DOCSLIB.ORG

Smuts That Parasitize Grasses

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Smuts That Parasitize Grasses 28o YEARBOOK OF AGRICULTURE 1953 rusts of importance on grasses that can thus be controlled to any practical degree. Elimination of the alternate host has another advantage: It is on that host that hybridization between strains of rust takes place, often with Smuts That the result of new^ and more virulent strains capable of attacking varieties of grasses and cereals that previously Parasitize w^ere resistant. The development or selection of grasses resistant to rust has lagged Grasses behind such projects in the cereals. Strains have been noted in timothy, orchard grass, crested wheatgrass, blue George W. Fischer bunchgrass, big blucgrass, and others that are resistant to their particular Nearly 140 different species of smuts rusts. It is usually true, however, that attack approximately 300 species of those resistant strains are valid only in grasses in the United States. restricted regions and arc not generally The common name smut derives from resistant to the various and numerous words meaning to besmirch or smudge races or strains of rusts in all localities. and refers to the presence of sooty, The individual State colleges can best dirty, black, or brownish masses on the give advice on such local problems. affected plants. The fact remains that genetic resist- All the smuts are plant parasites. ance does exist in strains of most of Most of them occur on grasses and our forage grasses and can be used cereals. As wdth the rusts, the average in breeding work w^hen necessary or person is much more familiar with the desirable. destruction wrought by smuts on ce- reals than on grasses. Familiar ex- GEORGE W. FISCHER, a native of amples of destructive cereal smuts are Indiana, has degrees from Butler Univer- bunt or stinking smut of wheat, oat sity^ Northwestern University^ and the smuts, barley smuts, sorghum smut, University of Michigan. From ipj6 to and boil smut on corn. In everyday ^945 h^ ^^^ plant pathologist with the practice, the name smut is used to division of forage crops and diseases, designate the disease as well as the Bureau of Plant Industry, Soils, and fungus responsible for the disease, Agricultural Engineering. In ig4^ he although the latter is more correctly became chairman of the department of spoken of as the smut fungus. plant pathology at the State College of The smut fungi have much less com- Washington, plicated life histories than do the rust fungi and generally are easier to con- trol. The familiar dusty black smut masses are made up mostly of millions of tiny cells or groups of cells—spores, w^hich serve the same purpose to the smut fungi as seeds do to the seed- bearing plants, namely, for reproduc- tion and dissemination. Some smuts destroy the flow^ering structure. Others are restricted only to certain parts of it. Some are con- fined almost exclusively to the stems Germinating ergot sclerotia. of grasses. Others produce galls or SMUTS THAT PARASÎTIZE GRASSES 281 tumorlike structures in various parts Some of the smut fungi are not of their host plants. limited to seedling infection. Apparent- As with the rust fungi, many smut ly they can infect any succulent or fungi exhibit a remarkable degree of rapidly growing part of their host specialization not only to certain plants and thereby make them smutty species of plants but also to certain in time. The time between infection varieties or strains within those host and the appearance of smut varies species. Likewise, there are often rather widely. In the stripe smut of strains or races of the smut fungi to grasses, for example, seedlings often contend with. The common stinking show smut within 6 weeks of the time smut, for example, has nearly 30 the smut-contaminated seed is plant- known strains or races, each capable ed. Other smuts are not evident until of attacking different varieties of wheat their hosts head out. One of the stem and different strains or varieties of smuts, to be described later, requires wheatgrasses and related grasses. 2 to 4 years after infection before smut The smut fungi are not entirely actually appears. obligate parasites as are the rust fungi. Spores of the smut fungi generally In fact, some smuts can easily complete are much more durable than are their entire life cycle on an artificial those of the rust fungi. It is hard to medium if it contains the nutrients maintain viability of rust spores for essential for growth. Some smuts more than a year; usually it is much apparently persist indefinitely in the less than that. In the case of the smut soil or in old manure piles. They are fungi, it is unusual for viability to be fully capable, however, of attacking maintained for less than a year. For their host plants when the plants are most smuts viability is maintained for available under the requisite condi- two to several