Advertisement

New Forests

, Volume 43, Issue 4, pp 473–489 | Cite as

Selection of Pinus spp. in South Africa for tolerance to infection by the pitch canker fungus

  • R. G. MitchellEmail author
  • M. J. Wingfield
  • G. R. Hodge
  • E. T. Steenkamp
  • T. A. Coutinho
Article

Abstract

The increasing threats from pests and diseases demand that the South African forest industry explores options to deploy alternative pine species in plantation development. This is especially true for species, such as Pinus patula Schiede and Deppe ex Schltdl. and Cham., which are highly susceptible to the pitch canker fungus Fusarium circinatum. Losses due to F. circinatum have been confined mostly to nurseries and at field establishment resulting in a significant cost to the industry. Although, the fungus has not as yet resulted in stem and branch infections on established P. patula in South Africa, it has caused pitch canker on other, more susceptible species such as P. radiata D. Don., and P. greggii Engelm. ex Parl. As alternatives to P. patula, on the warmer and cooler sites in South Africa, families of P. elliottii Engelm var. elliottii, P. tecunumanii (Schw.) Eguiluz and Perry, P. maximinoi H. E. Moore and P. pseudostrobus Lindl. were screened for tolerance to infection by F. circinatum in greenhouse studies. Seedlings were wounded and inoculated with spores of F. circinatum. Lesion development following inoculation was used to differentiate the levels of tolerance between families. The results showed that P. maximinoi, P. pseudostrobus, and the low elevation variety of P. tecunumanii are highly tolerant to infection with very little family variation. The narrow sense heritability estimates for these species were less than 0.06. In contrast, P. elliottii showed good tolerance with some family variation and a heritability of 0.22, while the high elevation source of P. tecunumanii showed a high degree of family variation and a heritability of 0.59. These results provide the industry with valuable information on pine species tolerant to F. circinatum that could be used as alternatives to P. patula in South Africa.

Keywords

Camcore Tree disease Screening for resistance Disease avoidance Plantation forestry 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Komatiland Forests for providing the seed and incurring the costs involved in raising and screening the plant material. We also acknowledge the assistance of Bernice Porter who cared for the plants and coordinated the screening activities at the University of Pretoria. Members of the Tree Protection Co-operative Programme (TPCP) and members of the Technology and Human Resources for Industry Programme (THRIP), an initiative of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), are thanked for financial support.

References

  1. Bethune JE, Hepting GH (1963) Pitch canker damage to south Florida slash pine. J For 61:517–522Google Scholar
  2. Blakeslee GM, Oak SW (1980) Significant mortality associated with pitch canker infection of slash pine in Florida. Plant Dis 63:1023–1025Google Scholar
  3. Blakeslee GM, Rockwood D (1999) Variation in resistance to pitch canker in slash and loblolly pines. Current and potential impacts of the pitch canker in radiata pine. In: Devey ME, Matheson AC, Gordon TR (eds) Proceedings of the IMPACT Montery workshop, Montery, pp 70–75Google Scholar
  4. Britz H, Coutinho TA, Wingfield BD, Marasas WFO, Wingfield MJ (2005) Diversity and differentiation in two populations of Gibberella circinata in South Africa. Plant Pathol 54:46–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coetzee H (1985) Provenance research on Mexican pines. S Afr For J 135:68–73Google Scholar
  6. Coutinho TA, Steenkamp ET, Mongwaketsi K, Wilmot M, Wingfield MJ (2007) First outbreak of pitch canker in a South African pine plantation. Australas Plant Pathol 36:256–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crous JW (2005) Post establishment survival of Pinus patula in Mpumalanga, 1 year after planting. S Afr For J 205:3–8Google Scholar
  8. Darrow K, Coetzee H (1983) Potentially valuable Mexican pines in the summer rainfall region of southern Africa. S Afr For J 124:23–35Google Scholar
  9. Department of Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries (DAFF) (2008) Report on commercial timber resources and primary roundwood processing in South Africa 2006/7. Forestry Technical and Information Services, PretoriaGoogle Scholar
  10. Dieters MJ, White TL, Hodge GR (1995) Genetic parameter estimates for volume from full-sib tests of slash pine (Pinus elliottii). Can J For Res 25:1397–1408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dvorak WS, Kietzka JE, Donahue JK (1996) Three year survival and growth of provenances of Pinus greggii in the tropics and subtropics. For Ecol Manag 83:123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dvorak WS, Gutiérrez EA, Galpare WJ, Hodge GR, Ororio LF, Bester C, Kikuti P (2000) Pinus maximinoi. In: Dvorak WS (ed) Conservation and testing of tropical and subtropical forest tree species by the CAMCORE cooperative. College of Natural Resources, Raleigh, pp 107–127Google Scholar
  13. Dvorak WS, Hamrick JL, Furman BJ, Hodge GR, Jordan AP (2002) Conservation strategies for Pinus maximinoi based on provenance, RAPD and allozyme information. For Genet 9:263–274Google Scholar
  14. Dvorak WS, Potter KM, Hipkins VD, Hodge GR (2009) Genetic diversity and gene exchange in Pinus oocarpa: a Mesoamerican pine with resistance to the pitch canker fungus (Fusarium circinatum). Int J Plant Sci 170:609–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dwinell LD, Phelps WR (1977) Pitch canker of slash pine in Florida. J For 75:488–489Google Scholar
  16. Gapare WJ, Hodge GR, Dvorak WS (2001) Genetic parameters and provenance variation of Pinus maximinoi in Brazil, Colombia, and South Africa. For Genet 8:159–170Google Scholar
  17. Guerra-Santos J (1999) Pitch canker in Monterey pine in Mexico. Current and potential impacts of the pitch canker in radata pine. In: Devey ME, Matheson AC, Gordon TR (eds) Proceedings of the IMPACT Montery workshop, Montery, pp 58–61Google Scholar
  18. Hodge GR, Dvorak WS (2000) Differential responses of Central American and Mexican pine species and Pinus radiata to infection by the pitch canker fungus. New For 19:241–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hodge GR, Dvorak WS (2007) Variation in pitch canker resistance among provenances of Pinus patula and Pinus tecunumanii from Mexico to Central America. New For 33:193–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Isaza N (2008) Flower promotion in Pinus maximinoi and Pinus tecunumanii in a tropical environment and artificial screening of high-elevation P. tecunumanii for resistance to Fusarium circinatum. M.Sc. thesis, North Carolina State University, RaleighGoogle Scholar
  21. Kietza JE (1988) Pinus maximinoi: a promising species in South Africa. S Afr For J 145:33–38Google Scholar
  22. Malan FS (2006) The wood properties and sawn-board quality of south African-grown Pinus maximinoi (HE Moore). S Afr For J 208:39–48Google Scholar
  23. Mitchell RG, Steenkamp ET, Coutinho TA, Wingfield MJ (2011) The pitch canker fungus: implications for South African forestry. S For 73:1–13Google Scholar
  24. Morris AR, Pallett R (2000) Site requirements and species matching: pines. In: Owen D (ed) South African forestry handbook, vol 1. South African Institute of Forestry, Pretoria, pp 80–84Google Scholar
  25. Nel A, Kanzler A, Dvorak W (2006) Development of a commercial breeding program for Pinus tecunumanii in South Africa. In: Fikret I (ed) Proceedings of the IUFRO division 2 joint conference: low input breeding and conservation of forest genetic resources: Antalya, 9–13 October 2006, pp 158–161Google Scholar
  26. Nierenberg HI, O’Donnell K (1998) New Fusarium species and combinations in the Gibberella fujukuroi species complex. Mycologia 90:434–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rockwood DL, Blakeslee GM, Lowerts GA, Underhill EM, Oak SW (1988) Genetic strategies for reducing pitch canker incidence in slash pine. S J Appl For 12:28–32Google Scholar
  28. Roux J (2007) Further outbreaks of pitch canker in South Africa. http://www.fabinet.up.ac.za/tpcp/pitch_canker_mature_trees
  29. Roux J, Eisenberg B, Kanzler A, Nel A, Coetzee V, Kietzka E, Wingfield MJ (2007) Testing of selected South African Pinus hybrids and families for tolerance to the pitch canker pathogen, Fusarium circinatum. New For 33:109–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. SAS Institute (2008) SAS/STAT® 9.2 User’s Guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  31. Schönau APG, Grey DC (1987) Site requirements for exotic tree species. In: Forbes RD (ed) South African forestry handbook. Southern African Institute of Forestry, Pretoria, pp 82–94Google Scholar
  32. Storer AJ, Bonello P, Gordon TR, Wood DL (1999) Evidence of resistance to the pitch canker pathogen (Fusarium circinatum) in native stands of Monterey pine (Pinus radiata). For Sci 45:500–505Google Scholar
  33. Viljoen A, Wingfield MJ, Marasas WFO (1994) First report of Fusarium subglutinans f. sp. pini on pine seedlings in South Africa. Plant Dis 78:309–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Viljoen A, Wingfield MJ, Gordon TR, Marasas WFO (1997) Genotypic diversity in a South African population of the pitch canker fungus Fusarium subglutinans f.sp. pini. Plant Pathol 46:590–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wikler K, Gordon TR (2000) An initial assessment of genetic relationships among populations of Fusarium circinatum in different parts of the world. Can J Bot 78:709–717Google Scholar
  36. Wingfield MJ, Hammerbacher A, Ganley RJ, Steenkamp ET, Gordon TR, Wingfield BD, Coutinho TA (2008) Pitch canker caused by Fusarium circinatum: a growing threat to pine plantations and forests worldwide. Australas Plant Pathol 37:319–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zwolinski JB, Hinze WHF (2000) Silviculture regimes: pines. In: Owen D (ed) South African forestry handbook, vol 1. South African Institute of Forestry, Pretoria, pp 116–120Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. G. Mitchell
    • 1
    Email author
  • M. J. Wingfield
    • 2
  • G. R. Hodge
    • 3
  • E. T. Steenkamp
    • 2
  • T. A. Coutinho
    • 2
  1. 1.York TimbersSabieSouth Africa
  2. 2.Forests and Agricultural Biotechnology InstituteUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa
  3. 3.CamcoreNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations