Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reassessment of Phomopsis species on grapevines

  • Published:
Australasian Plant Pathology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ten species of Phomopsis have previously been identified from grapevines. Of these, P. viticola, the causal agent of Phomopsis cane and leaf spot, and P. vitimegaspora, the causal agent of swelling arm of grapevines, have been confirmed as severe pathogens of this host. Earlier taxonomic treatments of Phomopsis species chiefly distinguished taxa based on host specificity, cultural characteristics and morphology. More recent studies have indicated, however, that these characteristics can no longer be used to distinguish species of Phomopsis due to the wide host ranges of some species, and the morphological plasticity of others. Using morphology, DNA sequences (ITS-1, 5.8S, ITS-2) and pathogenicity data, 15 Phomopsis spp. were distinguished from grapevines in the present study. Diaporthe helianthi, a known pathogen of sunflowers, is for the first time reported from grapevines. A further six, presently unknown species of Phomopsis, are also distinguished from grapevines. A phylogenetic analysis of ITS data generated in this study distinguished three clades containing isolates previously identified as D. perjuncta. Based on type studies, the name D. viticola can be applied to collections from Portugal and Germany. A new species, D. australafricana, is proposed for South African and Australian isolates formerly treated as D. perjuncta or D. viticola. A description for D. perjuncta is provided based on newly designated lectotype and epitype specimens. D. perjuncta is distinguished from D. viticola and D. australafricana based on morphology and DNA phylogeny. Artificial inoculations of green grapevine shoots indicated that, of the species tested, P. amygdali, a known pathogen of peaches in the USA, and P. viticola were the most virulent.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Farr DF, Castlebury LA, Pardo-Schultheiss RA (1999) Phomopsis amygdali causes peach shoot blight of cultivated peach trees in the southeastern United States. Mycologia 91, 1008–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillis DM, Bull JJ (1993) An empirical test of bootstrapping as a method for assessing confidence in phylogenetic analysis. Systematic Biology 42, 182–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kajitani Y, Kanematsu S (2000) Diaporthe kyushuensis sp. nov. the teleomorph of the causal fungus of grapevine swelling arm in Japan, and its anamorph Phomopsis vitimegaspora. Mycoscience 41, 111–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuo K, Leu L-S (1998) Phomopsis vitimegaspora: a pathogenic Phomopsis from vines. Mycotaxon 66, 497–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee SB, Taylor JW (1990) Isolation of DNA from fungal mycelia and single spores. In ‘PCR protocols: a guide to methods and applications’. (Eds MA Innis, DH Gelfand, JJ Sninsky, TJ White) pp. 282–287. (Academic Press: San Diego)

    Google Scholar 

  • Melanson DL, Rawnsley B, Scheper RWA (2002) Molecular detection of Phomopsis taxa 1 and 2 in grapevine canes and buds. Australasian Plant Pathology 31, 67–73. doi: 10.1071/AP01075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrin SJ, Nair NG, Tarran J (1995) Variation in Phomopsis recorded on grapevine in Australia and its taxonomic and biological implications. Australasian Plant Pathology 24, 44–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moleleki N, Preisig O, Wingfield MJ, Crous PW, Wingfield BD (2002) PCR-RFLP and sequence data delineate several Diaporthe species associated with stone and pome fruit trees in South Africa. European Journal of Plant Pathology 108, 909–912. doi: 10.1023/A:1021296801350

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mostert L, Crous PW, Kang J-C, Phillips AJL (2001) Species of Phomopsis and a Libertella sp. occurring on grapevines with specific reference to South Africa: morphological, cultural, molecular and pathological characterization. Mycologia 93, 146–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muntañola-Cvetković M, Mihaljčević M, Petrov M (1981) On the identity of the causative agent of a serious Phomopsis-Diaporthe disease in sunflower plants. Nova Hedwigia 34, 417–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niessl G von (1876) Hedwigia 15, 153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson RC, Goheen C (1994) Phomopsis cane and leaf spot. In ‘Compendium of grape diseases’. (Eds WB Hewitt, RC Pearson) pp. 17–18. (APS Press: St Paul, MI)

