DOCSLIB.ORG

Threat Specific Contingency Plan Net Form of Net Blotch

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Threat Specific Contingency Plan Net Form of Net Blotch INDUSTRY BIOSECURITY PLAN FOR THE GRAINS INDUSTRY Threat Specific Contingency Plan Net form of net blotch (exotic pathotypes) Pyrenophora teres f. sp. teres Prepared by Trevor Bretag and Plant Health Australia May 2009 PLANT HEALTH AUSTRALIA | Contingency Plan – Net form of net blotch (Pyrenophora teres f. sp. teres) Disclaimer The scientific and technical content of this document is current to the date published and all efforts were made to obtain relevant and published information on the pest. New information will be included as it becomes available, or when the document is reviewed. The material contained in this publication is produced for general information only. It is not intended as professional advice on any particular matter. No person should act or fail to act on the basis of any material contained in this publication without first obtaining specific, independent professional advice. Plant Health Australia and all persons acting for Plant Health Australia in preparing this publication, expressly disclaim all and any liability to any persons in respect of anything done by any such person in reliance, whether in whole or in part, on this publication. The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of Plant Health Australia. Further information For further information regarding this contingency plan, contact Plant Health Australia through the details below. Address: Suite 5, FECCA House 4 Phipps Close DEAKIN ACT 2600 Phone: +61 2 6260 4322 Fax: +61 2 6260 4321 Email: [email protected] Website: www.planthealthaustralia.com.au | PAGE 2 PLANT HEALTH AUSTRALIA | Contingency Plan – Net form of net blotch (Pyrenophora teres f. sp. teres) 1 Purpose of this Contingency Plan .......................................................................................... 5 2 Pest information/status ........................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Pest details ....................................................................................................................... 5 2.1.1 General information .................................................................................................... 5 2.1.2 Life cycle .................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Affected hosts ................................................................................................................... 7 2.2.1 Host range .................................................................................................................. 7 2.2.2 Geographic distribution ............................................................................................... 7 2.2.3 Symptoms .................................................................................................................. 8 2.3 Entry, establishment and spread ....................................................................................... 8 2.3.1 Entry potential ............................................................................................................ 8 2.3.2 Establishment potential ............................................................................................... 8 2.3.3 Spread potential ......................................................................................................... 9 2.3.4 Economic impact ........................................................................................................ 9 2.3.5 Environmental impact ............................................................................................... 10 2.3.6 Overall risk ............................................................................................................... 10 2.4 Diagnostic information..................................................................................................... 10 2.4.1 Diagnostic protocol ................................................................................................... 10 2.5 Response checklist ......................................................................................................... 11 2.6 Delimiting survey and epidemiology study ....................................................................... 12 2.6.1 Sampling method ...................................................................................................... 12 2.6.2 Epidemiological study ............................................................................................... 14 2.6.3 Models of spread potential ........................................................................................ 14 2.6.4 Pest Free Area (PFA) guidelines ............................................................................... 14 2.7 Availability of control methods ......................................................................................... 15 2.7.1 General procedures for control.................................................................................. 15 2.7.2 Control if small areas are affected ............................................................................. 15 2.7.3 Control if large areas are affected ............................................................................. 15 2.7.4 Cultural control ......................................................................................................... 16 2.7.5 Host plant resistance ................................................................................................ 17 2.7.6 Chemical control ....................................................................................................... 17 2.7.7 Mechanical control .................................................................................................... 18 2.7.8 Biological control ...................................................................................................... 18 3 Course of action – eradication methods .............................................................................. 18 3.1 Destruction strategy ........................................................................................................ 18 | PAGE 3 PLANT HEALTH AUSTRALIA | Contingency Plan – Net form of net blotch (Pyrenophora teres f. sp. teres) 3.1.1 Destruction protocols ................................................................................................ 18 3.1.2 Decontamination protocols........................................................................................ 19 3.1.3 Priorities ................................................................................................................... 19 3.1.4 Plants, by-products and waste processing ................................................................ 20 3.1.5 Disposal issues......................................................................................................... 20 3.2 Quarantine and movement controls ................................................................................. 20 3.2.1 Quarantine priorities ................................................................................................. 20 3.2.2 Movement control for people, plant material and machinery ...................................... 20 3.3 Zoning ............................................................................................................................ 21 3.3.1 Destruction Zone ...................................................................................................... 21 3.3.2 Quarantine Zone....................................................................................................... 21 3.3.3 Buffer Zone .............................................................................................................. 21 3.3.4 Restricted Area ......................................................................................................... 22 3.3.5 Control Area ............................................................................................................. 22 3.4 Decontamination and farm clean up ................................................................................ 22 3.4.1 Decontamination procedures .................................................................................... 22 3.4.2 Decontamination if pest is identified in a small or large areas .................................... 22 3.4.3 General safety precautions ....................................................................................... 23 3.5 Surveillance and tracing .................................................................................................. 23 3.5.1 Surveillance .............................................................................................................. 23 3.5.2 Survey regions ......................................................................................................... 23 3.5.3 Post-eradication surveillance .................................................................................... 24 4 References ............................................................................................................................ 25 4.1.1 4.1 Websites............................................................................................................. 28 5 Appendices............................................................................................................................ 29 Appendix 1. Standard diagnostic protocols ..............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pyrenophora Graminea ﺗﻌﯿﯿﻦ ﺗﯿﭗﻫﺎي آﻣﯿﺰﺷﯽ ﺟﺪاﯾﻪﻫﺎي ﻗﺎرچ ، ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﻟﮑﻪ ﻧﻮاري ﺟﻮ
    ﺑﻴﻤﺎﺭﻱﻫﺎﻱ ﮔﻴﺎﻫﻲ / ﺟﻠﺪ ۵۶ / ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ ۲ / ﺳﺎﻝ ۱۳۹۹: ۲۰۵-۱۹۳ Pyrenophora graminea ﺗﻌﯿﯿﻦ ﺗﯿﭗﻫﺎي آﻣﯿﺰﺷﯽ ﺟﺪاﯾﻪﻫﺎي ﻗﺎرچ ، ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﻟﮑﻪ ﻧﻮاري ﺟﻮ در ﺷﻤﺎل ﻏﺮب اﯾﺮان *1 2 1 ﺑﯿﺘﺎ ﺑﺎﺑﺎﺧﺎﻧﯽ ، ﻋﺒﺪاﻟﻪ اﺣﻤﺪﭘﻮر و ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺟﻮان ﻧﯿﮑﺨﻮاه (ﺗﺎرﯾﺦ درﯾﺎﻓﺖ: 29/1/1399؛ ﺗﺎرﯾﺦ ﭘﺬﯾﺮش: 1399/3/13) ﭼﮑﯿﺪه ﻟﮑﻪ ﻧﻮاري ﺟﻮ ﺑﺎ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ Pyrenophora graminea ﯾﮑﯽ از ﻣﻬﻢﺗﺮﯾﻦ و ﻣﺨﺮبﺗﺮﯾﻦ ﺑﯿﻤﺎريﻫﺎي ﺟﻮ ﻣﺤﺴﻮب ﻣﯽﺷﻮد. در ﻃﯽ ﺳﺎل زراﻋﯽ 1395، 121 ﺟﺪاﯾﻪ P. graminea از ﻣﺰارع ﺟﻮ اﺳﺘﺎنﻫﺎي آذرﺑﺎﯾﺠﺎنﻏﺮﺑﯽ (ﻣﯿﺎﻧﺪوآب)، آذرﺑﺎﯾﺠﺎنﺷﺮﻗﯽ (ﻣﯿﺎﻧﻪ)، اردﺑﯿﻞ (ﺑﺮﺟﻠﻮ) و زﻧﺠﺎن (ﺧﺮﻣﺪره) ﺟﺪاﺳﺎزي ﺷﺪ. ﭘﺲ از ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﯾﯽ رﯾﺨﺖﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ و ﻣﻮﻟﮑﻮﻟﯽ ﺟﺪاﯾﻪﻫﺎ ﺑﺎ آﻏﺎزﮔﺮﻫﺎي اﺧﺘﺼﺎﺻﯽ ﮔﻮﻧﻪ، آﻏﺎزﮔﺮﻫﺎي ﺗﯿﭗ آﻣﯿﺰﺷﯽ ﺑﺮ - MAT-2 HMG MAT-1 α اﺳﺎس ﻧﻮاﺣﯽ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻪ ﺣﻔﺎﻇﺖ ﺷﺪه از اﯾﺪﯾﻮﻣﻮرف و ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻪ از اﯾﺪﯾﻮﻣﻮرف ﻃﺮاﺣﯽ ﮔﺮدﯾﺪ و ﻓﺮاواﻧﯽ اﯾﺪﯾﻮﻣﻮرف ﻫﺎي ﺗﯿﭗﻫﺎي آﻣﯿﺰﺷﯽ ﺟﺪاﯾﻪﻫﺎي P. graminea ﺑﻪ روش Multiplex PCR ﻣﻮرد ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﻗﺮار ﮔﺮﻓﺖ. از ﻣﺠﻤﻮع 121 ﺟﺪاﯾﻪ، 56 ﺟﺪاﯾﻪ داراي - MAT-2 MAT-1 ﺗﯿﭗ آﻣﯿﺰﺷﯽ و 65 ﺟﺪاﯾﻪ داراي ﺗﯿﭗ آﻣﯿﺰﺷﯽ در ﮐﻞ ﺟﻤﻌﯿﺖﻫﺎ ﺑﻮدﻧﺪ. در ﺑﯿﻦ ﺷﺶ ﺟﻤﻌﯿﺖ ﻣﻮرد آزﻣﺎﯾﺶ، در ﺟﻤﻌﯿﺖ ﻫﺎي ﺧﺮﻣﺪره ﻣﺰرﻋﻪ (1) و ﻣﯿﺎﻧﺪوآب ﺑﻪ ﺗﺮﺗﯿﺐ ﺟﺪاﯾﻪﻫﺎﯾﯽ ﺑﺎ ﺗﯿﭗ آﻣﯿﺰﺷﯽ MAT-1 و MAT-2 از ﻓﺮاواﻧﯽ ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮي ﺑﺮﺧﻮردار ﺑﻮدﻧﺪ. ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ 2 ﺑﻪ ﻧﺘﺎﯾﺞ آزﻣﻮن ﮐﺎي اﺳﮑﻮﺋﺮ ( X)، ﺟﻤﻌﯿﺖﻫﺎي ﻣﯿﺎﻧﻪ، اردﺑﯿﻞ (ﻣﺰرﻋﻪ 1 و 2) و ﺧﺮﻣﺪره ﻣﺰرﻋﻪ (2) ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺟﻤﻌﯿﺖﻫﺎي ﻣﯿﺎﻧﺪوآب و ﺧﺮﻣﺪره ﻣﺰرﻋﻪ (1)، ﻓﺎﻗﺪ اﺧﺘﻼف ﻣﻌﻨﯽداري ﺑﻮدﻧﺪ. ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮاﯾﻦ، ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﯽرﺳﺪ ﭼﻬﺎر ﺟﻤﻌﯿﺖ ﻣﺮﺑﻮﻃﻪ داراي ﭘﺘﺎﻧﺴﯿﻞ ﺗﻮﻟﯿﺪﻣﺜﻞ ﺟﻨﺴﯽ ﺑﺎﻻﺗﺮي ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺟﻤﻌﯿﺖﻫﺎي ﻣﯿﺎﻧﺪوآب و ﺧﺮﻣﺪره ﻣﺰرﻋﻪ (1) ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ. ﺑﻪ ﻋﻼوه، ﺟﺪاﯾﻪﻫﺎ از ﻫﻤﻪ ﺟﻤﻌﯿﺖﻫﺎ ﺟﻬﺖ ارزﯾﺎﺑﯽ وﺿﻌﯿﺖ ﺑﺎروري ﺟﻨﺴﯽ آﻧﻬﺎ از ﻃﺮﯾﻖ ﺗﻼﻗﯽ ﻣﺘﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺑﺎ ﺗﯿﭗﻫﺎي آﻣﯿﺰﺷﯽ ﻣﺨﺎﻟﻒ ﻣﻮرد ﺑﺮرﺳﯽ ﻗﺮار ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻨﺪ.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of the Emerging Situation of Resistance to Succinate Dehydrogenase Inhibitors in Pyrenophora Teres and Zymoseptoria Tritici in Europe
    Universität Hohenheim Institut für Phytomedizin Fachgebiet Phytopathologie Prof. Dr. Ralf T. Vögele Analysis of the emerging situation of resistance to succinate dehydrogenase inhibitors in Pyrenophora teres and Zymoseptoria tritici in Europe Dissertation zur Erlangung des Grades eines Doktors der Agrarwissenschaften vorgelegt der Fakultät Agrarwissenschaften von Dipl. Agr. Biol. Alexandra Rehfus aus Leonberg 2018 Diese Arbeit wurde unterstützt und finanziert durch die BASF SE, Unternehmensbereich Pflanzenschutz, Forschung Fungizide, Limburgerhof. Die vorliegende Arbeit wurde am 15.05.2017 von der Fakultät Agrarwissenschaften der Universität Hohenheim als „Erlangung des Doktorgrades an der agrarwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Hohenheim in Stuttgart“ angenommen. Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 14.11.2017 1. Dekan: Prof. Dr. R. T. Vögele Berichterstatter, 1. Prüfer: Prof. Dr. R. T. Vögele Mitberichterstatter, 2. Prüfer: Prof. Dr. O. Spring 3. Prüfer: Prof. Dr. Dr. C. P. W. Zebitz Leiter des Kolloquiums: Prof. Dr. J. Wünsche Table of contents III Table of contents Table of contents ................................................................................................. III Abbreviations ..................................................................................................... VII Figures ................................................................................................................. IX Tables .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pyrenophora Teres: Taxonomy, Morphology, Interaction with Barley, and Mode of Control Aurélie Backes, Gea Guerriero, Essaid Ait Barka, Cédric Jacquard
    Pyrenophora teres: Taxonomy, Morphology, Interaction With Barley, and Mode of Control Aurélie Backes, Gea Guerriero, Essaid Ait Barka, Cédric Jacquard To cite this version: Aurélie Backes, Gea Guerriero, Essaid Ait Barka, Cédric Jacquard. Pyrenophora teres: Taxonomy, Morphology, Interaction With Barley, and Mode of Control. Frontiers in Plant Science, Frontiers, 2021, 12, 10.3389/fpls.2021.614951. hal-03279025 HAL Id: hal-03279025 https://hal.univ-reims.fr/hal-03279025 Submitted on 6 Jul 2021 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution| 4.0 International License REVIEW published: 06 April 2021 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.614951 Pyrenophora teres: Taxonomy, Morphology, Interaction With Barley, and Mode of Control Aurélie Backes 1, Gea Guerriero 2, Essaid Ait Barka 1* and Cédric Jacquard 1* 1 Unité de Recherche Résistance Induite et Bioprotection des Plantes, Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne, Reims, France, 2 Environmental Research and Innovation (ERIN) Department, Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST), Hautcharage, Luxembourg Net blotch, induced by the ascomycete Pyrenophora teres, has become among the most important disease of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Easily recognizable by brown reticulated stripes on the sensitive barley leaves, net blotch reduces the yield by up to 40% and decreases seed quality.
    [Show full text]
  • The Emergence of Cereal Fungal Diseases and the Incidence of Leaf Spot Diseases in Finland
    AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SCIENCE AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SCIENCE Vol. 20 (2011): 62–73. Vol. 20(2011): 62–73. The emergence of cereal fungal diseases and the incidence of leaf spot diseases in Finland Marja Jalli, Pauliina Laitinen and Satu Latvala MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Plant Production Research, FI-31600 Jokioinen, Finland, email: [email protected] Fungal plant pathogens causing cereal diseases in Finland have been studied by a literature survey, and a field survey of cereal leaf spot diseases conducted in 2009. Fifty-seven cereal fungal diseases have been identified in Finland. The first available references on different cereal fungal pathogens were published in 1868 and the most recent reports are on the emergence of Ramularia collo-cygni and Fusarium langsethiae in 2001. The incidence of cereal leaf spot diseases has increased during the last 40 years. Based on the field survey done in 2009 in Finland, Pyrenophora teres was present in 86%, Cochliobolus sativus in 90% and Rhynchosporium secalis in 52% of the investigated barley fields.Mycosphaerella graminicola was identi- fied for the first time in Finnish spring wheat fields, being present in 6% of the studied fields.Stagonospora nodorum was present in 98% and Pyrenophora tritici-repentis in 94% of spring wheat fields. Oat fields had the fewest fungal diseases. Pyrenophora chaetomioides was present in 63% and Cochliobolus sativus in 25% of the oat fields studied. Key-words: Plant disease, leaf spot disease, emergence, cereal, barley, wheat, oat Introduction nbrock and McDonald 2009). Changes in cropping systems and in climate are likely to maintain the plant-pathogen interactions (Gregory et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Genetic Diversity of Barley Foliar Fungal Pathogens
    agronomy Review Genetic Diversity of Barley Foliar Fungal Pathogens Arzu Çelik O˘guz* and Aziz Karakaya Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agriculture, Ankara University, Dı¸skapı,Ankara 06110, Turkey; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Powdery mildew, net blotch, scald, spot blotch, barley stripe, and leaf rust are important foliar fungal pathogens of barley. Fungal leaf pathogens negatively affect the yield and quality in barley plant. Virulence changes, which can occur in various ways, may render resistant plants to susceptible ones. Factors such as mutation, population size and random genetic drift, gene and genotype flow, reproduction and mating systems, selection imposed by major gene resistance, and quantitative resistance can affect the genetic diversity of the pathogenic fungi. The use of fungicide or disease-resistant barley genotypes is an effective method of disease control. However, the evolutionary potential of pathogens poses a risk to overcome resistance genes in the plant and to neutralize fungicide applications. Factors affecting the genetic diversity of the pathogen fungus may lead to the emergence of more virulent new pathotypes in the population. Understanding the factors affecting pathogen evolution, monitoring pathogen biology, and genetic diversity will help to develop effective control strategies. Keywords: barley; Hordeum vulgare; Blumeria graminis; Pyrenophora teres; Rhynchosporium commune; Cochliobolus sativus; Pyrenophora graminea; Puccinia hordei; genetic diversity Citation: Çelik O˘guz,A.; Karakaya, A. Genetic Diversity of Barley Foliar Fungal Pathogens. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1. Introduction 434. https://doi.org/10.3390/ Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) is one of the most important cereal crops that has been agronomy11030434 grown for thousands of years since prehistoric times, and is used in animal feed, malt products, and the food industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Supplementary Table S1 18Jan 2021
    Supplementary Table S1. Accurate scientific names of plant pathogenic fungi and secondary barcodes. Below is a list of the most important plant pathogenic fungi including Oomycetes with their accurate scientific names and synonyms. These scientific names include the results of the change to one scientific name for fungi. For additional information including plant hosts and localities worldwide as well as references consult the USDA-ARS U.S. National Fungus Collections (http://nt.ars- grin.gov/fungaldatabases/). Secondary barcodes, where available, are listed in superscript between round parentheses after generic names. The secondary barcodes listed here do not represent all known available loci for a given genus. Always consult recent literature for which primers and loci are required to resolve your species of interest. Also keep in mind that not all barcodes are available for all species of a genus and that not all species/genera listed below are known from sequence data. GENERA AND SPECIES NAME AND SYNONYMYS DISEASE SECONDARY BARCODES1 Kingdom Fungi Ascomycota Dothideomycetes Asterinales Asterinaceae Thyrinula(CHS-1, TEF1, TUB2) Thyrinula eucalypti (Cooke & Massee) H.J. Swart 1988 Target spot or corky spot of Eucalyptus Leptostromella eucalypti Cooke & Massee 1891 Thyrinula eucalyptina Petr. & Syd. 1924 Target spot or corky spot of Eucalyptus Lembosiopsis eucalyptina Petr. & Syd. 1924 Aulographum eucalypti Cooke & Massee 1889 Aulographina eucalypti (Cooke & Massee) Arx & E. Müll. 1960 Lembosiopsis australiensis Hansf. 1954 Botryosphaeriales Botryosphaeriaceae Botryosphaeria(TEF1, TUB2) Botryosphaeria dothidea (Moug.) Ces. & De Not. 1863 Canker, stem blight, dieback, fruit rot on Fusicoccum Sphaeria dothidea Moug. 1823 diverse hosts Fusicoccum aesculi Corda 1829 Phyllosticta divergens Sacc. 1891 Sphaeria coronillae Desm.
    [Show full text]
  • Isolation and Characterization of the Mating-Type Locus of the Barley
    855 Isolation and characterization of the mating-type locus of the barley pathogen Pyrenophora teres and frequencies of mating-type idiomorphs within and among fungal populations collected from barley landraces Domenico Rau, Frank J. Maier, Roberto Papa, Anthony H.D. Brown, Virgilio Balmas, Eva Saba, Wilhelm Schaefer, and Giovanna Attene Abstract: Pyrenophora teres f. sp. teres mating-type genes (MAT-1: 1190 bp; MAT-2: 1055 bp) have been identified. Their predicted proteins, measuring 379 and 333 amino acids, respectively, are similar to those of other Pleosporales, such as Pleospora sp., Cochliobolus sp., Alternaria alternata, Leptosphaeria maculans, and Phaeosphaeria nodorum. The structure of the MAT locus is discussed in comparison with those of other fungi. A mating-type PCR assay has also been developed; with this assay we have analyzed 150 isolates that were collected from 6 Sardinian barley land- race populations. Of these, 68 were P. t e re s f. sp. teres (net form; NF) and 82 were P. t e re s f. sp. maculata (spot form; SF). Within each mating type, the NF and SF amplification products were of the same length and were highly similar in sequence. The 2 mating types were present in both the NF and the SF populations at the field level, indicating that they have all maintained the potential for sexual reproduction. Despite the 2 forms being sympatric in 5 fields, no in- termediate isolates were detected with amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) analysis. These results suggest that the 2 forms are genetically isolated under the field conditions. In all of the samples of P.
    [Show full text]
  • Etiology and Epidemiology of the Barley Stripe Disease
    Etiology and epidemiology of the barley stripe disease (Pyrenophora graminea) in a semi-arid environment by Sally Gwillim Metz A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in PLANT PATHOLOGY Montana State University © Copyright by Sally Gwillim Metz (1978) Abstract: In 1973, a serious outbreak of disease in malting barley, first diagnosed as barley stripe (Pyrenophora graminea), occurred in north-central Montana. These studies were begun in response to that epidemic and were designed to determine whether barley stripe was present in Montana, to evaluate the potential threat if the disease was not now widespread, and to determine appropriate means of control. ' A survey for barley stripe was conducted on agricultural research centers throughout Montana and in farmers' fields in the northcentral portion of the state. Net blotch, caused by P. teres, was found in ' commercial fields, but not barley stripe. Barley stripe was present only in plots at the agricultural research centers, on cultivars grown from seed of European origin. Studies on spread of the disease from these foci showed that irrigation near heading increased the percent infection of seed with barley stripe threefold. In a dry environment, percent infection decreased to nearly zero. Commercially grown cultivars in Montana were screened for resistance to three isolates of P. graminea. Betzes, Erbet, Shabet, and Steptoe were highly resistant, while Horsford, Larker, and Ingrid were susceptible. Registered and experimental fungicides were evaluated in vitro for sources of potential seed treatments to replace Ceresan, which formerly was used to control the disease. None were as effective as Ceresan, but several experimental fungicides have good potential.
    [Show full text]
  • Epidemiology of Pyrenophora Teres and Its Effect On
    EPIDEMIOLOGY OF PYRENOPHORA TERES AND ITS EFFECT ON GRAIN YIELD OF HORDEUM VULGARE A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Crop Science and Plant Ecology University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon by Cornelius Gerardus Jacobus van den Berg July, 1 988 The author claims copyright. Use should not be made of the material contained herein without proper acknowledgement, as indicated on the following page. The author has agreed that the Library, University of Saskatchewan, may make this thesis freely available for inspection. Moreover, the author has agreed that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the professor or professors who supervised the thesis work recorded herein or, in their absence, by the Head of the Department or the Dean of the College in which the thesis work was done. It is understood that due recognition will be given to the author of this thesis and to the University of Saskatchewan in any use of the material in this thesis. Copying or publication or any other use of the thesis for financial gain without approval by the University of Saskatchewan and the author's written permission is prohibited. Requests for permission to copy or to make any other use of material in this thesis in whole or in part should be addressed to: Head of the Department of Crop Science and Plant Ecology University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Canada S7N OWO ABSTRACT Recent surveys in Saskatchewan have shown that the prevalence of Pyrenophora teres Drechs., the causal agent of net blotch of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), has increased.
    [Show full text]
  • Low Yield II
    Low Yield II Cumulative impact of hazard-based legislation on crop protection products in Europe www.ecpa.eu www.twitter.com/cropprotection www.facebook.com/cropprotection March 2020 Cumulative impact of hazard-based legislation on crop protection products in Europe March 2020 Contents Foreword 7 About the authors 9 1 Introduction 11 2 Methodology 17 2.1 Scope of the study 17 2.2 Data collection 18 2.2.1 Farm-level data 18 2.2.2 Country-level data 19 2.2.3 EU-level data 19 2.3 Data analysis 19 2.3.1 Farm-level effects 21 2.3.2 Country effects 23 2.3.3 EU-level effects 23 3 EU-Level Impact: Staple Crops 27 3.1 EU income effects 28 3.2 EU self-sufficiency effects 31 3.2.1 Trade effects: importing staple crops from abroad 31 3.2.2 Land use effects: cultivating additional land in the EU 32 4 Country-Level Impacts 35 4.1 Employment effects 35 5 Belgium 39 5.1 Agriculture in Belgium 39 5.2 Belgian farm-level effects 39 5.3 Belgian country-level effects 41 6 Denmark 45 6.1 Agriculture in Denmark 45 6.2 Danish farm-level effects 45 6.3 Danish country-level effects 48 7 Finland 51 7.1 Agriculture in Finland 51 7.2 Finnish farm-level effects 53 7.3 Finland country-level effects 54 March 2020 3 8 Greece 57 8.1 Agriculture in Greece 57 8.2 Greek farm-level effects 57 8.3 Greek country-level effects 60 9 Hungary 63 9.1 Agriculture in Hungary 63 9.2 Hungarian farm-level effects 64 9.3 Hungarian country-level effects 65 10 Romania 69 10.1 Agriculture in Romania 69 10.2 Romanian farm-level effects 69 10.3 Romanian country-level effects 72 11 Sweden 75 11.1 Agriculture in Sweden 75 11.2 Swedish farm-level effects 76 11.3 Swedish country-level effects 79 12 Conclusion 81 13 Annex 1 Methodology: calculations used in analysis 85 14 Annex 2 Detailed yield and cost changes 89 15 Annex 3 Detailed data sources 127 16 Annex 4 Detailed National Production data 135 17 Annex 5 Detailed list of 75 at-risk substances 139 4 Low Yield II Foreword Agriculture is important in Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Occurrence and Genetic and Pathogenic Characterisation Of
    Occurrence and genetic and pathogenic characterisation of Pyrenophora teres f. teres, P. teres f. maculata and their hybrids. A Thesis submitted by Barsha Poudel, MSc (Bioinformatics) For the award of Doctor of Philosophy 2018 Abstract Pyrenophora teres is the causal agent of net blotches, which are important foliar diseases of barley (Hordeum vulgare) worldwide. Pyrenophora teres has two forms, P. teres f. teres (Ptt) and P. teres f. maculata (Ptm), which causes the net and spot forms respectively based on the symptoms that they induce on barley. The life cycles of both forms are almost identical in which they can undergo both sexual and asexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction contributes to genetic and pathogenic evolution and provides challenges for development of commercial resistant cultivars. It is necessary to understand the genetic and pathogenic diversity of P. teres to effectively breed commercial barley cultivars with resistance. This will improve productivity for barley growers and industry and help reduce reliance on chemical fungicides. The two forms of P. teres consist of different virulence genes. Sexual recombination between two forms of P. teres provides a potential threat to breeding for resistance as it may result in combination of virulences from the two forms. Hybrids have been reported occasionally in the field. This study was conducted to investigate the frequency of Ptt x Ptm hybrid development in the field where both forms of P. teres co-exist. For this purpose, three field trial sites were established for three successive years and Ptt and Ptm of opposite mating types were inoculated to facilitate hybridisation. In addition, samples collected from barley growing regions in Australia during 1976–2015 were analysed.
    [Show full text]
  • Characterising Plant Pathogen Communities and Their Environmental Drivers at a National Scale
    Lincoln University Digital Thesis Copyright Statement The digital copy of this thesis is protected by the Copyright Act 1994 (New Zealand). This thesis may be consulted by you, provided you comply with the provisions of the Act and the following conditions of use: you will use the copy only for the purposes of research or private study you will recognise the author's right to be identified as the author of the thesis and due acknowledgement will be made to the author where appropriate you will obtain the author's permission before publishing any material from the thesis. Characterising plant pathogen communities and their environmental drivers at a national scale A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Lincoln University by Andreas Makiola Lincoln University, New Zealand 2019 General abstract Plant pathogens play a critical role for global food security, conservation of natural ecosystems and future resilience and sustainability of ecosystem services in general. Thus, it is crucial to understand the large-scale processes that shape plant pathogen communities. The recent drop in DNA sequencing costs offers, for the first time, the opportunity to study multiple plant pathogens simultaneously in their naturally occurring environment effectively at large scale. In this thesis, my aims were (1) to employ next-generation sequencing (NGS) based metabarcoding for the detection and identification of plant pathogens at the ecosystem scale in New Zealand, (2) to characterise plant pathogen communities, and (3) to determine the environmental drivers of these communities. First, I investigated the suitability of NGS for the detection, identification and quantification of plant pathogens using rust fungi as a model system.
    [Show full text]