Potato Research

, Volume 53, Issue 2, pp 83–93 | Cite as

Foliar Symptoms Caused by Potato mop-top virus on Potato Plants During Vegetative Propagation in Scotland and Their Association With Tuber Yield, Spraing and Tuber Infection



The effect of foliar symptomatic infection by Potato mop-top virus (PMTV) on yield of tubers, spraing and infection in daughter tubers, and foliar symptom development and tuber infection in the following generations of propagation was investigated in commercial seed potato crops in Scotland. Six crops covering cvs Atlantic, Hermes, Nicola and Cara were studied between 2000 and 2006 by labelling paired replicates of plants with foliar symptoms and plants with no symptoms. Tubers from plants with no symptoms rarely produced plants with foliar symptoms in the following generation. Plants with no symptoms produced more infected tubers if they had been derived from plants with foliar symptoms the previous year than from plants with no symptoms. The proportion of daughter plants with foliar symptoms produced by tubers from plants with foliar symptoms in year 1 ranged from 19–41% and seemed to be associated with the severity of foliar symptoms. The detection of PMTV by ELISA in samples of leaves from plants with foliar symptoms ranged from 13% for cv. Cara to 59% for a crop of cv. Atlantic in 2004. The amounts of spraing were generally low but tended to be greater for tubers from plants with foliar symptoms than those from plants with no symptoms. These results indicate that roguing plants with foliar symptoms in seed potato crops could achieve an improvement in crop health but might be impractical when diseased plants are too prevalent.


Cultivar ELISA Roguing Seed potato certification Virus transmission 



Double antibody sandwich-enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay


  1. Arif M, Torrance L, Reavy B (1995) Acquisition and transmission of potato mop-top furovirus by a culture of Spongospora subterranea f.sp. subterranea derived from a single cystosorus. Ann Appl Biol 126:493–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Browning I, Craigie J, Darling M, Darling D, Holmes R (2002) Studies on the detection, transmission to progeny and symptom expression of potato mop top virus in potato. Abstracts of the Virology section Meeting of the EAPR, 7–13 October 2001, Havlickuv Brod-Trest (Czech Republic). Potato Res 45:106Google Scholar
  3. Calvert EL (1968) The reaction of potato varieties to potato mop-top virus. Rec Agric Res Minist Agric North Irel 17:31–40Google Scholar
  4. Calvert EL, Harrison BD (1966) Potato mop-top, a soil-borne virus. Plant Pathol 15:134–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carnegie SF, Davey T, Saddler GS (2009) Effect of temperature on the transmission of Potato mop-top virus from seed tuber and by its vector, Spongospora subterranea. Plant Pathol 59:22–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cooper JI, Jones RAC, Harrison BD (1976) Field and glasshouse experiments on the control of potato mop-top virus. Ann Appl Biol 83:215–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davey T, Browning I, Carnegie S F, Saddler G S (2006). The importance of potato mop top virus (PMTV) in Scottish seed potatoes. In: Proceedings Crop Protection in Northern Britain 2006, pp 375–380Google Scholar
  8. Davey T, Browning I, Carnegie S F, Mitchell WJ, Saddler G S (2008). Soil: the principal source of Potato mop-top virus (PMTV) infection. In: Proceedings Crop Protection in Northern Britain 2008, pp 205–210Google Scholar
  9. Harrison BD, Jones RAC (1970) Host range and some properties of potato mop-top virus. Ann Appl Biol 65:393–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harrison BD, Jones RAC (1971) Factors affecting the development of spraing in potato tubers infected with potato mop-top virus. Ann Appl Biol 68:281–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hide GA, Read PJ (1990) Effect of neighbouring plants on the yield of potatoes from seed tubers affected with gangrene (Phoma foveata) or from plants affected with stem canker (Rhizoctonia solani). Ann Appl Biol 116:233–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hirst JM, Hide GA, Stedman OJ, Griffith RL (1973) Yield compensation in gappy potato crops and methods to measure effects of fungi pathogenic on seed tubers. Ann Appl Biol 73:143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jones RAC (1988) Epidemiology and control of Potato mop-top virus. In: Cooper JI, Asher MJC (eds) Developments in Applied biology 2: viruses with fungal vectors. Association of Applied Biologists, Wellesbourne, UK, pp 255–270Google Scholar
  14. Jones RAC, Harrison BD (1972) Ecological studies on potato mop-top virus in Scotland. Ann Appl Biol 71:47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kirk HG (2008) Mop-top virus, relationship to its vector. Am J Potato Res 85:261–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kurppa AHJ (1989) Reaction of potato cultivars to primary and secondary infection by potato mop-top furovirus and strategies for virus detection. EPPO Bull 19:593–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Montero-Astúa M, Vasquéz V, Turechek WW, Merz U, Rivera C (2008) Incidence, distribution and association of Spongospora subterranea and Potato mop-top virus in Costa Rica. Plant Dis 92:1171–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sokmen MA, Barker H, Torrance L (1998) Factors affecting the detection of potato mop-top virus in potato tubers and improvement of test procedures for more reliable assays. Ann Appl Biol 133:55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tenorio J, Franco Y, Chuquillanqui C, Owens RA, Salazar LF (2006) Reaction of potato varieties to Potato mop-top virus infection in the Andes. Am J Potato Res 83:423–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Todd JM (1965) Soil-borne virus diseases of potato. Record of Scottish Plant Breeding Station 1965:209–235Google Scholar
  21. Torrance L, Cowan GH, Scott KP, Pereria LG, Roberts IM, Reavy B, Harrison BD (1992) Detection and diagnosis of potato mop-top virus. Annual report of Scottish Crop Research Institute for 1991, pp 8–82Google Scholar

Copyright information

© EAPR 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SASA (Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture)EdinburghEH12 9FJ

Personalised recommendations