DOCSLIB.ORG

Rose Rosette Disease Demystified

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

EPLP-010 6/14 Rose Rosette Disease Demystified Kevin Ong, Associate Professor and Extension Plant Pathologist Molly Giesbrecht, Extension Associate (Plant Pathology) Dotty Woodson, Extension Program Specialist; Laura Miller, County Extension Agent–Tarrant County Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service, The Texas A&M University System What do we know? The disease has been around Rose rosette disease, a lethal rose disease with no for more than 70 known cure, has recently increased in the Dallas-Fort years. As early as Worth area. Many people who grow and enjoy roses the 1940s, symp- as well as landscapers who take care of them are con- toms of witches’ cerned about how to protect their plants and confused broom (growth of by all the information available from various sources a tight, brush-like on the Internet, in publications, and from the media. cluster of plant So, what do we know about this disease? shoots) (Fig. 1) The following review of information from peer- were described on reviewed (evaluated by experts in the field) articles in roses in Manitoba, scientific journals summarizes what we know so far. Canada (Conners, 1941). In the United Figure 2. Witches’ broom effect on States, rose plants a flower cluster. Distorted flowers in Wyoming with and increased, atypical reddish color similar symptoms on the buds. were described in 1942 (Thomas and Scott, 1953), and the disease was subsequently found in other states. In 1990, George Philley reported the disease in East Texas. It appeared in the Dallas-Fort Worth area in the mid-1990s and has expanded there in the last 2 to 3 years. Symptoms associated with rose rosette disease include: • Witches’ broom (Fig. 2) • Malformed flowers and leaves Figure 1. Witches’ broom–the cluster and bunching of • Excessive leaf growth and thorniness abnormal plant shoots. • Extreme red discoloration of plant tissue (Fig. 3) 1 (negative strand RNA virus), in symptomatic roses. The virus occurred in 84 out of 84 symptomatic plants (Laney et al, 2011). This study also resulted in a genetic test to detect the virus. However, the procedure can be tedious. Several diagnostic clinics, including the Texas Plant Disease Diagnostic Lab, are testing a modified, easier-to-use detection method. The Oklahoma Plant Disease and Insect Lab and the Texas Plant Disease Diagnostic Lab are two National Plant Diagnostic Figure 3. Malformed shoots, smaller leaves, and increased Network-affiliated labs that can test for the rose rosette red discoloration. virus using PCR methods. • Lateral shoot elongation (abnormal lengthening What is so bad about a virus? of side branches/twigs) • Enlarged/thickened stems There is no effective way to treat a virus on an -in However, symptoms vary on different rose types fected plant because the virus may be systemic (spread and cultivars. For example, red shoots do not occur in throughout the plant) and not a localized infection. some ornamental rose varieties, and multiflora roses When symptoms occur on only part of the plant, the do not exhibit the excessive thorns. disease may be localized, or it may be systemic but asymptomatic on other parts of the plant. What causes rose rosette? Pruning the infected part may eliminate the pathogen if the infection is localized, but, if systemic, Researchers have suspected that mite damage, the infection will persist. Mites carrying the virus can phytoplasma, or a virus causes rose rosette disease. continue feeding on all parts of the rose and carry the • Eriophyid mites virus to uninfected rose tissues. Transmission experiments using eriophyid mites collected from asymptomatic roses did not result in What do studies show about how appreciable rose rosette symptoms (Armine et al, rose rosette disease is transmitted? 1988), making it unlikely that the eriophyid mite’s • Grafting experiments (Thomas and Scott, feeding causes the damage all by itself. 1953; Epstein and Hill, 1995; Armine et al., 1988). • Phytoplasma Grafting experiments on many different roses Phytoplasma (a specialized group of bacteria that did not always result in transferring the rose rosette infect plants) has long been considered a major can- symptoms. Species and plant tissue age may have didate for the cause of the disease. Research articles some influence; disease transmission was more effi- from Poland (Kaminska et al, 2001), India (Chaturve- cient on rapidly growing tissue. di et al, 2009), and China (Gao et al, 2008) demon- • Eriophyid mite, Phyllocoptes fructiphilus strated the presence of a phytoplasma (from the aster (Allington et al. 1968, Armine et al, 1988). yellows family) causing rose rosette-like symptoms. But, there are no reports of phytoplasmas in symp- To test the mites’ ability to transmit the disease, tomatic roses in the United States. In an experiment researchers took mites from infected, symptomat- where symptomatic plants were treated with antibiot- ic plants and introduced them onto healthy plants. ics, rose rosette symptoms persisted (Epstein and Hill, Although the disease was not always transmitted, the 1995). Antibiotics should have killed or suppressed results suggest that the eriophyid mites can effectively the phytoplasma. transmit the disease for about 10 days. Experiments using eriophyid mites harvested from healthy plants • Virus and transferred to healthy plants did not result in rose In 2011, a research group from the University rosette symptoms, suggesting that mite damage alone of Arkansas detected a new virus, an Emaravirus does not cause the symptoms. 2 • Mechanical transmission experiments If the virus is systemic and can get into the roots, To find out whether pruning practices might it may be able to move to adjacent plants or new transmit the disease, leaf sap and juice, made by plants through the root graft. This theory has not grinding infected plant parts, were rubbed on the been scientifically confirmed. leaves of healthy plants. This did not result in rose rosette symptoms (Allington et al, 1968). Why can’t I leave it alone Other experiments using contaminated razor and see if it recovers? blades to wound healthy plants also did not result in Sometimes rose rosette disease does not kill the rose rosette symptoms. Stab inoculation, using a con- rose but stunts it. Although it may recover on its own, taminated needle to wound healthy plants, resulted in it is highly unlikely, and the infected rose can serve as rose rosette symptoms in two out of 120 tries (Epstein a virus reservoir. Theoretically, eriophyid mites can and Hill, 1995), showing that mechanical transmis- transmit the virus from a diseased plant to other roses. sion is possible but highly unlikely. How does the mite spread? How is this disease currently If plant parts are touching, it is possible that the identified and/or confirmed? mites could walk from one plant to the next. Move- The following methods are used to diagnose rose ment for longer distances is thought to occur passive- rosette disease: ly by wind (Keifer, 1975; Epstein et al., 1997) or by • Field identification based on symptoms (The piggybacking on other insects (Shvanderov, 1975). reliability of symptoms is an issue since herbi- cide damage, insect damage, and nonbiological Do we know conclusively that environmental conditions—such as wind, the eriophyid mite is transmitting temperature, and sun—can mimic rose rosette symptoms.) the rose rosette virus? • Detection of eriophyid mites along with disease No published study clearly demonstrates that the symptoms eriophyid mite (Phyllocoptes fructiphilus) actually • Electron microscopy to identify virus-like par- carries the rose rosette virus. Evidence from mite ticles and soluble, membrane-bound particles transmission studies suggests that the eriophyid mites (Rohozinski et al, 2001; Ahn et al, 1996; Silvestro are carrying and transmitting some disease-causing and Chapman, 2004) agent from the diseased plant. • PCR analysis using molecular methods to detect the virus (see more below) Can the virus move through root grafts? Are my roses “clean” if the genetic The more apt question is whether adjacent roses detection test is negative? will graft their roots together. Many have said that Not necessarily. The genetic test detects the pres- this is unlikely, but Golino (2005) demonstrated ence of the virus on the sample. Typically, even though possible root grafting by using a herbicide on a plant symptomatic plant tissue is usually used for the test, and observing the mortality of the adjacent roses. An only a small portion of the plant is sampled. The sam- experiment where researchers grafted pieces of roots ple does not show the extent that the virus is distribut- from an infected plant onto a healthy rose resulted in ed throughout the plant. The sample may contain no rose rosette symptoms on the new plant, suggesting viruses or viruses below the detection limit of the test. that root tissue can harbor the virus (Armine et al, If infection is suspected, additional sampling and con- 1988). tinued monitoring for symptoms and mites is advised. 3 What is the best way to deal Epstein A. H. and Hill J. H. 1995. “The Biology of with rose rosette disease? Rose Rosette Disease: A Mite-Associated Disease of Uncertain Aetiology.” Journal of Phytopathology Based on the current information about the disease 143:353–360. and its presumed vector, the best management practic- Epstein, A. H., Hill, J. H., and Nutter, F. W. Jr. 1997. es are: “Augmentation of Rose Rosette Disease for Bio- • Remove confirmed and/or symptomatic plants control of Multiflora Rose (Rosa multiflora).” Weed quickly. Science 45(1): 172–178. • Treat nearby plants with miticide to reduce the Gao, R., Zhang, G. M., Lan, Y. F., Zhu, T. S., Yu, X. Q., probability of disease transmission by eriophy- Zhu, X. P., and Li, X. D. 2008. “Molecular Char- id mites. But, this will not stop the virus if it is acterization of Phytoplasma Associated with Rose already in the plant.
Recommended publications
  • Invasive Weeds of the Appalachian Region

    Invasive Weeds of the Appalachian Region

    $10 $10 PB1785 PB1785 Invasive Weeds Invasive Weeds of the of the Appalachian Appalachian Region Region i TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments……………………………………...i How to use this guide…………………………………ii IPM decision aid………………………………………..1 Invasive weeds Grasses …………………………………………..5 Broadleaves…………………………………….18 Vines………………………………………………35 Shrubs/trees……………………………………48 Parasitic plants………………………………..70 Herbicide chart………………………………………….72 Bibliography……………………………………………..73 Index………………………………………………………..76 AUTHORS Rebecca M. Koepke-Hill, Extension Assistant, The University of Tennessee Gregory R. Armel, Assistant Professor, Extension Specialist for Invasive Weeds, The University of Tennessee Robert J. Richardson, Assistant Professor and Extension Weed Specialist, North Caro- lina State University G. Neil Rhodes, Jr., Professor and Extension Weed Specialist, The University of Ten- nessee ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank all the individuals and organizations who have contributed their time, advice, financial support, and photos to the crea- tion of this guide. We would like to specifically thank the USDA, CSREES, and The Southern Region IPM Center for their extensive support of this pro- ject. COVER PHOTO CREDITS ii 1. Wavyleaf basketgrass - Geoffery Mason 2. Bamboo - Shawn Askew 3. Giant hogweed - Antonio DiTommaso 4. Japanese barberry - Leslie Merhoff 5. Mimosa - Becky Koepke-Hill 6. Periwinkle - Dan Tenaglia 7. Porcelainberry - Randy Prostak 8. Cogongrass - James Miller 9. Kudzu - Shawn Askew Photo credit note: Numbers in parenthesis following photo captions refer to the num- bered photographer list on the back cover. HOW TO USE THIS GUIDE Tabs: Blank tabs can be found at the top of each page. These can be custom- ized with pen or marker to best suit your method of organization. Examples: Infestation present On bordering land No concern Uncontrolled Treatment initiated Controlled Large infestation Medium infestation Small infestation Control Methods: Each mechanical control method is represented by an icon.
  • Blackberry Rosette Cercosporella Rubi

    Blackberry Rosette Cercosporella Rubi

    Blackberry Rosette Cercosporella rubi Rosette disease, also called double blossom disease, is a destructive disease of blackberries in Louisiana and other southeastern states. If left unmanaged, commercial production can be severely limited because diseased canes will not produce berries. The disease, caused by the fungus Cercosporella rubi, has a biennial cycle, which matches the growth pattern of blackberries. The fungus attacks primocanes in the spring, overwin- ters in dormant buds, and the infected canes then develop symptoms the following year on the flo- ricanes. Spores of the fungus are dispersed from infected flowers to the young buds of primocanes by wind and insects. The fungus has a very narrow host range and has not been reported on other types of brambles such as raspberry, boysenberry or tayberry in the United States. Flowers on diseased fruiting canes are more red or pink in color than healthy flowers and have distorted petals and enlarged sepals, which gives them the appearance of a double flower. Infected plants produce multiple branches with abnormal leaf production. Young leaves are light green and eventually turn yellowish-brown giving the leaves a bronzing appearance. Diseased canes do not produce berries, and berry production on non- infected canes is small and of poor quality. Rosette can be successfully managed through a combination of resistance, cultural practices and chemical treatments. Plant-resistant varieties. Most of the thorny, erect blackberry varieties are very suscep- tible to rosette and require careful and extensive attention to management. The thornless varieties Rosette formations on blackberries infected with ‘Arapaho’, ‘Apache’, ‘Navaho’ and ‘Ouachita’ are the fungus Cercosporella rubi moderately resistant to resistant to rosette and also grow well in Louisiana.
  • Chapter 2. Vegetative Morphology of Plants Vegetative Morphology of Plants

    Chapter 2. Vegetative Morphology of Plants Vegetative Morphology of Plants

    Chapter 2. Vegetative morphology of plants Vegetative morphology of plants INTRODUCTION: THE PLANT’S BASIC BODY PLAN Most plants are photosynthetic machines: they capture the energy contained in sunlight and transform solar radiation into chemical energy stored the form of bonds in chains of carbon molecules. Through the process of photosynthesis, light and atmospheric CO2 are combined in the leaves of green plants to form simple carbohydrates, which are then used to build other organic molecules such as cellulose, starch, oils, waxes, proteins, or DNA. Six molecules of CO2 (and some 72 photons of light) are needed to form one molecule of glucose: sunlight 6 CO2 + 6 H2O → C6H12O6 + 6 O2 As a byproduct of the process, six molecules of oxygen are formed and dissipated from the leaf tissue into the atmosphere. To achieve this remarkable feat of turning atmospheric carbon dioxide into living molecules while releasing oxygen into the earth’s atmosphere, plants have evolved highly specialized organs. The light-intercepting structure par excellence is the leaf. The set of leaves in the upper aerial part of the plant form the plant’s canopy, where the plant exchanges gases with the atmosphere and intercepts light from the sun. But in order to work its chemical wonder up in the leaves, the plant also needs water and mineral nutrients such as phosphorus, essential for the synthesis of DNA, or nitrogen, essential for manufacturing proteins. In order to obtain these, plants have developed the root —a complex network of underground stem-like organs— whose role is the absorption of water and mineral nutrients from the soil, and, in doing so, anchoring the plant to the ground.
  • Taxonomy of Cultivated Potatoes (Solanum Section

    Taxonomy of Cultivated Potatoes (Solanum Section

    Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 165, 107–155. With 5 figures Taxonomy of cultivated potatoes (Solanum section Petota: Solanaceae)boj_1107 107..155 ANNA OVCHINNIKOVA1, EKATERINA KRYLOVA1, TATJANA GAVRILENKO1, TAMARA SMEKALOVA1, MIKHAIL ZHUK1, SANDRA KNAPP2 and DAVID M. SPOONER3* 1N. I. Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry, Bolshaya Morskaya Street, 42–44, St Petersburg, 190000, Russia 2Department of Botany, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK 3USDA-ARS, Vegetable Crops Research Unit, Department of Horticulture, University of Wisconsin, 1575 Linden Drive, Madison WI 53706-1590, USA Received 4 May 2010; accepted for publication 2 November 2010 Solanum tuberosum, the cultivated potato of world commerce, is a primary food crop worldwide. Wild and cultivated potatoes form the germplasm base for international breeding efforts to improve potato in the face of a variety of disease, environmental and agronomic constraints. A series of national and international genebanks collect, characterize and distribute germplasm to stimulate and aid potato improvement. A knowledge of potato taxonomy and evolution guides collecting efforts, genebank operations and breeding. Past taxonomic treatments of wild and cultivated potato have differed tremendously among authors with regard to both the number of species recognized and the hypotheses of their interrelationships. In total, there are 494 epithets for wild and 626 epithets for cultivated taxa, including names not validly published. Recent classifications, however, recognize only about 100 wild species and four cultivated species. This paper compiles, for the first time, the epithets associated with all taxa of cultivated potato (many of which have appeared only in the Russian literature), places them in synonymy and provides lectotype designations for all names validly published where possible.
  • Skunk Cabbage

    Skunk Cabbage

    Notable Natives the plants wilt and wither away. The plants reproduce readily by seed and will create colonies around a mother plant. They do not reproduce through rhizomes. Skunk Cabbage Although toxic to many herbivores, the Native Symplocarpus foetidus, skunk cabbage, is a unique Americans used skunk cabbage as an important herbal spring woodland plant native to northern Illinois. It medicine. They used fresh leaves to treat headaches and inhabits wet woods, stream-sides, wetlands, hillside sores and roots to make into infusions to treat colds, seeps, and other shaded areas with wet, mucky soil. In coughs, sore throats, and earaches. They also dried the the Araceae family, it is related to Arisaema triphyllum, roots to make into tea and powdered and mixed roots Jack-in-the-pulpit, another spring woodland wildflower. with grease to treat everything from asthma to skin sores and to stop bleeding, muscle pain and rheumatism. Like other plants in this family, skunk cabbage flowers have a spadix that is covered by many perfect flowers This spring when you’re walking in the woods, don’t shy (flowers that include both male and female reproductive away from the wet areas; seek them out, and you may parts). A large bract, called a spathe, encloses the entire come across this unique flower native to our woods in inflorescence (the cluster of flowers on the stem). This northern Illinois. bract can be many colors, ranging from pale yellow to dark purple, depending on the local ecotype. —Tim Moritz Pizzo & Assoc. Symplocarpus, the genus, comes from the Greek symploce and carpos, meaning connection and fruit.
  • Catalogue of the Type Specimens in the National Herbarium of Cultivated Plants

    Catalogue of the Type Specimens in the National Herbarium of Cultivated Plants

    e-book ISBN: 978-81-952644-1-4 Catalogue of the Type Specimens in the National Herbarium of Cultivated Plants Anjula Pandey RK Pamarthi K Pradheep Rita Gupta SP Ahlawat Division of Plant Exploration and Germplasm Collection ICAR-National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources Pusa Campus, New Delhi - 110 012, India © 2021 ICAR-National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, New Delhi 110012, India This document is an outcome of taxonomic studies undertaken and new taxa described by the scientists of ICAR-National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (ICAR-NBPGR), New Delhi. All technical descriptions and contents on ‘type’ discussed in this publication are provided with minor modifications in the original description. Images of ‘type’ specimen have been captured and documented by the NHCP. Citation: Pandey Anjula, RK Pamarthi, K Pradheep, Rita Gupta and SP Ahlawat (2021) Catalogue of the Type Specimens in the National Herbarium of Cultivated Plants. ICAR-National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, New Delhi, India, 67p + i-iii Technical support: Shashi Kant Sharma Cover page photo identity: Curcuma amada var. glabra (‘type’ specimen from Kerala) Published by: The Director ICAR-National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources New Delhi 110012, India Contact Dr. Kuldeep Singh Director ICAR-National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, Pusa, New Delhi 110012, India E-mail: [email protected] e-book ISBN: 978-81-952644-1-4 Catalogue of the Type Specimens in the National Herbarium of Cultivated Plants Anjula Pandey RK Pamarthi K Pradheep Rita Gupta SP Ahlawat Division of Plant Exploration and Germplasm Collection ICAR-National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources Pusa Campus, New Delhi - 110 012, India About the book……….
  • Commercial Pecans Controlling Rosette, Diseases and Zinc Deficiency

    Commercial Pecans Controlling Rosette, Diseases and Zinc Deficiency

    B-6057 10-97 Commercial Pecans Controlling Rosette, Diseases and Zinc Deficiency Jerral D. Johnson and George Ray McEachern* ealth and vigor of pecan rain, dew or irrigation. In addi- Late Summer and trees plus satisfactory nut tion to weather condition prob- Early Fall Hquality and yield depend lems, the leaves and nutlets are on a well-planned and executed immature and are most suscepti- Producers must continue to disease management program. ble to the pecan scab fungus monitor weather conditions dur- Losses from diseases and insuffi- during this period. Foliage of ing the late summer and early cient zinc nutrition can be pre- susceptible cultivars is suscepti- fall months. Foliage is mature vented by following effective ble to downy spot fungus during and no longer susceptible to the grove management practices. this period. Although cultural scab fungus, but shucks sur- practices are followed, a protec- rounding the nuts are immature tive fungicide is required in some and susceptible to late season Disease locations and on scab-suscepti- infection. ble cultivars. Continue applica- Development tions on a 14-day interval as long as weather conditions favor Factors that infection. Spring and Early Influence Disease Summer Mid Summer Development The fungi that cause pecan dis- During the summer months, eases require moisture and mild occurrence of rain and dew is temperatures during spore ger- less likely to occur for extended roducers should consider mination and infection of the periods of time. This reduces the the following factors as immature leaves and nutlets. chance of infection. Producers Pthey develop a spray pro- Losses to disease-causing who carefully monitor weather gram: pathogens are reduced by follow- conditions and disease develop- ■ Susceptibility of variety to ing cultural practices that short- ment can reduce fungicide costs pecan diseases, especially en the length of time leaves and by reducing rates and increasing pecan scab, young nutlets are wet following intervals between applications.
  • Dictionary of Cultivated Plants and Their Regions of Diversity Second Edition Revised Of: A.C

    Dictionary of Cultivated Plants and Their Regions of Diversity Second Edition Revised Of: A.C

    Dictionary of cultivated plants and their regions of diversity Second edition revised of: A.C. Zeven and P.M. Zhukovsky, 1975, Dictionary of cultivated plants and their centres of diversity 'N -'\:K 1~ Li Dictionary of cultivated plants and their regions of diversity Excluding most ornamentals, forest trees and lower plants A.C. Zeven andJ.M.J, de Wet K pudoc Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation Wageningen - 1982 ~T—^/-/- /+<>?- •/ CIP-GEGEVENS Zeven, A.C. Dictionary ofcultivate d plants andthei rregion so f diversity: excluding mostornamentals ,fores t treesan d lowerplant s/ A.C .Zeve n andJ.M.J ,d eWet .- Wageninge n : Pudoc. -11 1 Herz,uitg . van:Dictionar y of cultivatedplant s andthei r centreso fdiversit y /A.C .Zeve n andP.M . Zhukovsky, 1975.- Me t index,lit .opg . ISBN 90-220-0785-5 SISO63 2UD C63 3 Trefw.:plantenteelt . ISBN 90-220-0785-5 ©Centre forAgricultura l Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen,1982 . Nopar t of thisboo k mayb e reproduced andpublishe d in any form,b y print, photoprint,microfil m or any othermean swithou t written permission from thepublisher . Contents Preface 7 History of thewor k 8 Origins of agriculture anddomesticatio n ofplant s Cradles of agriculture and regions of diversity 21 1 Chinese-Japanese Region 32 2 Indochinese-IndonesianRegio n 48 3 Australian Region 65 4 Hindustani Region 70 5 Central AsianRegio n 81 6 NearEaster n Region 87 7 Mediterranean Region 103 8 African Region 121 9 European-Siberian Region 148 10 South American Region 164 11 CentralAmerica n andMexica n Region 185 12 NorthAmerica n Region 199 Specieswithou t an identified region 207 References 209 Indexo fbotanica l names 228 Preface The aimo f thiswor k ist ogiv e thereade r quick reference toth e regionso f diversity ofcultivate d plants.Fo r important crops,region so fdiversit y of related wild species areals opresented .Wil d species areofte nusefu l sources of genes to improve thevalu eo fcrops .
  • Rose Rosette Disease.Pptx

    Rose Rosette Disease.Pptx

    7/24/13 History of Rose Rose2e Disease • First reported in Manitoba, CA in 1940 • Reported in the U.S. shortly afterward • Now common in many parts of the U.S. • Has become more common in Dallas/Ft.Worth area in recent years 2002 RRV distribution Rose Rose2e Disease • Rosa multiflora planted as a hedgerow for erosion control and as a natural fence in first half of 20th century • R. multiflora is now well established all over the US and may be the most Multiflora rose susceptible host of RRV Rose Rose2e Disease VIRUSES AND VIROIDS • Caused by a virus Characteristics: • Transmitted by eriophyid mites Sub-cellular, composed of genetic material • Affects all rose varieties (DNA or RNA) surrounded by protein coat Replicate by “hijacking” plant DNA • Typically kills roses (takes a few months to a few years) Require wound to initially enter plant cell • Symptomatology is variable Require living host Spread Aphids, leaoppers, and other insects Contaminated pruning tools Grafting Pollen and/or seed (vertical transmission) 1 7/24/13 Symptoms of Virus and Viroid InfecCon in Viruses Plants Ringspot Mosaic Mottling Streaking/Striping Ringspot Chlorosis Vein-clearing Leaf spots Mosaic Reduced yield Dwarfing/stunting Mosaic Color breaking (streaking in flowers) Stem-pitting (pits and grooves in phloem) Spraing (necrotic spots and patterns in tubers) Mottling/Striping VIRUSES AND VIROIDS Transmission Diagnosing viral diseases: Rule out other causes (fungi, bacteria, insects, Primarily transmitted by mites physiological stress factors)
  • Pecan Rosette

    Pecan Rosette

    PECAN ROSETTE By W. A. ORTON, Pathologist in Charge, Cotton and Truck Disease and Sugar-Plant Investigations, and FREDERICK V, RAND,1 Assistant Pathologist, Laboratory of Plant Pathology, Bureau of Plant Industry HISTORY AND DISTRIBUTION Rosette has been rather generally recognized by growers as a serious disease almost from the inception of commercial pecan orcharding. As early as 1902 requests came to the United States Department of Agriculture for an investigation into the causes of the disease and possible methods of control. The work was at once undertaken by the senior author and carried on for about four years in connection with other FIG. I.—Map showing the known distribution of pecan rosette in the United States. work in the Southern States, but between 1906 and 1910 little attention was paid to the disease. Since 1910, and more particularly during thé seasons of 1912 and 1913, the experimentation has been continued by the junior author. The disease is well distributed over the pecan-growing territory from Texas to the Atlantic coast and from Florida to Virginia. (See fig. 1.) It has been definitely seen by one or the other of the authors at Whittier, Cal. ; San Antonio, Boerne, Waring, Kerrville, San Saba, Waco, Austin, McKinney, Tex.; New Orleans, La.; Ocean Springs, Miss.; Atlanta, 1 The work of the junior author was carried out while he was employed as scientific assistant in the Office of Fruit-Disease Investigations, Bureau of Plant Industry. Journal of Agricultural Research, Vol. Ill, No. 2 Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D. C Nov. 16, 1914 (149) G—36 150 Journal of A gricultural Research vol.
  • SPECIES IDENTIFICATION GUIDE National Plant Monitoring Scheme SPECIES IDENTIFICATION GUIDE

    SPECIES IDENTIFICATION GUIDE National Plant Monitoring Scheme SPECIES IDENTIFICATION GUIDE

    National Plant Monitoring Scheme SPECIES IDENTIFICATION GUIDE National Plant Monitoring Scheme SPECIES IDENTIFICATION GUIDE Contents White / Cream ................................ 2 Grasses ...................................... 130 Yellow ..........................................33 Rushes ....................................... 138 Red .............................................63 Sedges ....................................... 140 Pink ............................................66 Shrubs / Trees .............................. 148 Blue / Purple .................................83 Wood-rushes ................................ 154 Green / Brown ............................. 106 Indexes Aquatics ..................................... 118 Common name ............................. 155 Clubmosses ................................. 124 Scientific name ............................. 160 Ferns / Horsetails .......................... 125 Appendix .................................... 165 Key Traffic light system WF symbol R A G Species with the symbol G are For those recording at the generally easier to identify; Wildflower Level only. species with the symbol A may be harder to identify and additional information is provided, particularly on illustrations, to support you. Those with the symbol R may be confused with other species. In this instance distinguishing features are provided. Introduction This guide has been produced to help you identify the plants we would like you to record for the National Plant Monitoring Scheme. There is an index at
  • THE TERRIBLE TEN Pierce County B.O.L.O

    THE TERRIBLE TEN Pierce County B.O.L.O

    C o m m o n Pierce County B.O.L.O Pierce County Noxious F e n n e l Weed Lists and Be on the Lookout Licorice scented perennial 4-10 ft. tall G o a t s r u e Leaves are dark green and THE TERRIBLE feathery Perennial, up to 6 feet tall Bears umbrella shaped Alternate, compound leaves have 6-10 leaflets TEN clusters of small yellow flowers Pea-like flowers are white to lilac, clustered Tap roots can reach depths of 10 feet at stem end Outcompetes native plants and reduces native wildlife habitat Reproduces by seed; fatal if ingested Once established it is difficult to control, due to its strong competitive abilities and persistent seed bank Rush Skeletonweed D a l m a t i a n Perennial, 1-4 feet tall; reproduces by seed and vegetative growth T o a d f l a x Leaves coarsely lobed, fine dense hair on Perennial herb 2.5 to 5 feet both sides with sharp spines on margin tall Bright yellow flowers in single or clusters Waxy, heart shaped, light Not Palatable to livestock green leaves Bright yellow flowers with a tinge of orange in the center, D y e r ’ s W o a d looks like a snapdragon Annual, biennial or short-lived per- A persistent, aggressive in- ennial; ranging 1-4 feet tall vader, pushing out native Reproduces by seed grasses and other perennials. Rapidly colonizes open sites Lance-shaped leaves, alternated Contains poisonous alkaloid, toxic to livestock along stem with cream colored mid- vein Small yellow flowers found in clusters on the branch tips Wild Chervil Weeds of Concern for Biennial plant grows from Pierce County 1 to 4 ft.