Fungicide Efficacy Against Calonectria pseudonaviculata, Causal Agent of Boxwood Blight

Abstract

LaMondia, J. A. 2014. Fungicide efficacy againal Calonectria pseudonaviculata, causal agent of boxwood blight. Plant Dis. 98:99-102.Calonectria pseudonaviculata causes leaf spot and stem lesions resulting in defoliation and dieback of boxwood. Fungicides representing 20 different active ingredients from 13 different Fungicide Resistance Action Committee groups were evaluated for their effects on conidial germination and mycelial growth using in vitro assays, and the concentration that suppressed fungal growth to 15% of that on unamended media (ECgj) values were determined.

Effects of Inoculum Dose, Temperature, Cultivar, and Interrupted Leaf Wetness Period on Infection of Boxwood byCalonectria pseudonaviculata

“…Current approaches to managing this disease include inspection, sanitation, cultural controls, fungicide application, and planting of less susceptible cultivars (Dart et al 2012;Ganci et al 2013;Henricot et al 2008;LaMondia 2014). Over 95 species of Buxus are known (Van Laere et al 2011) and recent screening of diverse host germplasm for pathogen resistance has revealed various levels of susceptibility of different Buxus spp.…”

“…In general, Buxus sempervirens cultivars were the most susceptible and other cultivars were ranked as either susceptible, moderately susceptible, moderately tolerant, or tolerant (Ganci et al 2013;Gehesquière 2014;Shishkoff et al 2015). The efficacy of several groups of fungicides has been evaluated (Baudoin et al 2015;Ganci et al 2013;Gehesquière et al 2013;Henricot et al 2008;Henricot and Wedgwood 2013;Ivors et al 2012b;LaMondia 2014LaMondia , 2015.…”

In‐vitro antifungal activity of several biorational fungicides against Calonectria pseudonaviculata, the causal agent of Buxus hyrcana blight

“…Because of the rapid spread of the disease and its virulence, boxwood blight control appears to be difficult (Henricot et al., ). Common control measures include the integration of cultural and chemical practices such as sanitation, use of tolerant cultivars and fungicide application (Henricot et al., ; LaMondia, , ). The efficacy of several fungicides, alone or in combinations, against C. pseudonaviculata was evaluated both in‐vitro and in‐vivo conditions (Henricot et al., ; LaMondia, ).…”

“…Common control measures include the integration of cultural and chemical practices such as sanitation, use of tolerant cultivars and fungicide application (Henricot et al, 2008;LaMondia, 2014LaMondia, , 2015.…”

“…The efficacy of several fungicides, alone or in combinations, against C. pseudonaviculata was evaluated both in-vitro and in-vivo conditions (Henricot et al, 2008;LaMondia, 2015). Commercial fungicides including those containing kresoxim-methyl, tebuconazole, propiconazole, thiophanate-methyl, myclobutanil, pyraclostrobin, fludioxonil, chlorothalonil, epoxiconazole, pyraclostrobin or boscalid as active ingredients were effective against mycelial growth and conidial germination of the fungus (Henricot et al, 2008;LaMondia, 2014LaMondia, , 2015. In addition, although some chemical fungicides such have little or no adverse consequences for the environment and nontarget organisms, but are either lethal or suppressive to target fungi (Diver & Hinman, 2008;Horowitz, Ellsworth, & Ishaaya, 2009).…”