Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T18:33:55.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Influence of Environmental Factors on Infection of Rush Skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea) by Puccinia chondrillina

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Bonnie L. Blanchette  and
G. A. Lee
Bonnie L. Blanchette
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant and Soil Sci., Univ. of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843
G. A. Lee
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant and Soil Sci., Univ. of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effects of temperature and dew period on infectivity of Puccinia chondrillina Bubak and Syd. and the effect of light intensity on uredospore germination were studied under controlled environmental conditions. When rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea L.) plants were inoculated with uredospores at 8, 16, and 24 C, larger pustules developed faster at 24 C than at the cooler temperatures. The greatest amount of infection occurred at 8 and 16 C (75% of the leaf area infected compared to 25% at 24 C). The greater number of infection sites at cooler temperatures was coincident with an increase in uredospore germination at 8 and 16 C compared to 24 C. Increasing the dew period from 0 to 6 h increased the amount of infection by the rust. Light intensities as low as 0.5 klux significantly reduced uredospore germination on water agar. Germ tube growth was restricted significantly by light intensities of 2.5 to 4.5 klux. Applications of uredospores to aid in biological control of this serious weed would be most successful if made at dusk under cool temperatures when an extended dew period is expected.

Keywords

Temperaturelightdew periodbiological control
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , May 1981 , pp. 364 - 367
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Greenham, C. G. 1950. Studies on phytocides I. Diurnal variation in effectiveness of “methoxone”. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 1:148–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Groves, R. H. and Williams, J. D. 1975. Growth of skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea L.) as affected by growth of subterranean clover (Trifolium subterraneum L.) and infection by Puccinia chondrillina Bubak and Syd. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 26:975–983.Google Scholar
3. Hasan, S. 1974. Recent advances in the use of plant pathogens as biocontrol agents of weeds. PANS 20:437–443.Google Scholar
4. Hasan, S. and Wapshire, A. J. 1973. The biology of Puccinia chondrillina a potential biological control agent of skeleton weed. Ann. Appl. Biol. 74:325–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Koehler, J. W. 1965. Chondrilla juncea L. Calif. Dep. Agric. Div. Plant Ind. Weed Circ. No. 48–6, 2 pp.Google Scholar
6. Moore, R. M. and Robertson, J. A. 1963. Studies on skeleton weed-chemical control. Aust. CSIRO Div. Plant Ind. Field Stn. Rec. 2:1–8.Google Scholar
7. Schirman, R. and Robocker, W. C. 1967. Rush skeletonweed – threat to dryland agriculture. Weeds 15:310–312.Google Scholar