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips AJL (1999) The relationship between Diaporthe perjuncta and Phomopsis viticola on grapevines. Mycologia 91, 1001–1007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pine TS (1958) Etiology of the dead-arm. Phytopathology 48, 192–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pine TS (1959) Development of the grape dead-arm disease. Phytopathology 49, 738–743.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pscheidt JW, Pearson RC (1989) Effect of grapevine training systems and pruning practices on occurrence of Phomopsis cane and leaf spot. Plant Disease 73, 825–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rambaut A (2002) ‘Sequence Alignment Editor. Version 2.0.’ (Department of Zoology, University of Oxford: Oxford)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawnsley B, Scott E, Wicks T, Stummer B (2001) Phomopsis type 1: a peculiar puzzle to solve. The Australian Grapegrower & Winemaker 452, 41–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawnsley B, Wicks T (2002) Fungicides for cane and leaf spot control. The Australian Grapegrower & Winemaker 465, 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayner RW (1970) ‘A mycological colour chart.’ (Commonwealth Mycological Institute: Kew)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rehner SA, Uecker FA (1994) Nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer phylogeny and host diversity in the coelomycete Phomopsis. Canadian Journal of Botany 72, 1666–1674.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Saccardo PA (1882) Omnium hucusque cognitorum. Sylloge Fungorum 1, 1–766.

    Google Scholar 

  • SAS (1999) ‘SAS/STAT user’s guide. Version 8.2, volume 2.’ (SAS Institute Inc.: SAS Campus Drive, Cary, NC)

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheper RWA, Crane DC, Whisson DL, Scott ES (2000) The Diaporthe teleomorph of Phomopsis Taxon 1 on grapevines. Mycological Research 104, 226–231. doi: 10.1017/S095375629900115X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swofford DL (2000) ‘Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony. Version 4.0bl0.’ (Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, MA, USA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Uddin W, Stevenson KL, Pardo-Schultheiss RA (1997) Pathogenicity of a species of Phomopsis causing shoot blight on peach in Georgia and evaluation of possible infection courts. Plant Disease 81, 983–989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uddin W, Stevenson KL, Pardo-Schultheiss RA, Rehner SA (1998) Pathogenicity and molecular characterization of three Phomopsis isolates from peach, plum, and Asian pear. Plant Disease 82, 732–737.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Uecker FA (1988) A world list of Phomopsis names with notes on nomenclature, morphology and biology. Mycologia Memoir 13, 1–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wehmeyer LE (1933) ‘The genus Diaporthe Nitsche and its segregates.’ (University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor)

    Google Scholar 

  • White TJ, Bruns T, Lee S, Taylor J (1990) Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In ‘PCR protocols: a guide to methods and applications’. (Eds MA Innis, DH Gelfand, JJ Sninsky, TJ White): pp. 315–322. (Academic Press: San Diego)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plant Pathology, University of Stellenbosch, Private Bag XI, 7602, Matieland, South Africa

    J. M. van Niekerk, J. Z. Groenewald, P. H. Fourie & P. W. Crous

  2. Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures, Fungal Biodiversity Centre, Uppsalalaan 8, 3584 CT, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    J. Z. Groenewald & P. W. Crous

  3. USDA-ARS, Systematic Botany & Mycology Laboratory, Rm 304, Bldg 011A, 20705, Beltsville, MD, USA

    D. F. Farr

  4. Disease Management, ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij, Private Bag X5026, 7599, Stellenbosch, South Africa

    F. Halleer

Authors
  1. J. M. van Niekerk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Z. Groenewald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. F. Farr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. H. Fourie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. F. Halleer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. P. W. Crous
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. W. Crous.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Niekerk, J.M., Groenewald, J.Z., Farr, D.F. et al. Reassessment of Phomopsis species on grapevines. Australasian Plant Pathology 34, 27–39 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1071/AP04072

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/AP04072

Additional keywords

Search

Navigation