years, especially if tions for infection. humidity is low. Some smuts have The smut fungi have a more adverse been known to retain at least some effect directly (and perhaps indirectly) viability for 25 years. on their hosts than do the rust fungi. The cultivation of grasses seems to The smuts that attack all or parts of have much to do with the develop- the flowering structures generally de- ment of smut in them: Often cultiva- stroy the seeds entirely. The leaf tion practices, including harvesting smuts and the stem smuts, while only and threshing, disperse the smut and occasionally involving the flowering contribute toward an increase in the structures, do nevertheless generally amount of smut in succeeding crops. suppress these structures and likewise Any of the grass smuts therefore is a result in a more or less complete loss potential threat to the welfare of its of seed on affected plants. Thesmuts grass host if the grass comes under that attack the vegetative structures cultivation. (that is, the leaf smuts and stem smuts) Some of the grass smuts are the same have a decidedly weakening effect on as those that are destructive parasites their host plants and make them more of our cereal crops. susceptible to other sinister factors in their environment. SEED SMUTS or bunt {Tilletia species) Many of the grass smuts are seed- are terms used here to designate the borne. The wind carries millions of smuts of grasses in which the normal smut spores, which [)ecome lodged in seeds are replaced by smut ''balls." or on the developing seeds of healthy The balls retain somewhat the shape plants. When the seeds germinate, of the normal seed and are even the smut spores also germinate and encased by the seed wall; actually, infect the young seedlings. Then the though, the inside of the seed is a solid plants that arise from the seedlings are mass of spores. smutted. About 25 of these grass seed smuts 202 YEARBOOK OF AGRICULTURE T953 occur in the United States. Several of the grasses, I)ut only a few pose an have actual or potential importance in economic problem, probably because cultivated grasses. One of the poten- grasses have been cultivated only to a tially most important is the one that on limited extent. wheat is commonly called stinking One of the most common of the smut or bunt. Three species of fungi head smuts of grasses is caused by are involved in it, including what is Ustilago búllala. It complicates the commonly known as dwarf smut. cultivation and production of several These smuts are well known on w^heat of our best forage grasses. More than because of the very extensive losses 60 species of grasses have been re- they have caused for a long time the ported as hosts to it, among them world over. Besides wheat, tall oat- wheatgrasses, bromes, fescues, wild- grass and several of the wheatgrasses ryes, and barley grasses. In 1946 it was are known to be susceptible, including thought that head snuit in mountain crested wheatgrass, slender wheatgrass, brome, one of our most valuable for- and intermediate wheatgrass. Care has age grasses, w^as under control through to l^e taken to keep those grasses from the release of a new variety. Bromar, falling prey to the cereal smuts. which was developed jointly by the The dwarf bunt is soil-borne. It has Department of Agriculture and the thus far presented a knotty problem Washington Agricultural Experiment of control except when resistant vari- Station. In repeated tests the new eties are used. The other two species, strain had remained resistant to the being mostly seed-borne, may be various races of the head smut fungus. controlled by seed treatment and the In 1950, however, an entirely new and use of resistant varieties. very virulent strain of head smut made Some of the i^entgrasses are suscep- its appearance and caused some very tible to another of the seed smuts, badly smutted fields of Bromar moun- especially on the east and west coasts tain brome. There are 12 known races where considerable smut infestation is or strains of the head smut fungus, each vSon"ictimes encountered in harvested of which is specialized to different seed crops. The life history of this smut species of the wheatgrasses, bromes, is not known. wild-ryes, a.nd barley grasses. None of - Various other groups of grasses, for the cereals is susceptible to it. example the bromes, fescues, wild- Several dozen other head smuts of ryes, hairgrasses, velvctgrass, and grasses constitute a potential problem others, are prey to similar seed smuts. among economically important forage or range grasses. Practically nothing is HEAD SMUT (species of Sorosporium^ known concerning the life history and Sphacelotheca, and Ustilago) applies methods of controlling most of them.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ustilago: Habitat, Symptoms and Reproduction | Teliomycetes
    Ustilago: Habitat, Symptoms and Reproduction | Teliomycetes For B.Sc. Botany 1st By Dr. Meenu Gupta Assistant Professor Botany J.D.W.C. Patna 1. Habit and Habitat of Ustilago: Ustilago, the largest genus of the family Ustilaginaceae is represented by more than 400 cosmopolitan species. Butler and Bisby (1958) reported 108 species from India. All species are parasitic and infect the floral parts of wheat, barley, oat, maize, sugarcane, Bajra, rye and wild grasses. The name Ustilago has been derived from a Latin word ustus meaning ‘burnt’ because the members of the genus produce black, sooty powdery mass of spores on the host plant parts imparting them a ‘burnt’ appearance. This black dusty mass of spores resembles soot or smut, therefore, commonly it is also known as smut fungus. The fungus is of much economic importance, because it causes heavy loss to various economically important plants. This genus is very common in U.P., Bihar, Punjab and Madhya Pradesh. 2. Symptoms of Ustilago: The symptoms appear only on the floral parts. The floral spikes turn black and remain filled with the smut spores. Ustilago produces two main types of symptoms: 1. The blackish powder of spores is easily blown away by the wind, leaving a bare stalk of inflorescence (Fig. 1 B). Species showing such symptoms are called loose smuts e.g., (a) Loose smut of oat caused by U. avenae (b) Loose smut of barley caused by U. nuda (c) Loose smut of wheat caused by U. nuda var. tritici. (Fig. 13A, B). (d) Loose smut of doob grass caused by U.
    [Show full text]
  • Four Master Teachers Who Fostered American Turn-Of-The-(20<Sup>TH
    MYCOTAXON ISSN (print) 0093-4666 (online) 2154-8889 Mycotaxon, Ltd. ©2021 January–March 2021—Volume 136, pp. 1–58 https://doi.org/10.5248/136.1 Four master teachers who fostered American turn-of-the-(20TH)-century mycology and plant pathology Ronald H. Petersen Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee Knoxville, TN 37919-1100 Correspondence to: [email protected] Abstract—The Morrill Act of 1862 afforded the US states the opportunity to found state colleges with agriculture as part of their mission—the so-called “land-grant colleges.” The Hatch Act of 1887 gave the same opportunity for agricultural experiment stations as functions of the land-grant colleges, and the “third Morrill Act” (the Smith-Lever Act) of 1914 added an extension dimension to the experiment stations. Overall, the end of the 19th century and the first quarter of the 20th was a time for growing appreciation for, and growth of institutional education in the natural sciences, especially botany and its specialties, mycology, and phytopathology. This paper outlines a particular genealogy of mycologists and plant pathologists representative of this era. Professor Albert Nelson Prentiss, first of Michigan State then of Cornell, Professor William Russel Dudley of Cornell and Stanford, Professor Mason Blanchard Thomas of Wabash College, and Professor Herbert Hice Whetzel of Cornell Plant Pathology were major players in the scenario. The supporting cast, the students selected, trained, and guided by these men, was legion, a few of whom are briefly traced here. Key words—“New Botany,” European influence, agrarian roots Chapter 1. Introduction When Dr. Lexemual R.
    [Show full text]
  • Corn Smuts, RPD No
    report on RPD No. 203 PLANT February 1990 DEPARTMENT OF CROP SCIENCES DISEASE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN CORN SMUTS Corn smuts occur throughout the world. Common corn smut, caused by the fungus Ustilago zeae (synonym U. maydis), and head smut, caused by the fungus Sporisorium holci-sorghi (synonyms Sphacelotheca reiliana, Sorosporium reilianum and Sporisorium reilianum), are spectacular in appearance and easily distinguished. Common smut occurs worldwide wherever corn (maize) is grown, by presence of large conspicuous galls or replacement of grain kernels with smut sori. The quality of the remaining yield is often reduced by the presence of black smut spores on the surface of healthy kernels. COMMON SMUT Common smut is well known to all Illinois growers. The fungus attacks only corn–field corn (dent and flint), Indian or ornamental corn, popcorn, and sweet corn–and the closely related teosinte (Zea mays subsp. mexicana) but is most destructive to sweet corn. The smut is most prevalent on young, actively growing plants that have Figure 1. Infection of common corn smut been injured by detasseling in seed fields, hail, blowing soil or and on the ear. Smut galls are covered by the particles, insects, “buggy-whipping”, and by cultivation or spraying silvery white membrane. equipment. Corn smut differs from other cereal smuts in that any part of the plant above ground may be attacked, from the seedling stage to maturity. Losses from common smut are highly variable and rather difficult to measure, ranging from a trace up to 10 percent or more in localized areas. In rare cases, the loss in a particular field of sweet corn may approach 100 percent.
    [Show full text]
  • CONTROL of SMUT in WHEAT and OTHER SMALL GRAINS by H
    Bulletin No. 116 June, 1931 Montana State College, Extension Service, J. C. Taylor, Director, Cooperative Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics. Montana State College and Uni~ed States Department of Agriculture, co-operating. Distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress ~ay 8 and June 30, 1.914. ~ CONTROL OF SMUT IN WHEAT AND OTHER SMALL GRAINS By H. E. Morris, Extension Plant Pathologist Waldo Kidder, Extension Agronomist Smuts cost the farmers of Montana many thousands of dollars each year. In 1930, stinking smut of wheat alone caused a loss of approximately $750;000, due to decreased yields and to a lower price per bushel. This loss and also that due to the smuts {..:Fig. 1. Smutted and normal heads of wheat. The head at the left ,is a typi:cal head affected with covered or stinking smut, The next, head IS a he'althy head. The two heads on the right show two stages of the loose smut in wheat. (-Courtesy,D. S. Dept. of Agr.) . ,( 2 MONTANA EXTENSION SERVICE of oats, barley and rye may be largely prevented by adopting the methods of seed treatment described in this bulletin. What Is Smut Smut is produced by a small parasitic plant, mould-like in appearance, belonging to a group called fungi (Fig. 2). Smut lives most of its life within and at the expense of the wheat plant. The smut powder, so familiar to all, is composed of myriads of spores which correspond to seeds in the higher plants. In the process of harvesting and threshing, these spores are dis· I Fig'.
    [Show full text]
  • The History, Fungal Biodiversity, Conservation, and Future Volume 1 · No
    IMA FungUs · vOlume 1 · no 2: 123–142 The history, fungal biodiversity, conservation, and future ARTICLE perspectives for mycology in Egypt Ahmed M. Abdel-Azeem Botany Department, Faculty of Science, University of Suez Canal, Ismailia 41522, Egypt; e-mail: [email protected] Abstract: Records of Egyptian fungi, including lichenized fungi, are scattered through a wide array Key words: of journals, books, and dissertations, but preliminary annotated checklists and compilations are not checklist all readily available. This review documents the known available sources and compiles data for more distribution than 197 years of Egyptian mycology. Species richness is analysed numerically with respect to the fungal diversity systematic position and ecology. Values of relative species richness of different systematic and lichens ecological groups in Egypt compared to values of the same groups worldwide, show that our knowledge mycobiota of Egyptian fungi is fragmentary, especially for certain systematic and ecological groups such as species numbers Agaricales, Glomeromycota, and lichenized, nematode-trapping, entomopathogenic, marine, aquatic and coprophilous fungi, and also yeasts. Certain groups have never been studied in Egypt, such as Trichomycetes and black yeasts. By screening available sources of information, it was possible to delineate 2281 taxa belonging to 755 genera of fungi, including 57 myxomycete species as known from Egypt. Only 105 taxa new to science have been described from Egypt, one belonging to Chytridiomycota, 47 to Ascomycota, 55 to anamorphic fungi and one to Basidiomycota. Article info: Submitted: 10 August 2010; Accepted: 30 October 2010; Published: 10 November 2010. INTRODUCTION which is currently accepted as a working figure although recognized as conservative (Hawksworth 2001).
    [Show full text]
  • Corn Smuts S
    A Pacific Northwest Extension Publication Oregon State University • University of Idaho • Washington State University PNW 647 • July 2013 Corn Smuts S. K. Mohan, P. B. Hamm, G. H. Clough, and L. J. du Toit orn smuts are widely distributed throughout the world. The incidence of corn smuts in the Pacific Northwest (PNW) varies Cby location and is usually low. Nonetheless, these diseases occasionally cause significant economic losses when susceptible cultivars are grown under conditions favorable for disease development. Smut diseases of corn are, in general, more destructive to sweet corn than to field corn. The term smut is derived from the powdery, dark brown to black, soot-like mass of spores produced in galls. These galls can form on various plant parts. Three types of smut infect corn—common smut, caused by Ustilago maydis (= Ustilago zeae); head smut, caused by Sphacelotheca reiliana; and false smut, caused by Ustilaginoidea virens. False smut is not a concern in the PNW, so this publication deals University S. Krishna by State Mohan,Photo © Oregon only with common and head smuts. Figure 1. Common smut galls on an ear of sweet corn. Each gall represents a single kernel infected by the common Common smut smut fungus. Common smut is caused by the fungal pathogen U. maydis and is also known as boil smut or blister smut (Figure 1). Common smut occurs throughout PNW corn production areas, although it is less common in western Oregon and western Washington than east of the Cascade Mountains. Infection in commercial plantings may result in considerable damage and yield loss in some older sweet corn cultivars, but yield loss in some of the newer, less susceptible cultivars is rarely significant.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Diseases of Small Grains and Their Management
    Common Diseases of Small Grains and Their Management Gary C. Bergstrom Cornell University Section of Plant Pathology and Plant-Microbe Biology Central New York Small Grains Workshop February 3, 2015 West Winfield, NY Plant Disease: A condition of a plant of abnormal growth or function Plant Pathogen: A living organism that can incite plant disease Gary C. Bergstrom, Cornell University When a microbe feeds on a: It is called a: Living host parasite Non-living host saprophyte When a pathogen: It is called a: Gets its nutrients from biotroph living cells Kills host cells before necrotroph acquiring nutrients Gary C. Bergstrom, Cornell University Causal agents (pathogens) of infectious plant diseases • FUNGUS • OOMYCETE • BACTERIUM • VIRUS • NEMATODE Gary C. Bergstrom, Cornell University Factors affecting disease epidemiology and management • Pathogen dissemination potential – (long-distance, regional, local) • Survival in debris • Vector relationship • Favorable environment Gary C. Bergstrom, Cornell University Methods of disease management • Cultural (e.g., crop rotation) • Resistance (e.g., resistant or tolerant varieties) • Biological (e.g., biopesticides) • Chemical (e.g., fungicide seed treatment) • Regulatory (e.g., seed certification) Gary C. Bergstrom, Cornell University Yellow dwarf of cereals and grasses Gary C. Bergstrom, Cornell University Yellow dwarf of cereals and grasses • Pathogen: Barley yellow dwarf luteovirus and Cereal yellow dwarf polerovirus strains • Host range: all grasses • Symptoms: leaves yellow to red or purple; stunting • Conditions: early planting; large aphid populations • Survival: in infected aphids and grasses • Spread: by aphids (short & long distance) • Management:plant after Hessian fly free date, systemic seed insecticides Gary C. Bergstrom, Cornell University Soilborne viruses © G.C. Bergstrom Gary C.
