Advertisement

The Botanical Review

, 12:337 | Cite as

Specialization, hybridization, and mutation in the cereal rusts

  • T. Johnson
  • Margaret Newton
Article

Conclusion

The 50 years that have elapsed since Eriksson’s discovery of physiologic specialization in the cereal rusts have seen notable advances in man’s understanding of these important pathogens. The discovery that theformae speciales or varieties, which were at first regarded as the ultimate units of specialization, were in turn made up of many specialized strains or physiologic races gave a great impetus to the study of the various rusts and, despite the fact that the existence of these physiologic races complicated the problem of developing rust resistant varieties of cereals, served also as a stimulus to greater efforts on the part of the breeders of rust resistant cereal varieties. The discovery of the existence of heterothallism in the rusts made possible studies on the crossing and selfing of the physiologic races of cereal rusts. Such studies have indicated that a great variety of physiologic races may be expected to arise by hybridization and have permitted a much more accurate evaluation than otherwise would have been possible of the significance of the alternate hosts in the production of physiologic races. These studies have also thrown considerable light on the genetics of the rust fungi and have shown that the inheritance of such rust characteristics as pathogenicity and spore color is subject to the same laws that have been found to govern inheritance in higher plants and animals.

The writers are indebted to Dr. J. H. Craigie and Mr. I. L. Conners for reading and criticizing the manuscript.

Keywords

Botanical Review Leaf Rust Stripe Rust Stem Rust Infection Type 
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.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Allen, Ruth F. Further cytological studies of heterothallism inPuccinia graminis. Jour. Agr. Res.47: 1–16. 1933.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allison, C. C. andIsenbeck, K. Biologische Spezialisierung vonPuccinia glumarum tritici Eriksson und Henning. Phytopath. Zeits.2: 87–98. 1930.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Appel, O. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der physiologischen Formen des Weizengelbrostes. Ang. Bot.12: 463–470. 1930.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arthur, J. C. The plant rusts. 1929.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    -. Manual of the rusts in United States and Canada. 1934.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Asuyama, H. The life cycle of heteroecious species ofPuccinia. I.Puccinia culmicola Diet. andP. zoysiae Diet. Ann. Phytop. Soc. Japan5: 23–29. 1935. [Rev. Appl. Myc. 14: 796. 1935.]Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    — Physiologic specialization in Japanese wheat rusts. Proc. Pac. Sci. Congr. 6th (1939)4: 775–778. 1940.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bailey, D. L. Physiologic specialization inPuccinia graminis avenae Erikss. and Henn. Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta., Tech. Bull.35. 1925.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barmenkoff, A. S. In Summary of the scientific research work of the Institute of plant protection for the year 1936. Part I. Pests and diseases of cereals and shelter belts. pp. 150–152, Leningrad 1937. [Rev. Appl. Myc. 17: 436. 1938.]Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Bary, A. Neue Untersuchungen über die Uredineen, insbesondere die Entwicklung derPuccinia graminis und den Zusammenhang derselben mitAecidium Berberidis. Monatsber. Kgl. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin,1865: 15–49. 1866.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    — Untersuchungen über Uredineen. Monatsber. Kgl. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin,1866: 205–215. 1867.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Becker, Hanna. Zur Immunitätszüchtung des Weizens gegenPuccinia glumarum undPuccinia triticina. Kühn-Arch.38: 293–305. 1933.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Becker, Hanna andHart, Helen. Das Auftreten und die Verbreitung von Gelbrost in Ostharz und den daran angrenzenden Weizenanbaugebieten. Zeits. Pflanzenkr.49: 449–481. 1939.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bever, W. M. Physiologic specialization inPuccinia glumarum in the United States. Phytopathology24: 686–688. 1934.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Blackman, V. H. On the fertilization, alternation of generations, and general cytology of the Uredineae. Ann. Bot.18: 323–373. 1904.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brown, A. M. Physiologic specialization in the dwarf leaf rust of barley,Puccinia anomala Rostr. Rep. Dom. Bot. 1929, Canada Dept. Agr. 1931.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    -. Investigations of dwarf leaf rust of barley (Puccinia anomala). Rep. Dom. Bot. 1930, Canada Dept. Agr. 1931.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brown, M. R. A study of crown rust,Puccinia coronata Corda, in Great Britain. I. Physiologic specialization in the uredospore stage. Ann. Appl. Biol.24: 504–527. 1937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    — A study of crown rust,Puccinia coronata Corda, in Great Britain. II. The aecidial hosts ofP. coronata. Ann. Appl. Biol.25: 506–527. 1938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bryzagalova, V. A. On a new intermediate host of brown rust of wheat,Puccinia triticina Erikss. Sborwick Trudor Zashch. Rast. Vostochn. Sibiri5: 75–88. 1937.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Buchheim, A. N. andLissitzyna, M. I. Concerning the question of physiologic specialization of leaf rust of wheat in the central European part of the U.S.S.R. Moscow Agr. Exp. Sta., Bull.1: 1–16. 1934.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Buller, A. H. R. Fusions between flexuous hyphae and pycnidiospores ofPuccinia graminis. Nature141: 33. 1938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cassell, R. C. The effect of temperature on infection and development of eight physiologic races ofPuccinia graminis tritici on wheat seedlings. Phytopathology29: 4. 1939.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chester, K. Starr and Jamison, C. Physiologic races of wheat leaf rust involved in the 1938 epiphytotic. Phytopathology29: 962–967. 1939.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Christman, A. H. Sexual reproduction in the rusts. Bot. Gaz.39: 267–275. 1905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cotter, R. U. A new form of oat stem rust from a barberry area. Phytopathology22: 788–789. 1932.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    — White pycnia and aecia ofPuccinia graminis. Phytopathology24: 1121–1122. 1934.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    — andLevine, M. N. Physiologic specialization inPuccinia graminis secalis. Jour. Agr. Res.45: 297–315. 1932.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Craigie, J. H. Experiments on sex in rust fungi. Nature120: 116–117. 1927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    — Discovery of the function of the pycnia of the rust fungi. Nature120: 765–767. 1927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    — On the occurrence of pycnia and aecia in certain rust fungi. Phytopathology18: 1005–1015. 1928.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    — An experimental investigation of sex in the rust fungi. Phytopathology21: 1001–1040. 1931.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    — Union of pycniospores and haploid hyphae inPuccinia Helianthi Schw. Nature131: 25. 1933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cunningham, G. H. The rust fungi of New Zealand. 1931.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dietz, S. M. The alternate hosts of crown rust,Puccinia coronata Corda. Jour. Agr. Res.33: 953–970. 1926.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Doak, K. D. Effect of mineral nutrition on the reaction of wheat varieties to leaf rust Phytopathology21: 108–109. 1931.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dillon Weston, W. A. R. The effect of ultra-violet radiation on the urediniospores of some physiologic forms ofP. graminis tritici. Sci. Agr.12: 81–87. 1931.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dodoff, D. N. de|Physiologic forms in the leaf rust of wheat (Puccinia triticina Erikss.) in Bulgaria. Zemledelska misal2: 34 pp., 1931.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Eremeyeva, A. M. On the aecidial stage ofPuccinia triticina Eriks. Morbi Plantarum, Leningrad13: 123–124. 1924. [Rev. Appl. Myc. 5:25. 1926.]Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    — Beobachtungen über das Aeddienstadium des “Weizenbraunrostes”Puccinia triticina Erikss. Morbi Plantarum15: 144–155, 1926. [Russian with German Resumé.]Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Eriksson, Jakob. Ueber die Specialisierung des Parasitismus bei den Getreiderostpilzen. Ber. Deut. Bot. Ges.12: 292–331. 1894.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    —. A general review of the principal results of Swedish research into grain rust. Bot. Gaz.25: 26–38. 1898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    —. Nouvelles études sur la rouille brune des céréales. Ann. Sci. Nat. VIII, Bot.9: 241–288. 1899.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    —. Ueber die Spezialisierung des Getreideschwarzrostes in Schweden und in anderen Ländern. Zentrabi. Bakt: II,9: 590–607, 654–658. 1902.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    -. Fungous diseases of plants, 2nd ed. 1930.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    — andHenning, E. Die Hauptresultate einer neuen Untersuchung über die Getreideroste. Zeits., Pflanzenkr.4: 66–73, 140–142, 197–203, 257–262. 1894.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    - and -. Die Getreideroste. 1896.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Fang, C. T. Physiologic specialization ofPuccinia glumarum Erikss. and Henn. in China. Phytopathology34: 1020–1024. 1944.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Fischer, G. W. andClaassen, C. E. Studies of stem rust (Puccinia graminis) fromPoa ampla, Avena fatua, andAgropyron spicatum in the Pullman, Washington, region. Phytopathology34: 310–314. 1944.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Forward, D. F. The influence of altered host metabolism upon modification of the infection type withPuccinia graminis tritici p.f. 21. Phytopathology22: 493–555. 1932.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Fraser, W. P. andLedingham, G. A. Studies of the crown rust,Puccinia coronata Corda. Sci. Agr.13: 313–323. 1933.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Freeman, E. M. andJohnson, E. C. The rusts of grains in the United States. U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Pl. Ind., Bull. 216. 1911.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Fromme, F. D. The culture of the cereal rusts in the greenhouse. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club40: 501–521. 1913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Frenzel, H. Beiträge zur Spezialisierung des Haferkronenrostes,Puccinia coronijera f. sp.avenae Kleb. Arb. Biol. Reichsanst.18: 153–176. 1930.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Garbowski, L. Études sur la rouillePuccinia graminis tritici (Pers.) Er. et Henn. en Pologne durant 1933–1937. Prace Wydz. Chor. Szkodn. Rośl. Państw. Inst. Nauk. Gosp. Wiejsk., Bydgoszcz18: 5–76. 1939.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Garcia-Rada, G. et al. An unusually virulent race of wheat stem rust, No. 189. Phytopathology32: 720–726. 1942.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Gassner, G. andHassebrauk, K. Untersuchungen über die Beziehungen zwischen Mineralsälzernähung und Verhalten der Getreidepflanzen gegen Rost. Phytopath. Zeits.3: 535–617. 1931.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    —— Ueber die Beeinflüssung der Rostanfälligkeit durch Eintauchen geimpfter Blätter im Lösungen von Mineralsalzen und anderen Stoffen. Phytopath. Zeits.5: 323–342. 1933.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    —— Der Einfluss der Mineralsalzernährung auf das Anfälligkeitsverhalten der zur Rassenbestimmung von Getreiderosten dienenden Standardsortimente. Phytopath. Zeits.7: 63–72. 1934.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    — andKirchhoff, H. Einige Versuche zum Nachweis biologischer Rassen innerhalb des Roggenbraunrostes,Puccinia dispersa Erikss. und Henn. Phytopath. Zeits.7: 479–486. 1934.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    — andStraib, W. Untersuchungen über die Infektionsbedingungen vonPuccinia glumarum undPuccinia graminis. Arb. Biol. Reichsanst.16: 609–629. 1928.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    —— Experimentelle Untersuchungen über das Verhalten der Weizensorten gegenPuccinia glumarum. Phytopath. Zeits.1: 215–275. 1929.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    —— Über das Aufreten einer neuen Gelbrostform auf Weizen. Der. Züchter2: 313–317. 1930.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    —— Zur Frage der Konstanz des Infektionstypus vonPuccinia triticina Erikss. Phytopath. Zeits.4: 57–64. 1932.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    —— Untersuchungen zur Frage der biologischen Spezialisierung des Weizengelbrostes. Der Züchter3: 229–240. 1931.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    —— Ueber Mutationen in einer biologischen Rasse vonPuccinia glumarum tritici. (Schmidt) Erikss. und Henn. Zeits. Ind. Abst. Vererb.63: 154–180. 1932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    —— Die Bestimmung der biologischen Rassen des Weizengelbrostes (Puccinia glumarum f. sp.tritici (Schmidt) Erikss. u. Henn). Arb. Biol. Reichsanst.20: 141–163. 1932.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    —— Experimentelle Untersuchungen zur Epidemiologie des GelbrostesPuccinia glumarum (Schm.) Erikss. und Henn. Phytopath. Zeits.7: 285–302. 1934.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    —— Untersuchtingen über das Auftreten biologischer Rassen des Weizengelbrostes im Jahre 1932. Arb. Biol. Reichsanst.21: 59–72. 1934.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    —— Weitere Untersuchungen über biologische Rassen und über die Spezialisierungsverhältnisse des GelbrostesPuccinia glumarum (Schm.) Erikss. und Henn. Arb. Biol. Reichsanst.21: 121–145. 1934.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Gordon, W. L. Effect of temperature on host reactions to physiologic forms ofPuccinia graminis avenue Erikss. & Henn. Sci. Agr.11: 95–103. 1930.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    — A study of the relation of environment to the development of the uredinial and telial stages of the physiologic forms ofPuccinia graminis avenae Erikss. and Henn. Sci. Agr.14: 184–237. 1933.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    — andBailey, D. L. Physiologic forms of oat stem rust in Canada. Sci. Agr.9: 30–38. 1928.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    — andWelsh, J. N. Oat stem rust investigations in Canada. Sci. Agr.13: 228–235. 1932.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Hart, Helen. Stem rust onTriticum timopheevi. Phytopathology33: 335–337. 1943.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    —. Stem rust on new wheat varieties and hybrids. Phytopathology34: 884–899. 1944.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    — andBecker, Hanna. Beiträge zur Frage des Zwischenwirtes fürPuccinia glumarum. Zeits. Pflanzenk.49: 559–566. 1939.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Hassebrauk, K. Über die Abhängigkeit der Rostinfektion von der Mineralsalzernährung der Getreidepflanze. Ang. Bot.12: 23–35. 1930.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    — Gräserinfektionen mit Getreiderosten. Arb. Biol. Reichsanst.20: 165–182. 1932.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    — Die Bedeutung der Bodenfeuchtigkeit für das Verhalten vonPuccinia graminis undPuccinia triticina auf verschiedenen Weizensorten. Phytopath. Zeits.7: 259–269. 1934.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    — Untersuchungen über die biologische Spezialisierung vonPuccinia graminis tritici (Pers.) Erikss. et Henn. undPuccinia graminis avenae (Pers.) Erikss. et Henn. in Deutschland und Südeuropa. Arb. Biol. Reichsanst.22: 65–70. 1936.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    — Untersuchungen über die physiologische Spezialisierung vonPuccinia triticina Erikss. in Deutschland und einigen anderen europäischen Staaten während der Jahre 1934 und 1935. Arb. Biol. Reichsanst.22: 71–89. 1937.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    — Untersuchungen über die physiologische Spezialisierung des Weizen- und Haferschwarzrostes in Deutschland im Jahre 1937. Arb. Biol. Reichsanst.22: 479–482. 1938.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    — Untersuchungen über den Einfluss einiger Aussenfaktoren auf das Anfälligkeitsverhalten der Standardsorten gegenüber verschiedenen physiologischen Rassen des Weizenbraunroste. Phytopath. Zeits.12: 233–276. 1939.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    — Zur Frage der Wirkung von Aussenfaktoren auf verschiedene Stadien von Weizenbraunrostinfektionen. Phytopath. Zeits.12: 490–508. 1940.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Hey, Alfred. Beiträge zur Spezialisierung des Gerstenzwergrostes,Puccinia simplex Erikss. et Henn. Arb. Biol. Reichsanst.19: 227–261. 1931.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Hitchcock, A. S. andCarleton, M. A. Second report on rusts of grain. Kans. Agr. Exp. Sta., Bull. 46. 1894.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Hoerner, G. R. Biologic forms ofPuccinia coronata on oats. Phytopathology9: 309–314. 1919.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Humphrey, H. B. andCromwell, R. O. Stripe rust,Puccinia glumarum, on wheat in Argentina. Phytopathology20: 981–985. 1930.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Humphrey, H. B. et al. Stripe rust (Puccinia glumarum) of cereals and grasses in the United States. Jour. Agr. Res.29: 209–227. 1924.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Hungerford, C. W. andOwens, C. E. Specialized varieties ofPuccinia glumarum and hosts for varietytritici. Jour. Agr. Res.25: 363–401. 1923.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Jackson, H. S. Present evolutionary tendencies and the origin of life cycles in the Uredinales. Mem. Torr. Bot. Club18: 5–108. 1931.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    — andMains, E. B. Aecial stage of the orange leaf rust of wheat,Puccinia triticina Eriks. Jour. Agr. Res.22: 151–172. 1921.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Johnson, T. A study of the effect of environmental factors on the variability of physiologic forms ofPuccinia graminis tritici Erikss. and Henn. Dom. Can., Dept. Agr., Bull. 140-New Series. 1931.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    - andNewton, Margaret. Hybridization betweenPuccinia graminis tritici andPuccinia graminis avenae. Proc. World’s Grain Exh. & Conf. II: 219–223. 1933.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    ——. The effect of high temperatures on uredial development in cereal rusts. Can. Jour. Res. C,15: 425–432. 1937.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    ——. The origin of abnormal rust characteristics through the inbreeding of physiologic races ofPuccinia graminis Tritici. Can. Jour. Res. C,16: 38–52. 1938.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    ——. Mendelian inheritance of certain pathogenic characters ofPuccinia graminis Tritici. Can. Jour. Res. C,18: 599–611. 1940.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    ——. Crossing and selfing studies with physiologic races of oat stem rust. Can. Jour. Res. C,18: 54–67. 1940.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    ——. The predominance of race 56 in relation to the stem-rust resistance of Ceres wheat. Sci. Agr.22: 152–156. 1941.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    ——. The inheritance of a mutant character inPuccinia graminis Tritici. Can. Jour. Res. C,21: 205–210. 1943.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    —— andBrown, A. M. Hybridization ofPuccinia graminis tritici withPuccinia graminis secalis andPuccinia graminis agrostidis. Sci. Agr.13: 141–153. 1932.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    ——— Further studies of the inheritance of spore colour and pathogenicity in crosses between physiologic forms ofPuccinia graminis tritici. Sci. Agr.14: 360–373. 1934.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Johnston, C. O. An aberrant physiologic form ofPuccinia triticina Eriks. Phytopathology20: 609–620. 1930.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    - andMains, E. B. Studies on physiologic specialization inPuccinia triticina. U. S. Dept. Agr., Tech. Bull. 313. 1932.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Kingsolver, C. H. andMurphy, H. C. Physiologic race determination inPuccinia coronata avenae. Phytopathology30: 13–14. 1940.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Klebahn, H. Kulturversuche mit heteröcischen Uredineen. Zeits. Pflanzenk.2: 332–345. 1892.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    -. Die Wirtswechselnden Rostpilze. 1904.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Küderling, O-E. Untersuchungen über die Feldresistenz einzelner Weizensorten gegenPuccinia glumarum tritici. Zeits. Zuchtg. A.21: 1–40. 1936.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Lamb, I. M. The initiation of the dikaryophase inPuccinia Phragmitis (Schum.) Körn. Ann. Bot.49: 403–438. 1935.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Lathbury, R. J. The appearance of a new physiologic form of stem rust in Kenya Colony. East Afr. Agr. Jour., Nov. 1938, pp. 183–185.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    — Annual report of the plant breeder. Rep. Dept. Agr. Kenya, 1938,2, pp. 52–59. 1939. [Rev. Appl. Myc. 19: 76. 1940.]Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Leach, Julian G. The parasitism ofPuccinia graminis tritici Erikss. and Henn. andPuccinia graminis tritici-compacti Stak. and Piem. Phytopathology9: 59–88. 1919.Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Levine, M. N. A statistical study of the comparative morphology of biologic forms ofPuccinia graminis. Jour. Agr. Res.24: 539–568. 1923.Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    — Biometrical studies on the variation of physiologic forms ofPuccinia graminis tritici and the effect of ecological factors on the susceptibility of wheat varieties. Phytopathology18: 7–123. 1928.Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    — andCotter, R. U. A synthetic production ofPuccinia graminis hordei F. and J. Phytopathology21: 107. 1931.Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    —— andStakman, E. C. The production of an apparently new variety ofPuccinia graminis by hybridization on bar-berry. Phytopathology24: 13–14. 1934.Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    — andStakman, E. C. A third biologic form ofPuccinia graminis on wheat. Jour. Agr. Res.13: 651–654. 1918.Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    —— Biologic specialization ofPuccinia graminis secalis. Phytopathology13: 35. 1923.Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Mains, E. B. The relation of some rusts to the physiology of their hosts. Am. Jour. Bot.4: 179–220. 1917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    — Studies in rust resistance. Jour. Hered.17: 313–325. 1926.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    — Host specialization of barley leaf rust,Puccinia anomala. Phytopathology20: 873–882. 1930.Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    — Host specialization in the leaf rust of grasses,Puccinia rubigo-vera. Papers Mich. Acad. Sci.17: 289–394. 1932 (1933).Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    — andJackson, H. S. Aecial stages of the leaf rusts of rye,Puccinia dispersa Erikss. and Henn. and of barley,P. anomala Rostr., in the United States. Jour. Agr. Res.28: 1119–1126. 1924.Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    —— Physiologic specialization in the leaf rust of wheat,Puccinia triticina Erikss. Phytopathology16: 89–120. 1926.Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Marchionatto, J. B. Dos informes sobre la roya “amarilla” del trigo. Min. Agr. Nac. (Buenos Aires) Secc. Prop. e Inform. Circ.836, pp. 3–20. 1931. [Rev. Appl. Myc. 10: 509. 1931.]Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    McDonald, J. Some factors influencing the occurrence and distribution of plant diseases in Kenya. Col. Prot. Kenya Dept. Agr. Bull. 13. 1926.Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    — The existence of physiologic forms of wheat stem rust in Africa. Trans. Brit. Myc. Soc.15: 235–247. 1931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    — Two new records of physiologic forms of wheat-stem rust in Kenya Colony. Trans. Brit. Myc. Soc.18: 218–222. 1933.Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Mehta, K. C. Annual outbreaks of rusts on wheat and barley in the plains of India. Indian Jour. Agr. Sci.1: 297–301. 1931.Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    — The cereal rust problem in India. Indian Jour. Agr. Sci.1: 302–305. 1931.Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    — Rusts of wheat and barley in India. Indian Jour. Agr. Sci.3: 939–962. 1933.Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    -. Further studies on cereal rusts in India. Sci. Mon. No. 14, Imp. Coun. Agr. Res., Calcutta, 1940.Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Melander, L. W. Effect of temperature and light on development of the uredial stage ofPuccinia graminis. Jour. Agr. Res.50: 861–880. 1935.Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Melchers, L. E. andParker, J. H. Another strain ofPuccinia graminis. Kans. Agr. Exp. Sta., Circ. 68. 1918.Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Melhus, I. E. et al. Alternate hosts and biologic specialization of crown rust in America. Iowa Agr. Exp. Sta., Res. Bull. 72. 1922.Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    Murphy, H. C. Physiologic specialization inPuccinia coronata avenae. Phytopathology20: 143–144. 1930.Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    -. Physiologic specialization inPuccinia coronata avenae. U. S. Dept. Agr., Tech. Bull. 433. 1935.Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    Naumova, N. A. The influence of temperature and humidity of the air on the incubation period ofPuccinia triticina. Pl. Prot. Leningr.5: 33–55. 1935. [Rev. Appl. Myc. 15: 562–563. 1936.]Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    Naumov, N. A. The rusts of cereals in the U.S.S.R. 1939.Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    Newton, Margaret. Studies in wheat stem rust (Puccinia graminis tritici). Trans. Roy. Soc. Canada, III16: 153–210. 1922.Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    —. The cereal rusts in Canada. Empire Jour. Exp. Agr.6: 125–140. 1938.Google Scholar
  143. 143.
    — andJohnson, T. Color mutations inPuccinia graminis tritici (Pers.) Erikss. and Henn. Phytopathology17: 711–725. 1927.Google Scholar
  144. 144.
    - and -. Specialization and hybridization of wheat stem rust,Puccinia graminis tritici, in Canada. Dom. Can., Dept. Agr., Bull. 160-New Series, 1932.Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    —— Stripe rust,Puccinia glumarum, in Canada. Can. Jour. Res. C,14: 89–109. 1936.Google Scholar
  146. 146.
    —— Production of uredia and telia ofPuccinia graminis onBerberis vulgaris. Nature139: 800. 1937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    - and -. Variation and hybridization inPuccinia graminis. Proc. 3rd Int. Cong. Microbiol., p. 544. 1939.Google Scholar
  148. 148.
    —— A mutation for pathogenicity inPuccinia graminis Tritici. Can. Jour. Res. C,17: 297–299. 1939.Google Scholar
  149. 149.
    —— Environmental reaction of physiologic races ofPuccinia triticina and their distribution in Canada. Can. Jour. Res. C,19: 121–133. 1941.Google Scholar
  150. 150.
    —— Physiologic specialization of oat stem rust rust in Canada. Can. Jour. Res. C,22: 201–216. 1944.Google Scholar
  151. 151.
    —— andBrown, A. M. New physiologic forms ofPuccinia graminis tritici. Sci. Agr.9: 209–215. 1928.Google Scholar
  152. 152.
    ——— A preliminary study on the hybridization of physiologic forms ofPuccinia graminis tritici. Sci. Agr.10: 721–731. 1930.Google Scholar
  153. 153.
    ——— A study of the inheritance of spore colour and pathogenicity in crosses between physiologic forms ofPuccinia graminis tritici. Sci. Agr.10: 775–798. 1930.Google Scholar
  154. 154.
    D’Oliveira, B. Brown rust of wild species ofHordeum. Revista Agronómica25: 230–234. 1937.Google Scholar
  155. 155.
    — Studies onPuccinia anomala Rost. I. Physiologic races on cultivated barleys. Ann. Appl. Biol.26: 56–82. 1939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. 156.
    — Notas sobre a producao da fase aecidica de algumas ferrugens dos cereais em Portugal. Revista Agronómica28: 201–208. 1940.Google Scholar
  157. 157.
    — andDe Sousa, M. C. F. Raças fisiologicas daPuccinia graminis Tritici em Portugal. Agronomia Lusitana2: 243–252. 1940.Google Scholar
  158. 158.
    Pantanelli, E. Sui rapporti fra nutrizioni e recettivita per la ruggini. Riv. di Patol. Veg.11: 36–64. 1921. [Rev. Appl. Myc. 1: 118–121. 1922.]Google Scholar
  159. 159.
    Parson, H. E. Physiologic specialization inPuccinia coronata avenae. Phytopathology17: 783–790. 1927.Google Scholar
  160. 160.
    Peltier, G. L. A study of the environmental conditions influencing the development of stem rust in the absence of an alternate host. III. Infection studies withPuccinia graminis tritici form 3 and form 9. Neb. Agr. Exp. Sta., Res. Bull. 25. 1923.Google Scholar
  161. 161.
    -. A study of the environmental conditions influencing the development of stem rust in the absence of an alternate host. VI. Influence of light on infection and subsequent development of urediniospores ofPuccinia graminis tritici on wheat. Neb. Agr. Exp. Sta., Res. Bull. 35. 1925.Google Scholar
  162. 162.
    — Relation of weather to the prevalence of wheat stem rust in Nebraska. Jour. Agr. Res.46: 59–73. 1933.Google Scholar
  163. 163.
    — Physiologic forms of wheat stem rust in Kansas and Nebraska. Phytopathology23: 343–356. 1933.Google Scholar
  164. 164.
    Persoon, C. H. Neuer Versuch einer systematischen Eintheilung der Schwämme. Römer’s Neues Mag. Bot.1: 63–128. 1794.Google Scholar
  165. 165.
    -. Synopsis methodica fungorum, 1801.Google Scholar
  166. 166.
    Peturson, B. Effect of temperature on host reactions to physiologic forms ofPuccinia coronata avenae. Sci. Agr.11: 104–110. 1930.Google Scholar
  167. 167.
    -. Crown rust of oats in Canada. Rep. Dom. Bot. 1929, Canada Dept. Agr. 1931.Google Scholar
  168. 168.
    — Physiologic specialization inPuccmia coronata Avenae. Sc. Agr.15: 806–810. 1935.Google Scholar
  169. 169.
    Poirault, G. andRaciborski, M. Sur les noyaux des Urédinées. Jour. de Bot.9: 318–332, 381–388. 1895.Google Scholar
  170. 170.
    Popp, W. Crown rust of oats in Eastern Canada. Quebec Soc. Prot. Plants 1925–1926. Ann. Rep.18: 38–54.Google Scholar
  171. 171.
    Radulescu, E. Zur physiologischen Spezialisierung des Weizenbraunrostes (Puccinia triticino Erikss.). Kühn-Archiv33: 195–205. 1932.Google Scholar
  172. 172.
    — Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Feldresistenz des Weizens gegenPuccinia glumarum tritici. Planta20: 244–286. 1933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. 173.
    Ralski, E. Die Empfängligkeit des Weizens für den Braunrost,Puccinia triticina Erikss. Pol. Akad. Umiejetnosci, Prac. Rolniczo-Lesne Nr. 33. 1939.Google Scholar
  174. 174.
    Rashevskaya, V. F. andBarmenkoff, A. S. Determination of physiologic races ofPuccinia triticina Erikss. in U.S.S.R. in 1935. Pl. Prot. Leningr.10: 5–20. 1936. [Rev. Appl. Myc. 16: 163. 1937.]Google Scholar
  175. 175.
    Roberts, Florence M. The determination of physiologic forms ofPuccinia triticina Erikss. in England and Wales. Ann. Appl. Biol.23: 271–301. 1936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. 176.
    Ronsdorf, L. Einige Versuche über biologische Rassen des Gerstenzwergrostes. Arb. Biol. Reichsanst.21: 109–114. 1934.Google Scholar
  177. 177.
    — Weitere Untersuchungen über den Nachweis biologischer Rassen des Gerstenzwergrostes,Puccinia simplex Erikss. et Henn. Phytopath. Zeits.8: 237–243. 1935.Google Scholar
  178. 178.
    Rudorf, W. Beiträge zur Immunitatszüchtung gegenPuccinia glumarum tritici (Streifenrost des Weizens). Phytopath. Zeits.1: 465–525. 1929.Google Scholar
  179. 179.
    — andJob, Maria. Untersuchungen bezüglich der Spezialisierung vonPuccinia graminis tritici, Puccinia triticina undPuccinia glumarum tritici sowie über Resistenz und ihre Vererbung in verschiedenen Kreuzungen. Zeits. Züchtg. A,19: 333–365. 1934.Google Scholar
  180. 180.
    Sanford, G. B. andBroadfoot, W. C. Stripe rust in Alberta. Sci. Agr.9: 337–345. 1929.Google Scholar
  181. 181.
    —— Epidemiology of stripe rust in western Canada. Sci. Agr.13: 77–96. 1932.Google Scholar
  182. 182.
    Sappin-Trouffy, P. Recherches histologiques sur la famille des Urédinées. Le Botaniste5: 59–244. 1896.Google Scholar
  183. 183.
    Savulescu, T. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Biologie der Pucciniaarten, die den Weizen in Rumänien befallen. Zeits. Pflanzenk.43: 577–594. 1933.Google Scholar
  184. 184.
    Scheibe, A. Studien zum Weizenbraunrost,Puccinia triticina Erikss. III. Über die geographische Verbreitung der einzelnen physiologischen Formen und Formenkreise in Deutschland und in seinen angrenzenden Gebieten. Arb. Biol. Reichsanst.18: 55–82. 1930.Google Scholar
  185. 185.
    Schmitz, F. K. J. Untersuchungen über die Struktur des Protoplasmas und der Zellkerne der Pflanzenzellen. Sitzb. Niederrhein. Ges. Bonn37: 159–198. 1880.Google Scholar
  186. 186.
    Sibilia, C. Ricerche sulle ruggini die cereali. La specializzazione della‘Puccinia triticina’ Erikss. in Italia. Boll. Staz. Pat. Veg. Roma, N.S.15: 277–300. 1935.Google Scholar
  187. 187.
    — Ricerche sulle ruggini dei cereali. V. Ulteriore ricerche sulla specializzazione dellaPuccinia triticina Erikss. in Italia. Boll. Staz. Pat. Veg. Roma, N.S.16: 69–75. 1936.Google Scholar
  188. 188.
    — Le razze fisiologiche di ‘Pucciniagraminis tritici’ Erikss. et Henn. nell’ Africa Orientale Italiana. Boll. Staz. Pat. Veg. Roma, N.S.19: 497–508. 1939.Google Scholar
  189. 189.
    Stakman, E. C. Physiologic specialization in pathogenic fungi. Proc. Int. Congr. Pl. Sci. Vol.2: 1312–1330. 1929.Google Scholar
  190. 190.
    — andCassell, R. C. The increase and importance of race 56 ofPuccinia graminis tritici. Phytopathology28: 20. 1938.Google Scholar
  191. 191.
    — andLevine, M. N. Effect of certain ecological factors on the morphology of the urediniospores ofPuccinia graminis. Jour. Agr. Res.16: 43–77. 1919.Google Scholar
  192. 192.
    - and -. The determination of biologic forms ofPuccinia graminis onTriticum spp. Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta., Tech. Bull. 8. 1922.Google Scholar
  193. 193.
    ——Puccinia graminis poae Erikss. and Henn. in the United States. Jour. Agr. Res.28: 541–548. 1924.Google Scholar
  194. 194.
    et al. Biologic forms ofPuccinia graminis on varieties ofAvena spp. Jour. Agr. Res.24: 1013–1018. 1923.Google Scholar
  195. 195.
    et al. Die Bestimmung physiologischer Rassen pflanzenpathogener Pilze. Nova Acta Leopoldina, Neue Folge3: 281–336. 1935.Google Scholar
  196. 196.
    et al. Origin of physiologic forms ofPuccinia graminis through hybridization and mutation. Sci. Agr.10: 707–720. 1930.Google Scholar
  197. 197.
    et al. Relation of barberry to the origin and persistence of physiologic forms ofPuccinia graminis. Jour. Agr. Res.48: 953–969. 1934.Google Scholar
  198. 198.
    et al. New biologic forms ofPuccinia graminis. Jour. Agr. Res.16: 103–105. 1919.Google Scholar
  199. 199.
    et al. The value of physiologic-form surveys in the study of the epidemiology of stem rust. Phytopathology19: 951–959. 1929.Google Scholar
  200. 200.
    — andLoegering, W. Q. The potential importance of race 8 ofPuccinia graminis avenae in the United States. Phytopathology34: 421–425. 1944.Google Scholar
  201. 201.
    -et al. Physiologic races ofPuccinia graminis in the United States in 1940. U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Ent. & Pl. Quar. E-522-A. 1942. [Mult.]Google Scholar
  202. 202.
    et al. Population trends of physiologic races ofPuccinia graminis tritici in the United States for the period 1930 to 1941. Phytopathology33: 884–898. 1943.Google Scholar
  203. 203.
    — andPiemeisel, F. J. A new strain ofPuccinia graminis. Phytopathology7: 73. 1917.Google Scholar
  204. 204.
    —— Biologic forms ofPuccinia graminis on cereals and grasses. Jour. Agr. Res.10: 429–495. 1917.Google Scholar
  205. 205.
    et al. Observations on stem rust epidemiology in Mexico. Am. Jour. Bot.27: 90–99. 1940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  206. 206.
    Straib, W. Auftreten und Verbreitung biologischer Rassen des Gelbrostes (Puccinia glumarum (Schm.)) Erikss. et Henn. im Jahre 1934. Arb. Biol. Reichsanst.21: 455–466. 1935.Google Scholar
  207. 207.
    — Ueber Gelbrostanfälligkeit und -Resistenz der Gerstenarten. Arb. Biol. Reichsanst.21: 467–481. 1935.Google Scholar
  208. 208.
    — Infektionsversuche mit biologischen Rassen des Gelbrostes auf Gräsern. Arb. Biol. Reichsanst.21: 483–497. 1935.Google Scholar
  209. 209.
    — Die Bestimmung der physiologischen Rassen vonPuccinia coronata Cda. auf Hafer in Deutschland. Arb. Biol. Reichsanst.22: 121–157. 1937.Google Scholar
  210. 210.
    — Die Untersuchungsergebnisse zur Frage der biologischen Spezialisierung des Gelbrostes (Puccinia glumarum) und ihre bedeutung fur die Pflanzenzüchtung. Der Züchter9: 118–129. 1937.Google Scholar
  211. 211.
    — Untersuchungen über das Vorkommen physiologischer Rassen des Gelbrostes (Puccinia glumarum) in den Jahren 1935/36 und über die Agressivität einiger neuer Formen auf Getreide und Gräsern. Arb. Biol. Reichsanst.22: 91–119. 1937.Google Scholar
  212. 212.
    — Las razas fisiologicas dePuccinia glumarum en Sudamerica y su comportamiento en la infección comparado con el de las formas europas. Archiv. Fitotécnico del Uruguay2: 217–233. 1937.Google Scholar
  213. 213.
    — Zur Frage der aufHordeum murinum L. vorkommenden Rostarten und der Selbständigkeit vonPuccinia hordei Fckl. Ber. Deut. Bot. Ges. 1937,55: 120–126. 1937.Google Scholar
  214. 214.
    — Weiterer Beitrag der Spezialisierung vonPuccinia glumarum (Schm.) Erikss. et Henn. Arb. Biol. Reichsanst.22: 571–579. 1939.Google Scholar
  215. 215.
    — Der Einfluss des Entwicklungsstadiums und der Temperatur auf des Gelbrostverhalten des Weizens. Phytopath. Zeits.12: 113–168. 1939.Google Scholar
  216. 216.
    Tedin, O. Till fragan om havresvartrostens mangformighet i. Sverige. Sverig. Utsadesf. Tidskr.40: 111–114. 1930.Google Scholar
  217. 217.
    Tranzschel, W. Culturversuche mit Uredineen in den Jahren 1911–1913. Myc. Centralbl.4: 70–71. 1914.Google Scholar
  218. 218.
    — Die Zwischenwirte der Getreiderostpilze und ihre Verbreitung in der U.d.S.S.R. Bull. Pl. Prot. Leningr. Ser. II (Phytopath.)5: 4–40. 1934. [Rev. Appl. Myc. 14: 291–292. 1935.]Google Scholar
  219. 219.
    Treboux, O. Infektionsversuche mit parasitischen Pilzen, III. Annales Mycologici10: 557–563. 1912.Google Scholar
  220. 220.
    Tscholakow, J. W. Ein Beitrag zur physiologischen Specialisierung des Weizenbraunrostes,Puccinia triticina Erikss. Arb. Biol. Reichsanst.19: 407–411. 1931.Google Scholar
  221. 221.
    Tulasne, L. R. Note sur la germination des spores des Urédinées. Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. Paris36: 1093–1095. 1853.Google Scholar
  222. 222.
    — Sur le dimorphisme des Urédinées. Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. Paris38: 761–765. 1854.Google Scholar
  223. 223.
    — Second mémoire sur les Urédinées et les Ustilaginées. Ann. Sci. Nat., IV Ser. Bot.2: 77–196. 1854.Google Scholar
  224. 224.
    Vallega, J. Especialización fisiológica dePuccinia coronata avenue, en Argentina. An. Inst. Fitotécnico Santa Catalina2: 53–82. 1940.Google Scholar
  225. 225.
    — Especialización fisiológica dePuccinia graminis tritici en la Argentina, Chile y Uruguay. Rev. Argent. Agron.7: 196–220. 1940.Google Scholar
  226. 226.
    — Especialización fisiológica dePuccinia graminis tritici en Brasil. An. Inst. Fitotécnico Santa Catalina3: 29–36. 1941.Google Scholar
  227. 227.
    — Razas fisiológicas dePuccinia graminis avenae halladas en Argentina. Rev. Fac. Agron., Buenos Aires10: 517–529. 1943.Google Scholar
  228. 228.
    Verwoerd, Len. Die fisiologiese vorms vanPuccinia graminis Pers. wat in Suid-Afrika voorkom. So. Afr. Jour. Sci.28: 274–279. 1931.Google Scholar
  229. 229.
    -. The distribution and prevalence of physiologie forms ofPuccinia graminis tritici in the Union of South Africa, 1930–1934. Ann. Univ. Stellenbosch13, A, (3), 7 pp. 1935.Google Scholar
  230. 230.
    —. Die physiologiese Rasse vanPuccinia triticina Eriks. wat in Suid-Afrika voorkom. So. Afr. Jour. Sci.33: 648–652. 1937.Google Scholar
  231. 231.
    Vohl, Gerhard Johann. Untersuchungen über den Braunrost des WeizensPuccinia triticina Erikss. Zeit. Zuchtg. A,22: 233–270. 1938.Google Scholar
  232. 232.
    Wallace, James M. Physiologie specialization as a factor in the epiphytology ofPuccinia graminis tritici. Phytopathology22: 105–142. 1932.Google Scholar
  233. 233.
    Waterhouse, W. L. A preliminary account of the origin of two new Australian physiologic forms ofPuccinia graminis tritici. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W.54: 96–106. 1929.Google Scholar
  234. 234.
    — Australian rust studies I. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W.54: 615–680. 1929.Google Scholar
  235. 235.
    — Australian rust studies. II. Biometrical studies of the morphology of spore forms. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W.55: 159–178. 1930.Google Scholar
  236. 236.
    — On the production in Australia of two new physiologic forms of leaf rust of wheat,Puccinia triticina Erikss. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W.57: 92–94. 1932.Google Scholar
  237. 237.
    — Australian rust studies V. On the occurrence of a new physiologic form of wheat stem rust in New South Wales. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W.60: 71–73. 1935.Google Scholar
  238. 238.
    — Some observations on cereal rust problems in Australia. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W.61: 3–38. 1936.Google Scholar
  239. 239.
    — Presidential Address. Part I. General. Part II. Some aspects of problems in breeding for rust resistance in cereals. Jour. & Proc. Roy. Soc. N.S.W.72: 1–54. 1938.Google Scholar
  240. 240.
    — Some aspects of plant pathology. Rep. Austral. and N. Z. Assoc. Adv. Sci.24: 234–259. 1939.Google Scholar
  241. 241.
    Wellensiek, S. J. Oriëntierend onderzoek omtrent physiologiese specialisatie vanPuccinia triticina Eriks. in Nederland. (English summary.) Tidjschr. Plantenziekten36: 1–12. 1930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  242. 242.
    Wilhelm, W. Studien zur Spezialisierungsweise des Weizengelbrostes,Puccinia glumarum f. sp.tritici (Schmidt) Erikss. et Henn. und zur Keimungsphysiologie seiner Uredosporen. Arb. Biol. Reichsanst.19: 95–133. 1931.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden 1946

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Johnson
    • 1
  • Margaret Newton
    • 1
  1. 1.Dominion Laboratory of Plant PathologyWinnipeg

Personalised recommendations