Advertisement

The Botanical Review

, Volume 54, Issue 4, pp 423–535 | Cite as

TheLeveillula mildews

  • Josef Palti
Interpreting Botanical Progress

Abstract

No taxonomic concept has so far been proposed that can account for all isolates ofLeveillula: most of their morphological characteristics are too variable, and their pathogenicity too flexible to accommodate them in well-defined taxa. We therefore distinguish here only between loosely defined populations of the fungus, with various geographical and host distributions.

A description is presented of the morphology of the vegetative and reproductive organs ofLeveillula, of the infection and colonization process (chiefly on pepper) and of the degrees of endophytism on various hosts.

The symptoms produced by the mildew on its hosts are reviewed. Host reaction to mildew invasion differs considerably, especially because on some hosts, but not on others, extensive leaf shedding is induced.

The host range ofLeveillula fungi extends over 74 families, ca. 390 genera and 1000 species. The largest number of host species is found in the Compositae (227) and Leguminosae (154), but the most important crop hosts belong to the Solanaceae. Isolates from many hosts have been proved able to cross-infect various other host species in various genera of the host’s own family and of a number of other families.

The geographical distribution ofLeveillula populations centers on central and western Asia, and on the Mediterranean region, but some major hosts are also commonly attacked in subsaharan Africa, and South and Southeast Asia, less frequently in the Americas, and occasionally in Australia.

It is difficult to generalize on the epidemiology ofLeveillula mildews, (a) since the infectivity and host range of isolates differ so widely, and hence sources of inoculum have to be determined in every case by local studies, and (b) because the environmental conditions conducive to infection differ greatly on various hosts. All hosts are increasingly prone to attack as they age. Many hosts are attacked chiefly or only under warm and dry conditions, but there are some important exceptions (e.g., pepper).

Yield reductions are in many countries caused on pepper, tomato, eggplants, and artichokes, in tropical countries on leguminous crops in which the pods are affected; more rarely under dry conditions on cucurbits and some ornamental hosts.

Large differences in susceptibility toLeveillula exist in the varieties of major crops, but no immune varieties have so far been bred. Irrigation management is an important control measure on crops attacked under dry conditions (e.g., tomatoes): overhead irrigation is then preferable to other methods. Where wet and dry seasons alternate, proper choice of sowing seasons may succeed in minimizing attack of the mildew. Proximity of infected crops to others liable to infection by the same isolate must be avoided. The principles of fungicidal control of this mildew are discussed.

The distribution, specialization, and control ofLeveillula is described in detail for 13 angiosperm families, which comprise the most numerous and/or the economically most important hosts.

A list is presented of records published up to 1986 of host species, arranged by host families.

Keywords

Powdery Mildew Host Species Botanical Review Germ Tube Powdery Mildew Fungus 
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.

Zusammenfassung

Taxonomische Konzepte, die den Eigenschaften allerLeveillula Isolate gerecht werden, fehlen bisher: die meisten morphologischen Charakteristika dieser Pilze sind zu variabel und ihre Virulenz verschiedenen Wirten gegenueber zu unterschiedlich, um sie in fest umschriebene Taxa einzuordnen. Hier wird daher nur von lose umrissenen Populationen derLeveillula gesprochen, verschieden in ihrer geographischen Ausbreitung und ihrer Wirtswahl.

Die Morphologie derLeveillula Pilze wird hier beschrieben, sowie ihre Infektions- und Kolonizationsprozesse (hauptsaechlich beiCapsicum) und das Mass ihrer endophytischen Entwicklung auf verschiedenen Wirten.

Die vonLeveillula hervorgerufenen Symptome werden beschrieben. Verschiedenee Wirtspflanzen reagieren auf Befall durch diesen Mehltau recht unterschiedlich, besonders weil bei einigen Wirten starker Blattabfall bewirkt wird, waehrend bei anderen Wirten starker Befall zwar das Vertrockenen der Blaetter bewirkt, ohne aber dass es zum Blattabfall kommt.

Befall vonLeveillula ist bis jetzt auf etwa 1000 Wirtsspezien in 390 genera, die zu 74 Familien gehoeren, festgestellt worden. Die hoechste Anzahl von Wirtsspezien (227) wurde in den Compositae gefunden, gefo folgt von den Leguminosae (154), aber die wirtschaftlich wichtigsten Wirte befinden sich in den Solanaceae. Isolate von zahlreichen Wirten sind faehig Wirtsspezien derselben oder anderer Genera nicht nur in der eigenen, sondern auch in anderen Familien, zu befallen.

Das Zentrum der geographischen Ausbreitung derLeveillula Pilze liegt in den zentralen und westlichen Teilen Asiens, sowie im Mittelmeergebiet. Wichtige Wirtspflanzen werden jedoch oft auch in den suedlich der Sahara gelegenen Gebieten Afrikas und im Sueden und Suedosten Asiens befallen, seltener im amerikanischen Kontinent, und gelegentlich in Australien.

Allgemeine Aussagen ueber die Epidemiologie derLeveillula sind schwer zu machen; weil (a) die Virulenz und Wirtswahl der Isolate so unterschiedlich ist, und (b) der Befall verschiedener Wirte von recht verschiedenen Umweltsbedingungen beguenstigt wird. Alle Wirte werden mit zunehmendem Alter empfindlicher. Viele Wirte werden hauptsaechlich unter warmen und trockenen Bedingungen befallen, aber es gibt wichtige Ausnahmen, z.B. Pfeffer.

Leveillula-Befall verursacht in vielen Laendern Ertragsverluste, besonders bei Pfeffer, Tomate, Eierpflanze (Aubergine) und Artischoke, und in tropischen Laendern auch bei Leguminosen, deren Schoten befallen werden. Unter sehr trockenen Bedingungen erleiden auch Cucurbitaceae und einige Zierpflanzen Verluste.

Die Sorten vieler Kulturpflanzen sind unterschiedlich empfindlich, aber immune Sorten sind bis jetzt noch nicht gezuechtet worden.

Das Bewaesserungsregime spielt eine wichtige Rolle, wo Pflanzen unter trockenen Bedingungen befallen werden. So ist bei Tomaten Beregnung anderen Bewaesserungsmethoden vorzuziehen, um den Befall einzuschraenken. Wo feuchte und trockene Jahreszeiten sich abwechseln, kann geschickte Wahl des Aussaattermins die Gefahr des Befalls stark vermindern. Sehr wichtig ist es zu vermeiden, dass Kulturpflanzen in der Naehe anderer Wirte gepflanzt werden, wenn beide durch das gleicheLeveillula-Isolat befallen werden koennen.

Die Grundlagen der chemischen Bekaempfung des Mehltaus werden hier kurz eroertert, besonders im Hinblick auf den Termin des Fungizid-Einsatzes.

Die Ausbreitung, Spezialisierung und Bekaempfung vonLeveillula Pilzen in 13 Familien mit den zahlreichsten und wichtigsten Wirtsspezien, wird eingehend behandelt.

Eine nach Familien geordnete Liste der bis 1986 veroeffentlichten Wirtsspezien vonLeveillula beschliesst diese Monographie.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Amano (Hirata),K. 1986. Host range and geographical distribution of the powdery mildew fungi. Japan Scientific Societies Press, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  2. Anon. 1983. New resistant mung bean line developed. Trop. Pest Managern.27: 62–63.Google Scholar
  3. Arnaud, G. 1921. Etudes sur les champignons parasites. Ann. Épiphyt.7: 1–115.Google Scholar
  4. Barak, E., A. Dinoor &Y. Eshet. 1980. (Optimization of the use of systemic fungicides for the chemical control of powdery mildew in green peppers and reduction of the damage it causes.) Hassadeh60: 1080–1084 (Hebrew, English summary).Google Scholar
  5. Beleva, L., V. Sotirova &D. Popova. 1977. The resistance of heterotic pepper combinations and their parental forms to powdery mildew (Oidiopsis taurica Salmon f. sp.capsici) in the glasshouse]. Grad. Loz. Nauka14: 99–104 (Russian).Google Scholar
  6. Bell, A. A. 1981. Powdery mildews. Pages 35–36in G. M. Watkins (ed.), Compendium of cotton diseases. Amer. Phytopathol. Soc., St. Paul, Minnesota.Google Scholar
  7. Besri, M. &A. Hormatallah. 1985. Manifestation et mode de conservation deLeveillula taurica, agent de l’Oidium de la tomate au Maroc. Phytopathol. Z.112: 348–354.Google Scholar
  8. Bidari, V. B., B. N. Bhat &R. K. Hegde. 1985. Reaction of different genotypes of chilli againstLeveillula taurica (Lév.) Arn. Indian J. Agric. Sci.55: 557–559.Google Scholar
  9. Blazquez, C. H. 1976. A powdery mildew of chilli caused byOidiopsis sp. Phytopathology66: 1155–1157.Google Scholar
  10. Blumer, S. 1933. Die Erysiphaceen Mitteleuropas. Beitr. z. Kryptogamenflora der Schweiz. VII.Google Scholar
  11. Boesewinkel, H. J. 1980. The morphology of the imperfect state of powdery mildews (Erysiphaceae). Bot. Rev.46: 167–224.Google Scholar
  12. Boughey, A. S. 1946. A preliminary list of plant diseases in the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Mycol. Papers No. 14, Imp. Mycol. Inst., Kew, England.Google Scholar
  13. Brandenburger, W. &M. Steiner. 1972. Parasitische Pilze aus Afghanistan. Dechenia125: 165–188.Google Scholar
  14. Braun, U. 1980. The genusLeveillula—A preliminary study. Nova Hedwigia32: 565–583.Google Scholar
  15. —. 1984. Taxonomic notes on some powdery mildews.III. Mycotaxon19: 369–374.Google Scholar
  16. Bremer, H., H. Ismen, G. Karel, H. Dezkan &M. Dezkan. 1947. Beitraege zur Kenntnis der parasitischen Pilze der Tuerkei II. Rev. Fac. Sci. Univ. Istanbul, Ser.B13: 122–172.Google Scholar
  17. Caesar, J. C. &C. C. Clark. 1985a. Water stress induced changes in the morphology of the powdery mildewLeveillula taurica (Lév.) Arn. Phytopathol. Z.112: 217–221.Google Scholar
  18. ——. 1985b. Germinabilityof Leveillula taurica (powdery mildew) conidia obtained from water-stressed pepper plants. Canad. J. Bot.63: 1681–1684.Google Scholar
  19. Chantarasrikul, A. 1963. A supplementary host list of plant diseases in Thailand. Techn. Bull. 9, Dept. Agric, Thailand.Google Scholar
  20. Ciccarese, F. &M. Cirulli. 1980. Ulteriori resultati di lotta chimica contro l’oidio (Leveillula taurica) del pomodoro, peperone e melanza. Inform. Fitopathol.30: 35–39.Google Scholar
  21. Ciccarone, A. 1953. La “nebbia” del carciofo (Cynara scolymus L.) e del cardo (Cynara cardunculus L.). Bull. Staz. Pat. Veget. Roma, Ser. 3,9: 163–204.Google Scholar
  22. —. 1955. Indize di specializzazione del parasitismo inLeveillula taurica (Lév.) Arn. Notiz. Mal. Piante29: 165–169.Google Scholar
  23. Cirulli, M. 1968. Ricerca di fonti di resistenza verso tre malattie del pomodoro in specie diLycopersicon. Ann. Fac. Agric. Univ. Bari22: 361–371.Google Scholar
  24. —. 1975. The powdery mildew of parsley caused byLeveillula lanuginosa (Fuck.) Golovin. Phytopathol. Medit.14: 94–99.Google Scholar
  25. Clerk, G. C. &E. N. Ayesu-Offei. 1967. Conidia and conidial germination inLeveillula taurica (Lév.) Arn. Ann. Bot., N.S.31: 749–754.Google Scholar
  26. Correll, J. C. 1986. Powdery mildew of cotton caused byOidiopsis taurica in California. PL Disease70: 259.Google Scholar
  27. —,T. R. Gordon &V. J. Elliott. 1987. Host range, specificity and biometrical measurements ofLeveillula taurica in California. PL Disease71: 248–251.Google Scholar
  28. Desai, B. G., L. G. Bhatnagar, R. S. Rathore &V. N. Pathak. 1970. New host records ofLeveillula taurica (Oidiopsis taurica) from Rajahstan, India. Acta Phytopathol. Acad. Sci. Hung.5:249–251.Google Scholar
  29. Deshpande, A. A., R. D. Rawal, D. P. Singh &C. S. Pathak. 1984. Chilli pepper genotypes resistant toCercosporella leaf spot and powdery mildew. Trop. Pest Managern.30:470–471.Google Scholar
  30. Diehl, W. W. 1952. Powdery mildew of kenaf in Florida. PL Dis. Rept.36: 52.Google Scholar
  31. Dingley, J. M., R. A. Fullerton &E. H. C. Mackenzie. 1981. Records of fungi, bacteria, algae and angiosperms pathogenic on plants in Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Niue, Tonga, Tuvalu and Western Samoa. Techn. Rept. No. 2, Pacific Bur. Econ. Coop, F.A.O.Google Scholar
  32. Diop-Bruckler, M. &P. Molot. 1986. Intérêt des quelques hyperparasites dans la lutte vis-à-vis deLeveillula taurica et deSphaerotheca fuliginea. Colloque OEPP Lutte Microbiologique, Dijon, 1986.Google Scholar
  33. Doustdar, E. M. 1958. Les Erysiphacées de l’Iran. Thèse Fac. Sci. Paris.Google Scholar
  34. Durrieu, G. &J. Merce. 1972. Erysiphacées du Sud-Est de l’Espagne. Bull. Soc. Mycol. France88: 175–191.Google Scholar
  35. — &S. Rostam. 1985. Specificité parasitaire et systématique de quelquesLeveillula (Erysiphacées). Cryptogam.-Mycol.5: 279–292.Google Scholar
  36. El-Ammari, S. S. &M. N. Khan. 1983.Leveillula taurica powdery mildew on greenhouse cucumbers in Libya. PL Dis.67: 553–555.Google Scholar
  37. El-Gazzar, A. &L. Watson. 1968. Labiatae: Taxonomy and susceptibility toPuccinia menthae Pers. New Phytol.67: 739–743.Google Scholar
  38. Eliade, E. 1973. [A monograph ofLeveillula Arn. species (Erysiphaceae) of the Rumanian flora.] Lucr. Grăd. Bot. Bucureşti1972/73: 533–557 (Rumanian).Google Scholar
  39. Eshed, N. 1975. New host records for powdery mildews. Phytoparasitica3: 139–140.Google Scholar
  40. Eshet, I., D. Vale &A. Dinoor. 1973. (Chemical control ofOidiopsis in pepper and eggplants.) Hassadeh53: 525–528 (Hebrew).Google Scholar
  41. Gaponenko, N. I. 1976. (Specialization of fungi of the genusLeveillula Arn.) Mikol. Fitopatol.10: 293–297 (Russian).Google Scholar
  42. Giatcong, P. 1980. Host index of plant diseases in Thailand. Dept. Agric, Bangkok, Thailand.Google Scholar
  43. Giladi, E. 1983. [The amount of the systemic fungicide triadimefon required in pepper leaves for the control ofLeveillula taurica (Lév.) Arn.] Thesis. Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew, English summary).Google Scholar
  44. Goidanich, G. 1964. Manuale di Patologia Vegetale II. Ed. Agricol. Bologna.Google Scholar
  45. Golovin, P. N. 1956. (Monographic survey of the genusLeveillula Arnaud.) Trans. Bot. Inst. USSR, Acad. Sci. Ser. II10: 195–308 (Russian).Google Scholar
  46. Gorlenko, M. V. 1974. (Powdery mildew of phlox). Mikol. Fitopatol.8:497–501 (Russian).Google Scholar
  47. Graniti, A. 1958. Note fitopatologiche III. L’Oidio (Leveillula taurica (Lév.) Arn.) del sesamo in Sicilia. Riv. Agric. Trop, e Subtrop.52: 3–11.Google Scholar
  48. Guillerm, J. L. 1957. Traitement de prévision contre le blanc du piment (Oidiopsis taurica). Rapp. Trav. Rech, en 1955, Serv. Bot. et Agron. de Tunisie2: 193–196.Google Scholar
  49. Hasan, S. 1972. Behaviour of the powdery mildews ofChondrilla juncea L. in the Mediterranean. Pages 171–176in Proc. III. Congr. Mediterr. Phytopath. Union.Google Scholar
  50. Haware, M. P. &Y. I. Nene. 1979. Non seed-borne nature of powdery mildew of chickpeas. PANS25: 464–465.Google Scholar
  51. Heywood, V. H., J. B. Harborne &B. L. Turner. 1977. The biology and chemistry of the Compositae. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  52. Hirata, K. 1960. Investigations of the host range of the powdery mildews (continued). Bull. Fac. Agric. Niigata Univ.12: 29–32.Google Scholar
  53. -. 1966. Host range and geographical distribution of the powdery mildews. Fac. Agric. Niigata Univ.Google Scholar
  54. —. 1975. Notes on the host range and geographic distribution of the powdery mildew fungi. V. Uneven distribution of some powdery mildew fungi in the temperate zone of the northern hemisphere, especially of Eurasia. Trans. Mycol. Soc. Japan16: 113–127.Google Scholar
  55. —. 1976. Notes on the host range and geographic distribution of the powdery mildew fungi VI. Distribution of the hosts of powdery mildew fungi in the families of angiosperms. Trans. Mycol. Soc. Japan17: 35–62.Google Scholar
  56. Homma, Y., Y. Arimoyo, H. Takahashi, I. Ishikawa, I. Matsuda &T. Misato. 1980. Studies on pepper powdery mildew I. Conidial germination, hyphal elongation and hyphal penetration on pepper leaf. Ann. Phytopathol. Soc. Japan46: 140–149.Google Scholar
  57. —,H. Takahashi, Y. Arimoto, T. Ishikawa, I. Matsuda &T. Misato. 1981. Studies on pepper powdery mildew II. Conidiophore emergence and conidial formation on pepper leaf. Ann. Phytopathol. Soc. Japan47: 143–150.Google Scholar
  58. Hormatallah, A. &M. Besri. 1984. L’Oidium de la tomate (Leveillula taurica): Importance et méthodes de lutte. Rapp. Rech. 1983–1984, Inst. Agron. HassanII: 3–4.Google Scholar
  59. Hussein, M. M. 1982. Major disease problems of faba beans in Sudan. Pages 227–232in Faba bean improvement. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.Google Scholar
  60. Ialongo, M. T. 1970. Contributio alla conoscenza dellaLeveillula in Italia. Un ospite spontaneo dellaLeveillula taurica (Lév.) Arn. nuovo per l’ltalia:Anthemis tinctoria L. Ann. dell Ist. Sperim. Pat. Veg.1: 119–125.Google Scholar
  61. Jones, W. B. &S. V. Thomson. 1982. The effects of fungicide treatments on yield and quality of tomato plants infected withLeveillula taurica. Phytopathology72: 970.Google Scholar
  62. ——. 1987. Source of inoculum, yield and quality of tomato as affected byLeveillula taurica. Plant Dis.71: 266–268.Google Scholar
  63. Kanaiyan, J. &Y. L. Nene. 1979. Occurrence of powdery mildew onAtylosia species. Trop. Grain Legume Bull.15: 22–23.Google Scholar
  64. Kapsanaki, E. &M. Pantidou. 1980. Contribution to the knowledge of the Greek mycoflora. I. Erysiphaceae of Kriti (Crete). Nova Hedwigia32: 245–255.Google Scholar
  65. Kenneth, R. G. &J. Palti. 1984. The distribution of downy and powdery mildews and of rusts over tribes of Compositae (Asteraceae). Mycologia76: 705–718.Google Scholar
  66. Koren, A. 1978. (Aspects of controllingLeveillula taurica (Lév.) Arn. in canning tomatoes.) Thesis. Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew, English summary).Google Scholar
  67. Kounovski, Z. &I. Todorova. 1981. (Investigationof Leveillula solanacearum Golov. on pepper in Bulgaria. I. Physiological specialization of the pathogen on pepper.) Grad. Loz. Nauka18: 24–36 (Bulgarian, English summary).Google Scholar
  68. Kunoh, H., M. Kohno &H. Ishizaki. 1976. Studies of powdery mildew of green pepper. I. Fine structure of haustoria and intercellular hyphae. Bull. Fac. Agric. Mie Univ.51: 1–7.Google Scholar
  69. ——,S. Tashiro &H. Ishizaki. 1979. Studies of the powdery mildew fungus,Leveillula taurica, on pepper. II. Light and electron microscopic observation of the infection process. Canad. J. Bot.57: 2501–2508.Google Scholar
  70. —,H. Takeshima &H. Ishizaki. 1981a. Studies of the powdery mildew fungus,Leveillula taurica, on green pepper.III. Histochemical observation of osmiophillic granules associated with haustoria and intercellular hyphae. Ann. Phytopathol. Soc. Japan47: 206–212.Google Scholar
  71. ———. 1981b. Studies of the powdery mildew fungus,Leveillula taurica, on green pepper. The acridine-orange staining of haustoria and related structures. Trans. Mycol. Soc. Japan22: 353–356.Google Scholar
  72. Laudanski, F. 1957a. Etude sur la biologied’Oidiopsis taurica (Lév.) Salm. Rapp. Trav. Rech, en 1956, Serv. Bot. et Agron. de Tunisie2: 239–255.Google Scholar
  73. —. 1957b. Enquête phytopathologique sur les cultures maraichères et fruitières de Tunisie. Rapp. Trav. Rech, en 1956, Serv. Bot. et Agron. de Tunisie2: 165–179.Google Scholar
  74. —,S. Mehani &R. Cassini. 1957. Prévisions des moments de traitement contre le blanc de l’artichaut. Rapp. Trav. Rech, en 1956, Serv. Bot. et Agron. de Tunisie2: 213–233.Google Scholar
  75. Mahrshi, R. P. 1984.Leveillula taurica onPeristrophe bicalcyculata (Retz) Nees. Indian Phytopath.37: 586.Google Scholar
  76. —,A. K. Mathur &R. B. L. Gupta. 1980a. Occurrence and evaluation of the reaction of potato varieties to the powdery mildew caused byOidiopsis taurica (Lév.) Salmon in Rajahstan. Indian J. Agric. Sci.50: 268–270.Google Scholar
  77. —— &G. Singh. 1980b. Note on the resistance to powdery mildew in eggplant. Indian J. Agric. Sci.50: 280–281.Google Scholar
  78. Marziano, F. &D. Stefanis. 1974.Datura stramonium L. ospite dellaLeveillula taurica (Lev.) Arn. Phytopathol. Z.81: 170–176.Google Scholar
  79. Mayor, E. 1960. Excursions dans les Alpes maritimes. Bull. Soc. Mycol. France76: 291–301.Google Scholar
  80. Mihail, J. D. &S. M. Alcorn. 1984. Powdery mildew (Leveillula taurica) on native and cultivated plants in Arizona. Pl. Dis.68: 625–626.Google Scholar
  81. Modugno Pettinari, C. 1962. Osservazione sulla microflora parassita della macchia mediterranea in Italia. Bull. Staz. Pat. Veg. Ser. III,19: 51–67.Google Scholar
  82. Moens, M., B. Ben Aiche &W. Welvaert. 1985. Tomato cultivar susceptibility toLeveillula taurica (Lév.) Arn. Med. Fac. Landbouww. Rijksuniv. Gent50(3b): 1061–1068.Google Scholar
  83. — &W. Welvaert. 1981. Sensibilité variétale du piment auLeveillula taurica (Lév.) Arn. et influence de differents modes d’irrigation. Med. Fac. Landbouww. Rijksuniv. Gent46(3): 805–811.Google Scholar
  84. Narayanaswamy, P. &T. Jaganathan. 1975. A note on powdery mildew disease of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.). Sci. Cult.41: 133–134.Google Scholar
  85. Nour, M. A. 1958. Studies onLeveillula taurica (Lév.) Arn. and other powdery mildews. Trans. Brit. Mycol. Soc.41: 17–38.Google Scholar
  86. —. 1959. Studies on the specialisation ofSphaerotheca fuliginea Schlecht. (Poll.) and other powdery mildews. Trans. Brit. Mycol. Soc.42: 90–94.Google Scholar
  87. Ondieki, J. J. 1973. The control of powdery mildews of capsicum with certain systemic and non-systemic fungicides. Acta Hort.33: 137–142.Google Scholar
  88. Oran, Y. K. 1974. Host range and distribution of the powdery mildews in Turkey. J. Turkish Phytopathol.3: 1–27.Google Scholar
  89. Palti, J. 1959.Oidiopsis diseases of vegetable and legume crops in Israel. Pl. Dis. Rept.43: 221–226.Google Scholar
  90. -. 1960. Epidemiology of some powdery mildew diseases in Israel. Thesis. Reading University, U.K.Google Scholar
  91. —. 1971. Biological characteristics, distribution and control ofLeveillula taurica (Lév.) Arn. Phytopathol. Medit.10: 139–153.Google Scholar
  92. —. 1974. Striking divergences in the distribution ofLeveillula taurica (Lév.) Arn. on some major crop hosts. Phytopathol. Medit.13: 17–22.Google Scholar
  93. —. 1975. Erysiphaceae affecting umbelliferous crops, with special reference to carrot in Israel. Phytopathol. Medit.14: 87–93.Google Scholar
  94. Pantidou, M. F. 1973. Fungus-host index for Greece. Benaki Phytopathol. Inst., Kiphissia, Athens.Google Scholar
  95. Paul, Y. S. &J. N. Kapoor. 1982. Occurrence of perithecia ofLeveillula taurica. Indian Phytopathol.35: 327.Google Scholar
  96. Pawar, R. N., P. G. Utikar &P. A. Shinde. 1985. A study of powdery mildew of chilli. J. Maharashtra Agric. Univ.10: 218.Google Scholar
  97. Pax, F. & K. Hoffmann. 1960. Caryophyllaceae. Pages 275–364in A. Engler & H. Harms (eds.), Die nat. Pflanzenfam., Band 16c.Google Scholar
  98. Petrak, F. &E. Esfandiari. 1941. Beitraege zur Kenntnis der iranischen Pilzflora. Ann. Mycol.39: 204–228.Google Scholar
  99. Puntsag, T. 1979. Bugd nairamdakh Mongol ard ulsyn mikroflor. I Uredinales, Ustilaginales, Erysiphales. Ulan Bator.Google Scholar
  100. Rayss, T. 1940. Nouvelle contribution à l’étude de la mycoflore de Palestine II Palest. J. Bot., Jerusalem Ser.1: 313–335.Google Scholar
  101. —. 1946. Contribution à la flore mycologique du Proche Orient. Bull. Soc. Mycol. de France62: 5–41.Google Scholar
  102. —. 1947. Nouvelle contribution à l’étude de la mycoflore de Palestine IV. Palest. J. Bot., Jerusalem Ser.4: 59–76.Google Scholar
  103. —. 1959. Quelques additions à la mycoflore d’Israel. Bull. Res. Council Israel8D: 6–8.Google Scholar
  104. Reddy, J. R. &A. P. Reddi. 1981.Duranta repens and its parasiteCuscuta reflexa—New host records forLeveillula taurica. Indian J. Mycol. & Pl. Pathol.11: 317.Google Scholar
  105. Reichert, I. &J. Palti. 1967. Prediction of plant disease occurrence. A pathogeographical approach. Mycopathol. Mycol. Appl.32: 337–355.Google Scholar
  106. —— &G. Minz. 1944. Field trials for the control of tomato leaf diseases. Palestine J. Bot., Rehovot Ser.4: 117–141.Google Scholar
  107. Reuveni, R. 1974. [The mechanism of leaf abscission inLeveillula taurica (Lév.) Arn. affected pepper leaves.] Thesis. Bar-Ilan University, Israel (Hebrew, English summary).Google Scholar
  108. — &J. Rotem. 1973. Epidemicsof Leveillula taurica on tomatoes and peppers as affected by conditions of humidity. Phytopathol. Z.76: 153–157.Google Scholar
  109. Rostam, S. 1983. Biologie, écologie, systématique de quelquesLeveillula. Thesis. University Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France.Google Scholar
  110. Rotem, J. &Y. Cohen. 1966. The relationship between mode of irrigation and severity of tomato foliage diseases. Pl. Dis. Rept.50: 635–639.Google Scholar
  111. Saad, A. T., Z. Abul-Hayja & M. M. Sonmez. 1972. Investigations onLeveillula species in Lebanon. Pages 147–154in Proc. III Congr. Mediterr. Phytopathol. Union.Google Scholar
  112. Saito, M. 1979. (The powdery mildew of sweet pepper in Japan.) Kochi Prefect. Inst. Agric. & Forest Sci., Special Rept. 1 (Japanese, English summary).Google Scholar
  113. Salmon, E. S. 1906. OnOidiopsis taurica Lév., an endophytic member of Erysiphaceae. Ann. Bot.20: 187–200.Google Scholar
  114. Savulescu, T. &T. Rayss. 1935. Contribution à l’étude de la mycoflore de Palestine. Ann. Cryptog. Exot.8: 49–87.Google Scholar
  115. Schmiedeknecht, M. &T. Puncag. 1966. Erysiphaceae and Peronosporaceae aus der mongolischen Volksrepublik. Feddes Repert.73: 153–159.Google Scholar
  116. Schweizer, J. 1928. Over Erysiphaceen (Meeldauschimmels) von Java. Arch. Rubbercult.12: 323–342.Google Scholar
  117. Sequeira, M. P. da Silva. 1968. Erysiphaceae Lusitaniae III. Agron. Lusit.30: 5–21.Google Scholar
  118. —. 1972. Erysiphaceae Lusitaniae IV. Agron. Lusit.33: 151–157.Google Scholar
  119. —. 1975. Erysiphaceae Lusitaniae V. Agron. Lusit.36: 287–306.Google Scholar
  120. —. 1981. Erysiphaceae Lusitaniae VII. Agron. Lusit.41: 93–112.Google Scholar
  121. Sharma, S. R. &H. S. Sohi. 1981. Chemical control of powdery mildew of cluster bean. Pesticides15: 17–19.Google Scholar
  122. Stevenson, J. A. 1947. Powdery mildew of mesquite. Pl. Dis. Rept.29: 214–215.Google Scholar
  123. Sztejnberg, A. 1979. Biological control of powdery mildew byAmpelomyces quisqualis. Phytopathology69: 1074 (abstract).Google Scholar
  124. Tafradjilskii, I., E. Elenov &G. Neshev. 1975. (On the pathogenesisof Leveillula taurica Arn.) Dokl. Sel’skokhoz. Akad. Georgiya Dimitrova18: 65–67 (Bulgarian).Google Scholar
  125. Tarr, S. A. J. 1955. Les maladies des plantes cultivées d’importance économique au Soudan. III. Plantes fourragères, légumineuses et legumes. Bull. Phytosan. F.A.O.3: 113–117.Google Scholar
  126. Thomson, S. V. &W. B. Jones. 1981. An epiphytotic ofLeveillula taurica on tomatoes in Utah. PL Dis.65:518–519.Google Scholar
  127. Tramier, R. 1963. Etude préliminaire duLeveillula taurica (Lév.) Arn. dans le midi de la France. Ann. Epiphyt.14: 355–369.Google Scholar
  128. Ullasa, B. A. &R. D. Rawal. 1984.Papaver rhoeas andMoringa oleifera, two new hosts of papaya powdery mildew. Current Sci.53: 754–755.Google Scholar
  129. ——,H. S. Sohi &D. P. Singh. 1981. Reaction of sweet pepper genotypes to anthracnose leaf spot and powdery mildew. PL Dis.65: 600–601.Google Scholar
  130. —,H. S. Sohi, R. D. Rawal &M. D. Subramanyan. 1983. Foliar diseases of papaya: Reactions ofCarica cenotypes. Indian J. Pl. Pathol.1: 1–4.Google Scholar
  131. Uppal, B. N., M. N. Kamal &M. K. Patel. 1936. A new variety ofOidiopsis taurica. Indian J. Agric. Sci.6: 110–115.Google Scholar
  132. Venkatarayan, S. V. 1946. A natural fungous parasite of powdery mildew onCyamopsis psoraloides DC. Current Sci.15: 319.Google Scholar
  133. Viennot-Bourgin, G. 1956. Mildious, oidiums, caries, charbons, rouilles des plantes de France. Ed. P. Lechevalier, Paris.Google Scholar
  134. -. 1959. Etude de Micromycètes parasites recoltés en Guinée. Ann. Inst. Nat. Agron.45: 91 pp.Google Scholar
  135. —,N. Ale-Aqha &D. Ershad. 1970. Les champignons parasites de l’Iran (nouvelle contribution). Ann. Phytopathol.2: 689–734.Google Scholar
  136. Whiteside, J. O. 1966. A revised list of plant diseases in Rhodesia. Kirkia5: 87–196.Google Scholar
  137. Yarwood, C. E. 1977.Leveillula in U.S.A. Proc. Amer. Phytopathol. Soc.4: 212.Google Scholar
  138. Zaprometoff, N. G. 1930. (Powdery mildew of cotton). Cotton Industry, Tashkent1:143–145 (Russian).Google Scholar
  139. Zwirn, H. 1943a. [Experiments and observations onLeveillula taurica (Lév.) Arn.] Thesis. Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 35 pp. (Hebrew, English summary).Google Scholar
  140. —. 1943b. Studies onLeveillula taurica (Lév.) Arn. Palestine J. Bot., Jerusalem Ser.3: 52–53.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Josef Palti
    • 1
  1. 1.Agricultural Research OrganizationBet DaganIsrael

Personalised recommendations