Paper · 2010 · Phytopathology

Diversity and Biogeography of Sooty Blotch and Flyspeck Fungi on Apple in the Eastern and Midwestern United States

María M. Díaz Arias; Jean C. Batzer; Thomas C. Harrington; et al.

11
claims
33
verbatim quotes
71
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Sooty blotch and flyspeck (SBFS) fungi on apple fruit were sampled from nine orchards in four midwestern U.S. states during 2000 and 30 orchards in 10 eastern U.S. states during 2005 in order to estimate taxonomic diversity and discern patterns of geographic distribution. Forty apple fruit per orchard were arbitrarily sampled and colonies of each mycelial phenotype were counted on each apple. Representative colonies were isolated, cultures were purified, and DNA was extracted. For representative isolates, the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) and large subunit (LSU) regions of ribosomal DNA were amplified and sequenced. In total, 60 SBFS putative species were identified based on ITS sequences and morphological characteristics; 30 of these were discovered in the 2005 survey. Modified Koch's postulates were fulfilled for all 60 species in an Iowa orchard; colonies resulting from inoculation of apple fruit were matched to the original isolates on the basis of mycelial type and ITS sequence. Parsimony analysis for LSU sequences from both surveys revealed that 58 putative SBFS species were members of the Dothideomycetes, 52 were members of the Capnodiales, and 36 were members of the Mycosphaerellaceae. The number of SBFS species per orchard varied from 2 to 15. Number of SBFS species and values of the Margalef and Shannon indexes were significantly (P < 0.05) lower in 21 orchards that had received conventional fungicide sprays during the fruit maturation period than in 14 unsprayed orchards. Several SBFS species, including Schizothyrium pomi, Peltaster fructicola, and Pseudocercosporella sp. RH1, were nearly ubiquitous, whereas other species, such as Stomiopeltis sp. RS5.2, Phialophora sessilis, and Geastrumia polystigmatis, were found only within restricted geographic regions. The results document that the SBFS complex is far more taxonomically diverse than previously recognized and provide strong evidence that SBFS species differ in geographic distribution. To achieve more efficient management of SBFS, it may be necessary to understand the environmental biology of key SBFS species in each geographic region.

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 11

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The surveys identified 60 putative SBFS species, including 30 in 2005.

Interactor
SBFSe0pathogen
Outcome
SBFS putative speciese0
Value
60 SBFS putative speciese0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In total, 60 SBFS putative species were identified based on ITS sequences and morphological characteristics; 30 of these were discovered in the 2005 survey”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 628–783 · show in text ↑
t0

“Diversity and Biogeography of Sooty Blotch and Flyspeck Fungi on Apple in the Eastern and Midwestern United States”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–114 · show in text ↑
e1

“60 SBFS putative species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 638–662 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Thirty SBFS putative species were discovered in the 2005 survey.

Interactor
SBFSe1pathogent0
Outcome
discovered in the 2005 surveye0
Value
30e0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“30 of these were discovered in the 2005 survey”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 737–783 · show in text ↑
t0

“Diversity and Biogeography of Sooty Blotch and Flyspeck Fungi on Apple in the Eastern and Midwestern United States”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–114 · show in text ↑
e1

“60 SBFS putative species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 638–662 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All 60 putative species fulfilled modified Koch postulates in an Iowa apple orchard.

Interactor
coloniese0pathogen
Outcome
Modified Koch's postulates were fulfillede0
Value
60 speciese0
Setting
Iowa orcharde0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Modified Koch's postulates were fulfilled for all 60 species in an Iowa orchard; colonies resulting from inoculation of apple fruit were matched to the original isolates on the basis of mycelial type and ITS sequence”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 785–1001 · show in text ↑
t0

“Diversity and Biogeography of Sooty Blotch and Flyspeck Fungi on Apple in the Eastern and Midwestern United States”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–114 · show in text ↑
e1

“60 SBFS putative species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 638–662 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fifty-eight putative SBFS species belonged to Dothideomycetes.

Interactor
SBFSe0pathogen
Outcome
members of the Dothideomycetese0
Value
58 putative SBFS speciese0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“58 putative SBFS species were members of the Dothideomycetes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1072–1132 · show in text ↑
t0

“Diversity and Biogeography of Sooty Blotch and Flyspeck Fungi on Apple in the Eastern and Midwestern United States”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–114 · show in text ↑
e1

“60 SBFS putative species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 638–662 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fifty-two putative SBFS species belonged to Capnodiales.

