Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Environment and the cereal smuts

  • Published:
The Botanical Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Conclusion

It was noted in the introduction that E. J. Butler is credited with the statement that the present period in phytopathology is one in which disease is considered as an interaction of the host and the parasite “under the conditioning influence of environment”. The foregoing pages lend ample proof of the truth of that statement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  1. Abramoff, I. N. [Investigation of cereal smuts under Littoral District conditions in 1929]. Far-East. Pl. Prot. Sta., Khabarovsk, Bul.3. 1930. [Abs. in Rev. Appl. Mycol.10: 442–443. 1931].

  2. Ajroldi, P. Nuove ricerche intorno alla biologia delle “Tilletia” del Frumento. Riv. Pat. Veg.27: 297–319. 1937.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson, A. P. Rice smut. So. Car. Agr. Exp. Sta., Bul.41. 1899.

  4. Andreyeff, N. I. [Results of tests of some fungicides for the control of wheat bunt]. No. Cauc. Pl. Prot. Sta., Bul.3: 93–122. 1927. [German summary; abs. in Rev. Appl. Mycol.7: 500. 1928].

    Google Scholar 

  5. —. [Results of the investigation of smuts in the North Caucasus Region in 1927]. No. Cauc. Pl. Prot. Sta., Bul.4: 3–16. 1928. [German summary; abs. in Rev. Appl. Mycol.7: 772. 1928].

    Google Scholar 

  6. Anonymous. Report on a survey of the incidence of false loose smut in the prairie provinces. Line Elevators Farm Service, Winnepeg, Manitoba, Misc. Publ. 1. 1944.

  7. Antonoff, S. M. [Susceptibility of spring wheat to bunt in relation to the date of sowing]. [Sci. Trans. Siberian Agr. Acad. 5. 1926]. [Abs. in Rev. Appl. Mycol.6: 348. 1927].

  8. Appel, O. andGassner, G. Untersuchungen über den Brand, insbesondere den Flugbrand des Getreides. Mitt. Kön. Biol. Anst. Land-u. Forstw., Heft4: 9–12. 1907.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Appl, J. Saatzeit und Steinbrandbefall des Weizens. Zeits. Land. Versuchswesen Oest.18: 45–54. 1915.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Arland, A. Der Hafer-Flugbrand,Ustilago avenae (Pers.) Jens. Biologische Untersuchungen mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Infektions- und Anfälligkeitsfrage. Bot. Arch.7: 70–111. 1924.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Arnaud, G. andGaudineau, Mlle. M. Le traitement de la carie du Blé. Compt. Rend. Acad. Agr. France18: 208–214. 1932.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Arthur, J. C. andStuart, Wm. Corn smut. Ind. Agr. Exp. Sta., Ann. Rep. (1899)12: 84–135. 1900.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Balakhonoff, P. I. [Cereal smuts in the Salsk district of the North Caucasus region in 1927]. No. Caus. Pl. Prot. Sta., Bul.4: 17–24. 1928. [German summary; abs. in Rev. Appl. Mycol.7: 773. 1928].

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bartholomew, L. K. andJones, E. S. Relation of certain soil factors to the infection of oats by loose smut. Jour. Agr. Res.24: 569–575. 1923.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Benlloch, M. [Dry seed disinfection to prevent wheat stinking smut]. Bol. Pat. Veg. y Ent. Agr. (Madrid)2: 36–42. 1927. [Abs. in Exp. Sta. Rec., Feb. 1930, p. 147.]

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bever, W. M. Physiologic specialization inUstilago tritici and the effect of vernalization on the incidence of loose smut in artificially inoculated winter wheat. Rep. VIII East. Wheat Conf., Cincinnati, Ohio, pp. 1–4, Nov. 10, 1943. [Mime.]

  17. Brandwein, P. F. Experiments on latent infection of resistant varieties by the loose and covered smuts of oats. Bul. Torrey Bot. Club64: 433–444. 1937.

    Google Scholar 

  18. — Infection studies on the covered smut of oats. Bul. Torrey Bot. Club.67: 673–691. 1940.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Brefeld, O. Untersuchungen aus dem Gesammtgebiete der Mykologie. Brandpilze2. Heft11. 1895.

  20. Briggs, F. N. Dehulling barley seed with sulfuric acid to induce infection with covered smut (Uslilago hordei). Jour. Agr. Res.35: 907–914. 1927.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Buchheim, A. N. Phytopathologische Forschung und Schädlingsbekämpfung in der Sowietunion. Russ. Ang. Bot.8: 1–7. 1926.

    Google Scholar 

  22. —. [Effect of freezing on the germinability of wheat seeds infected with loose smut and on the development of the plants raised from them]. Pl. Prot. Sta., Leningrad, Bul.6: 134–137. 1935. [Abs. in Rev. Appl. Mycol.15: 637. 1936].

    Google Scholar 

  23. Carne, W. M. Flag smut of wheat. Jour. Dept. Agr. West. Australia1: 142–147. 1924.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Caspar, R. Ueber den Einfluss äusserer Faktoren auf den Steinbrandbefall des Weizens. Kühn-Arch.12: 205–256. 1926.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Chowdhury, S. Mode of transmission of the bunt of rice. Cur. Sci.15: 111. 1946.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Christensen, J. J. The relation of soil temperature and soil moisture to thé development of head smut of sorghum. Phytopath.16: 353–357. 1926.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ciferri, R. Relazione sull’ altivata del Laboratorio Crittogamico, dell’ Osservatorio Fitopatologico e del Centro Studi Anticrittogamici durante l’anno 1943. Atti Ist. Bot., Univ. Pavia, V.1: 279–362. 1944.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Clinton, G. P. The smuts of Illinois agricultural plants. I11. Agr. Exp. Sta., Bul.57: 289–360. 1900.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Coffnman, F. A., Tisdale, W. H. andBrandon, J. F. Observations on corn smut at Akron, Colorado. Jour. Am. Soc. Agron.18: 403–411. 1926.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Conners, I. L. andSavile, D. B. O. Twenty-second annual report of the Canadian plant disease survey, 1942. 1943. [Mime.]

  31. -. and -. Twenty-third annual report of the Canadian plant disease survey, 1943. 1944. [Mime.]

  32. Crepin, C., Bustarret, J. etChevalier, R. Le problème de la création des blés résistants à la carie. Ann. Epiphyties et de Phytogenetique3: 323–439. 1937.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Défago, G. Pour une meilleure connaissance et un contrôle plus efficace de la carie du Blé en Suisse romande. Bull. Murith.55: 78–116. 1938.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Diehl, O. Experimentelle Untersuchungen über die Lebensweise und Bekämpfung des Haferflugbrandes. Bot. Arch.11: 146–199. 1925.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Djelaloff, R. [Experiments on bunt (1929–30 and 1930–31 seasons)]. [Pamphlet issued by the Azerbaijan Agr. Inst., Baku, 1932]. [English summary; abs. in Rev. Appl. Mycol.12: 559. 1933].

  36. Dobromysloff, P. N. [Degree of infection with bunt of spring wheat grown in ridged as against flat rows]. Dis. Cereal Crops, Sib. Sci. Res. Inst. Cereal Ind., Omsk, pp. 72–79, 1932]. [Abs. in Rev. Appl. Mycol.12: 155. 1933].

  37. Falck, R. Die Flugbrandarten des Getreides, ihre Verbreitung und Bekämpfung. Jour. Landw.56: 173–182. 1908.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Faris, J. A. Factors influencing infection ofHordeum sativum byUstilago hordei. Am. Jour. Bot.11: 189–214. 1924.

    Google Scholar 

  39. — Physiologic specialization ofUstilago hordei. Phytopath.14: 537–557. 1924.

    Google Scholar 

  40. — Factors influencing the infection of wheat byTilletia tritici andTilletia laevis. Mycologia16: 259–282. 1924.

    Google Scholar 

  41. — Influence of soil moisture and soil temperature on infection of wheat byUrocystis tritici. Phytopath.23: 10–11. 1933. [Abs.]

    Google Scholar 

  42. Feucht, W. Die Wirkung des SteinbrandesTilletia tritici (Bjerkander) Winter, undTilletia foetans (Berkeley et Curtis) Tulasne auf verschiedene Winterweizensorten bei künstlicher Infektion in ihrer Abhängigkeit von äusseren Faktoren. Phytopath. Zeits.4: 247–290. 1932.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Finnell, H. H. Relation of grazing to wheat smut and tillering. Jour. Am. Soc. Agron.21: 267–274. 1929.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Fomin, E. [Utilization of the varietal characters of plants in disease control]. Ukrain. Sci. Rec. Inst. Grain Culture, Phytopath. Lab., Kharkoff, Bul.1: 88–133. 1935. [English summary; abs. in Rev. Appl. Mycol.16: 164–165. 1937].

    Google Scholar 

  45. Forster, H. C. andVasey, A. J. The relation between flag smut infection and manurial treatment. Jour. Dept. Agr. Victoria27: 321–330. 1929.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Freeman, E. M. andJohnson, E. C. The loose smuts of barley and wheat. U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Pl. Ind., Bul. 152. 1909.

  47. Fromme, F. D. The development of loose smut of wheat as modified by soil fertility. Phytopath.10: 53. 1920. [Abs.]

    Google Scholar 

  48. Fulton, H. R. Diseases affecting rice in Louisiana. La. Agr. Exp. Sta., Bul. 105. 1908.

  49. Gage, G. R. Studies of the life history ofUstilago avenae (Pers.) Jensen and ofUstilago levis (Kell. and Swing.) Magn. Cornell Univ. Agr. Exp. Sta., Mem. 109. 1927.

  50. Gassner, G. Ueber die Abhängigkeit des Steinbrandauftretens von der Bodenbeschaffenheit. Ang. Bot.7: 80–87. 1925.

    Google Scholar 

  51. — andKirchhoff, H. Zur Frage der Beeinflussung des Flugbrandbefalls durch Umweltfaktoren und chemische Beizmittel. Phytopath. Zeits.7: 487–503. 1934.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Gaudineau, Mlle. M. Sur quelques facteurs de l’infection du Blé par la carie,Tilletia tritici (Bjerk.) Wint. Ann. Epiphyties18: 340–355. 1932.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Gibs, W. Veränderung der Brandfälligkeit durch äussere Bedingungen. Jour. Landw.62: 111–124. 1924.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Griffiths, Marion A. Experiments with flag smut of wheat and the causal fungus,Urocystis tritici Kcke. Jour. Agr. Res.27: 425–449. 1924.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Hanna, W. F. Effect of vernalization on the incidence of loose smut in wheat. Sci. Agr.16: 404–407. 1936.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Hanson, E. W. andTervet, I. W. Effect of fertilizer on the development of bunt of wheat. Phytopath.30. 8. 1940. [Abs.]

    Google Scholar 

  57. Heald, F. D. The stinking smut of wheat. Wash. Agr. Exp. Sta., Pop. Bul.115. 1918.

  58. -. Oat smuts of Washington. Proc. 13th Ann. Conv. Wash. State Grain Growers, Shippers, and Millers Assn. pp. 28–34. 1919.

  59. -. Manual of plant diseases. 891 pp. 1926.

  60. - andGaines, E. F. The control of bunt or stinking smut of wheat. Wash. Agr. Exp. Sta., Bul.241. 1930.

  61. Hecke, L. Der Einfluss von Sorte und Temperatur auf den Steinbrandbefall. Zeits. Land. Ver. Oest.12: 49–66. 1909.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Herzberg, P. P. Vergleichende Untersuchungen über landwirthschaftlichwichtige Flugbrandarten. Beitr. Physiol. Morph.5: 1–36. 1895.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Heuser, W. Versuch über den Einfluss äusserer Bedingungen auf die Stärke des Steinbrandbefalles des Weizens. Fühl. Land. Zeit.71: 81–99. 1922.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Hiltner, L. Bericht über die Tätigkeit der Königlichen agrikulturbotanischen Anstalt in München im Jahre 1906. Vierteljahresschrift Bayer. Landw.12: 295–490. 1907.

    Google Scholar 

  65. — andLang, F. Ueber den Einfluss der Düngung, insbesondere mit Kalkstickstoff, auf die Stärke des Brandbefalls des Getreides. Mitt. Deut. Landw. Ges.37: 353–357. 1922.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Hitchcock, A. S. andNorton, J. B. S. Corn smut. Kan. State Agr. Col., Bul. 62. 1896.

  67. Holton, C. S. andHeald, F. D. Bunt or stinking smut of wheat. 211 pp. 1941.

  68. — andJohnson, A. G. Physiologic races inUrocystis tritici. Phytopath.33: 169–171. 1943.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Hori, S. Seed infection by smut fungi of cereals. Bul. Imp. Cent. Agr. Exp. Sta. Japan1: 163–176. 1907.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Humphrey, H. B. andJohnson, A. G. Take-all and flag smut, two wheat diseases new to the United States. U. S. Dept. Agr. Farmers’ Bul. 1063. 1919.

  71. — andTapke, V. F. The loose smut of rye (Ustilago tritici). Phytopath.15: 598–606. 1925.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Hungerford, C. W. The relation of soil moisture and soil temperature to bunt infection in wheat. Phytopath.12: 337–352. 1922.

    Google Scholar 

  73. — andWade, A. E. Relation between soil moisture and bunt infection in wheat. Phytopath.10: 53. 1920. [Abs.]

    Google Scholar 

  74. Immer, F. R. andChristensen, J. J. Influence of environmental factors on the seasonal prevalence of corn smut. Phytopath.18: 589–598. 1928.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Isenbeck, K. Untersuchungen über die Physiologie vonSphacelotheca sorghi, den gedeckten Körnerbrand von Sorghum. Phytopath. Zeits.8: 165–182. 1935.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Ivanoff, K. S. Phytopathologisches aus Transkaukasien. Zeits. Pflanzenkr.13: 221–222. 1903.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Jensen, J. L. The propagation and prevention of smut in oats and barley. Jour. Royal Agr. Soc. England II.24: 397–415. 1888.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Johnson, A. G., Haskell, R. J. andLeukel, R. W. Treat seed grain. U. S. Dept. Agr., Misc. Pub. 219. 1944. (Revised).

  79. Johnston, C. O. Wheat smut investigations in Kansas: Report of progress 1920–21. Phytopath.13: 36. 1923.

    Google Scholar 

  80. —. Effects of soil moisture and temperature and of dehulling on the infection of oats by loose and covered smuts. Phytopath.17: 31–36. 1927.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Jones, E. S. Influence of temperature on the spore germination ofUstilago zeae. Jour. Agr. Res.24: 593–597. 1923.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Jones, L. R. Some observations regarding oat smut. Vt. Agr. Exp. Sta., Ann. Rep.9: 106–112. 1896.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Jones, G. H. Control of four smut diseases by regulation of planting method under irrigation. Nature142: 917–918. 1938.

    Google Scholar 

  84. — andSeif El-Nasr, A. E.-G. The influences of sowing depth and moisture on smut diseases and the prospects of a new method of control. Ann. Appl. Biol.27: 35–57. 1940.

    Google Scholar 

  85. - and -. Control of smut diseases in Egypt with special reference to sowing depth and soil moisture. Min. Agr. Egypt, Tech. & Sci. Serv., Bul.224. 1940.

  86. Josephson, L. M. The influence of temperature and moisture on the development of the intermediate loose smut of barley. Phytopath.32: 11. 1942. [Abs.]

    Google Scholar 

  87. Keitt, G. W. andRand, F. V. Lewis Ralph Jones, 1864–1945. Phytopath.36: 1–17. 1946.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Kellerman, W. A. andSwingle, W. T. Report on the loose smuts of cereals. Kans. Agr. Exp. Sta., 2nd Ann. Rep.1889: 213–288. 1890.

    Google Scholar 

  89. —— Preliminary experiments with fungicides for stinking smut of wheat. Kans. Agr. Exp. Sta., Bul.12: 25–51. 1890.

    Google Scholar 

  90. —— Additional experiments and observations on oat smut made in 1890. Kans. Agr. Exp. Sta., Bul.15: 91–135. 1890.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Kitunen, E. Untersuchungen über die Lebensweise des HaferflugbrandesUstilago avenae (Pers.) Jens. Suom. Maataloust. Seur. Julk.35: 89–144. 1937. [English summary].

    Google Scholar 

  92. Knorr, C. Untersuchungen über das Verhalten von Sommerweizen-Sorten und Bastardierungen bei künstlicher Infektion mit Steinbrand (Tilletia tritici). Zeits. Pflanzenzücht.14: 261–310. 1929.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Kolk, Laura Alma. Relation of host and pathogen in the oat smut,Ustilago avenae. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club57: 443–507. 1930.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Kulkarni, G. S. Smuts of Jowar (Sorghum) in the Bombay Presidency. Agr. Res. Inst. (Pusa). Bul.78. 1918.

  95. —. Conditions influencing the distribution of grain smut. (Sphacelotheca sorghi) of Jowar (Sorghum) in India. Agr. Jour. India17: 159–162. 1922.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Kyle, C. H. Relation of husk covering to smut of corn ears. U. S. Dept. Agr., Tech. Bul.120. 1929.

  97. — Relation between the vigor of the corn plant and its susceptibility to smut (Ustilago zeae). Jour. Agr. Res.41: 221–231. 1930.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Lasser, E. Der Einfluss von Licht und Jarowisation auf den Befall vonWeizen, Hafer und Gerste durchTilletia, Ustilago, undHelminthosporium. Kühn Arch.44: 161–210. 1938.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Leighty, C. E. andSando, W. J. The blooming of wheat flowers. Jour. Agr. Res.27: 231–244. 1924.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Leukel, R. W. Factors affecting the development of loose smut in barley and its control by dust fungicides. U. S. Dept. Agr., Tech. Bul.293. 1932.

  101. — The present status of seed treatment with special reference to cereals. Bot. Rev. 2: 498–527. 1936.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. — Factors influencing infection of barley by loose smut. Phytopath.26: 630–642. 1936.

    Google Scholar 

  103. -. Studies on bunt, or stinking smut, of wheat and its control. U. S. Dept. Agr., Tech. Bul.582. 1937.

  104. -. Chemical seed treatments for the control of certain diseases of sorghum. U. S. Dept Agr., Tech. Bul.849. 1943.

  105. Lin, C. K. Factors affecting the germination of chlamydospores ofTilletia horrido Tak. Univ. Nanking, Col. Agr. & For., Bul. 45. 1936.

  106. Lind, J. Forsøg med midler mod nøgen bygbrand. Tids. Planteavl.22: 212–232. 1915.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Ling, L. Factors affecting infection in rye smut and subsequent development of the fungus in the host. Phytopath.31: 617–633. 1941.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. — andMoore, M. B. Influence of soil temperature and soil moisture on infection of stem smut of rye. Phytopath.27: 633–636. 1937.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Mackie, W. W. Diseases of grain and their control. Cal. Agr. Exp. Sta., Bul. 511. 1931.

  110. Maddox, F. Notes and results on agricultural experiments carried out under the auspices of the council of agriculture of Tasmania at Eastfield, Newnham. 1897.

  111. Malkoff, K. Untersuchungen über verschiedene Pflanzenkrankheiten. Arb. Staatl. Landw. Versuchsst. Sadovo, Bulgarien, No. 2. 1907.

  112. Marcy, D. E. Inheritance of resistance to the loose and covered kernel smuts of sorghum. I. Dwarf yellow milo hybrids. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club.64: 209–228. 1937.

    Google Scholar 

  113. — Inheritance of resistance to the loose and covered kernel smuts of sorghum. II. Feterita hybrids. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club64: 245–267. 1937.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Martin, J. F. Effect of seed disinfection and delayed sowing on the control of bunt in infested soil. Jour. Am. Soc. Agron.30: 870–877. 1938.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  115. Mc Alpine, D. The smuts of Australia. 288 pp. 1910.

  116. Mc Kay, R. Method of infection of oat grain withUstilago avenae and the influence of external factors on the incidence of the disease. Sci. Proc. Royal Dublin Soc.21: 297–307. 1936.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Melchers, L. E. andHansing, E. D. The influence of environmental conditions at planting time on sorghum kernel smut infection. Am. Jour. Bot.25: 17–28. 1938.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Milan, A. I1 grado di recettività per la carie delle varietà di Frumento. Staz. Sper. Agr. Ital.57: 400–404. 1924.

    Google Scholar 

  119. — I1 grado di recettività per la carie delle varietà di Frumento (III Nota). Nuov. Gior. Bot. Ital.38: 142–154. 1931.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Miller, W. B. andMillikan, C. R. Investigations on flag smut of wheat caused byUrocystis tritici Koern. Jour. Dept. Agr. Victoria32: 365–380. 1934.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Millikan, C. R. The influence of nutrition on the reaction of wheat toUrocystis tritici Koern. Jour. Dept. Agr. Victoria37: 302–308. 1939.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  122. — The influence of nutrition on the reaction of wheat toUrocystis tritici Koern. Part 3. Jour. Dept. Agr. Victoria37: 587–596. 1939.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Minz, G. The occurrence ofUstilago nigra on barley in Palestine. Palestine Jour. Bot. Rehovot Ser.4: 205–206. 1944.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Mourashkinsky, K. E. [On the determination of the degree of infection of wheat with bunt]. Dis. Cereal Crops, Siberian Sci. Res. Inst. Cereal Ind., Omsk. 62–71. 1932. [Abs. in Rev. Appl. Mycol.12: 154–155. 1933].

  125. Mourashkinsky, K. E.. [Late autumn sowing of spring wheats in relation to bunt]. Crop Prot., 1934, Moscow8: 23–24. 1934. [Abs. in Rev. Appl. Mycol.14: 23. 1935].

    Google Scholar 

  126. Mouravieff, V. P. [Interdependence of epidemics of stinking smut and meteorological factors]. Mag. Seed Sel. Dir. Sugar Trust 19283: 73–94. 1928. [Abs. in Rev. Appl. Mycol.7: 733. 1928].

    Google Scholar 

  127. Müller, H. C. andMolz, E. Über den Steinbrand des Weizens. Fühl. Landw. Zeit.63: 204–214. 1914.

    Google Scholar 

  128. —— andMorgenthaler, O. Über Brandbekämpfung und den Einfluss der Bestellzeit beim Sommerweizen auf dessen Ertrag und Gesundheit. Landw. Versuchss.88: 211–220. 1913.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Munerati, O. La recettività del frumento per la carie in rapporto col tempo di semina. Atti Royal Accad. Lincei, Rend. Cl. Sci. Fis., Mat. e Nat. V.20: 835–840. 1911.

    Google Scholar 

  130. — Sulla recettività del frumento per la carie in rapporta a1 tempo di semina. Atti Royal Accad. Lincei, Rend. Cl. Sci. Fis., Mat. e Nat. V.21: 875–878. 1912.

    Google Scholar 

  131. — Osservazioni sulla recettività del frumento per la carie. Rend. Cl. Sci. Fis., Mat. Nat. Accad. Lincei V.31: 125–129. 1922.

    Google Scholar 

  132. — Le basse temperature a1 momento della germinazione fanno sfuggire il grano all’attaco della carie? Rend. Cl. Sci. Fis., Mat. Nat. Accad. Lincei V.32: 285–289. 1923.

    Google Scholar 

  133. — andHitier, H. Sur l’attaque du blé par la carie. Influence de l’époque de la semaille. Jour. Agr. Prat.76: 494–496. 1912.

    Google Scholar 

  134. Neill, J. C. Loose smut of wheat. II. Field experiments in seeddisinfection with hot water. New Zealand Jour. Agr.30: 167–174. 1925.

    Google Scholar 

  135. —. Stinking smut of wheat. II. Field experiments on control. New Zealand Jour. Agr.30: 302–313. 1925.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  136. Nemlienko, F. Control of bunt. Imp. Bur. Pl Genet., Bul.17; 60–61. 1935.

    Google Scholar 

  137. Nieves, R. Ensayos compartivos de resistencia a laTilletia levis Kühn con Trigos Argentions e importados comunes y de pedigree. Bol. Min. Agr. Nac.29: 297–316. 1930.

    Google Scholar 

  138. Noble, R. J. Studies onUrocystis tritici, Koern., the organism causing flag smut in wheat. Phytopath.13: 127–139. 1923.

    Google Scholar 

  139. —. Studies on the parasitism ofUrocystis tritici Koern., the organism causing flag smut of wheat. Jour. Agr. Res.27: 451–489. 1924.

    Google Scholar 

  140. Olgyay, M. Vizsgalatok a Kouszagspora Csirazasi es Fertozesi Viszonyairol, Mesterseges Fertozes Esten. Botanikai Kozlemenyek32: 52–74. 1935. [German summary].

    Google Scholar 

  141. Oort, A. J. P. Problemen bij de bestrijding van de brandziekten der granen. Tijds. Pl. Ziekt.42: 291–302. 1936. [English summary].

    Google Scholar 

  142. —. De verspreiding van de sporen van tarwestuifbrand (Ustilago tritici) door de lucht. Tijds. Pl Ziekt.46: 1–18. 1940.

    Google Scholar 

  143. -. De vatbaarheid voor stuifbrand van in Nederland verbouwde of beproefde rassen van Tarwe en Gerst. Meded. Landb. Hoogesch. Wageningen44. 1940. [English summary].

  144. Piemeisel, F. J. Factors affecting the parasitism ofUstilago zeae. Phytopath.7: 294–307. 1917.

    Google Scholar 

  145. Platz, G. A. Some factors influencing the pathogenicity ofUstilago zeae (Beckm.) Unger. Iowa State Col. Jour. Sci.3: 177–214. 1929.

    Google Scholar 

  146. —,Durrell, L. W. andHowe, Mary F. Effect of carbon dioxide upon the germination of chlamydospores ofUstilago zeae (Beckm.) Ung. Jour. Agr. Res.34: 137–147. 1927.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  147. Potter, A. A. Head smut of sorghum and maize. Jour. Agr. Res.2: 339–371. 1914.

    Google Scholar 

  148. — andMelchers, L. E. Study of the life history and ecologic relations of the smut of maize. Jour. Agr. Res.30: 161–173. 1925.

    Google Scholar 

  149. Prevost, I. B. Mémoire sur la cause immédiate de la carie ou charbon des blés et de plusieurs autres maladies des plantes. 1807.

  150. Rabien, H. Ueber Keimungs- und Infektionsbedingungen vonTilletia tritici. Arb. Biol. Reichaust. Land- und Forstw.15: 297–353. 1927.

    Google Scholar 

  151. Rapin, J. Action de la temperature et du sol sur le développement duTilletia tritici (carie du Blé). Ann. Agr. Suisse28: 79–84. 1927.

    Google Scholar 

  152. Ravn, F. K. Saatidens Indflydelse paa Fretnkomsten af Støvbrand hos Havre. Tids. Landbr. Pl7: 142–148. 1901.

    Google Scholar 

  153. Reed, G. M. Varietal susceptibility of wheat toTilletia levis Kühn. Phytopath.14: 437–450. 1924.

    Google Scholar 

  154. —. Report on the influence of the growth of the host on smut development. Am. Philos. Soc., Misc. Publ.1: 43–46. 1936.

    Google Scholar 

  155. —. Influence of growth of the host on smut development. Proc. Am. Phil. Soc.79: 303–326. 1938.

    Google Scholar 

  156. — andFaris, J. A. Influence of environal factors on the infection of sorghums and oats by smuts.I. Experiments with covered and loose kernel smuts of sorghum. Am. Jour. Bot.11: 518–534. 1924.

    Google Scholar 

  157. ——. Influence of environal factors on the infection of sorghums and oats by smuts. II. Experiments with covered smut of oats and general considerations. Am. Jour. Bot.11: 579–599. 1924.

    Google Scholar 

  158. - andMelchers, L. E. Sorghum smuts and varietal resistance in sorghums. U. S. Dept. Agr., Bul. 1284. 1925.

  159. —, Swabey, Marjorie and Kolk, Laura Alma. Experimental studies on head smut of corn and sorghum. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club54: 295–310. 1927.

    Google Scholar 

  160. Reichert, I. Comparative bunt resistance of wheat in Palestine. Zionist Organ. Inst. Agr. & Nat. Hist. Agr. Exp. Sta., Bul.9: 1–27. 1928.

    Google Scholar 

  161. Reyes, G. M. The black smut, or bunt of rice (Oryza sativa Linnaeus) in the Philippines. Philippine Jour. Agr.4: 241–270. 1933.

    Google Scholar 

  162. -. Rice diseases and methods of control. Philippine Bur. Pl. Ind., Farmers’ Circ. 50. 1939.

  163. Rodenhiser, H. A. andTaylor, J. W. Studies on environmental factors affecting infection and the development of bunt in wheat. Phytopath.30: 20. 1940. [Abs.]

    Google Scholar 

  164. —— Effects of soil type, soil sterilization, and soil reaction on bunt infection at different incubation temperatures. Phytopath.30: 400–408. 1940.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  165. —— The effect of photoperiodism on the development of bunt in two spring wheats. Phytopath.33: 240–244. 1943.

    Google Scholar 

  166. Roesch, A. Studien über den Haferflugbrand,Ustilago avenue (Pers.) Jens., und den Glatthaferbrand,Ustilago perennans Rostr., mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Immunitätsfrage beim Haferflugbrand. Bot. Arch.13: 382–432. 1926.

    Google Scholar 

  167. Rose, O. Der Flugbrand der Sommergetreidesaaten und Massnahmen zur Bekämpfung dieses Pilzes in der landwirtschaftlichen Praxis. Inaug. Diss. Rostock. 1903.

  168. Russell, R. C. Testing seed for smut spores as an aid in controlling cereal smuts in Saskatchewan. Sci. Agr.26: 372–380. 1946.

    Google Scholar 

  169. Ryzhkova, Mme. Z. F. [Influence of fertilizers on the appearance of bunt on spring wheats]. Summ. Sci. Res. Wk. Inst. Pl. Prot. Leningr.1935: 134–135. 1936. [Abs. in Rev. Appl. Mycol.15: 786. 1936].

    Google Scholar 

  170. Sampson, K. The biology of oat smuts. II. Varietal resistance. Ann. Appl. Biol.16: 65–85. 1929.

    Google Scholar 

  171. Schafer, E. G., Gaines, E. F. andBarbee, O. E. Wheat production as influenced by variety, time of seeding and source of seed. Wash. Agr. Exp. Sta., Bul. 159. 1921.

  172. Schellenberg, H. C. Die Brandpilze der Schweiz. 180 pp. 1911.

  173. Schribaux, N. Resistance du Manitoba aux maladies cryptogamiques. Comp. Rend. Cl. Sci. Fis., Mat. Nat. Accad. Lincei28: 151–153. 1919.

    Google Scholar 

  174. Seiffert, J. Künstliche Blüteninfektionen zur Untersuchung der Empfänglichkeit verschiedener Gerstensorten fürUstilago hordei nuda und der Einfluss äusserer Bedingungen auf die Höhe des Brandprozentes. Kühn-Arch.12: 423–515. 1926.

    Google Scholar 

  175. Selby, A. D. andHickman, J. F. Corn smut. Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta., Bul. 78. 1897.

  176. Sempio, C. Effetto delle alte temperature sul Frumento cariato al momento della spigatura. Riv. Pat. Veg.28: 385–387. 1938.

    Google Scholar 

  177. — Influenza di alcune sostanze, date alle piantine per assorbimento, sullo soiluppo della carie del Grano. (Nota preventiva). Riv. Pat. Veg.28: 399–400. 1938.

    Google Scholar 

  178. Sidorin, M. I., Alexandrovskaya, Z. V., Uspenskaya, M. S. andShirokova, Z. N. [Effect of late autumn sowing of spring wheat on the degree of infection with loose smut]. Pl. Prot. Sta., Leningrad, Bul.7: 130–135. 1935. [English summary; abs. in Rev. Appl. Mycol.15: 637. 1936].

    Google Scholar 

  179. Smith, W. K. The effect of different temperatures on the reaction of Hope wheat to stinking smut. Phytopath.22: 615–627. 1932.

    Google Scholar 

  180. Stakman, E. C., Moore, M. B. andCassell, R. C. The pathogenicity and cytology ofUrocystis occulta. Phytopath.24: 18. 1934. [Abs.]

    Google Scholar 

  181. Stevenson, J. A. andJohnson, A. G. The nomenclature of the cereal smut fungi. Pl. Dis. Rep.28: 663–670. 1944.

    Google Scholar 

  182. Straib, W. Untersuchungen über die Ursache verschiedner Sortenanfälligkeit des Weizens gegen Steinbrand. Pflanzenbau.4: 129–136. 1927.

    Google Scholar 

  183. — Versuche mit Dungemitteln zur Steinbrandbekämpfung des Weizens. Forts. Landwirts.3: 1–12. 1928.

    Google Scholar 

  184. Takasugi, H. andAkaishi, Y. Studies on the smuts of sorghums. (Second report.) Germination and infection power of the loose kernel smut (Sphacelotheca cruenta (Kühn) Potter) of sorghum and its prevention. Res. Bul. So. Manchuria Rly. Co.16: 49–75. 1937. [Japanese; English summary].

    Google Scholar 

  185. Tamme, C. Versuche mit Haferflugbrand,Ustilago avenae, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Infektions-, Beiz-, und Immunitatsfrage. Bot. Arch.20: 43–73. 1927.

    Google Scholar 

  186. Tapke, V. F. Influence of varietal resistance, sap acidity, and certain environmental factors on the occurrence of loose smut in wheat. Jour. Agr. Res.39: 313–339. 1929.

    Google Scholar 

  187. —. Influence of humidity on floral infection of wheat and barley by loose smut. Jour. Agr. Res.43: 503–516. 1931.

    Google Scholar 

  188. —. An undescribed loose smut of barley. Phytopath.22: 869–870. 1932.

    Google Scholar 

  189. —. A study of the cause of variability in response of barley loose smut to control through seed treatment with surface disinfectants. Jour. Agr. Res.51: 491–508. 1935.

    Google Scholar 

  190. —. The influence of seed hulling on loose smut in naturally inoculated oats. Phytopath.26: 588–596. 1936.

    Google Scholar 

  191. —. Influence of environment after seedling emergence on covered smut in barley. Phytopath.28: 370–371. 1938.

    Google Scholar 

  192. —. Influence of environment, after seedling emergence, on loose smut of oats and covered smut of barley. Phytopath.29: 22–23. 1939. [Abs.]

    Google Scholar 

  193. —. Preemergence and postemergence factors that influence the infection of barley by covered smut and nigra loose smut. Phytopath.30: 23. 1940. [Abs.]

    Google Scholar 

  194. —. Studies on the natural inoculation of seed barley with covered smut (Ustilago hordei). Jour. Agr. Res.60: 787–810. 1940.

    Google Scholar 

  195. —. Occurrence, identification and species validity of the barley loose smutsUstilago nuda, U. nigra andU. medians. Phytopath.33: 194–209. 1943.

    Google Scholar 

  196. — andBever, W. M. Effective methods of inoculating seed barley with covered smut. Phytopath.32: 1015–1021. 1942.

    Google Scholar 

  197. Taylor, J. W. andZehner, M. G. Effect of depth of seeding on the occurrence of covered and loose smuts of barley. Jour. Am. Soc. Agron.23: 132–141. 1931.

    Google Scholar 

  198. Teng, S. C. Observations on the germination of the chlamydospores ofTillelia horrida. Contr. Biol. Lab. Sci. Soc. China6: 111–115. 1931.

    Google Scholar 

  199. Tervet, I. W. Problems in the determination of physiologic races ofUstilago avenae andU. levis. Phytopath.30: 26. 1940. [Abs.]

    Google Scholar 

  200. —. The relative susceptibility of different lots of oat varieties to smut. Phytopath.31: 672–673. 1941.

    Google Scholar 

  201. —. The relation of seed quality to the development of smut in oats. Phytopath.34: 106–115. 1944.

    Google Scholar 

  202. Tieman, A. Untersuchungen über die Empfänglichkeit des Sommerweizens fürUstilago tritici und den Einfluss der äusseren Bedingungen dieser Krankheit. Kühn-Arch.9: 405–475. 1925.

