Advertisement

European Journal of Plant Pathology

, Volume 116, Issue 1, pp 21–31 | Cite as

History of potato wart disease in Europe – a proposal for harmonisation in defining pathotypes

  • R. P. Baayen
  • G. Cochius
  • H. Hendriks
  • J. P. Meffert
  • J. Bakker
  • M. Bekker
  • P. H. J. F. van den Boogert
  • H. Stachewicz
  • G. C. M. van Leeuwen
Mini-review

Abstract

Potato wart disease, caused by the chytridiomycete Synchytrium endobioticum, was first introduced into Europe in the late 19th century. It spread quickly, and today is reported in 15 European countries. Initially, only one pathotype was found, and the disease was efficiently controlled using resistant cultivars. In 1941, however, formerly resistant cultivars showed wart formation in the field simultaneously in Germany and South Bohemia (Czech Republic), indicating the occurrence of new pathotypes. New pathotypes have since been reported from Germany, The Netherlands, Czech Republic, Ukraine and Canada. Today the pathogen is present in The Netherlands (only in fields for ware and starch potatoes) but restricted to two demarcated areas and subject to official control. Outside these areas, the pathogen is absent. For pathotyping, different countries have used different sets of differential cultivars, and the usual system of numerical coding of pathotypes has not been consistently followed. In this review we propose a new standardised code to be used for the 43 pathotypes currently known and described in Europe. The code is a combination of a numerical and letter code, combining the two terminologies used by former West and East Germany, respectively. We also plead for harmonisation in the choice of differential cultivars used for pathotype identification. The set of differentials described in the international standard for diagnosis of S. endobioticum issued by the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation (EPPO), should serve as a basis. Through close collaboration of European countries dealing with new pathotypes of potato wart disease, a final agreed upon set of differentials, combined with a set of reference isolates, should ultimately be established, allowing a clear distinction between the most important pathotypes occurring in Europe.

Keywords

host resistance physiological specialisation quarantine Solanum tuberosum Synchytrium endobioticum 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anon. (1921) Der Kartoffelkrebs in den Niederlanden/Black Scab (Wart disease) in The Netherlands. Verslagen en Mededeelingen van den Phytopathologischen Dienst te Wageningen, No. 16a–cGoogle Scholar
  2. Baayen RP, Bonthuis H, Withagen JCM, Wander JGN, Lamers JL, Meffert JP, Cochius G, Van Leeuwen GCM, Hendriks H, Heerink BGJ, Van den Boogert PHJF, Van de Griend P, Bosch RA (2005) Resistance of potato cultivars to Synchytrium endobioticum in field and laboratory tests, risk of secondary infection, and implications for phytosanitary regulations. EPPO Bulletin 35: 9–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baayen RP, Cochius G, Hendriks H, Van Leeuwen GCM, Meffert JP, Janssen FJA (2004) New pathotypes of the potato wart fungus Synchytrium endobioticum threaten Dutch potato production. Gewasbescherming 35: 160–167 (in Dutch)Google Scholar
  4. Baayen RP, Stachewicz H (2004) Diagnostic protocols for regulated pests, Synchytrium endobioticum. EPPO Bulletin 34: 213–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blattny C (1942) Preliminary note on the races of Synchytrium endobioticum. Annales de l’Académie tchécoslovaque d’agriculture 17: 40–46(in Czech)Google Scholar
  6. Braun H (1942) Biologische Spezialisierung bei Synchytrium endobioticum (Schilb.) Perc. (Vorläufige Mitteilung). Zeitschrift für Pflanzenkrankheiten und Pflanzenschutz 52: 481–486Google Scholar
  7. EPPO (1977) First report of the working party on potato wart disease. EPPO Publications, series C, no. 50Google Scholar
  8. EPPO (1982) Report of the 2nd meeting of the EPPO Panel on potato wart disease. EPPO document no. 5205Google Scholar
  9. EPPO (2005) Pest Quarantine Database, version 4.4, EPPO, ParisGoogle Scholar
  10. European Union (2000) Council Directive 2000/29/EC, 8 May 2000, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  11. European Union (2003) Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded. Official Journal of the European Union (ISSN 1725–2555), L 236, vol. 46 (23 September 2003), p. 883Google Scholar
  12. Hampson MC (1993) History, biology and control of potato wart disease in Canada. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology 15: 223–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hampson MC, Coombes JW (1985) Stress and stimulus modifications of disease severity in the wart disease of potato. Phytopathology 75: 817–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hampson MC, Proudfoot KG (1974) Potato wart disease, its introduction to North America, distribution and control problems in Newfoundland. FAO Plant Protection Bulletin 22: 53–64Google Scholar
  15. Hey A (1959) Die Kartoffelkrebsforschung in der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik und ihre praktische Auswertung. In: Proceedings of the International Conference of potato wart disease, Prague. Annals of CAAS-Plant Production 32(6): 59–68 Google Scholar
  16. Köhler E (1931) Der Kartoffelkrebs und sein Erreger (Synchytrium endobioticum [Schilb.], Perc.). Landwirtschaftliche Jahrbücher 74: 729–806Google Scholar
  17. Langerfeld E (1984) Synchytrium endobioticum (Schilb.) Perc. Zusammenfassende Darstellung des Erregers des Kartoffelkrebses anhand von Literaturberichten. Mitteilungen aus der Biologischen Bundesanstalt für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Berlin-Dahlem, 219: 1–142Google Scholar
  18. Langerfeld E, Stachewicz H (1993) Pathotypen des Kartoffelkrebses (Synchytrium endobioticum [Schilb.] Perc.) in den alten und neuen Bundesländern. Gesunde Pflanzen 45: 9–12Google Scholar
  19. Langerfeld E, Stachewicz H, Rintelen J (1994) Pathotypes of Synchytrium endobioticum in Germany. EPPO Bulletin 24: 799–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lellbach H, Effmert M (1990) Results of diallel analysis of the genetics of resistance to Synchytrium endobioticum (Schilb.) Perc., pathotype 1(D1) of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Potato Research 33: 251–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leszczenko P and Roguski K (1959) The planting of wart disease immune potatoes in Poland. In: Proceedings of the International Conference of potato wart disease, Prague. Annals of CAAS-Plant Production 32(6): 145–152 (in Polish)Google Scholar
  22. Malec K (1974) Investigations on the occurrence of new, highly virulent biotypes of Synchytrium endobioticum (Schilb.) Perc. Biuletyn Instytutu Ziemniaka 14: 131–135Google Scholar
  23. Maris B (1961) Races of the potato wart causing fungus Synchytrium endobioticum (Schilb.) Perc. and some data on the inheritance of resistance to race 6. Euphytica 10: 269–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Matskiv TI, Melnik PA, Golik IV (1998) Definition and distribution of aggressive pathotypes of Synchytrium endobioticum in Ukraine. EPPO Bulletin 28: 539–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Melnik PA (1998) Wart disease of potato, Synchytrium endobioticum (Schilbersky) Percival. EPPO Technical documents no. 1032, ParisGoogle Scholar
  26. Melnik PA, Malakhanova EL (1998) Variability of Synchytrium endobioticum in the Carpathian region of Ukraine. EPPO Bulletin 28: 533–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Olsen OA (1961) Potato wart investigations in Newfoundland. Canadian Plant Diseases Survey 41: 148–155 Google Scholar
  28. Percival J (1910) Potato “wart” disease: the life history and cytology of Synchytrium endobioticum (Schilb.) Percl. Zentralblatt für Bakteriologie 25: 440–447Google Scholar
  29. Potoček J, Krajíčková K, Klabzubová S, Krejcar Z, Hnízdil M, Novák F, Perlová V (1991) Identification of new Synchytrium endobioticum (Schilb.) Perc. pathotypes in Czech Republic. Ochrana Rostlin 27: 191–205Google Scholar
  30. Proudfoot KG (1971) Further observations on races of potato wart in Newfoundland. Potato Research 14: 232–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Scheidt M, Hunnius W (1981) Vererbung der Resistenz gegen die Pathotypen 2 und 6 des Kartoffelkrebses (Synchytrium endobioticum). Zeitschrift für Pflanzenzüchtung 86: 158–173Google Scholar
  32. Stachewicz H (1978) Nachweis eines neuen Biotypen des Kartoffelkrebserregers Synchytrium endobioticum (Schilb.) Perc. in der DDR. Nachrichtenblatt für den Pflanzenschutz in der DDR 32: 215Google Scholar
  33. Stachewicz H (1996) Die Krebsresistenzprüfung von Kartoffelzuchtstämmen und -Sorten in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Nachrichtenblatt des Deutschen Pflanzenschutzdienstes 48: 181–186Google Scholar
  34. Stachewicz H (1999) Auftreten und Bekämpfung des Kartoffelkrebses in Deutschland. Kartoffelbau 50 (11): 426–430Google Scholar
  35. Stachewicz H, Baayen RP (2003) Bestimmung eines neuen Pathotypen des Kartoffelkrebserregers Synchytrium endobioticum (Schilb.) Perc. in den Niederlanden. Nachrichtenblatt des Deutschen Pflanzenschutzdienstes 55: 6–9Google Scholar
  36. Stachewicz H, Baayen RP, Hendriks H (2002) Pathotyp 6 des Kartoffelkrebserregers in den Niederlanden. Nachrichtenblatt des Deutschen Pflanzenschutzdienstes 54: 132Google Scholar
  37. Stachewicz H, Langerfeld E (1998) Synchytrium endobioticum (Schilb.) Perc.: Zur Geschichte des Kartoffelkrebses in Deutschland. Mitteilungen aus der Biologischen Bundesanstalt für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Berlin-Dahlem, 335: 38–62Google Scholar
  38. Stiksma JK (1955). Potato wart disease, Synchytrium endobioticum (Schilb.) Perc. Verslagen en Mededelingen van de Plantenziektenkundige Dienst te Wageningen 126: 1–20 (in Dutch)Google Scholar
  39. Trimboli DS (2004) A new pathotype of Bremia lactucae on lettuce in Australia. Australasian Plant Pathology 33: 605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ullrich J (1958) Die physiologische Specialisierung von Synchytrium endobioticum (Schilb.) Perc. in der Bundesrepublik. Phytopathologische Zeitschrift 31: 273–278Google Scholar
  41. Wicker E, Moussart A, Duparque M, Rouxel F (2003) Further contributions to the development of a differential set of pea cultivars (Pisum sativum) to investigate the virulence of isolates of Aphanomyces euteiches. European Journal of Plant Pathology 109: 47–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Winkelmann A (1952) Biotypen des Kartoffelkrebserregers in Westdeutschland. Nachrichtenblatt des Deutschen Pflanzenschutzdienstes 4 : 140Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. P. Baayen
    • 1
    • 3
  • G. Cochius
    • 1
  • H. Hendriks
    • 1
  • J. P. Meffert
    • 1
  • J. Bakker
    • 1
  • M. Bekker
    • 1
    • 4
  • P. H. J. F. van den Boogert
    • 1
  • H. Stachewicz
    • 2
  • G. C. M. van Leeuwen
    • 1
  1. 1.Plant Protection ServiceWageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Biologische Bundesanstalt für Land- und ForstwirtschaftInstitut für Pflanzenschutz in Ackerbau und Grünland, Außenstelle KleinmachnowKleinmachnowGermany
  3. 3.Nature and Food Quality, Agriculture DepartmentMinistry of Agriculture Den HaagThe Netherlands
  4. 4.CATIE, Department Agricultura y AgroforesteriaUnidad de FitoprotecciónTurrialbaCosta Rica

Personalised recommendations