Mycopathologia

, Volume 117, Issue 3, pp 157–161 | Cite as

Sequential development of pathogens in the maize tarspot disease complex

  • J. Hock
  • U. Dittrich
  • B. L. Renfro
  • J. Kranz
Article

Abstract

The tarspot complex is caused by the interaction of Phyllachora maydis and Monographella maydis. Coniothyrium phyllachorae, possibly a mycoparasite, is found in older ascostromata of P. maydis, which always appears first causing tarspot. M. maydis follows and is responsible for the damaging “fisheye” symptom. The fisheye symptom is always associated with a tarspot in the center of the lesion, whereas 12 to 20% of the Phyllachora ascostromata remained free of M. maydis. Inoculations of maize leaves with the Microdochium anamorph of the Monographella (usually produced in lesions) failed to produce infections. Some infections with M. maydis were, however, obtained under unusual conditions in the field. Inoculations onto tarspots in the laboratory were unsuccessful, but in field experiments inoculations with conidia of M. maydis enhanced severity of the tarspot complex. Fisheye symptoms of the complex naturally appear 2 to 7 days after the manifestation of P. maydis. This is followed a week later by the appearance of M. maydis which became predominant in the lesions and is associated with empty perithecia of P. maydis. In the early stages of the tarspots pycnidia of the anamorph of P. maydis, Linochora sp., could occasionally be observed. Ascomata of M. maydis were rare in the field. Of the 36 genetic materials of CIMMYT tested, 30 developed the fisheye symptom, 4 tarspots only and 2 remained free of symptoms

Key words

Phyllachora maydis Monographella maydis Coniothyrium phyllachorae Zea mays tarspot complex 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Maublanc A. Espéces nouvelles de champignons inferieurs. Bull Soc Myc Fr 1904; 20: 72.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abbot EV. Further notes on plant diseases in Peru. Phytopathology 1931; 21: 1067.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bell FH, Alandia BS. Diseases of temperate climate crops in Bolivia. Plant Dis Rep 1957; 41: 646–649.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castaño J. La mancha de asfalto de la hoja de maíz. Agric Tropic, Colombia 1969; 25: 332.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Castaño J. Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario Boletin de divulgacion 32: Regional 1970; No. 4.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Liu LJ. Incidence of tar-spot disease of corn in Puerto Rico. J Agric of the Univ of Puerto Rico 1973; 57: 211–216.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Malaguti G, Subero LJ. La mancha de asfalto del maíz. Agronomia tropical 1972; 22: 443–445.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Orton CR. Graminicolous species of Phyllachora in North America. Mycologia 1944; 36: 18–53.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schieber E. Preliminary studies on Phyllachora maydis affecting corn in Central America. Phytopathology 1968; 58: 554.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shurtleff MC, ed. Compendium of corn diseases, 2nd ed. St. Paul MN: American Phytopathological Society, 1980; 105pp.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Müller E, Samuels JG. Monographella maydis sp. nov. and its connection to the tarspot disease of Zea mays. Nova Hedwigia 1984; 40: 113–121.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hock J, Kranz J, Renfro BL. El 'complejo mancha de asfalto' de maíz, su distribución geográfica, requisitos ambientales e importancia económica en México. Revista Mexicana de Fitopatología 1989; 7: 129–135.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dittrich U, Hock J, Kranz J, Renfro BL. Germination of Phyllachora maydis ascospores and conidia of Monographella maydis. Cryptogamic Botany 1990; 2: 214–218.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hock J. Ätiologische und epidemiologische Untersuchungen zum Teerfleckenkomplex an Zea mays in Mexiko. PhD thesis. Giessen 1989; 198pp.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Parbery DG. Studies on graminicolous species of Phyllachora FCKL. V. A Taxonomic Monograph. Aust J Bot 1967; 15: 271–375.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Perry DA. Pathogenicity of Monographella nivalis to spring barley. Trans Br Mycol Soc 1986; 86: 287–293.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Parbery DG. Phyllachora, Linochora and Hyperparasites. Int. Symposium on taxonomy of fungi, University of Madras, 1978; Part I: 263–277.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Hock
    • 1
  • U. Dittrich
    • 1
  • B. L. Renfro
    • 2
  • J. Kranz
    • 1
  1. 1.Phytopathologie, TropeninstitutUniversität GessenGermany
  2. 2.CIMMYTEdo de MexicoMexico

Personalised recommendations