2006
DOI: 10.1139/w06-020
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Endophytic Phomopsis species: host range and implications for diversity estimates

Abstract: Foliar endophyte assemblages of teak trees growing in dry deciduous and moist deciduous forests of Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve were compared. A species of Phomopsis dominated the endophyte assemblages of teak, irrespective of the location of the host trees. Internal transcribed spacer sequence analysis of 11 different Phomopsis isolates (ten from teak and one from Cassia fistula) showed that they fall into two groups, which are separated by a relatively long branch that is strongly supported. The results showed … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
61
0
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
5

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 118 publications
(65 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
3
61
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Similar to the present research, Murali et al (2006), working with foliar endophyte assemblages of teak trees growing in dry deciduous and moist deciduous forests of Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, observed that the species of Phomopsis dominated the endophyte assemblages of teak. Also, in accordance with those authors, using the internal transcribed spacer sequence analysis of 11 different isolates, Phomopsis fungus is not host restricted and the species concept of Phomopsis needs to be redefined, which reinforces the previous conclusions reported by other research involving pathogenic Phomopsis species.…”
Section: G1-12supporting
confidence: 90%
“…Similar to the present research, Murali et al (2006), working with foliar endophyte assemblages of teak trees growing in dry deciduous and moist deciduous forests of Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, observed that the species of Phomopsis dominated the endophyte assemblages of teak. Also, in accordance with those authors, using the internal transcribed spacer sequence analysis of 11 different isolates, Phomopsis fungus is not host restricted and the species concept of Phomopsis needs to be redefined, which reinforces the previous conclusions reported by other research involving pathogenic Phomopsis species.…”
Section: G1-12supporting
confidence: 90%
“…Although complications resulting from ITS sequence data in Diaporthe have been recognised by several previous authors, they have not been thoroughly examined (Farr et al 2002;Murali et al 2006;Udayanga et al 2014). In Santos et al (2010) two ITS types tentatively named as A and B recovered from the isolates Di-C005/1-10 from Hydrangea in Portugal, derived from 10 individual sibling ascospores from the same perithecium were similar to the two large groups observed in our analysis ( Fig.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, Phomopsis fungi were widely isolated from mangroves (Suryanarayanan et al 1998; Suryanarayanan and Kumaresan 2000; Pang et al 2008; Xing et al 2011; Xing and Guo 2011) and non-mangrove plants (Taylor et al 1999; Guo et al 2000, 2008; Cannon and Simmons 2002; Murali et al 2006; Sun et al 2011, 2012). In addition, Pestalotiopsis as generalist fungi were common mangrove endophytes and widely occurred on plants across Palmae, Rhizophoraceae, Planchonellae, and Podocarpaceae in China (Liu et al 2010a, 2012; Xing and Guo 2011; Gong et al 2014).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%