    [Show full text]
  • Control of Loose Smut of Barley Richard Mullington Lewis Iowa State University
    Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 1962 Control of loose smut of barley Richard Mullington Lewis Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Part of the Agriculture Commons, and the Plant Pathology Commons Recommended Citation Lewis, Richard Mullington, "Control of loose smut of barley " (1962). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 2102. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/2102 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This dissertation has been 63-1587 microfilmed exactly as received LEWIS, Richard Mullington, 1920- CONTROL OF LOOSE SMUT OF BARLEY. Iowa State University of Science and Technology Ph.D., 1962 Agriculture, plant pathology University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan CONTROL OF LOOSE SMUT OF BARLEY by Richard Mullington Lewis A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Major Subject: Plant Pathology Approved: Signature was redacted for privacy. In Charge of Major Signature was redacted for privacy. Head of Major D rtment Signature was redacted for privacy. D^ân of Grad lollege Iowa State University Of Science and Technology Ames, Iowa 1962 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 PERTINENT LITERATURE 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS 6 Materials 6 Methods of Application 7 Seed Treatment Evaluations 12 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 15 1952 Results 15 1953 Results 18 195m- Results 24 1955 Results 39 DISCUSSION 41 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 48 LITERATURE CITED 51 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 53 APPENDIX 54 iii LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Topic – Loose Smut of Wheat
    Course – M. Sc. Botany Part 1 Paper III Topic – Loose Smut of Wheat Prepared by – Dr. Santwana Rani Coordinated by – Prof. (Dr.) Shyam Nandan Prasad Loose Smut of Wheat ➢ The disease loose smut of wheat is caused by ustilago nuda tritici. ➢ Incidence is more in north than in south India. ➢ Country wide loss is about 2-3%of total yield. ➢ There was a loose smut epidemic in Punjab, Haryana and western U.P. in 1970-75. Distribution: ➢ All wheat growing regions of India. ➢ Particularly in Punjab, Haryana, U.P. and certain regions of M.P. Symptoms: ➢ Symptoms appear after ear emergence. ➢ Diseased ear emerged first than normal in some varieties ➢ Mostly all ears is converted into a black mass of spores ➢ All the floral parts of the head, except the rachis and pericarp membrane, are invaded by mycelium of the fungus and converted into loose aggregation of smut spores(teliospores). ➢ Significant reduction in tillering. ➢ Except awns all parts of ear converted into smut spore. ➢ Black powder in ear-covered by slivery membrane. ➢ Membrane burst later & smut spore release. ➢ Group of smut spore called sorus. ➢ High respiration and low dry weight. Causal agent: Etiology Pathogen - Ustilago nuda tritici. (Syn. U. segetum var. tritici) Systematic position: Kingdom: Fungi Phylum: Basidiomycota Sub phylum: Ustilaginomycotina Class: Ustilaginomycetes Order: Ustilaginales Family: Ustilaginaceae Genus: Ustilago Species: U tritici (Pers.) Pathogen characters: ➢ It is an internally seed borne fungal disease. ➢ It causes systemic infection. ➢ The teliospores of the fungus are pale, olive brown, spherical to oval in shape, about 5-9 micro diameter and are adorned with minute echinulations on the wall.
    [Show full text]
  • Iodiversity of Australian Smut Fungi
    Fungal Diversity iodiversity of Australian smut fungi R.G. Shivas'* and K. Vanky2 'Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Plant Pathology Herbarium, 80 Meiers Road, Indooroopilly, Queensland 4068, Australia 2 Herbarium Ustilaginales Vanky, Gabriel-Biel-Str. 5, D-72076 Tiibingen, Germany Shivas, R.G. and Vanky, K. (2003). Biodiversity of Australian smut fungi. Fungal Diversity 13 :137-152. There are about 250 species of smut fungi known from Australia of which 95 are endemic. Fourteen of these endemic species were first collected in the period culminating with the publication of Daniel McAlpine's revision of Australian smut fungi in 1910. Of the 68 species treated by McAlpine, 10 were considered to be endemic to Australia at that time. Only 23 of the species treated by McAlpine have names that are currently accepted. During the following eighty years until 1990, a further 31 endemic species were collected and just 11 of these were named and described in that period. Since 1990, 50 further species of endemic smut fungi have been collected and named in Australia. There are 115 species that are restricted to either Australia or to Australia and the neighbouring countries of Indonesia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and the Philippines . These 115 endemic species occur in 24 genera, namely Anthracoidea (1 species), Bauerago (1), Cintractia (3), Dermatosorus (1), Entyloma (3), Farysporium (1), Fulvisporium (1), Heterotolyposporium (1), Lundquistia (1), Macalpinomyces (4), Microbotryum (2), Moreaua (20), Pseudotracya (1), Restiosporium (5), Sporisorium (26), Thecaphora (2), Tilletia (12), Tolyposporella (1), Tranzscheliella (1), Urocystis (2), Ustanciosporium (1), Ustilago (22), Websdanea (1) and Yelsemia (2). About a half of these local and regional endemic species occur on grasses and a quarter on sedges.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Analysis of the Maize Smut Fungi Ustilago Maydis and Sporisorium Reilianum
    Comparative Analysis of the Maize Smut Fungi Ustilago maydis and Sporisorium reilianum Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Naturwissenschaften (Dr. rer. nat.) dem Fachbereich Biologie der Philipps-Universität Marburg vorgelegt von Bernadette Heinze aus Johannesburg Marburg / Lahn 2009 Vom Fachbereich Biologie der Philipps-Universität Marburg als Dissertation angenommen am: Erstgutachterin: Prof. Dr. Regine Kahmann Zweitgutachter: Prof. Dr. Michael Bölker Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: Die Untersuchungen zur vorliegenden Arbeit wurden von März 2003 bis April 2007 am Max-Planck-Institut für Terrestrische Mikrobiologie in der Abteilung Organismische Interaktionen unter Betreuung von Dr. Jan Schirawski durchgeführt. Teile dieser Arbeit sind veröffentlicht in : Schirawski J, Heinze B, Wagenknecht M, Kahmann R . 2005. Mating type loci of Sporisorium reilianum : Novel pattern with three a and multiple b specificities. Eukaryotic Cell 4:1317-27 Reinecke G, Heinze B, Schirawski J, Büttner H, Kahmann R and Basse C . 2008. Indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) biosynthesis in the smut fungus Ustilago maydis and its relevance for increased IAA levels in infected tissue and host tumour formation. Molecular Plant Pathology 9(3): 339-355. Erklärung Erklärung Ich versichere, dass ich meine Dissertation mit dem Titel ”Comparative analysis of the maize smut fungi Ustilago maydis and Sporisorium reilianum “ selbständig, ohne unerlaubte Hilfe angefertigt und mich dabei keiner anderen als der von mir ausdrücklich bezeichneten Quellen und Hilfen bedient habe. Diese Dissertation wurde in der jetzigen oder einer ähnlichen Form noch bei keiner anderen Hochschule eingereicht und hat noch keinen sonstigen Prüfungszwecken gedient. Ort, Datum Bernadette Heinze In memory of my fathers Jerry Goodman and Christian Heinze. “Every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have received and am still receiving.
    [Show full text]
  • The Smuts of Wheat, Oats, Barley
    360 YEARBOOK OF AGRICULTURE 1953 consist of chlor otic spots and streaks. The virus is transmitted by at least two species of leafhoppcrs, Nephoiettix apicalis (hipunctatus) var. cincticeps and Deltocephalus dor salis. Experiments with N. apicalis have shown that the virus The Smuts of passes through part of the eggs to the next generation, for as many as seven generations. Wheat, Oats, H. H. McKiNNEY holds degrees from Michigan State College and the University Barley of Wisconsin. In igig he joined the staff of the division of cereal crops and diseases of the Bureau of Plant Industry^ Soils, and C. S. Holton, V. F. Tapke Agricultural Engineering, where he has devoted most of his lim.e in research on Many millions of dollars' worth of viruses and virus diseases. grain are destroyed every year by the smuts of wheat, oats, and barley. For further reading: For purposes of study and control, //. H. McKinney: Evidence of Virus Muta- we can consider the smuts as being tion in the Common Mosaic of Tobcicco, seedling-infecting or floral-infecting. Journal of Agricultural Research, volume 5/, The seedling-infecting species come pages g^i-gSi, 1^33; Mosaic Diseases of Wheat and Related Cereals, U. S. D. A. Circular ^42, in contact with the host plants as ig37; Mosaic of Bromus inermis, Knih H. follows: The microscopic spores from Fellows and C. 0. Johnston, Phytopaihology, smutted plants are carried by wind, volume j2, page 331, ig42; Genera of the Plant rain, insects, and other agencies to Viruses, Journal oj the Washington Academy oj Sciences, volume 34, pages I3g-i54, 1944; De- the heads of healthy plants (as in scriptions and Revision of Several Species of loose smut of oats).
    [Show full text]