No abstract

Summary Several Fusarium species cause harmful cereal diseases, such as fusarium head blight and crown rot, which, during pathogenesis, may result in significant grain yield and quality losses. Several species of agricultural weed are believed to be alternative and reservoir hosts for Fusarium spp.; however, studies have not comprehensively evaluated those weed species in cropping systems that may harbour these fungi. The objective of this study was to determine weed species in cereal‐based crop rotations that are asymptomatically colonised by Fusarium spp. We sampled all species of weed present in fields that were managed under six different crop sequences in 2015 and 2016. The study yielded 2326 single‐spore isolates of Fusarium spp. derived from various organs of asymptomatic weeds. Isolates were identified morphologically and then confirmed using PCR with species‐specific primers and/or sequencing of tef1α gene fragments. Isolates of nine Fusarium spp. were obtained from 689 of the 744 individuals collected that represented 56 weed species. Each weed species harboured at least one species of Fusarium, and >80% were colonised by 3–9 Fusarium spp. In total, we identified 27 dicotyledonous weed species that were previously undocumented as Fusarium hosts and 251 new weed × Fusarium species combinations were revealed. Consequently, there is a greater risk of negative Fusarium impacts on cereal crops than was previously thought. We suggest effective weed management and inversion soil tillage may help mitigate these impacts.

Although mainly known as pathogens that affect angiosperms, phytoplasmas have recently been detected in diseased coniferous plants. In 2008-2014, we observed, in the Curonian Spit of Western Lithuania and in forests of Southern Lithuania (Varena district), diseased trees of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) and mountain pine (Pinus mugo) with unusual symptoms similar to those caused by phytoplasmas. Diseased trees exhibited excessive branching, dwarfed reddish or yellow needles, dried shoots and ball-like structures. restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) and nucleotide sequence analysis of 16S rRNA gene fragments revealed that individual trees were infected by Candidatus (Ca.) Phytoplasma pini-related strains (members of phytoplasma subgroup 16SrXXI-A) or by Ca. Phytoplasma asteris-related strains (subgroup 16SrI-A). Of the nearly 300 trees that were sampled, 80% were infected by phytoplasma. Ninety-eight percent of the positive samples were identified as Ca. Phytoplasma pini-related strains. Strains belonging to subgroup 16SrI-A were OPEN ACCESSForests 2015, 6 2470 identified from only few trees. Use of an additional molecular marker, secA, supported the findings. This study provides evidence of large-scale infection of Pinus by Ca. Phytoplasma pini in Lithuania, and it reveals that this phytoplasma is more widespread geographically than previously appreciated. This is also the first report of phytoplasma subgroup 16SrI-A in pine trees.

During July 2007, sweet (Prunus avium) and sour cherry (P. cerasus) trees exhibiting disease symptoms suggestive of possible phytoplasma infection were observed in a large orchard in the Kaunas Region of Lithuania. Samples of leaf tissue were collected from 13 sweet cherry trees that were affected by a decline disease (designated cherry decline, ChD) characterized by symptoms that included leaf reddening and premature leaf drop and two sour cherry trees exhibiting proliferation of branches and nonseasonal flowering. To assess the diseased trees for phytoplasma infection, DNA was extracted with a Genomic DNA Purification Kit (Fermentas, Vilnius, Lithuania) and used as template in nested PCRs, primed by phytoplasma universal primer pairs P1/P7 and R16F2n/R16R2 for amplification of 16S ribosomal (r) DNA sequences (1,2). The 1.2-kbp DNA sequences amplified from all 15 trees were subjected to restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analyses with AluI, MseI, KpnI, HhaI, HaeIII, HpaII, RsaI, HinfI, TaqI, Sau3AI, and BfaI. The collective profiles indicated that DNAs were derived from two different phytoplasmas. One of them, designated ChD phytoplasma, was found in 11 sweet cherry trees and two sour cherry trees and tentatively classified as a member of new subgroup designated 16SrIII-T in 16S rDNA RFLP group 16SrIII (X-disease phytoplasma group). It was observed that the ChD phytoplasma caused different symptoms in sweet and sour cherry. The amplified ChD phytoplasma 16S rDNA was cloned in Escherichia coli, sequenced, and the sequence deposited in the GenBank database (Accession No. FJ231728). The ChD phytoplasma 16S rDNA shared 98.4 and 98.6% sequence identity with the 16S rDNAs from stone fruit-infecting phytoplasmas associated with western X-disease (GenBank Accession No. L04682) and Canada X-disease (GenBank Accession No. L33733), respectively, indicating that the three strains are closely related. Interestingly, the ChD phytoplasma 16S rDNA shared 99.8% sequence identity with 16S rDNA from one operon (rrnB, GenBank Accession No. AF370120) from a phytoplasma previously found to be associated with dandelion virescence (DanVir) disease in Lithuania. The operon rrnA (GenBank Accession No. AF370119) shared 99.3% sequence identity (2). The high similarity of the ChD 16S rRNA gene sequence to that of DanVir rrnB suggests the possibility that ChD and DanVir may belong to a single phytoplasma species and that dandelion is possibly an alternate host of ChD phytoplasma. The other phytoplasma, found in two sweet cherry trees, was classified in subgroup 16SrI-B of 16S rDNA RFLP group 16SrI (‘Candidatus Phytoplasma asteris’ and related strains) and was designated cherry proliferation phytoplasma (GenBank Accession No. FJ231729). Thus, in Europe, cherry may be affected by diseases associated with phytoplasmas belonging to groups 16SrI, 16SrIII, 16SrX, and 16SrXII (3,4). The infections by diverse phytoplasma strains and species underscore the need for production of phytoplasma-free planting stock and for intensified research to reduce ecological and economic impacts of these phytoplasmas. References: (1) D. E. Gunderson and I.-M. Lee. Phytopathol. Mediterr. 35:144, 1996. (2) R. Jomantiene et al. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 108:507, 2002. (3) S. Paltrinieri et al. Acta Hortic. 550:365, 2001. (4) D. Valiunas et al. J. Plant Pathol. 91:71. 2009.

Phytoplasmas are obligate transkingdom bacterial parasites that infect a variety of plant species and replicate in phloem-feeding insects in the order Hemiptera, mainly leafhoppers (Cicadellidae). The insect capacity in acquisition, transmission, survival, and host range directly determines the epidemiology of phytoplasmas. However, due to the difficulty of insect sampling and the lack of follow-up transmission trials, the confirmed phytoplasma insect hosts are still limited compared with the identified plant hosts. Recently, quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR)-based quick screening of 227 leafhoppers collected in natural habitats unveiled the presence of previously unknown phytoplasmas in six samples. In the present study, 76 leafhoppers, including the six prescreened positive samples, were further examined to identify and characterize the phytoplasma strains by semi-nested PCR. A total of ten phytoplasma strains were identified in leafhoppers from four countries including South Africa, Kyrgyzstan, Australia, and China. Based on virtual restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis, these ten phytoplasma strains were classified into four distinct ribosomal (16Sr) groups (16SrI, 16SrIII, 16SrXIV, and 16SrXV), representing five new subgroups (16SrI-AO, 16SrXIV-D, 16SrXIV-E, 16SrXIV-F, and 16SrXV-C). The results strongly suggest that the newly identified phytoplasma strains not only represent new genetic subgroup lineages, but also extend previously undiscovered geographical distributions. In addition, ten phytoplasma-harboring leafhoppers belonged to seven known leafhopper species, none of which were previously reported insect vectors of phytoplasmas. The findings from this study provide fresh insight into genetic diversity, geographical distribution, and insect host range of phytoplasmas. Further transmission trials and screening of new potential host plants and weed reservoirs in areas adjacent to collection sites of phytoplasma harboring leafhoppers will contribute to a better understanding of phytoplasma transmission and epidemiology.