New Forests

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 109–123 | Cite as

Testing of selected South African Pinus hybrids and families for tolerance to the pitch canker pathogen, Fusarium circinatum

  • J. RouxEmail author
  • B. Eisenberg
  • A. Kanzler
  • A. Nel
  • V. Coetzee
  • E. Kietzka
  • M. J. Wingfield


Plantations of Pinus spp. constitute approximately 50% of the South African forestry industry. The first aim of this study was to develop a reliable inoculation technique to screen Pinus spp., for tolerance to infection by F. circinatum, which threatens pine forestry in South Africa. Inoculation of branches was compared with stem inoculations and we considered the number of branches or trees required to obtain statistically significant results. Furthermore, variation in the susceptibility of some Pinus families, clones and hybrids was considered. Results showed that branch inoculations were closely correlated with those from stem inoculations, and that it is important to consider branch and stem diameters when assessing susceptibility of trees. Subsequent trials using branch inoculations showed significant differences in F. circinatum tolerance amongst a range of pine species and hybrids of potential interest to forestry in South Africa. Significant differences in susceptibility were also found among clones of two P. radiata families. The most tolerant trees were P. elliottii × caribaea and P. patula  ×  oocarpa hybrids, while the most susceptible species were P. patula, P. greggii and hybrids of these two. This is the first trial considering the susceptibility of Pinus hybrids, Pinus clones and some P. patula provenances, and the results indicate excellent potential for breeding for tolerance to pitch canker in South Africa.

Application The accurate selection of disease tolerant planting stock for the South African forestry industry is crucially important for the continued sustainability of this important industry. The work described here provides valuable information on an artificial inoculation technique that will assist the industry in screening trees for tolerance to the pitch canker fungus, F. circinatum. It also provides some indication of the relative susceptibility of a number of Pinus spp., hybrids and families currently being evaluated in the country.


Forestry Fungal disease Inoculation Resistance Screening 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



We thank the members of the Tree Protection Co-operative Programme (TPCP), the National Research Foundation and the THRIP initiative of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) for financial support. The staff of SAFCOL and particularly Jacob Matroos, Pearl Oelf and Cecilia Bester are acknowledged for production of the cuttings, planting and maintenance of the trials used to develop the inoculation technique. Staff of Mondi Business Paper and Sappi Forests and particularly Andre van der Hoef and Noel Myburg are thanked for providing trees for inoculation. Students belonging to the TPCP team, University of Pretoria, are gratefully acknowledged for volunteering assistance with large numbers of inoculations and with the enumeration of results. Henriette Britz van Heerden is also thanked for selection of the isolate used in the inoculation studies.


  1. Anonymous (2003) Forestry Facts. Forestry South Africa (FSA), Johannesburg. South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnard EL, Blakeslee GM (1980) Pitch canker of slash pine seedlings: a new disease in forest tree nurseries. Plant Dis 64:695–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrows-Broaddus J, Dwinell LD (1985) Branch dieback and cone and seed infection caused by Fusarium moniliforme var. subglutinans in a loblolly pine seed orchard in South Carolina. Phytopathology 75:1104–1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Britz H, Coutinho TA, Gordon TR, Wingfield MJ (2001) Characterisation of the pitch canker fungus, Fusarium circinatum, from Mexico. S Afr J Bot 67:609–614Google Scholar
  5. Britz H, Coutinho TA, Wingfield BD, Marasas WFO, Wingfield MJ (2005) Diversity and differentiation in two populations of Gibberella circinata in South Africa. Plant Pathol 54:46–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Correll JC, Gordon TR, McCain AH, Fox JW, Koehler CS, Wood DL, Schultz ME (1991) Pitch canker disease in California: pathogenicity, distribution and canker development in Monterey pine (Pinus radiata). Plant Dis 75:676–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Correll JC, Gordon TR, McCain AH (1992) Genetic diversity in California and Florida populations of the pitch canker fungus Fusarium subglutinans f. sp. pini. Phytopathology 82:415–420Google Scholar
  8. Dwinell LD, Phelps WR (1977) Pitch canker of slash pines in Florida. J For 75:488–489Google Scholar
  9. Dwinell LD, Ryan PL, Kuhlman EG (1977). Pitch canker of loblolly pine in seed orchards. Proceedings of the 14th Southern Forests Tree Improvement Conference, Gainesville, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  10. Dwinell LD, Barrows-Broaddus J (1979) Susceptibility of half-sib families of slash and loblolly pine to the pitch canker fungus, Fusarium moniliforme var. subglutinans. Phytopathology 69:527Google Scholar
  11. Dwinell LD, Barrows-Broaddus JB, Kuhlman EG (1985) Pitch canker: a disease complex. Plant Dis 69:270–276Google Scholar
  12. Gordon TR, Wikler KR, Clark SL, Okamoto D, Storer AJ, Bonello P (1998a) Resistance to pitch canker disease, caused by Fusarium subglutinans f. sp. pini, in Monterey pine (Pinus radiata). Plant Pathol 47:706–711Google Scholar
  13. Gordon TR, Storer AJ, Okamoto D, Wood DI (1998b) Susceptibility of five landscape pines to pitch canker, caused by Fusarium subglutinans f. sp. pini. Hortscience 33:868–871Google Scholar
  14. Gordon TR, Storer AJ, Wood DL (2001) The pitch canker epidemic in California. Plant Dis 85:1128–1139Google Scholar
  15. Hepting GH, Roth ER (1946) Pitch canker, a new disease of southern pines. J For 44:742–744Google Scholar
  16. Hodge GR, Dvorak WS (2000) Differential response of Central American and Mexican pine species and Pinus radiata to infection by the pitch canker fungus. New For 19:241–258Google Scholar
  17. Kobayashi T, Muramoto M (1989) Pitch canker of Pinus luchuensis, a new disease in Japanese forests. For Pest 38:169–173Google Scholar
  18. Landeras E, García P, Fernández Y, Braña M (2005) Outbreak of Pitch Canker Caused by Fusarium circinatum on Pinus spp. in Northern Spain. Plant Dis 89:1015Google Scholar
  19. McCain AH, Koehler CS, Tjosvold SA (1987) Pitch canker threatens California pines. Calif Agr 41:22–23Google Scholar
  20. Nirenberg HI, O’Donnell K (1998) New Fusarium species and combinations within the Gibberella fujikuroi complex. Mycologia 90:434–458Google Scholar
  21. Rodriquez RG (1989) Pitch canker on Pinus douglasiana, pines indigenous to San Andres Milpillas, Municipal of Huajicori, Nay. Forest Parasitology Symposium, V. Summary, 28. City of Juarez, ChihuahuaGoogle Scholar
  22. SAS Institute Inc. (1999) SAS/STAT Users Guide Version 8, Cary NC. SAS Institute. ISBN 1-58025-494-2Google Scholar
  23. Schmidt RA, Underhill EM (1974) Incidence and impact of pitch canker in slash pine plantations in Florida. Plant Dis Rep 58:451–454Google Scholar
  24. Schultz ME, Gordon TR, McCain AH (1990) Resistance of Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) to pitch canker disease caused by Fusarium subglutinans. Phytopathology 80:977Google Scholar
  25. Storer AJ, Gordon TR, Wood DL, Bonello P (1997) Pitch canker disease of Pines. Current and Future Impacts. J For 95:21–26Google Scholar
  26. Storer AJ, Gordon TR, Clark SL (1998) Association of the pitch canker fungus, Fusarium subglutinans f.sp. pini, with Montery pine seeds and seedlings in California. Plant Pathol 47:649–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Viljoen A, Wingfield MJ, Marasas WFO (1994) First report of Fusarium subglutinans f.sp. pini in South Africa. Plant Dis 78:309–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Viljoen A, Wingfield MJ, Kemp GHJ, Marasas WFO (1995) Susceptibility of pines in South Africa to the pitch canker fungus Fusarium subglutinans f.sp. pini. Plant Pathol 44:877–882Google Scholar
  29. Viljoen A, Wingfield MJ, Marasas WFO, Coutinho TA (1997) Pitch canker of pines: a contemporary review. S Afr J Sci 93:411–413Google Scholar
  30. Wingfield MJ (2004) Diseases affecting exotic plantation species. In: Burley J, Evans J, Youngquist JA (eds) Encyclopedia of forest sciences, Vol. 2. Elsevier Academic Press, pp 816–822Google Scholar
  31. Wingfield MJ, Wingfield BD, Coutinho TA, Viljoen A, Britz H, Steenkamp ET (1999) Pitch canker: a South African perspective. In: Devey ME, Matheson AC, Gordon TR (eds) Current and potential impacts of pitch canker in radiata pine. Proceedings of the IMPACT Monterey Workshop, California, USA, 30 November–3 December (1998). CSIRO, Forestry and Forest Products, Kingston, Australia, pp 62–69Google Scholar
  32. Wingfield MJ, Coutinho TA, Roux J, Wingfield BD (2002a) The future of exotic plantation forestry in the Tropics and Southern Hemisphere: lessons from pitch canker. S Afr For J 195:79–82Google Scholar
  33. Wingfield MJ, Jacobs A, Coutinho TA, Ahumada R, Wingfield BD (2002b) First report of the pitch canker fungus, Fusarium circinatum, on pines in Chile. Plant Pathol 51:397CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Roux
    • 1
    Email author
  • B. Eisenberg
    • 1
  • A. Kanzler
    • 2
  • A. Nel
    • 2
  • V. Coetzee
    • 3
  • E. Kietzka
    • 4
  • M. J. Wingfield
    • 1
  1. 1.Tree Protection Co-operative Programme (TPCP), Forestry and Agricultural Biotechnology Institute (FABI)University of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa
  2. 2.Sappi Forest ResearchHowickSouth Africa
  3. 3.Komatiland Forest ResearchSabieSouth Africa
  4. 4.Mondi Business PaperPietermaritzburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations