Paper · 2009 · Plant Disease

Four Phytophthora Species Causing Foot and Root Rot of Apricot in Italy

A. Pane; S. O. Cacciola; S. Scibetta; et al.

10
claims
17
verbatim quotes
15
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

In the summer of 2006, 1-year-old apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) trees with leaf chlorosis, wilting, and defoliation associated with root and crown rot were observed in a nursery in Sicily (Italy). Of 3,000 plants, ~2% was affected. Four Phytophthora spp. (45, 25, 20, and 10% of the isolations of the first, second, third, and fourth species, respectively) were isolated from decayed roots and trunk bark on BNPRAH (3). Axenic cultures were obtained by single-hypha transfers. Isolates of the first species formed petaloid colonies on potato dextrose agar (PDA) and had an optimum growth temperature of 25°C. On V8 agar (VA), they produced persistent, papillate (often bipapillate), ovoid to limoniform sporangia (length/breadth ratio 1.4:1). They did not produce gametangia when paired with A1 and A2 isolates of Phytophthora nicotianae. The second species formed arachnoid colonies, had an optimum growth of 30°C, and produced uni- and bipapillate, ellipsoid, ovoid or pyriform sporangia (length/breadth ratio 1.3:1). All isolates were A2. The third species formed rosaceous colonies on PDA, had an optimum temperature of 28 to 30°C, and produced papillate (sometime bipapillate), ellipsoid or limoniform (length/breadth ratio 2:1), caducous sporangia with a tapered base and a long pedicel (as much as 150 μm). All isolates were A1 type. The fourth species formed petaloid-like colonies on PDA and had an optimum growth of 26 to 28°C. On VA, it produced papillate (sometimes bipapillate), ovoid (length/breadth ratio 1.3:1), and decidous sporangia with a short pedicel (<4 μm). The isolates were homothallic and produced oogonia (25 to 31 μm in diameter) with paragynous antheridia and aplerotic oospores. On the basis of morphological and cultural characters, the species were identified as P. citrophthora, P. nicotianae, P. tropicalis and P. cactorum. Identification was confirmed by the electrophoretic analysis of total mycelial proteins and four isozymes (acid and alkaline phosphatases, esterase, and malate dehydrogenase) on polyacrylamide gel (1). Analysis of internal transcribed spacer (ITS) regions of rDNA using the ITS 4 and ITS 6 primers for DNA amplification (2) revealed 99 to 100% similarity between apricot isolates of each species and reference isolates from GenBank (Nos. AF266785, AB367355, DQ118649, and AF266772). The ITS sequence of a P. citrophthora isolate from apricot (IMI 396200) was deposited in GenBank (No. FJ943417). In the summer of 2008, pathogenicity of apricot isolates IMI 396200 (P. citrophthora), IMI 396203 (P. nicotianae), IMI 396201 (P. tropicalis), and IMI 396202 (P. cactorum) was tested on 3-month-old apricot seedlings (10 plants for each isolate) that were transplanted into pots filled with soil prepared by mixing steam-sterilized sandy loam soil (4% vol/vol) with inoculum produced on autoclaved kernel seeds. Ten control seedlings were grown in autoclaved soil. Seedlings were maintained in a screenhouse and watered daily to field capacity. Within 40 days of the transplant, all inoculated seedlings showed leaf chlorosis, wilting, and root rot. Control seedlings remained healthy. All four Phytophthora spp. were reisolated solely from inoculated plants. To our knowledge, this is the first report of Phytophthora root and crown rot of apricot in Italy and of P. tropicalis on this host. References: (1) S. O. Cacciola et al. Plant Dis. 90:680, 2006. (2) D. E. L. Cooke et al. Fungal Genet. Biol. 30:17, 2000. (3) H. Masago et al. Phytopathology 67:425, 1977.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 10

Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

About 2% of nursery apricot trees had chlorosis, wilting, defoliation and root or crown rot.

Taxon
apricotPrunus armeniacae0
Outcome
leaf chlorosis, wilting, and defoliation associated with root and crown rote0
Value
~2%e0
Setting
Sicily (Italy)e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus armeniaca
Prunus armeniaca · TaxonFir0002 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In the summer of 2006, 1-year-old apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) trees with leaf chlorosis, wilting, and defoliation associated with root and crown rot were observed in a nursery in Sicily (Italy). Of 3,000 plants, ~2% was affected.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–231 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

P. citrophthora was identified among apricot root and bark isolates.

Taxon
apricotPrunus armeniacae1
Interactor
P. citrophthoraPhytophthora citrophthorae0pathogen
Outcome
P. citrophthorae0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus armeniaca
Prunus armeniaca · TaxonFir0002 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the species were identified as P. citrophthora, P. nicotianae, P. tropicalis and P. cactorum.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1764–1857 · show in text ↑
e1

“apricot isolates of each species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2221–2253 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

P. nicotianae was identified among apricot isolates.

Taxon
apricotPrunus armeniacae1
Interactor
P. nicotianaePhytophthora nicotianaee0pathogen
Outcome
P. nicotianaee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus armeniaca
Prunus armeniaca · TaxonFir0002 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Phytophthora nicotianae
Phytophthora nicotianae · InteractorSupattra Intavimolsri Department of Agriculture, Thailand · CC BY 3.0 au · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the species were identified as P. citrophthora, P. nicotianae, P. tropicalis and P. cactorum.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1764–1857 · show in text ↑
e1

“apricot isolates of each species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2221–2253 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

P. tropicalis was identified among apricot isolates.

Taxon
apricotPrunus armeniacae1
Interactor
P. tropicalisPhytophthora tropicalise0pathogen
Outcome
P. tropicalise0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus armeniaca
Prunus armeniaca · TaxonFir0002 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the species were identified as P. citrophthora, P. nicotianae, P. tropicalis and P. cactorum.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1764–1857 · show in text ↑
e1

“apricot isolates of each species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2221–2253 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

P. cactorum was identified among apricot isolates.

Taxon
apricotPrunus armeniacae1
Interactor
P. cactorumPhytophthora cactorume0pathogen
Outcome
P. cactorume0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus armeniaca
Prunus armeniaca · TaxonFir0002 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Phytophthora cactorum
Phytophthora cactorum · InteractorMary Ann Hansen · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the species were identified as P. citrophthora, P. nicotianae, P. tropicalis and P. cactorum.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1764–1857 · show in text ↑
e1

“apricot isolates of each species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2221–2253 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Apricot isolates of each species had 99 to 100% ITS similarity to reference isolates.

Taxon
apricotPrunus armeniacae0
Outcome
similarity between apricot isolates of each species and reference isolatese0
Value
99 to 100%e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus armeniaca
Prunus armeniaca · TaxonFir0002 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“revealed 99 to 100% similarity between apricot isolates of each species and reference isolates from GenBank”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2182–2289 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All inoculated apricot seedlings developed chlorosis, wilting and root rot within 40 days.

Taxon
apricotPrunus armeniacae1
Treatment
inoculated seedlingse0
Outcome
leaf chlorosis, wilting, and root rote0
Qualifier
Within 40 dayse0
Comparator
Control seedlingse0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus armeniaca
Prunus armeniaca · TaxonFir0002 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Within 40 days of the transplant, all inoculated seedlings showed leaf chlorosis, wilting, and root rot. Control seedlings remained healthy.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2998–3138 · show in text ↑
e1

“3-month-old apricot seedlings”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2640–2669 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All four Phytophthora species were reisolated only from inoculated apricot plants.

Taxon
apricotPrunus armeniacae1
Interactor
Phytophthora spp.Phytophthorae0
Outcome
reisolated solely from inoculated plantse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus armeniaca
Prunus armeniaca · TaxonFir0002 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Phytophthora
Phytophthora · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Rasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“All four Phytophthora spp. were reisolated solely from inoculated plants.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3139–3212 · show in text ↑
e1

“apricot seedlings”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2652–2669 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

This was the first report of Phytophthora root and crown rot of apricot in Italy.

Taxon
apricotPrunus armeniacae0
Interactor
PhytophthoraPhytophthorae0
Outcome
first report of Phytophthora root and crown rote0
Setting
Italye0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus armeniaca
Prunus armeniaca · TaxonFir0002 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Phytophthora
Phytophthora · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Rasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“this is the first report of Phytophthora root and crown rot of apricot in Italy”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3231–3310 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

This was the first report of P. tropicalis on apricot.

Taxon
apricotPrunus armeniacae1
Interactor
P. tropicalisPhytophthora tropicalise0
Outcome
P. tropicalis on this hoste0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus armeniaca
Prunus armeniaca · TaxonFir0002 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“and of P. tropicalis on this host.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3311–3345 · show in text ↑
e1

“root and crown rot of apricot in Italy”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3272–3310 · show in text ↑

inoculation · physiology: pigments · Prunus armeniaca (apricot)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.