Didymella pinodes (syn. Mycosphaerella pinodes) [1] is a hemibiotrophic [2] fungal plant pathogen and the causal agent of ascochyta blight on pea plants. It is infective on several species such as Lathyrus sativus, Lupinus albus, Medicago spp., Trifolium spp., Vicia sativa, and Vicia articulata, and is thus defined as broadrange pathogen.[3]
| Didymella pinodes | |
|---|---|
| |
| Necrotic lesions caused by Didymella pinodes on field pea leaves two weeks after infection | |
Scientific classification 
| |
| Domain: | Eukaryota |
| Kingdom: | Fungi |
| Division: | Ascomycota |
| Class: | Dothideomycetes |
| Order: | Pleosporales |
| Family: | Didymellaceae |
| Genus: | Didymella |
| Species: | D. pinodes
|
| Binomial name | |
| Didymella pinodes (Berk. & A. Bloxam) Petr., (1924)
| |
| Synonyms | |
| |
Symptoms
editSymptoms include lesions on leaves, stem and pods of plants. The disease is difficult to distinguish from blight caused by Ascochyta pisi, though D. pinodes is the more aggressive of the two pathogens.[4]
Epidemiology
editThe disease cycle starts with dissemination of ascospores after which germination pycnidia rapidly develop.[5] Pycnidiaspores quickly disperse by rain splashes are responsible for reinfection over short distances. Consequently, production of pseudothecia is initiated on senescent tissues. After rainfall, ascospores are released from the pseudothecia and disperse by wind over long distances.[6]
Disease management
editUseful levels of resistance remain to be determined and the application of fungicidal sprays was reported to be uneconomical.[7][8] Furthermore, reports showed that insensitivity arises against chemicals such as strobilurons after continuous application.[9] Thus, cultural management is the preliminary option to control the disease progress by minimizing inoculum carry over as well as survival of inoculum on crop residues and in soil, and avoiding initial infection from arial inoculum.[10] Furthermore, burying of infected residues declines pathogen survival,[11] however, crop rotation and tillage regimes have little influence on disease severity.[12] Delayed sowing by 3–4 weeks reduces ascochyta blight severity by more than 50%,[13] however, such measures are not feasible at higher latitudes, because of a shorter growing season.
Host resistance
editSo far, only incomplete resistance is available in the pea germplasm and quantitative differences are highly influenced by environmental conditions, plant age and physiological characteristics of plants.[14][15] Tall cultivars with more erect growth suffer lower D. pinodes infection.[16] Susceptibility increases with earliness [17] and along with maturity of plants.[18]
Besides morphological traits, a proteomic and metabolomic study pinpointed molecular markers contributing to resistance.[19] Disease severity of leaves was also reported to be lower when pea plants are associated with rhizobial bacteria that presumably provoke so called induced systemic resistance.[20]
See also
edit
References
edit- ^ Chen; et al. (2015). "Resolving the Phoma enigma". Studies in Mycology. 82: 137–217. doi:10.1016/j.simyco.2015.10.003. PMC 4774273. PMID 26955202.
- ^ Clulow, S. A.; Lewis, B. G.; Parker, Mary L.; Matthews, P. (1991-07-01). "Infection of pea epicotyls by Mycosphaerella pinodes". Mycological Research. 95 (7): 817–820. doi:10.1016/S0953-7562(09)80044-0.
- ^ Barilli, Eleonora; Cobos, Maria José; Rubiales, Diego (2016-01-01). "Clarification on Host Range of Didymella pinodes the Causal Agent of Pea Ascochyta Blight". Frontiers in Plant Science. 7: 592. doi:10.3389/fpls.2016.00592. PMC 4865514. PMID 27242812.
- ^ pea ascohyta blight symptoms Archived 2008-06-08 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Tivoli, B.; Beasse, C.; Lemarchand, E.; Masson, E. (1996-10-01). "Effect of ascochyta blight (Mycosphaerella pinodes) on yield components of single pea (Pisum sativum) plants under field conditions". Annals of Applied Biology. 129 (2): 207–216. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7348.1996.tb05745.x. ISSN 1744-7348.
- ^ Tivoli, Bernard; Banniza, Sabine (2007-03-27). "Comparison of the epidemiology of ascochyta blights on grain legumes". European Journal of Plant Pathology. 119 (1): 59–76. doi:10.1007/s10658-007-9117-9. ISSN 0929-1873. S2CID 38947539.
- ^ Khan, T. N.; Timmerman-Vaughan, G. M.; Rubiales, D.; Warkentin, T. D.; Siddique, K. H. M.; Erskine, W.; Barbetti, M. J. (2013-07-01). "Didymella pinodes and its management in field pea: Challenges and opportunities". Field Crops Research. 148: 61–77. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2013.04.003. hdl:10261/87380.
- ^ Bretag, TW; Keane, PJ; Price, TV (1995-07-01). "Effect of Ascochyta blight on the grain yield of field peas (Pisum sativum L.) grown in southern Australia". Animal Production Science. 35 (4): 531. doi:10.1071/EA9950531. ISSN 1836-5787.
- ^ Bowness, Robyne; Gossen, Bruce D.; Chang, Kan-Fa; Goswani, Rubella; Willenborg, Christian J.; Holtz, Michael; Strelkov, Stephen E. (2015-07-21). "Sensitivity of Mycosphaerella pinodes to Pyraclostrobin Fungicide". Plant Disease. 100 (1): 192–199. doi:10.1094/PDIS-03-15-0350-RE. ISSN 0191-2917. PMID 30688575.
- ^ McDonald, G. K.; Peck, D. (2009-03-15). "Effects of crop rotation, residue retention and sowing time on the incidence and survival of ascochyta blight and its effect on grain yield of field peas (Pisum sativum L.)". Field Crops Research. 111 (1–2): 11–21. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2008.10.001.
- ^ Sheridan, J. J. (1973-10-01). "The survival of Mycosphaerella pinodes on pea haulm buried in soil". Annals of Applied Biology. 75 (2): 195–203. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7348.1973.tb07299.x. ISSN 1744-7348.
- ^ Bailey, K. L.; Gossen, B. D.; Derksen, D. A.; Watson, P. R. (2000). "Impact of agronomic practices and environment on diseases of wheat and lentil in southeastern Saskatchewan". Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 80 (4): 917–927. doi:10.4141/p00-007.
- ^ Salam, Moin U.; MacLeod, William J.; Maling, Tim; Prichard, Ian; Seymour, Mark; Barbetti, Martin J. (2011-03-23). "A meta-analysis of severity and yield loss from ascochyta blight on field pea in Western Australia". Australasian Plant Pathology. 40 (6): 591–600. doi:10.1007/s13313-011-0034-1. ISSN 0815-3191. S2CID 23735358.
- ^ Wroth, Janet M. (1999). "Evidence suggests that Mycosphaerella pinodes infection of Pisum sativum is inherited as a quantitative trait". Euphytica. 107 (3): 193–204. doi:10.1023/A:1003688430893. ISSN 0014-2336. S2CID 20590523.
- ^ Fondevilla, S.; Satovic, Z.; Rubiales, D.; Moreno, M. T.; Torres, A. M. (2007-12-13). "Mapping of quantitative trait loci for resistance to Mycosphaerella pinodes in Pisum sativum subsp. syriacum". Molecular Breeding. 21 (4): 439–454. doi:10.1007/s11032-007-9144-4. ISSN 1380-3743. S2CID 23302498.
- ^ Boros, Lech; Marcinkowska, Joanna (2010-08-19). "Assessment of Selected Pea Genotypes Reaction to Ascochyta Blight under Field Conditions and the Impact of Disease Severity on Yield Components". Journal of Agricultural Science. 2 (3): 84. doi:10.5539/jas.v2n3p84. ISSN 1916-9760.
- ^ Bretag, T.W. (2001). Compendium of Pea Diseases and Pests; Foliar diseases caused by fungi. Minnesota. pp. 24–28.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - ^ Hagedorn, D.J. (1991). Handbook of pea Diseases. Minnesota. pp. 11–15.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - ^ Turetschek, Reinhard; Desalegn, Getinet; Epple, Tamara; Kaul, Hans-Peter; Wienkoop, Stefanie (2017). "Key metabolic traits of Pisum sativum maintain cell vitality during Didymella pinodes infection: cultivar resistance and the microsymbionts' influence". Journal of Proteomics. 169: 189–201. doi:10.1016/j.jprot.2017.03.001. PMID 28268116.
- ^ Desalegn, G.; Turetschek, R.; Kaul, H. -P.; Wienkoop, S. (2016-06-30). "Microbial symbionts affect Pisum sativum proteome and metabolome under Didymella pinodes infection". Journal of Proteomics. Food and Crop Proteomics. 143: 173–187. doi:10.1016/j.jprot.2016.03.018. PMID 27016040.