Abstract
Ranking species or clones for resistance to Dutch elm disease has pitfalls. This resistance has a clear entomological component, which is mostly overlooked, but might explain the delayed reaction of Ulmus laevis in an epidemic. Selecting for resistance to the bark beetles was tried at the onset of the Dutch breeding program, but had to be dropped as being too complicated. A hiatus remains. Even ranking clones for resistance to the fungus has practical and fundamental problems. We tried to stay close to natural processes by inoculating plants in the field, in the first half of June, when most beetles hatch. As to genetics, Mendel’s laws are of little help to the elm breeder. Examples of non-Mendelian inheritance are given; even Michurin is cited. Finally, tree breeding programs, being long term by nature, are susceptible to administrative fatigue.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Balkema GH. 1971. Chimerism and Diplontic Selection. Dissertation, University of Wageningen (Landbouwhogeschool), The Netherlands.
Bean WJ. 1980. Trees and Shrubs Hardy in the British Isles. Volume 8. John Murray, London.
Boom BK. 1975. Nederlandse Dendrologie. Veenman, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Buisman C. 1936. [Inoculations with elm bark beetles]. In Dutch. Mededeeling 22, Comité Bestudeering en Bestrijding Iepenziekte, p. 3–17.
Elgersma DM. 1970. Length and diameter of xylem vessels as factors in resistance of elms to Ceratocystis ulmi. Netherlands Journal of Plant Pathology 76: 161–172.
Elgersma DM. 1981. Susceptibility and possible mechanisms of resistance to Dutch elm disease. Pages 169–177 in: Proceedings, Dutch Elm Disease Symposium and Workshop, ES Kondo, Y Hiratsuka, WBG Denyer, eds. Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, Winnipeg, Canada.
Fransen JJ. 1936. [Beer felts as a substrate for fungus cultures]. In Dutch. Vakblad voor Biologen 17:7–11.
Fransen JJ. 1939. The tastiness of different elm species for the elm bark beetle. (English translated from the Dutch by Liesbeth Wallien, 1983.) Rapport 359, Rijksinstituut De Dorschkamp.
Fransen JJ, Buisman C. 1934. [Inoculation experiments on various elm species with elm bark beetles]. In Dutch. Mededeeling 19, Comité Bestudeering en Bestrijding Iepenziekte, p. 1–19.
Funk G. 1930. Ueber die Variation der Nachkommen zweier panaschierten Ulmen. Mitteilungen der deutschen dendrologischen Gesellschaft 42: 325–328.
Funk G. 1937. Weitere Studien über die Variabilität der Panaschierung bei Ulmen. Mitteilungen der deutschen dendrologischen Gesellschaft 49: 79–85.
Heybroek HM. 1993. The Dutch elm breeding program. Pages 16–25 in: Dutch Elm Disease Research: Cellular and Molecular Approaches, MB Sticklen, JL Sherald, eds. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Holmes FW, Heybroek HM. 1990. Dutch Elm Disease — The Early Papers. Selected Works of Seven Dutch Women Phytopathologists. Phytopathological Classics 13.
Knaap WP van der. 1955. Observations on the pollination of cocoa flowers. Pages 1287–1293 in: Report, 14 th International Horticultural Congress, JP Nieuwstraten, ed. Veenman, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Krüssmann G. 1962. Handbuch der Laubgehölze. Paul Parey, Berlin.
Manka K. 1953. The progress of DED (Ceratostomella ulmi (Schw.) Buisman) on the area of Poznan (Poland). (Polish with English summary). Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae 22: 357–378.
Manka K. 1954. Weitere Untersuchungen über den Verlauf der holländischen Ulmenkrankheit (Cerastomella ulmi (Schw.) Buisman) auf dem Gebiet der Stadt Poznan. (Polish with German summary). Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae 23: 783–805.
Maslov AD. 1970. [Insects damaging to elm species and their control] in Russian. A full Dutch translation by J. van Doom appeared in 1981 as Rapport 276 of Rijksinstituut De Dorschkamp, Wageningen, 270 p.
McNabb HS, Heybroek HM, MacDonald WL. 1970. Anatomical factors in resistance to Dutch elm disease. Netherlands Journal of Plant Pathology 76: 196–204.
Michurin IW. 1953. Ausgewählte Schriften. Kultur und Fortschritt, Berlin.
Sachse U. 1983. Die Ulmen im Südwesten Berlins, Zehlendorf und Steglitz. Diplomarbeit FU Berlin, Fachbereich 23 (Biologie).
Schwarz E. 1937. Ist die Flatterrüster resistent? Mitteilungen der deutschen dendrologischen Gesellschaft 49: 185–186.
Sinclair WA, Zahand JP, Melching JB. 1975. Anatomical marker for resistance in Ulmus americana to Ceratocystis ulmi. Phytopathology 65: 349–352.
Strehle R. 1938. Zur Frage: ist die Flatterrüster gegen Ceratostomella (Graphium) widerstandsfähig? Mitteilungen der deutschen dendrologischen Gesellschaft 51: 208–209.
Webber JF, Kirby SG. 1983. Host feeding preference in Scolytus. Forestry Commission Bulletin 60: 47–49.
Westerdijk J, Ledeboer M, Went J. 1931. [Information about experiments on the susceptibility of elms to Graphium ulmi Schwarz in 1929 and 1930.] In Dutch. Mededeeling 4, Comité Bestudeering en Bestrijding Iepenziekte, p. 1–6.
Wollenweber HW, Richter H. 1930. Stand des Ulmensterbens in Jahre 1930 in Deutschland. Nachrichten Blatt für den deutschen Pflanzenschutzdienst 10: 83–84.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Heybroek, H.M. (2000). Notes on Elm Breeding and Genetics. In: Dunn, C.P. (eds) The Elms. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4507-1_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4507-1_15
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-7032-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-4507-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive