European Journal of Plant Pathology

, Volume 105, Issue 3, pp 231–239 | Cite as

Variation in Pathogenicity Among South African Isolates of Phytophthora cinnamomi

  • Celeste Linde
  • Gert H.J. Kemp
  • Michael J. Wingfield


Phytophthora cinnamomi isolates from South Africa were evaluated for differences in growth rate in vitro and levels of pathogenicity towards Eucalyptus smithii in the field. Inoculations were conducted in the field in summer and winter in two subsequent years at two locations in South Africa using 59 P. cinnamomi isolates. The isolates differed significantly in growth rate in vitro, as well as in levels of pathogenicity to E. smithii in the field. Growth rate in vitro was significantly influenced by interactions with culture age, geographic origin and genetic background as determined using isozymes. Levels of pathogenicity in the field were influenced by season of inoculation and average minimum temperatures at trial sites. The host from which P. cinnamomi isolates were originally obtained did not significantly affect levels of pathogenicity in the field. Culture age had a significant negative effect on growth rate in vitro and pathogenicity in the field. Significant differences in levels of pathogenicity could be found for different multilocus isozyme genotypes. Geographic origin and mating type of P. cinnamomi isolates had no significant effect on levels of pathogenicity in the field. A positive correlation was found between growth rate in vitro and levels of pathogenicity in the field. Levels of variation for pathogenicity within A1 mating type isolates were significantly lower than for A2 mating type isolates. Results of this study provide valuable information on selection of P. cinnamomi isolates for future resistance/tolerance screening assays of Eucalyptus germplasm in South Africa.

