, Volume 170, Issue 1, pp 51–60 | Cite as

Xanthium italicum, Xanthium strumarium and Arctium lappa as new hosts for Diaporthe helianthi

  • Karolina VrandecicEmail author
  • Drazenka Jurkovic
  • Luca Riccioni
  • Jasenka Cosic
  • Tomislav Duvnjak


Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) stem canker caused by Diaporthe helianthi is one of the most important sunflower diseases in Croatia. Until recently, sunflower was the only known host for D. helianthi. In our research carried out in the area of Eastern Croatia, isolates of Diaporthe/Phomospis were collected from Xanthium italicum, X. strumarium and Arctium lappa. Using morphological, cultural and molecular ITS rDNA data, isolates from these weeds were identified as D. helianthi. The following isolates were used in the pathogenicity test: one isolate originated from sunflower (Su5/04), three from X. italicum (Xa2, Xa3 and Xa5), two from X. strumarium (Xa9 and Xa12), one from Xanthium sp. (Xa13) and one from A. lappa (Ar3). According to the results, it was determined that isolate Xa5 (originated from X. italicum) was the most pathogenic to sunflower stems. The average length of the lesion was 11.3 cm. The lowest level of pathogenicity was found in Xa9 (isolated from X. strumarium). The length of the lesion was 0.1 cm.


Diaporthe helianthi Weeds Morphological identification ITS 



The authors would like to thank Mrs. Nicoletta Pucci (CRA-PAV, Rome) for her assistance related to molecular analyses. This work was partially financially supported by the Ministry of Science, Education and Sports of the Republic of Croatia, Project No. 079-0790570-2995.


  1. 1.
    Uecker FA. A world list of Phomopsis names with notes on nomenclature, morphology and biology. Mycol Mem. 1988;13:1–323.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rehner SA, Uecker FA. Nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer phylogeny and host diversity in the coelomycete Phomopsis. Can J Bot. 1994;72:1666–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Farr FD, Castlebury AL, Pardo-Schultheiss AR. Phomopsis amygdali causes peach shoot blight of cultivated peach trees in the southeastern United States. Mycologia. 1999;91:1008–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Murali TS, Suryanarayanan TS, Geeta R. Endophytic Phomopsis species: host range and implications for diversity estimates. Can J Microbiol. 2006;52:673–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Van Rensburg JCJ, Lamprecht SC, Groenewald JZ, Castlebury LA, Crous PW. Characterisation of Phomopsis spp. associated with die-back of rooibos (Aspalathus linearis) in South Africa. Stud Mycol. 2006;55:65–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mihaljcevic M, Petrov M, Muntanola-Cvetkovic M. Phomopsis sp., a new sunflower parasite in Yugoslavia. Savremena Poljoprivreda. 1980;28:531–9.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Muntanola-Cvetkovic M, Mihaljcevic M, Petrov M. On the identity of the causative agent of a serious PhomopsisDiaporthe disease in sunflower plants. Nova Hedwigia. 1981;34:417–35.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Homecken M, Franca Neto JB. Phomopsis sp. a new pathogen of sunflower. In: Resultados de Pesquisa de Girassol, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria, Londrina (BR) 1982. p. 665.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Herr LJ, Lipps PE, Watters BL. Diaporthe stem canker of sunflower. Plant Dis. 1983;67:911–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vőrős J, Leranth J, Vajna I. Overwintering of Diaporthe helianthi a new destructive pathogen of sunflower in Hungary. Acta Phytopathol Acad Sci Hung. 1983;18:303–5.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Iliescu H, Jinga V, Ciurea A, Ionita A. Investigations related to the prognosis of sunflower stem canker (Diaporthe helianthi). Helia. 1985;8:51–6.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Regnault Y. Preliminary observations on Phomopsis of sunflower. Bull CETIOM. 1985;92:13–20.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zazzerini A, Tosi L, Losavio N. Rilievi fitopatologici su varietà di girasole a confronto nel 1987. L’Informatore Agrario. 1988;13:85–8.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Madjidich-Ghassemi. A new sunflower disease in Iran caused by Phomopsis helianthi. Proceedings of the 12th International Sunflower Conference, Novi Sad, Yugoslavia 1988. p. 108–9.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rauf-Butta A, Rehbar MH, Sayed Irfan A, Iftikhar A. Prevalence and incidence of sunflower diseases in Pakistan. Helia. 1993;16:93–8.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Degener J, Melchinger AE, Hahn V. Interspecific hybrids as source of resistance to Sclerotinia and Phomopsis in sunflower breeding. Helia. 1999;22:49–60.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Demazure B. Phomopsis: Du progres dans les varietés. Grande Cult Infos. 1995;41:39–41.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Franco DA, Morales O. Influence of sunflower stem canker (Diaporthe helianthi) on seed quality and yield during seed development. Helia. 1997;20:57–62.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Laville J. Cahier technique tournesol: maladie. Paris: CETIOM; 1986.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Says-Lesage V, Roeckel-Drevet P, Viguié A, Tourvielle J, Nicolas P, Tourvieille de Labrouhe D. Molecular variability within Diaporthe/Phomopsis helianthi from France. Phytopathology. 2002;92:308–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pecchia S, Mercatelli E, Vannacci G. Intraspecific diversity within Diaporthe helianthi: evidence from rDNA intergenic spacer (IGS) sequence analysis. Mycopathologia. 2004;157:317–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rekab D, Del Sorbo G, Reggio C, Zoina A, Firrao G. Polymorphisms in nuclear rDNA and mtDNA reveal the polyphyletic nature of isolates of Phomopsis pathogenic to sunflower and a tight monophyletic clade of defined geographic origin. Mycol Res. 2004;108:393–402.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vergara M, Cristani C, Regis C, Vannacci G. A coding region in Diaporthe helianthi reveals genetic variability among isolates of different geographic origin. Mycopathologia. 2004;158:123–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dinoor A. Role of wild and cultivated plants in the epidemiology of plant diseases in Israel. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 1974;12:413–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hepperly PR, Kirkpatrick BL, Sinclair JB. Abutilon theophrasti: wild host for three fungal parasites of soybean. Phytopathology. 1980;70:307–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Roy KW, Miller WA, McLean KS. Survey of pathogenic genera of fungi on foliage of weeds in Mississippi. Can J Plant Pathol. 1994;16:25–9.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Roy KW, Ratnayake S, McLean K. Colonization of weeds by Phomopsis longicolla. Can J Plant Pathol. 1997;19:193–6.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mengistu A, Reddy N. Detection of Phomopsis longicolla T. W. Hobbs and its pathogenicity on Glycine max (L.) Merr. and weed hosts. Seed Technol. 2005;27:97–100.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vrandecic K, Cosic J, Riccioni L, Duvnjak T, Jurkovic D. Isolation of Diaporthe phaseolorum var. caulivora from Abutilon theophrasti in Croatia. Plant Pathol. 2005;54(4):576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vrandecic K, Jurkovic D, Cosic J. Effect of Diaporthe/Phomopsis species isolated from soybean and Abutilon theophrasti on soybean seed germination. J Phytopathol. 2006;154:725–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Piven’ VT, Dolzhenko EG, Slysar’ eL. Cyclahaena xanthifolia—a potential alternative host of Phomopsis species. Zashchita i Karantin Rastenii. 2000;5:28–9.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Van Niekerk JM, Groenewald JZ, Farr DF, Fourie PH, Halleen F, Crous PW. Reassessment of Phomopsis species on grapevines. Aust Plant Pathol. 2005;34:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tranel PJ, Jeschke MR, Wassom JJ, Maxwell DJ, Wax LM. Variation in soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) interference among common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium L.) accessions. Crop Prot. 2003;22:375–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pál R. Invasive plants threaten Segetal weed vegetation of south Hungary. Weed Technol. 2004;18:1314–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nikandrow A, Weidemann GJ, Auld BA. Incidence and pathogenicity of Colletotrichum orbiculare and a Phomopsis sp. on Xanthium spp. Plant Dis. 1990;74:796–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Carriere JB, Petrov M. Diaporthe (Phomopsis) sp., a new pathogen of cocklebur (Xanthium italicum Moretti) and of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Helia. 1990;13:93–106.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yang SM, Gulya TJ. Groups of Diaporthe/Phomopsis isolates obtained from cultivated sunflower. Phytopathology. 1984;74:7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Muntanola-Cvetkovic M, Vukojevic J, Mihaljcevic M. Cultural growth patterns and incompatibility reactions in Diaporthe and Phomopis populations. J Phytopathol. 1996;144:285–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jurkovic D, Vrandecic K, Cosic J, Riccioni L, Duvnjak T. Morphological identification of Diaporthe/Phomopsis sp. isolated from Xanthium italicum. Poljoprivreda. 2007;13:10–4.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wehmeyer LE. The genus Diaporthe Nitschke and its segregates. University of Michigan Studies Sci Ser 9:1933.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cenis JL. Rapid extraction of fungal DNA for PCR amplification. Nucleic Acids Res. 1992;20:2380.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    White TJ, Bruns T, Lee S, Taylor JW. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In: Innis MA, Gelfand DH, Sninsky JJ, White TJ, editors. PCR protocols: a guide to methods and applications. New York: Academic Press; 1990. p. 315–22.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tamura K, Dudley J, Nei M, Kumar S. MEGA4: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis (MEGA) software version 4.0. Mol Biol Evol. 2007;24:1596–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nei M, Kumar S. Molecular evolution and phylogenetics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Felsenstein J. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution. 1985;39:783–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schneiter AA, Miller JF. Description of sunflower growth stages. Crop Sci. 1981;2:901–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tourvielle D, Vear F, Pelletier C. Use of two mycelium tests in breading sunflower resistant to Phomopsis. Proceedings of 12th Sunflower conference, Novi Sad, Yugoslavia 1988:2: p. 110–4.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Duncan DB. Multiple ranges and multiple F-test. Biometrics. 1955;11:1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    SAS/STAT. User’s guide, version 8. Cary: SAS Institute; 1999.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Montuschi C, Collina M, Antoniacci L, Cicognani E, Rimondi S, Trapella R, et al. Preliminary studies on biology and epidemiology of Valsa ceratosperma (Cytospora vitis), the causal agent of bark canker on pear in Italy. IOBC WPRS BULL. 2006;29(1):183–94.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Singh MP, Janso JE, Brady SF. Cytoskyrins and cytosporones produced by Cytospora sp. CR200: taxonomy, fermentation and biological activities. Mar Drugs. 2007;5(3):71–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Castlebury LA, Farr DF, Rossman AY, Jaklitsch W. Diaporthe angelicae comb. nov., a modern description and placement of Diaporthopsis in Diaporthe. Mycoscience. 2003;44:203–8.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Santos JM, Phillips AJL. Resolving the complex of Diaporthe (Phomopsis) species occurring on Foeniculum vulgare in Portugal. Fungal Divers. 2009;34:109–23.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kuleci E, Tunali B, Berner D, Cavin C, Castlebury L. First report of leaf anthracnose caused by Phomopsis convolvuli on field bindweed in Turkey. Plant Dis. 2009;93:847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Castlebury LA, Rossman AY, Jaklitsch WJ, Vasilyeva LN. A preliminary overview of the Diaporthales based on large subunit nuclear ribosomal DNA sequences. Mycologia. 2002;94:1017–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Muntanola-Cvetkovic M, Mihaljcevic M, Vukojevic J. Dosadašnji rezultati ispitivanja Phomopsis/Diaporthe helianthi na suncokretu, I—mikološki aspekti. Zaštita bilja. 1988;39:469–78.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Jurkovic D, Culek M. Abutilon theophrasti Medik—a new host for Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary in Croatia. Acta Phytopathol et Entomol Hung. 1997;32:307–12.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Viguie A, Masirevic S, Vear F, Grezes-Besset B, Tourvieille de Labrouhe D. Comparison of aggressive isolates of Phomopsis/Diaporthe helianthi (which causes phomopsis in sunflowers) of French and Yugoslav origin. Oléagineux, Corps Gras, Lipides. 1999;6:267–72.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Degener J, Melchinger AE, Hahn V. Resistance in the leaf and stem of sunflower after infection with two isolates of Phomopsis. Plant Breed. 1999;118:405–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Mihaljcevic M, Vukojevic J. Diaporthe (Phomopsis) spp. on weeds as possible causative agents of sunflower stem canker in the Vojvodina province. Helia. 1994;17:39–48.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Brayford D. Variation in Phomopsis isolates from Ulmus species in the British Isles and Italy. Mycol Res. 1990;94:691–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Janse van Rensburg JC, Lamprecht SC, Groenewald JZ, Castlebury LA, Crous PW. Characterisation of Phomopsis spp. associated with die-back of rooibos (Aspalathus linearis) in South Africa. Stud Mycol. 2006;55:65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karolina Vrandecic
    • 1
    Email author
  • Drazenka Jurkovic
    • 1
  • Luca Riccioni
    • 2
  • Jasenka Cosic
    • 1
  • Tomislav Duvnjak
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Agriculture in OsijekOsijekCroatia
  2. 2.CRA-Centro di ricerca per la patologia vegetaleRomeItaly
  3. 3.Agriculture Institute OsijekOsijekCroatia

Personalised recommendations