    Google Scholar 

  203. Tisdale, W. H., Dungan, G. H. andLeighty, C. E. Flag smut of wheat, with special reference to varietal resistance. I11. Agr. Exp. Sta., Bul.242: 510–538. 1923.

    Google Scholar 

  204. -,Leighty, C. E. andKoehler, Benjamin. Further studies on flag smut of wheat. U. S. Dept. Agr., Dept. Circ.424. 1927.

  205. — andJohnston, C. O. A study of smut resistance in corn seedlings grown in the greenhouse. Jour. Agr. Res.32: 649–668. 1926.

    Google Scholar 

  206. Tråen, A. E. Über den Einfluss der Temperatur und der Feuchtigkeit, auf den Brandbefall des Hafers durch gedeckten Haferbrand. (Ustilago laevis (K and S) Mag.). Meldinger Fra Norges Landbraks5: 157–168. 1925.

    Google Scholar 

  207. Tschermak, E. Die Blüh- und Fruchtbarkeitverhältnisse bei Roggen und Gerste und das Auftreten von Mutterkorn. Fühlings Landw. Zeit.55: 194–199. 1906.

    Google Scholar 

  208. Tubeuf, C. F. von. Studien über die Brandkrankheiten des Getreides und ihre Bekämpfung. Arb. Biol. Abt. Land. Forstw. Gesundh.2: 179–349. 1902.

    Google Scholar 

  209. —. Weitere Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Brandkrankheiten des Getreides und ihrer Bekämpfung. Arb. Biol. Abt. Land. Forstw. Gesundh.2: 437–467. 1902.

    Google Scholar 

  210. Tull, Jethro. Horse-hoeing husbandry: or, an essay on the principles of tillage and vegetation. X. 269 pp. 1733.

  211. Tullis, E. C. Disease of rice. U. S. Dept. Agr., Farmers’ Bul. 1854. 1940.

  212. Vaheeduddin, Syed. The pathogenicity and genetics of some sorghum smuts. Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta., Tech. Bul.154. 1942.

  213. Verwoerd, L. Die Biologie, Parasitisme en Bestryding vanUrocystis tritici, Koern. die Veroorsakende Organisme van Tulpbrand by Koring (Triticum soorte). So. Afr. Dept. Agr. Sci., Bul. 76. 1929.

  214. Vohl, G. J. Mehrjährige Beobachtungen über den Einfluss äusserer Bedingungen auf den Befall des Maises mit Beulenbrand (Ustilago zeae). Pflanzenbau14: 465–480. 1938.

    Google Scholar 

  215. Volkart, A. Krankheiten und Schädlinge des Getreides und ihre Bekämpfung. Mitt. Ges. Schweiz Landw.2: 3–20. 1906.

    Google Scholar 

  216. —. Die Bekämpfung des Steinbrandes des Weizens und des Kornes. Landw. Jahrb. Schweiz20: 445–490. 1906.

    Google Scholar 

  217. Walstedt, I. Några erfarenheter rörande stinksotets fördelning på fältet. Landtmannen23: 855. 1939.

    Google Scholar 

  218. Walter, J. M. Factors affecting the development of corn smut,Ustilago zeae (Beckm.) Unger. Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta., Tech. Bul. 111. 1935.

  219. Westermeier, K. Die Wirkung verschiedener Beizmittel gegen Nachinfektion und Anstickungsversuche. Pflanzenbau3: 109–112. 1926.

    Google Scholar 

  220. Woodward, R. W. andTingey, D. C. Inoculation experiments with covered smut of barley. Jour. Am. Soc. Agron.33: 632–642. 1941.

    Google Scholar 

  221. Woolman, H. M. andHumphrey, H. B. Summary of literature on bunt, or stinking smut of wheat. U. S. Dept. Agr., Dept. Bul. 1210. 1924.

  222. - and -. Studies in the physiology and control of bunt or stinking smut of wheat. U. S. Dept. Agr., Dept. Bul. 1239. 1924.

  223. Yu, T. F., Wang, H. R. andFang, C. T. Varietal resistance and susceptibility of wheat to flag smut (Urocystis tritici Koern.). IV. Further studies on physiologic specialization inUrocystis tritici Koern. Phytopath.35: 332–338. 1945.

    Google Scholar 

  224. Zade, A. Experimentelle Untersuchungen über die Infektion des Hafers durch den Haferflugbrand (Ustilago avenae (Pers.) Jens.). Fühlings Landw. Ztg.71: 393–406. 1922.

    Google Scholar 

  225. — Neuere Untersuchungen über die Lebensweize und Bekämpfung des Hafer flugbrandes (Ustilago avenae (Pers.) Jens.). Ang. Bot.6: 113–125. 1924.

    Google Scholar 

  226. — Havrens infektion genomUstilago avenae (Persoon) Jensen. Nord. Jordbr. Forskn.1939: 290–305. 1939.

    Google Scholar 

  227. Zuhr, E. Jarowisation und Brandbefall. Nachr. Schäd.12: 13–17. 1937.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Plant Industry Station, Beltsville, Md.

    V. F. Tapke (Pathologist)

Authors
  1. V. F. Tapke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

The writer is indebted to Dr. A. G. Johnson for many helpful suggestions in preparation of the manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tapke, V.F. Environment and the cereal smuts. Bot. Rev 14, 359–412 (1948). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02861724

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02861724

Keywords

Search

Navigation