Australasian Plant Pathology

, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 154–161 | Cite as

Population structure of the fungal pathogen Holocryphia eucalypti in Australia and South Africa

  • Grace Nakabonge
  • Treena Burgess
  • Marieka Gryzenhout
  • Brenda Wingfield
  • Michael J. Wingfield
  • Jolanda RouxEmail author


Holocryphia eucalypti is a fungal pathogen that causes stem cankers on Eucalyptus species in South Africa and Australia. In South Africa it is considered opportunistic but in Australia it has been associated with occasional but serious disease problems. The aim of this study was to determine the genetic structure of a South African population of H. eucalypti and compare it with three Australian populations of the fungus. Seventy-two isolates from Eucalyptus spp. and clones in South Africa were compared with 30 isolates from E. globulus and 24 isolates from Corymbia calophylla in the south of Western Australia and 23 isolates from E. dunnii in eastern Australia.DNA of these isolates was amplified using eight pairs of microsatellite markers previously developed for H. eucalypti. Nei’s gene diversity (H) showed that the eastern Australian population is the most genetically diverse and the Western Australian populations from Corymbia and Eucalyptus are somewhat less diverse. The South African population displayed the lowest genetic diversity. The high genetic diversity in the Australian populations supports the view that H. eucalypti is native to that region and was introduced into South Africa.

Additional keywords

bark canker disease diversity forestry 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agapow P-M, Burt A (2001) Multilocus 1.2. Available at [Verified 18 January 2008]Google Scholar
  2. Anon. (2006) Forestry South Africa. Forestry 8FP Industry Facts 2005. Available at [Verified 18 January 2008]Google Scholar
  3. Barnes I, Nakabonge G, Roux J, Wingfield BD, Wingfield MJ (2005) Comparison of populations of the wilt pathogen Ceratocystis albifundus in South Africa and Uganda. Plant Pathology 54, 189–195. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3059.2005.01144.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barton NH, Charlesworth B (1984) Genetic revolutions, founder effects, and speciation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 15, 133–164. doi: 10.1146/ Scholar
  5. Beadle NCW (1981) ‘The vegetation of Australia.’ (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge)Google Scholar
  6. Boland DJ, Brooker MIH, Chippendale GM, Hall N, Hyland BPM, Johnston RD, Kleinig DA, Turner JD (1984) ‘Forest trees of Australia.’ (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne)Google Scholar
  7. Burgess T, Gordon TR, Wingfield MJ, Wingfield BD (2004a) Geographic isolation of Diplodia scrobiculata and its association with native Pinus radiata. Mycological Research 108, 1399–1406. doi: 10.1017/S0953756204001443CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Burgess T, Wingfield MJ, Wingfield BD (2004b) Global distribution of Diplodia pinea genotypes as revealed using SSR markers. Australasian Plant Pathology 33, 513–519. doi: 10.1071/AP04067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carnegie AJ (2007) Forest health condition in New South Wales, Australia, 1996–2005. II. Fungal damage recorded in eucalypt plantations during forest health surveys and their management. Australasian Plant Pathology 36, 225–239. doi: 10.1071/AP07021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cockerham CC, Weir BS (1993) Estimation of gene flow from F-statistics. Evolution 47, 855–863. doi: 10.2307/2410189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davison EM, Coates DJ (1991) Identification of Cryphonectria cubensis and Endothia gyrosa from eucalypts in Western Australia using isozyme analysis. Australasian Plant Pathology 20, 157–160. doi: 10.1071/APP9910157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Denison NP, Kietzka JE (1993) The use and importance of hybrid intensive forestry in South Africa. South African Forestry Journal 165, 55–60.Google Scholar
  13. Gryzenhout M, Eisenberg BE, Coutinho TA, Wingfield BD, Wingfield MJ (2003) Pathogenicity of Cryphonectria eucalypti to Eucalyptus clones in South Africa. Forest Ecology and Management 176, 427–437. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00309-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gryzenhout M, Myburg H, Hodges CS, Wingfield BD, Wingfield MJ (2006) Microthia and Holocryphia, two new genera of fungi from Eucalyptus representing the species previously known as Cryphonectria havanensis and Cryphonectria eucalypti. Studies in Mycology 55, 35–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Jackson T (2004) Environmental factors and host characteristics influencing the susceptibility of Eucalyptus globulus to Endothiella eucalypti in southwestern Australia. PhD Thesis, Murdoch University, Perth.Google Scholar
  16. Kumar S, Tamura K, Jakobsen IB, Nei M (2001) ‘MEGA2: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis software.’ (Arizona State University: Tempe, AZ)Google Scholar
  17. McDonald BA (1997) The population genetics of fungi. Tools and techniques. Phytopathology 87, 448–453. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO.1997.87.4.448CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. McDonald BA, Linde C (2002) The population genetics of plant pathogens and breeding strategies for durable resistance. Euphytica 124, 163–180. doi: 10.1023/A:1015678432355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McDonald BA, McDermott JM (1993) Population genetics of plant pathogenic fungi. Bioscience 43, 311–319. doi: 10.2307/1312063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McDonald BA, Miles J, Nelson LR, Pettway RE (1994) Genetic variability in nuclear DNA in field populations of Stagonospora nodorum. Phytopathology 84, 250–255. doi: 10.1094/Phyto-84-250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Milgroom MG, Fry WE (1997) Contributions of population genetics to plant disease epidemiology and management. Advances in Botanical Research 24, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Milgroom MG, Lipari SE, Ennos RA, Liu Y-C (1993) Estimation of the outcrossing rate in the chestnut blight fungus, Cryphonectria parasitica. Heredity 70, 385–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nakabonge G, Cortinas MN, Roux J, Gryzenhout M, Wingfield BD, Wingfield MJ (2005) Development of polymorphic microsatellite markers for the fungal tree pathogen Cryphonectria eucalypti. Molecular Ecology Notes 5, 558–561. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-8286.2005. 00990.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. National Forest Inventory (2007) ‘Australia’s plantations 2007 — inventory update.’ (Bureau of Rural Sciences: Canberra)Google Scholar
  25. Nei M (1972) Genetic distance between populations. American Naturalist 106, 283–292. doi: 10.1086/282771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nei M (1973) Analysis of gene diversity in subdivided populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 70, 3321–3323. doi: 10.1073/pnas.70.12.3321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Old KM, Murray DIL, Kile GA, Simpson J, Malafant KWJ (1986) The pathology of fungi isolated from eucalypt cankers in south-eastern Australia. Australian Forest Research 16, 21–36.Google Scholar
  28. Stoddart JA, Taylor JF (1988) Genotypic diversity: estimation and prediction in samples. Genetics 118, 705–711.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Taylor JW, Jacobson DJ, Fisher MC (1999) The evolution of asexual fungi: reproduction, speciation and classification. Annual Review of Phytopathology 37, 197–246. doi: 10.1146/annurev.phyto.37.1.197CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Van der Westhuizen IP, Wingfield MJ, Kemp GHJ, Swart WJ (1993) First report of the canker pathogen Endothia gyrosa on Eucalyptus in South Africa. Plant Pathology 42, 661–663. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3059.1993. tb01548.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Venter M, Myburg H, Wingfield BD, Coutinho TA, Wingfield MJ (2002) A new species of Cryphonectria from South Africa and Australia, pathogenic to Eucalyptus. Sydowia 54, 98–117.Google Scholar
  32. Walker J, Old KM, Murray DIL (1985) Endothia gyrosa on Eucalyptus in Australia with notes on some other species of Endothia and Cryphonectria. Mycotaxon 23, 353–370.Google Scholar
  33. Wardlaw TJ (1999) Endothia gyrosa associated with severe stem cankers on plantation grown Eucalyptus nitens in Tasmania. European Journal of Forest Pathology 29, 199–208. doi: 10.1046/j.1439-0329.1999.00143.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Weir BS (1996) Intraspecific differentiation. In ‘Molecular systematics’. 2nd edn. (Eds DM Hillis, C Moritz, B Mable) pp. 385–405. (Sinauer: Sunderland, MA)Google Scholar
  35. Wingfield MJ (2003) Daniel McAlpine Memorial Lecture. Increasing threat of diseases to exotic plantation forests in the Southern Hemisphere: lessons from Cryphonectria canker. Australasian Plant Pathology 32, 133–139. doi: 10.1071/AP03024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wingfield MJ, Roux J (2000) Plantation diseases of South African forest plantations. In ‘South African forestry handbook. 1’. (Ed. DL Owen) pp. 241–252. (The South African Forestry Institute: Menlo Park, Republic of South Africa)Google Scholar
  37. Wingfield MJ, Roux J, Coutinho T, Govender P, Wingfield BD (2001) Plantation disease and pest management in the next century. Southern African Forestry Journal 190, 67–72.Google Scholar
  38. Workman PL, Niswander JD (1970) Population studies on south western Indian tribes. II. Local genetic differentiation in the Papago. American Journal of Human Genetics 22, 24–49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Yeh FC, Yang R-C, Boyle T (1999) ‘POPGENE. Release 1.31. Microsoft windows-based freeware for population genetic analysis.’ (University of Alberta: Edmonton)Google Scholar
  40. Yuan ZQ, Mohammed CL (1997) Investigation of fungi associated with stem cankers of eucalypts in Tasmania, Australia. Australasian Plant Pathology 26, 78–84. doi: 10.1071/AP97013CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Australasian Plant Pathology Society 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Grace Nakabonge
    • 1
  • Treena Burgess
    • 1
    • 3
  • Marieka Gryzenhout
    • 1
  • Brenda Wingfield
    • 2
  • Michael J. Wingfield
    • 1
  • Jolanda Roux
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Microbiology and Plant Pathology, Tree Protection Cooperative Program, Forestry and Agricultural Biotechnology InstituteUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa
  2. 2.Department of Genetics, Tree Protection Cooperative Program, Forestry and Agricultural Biotechnology InstituteUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa
  3. 3.School of Biological Sciences and BiotechnologyMurdoch UniversityPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations