Paper · 2012 · Plant Disease

First Report of Botryosphaeria dothidea Causing Fruit Rot of Plum in Spain

L. F. Roca; M. C. Raya; A. Trapero

11
claims
22
verbatim quotes
5
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Species in the Botryosphaeriaceae are known to produce cankers, dieback, blights, and leaf spots on many hosts, mainly under stress conditions. Several Botryosphaeria spp. may also cause pre- or post-harvest decay of stone fruit, such as peaches (2). In June 2012, fruit of plum (Prunus domestica cv. Golden Japan) showing soft, brown, and slightly sunken necrotic lesions were observed in several orchards affected by hail in Cordoba province (southern Spain). Symptomatic fruit were collected and incubated at 25°C and 100% relative humidity. Isolations were done on potato dextrose agar (PDA). Mycelium and black pycnidia developed on the surface of incubated fruit and on PDA plates. Conidia were hyaline, aseptate, and fusoid. According to morphological criteria, the fungus was identified as Fusicoccum aesculi, the anamorph of Botryosphaeria dothidea (3). The internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region of rDNA was amplified with primers ITS4/ITS5 and sequenced. BLAST analysis of the 528-bp fragment showed 100% homology with the sequence of B. dothidea. Pathogenicity tests were performed on immature healthy fruit (2 weeks before harvest) of the same cultivar from the same orchards. Fruit were washed in deionized water with Tween 20 (Polyoxyethylene 20 sorbitan monolaureate 99%, 0.1 ml/liter) and surface sterilized in 10% sodium hypochlorite for 1 min. Twenty-four fruit were inoculated using mycelial-agar discs. Twelve fruit were previously wounded with a sterile 0.5-mm-diameter needle. The same number of fruit, wounded and unwounded, served as a control. All fruit were incubated at 25°C and 100% relative humidity. Seven days after inoculation, 83% of wounded inoculated fruit showed rot symptoms. After 9 days, fruit rot symptoms started to appear on unwounded inoculated fruit. Twenty days after inoculation, 100% of wounded and unwounded fruit showed rot symptoms that led to mummification of the fruit. Pycnidia developed on inoculated fruit and the fungus was reisolated. No symptoms developed on control fruit. These results demonstrate that B. dothidea is pathogenic on plum and that wounds favor infection, although they are not needed. To our knowledge this is the first report of B. dothidea causing fruit rot of plum in Spain. This pathogen is well known in southern Spain causing a serious fruit rot of olive (1) and could have a great impact on plum production in this region, especially when there is damage to the fruits as occurred this year with hail. References: (1) J. Moral et al. Phytopathology 100:1340, 2010. (2) J. M. Ogawa et al. Compendium of Stone Fruit Diseases. APS Press, St. Paul, MN, 1995. (3) B. Slippers et al. Mycologia 96:83, 2004.

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 11

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Necrotic lesions occurred on plum fruit in hail-affected orchards in Cordoba.

Outcome
soft, brown, and slightly sunken necrotic lesionse0t0
Setting
Cordoba province (southern Spain)e0t0

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

Prunus domestica
Prunus domestica · TaxonYAMAMAYA · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“fruit of plum (Prunus domestica cv. Golden Japan) showing soft, brown, and slightly sunken necrotic lesions were observed in several orchards affected by hail in Cordoba province (southern Spain)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 265–460 · show in text ↑
t0

“Plum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–65 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The fungus isolated from plum lesions was identified as Botryosphaeria dothidea by morphology and sequence homology.

Interactor
Botryosphaeria dothideaBotryosphaeria dothideae0t0pathogen
Outcome
identified as Fusicoccum aesculi, the anamorph of Botryosphaeria dothideae0t0

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

Prunus domestica
Prunus domestica · TaxonYAMAMAYA · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Botryosphaeria dothidea
Botryosphaeria dothidea · InteractorThis image was created by user William Tanneberger (William) at Mushroom Observer , a source for mycological images. You can contact this user here . · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the fungus was identified as Fusicoccum aesculi, the anamorph of Botryosphaeria dothidea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 769–857 · show in text ↑
t0

“Plum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–65 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The fungal sequence had 100% homology with B. dothidea.

Interactor
B. dothideaBotryosphaeria dothideae0t0pathogen
Outcome
homology with the sequence of B. dothideae0t0
Value
100%e0t0

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

Prunus domestica
Prunus domestica · TaxonYAMAMAYA · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Botryosphaeria dothidea
Botryosphaeria dothidea · InteractorThis image was created by user William Tanneberger (William) at Mushroom Observer , a source for mycological images. You can contact this user here . · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“BLAST analysis of the 528-bp fragment showed 100% homology with the sequence of B. dothidea.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 968–1060 · show in text ↑
t0

“Plum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–65 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At seven days, 83% of wounded inoculated plum fruit had rot.

Treatment
wounded inoculated fruite0t0
Outcome
rot symptomse0t0
Value
83%e0t0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Prunus domestica
Prunus domestica · TaxonYAMAMAYA · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Seven days after inoculation, 83% of wounded inoculated fruit showed rot symptoms.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1633–1715 · show in text ↑
t0

“Plum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–65 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rot first appeared in unwounded inoculated fruit after nine days.

Treatment
unwounded inoculated fruite0t0
Outcome
fruit rot symptoms started to appeare0t0
Value
9 dayse0t0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Prunus domestica
Prunus domestica · TaxonYAMAMAYA · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“After 9 days, fruit rot symptoms started to appear on unwounded inoculated fruit.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1716–1797 · show in text ↑
t0

“Plum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–65 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

After twenty days, all wounded inoculated fruit showed rot and mummification.

Treatment
woundede0t0
Outcome
rot symptoms that led to mummificatione0t0
Value
100%e0t0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Prunus domestica
Prunus domestica · TaxonYAMAMAYA · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Twenty days after inoculation, 100% of wounded and unwounded fruit showed rot symptoms that led to mummification of the fruit.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1798–1924 · show in text ↑
t0

“Plum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–65 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

After twenty days, all unwounded inoculated fruit showed rot and mummification.

Treatment
unwounded fruite0t0
Outcome
rot symptoms that led to mummificatione0t0
Value
100%e0t0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Prunus domestica
Prunus domestica · TaxonYAMAMAYA · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Twenty days after inoculation, 100% of wounded and unwounded fruit showed rot symptoms that led to mummification of the fruit.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1798–1924 · show in text ↑
t0

“Plum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–65 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No control plum fruit developed symptoms.

Outcome
No symptoms developede0t0
Comparator
control fruite0t0

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

Prunus domestica
Prunus domestica · TaxonYAMAMAYA · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“No symptoms developed on control fruit.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1995–2034 · show in text ↑
t0

“Plum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–65 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The fungus was reisolated from inoculated plum fruit.

Outcome
fungus was reisolatede0t0

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

Prunus domestica
Prunus domestica · TaxonYAMAMAYA · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pycnidia developed on inoculated fruit and the fungus was reisolated.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1925–1994 · show in text ↑
t0

“Plum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–65 · show in text ↑
Associationauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Wounding favored infection but was not required.

Treatment
woundse0t0
Outcome
infectione0t0
Direction
favore0t0

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

Prunus domestica
Prunus domestica · TaxonYAMAMAYA · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“wounds favor infection, although they are not needed”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2109–2161 · show in text ↑
t0

“Plum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–65 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

This is reported as the first record of B. dothidea causing plum fruit rot in Spain.

Interactor
B. dothideaBotryosphaeria dothideae0t0pathogen
Outcome
first report of B. dothidea causing fruit rot of plume0t0
Setting
Spaine0t0

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

Prunus domestica
Prunus domestica · TaxonYAMAMAYA · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Botryosphaeria dothidea
Botryosphaeria dothidea · InteractorThis image was created by user William Tanneberger (William) at Mushroom Observer , a source for mycological images. You can contact this user here . · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“this is the first report of B. dothidea causing fruit rot of plum in Spain”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2180–2254 · show in text ↑
t0

“Plum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–65 · show in text ↑

inoculation · disease · Prunus domestica (plum)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 2 positive, 6 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. negative

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 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.