Scorch and Shock: Emerging Diseases of Highbush and Other Vaccinium Species

R.R. Martin, P.R. Bristow L.A. Wegener USDA-ARS Western Washington Res. Dept. of Biological Sciences 3420 NW Orchard Ave. and Ext. Center Simon Fraser University Corvallis, Oregon, USA Washington State Univ. Burnaby, B.C. Puyallup, Washington, USA Canada Abstract Blueberry scorch virus (BIScV) was first characterized in 1988 and subsequently it was shown that Sheep Pen Hill Disease of blueberry in New Jersey was caused by a strain of BIScV. There was not much interest in the virus until the mid 1990s when blueberry scorch disease became increasingly important in New Jersey. In 2000, BIScV was detected for the first time in British Columbia, Canada and has since been found to be widespread in blueberry plantings there. The virus can be transmitted by several different under experimental conditions but the vector(s) that are important for transmission in the field are not known. In 2003, it was discovered that cranberry is a symptomless host for BIScV. It appears that there are significant biological differences between some strains of BIScV especially with respect to symptoms in many cultivars. The NW type strains do not produce visible symptoms in many cultivars, whereas the EC strains cause leaf and flower blighting in most cultivars other than Jersey. Blueberry shock virus (BIShV) was first reported in 1991 in Washington and Oregon and has continued to spread in Oregon, Washington and British Columbia since that time. It has not been reported from other blueberry production areas. It is pollen-borne and plants show a severe shock (dieback of flowers and leaves) reaction the first one or two years after infection but do not show any symptoms in subsequent years and the recovered plants produce a full crop. Other of importance in blueberry include Tomato ringspot, Tobacco ringspot, Blueberry shoestring and Blueberry leaf mottle along with a few viruses of minor importance. INTRODUCTION There were ten virus and virus-like diseases of blueberry and two of cranberry in the Compendium of Blueberry and Cranberry Diseases (Caruso and Ramsdell, 1995). Since then, a viroid has been associated with blueberry mosaic disease (Zhu et al., 1995) and Blueberry scorch virus (B1ScV) has been found to naturally infect cranberry (Wegener et al., 2004). There have not been any new viruses of blueberry characterized since then. Although, during the last four years several new diseases of blueberry have been described that appear to be caused by viruses, though the causal agents have not been identified. One of these diseases named blueberry fruit drop is described in a subsequent paper in this volume (Martin et al., this volume ). With this disease, fruit sets but drops from the plant when it is about 3-5 mm in diameter. The second disease was first observed in 2003 in British Columbia, Canada and has appeared in seven more fields in 2004 in B.C. and Washington. With this disease the plants do not flower and thus produce no fruit on affected canes. There is no information available on the cause of this disease but it has spread within fields between 2003 and 2004. It may or may not be caused by a virus. Detection of viruses in is usually done b y ELISA though RT-PCR can be used as well (Halpern and Hillman, 1996). Due to the low pH of blueberry leaf sap it is critical to control pH of leaf extracts if using ELISA for virus detection in blueberry (MacDonald et al., 1988). Blueberry scorch virus (BIScV) B1ScV was first described as the causal agent of a new disease of highbush blueberry in Oregon and Washington in the USA in 1988. Blueberry Sheep Pen Hill

Proc VIII IS on Vacciniurn Culture Ed.: L. Lopes da Fonseca ci at. 463 \cra F-Isi 71 . IS! IS 2006 I)keasc was first observed in the 1970s (Stretch, 1983), but it was not until the early 990s that the causal agent was identified as a strain of BIScV (Martin et al., 1992; avileer et al., 1994). BIScV was first observed in British Columbia, Canada in the spring i 2000 (Wegener et al., 2004) and in Europe in 2001 (Martin, unpublished results). Natural field infections and graft transmission studies of BIScV in Washington :cmonstrated that all cultivars tested were susceptible to the virus (Bristow et al., 2000). lese studies showed that some cultivars did not develop any symptoms and were fully aductive when infected (Bluechip, Bluecrop, Bluegold, Bluetta, Burlington, oncord, Coville, Duke, Ivanhoe, Lateblue, Nelson, Northblue, Northcountry, Northsky, Nui, ONeal, Puru, Rancoccas, Reka, Sierra, Sunrise, Toro, \\ashington, 1613-A (Hardyblue) and U-254), while others exhibited a range of mptoms from mild chiorosis (Stanley") to severe flower/leaf blight that resulted in the pnduction of little or no fruit (Berkeley, Pemberton). Isolates of the virus that cause is range of symptoms have been referred to as the Northwest strain, BIScV-NW. In ntrast to the range of symptoms observed in Oregon and Washington, in New Jersey all iltivars with the exception of Jersey, developed chlorotic or necrotic symptoms and ifIèred yield losses and such isolates have been referred to as the East Coast strain, I I cV-EC). Symptoms in different cultivars in British Columbia suggested that there are iiultiple strains of BIScV present there, while there is no information available on strains csent in Europe. An oakleaf line pattern has been observed late in the autumn in some ciltivars infected with BIScV (Bristow et al., 2000). Epidemiological studies reveal a rapid rate of spread within infected fields, articularly if left uncontrolled. Growers with B1ScV are advised to rogue infected bushes arid apply aphicides to control the spread of B1ScV. Apply the aphicides prior to moving the affected bushes. Removing the bushes will encourage movement and increase the spread if the aphicides have not been applied beforehand. Preliminary results in British Columbia indicate a reduction in spread when these management practices are implemented (L. Wegener, unpublished results). Any suspicious symptoms observed Should be reported and a sample comprised of at least five leaves should be collected from the symptomatic bush and submitted for testing. The symptoms of B1ScV can be confused with frost damage, Blueberry shock virus (B1ShV), botrytis flower blight, flower infection with mummy berry or winter moth damage. It is essential to have the problem diagnosed prior to implementing a control strategy as the control for each of these problems is different. A comparison of symptoms observed in British Columbia with those observed in the U.S.A. has indicated the possible existence of additional unidentified strains of B1ScV in British Columbia. Isolates of B1ScV are being sequenced in Canada and the U.S.A., with the ultimate goal of developing a test capable of distinguishing among strains. At this time it appears that isolates of BIScV are quite variable in the coat protein region with many isolates that have been partially sequenced having nucleotide sequence identites less than 90% (Bernardy et al., 2004; L. Wegener, unpublished results). With the occurrence of B1ScV in British Columbia in 2000, an extensive survey for B1ScV was carried out in Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia in 2001 and 2002 with a more limited survey continuing on an ongoing basis. There was one new blueberry field identified with BIScV in Washington and two in Oregon since the surveys began in 2001. The field in Washington was adjacent to a field that had tested positive for B1ScV in 1987, thus it was not a surprising find. The fields in Oregon were remote from the two fields that had been identified with B1ScV in 1988. The fields in Oregon have been tested extensively and aphid control combined with plant removal and retesting is being carried out to eliminate the virus from these fields. In contrast, BIScV has been detected in over 140 blueberry fields in British Columbia since it was first identified there in the spring of 2000. B IScV has also become a serious problem in the northeastern USA during the 1990s, after being a disease of minor importance for nearly 20 years (DeMarasay et al., 2004). It was first identified in samples from The Netherlands in 2002 (Martin, unpublished) and officially reported from Europe in samples from Italy 2005

464 (Ciufo et al., 2005). 1 n an attempt to understand the epidemic of B1ScV in British Columbia, cranberry was investigated as a possible host in 2003. In a limited survey for BIScV in cranberry, the virus was found in 7/42, 3/18, and 2/12 bogs in British Columbia, Washington and Oregon, respectively (Wegener et al., 2004). B1ScV is aphid-borne and the significance of cranberry as a source of inoculum for blueberry infections is being investigated. The relative number of cranberry bogs infected in British Columbia, Washington and Oregon was similar, which might suggest that cranberry does not play a role in the epidemiology of BIScV, however, in British Columbia cranberry bogs and blueberry fields are in close proximity to each other whereas they are quite widely isolated from each other in Washington and Oregon. Transient as well as resident aphids are being investigated as vectors of BIScV. Over 100 species of transient aphids have been identified over blueberry fields in British Columbia but only one predominant resident aphid, Ericaphis JInibriata has been observed in blueberry fields (Raworth, 2004). In preliminary studies at least six different aphid species have been shown to transmit BIScV under controlled conditions. The importance, if any of these or other transient aphids in the epidemiology of BIScV remains to be determined.

Blueberry Shock Virus (BIShV) Symptoms of this disease were first observed in the late 1970s but the causal agent was not identified until the late 1980s when a new was found to be associated with infected bushes (MacDonald et al., 1991). The virus has only been detected in blueberry plantings in Oregon and Washington in the USA and in British Columbia, Canada. BIShV is pollen-borne and honeybees are actively involved in its transmission (Bristow et al., 1999) and the possibility exists that other flower-visiting insects may also play a role in transmission. Since the disease is pollen-borne chemical control of vectors is not an option. B1ShV can survive in bee hives for 7-14 days. The Canadian quarantine prohibiting the movement of honeybee hives across the international boundary may have delayed the introduction of this virus into British Columbia, but it has been observed there since 2001. Newly infected bushes exhibit a "shock reaction" where the flowers and foliage blight in the early spring just as the flowers begin to open (Martin and Bristow, 1995). The blighted tissues fall from the bush and young bushes may appear dead immediately after leaf and flower fall, however, a new flush of leaves develops during the summer. By harvest time the infected bushes look nearly normal, except they often appear more vigorous and produce little fruit. Fruit loss is correlated with the extent of blighting in the spring. In some bushes, only one or a few branches will show symptoms while in others the entire bush blights. Bushes, where only partial blighting occurs, usually show symptoms the following year on previously symptomless wood. Early on, it was observed that regrowth on infected bushes, which were cut off just above the soil line (renovated), did not show blight symptoms although the plant still tested positive for B1ShV. Yield reductions for newly infected bushes (reductions during the year bushes first exhibited symptoms of the shock reaction) ranged from 34 to 90%. In small bushes symptoms only develop the first year after infection when the entire bush shows blighting, after which bushes return to full production. In larger bushes, it may take several years for the virus to spread through the bush and the symptoms appear multiple years on the bush, but only once on each part of the bush. Infected bushes that are renovated recover more slowly than those that are not renovated. Bushes set a considerable number of fruit buds on the regrowth that occurs in the year the shock reaction is observed. Renovation should only be applied if infected bushes also need to be renovated for other reasons such as 1) lowering the height of the fruiting region or 2) returning fruiting to younger wood. Infected bushes that are not renovated produce a limited crop the year symptoms are present and set more fruit buds than renovated plants for the crop the following year. Once a few bushes in a planting become infected, management rather than control

465 I appears to be the only option. Efforts to control the disease by a) identifying infected bushes in the late winter and early spring and then b) removing them before they flowered were unsuccessful. This approach did not work because it is nearly impossible to identify and eliminate all sources of inoculum since early on in an infection the virus is unevenly distributed in the bush. Thus, testing plants prior to symptom development is not 100% effective. Removing infected bushes and replanting with virus-free bushes is not a suitable option since these new bushes would become infected from inoculum coming from any newly infected bushes that were missed. With B1ShV, the most effective way to manage the disease is to let it run its course, acknowledging that one to two years worth of production will be lost during the process, but the planting will come back into full production. It may take 4-20 years for the virus to spread through a planting depending on cultivar with the virus spreading very quickly in Berkeley, Bluegold, Bluetta and Earliblue and much slower in Bluecrop and other cultivars. Recovered plants are still infected with the virus, so new plantings adjacent to recovered infected plants will become infected. The potential of B1ShV to infect other Vacciniurn species and its impact in these species, such as lowbush blueberry (V. angussifo1ium Aiton), rabbiteye blueberry (V. ashei Reade), native Pacific Northwest species (V. membranaceurn Douglas ex Torrey, V. ovatum Pursh, V. parvifolium Smith), and ornamental Vaccinium species needs to be investigated. Other Blueberry Viruses and Control Strategies Since the last review of blueberry viruses (Caruso and Ramsdell, 1995), relatively little new work has been done on virus diseases on blueberry and cranberry outside of Blueberry scorch and Blueberry shock viruses reviewed above and Blueberry fruit drop described in this volume. The only other new work was the report that blueberry mosaic disease is associated with a viroid (Zhu etal., 1995). With the detection of Blueberry fruit drop by RT-PCR and the finding of a viroid associated with blueberry mosaic, there are now laboratory tests for all known virus and virus-like diseases of blueberry with the exception of the Blueberry No Blossom observed recently in British Columbia and Washington. The availability of rapid detection methods for the virus diseases is a great benefit for certification programs as grafting can take several years to get results

