The Elms pp 215-230 | Cite as

Asian Elms: Sources of Disease and Insect Resistance

  • Eugene B. Smalley
  • Raymond P. Guries


Asian elm species are a major source of resistance genes for breeding. Many Asian elms, however, are indigenous to the warmer regions of Asia, which may limit their usefulness in northern latitudes. The hardiness, site adaptability, and major genes for Dutch elm disease (DED) resistance in Ulmus pumila, for example, are offset by small leaf size, poor architecture, and susceptibility to foliar diseases and insects. In greenhouse inoculations with Ophiostoma novo-ulmi, U. pumila accessions from northeast China were highly resistant to DED, as were accessions of U. parvifolia, U. davidiana, U. davidiana var. japonica, U. propinqua, U. lamellosa, U. chenmoui, U. gaussenii, U. bergmanniana, and U. castaneifolia. U. pumila accessions from northwest and southeast China, however, were more DED susceptible. Accessions of U. macrocarpa, U. wallichiana, and U. szechuanica were moderately resistant, but U. lanceaefolia was susceptible. The “Japonica group” (U. japonica, U. davidiana, U. propinqua) offers the most promise for use in the development of hardy elm cultivars owing to their resistance to multiple diseases and pests.


Foliar Symptom Greenhouse Trial Japonica Group Site Adaptability Small Leaf Size 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ager A, Guries RP. 1982. Barriers to interspecific hybridization in Ulmus americana. Euphytica 31:909–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benet H, Guries RP, Boury S, Smalley EB. 1995. Identification of RAPD markers linked to a black spot resistance gene in Chinese elm. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 90: 1068–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowden CG, Smalley EB, Guries RP, Hubbes M, Temple B, Horgen PA. 1996. Lack of association between cerato-ulmin production and virulence in Ophiostoma novo-ulmi. Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions 9: 556–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brasier CM. 1988. Ophiostoma ulmi, cause of Dutch elm disease. Advances in Plant Pathology 6:207–221.Google Scholar
  5. Brasier CM. 1991. Ophiostoma novo-ulmisp. novi, causal agent ofthe current Dutch elm disease pandemic. Mycopathologia 115: 151–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brasier CM, Mehrotra MD. 1995. Ophiostoma himal-ulmi sp. nov., and new species of Dutch elm disease fungus endemic to the Himalayas. Mycological Research 98: 576–582.Google Scholar
  7. Brasier CM. 1991. Ophiostoma novo-ulmi sp.nov., causal agent of the current Dutch elm disease. Advances in Plant Pathology 6: 207–223.Google Scholar
  8. Chen MM, Smalley EB, Guries, RP. 1988. Comparative resistance of Chinese sources of Ulmus pumila to North American and Eurasian strains of Ceratocystis (=Ophiostoma) ulmi. Pages 3.1-3.2 in: Proceedings of the. Beijing International Symposium of Plant Pathology. Beijing, China.Google Scholar
  9. Clark EF. 1984. Biochemical Aspects of Resistance to Dutch Elm Disease. MS Thesis. University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Fu LK. 1980. Notilae de Ulmus sensibus. Journal of the North-Eastern Forestry Institute (Harbin, China) 3: 25–40 (in Chinese with an English summary).Google Scholar
  11. Green CE, Guries RP, Smalley EB. 1984. Screening elms for Dutch elm disease resistance. Plant Disease 68: 60–63.Google Scholar
  12. Guries RP, Smalley EB. 1994. Variation in elm leaf miner injury on elms in Wisconsin. Pages 61–78 in: Proceedings of the Eight Conference of Metria and the International Crabapple Society. US National Arboretum, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  13. Heybroek HM. 1957. Elm breeding in The Netherlands. Silvae Genetica 6: 112–117.Google Scholar
  14. Heybroek HM. 1983. Resistant elms for Europe. Pages 108–113 in: Research on Dutch Elm Disease in Europe, DA Burdekin, ed. Forestry Commission Bulletin No. 60. HMSO, London, UK.Google Scholar
  15. Heybroek HM. 1993. The Dutch elm breeding program. Pages 16–25 in: Dutch Elm Disease Research: Cellular and Molecular Approaches, MB Sticklen, JB Sherald, eds. Springer-Verlag, New York, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lester DT, Smalley EB. 1972a. Response of backcross hybrids and three species combinations of Ulmus pumila, U. japonica and U. rubra to inoculation with Ceratocystis ulmi. Phytopathology 62: 845–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lester DT, Smalley EB. 1972b. Response of Ulmus pumila and U. pumila x rubra hybrids to inoculation with Ceratocystis ulmi. Phytopathology 62: 848–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lester DT, Smalley EB. 1972c. Variation in ornamental traits and disease resistance among crosses of Ulmus pumila, U. rubra and putative natural hybrid. Silvae Genetica 21: 193–197.Google Scholar
  19. Liu HZ. 1988. Investigations of the death reason of elms as well as a discussion of the existence of Dutch elm disease in China [in Chinese]. Forest Research 1: 405–412.Google Scholar
  20. McGranahan GH, Smalley EB. 1984. Influence of moisture, temperature, leaf maturity, and host genotype on infection of elms by Stegophora ulmea (Schw. Fries) Sydow and Sydow. Phytopathology 74: 1294–1300.Google Scholar
  21. Melville R, Heybroek H. 1971. The elms of the Himalaya. Kew Bulletin 26: 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Miller F, Ware G. 1994. Preference for and suitability of selected elms, Ulmus spp. and their hybrids for the elm leaf beetle, (Pyrrhalta luteola Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Journal of Environmental Horticulture 12: 231–235.Google Scholar
  23. Miller F, Ware G. 1997. Preference for and suitability of Asian elm species and hybrids for the adult elm leaf beetle Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 90:1641–1645.Google Scholar
  24. Mittempergher L, La Porta N. 1991. Hybridization studies in the Eurasian species of elm (Ulmus spp.). Silvae Genetica 40: 237–243.Google Scholar
  25. Proctor RH. 1990. Phytoalexins and Dutch Elm Disease Resistance. PhD Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA.Google Scholar
  26. Proctor RH, Guries RP, Smalley EB. 1994. Lack of association between tolerance to the elm phytoalexin mansonone E and virulence in Ophiostoma novo-ulmi. Canadian Journal of Botany 72: 1355–1364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Smalley EB. 1962. Tropical members of the Ulmaceae resistant to Dutch elm disease. University of Wisconsin Forestry Research Note No. 77. Madison, Wisconsin, USA.Google Scholar
  28. Smalley EB. 1963. Seasonal fluctuations in susceptibility of young elm seedlings to Dutch elm disease. Phytopathology 53: 846–853.Google Scholar
  29. Smalley EB, Lester DT. 1974. ’sapporo Autumn Gold’ elm. HortScience 8: 514–515.Google Scholar
  30. Smalley EB, Lester DT. 1975. Elm tree. U.S. Plant Patent #3780. Patented Sept. 9, 1975.Google Scholar
  31. Smalley EB, Lester DT. 1994. New Horizon Elm. U. S. Plant Patent. #8,684. Issued April 12, 1994Google Scholar
  32. Smalley EB, Guries RP, Lester DT. 1994. Elm tree named Cathedral. US Plant Patent #8,683. Issued April 12, 1994Google Scholar
  33. Smalley EB. 1984a. Field research in the People’s Republic of China. U. S. National Academy of Science, China Exchange News 12: 11–14.Google Scholar
  34. Smalley EB. 1984b. Elms and Dutch elm disease in China. The Wisconsin Arborist 3: 1–4.Google Scholar
  35. Smalley EB Guries RP. 1993. Breeding elms for resistance to Dutch elm disease. Annual Review of Phytopathology 31: 325–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smalley EB, Guries RP, Lester DT. 1993. American Liberty elms: going from the impossible to the difficult. Pages 26–45 in: Dutch Elm Disease Research: Cellular and Molecular Approaches, MB Sticklen, J. B. Sherald, eds. Springer-Verlag, New York, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smitinand T. 1980. Thai Plant Names (Botanical Names — Vernacular Names). Royal Forest Department. Bangkok, Thailand.Google Scholar
  38. Townsend AM, Santamour FA. 1993. Progress in the development of disease-resistant elms. Pages 46–50 in: Dutch Elm Disease Research: Cellular and Molecular Approaches, MB Sticklen, JB Sherald, eds. Springer-Verlag, New York, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ware GH. 1995. Little-known elms from China: landscape tree possibilities. Journal of Arboriculture 21: 284–288.Google Scholar
  40. Went JC. 1937. Verslag van de onderzoekingen betreffende de iepenziekte, verricht op het Phytopathologisch Laboratorium “Wille Commelin Scholten” te Baarn, gedurende 1936. Tijdschr. over Plantensiek 63: 75–90.Google Scholar
  41. Went JC. 1938. Compilation of investigations on the susceptibility of different elms to Ceratostomella ulmi Buis, in the Netherlands. Phytopathologisch Zeitschrift 11: 181–201Google Scholar
  42. Went JC. 1954. The Dutch elm disease. Summary of 15 years of hybridization and selection work (1937-1952). Tijdschrift Plantensiek 60: 109–127.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eugene B. Smalley
  • Raymond P. Guries

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations