Netherlands Journal of Plant Pathology

, Volume 82, Issue 2, pp 51–65 | Cite as

The growth of aggressive and non-aggressive strains of Ophiostoma ulmi in susceptible and resistant elms, a scanning electron microscopical study

  • H. J. Miller
  • D. M. Elgersma


Different wood preparation techniques for a SEM study of the growth ofOphiostoma ulmi (Buisman) Nannf. in elm tissue were compared. Critical point drying appeared to be the most suitable method. All observations were made 10–14 cm above the site of inoculation. In the resistant elm,Ulmus hollandica cl. 390, inoculated with a non-aggressive strain ofO. ulmi, no hyphae could be found until 5 days after inoculation. However, whenU. hollandica cl. 390 was inoculated with the aggressive strain, the fungus could already be observed after 3 days. In the susceptible elm,U. hollandica cl. Belgica, whether inoculated with an aggressive or non-aggressive strain, hyphae were found within 2 days after inoculation. The fungus appears only to penetrate the vessel pits and has at no time been seen to penetrate the cell wall directly.


Verschillende houtpreparatie-technieken voor bestudering van de groei vanOphiostoma ulmi in iepeweefsel met behulp van de SEM werden vergeleken. Alle waarnemingen werden 10–14 cm boven de plaats van inoculatie gedaan. ‘Critical point drying’ bleek de meest bruikbare methode. In de resistente iep,Ulmus hollandica kloon 390, geïnoculeerd met een niet-agressieve stam vanO. ulmi werden eerst 5 dagen na inoculatie hyfen gevonden in tegenstelling tot de vatbare iep,U. hollandica kloon Belgica waarin zowel na inoculatie met de agressieve als met de niet-agressieve stam hyfen konden worden gevonden binnen 2 dagen. AlsU. hollandica kloon 390 geïnoculeerd werd met de agressieve stam kon de schimmel reeds na 3 dagen worden gevonden. Binnendringen van de schimmel door de vaatwand werd waargenomen, maar alleen via de stippels.


Cell Wall Plant Pathology Microscopical Study Electron Microscopical Study Suitable Method 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beckman, C. H., 1966. Cell irritability and localization of vascular infections in plants. Phytopathology 56: 821–824.Google Scholar
  2. Butterfield, B. G. & Meylan, B. A., 1972. Trabeculae in a hard wood. IAWA Bull. (1) 3–9.Google Scholar
  3. Carlquist, S., 1962. A theory of paedomorphosis in dicotyledonous woods. Phytomorphology 12: 30–45.Google Scholar
  4. Casagrande, F. & Ouellette, G. B., 1971. A technique to study the development of soft rot fungi and its application toCeratocystis ulmi. Can. J. Bot. 49: 155–159.Google Scholar
  5. Elgersma, D. M., 1969. Resistance mechanisms of elms toCeratocystis ulmi. Meded. phytopath. Lab. Willie Commelin Scholten 77: 1–84.Google Scholar
  6. Elgersma, D. M., 1970. Length and diameter of xylem vessels as factors in resistance of elms toCeratocystis ulmi. Neth. J. Pl. Path. 76: 179–182.Google Scholar
  7. Elgersma, D. M., 1973. Tylose formation in elms after inoculation withCeratocystis ulmi, a possible resistance mechanism. Neth. J. Pl. Path. 79: 218–220.Google Scholar
  8. Gibbs, J. N., Heybroek, H. M. & Holmes, F. W., 1972. Aggressive strain ofCeratocystis ulmi in Britain. Nature, Lond. 236: 121–122.Google Scholar
  9. Gibbs, J. N. & Brasier, C. M., 1973. Correlation between cultural characteristics and pathogenicity ofCeratocystis ulmi from Britain, Europe and America. Nature, Lond. 241: 381–383.Google Scholar
  10. Gibbs, J. N., Brasier, C. M., McNabb, H. S., jr. & Heybroek, H. M., 1975. Further studies of pathogenicity inCeratocystis ulmi. Eur. J. For. Path. 5: 161–174.Google Scholar
  11. Heybroek, H. M., 1975. Worden onze iepen door een epidemie bedreigd? Groen, 's-Hertogenbosch. 1975 (7): 208–209.Google Scholar
  12. Hoog, G. S. de, 1974. The genera Blastobotrys, Sporothrix, Calcarisporium and Calcarisporiella gen. nov. Stud. Mycol. Baarn 7: 1–84.Google Scholar
  13. Ishida, S. & Ohtani, J., 1968. Study of tyloses by scanning electron microscopy. Report 1. Some preliminary observations of tyloses, mainly in Haru-nire (Ulmus sp.) Res. Bull. Coll. exp. Forests Hokkaido Univ. 26: 1–9.Google Scholar
  14. Ishida, S. & Ohtani, J., 1969. Study of tyloses using the scanning electron microscope. Proc. 2nd a. S.E.M. Symp. Res. Inst. Chicago: 197–204.Google Scholar
  15. Jane, F. W., 1970. The structure of wood. Adam & Charles Black, London.Google Scholar
  16. Kerling, L. C. P. & Elgersma, D. M., 1970. Vijftig jaren iepziekte. Vakbl. Biol. 1970 (12): 273–282.Google Scholar
  17. King, E. J., Kutscha, N. P. & Campana, R. J., 1974. Preliminary scanning electron microscopy ofCeratocystis ulmi in elm wood. Proc. Am. phytopath. Soc., Abs. 1: 137.Google Scholar
  18. Krause, C. R. & Wilson, C. L., 1972. Fine structure ofCeratocystis ulmi in elm wood. Phytopathology 62: 1254–1256.Google Scholar
  19. Laane, M. M., 1971. A fixation method for scanning electron microscopy of filamentous fungi. Z. wiss. Mikrosk. 70: 202–206.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. MacDonald, W. L., 1970. Electron microscopy of elm infected withCeratocystis ulmi. Ph. D. Thesis, Iowa St. Univ. Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
  21. MacDonald, W. L. & McNabb, H. S., jr., 1970. Fine structure observations of the growth ofCeratocystis ulmi in elm xylem tissue. BioSci. 20: 1060–1061.Google Scholar
  22. McElhanney, T. A., 1935. Canadian woods, their properties and uses. Ottawa.Google Scholar
  23. McNabb, H. S., jr., Heybroek, H. M. & MacDonald, W. L., 1970. Anatomical factors in resistance to Dutch elm disease. neth. J. Pl. Path. 76: 196–204.Google Scholar
  24. Miller, H. J., 1975. Anatomical characteristics of some woody plants of the Anmagssalik District of Southeast Greenland. Meddr Grønland 198 (6): 1–30.Google Scholar
  25. Ouellette, G. B., 1960. Studies of host and pathogen in relation to the infection process of the Dutch elm disease, caused byCeratocystis ulmi. Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
  26. Ouellette, G. B., 1962. Studies in the infection process ofCeratocystis ulmi (Buisman) C. Moreau in American elm. Can. J. Bot. 40: 1567–1575.Google Scholar
  27. Pomerleau, R., 1970. Pathological anatomy of the Dutch elm disease. Distribution and development ofCeratocystis ulmi in elm tissue. Can. J. Bot. 48: 2043–2057.Google Scholar
  28. Sinclair, W. A., Zahand, J. P. & Melching, J. B., 1975a. Localization of infection in American elms resistant toCeratocystis ulmi. Phytopathology 65: 129–133.Google Scholar
  29. Sinclair, W. A., Zahand, J. P. & Melching, J. B., 1975b. Anatomical marker for resistance inUlmus americana toCeratocystis ulmi. Phytopathology 65: 349–352.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Koninklijke Nederlandse Planteziektenkundige Vereniging 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. J. Miller
    • 1
  • D. M. Elgersma
    • 1
  1. 1.Phytopathologisch Laboratorium ‘Willie Commelin Scholten’Baarnthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations