Skip to main content
Log in

Investigation ofHippeastrum mosaic virus inHippeastrum hybridum

Onderzoek over hetHippeastrum-mozaïek-virus inHippeastrum hybridum

  • Published:
Netherlands Journal of Plant Pathology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An attempt was made to identify a mosaic disease inHippeastrum hybridum. Infectious virus material could be demonstrated in roots, leaves, stem, perianth, stamen and pistil. Inclusion bodies were found in the epidermis of leaves, stem, spatha leaves and in the perianth. Virus concentration in a young stage was high but decreased by aging of the perianth. Efforts to transmit the virus by aphids failed. However, the virus was transmitted by seed in a few cases. Plants of 30 species reacted negatively upon inoculation with the virus.Hippeastrum hybridum, Gomphrena globosa, Chlorophytum spec. andLycopersicum esculentum could be infected experimentally. On account of the host range and presence of inclusion bodies the mosaic symptoms inHippeastrum are not caused by tomato spotted wilt virus or Cucumber mosaic virus. Results suggest that the virus under investigation is theHippeastrum mosaic virus. Dr.M. K. Corbett, Wageningen, succeeded in purifying the virus by density gradient centrifugation. Whe preparation contained flexuous rod particles. Plants ofDatura stramonium, Nicotiana glutinosa andN. tabacum ‘Samsun’ could be infected. Within two weeks after inoculation with purified virus solution these plants showed systemic symptoms.

Samenvatting

In een kwekerij te Hoorn werden planten vanHippeastrum hybridum aangetroffen, die mozaïekverschijnselen vertoonden. De oorzaak hiervan werd nagegaan. Infectieus virusmateriaal kon worden aangetoond in wortels, bladeren, bloemstengel, bloemdekbladen, meeldraden en stijl. Celinsluitsels kwamen voor in de epidermis van bladeren en stengel en in de bloemschede. De aanwezigheid van insluitsels in het bloemdek was afhankelijk van de ouderdom van de bloem. Er schijnt een omgekeerd evenredige relatie te bestaan tussen de virusconcentratie en het aantal insluitsels in bloemen.

Pogingen om het virus over te brengen door bladluizen mislukten. In enkele gevallen had zaadoverdracht plaats.

Dertig plantesoorten reageerden negatief op een inoculatie met virushoudend sap.Hippeastrum hybridum, Gomphrena globosa, Chlorophytum spec. enLycopersicum esculentum konden wel worden geïnfecteerd. Gezien de waardplantenreeks en het voorkomen van celinsluitsels kunnen de mozaïeksymptomen inHippeastrum niet toegeschreven worden aan „Tomato spotted wilt”-virus of het komkommer-mozaïek-virus, maar is het waarschijnlijk dat zij worden veroorzaakt door hetHippeastrum-mozaïek-virus, reeds beschreven doorBrierley (1948),Johnson (1951) enProcenko & Procenko (1964).

Dr.M. K. Corbett, Wageningen, slaagde erin het virus te zuiveren door middel van „density gradient”-centrifugering.Datura stramonium, N. glutinosa enN. tabacum ‘Samsun’ werden systemisch ziek binnen twee weken na inoculatie met de gezuiverde virus-oplossing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anonymus, — 1958. Versl. Meded. plziektenk. Dienst Wageningen 132 (Jaarboek 1958): 43.

  • Brierley, P., — 1948. Diseases of Amaryllidaceae, excluding those of Allium and narcissus. Herbertia, La Jolla 15: 113–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cevat, H. N., — 1964. Virusziekten bij Hippeastrum. Vakbl. Bloemist. 19: 716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickson, B. T., — 1922. Studies concerning mosaic diseases. Techn. Bull. MacDonald Coll. McGill Univ. No. 2.

  • Holmes, F. O., — 1928. Cytological study of the intracellular body characteristic of Hippeastrum mosaic. Bot. Gaz. 86: 50–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J., — 1951. Virus particles in various plant species and tissues. Phytopathology 41: 78–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, R. P., — 1960. The present status of the Amaryllis mosaic disease in the United States. Louisiana Soc. hortic. Res. Bull. no. 5: 24–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, R. P. &H. A. Scott, — 1964. Serological relationship of cumcumber mosaic virus and certain virus isolates that incite Amaryllis mosaic symptoms. Phytopathology 54: 360–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klinkowski, M., — 1958. Pflanzliche Virologie II. Berlin.

  • Kunkel, L. O., — 1922. Amoeboid bodies associated with Hippeastrum mosaic. Science 55: 73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunkel, L. O., — 1924. Further studies on the intracellular bodies associated with certain mosaic diseases. Bull. Exp. Sta. Hawaiian Sug. Pl. Ass. Bot., Series 3: 108–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, H. E., — 1963. Amaryllis and Hippeastrum. Baileya 11: 15–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noordam, D., — 1943. Over net voorkomen van spotted wilt in Nederland. Tijdschr. PlZiekt. 49: 117–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Procenko, A. E. & E. P. Procenko, — 1964. In: Plant Virology, Proc. 5th Conf. Czecosl. Pl. Virologists, Prague 1962: 242.

  • Smith, K. M., — 1933. In: Recent Advances in the study of Plant viruses, London. Churchill Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. M., — 1957. A textbook of Plant Virus Diseases, London 2nd ed.

  • Stouffer, R. F., — 1963. A mosaic disease of hybrid Amaryllis caused by cucumber mosaic virus. Fla. State. Hort. Soc. Proc. 76: 462–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traub, H. P., — 1958. The Amaryllis Manual. New York. Amer. Amaryllis Soc.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hendrina Brants, D., van den Heuvel, J. Investigation ofHippeastrum mosaic virus inHippeastrum hybridum . Netherlands Journal of Plant Pathology 71, 145–151 (1965). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01987405

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01987405

Keywords

Navigation