climate Eucalyptus smithii growth rate isozymes mating types 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Botha T, Wehner FC and Kotzé JM (1990) Evaluation of new and existing techniques for in vitro screening of tolerance to Phytophthora cinnamomi in avocado rootstocks. Phytophylactica 22: 335-338Google Scholar
  2. Brasier CM and Webber JF (1987) Positive correlations between in vitro growth rate and pathogenesis in Ophiostoma ulmi. Plant Pathol 36: 462-466Google Scholar
  3. Butcher TB, Stukely MJC and Chester GW(1984) Genetic variation in resistance of Pinus radiata to Phytophthora cinnamomi. For Ecol Manage 8: 197-220Google Scholar
  4. Donald DGM and von Broembsen SL (1977) The control of Phytophthora cinnamomi Rands in a South African forest nursery. S Afr For J 100: 50-55Google Scholar
  5. Dudzinski MJ, Old KM and Gibbs RJ (1993) Pathogenic variability in Australian isolates of Phytophthora cinnamomi. Aust J Bot 41: 721-732Google Scholar
  6. Kramer PJ and Kozlowski TT (1960) Physiology of Trees. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Linde C, Drenth A, Kemp GHJ, Wingfield MJ and von Broembsen S (1997) Population structure of Phytophthora cinnamomi in South Africa. Phytopathology 87: 822-827Google Scholar
  8. Linde C, Kemp GHJ and Wingfield MJ (1994) Pythium and Phytophthora species associated with eucalypts and pines in South Africa. Eur J For Path 24: 345-356Google Scholar
  9. Old KM, Dudzinski MJ and Bell JC (1988) Isozyme variability in field populations of Phytophthora cinnamomi in Australia. Aust J Bot 36: 355-360Google Scholar
  10. Old KM, Moran GF and Bell JC (1984) Isozyme variability among isolates of Phytophthora cinnamomi from Australia and Papua New Guinea. Can J Bot 62: 2016-2022Google Scholar
  11. Parton WJ and Innis GS (1972) Some graphs and their functional forms. Technical Report No. 153. Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory Colorado State University, Fort Collins, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  12. Podger FD (1989) Comparative pathogenicity of fourteen Australian isolates of Phytophthora cinnamomi determined on transplants of Tasmanian temperate heathland. Aust J Bot 37: 491-500Google Scholar
  13. Podger FD, Doepel RF and Zentmyer GA (1965) Association of Phytophthora cinnamomi with a disease of Eucalyptus marginata forest in Western Australia. Plant Dis Rep 49: 943-947Google Scholar
  14. Rands RD (1922) Streepkanker van kaneel veroorzaakt door Phytophthora cinnamomi n.sp. Meded Inst Plantenziekt 54: 1-53Google Scholar
  15. Robin C, Desprez-Loustau ML (1998) Testing variability in pathogenicity of Phytophthora cinnamomi. Eur J Plant Pathol 104: 465-475Google Scholar
  16. Robin C, Dupuis F and Desprez-Loustau ML (1994) Seasonal changes in northern red oak susceptibility to Phytophthora cinnamomi. Plant Dis 78: 369-374Google Scholar
  17. SAS Institute Inc (1989) SAS/STAT user's guide. Version 6, 4th edition, volume 2, SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  18. Schumann DEW, Bouwer B and Schoeman HS (1980) Elementêre statistiek: Beskrywende metodes. Second edition. McGraw Hill Book Company, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  19. Shearer BL, Michaelsen BJ and Somerford PJ (1988) Effects of isolate and time of inoculation on invasion of secondary phloem of Eucalyptus spp. and Banksia grandis by Phytophthora spp. Plant Dis 72: 121-126Google Scholar
  20. Shearer BL, Shea SR and Deegan PM (1987) Temperature-growth relationships of Phytophthora cinnamomi in the secondary phloem of roots of Banksia grandis and Eucalyptus marginata. Phytopathology 77: 661-665Google Scholar
  21. Shearer BL, Shea SR and Fairman RG (1981) Infection of the stem and large roots of Eucalyptus marginata by Phytophthora cinnamomi. Aust Plant Pathol 10: 2-3Google Scholar
  22. Snedecor GW and Cochran WG (1980) Statistical Methods. The Iowa State University Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  23. Srivastava LM (1964) Anatomy, chemistry and physiology of bark. Internat Rev For Res 1: 203-227Google Scholar
  24. Stukely MJC and Crane CE (1994) Genetically based resistance of Eucalyptus marginata to Phytophthora cinnamomi. Phytopathology 84: 650-656Google Scholar
  25. Tippett JT and Hill TC (1983) The relationship between bark moisture and invasion of Eucalyptus marginata by Phytophthora cinnamomi. Aust Plant Pathol 12: 40-41Google Scholar
  26. Tippett JT and Shea SR (1985) Adverse effects of microorganisms on trees. In: Langsberg J and Parsons W (eds) Research for Forest Management in Australia (pp 202-212) CSIRO, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  27. Tippett JT, Crombie DS and Hill TC (1987) Effect of phloem water relations on the growth of Phytophthora cinnamomi in Eucalyptus marginata. Phytopathology 77: 246-250Google Scholar
  28. Tippett JT, MacGrath JF and Hill TC (1989) Site and seasonal effects on susceptibility of Eucalyptus marginata to Phytophthora cinnamomi. Aust J Bot 37: 197-210Google Scholar
  29. Tippett JT, Shea SR, Hill TC and Shearer BL (1983) Development of lesions caused by Phytophthora cinnamomi in the secondary phloem of Eucalyptus marginata. Aust J Bot 31: 197-210Google Scholar
  30. Tsao PH and Guy SO (1977) Inhibition of Mortierella and Pythium in a Phytophthora isolation medium containing hymexazol. Phytopathology 67: 796-801Google Scholar
  31. Van der Zel DW (1994) Forestry statistics for Southern Africa. In: van der Sijde HA (ed) Forestry Handbook (pp 2-3) Southern African Institute of Forestry, Pretoria, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  32. Weste G (1975) Pathogenicity of Phytophthora cinnamomi towards Nothofagus cunningamii. Aust J Bot 23: 277-283Google Scholar
  33. Wingfield MJ and Kemp GHJ (1994) Diseases of pines, eucalyptus and wattle. In: van der Sijde HA (ed) Forestry handbook (pp 231-249) Southern African Institute of Forestry, Pretoria, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  34. Wingfield MJ and Knox-Davies PS (1980) Observations on diseases in pine and Eucalyptus plantations in South Africa. Phytophylactica 12: 57-60Google Scholar
  35. Zentmyer GA (1980) Phytophthora cinnamomi and the diseases it causes. Monograph 10. The American Phytopathological Society: St. Paul, MNGoogle Scholar
  36. Zentmyer GA and Guillemet FB (1981) Evidence for strains of Phytophthora cinnamomi. Plant Dis 65: 475-477Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Celeste Linde
    • 1
  • Gert H.J. Kemp
    • 2
  • Michael J. Wingfield
    • 3
  1. 1.Infruitec: Centre for Fruit TechnologyStellenboschSouth Africa
  2. 2.Mondi Forests, Tree Improvement CentreWhiteriverSouth Africa
  3. 3.Forestry and Agricultural Biotechnology Institute (FABI), Faculty of Biological and Agricultural SciencesUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations