Advertisement

Potato Research

, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 229–235 | Cite as

Plant-to-plant transmission of the bacterial ring rot pathogenClavibacter michiganensis subsp.sepedonicus

  • K. Mansfeld-Giese
Article

Summary

Plant-to-plant transmission of the bacterial ring rot (BRR) pathogen,Clavibacter michiganensis subsp.sepedonicus (Spieck. et Kott.) Skapt. et Burkh. of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.), was studied in field trials over a three year period. Healthy and infected seed tubers were planted 35 cm apart. In one treatment, a subsurface barrier was placed between the healthy and infected seed tubers separating the root systems of neighbouring plants. In this treatment, none of 216 plants grown from healthy seed tubers was infected at harvest, as determined by indirect immunofluorescence antibody staining (IFAS) with monoclonal antibodies. In the other treatment, no subsurface barrier was used. In this treatment, two of 368 plants (0.5%) grown from healthy seed tubers were infected at harvest. It is concluded that plant-to-plant transmission may occur but at very low frequency, and is unlikely to play a significant role compared with the potential of transmission by shared potato handling equipment.

Additional keywords

potato Solanum tuberosum L. bacteria dispersal field trial 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Christie, R.D., J.T. Schultz & N.C. Gudmestad, 1993. Potato flea beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) evaluated as a possible vector of ring rot bacterium in potatoes.Journal of Economic Entomology 86: 1223–1227.Google Scholar
  2. Christie, R.D., A.C. Sumalde, J.T. Schutz & N.C. Gudmestad, 1991. Insect transmission of the bacterial ring rot pathogen.American Potato Journal 68: 363–372.Google Scholar
  3. De Boer, S.H. & M.E. McNaughton, 1986. Evaluation of immunofluorescence with monoclonal antibodies for detection of latent bacterial ring rot infection.American Potato Journal 63: 533–543.Google Scholar
  4. De Boer, S.H. & S.A. Slack, 1984. Current status and prospects for detecting and controlling bacterial ring rot of potatoes in North America.Plant Disease 68: 841–844.Google Scholar
  5. Dinesen, I.G., 1984. The extraction and diagnosis ofCorynebacterium sepedonicum from diseased potato tubers.EPPO Bulletin 14: 147–152.Google Scholar
  6. Dinesen, I.G., 1987. Dispersal of potato ring rot (Corynebacterium sepedonicum) in the field. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Plant Pathogenic Bacteria, Maryland, pp. 752–755.Google Scholar
  7. Dinesen, I.G. & S.H. De Boer, 1995. Extraction ofClavibacter michiganensis subsp.sepedonicus from composite samples of potato tubers.American Potato Journal 72: 133–142.Google Scholar
  8. Dounine, M.S., 1961.Corynebacterium sepedonicum in the Soviet Union. Pathogenesis, diagnosis and control. In: Bacterial Diseases of Potato. OEPP. Report of the International Conference onCorynebacterium sepedonicum andPseudomonas solanacearum. Paris. November 15–16, 1960, pp. 53–65.Google Scholar
  9. Duncan, J. & H. Généreux, 1960. La transmission par les insectes deCorynebacterium sepedonicum (Spieck. & Kott.) Skaptason et Burkholder.Canadian Journal of Plant Science 40: 110–116.Google Scholar
  10. Dykstra, T.P., 1941. Results of experiments in control of bacterial ring rot of potatoes in 1940.American Potato Journal 18: 27–54.Google Scholar
  11. Frazzoli, S., U. Mazzucchi & C. Bazzi, 1984. Evidence against plant to plant transmission in the field ofCorynebacterium sepedonicum in the Po valley, Italy.Phytopathologica Mediterranea 23: 77–78.Google Scholar
  12. Golenia, A. & M. Pajewska, 1977. Badania nad rozprzestrzenianiem bakteriozy pierscieniowej ziemniaka (Corynebacterium sepedonicum [Spieck. et Kotth.] Skapt. et Burkh.) z sadzeniakow na rosliny i bulwy potomne oraz z roslin porazonych na zdrowe na polu.Roczniki Nauk Rolniczych 7: 37–38.Google Scholar
  13. List, G.M. & W.A. Kreutzer. 1942. Transmission of the causal agent of the ring rot disease of potatoes by insects.Journal of Economic Entomology 35: 455–456.Google Scholar
  14. Mansfeld-Giese, K., 1995. Ringbakteriose og kartoffelmeristemprogrammet. 12th Danish Plant Protection Conference, Pests and Diseases, pp. 175–184.Google Scholar
  15. Manzer, F.E., D.C. Meriam & C.E. Mornereault, 1979. Determination of the potential for transmission of ring rot among seed samples in the Main Florida test.American Potato Journal 56: 320–322.Google Scholar
  16. Metzger, C.H. & A.M. Binkley, 1940. Some evidence on the spread of bacterial wilt.American Potato Journal 17: 198–201.Google Scholar
  17. Nelson, G.A., 1982.Corynebacterium sepedonicum in potato: Effect of inoculum concentration on ring rot symptoms and latent infection.Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology 4: 129–133.Google Scholar
  18. Sletten, A., 1985. The effect ofCorynebacterium sepedonicum on symptoms and yield of four potato cultivars.Potato Research 28: 27–33.Google Scholar
  19. Volovik, A.S., V.M. Polozhenets & E.G. Shepshelev, 1978. Steblevaya nematoda-pernoschik infektsii bakteriozov kartofeleya.Zashchita Rastenii 23: 21Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Mansfeld-Giese
    • 1
  1. 1.Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Plant Pathology and Pest ManagementResearch Centre FlakkebjergSlagelseDenmark

Personalised recommendations