, Volume 124, Issue 3, pp 163–174 | Cite as

Studies on the rustMaravalia cryptostegiae, a potential biological control agent of rubber-vine weed (Cryptostegia grandiflora, Asclepiadaceae: Periplocoideae) in Australia, I: Life-cycle

  • Harry C. Evans
Plant Mycology And Crop Protection


Three spore types are described forMaravalia cryptostegiae: hemileioid ‘urediniospores’; thin-walled, hyaline, ellipsoidal, non-resting teliospores and ovoid to lacrimoid basidiospores. Field surveys in the Madagascan native range of rubber-vine failed to confirm the existence of spermogonia and morphologically distinct aecia within the life-cycle. Greenhouse inoculations with basidiospores were unsuccessful. Cytological studies revealed that rubber-vine rust has a similar nuclear cycle to that reported for coffee leaf rust,Hemileia vastatrix. The working hypothesis is proposed thatMaravalia cryptostegiae is a primitive, autoecious tropical forest rust with only a short or partially expanded life-cycle represented by two teliospore forms. The predominant, functional form is uredinioid with a novel nuclear cycle, in which there is a delayed meiotic division (the Kamat phenomenon). The non-dispersed form appears to be vestigial or non-functional since it germinates to produce a metabasidium with genetically variable and unstable basidiospores. The relationships and evolutionary significance of the generaMaravalia andHemileia are discussed.

Key words

Biological control Coffee rust Cytology Life-cycle Maravalia rust Rubber-vine weed 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Marohasy J, Forster PI. A taxonomic revision ofCryptostegia R.Br. (Asclepiadaceae: Periplocoidae). Aust Syst Bot 1991; 4: 571–7.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Parsons WT, Cuthbertson EG. Noxious weeds of Australia. Melbourne: Inkata Press 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    McFadyen RE, Harvey GJ. Distribution and control of rubbervine,Cryptostegia grandiflora, a major weed in northern Queensland. Plant Protection Quarterly 1990; 5: 152–5.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tomley AJ. The biological control programme forCryptostegia grandiflora in Australia. In: Delfosse ES (ed), Proc VII Int Symp Biol Contr Weeds 1990: 685–7. Rome: Ist Sper Patol Veg (MAF).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McFadyen RE, Marohasy JJ. A leaf feeding moth,Euclasta whalleyi [Lep.: Pyralidae] for the biological control ofCryptostegia grandiflora [Asclepiadaceae] in Queensland, Australia. Entomophaga 1990; 35: 431–5.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McFadyen RE, Marohasy JJ. Biology and host plant range of the soft scale,Steatococcus new species [Hem.: Margarodidae] for the biological control of the weedCryptostegia grandiflora [Asclepiadaceae]. Entomophaga 1990; 35: 437–9.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ono Y. A monograph ofMaravalia (Uredinales). Mycologia 1984; 76: 892–911.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Punithalingam E. The nuclei ofMacrophomina phaseolina (Tassi) Goid. Nova Hedwigia 1983; 38: 339–67.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sydow, P. Sydow H. Monographia Uredinearum, III. Leipzig (Germany): Fratres Borntraeger 1915.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cummins GB. Descriptions of tropical rusts, II. Bull Torr bot Club 1940; 67: 67–75Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cummins GB. The genusScopella of the Uredinales. Bull Torr bot Club 1950; 77: 204–13.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gopalkrishnan KS. Notes on the morphology of the genusHemileia. Mycologia 1951; 43: 272–81.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Viennot-Bourgin G. Étude de micromycètes parasites récoltes à Madagascar. Ann Inst Natl Agron Paris 1963; 47: 1–28.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cummins GB, Hiratsuka Y. Illustrated genera of rust fungi. St Paul, MI: American Phytopathological Society 1983: 79.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ward HM. Researches on the life history ofHemileia vastatrix, the fungus of the ‘coffee leaf disease’. J Linn Soc (Bot) 1882; 19: 299–335.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thirumalachar MJ, Narasimhan MJ. Studies on the morphology and parasitism ofHemileia species on Rubiaceae in Mysore. Ann Bot Ns 1947; 11: 77–89.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rayner RW. Micologia, historia y biologia de la roya del cafeto. Publ Misc No. 94; 1972: 1–68. Turrialba: Inst Interamer Cienc Agric.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rajendren RB. New type of nuclear life cycle inHemileia vastatrix. Nature (Lond) 1967; 213: 105–6.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rajendren RB. A new type of nuclear life cycle inHemileia vastatrix. Mycologia 1967; 59: 279–85.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rajendren RB. Atypical and typical germination of uredinoid teliospores. Mycologia 1967; 59: 918–21.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chinnappa CC, Sreenivasan MS. Cytology ofHemileia vastatrix. Caryologia 1968; 21: 75–82.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Evans HC, Fleureau L. Studies on the rustMaravalia cryptostegiae, a potential biological control agent of rubber-vine weed,Cryptostegia grandiflora (Asclepiadaceae: Periplocoideae) in Australia, II: Infection. Mycopathologia 1993; 124: 175–184.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rayner RW. Infection byHemileia vastatrix. Nature (Lond) 1967; 215: 90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vishveshwara S, Nag Raj TR. Some abnormalities of teliospore germination inHemileia vastatrix. Phyton (Argentina) 1962; 18: 75–9.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chinnappa CC & Sreenivasan MS. Cytological studies on germinating teliospores ofHemileia vastatrix. Caryologia 1965; 18: 625–31.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rajendren RB. Behaviour of diploid nucleus inScopellopsis dalbergiae (Uredinales). Mycologia 1969; 61: 631–5.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gardner DE. Nuclear behavior and clarification of the spore stages ofUromyces koae. Can J Bot 1981; 59: 939–46.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gardner DE. Teliospore germination ofUromyces alyxiae, an endemic Hawaiian rust. Mycologia 1987; 79: 914–7.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gardner DE. Teliospore germination ofPuccinia vitata, an endemic Hawaiian rust. Mycologia 1988; 80: 590–3.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hodges CS, Gardner DE. Hawaiian forest fungi, IV: Rusts on endemicAcacia species. Mycologia 1984; 76: 332–49.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Leppik EE. Some viewpoints on the phylogeny of rust fungi, V: Evolution of biological specialisation. Mycologia 1965; 57: 6–22.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ono Y, Hennen JF. Taxonomy of the Chaconiaceous genera (Uredinales). Trans Mycol Soc Jap 1983; 124: 369–402.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Savile DBO. A phylogeny of Basidiomycetes. Can J Bot 1955; 33: 60–104.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Savile DBO. Evolution of the rust fungi (Uredinales) as reflected by their ecological problems. Evol Biol 1976; 9: 137–207.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ando K. Phylogeny of the fern rusts (Uredinopsis, Milesina andHyalopsora). Trans Mycol Soc Jap 1984; 25: 295–304.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hennen JF, Buriticá P. A brief summary of modern rust taxonomic and evolutionary theory. Rep Tot Mycol Inst, Jap 1980; 18: 243–56.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hart JA. Rust fungi and host plant coevolution: do primitive hosts harbor primitive parasites? Cladistics 1988; 4: 339–66.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ono Y, Kakishima M, Lohsomboon P, Manoch L, Visarathnonth N. Two new species of Uredinales from Thailand. Mycologia 1988; 80: 261–3.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hennen JF, Figueiredo MB. The life cycle ofHemileia vastatrix? Simpósio sobre Ferrugens do Cafeeiro 1984: 47–56. Oeiras, Portugal: Instituto de Investigacão Cientifica Tropical.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rodrigues CJ, Rijo L, Medeiros EF. Germinacáo anomala dos uredosporas deHemileia vastatrix, o agente causal de ferrugem alaranjada do cafeeiro. Garcia de Orta, Ser Estacão Agron Lisboa 1980; 7: 17–20.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harry C. Evans
    • 1
  1. 1.CAB International Institute of Biological Control (IIBC)AscotUK

Personalised recommendations