Paper · 2012 · Plant Disease

First Report of Spot Form Net Blotch Caused by Pyrenophora teres f. maculata on Barley in the Mon-Dak Area of the United States

R. T. Lartey; T. C. Caesar-TonThat; A. J. Caesar; et al.

9
claims
17
verbatim quotes
13
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Pyrenophora teres Drechs. causes net blotch of barley, a common foliar disease in cultivation zones around the world. The disease occurs in two forms, namely a net form net blotch (NFNB) caused by P. teres f. teres and a spot form net blotch (SFNB) caused by P. teres f. maculata. As in other parts of the northern Great Plains, in the Mon-Dak area (western North Dakota and eastern Montana), NFNB is prevalent. SFNB was first reported in western Montana in 1983 (1) and more recently in eastern North Dakota in 2010 (3) but not in the Mon-Dak area. In the summer of 2011, unusual spot lesions that were surrounded by necrosis or chlorosis were observed on different barley cultivars in fields at Williston, ND, Nesson Valley, ND, and Sidney, MT areas. Diseased leaves from various barley cvs. from the three locations were transferred to water agar and incubated at room temperature for 24 h to induce sporulation. Morphological examination of conidia (45 to 169 × 15 to 21 μm) did not show significant differences from a known isolate of P. teres f. teres 0-1 (provided by Tim Friesen, ARS, Fargo, ND). For pathogenicity testing, six 14-day-old plants of barley cv. Tradition were sprayed until runoff with a 2,000 spore/ml suspension of two isolates from each location and the control P. teres f. maculata isolate DEN2.6 (provided by Tim Friesen). Plants were incubated first in a lighted humidity chamber for 24 h and then in a greenhouse for 7 days at 21°C. Regardless of inoculum source, spot lesions surrounded by necrosis or chlorosis, typical of SFNB, appeared on the inoculated leaves within 7 days. Fungi isolated from symptomatic leaves were identified as P. teres and the morphology of the conidia was undistinguishable from those of P. teres f. teres. All control plants which were sprayed with sterile distilled water were symptomless. The pathogenicity test was repeated. Rapid PCR detection and amplicon sequencing (2) of the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region of ribosomal genes was performed on field and pathogenicity test leaf lesion samples to confirm the presence of P. teres f. maculata. DNA templates were prepared using the Extract-N-Amp Plant PCR Kits (Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, MO) and subjected to PCR using ITS1 and ITS4 primers. Amplicons were then purified and sequenced. The 585-bp nucleotide sequences of P. teres f. maculata from Mon-Dak area were submitted to GenBank under accession nos. PtmNES1 (JX187587), PtmSDY1 (JX187588), PtmSDY2 (JX187589), and PtmWIL1 (JX187590). The sequences from the four locations shared 100% similarity and also with P. teres f. maculata (EF452471) from GenBank while showing 10 nucleotide differences (99% similarity) with P. teres f. teres (EF452472).The results represent first report of SFNB in the Mon-Dak. Barley is one of the most important crops in the area. Resistance of the NFNB and SFNB of barley are controlled by different genes (4). Based on this report, SFNB therefore have to be considered in selection of barley cultivars for cultivation in the area. References: (1) H. E Bockelman et al. Plant Dis. 67:696, 1983. (2) R. T. Lartey et al. J. Sugar Beet Res. 40:1, 2003. (3) Z. H. Liu and T. L. Friesen. Plant Dis. 94:480, 2010. (4) O. M. Manninen et al. Genome. 46:1564, 2006.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 9

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spot lesions with surrounding necrosis or chlorosis appeared on barley cultivars at three sites.

Material
barley cultivarse0
Outcome
spot lesions that were surrounded by necrosis or chlorosise0
Setting
Williston, ND, Nesson Valley, ND, and Sidney, MT arease0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“unusual spot lesions that were surrounded by necrosis or chlorosis were observed on different barley cultivars in fields at Williston, ND, Nesson Valley, ND, and Sidney, MT areas.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 573–752 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Conidia showed no significant morphological difference from a known P. teres f. teres isolate.

Interactor
P. teres f. teres 0-1Pyrenophora teres f. terese0pathogen
Outcome
conidiae0
Direction
did not show significant differencese0
Value
45 to 169 × 15 to 21 μme0
Comparator
P. teres f. teres 0-1e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Pyrenophora teres f. teres
Pyrenophora teres f. teres · InteractorOlosun · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Morphological examination of conidia (45 to 169 × 15 to 21 μm) did not show significant differences from a known isolate of P. teres f. teres 0-1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 916–1061 · show in text ↑
e1

“net blotch of barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 33–53 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Inoculation produced characteristic spot lesions within seven days irrespective of isolate source.

Material
Traditione1
Treatment
inoculatede0
Interactor
SFNBe0pathogen
Outcome
spot lesions surrounded by necrosis or chlorosise0
Value
within 7 dayse0
Comparator
control plantse2

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Regardless of inoculum source, spot lesions surrounded by necrosis or chlorosis, typical of SFNB, appeared on the inoculated leaves within 7 days.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1463–1609 · show in text ↑
e1

“six 14-day-old plants of barley cv. Tradition were sprayed”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1132–1190 · show in text ↑
e2

“All control plants which were sprayed with sterile distilled water were symptomless.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1766–1850 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water-sprayed control barley plants were symptomless.

Material
Traditione1
Outcome
symptomlesse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“All control plants which were sprayed with sterile distilled water were symptomless.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1766–1850 · show in text ↑
e1

“plants of barley cv. Tradition”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1147–1177 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Isolates recovered from symptomatic leaves were identified as P. teres.

Interactor
P. teresPyrenophora terese0pathogen
Outcome
identified as P. terese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Pyrenophora teres
Pyrenophora teres · InteractorOlosun · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Fungi isolated from symptomatic leaves were identified as P. teres”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1610–1676 · show in text ↑
e1

“net blotch of barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 33–53 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Four Mon-Dak sequences showed 100% similarity to each other and a P. teres f. maculata reference.

Interactor
P. teres f. maculataPyrenophora teres f. maculatae0pathogen
Outcome
sequences from the four locations shared 100% similaritye0
Value
100%e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Pyrenophora teres f. maculata
Pyrenophora teres f. maculata · InteractorOlosun · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The sequences from the four locations shared 100% similarity and also with P. teres f. maculata (EF452471) from GenBank”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2520–2639 · show in text ↑
e1

“net blotch of barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 33–53 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mon-Dak sequences differed by 10 nucleotides from P. teres f. teres, with 99% similarity.

Interactor
P. teres f. teresPyrenophora teres f. terese0pathogen
Outcome
nucleotide differencese0
Value
10 nucleotide differencese0
Qualifier
99% similaritye0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Pyrenophora teres f. teres
Pyrenophora teres f. teres · InteractorOlosun · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“showing 10 nucleotide differences (99% similarity) with P. teres f. teres (EF452472)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2646–2730 · show in text ↑
e1

“net blotch of barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 33–53 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

This was the first report of SFNB in Mon-Dak barley.

Outcome
first report of SFNBe0
Setting
Mon-Dake0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The results represent first report of SFNB in the Mon-Dak.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2731–2789 · show in text ↑
e1

“net blotch of barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 33–53 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend considering SFNB when selecting local barley cultivars.

Outcome
SFNB therefore have to be considered in selection of barley cultivarse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“SFNB therefore have to be considered in selection of barley cultivars for cultivation in the area.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2948–3046 · show in text ↑

inoculation · physiology: pigments · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Positive and negative results

19 papers: 15 positive, 4 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

15 papers more in this group

See all 19 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.