Interactor
SBFSe1pathogent0
Outcome
members of the Capnodialese0
Value
52e0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“52 were members of the Capnodiales”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1134–1168 · show in text ↑
t0

“Diversity and Biogeography of Sooty Blotch and Flyspeck Fungi on Apple in the Eastern and Midwestern United States”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–114 · show in text ↑
e1

“60 SBFS putative species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 638–662 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Thirty-six putative SBFS species belonged to Mycosphaerellaceae.

Interactor
SBFSe1pathogent0
Outcome
members of the Mycosphaerellaceaee0
Value
36e0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“36 were members of the Mycosphaerellaceae”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1174–1215 · show in text ↑
t0

“Diversity and Biogeography of Sooty Blotch and Flyspeck Fungi on Apple in the Eastern and Midwestern United States”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–114 · show in text ↑
e1

“60 SBFS putative species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 638–662 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Orchards had 2 to 15 SBFS species.

Interactor
SBFSe0pathogen
Outcome
number of SBFS species per orcharde0
Value
2 to 15e0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The number of SBFS species per orchard varied from 2 to 15”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1217–1275 · show in text ↑
t0

“Diversity and Biogeography of Sooty Blotch and Flyspeck Fungi on Apple in the Eastern and Midwestern United States”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–114 · show in text ↑
e1

“60 SBFS putative species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 638–662 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Fungicide-sprayed orchards had significantly fewer SBFS species than unsprayed orchards.

Treatment
conventional fungicide sprayse0
Interactor
SBFSe0pathogen
Outcome
Number of SBFS speciese0
Direction
lowere0
Comparator
unsprayed orchardse0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Number of SBFS species and values of the Margalef and Shannon indexes were significantly (P < 0.05) lower in 21 orchards that had received conventional fungicide sprays during the fruit maturation period than in 14 unsprayed orchards”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1277–1510 · show in text ↑
t0

“Diversity and Biogeography of Sooty Blotch and Flyspeck Fungi on Apple in the Eastern and Midwestern United States”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–114 · show in text ↑
e1

“60 SBFS putative species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 638–662 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Fungicide-sprayed orchards had significantly lower Margalef and Shannon indexes than unsprayed orchards.

Treatment
conventional fungicide sprayse0
Interactor
SBFSe0pathogen
Outcome
values of the Margalef and Shannon indexese0
Direction
lowere0
Comparator
unsprayed orchardse0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Number of SBFS species and values of the Margalef and Shannon indexes were significantly (P < 0.05) lower in 21 orchards that had received conventional fungicide sprays during the fruit maturation period than in 14 unsprayed orchards”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1277–1510 · show in text ↑
t0

“Diversity and Biogeography of Sooty Blotch and Flyspeck Fungi on Apple in the Eastern and Midwestern United States”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–114 · show in text ↑
e1

“60 SBFS putative species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 638–662 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Schizothyrium pomi, Peltaster fructicola, and Pseudocercosporella sp. RH1 were nearly ubiquitous.

Interactor
SBFSe0pathogen
Outcome
nearly ubiquitouse0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Several SBFS species, including Schizothyrium pomi, Peltaster fructicola, and Pseudocercosporella sp. RH1, were nearly ubiquitous”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1512–1641 · show in text ↑
t0

“Diversity and Biogeography of Sooty Blotch and Flyspeck Fungi on Apple in the Eastern and Midwestern United States”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–114 · show in text ↑
e1

“60 SBFS putative species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 638–662 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Stomiopeltis sp. RS5.2, Phialophora sessilis, and Geastrumia polystigmatis had restricted geographic ranges.

Interactor
Stomiopeltis sp. RS5.2Stomiopeltis sp. RS5.2e0pathogen
Outcome
found only within restricted geographic regionse0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Stomiopeltis sp. RS5.2, Phialophora sessilis, and Geastrumia polystigmatis, were found only within restricted geographic regions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1674–1802 · show in text ↑
t0

“Diversity and Biogeography of Sooty Blotch and Flyspeck Fungi on Apple in the Eastern and Midwestern United States”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–114 · show in text ↑
e1

“60 SBFS putative species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 638–662 · show in text ↑

application · ecology: diversity · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

fungicide · disease · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

36 papers: 32 positive, 4 negative or no effect

31 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

32 papers more in this group

See all 36 papers →

application · disease · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

107 papers: 80 positive, 27 negative or no effect

79 papers in the same direction as this paper · 26 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

103 papers more in this group

See all 107 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.