Are Tannins Resistance Factors Against Rust Fungi?
Histological observations were made of pine callus cultures and seedlings inoculated with Cronartium quercuum f. sp. fusiforme. Growth of fungus in susceptible tissues caused cellular disruption, which was severe during sporulation of the fungus. Tannin deposition appeared closely related to invasion of host cells by fungus. Tannin synthesis was associated with membrane activity and increased starch accumulation. Although tannin accumulated in resistant tissues, initial events of resistance were changes in cell volume, decreases in stain affinity for host nuclei, and a deterioration of fungal hyphae. Thus, tannin accumulation was not found to play a primary role in resistance.
KeywordsRust Resistance Rust Fungus Loose Smut Tannin Cell Fusiform Rust
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Phelps, W.R. Evaluation of fusiform rust incidence on loblolly and slash pine in the south. Plant Disease Reporter 58: 1137 (1974).Google Scholar
- 3.Froelich, R.C. Sawtimber as an alternative forest management strategy for sites with a high fusiform rust hazard. South. J. Appl. For. 11: 228 (1987).Google Scholar
- 4.Powers, H.R., Jr.; McClure, J.P.; Knight, H.A.; Dutrow, G.F. Incidence and financial impact of fusiform rust in the south. J. For. 72: 398 (1974).Google Scholar
- 5.Arora, Y.K.; Wagle, D.S. Interrelationship between peroxidase, polyphenol oxidase activities, and phenolic content of wheat for resistance to loose smut. Biochem. Phys. Pflanzen 180: 75 (1985).Google Scholar
- 6.Friend, J. Phenolic substances and plant disease. In: Swain, T.; Harborne, J.B.; Van Sumere, C.F. (eds.) Biochemistry of Plant Phenolics. Plenum Publishing Company, New York, pp. 557–588 (1979).Google Scholar
- 8.Misaghi, I.J. Physiology and Biochemistry of Plant-Pathogen Interactions. Plenum Publishing Company, New York, 287 pp. (1982).Google Scholar
- 9.Goodman, R.N.; Kiraly Z.; Wood, K.R. The Biochemistry and Physiology of Plant Disease. University of Missouri Press, Columbia. 433 p.. (1986).Google Scholar
- 12.Laird, P.P.; Phelps, W.R. A rapid method for mass screening of loblolly and slash pine seedlings for resistance to fusiform rust. Plant Dis. Report. 59: 238 (1975).Google Scholar
- 13.Walkinshaw, C.H.; Dell, T.R.; Hubbard, S.D. Predicting field performance of slash pine families from inoculated greenhouse seedlings. USDA Forest Service Research Paper SO-160; Southern Forest Experiment Station, New Orleans; 6 pp. (1980).Google Scholar
- 14.Hall, R.H.; Baur, P.S.; Walkinshaw, C.H. Variability in oxygen consumption and cell morphology in slash pine tissue cultures. Forest Sci. 18: 298 (1972).Google Scholar
- 17.Walkinshaw, C.H.; Ammon, V.D.; Jewell, F.F. Sr. Comparison of slash pine seedlings of varying fusiform rust resistance. In: Barrows-Broaddus, J; Powers, H.R. (eds.) Proceedings of the Rusts of Hard Pines Working Party Conference, 52.06–10. pp. 67–87 (1984).Google Scholar
- 18.Jewell, F.F.; True, R.P.; Mallett, S.L. Histology of Cronartium fusiformein slash pine seedlings. Phytopathology 52: 850 (1962).Google Scholar
- 21.Hillis, W.E. Biosynthesis of Tannins. In: Higuchi, T. (ed.) Biosynthesis and Biodegradation of Wood Components. Academic Press, Inc.; New York, pp. 325–347 (1985).Google Scholar
- 24.Robinson, D.G. Plant Membranes. John Wiley and Sons, New York; 305 pp. (1985).Google Scholar
- 26.Stafford, H.A. Compartmentation in natural product biosynthesis by multienzyme complexes. In: Conn, E. (ed.) The Biochemistry of Plants, Academic Press. New York, pp. 117–137 (1981).Google Scholar
- 28.Hagerman, A.E.; Robbins, C.T. Implications of soluble tannin-protein complexes for tannin analysis and plant defense mechanisms. J. Chem. Ecol. 13: 1243 (1987).Google Scholar
- 36.Gray, D.J.; Amerson, H.V. In vitro resistance of embryos of Pinus taeda to Cronartium quercuumf. sp. fusiforme: ultrastructure and histology. Phytopathology 73:1492 (1983).Google Scholar
- 37.Barnett, J.R. Changes in the distribution of plasmodesmata in developing fibre-tracheid pit membranes of Sorbus aucuparia L. Ann. Bot. 59: 269 (1987).Google Scholar