, A. L. (1984). Compartmentalization: A conceptual framework for understanding how trees grow and defend themselves. Annual Review of Phytopathology, 22, 189–214.
29. Shigo, A. L., & Marx, H. (1977). Compartmentalization of decay in trees. Agric. Info. Bull. No. 405. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 73 pp.
30. Shigo, A. L., & Tippett, J. T. (1981). Compartmentalization of American elm tissues infected by Ceratocystis ulmi. Plant Disease, 65, 715–718.
31. Shortle, W. C., & Dudzik, K. R. (2012). Wood decay in living and dead trees: A pictorial overview. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-97. Newtown Square, PA: USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station.
32. Sinclair, W. A., Zahand, J. P., & Melching, J. B. (1975). Anatomical marker for resistance of Ulmus americana to Ceratocystis ulmi. Phytopathology, 65, 349–352.
33. Smalley, E. B. (1963). Seasonal fluctuations in susceptibility of young elm seedlings to Dutch elm disease. Phytopathology, 53, 846–853.
34. Smalley, E. B., & Kais, A. G. (1966). Seasonal variations in the resistance of various elm species to Dutch elm disease. In H. D. Gerhold, R. E. McDermott, E. J. Schreiner, & J. A. Winieski (Eds.), Breeding pest-resistant trees (pp. 279–292). London, UK: Pergamon Press Ltd.
35. Smalley, E. B., & Lester, D. T. (1983). ‘Regal’ elm. HortScience, 18, 960–961.
36. Solla, A., & Gil, L. (2002). Xylem vessel diameter as a factor in resistance of Ulmus minor to Ophiostoma novo-ulmi. Forest Pathology, 32, 123–134.
37. Sperry, J. S., Donnelly, J. R., & Tyree, M. T. (1988). A method for measuring hydraulic conductivity and embolism in xylem. Plant, Cell and Environment, 11, 35–40.
38. Stennes, M. A. (1981). Thiabendazole hypophosphite and carbendazim phosphate as systemic fungicides for practical Dutch elm disease control. M.S. thesis. University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.
39. Tainter, F. H., & Fraedrich, S. W. (1986). Compartmentalization of Ceratocystis fagacearum in turkey oak in South Carolina. Phytopathology, 76, 698–701.
40. Takahashi, Y., Matsushita, N., & Hogetsu, T. (2010). Spatial distribution of Raffaelea quercivora in xylem of naturally infested and inoculated oak trees. Phytopathology, 100, 747–755.
41. Takai, S., & Kondo, E. S. (1979). Seasonal development of Dutch elm disease on white elms in central Ontario, Canada. I. Following wound inoculation. Canadian Journal of Botany, 57, 341–352.
42. Tippett, J. T., & Shigo, A. L. (1981). Barrier zone formation: A mechanism of tree defense against vascular pathogens. IAWA Bulletin, 2, 163–168.
43. Townsend, A. M., Bentz, S. E., & Douglass, L. W. (2005). Evaluation of 19 American elm clones for tolerance to Dutch elm disease. Journal of Environmental Horticulture, 23, 21–24.
44. Townsend, A. M., Bentz, S. E., & Johnson, G. R. (1995). Variation in response of selected American elm clones to Ophiostoma ulmi. Journal of Environment Horticulture, 13, 126–128.
45. Urban, J., & Dvorak, M. (2014). Sap flow-based quantitative indication of progression of Dutch elm disease after inoculation with Ophiostoma novo-ulmi. Trees, 28, 1599–1605.
46. Venturas, M., Lopez, R., Martin, J. A., Gasco, A., & Gil, L. (2014). Heritability of Ulmus minor resistance to Dutch elm disease and its relationship to vessel size, but not to xylem vulnerability to drought. Plant Pathology, 63, 500–509.
47. Venturas, M. D., MacKinnon, E. D., Jacobsen, A. L., & Pratt, R. B. (2015). Excising stem samples under water at native tension does not induce xylem cavitation. Plant, Cell and Environment, 38, 1060–1068.