Literature Cited Bemardy, M.G., Dubeau, C.R., Braun, A..Lowry, D.T. and French, C.J. 2004. Molecular characterization of two novel strains of Blueberry scorch virus from British Columbia. Annual meeting of the Canadian Phytopathological Society, June, 2004, Poster 459. Boylan-Pett, W.. Ramsdell, D.C., Hoopingerner, R.A. and Hancock, J.F. 1992. Honey bee foraging behaviour and the transmission of the pollen-borne blueberry leaf mottle virus in highbush blueberry. Acta Hort. 308:99-197. Bristow, P.R. and Martin, R.R. 1999. Transmission and the role of honeybees in field spread of blueberry shock ilarvirus, a pollen-borne virus of highbush blueberry. Phytopathology 89:124-130. Bristow, P.R., Martin, R.R. and Windom, G.E. 2000. Transmission, field spread, cultivar response, and impact on yield in highbush blueberry infected with blueberry scorch virus. Phytopathology 90:474-479. Bristow, P.R., Windom, G.E. and Martin, R.R. 2002. Recovery of plants infected with Blueberry shock virus (B1ShV). Acta Hort. 574:85-89. Caruso, F.L. and Ramsdell, D.C. (editors). 1995. Compendium of blueberry and cranberry diseases. APS Press, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. 87 pages. Cavileer, T.D,, Halpern, B.T., Lawrence, D.M., Podleckis, E.V., Martin, R.R. and Hillman, B.I. 1994. Nucleotide sequence of the carlavirus associated with blueberry scorch and similar diseases. J. Gen. Virol. 75:711-720. Ciuffo, M., Pettiti, D., Gallo, S., Masenga, V. and Turina, M. 2005. First report of Blueberry scorch virus in Europe. Plant Pathology 54:565.

466 DeMarsay, A., Marucci, P.E., Hillman, RI., Petersen, F.P., Oudemans, P.V., Marucci, P.E. and Schloemann, S. 2004. First Report of Blueberry scorch virus on Ilighbush Blueberry in Connecticut and Massachusetts. Plant Dis. 88:572. Halpern, B.T. and Hillman, B.I. 1996. Detection of blueberry scorch virus strain NJ-2 by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction amplification. Plant Dis. 80: 219-222. MacDonald, S.G., Martin, R.R. and Bristow, P.R. 1991. Characterization of an ilarvirus associated with a necrotic shock reaction in blueberry. Phytopathology 81: 210-214. Martin, R.R. and Bristow, P.R. 1988. A carlavirus associated with blueberry scorch disease. Phytopathology 78:1636-1640. Martin, R.R. and Bristow, P.R. 1995. Shock. Pages 57-58, In: Compendium of blueberry and cranberry diseases (Caruso, F.L. and Ramsdell, D.C., eds.) APS Press, St. Paul, MN, MacDonald, S.G., Martin, R.R., Gillett,J,M. and Ramsdell, D.C. 1988. Controlling the pH of blueberry sap for efficient detection of viruses in blueberry leaves by ELISA. Acta Hort. 236:37-43. Martin, R.R., MacDonald, S.G. and Podleckis, E.V. 1992. Relationships between blueberry scorch and Sheep Pen Hill viruses of highbush blueberry. Acta 1-fort. 308:131-139. Raworth, D.A. 2004. Ecology and management of Ericaphis fimbriata (Hemiptera: Aphididae) in relation to the potential for spread of Blueberry scorch virus. The Canadian Entomologist 136:711-718. Strcch, A.W. 1983. A previously undescribed blight disease of highbush blueberry in New Jersey. Phytopathology 73:375. Wegener, L.A., Punja, Z.K. and Martin, R.R. 2004. First Report of Blueberry scorch virus in Cranberry in Canada and the United States. Plant Dis. 88:427. Zhu, S.F., Gillet, J.M., Ramsdell, D.C. and Hadidi, A. 1995. Isolation and characterization of viroid-like RNAs from mosaic diseased blueberry tissue. Acta Hort. 385:132-140.

467