New Forests

pp 1–33 | Cite as

Breeding and scientific advances in the fight against Dutch elm disease: Will they allow the use of elms in forest restoration?

  • Juan A. Martín
  • Juan Sobrino-Plata
  • Jesús Rodríguez-Calcerrada
  • Carmen Collada
  • Luis Gil
Article
  • 6 Downloads

Abstract

Elms (Ulmus spp.) were once dominant trees in mixed broadleaf forests of many European territories, mainly distributed near rivers and streams or on floodplains. Since ancient times they have provided important services to humans, and several selected genotypes have been massively propagated and planted. Today elm populations are severely degraded due to the negative impact of human-induced changes in riparian ecosystems and the emergence of the highly aggressive Dutch elm disease pathogens. Despite the death of most large elm specimens, there is no evidence of genetic diversity loss in elm populations, probably due to their ability to resprout after disease. The recovery of elm populations from the remaining diversity should build from genomic tools that facilitate achievement of resistant elm clones. Research works to date have discerned the genetic diversity of elms and are well on the way to deciphering the genetic clues of elm resistance and pathogen virulence, key findings for addressing recovery of elm populations. Several tolerant clones suitable for use in urban and landscape planting have been obtained through traditional species hybridization with Asian elms, and various native clones have been selected and used in pilot forest restoration projects. Successful reintroduction of elms should also rely on a deeper understanding of elm ecology, in particular their resilience to abiotic and biotic disturbances. However, all these efforts would be in vain without the final acceptance of elm reintroduction by the social actors involved, making it necessary to evaluate and publicize the ecosystem services elms can provide for today’s society.

Keywords

Ulmus Dutch elm disease Ophiostoma novo-ulmi Restoration Breeding 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the large number of people who have participated in research, breeding, and restoration of elms. The constructive comments by two anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged. The research and restoration works in Spain described in this work are funded by the projects AGL2015-66925-R (MINECO/FEDER) and LIFE13 BIO/ES/000556 LIFE Elm, respectively. The support of the Spanish Environmental Administration (MAPAMA) to elm breeding and research is gratefully acknowledged.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animals rights

This work did not involve human participants or animals.

References

  1. Anderbrant O, Yuvaraj JK, Martin JA, Gil L, Witzell J (2017) Feeding by bark beetles to test for differently susceptible elm varieties. J Appl Entomol 141(5):417–420Google Scholar
  2. Aoun M, Rioux D, Simard M, Bernier L (2009) Fungal colonization and host defense reactions in Ulmus americana callus cultures inoculated with Ophiostoma novo-ulmi. Phytopathology 99:642–650PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Aoun M, Jacobi V, Boyle B, Bernier L (2010) Identification and monitoring of Ulmus americana transcripts during in vitro interactions with the Dutch elm disease pathogen Ophiostoma novo-ulmi. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 74:254–266Google Scholar
  4. Armstrong JV (1992) Taxonomy of British elms. PhD Thesis, University of CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Armstrong JV, Sell PD (1996) A revision of British elms (Ulmus L., Ulmaceae): the historical background. Bot J Linn Soc 120:39–50Google Scholar
  6. Aziz AN, Sauvé RJ, Zhou S, Meng X (2003) Microprojectile-mediated genetic transformation and regeneration of Chinese elm. Can J Plant Sci 83:587–591Google Scholar
  7. Bates MR, Buck KW, Brasier CM (1993) Molecular relationships between Ophiostoma ulmi and the NAN and EAN races of O. novo-ulmi determined by restriction fragment length polymorphisms of nuclear DNA. Mycol Res 97:449–455Google Scholar
  8. Beier GL, Held BW, Giblin CP, Cavender-Bares J, Blanchette RA (2017) American elm cultivars: variation in compartmentalization of infection by Ophiostoma novo-ulmi and its effects on hydraulic conductivity. For Pathol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/efp.12369 Google Scholar
  9. Benito J (1936) La grafiosis del olmo y la demostración de su existencia en España. Instituto Forestal de Investigaciones y Experiencias, MadridGoogle Scholar
  10. Bernier L, Jeng RS, Hubbes M (1983) Differentiation of aggressive and non-aggressive strains of Ceratocystis ulmi by polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis of intramycelial enzymes. Mycotaxon 17:456–472Google Scholar
  11. Bernier L, Yang D, Ouellette GB, Dessureault M (1996) Assessment of Phaeotheca dimorphospora for biological control of the Dutch elm disease pathogens, Ophiostoma ulmi and O. novo-ulmi. Plant Pathol 45:609–617Google Scholar
  12. Bernier L, Aoun M, Bouvet GF, Comeau A, Dufour J, Naruzawa ES, Nigg M, Plourde KV (2015) Genomics of the Dutch elm disease pathosystem: are we there yet? iForest 8:149–157Google Scholar
  13. Bertolasi B, Leonarduzzi C, Piotti A, Leonardi S, Zago L, Gui L, Gorian F, Vanetti I, Binelli G (2015) A last stand in the Po valley: genetic structure and gene flow patterns in Ulmus minor and U. pumila. Ann Bot-London 115:683–692Google Scholar
  14. Bettucci L, Alonso R (1997) A comparative study of fungal populations in healthy and symptomatic twigs of Eucalyptus grandis in Uruguay. Mycol Res 101:1060–1064Google Scholar
  15. Biggs AR (1992) Responses of angiosperm bark tissues to fungi causing cankers and canker rots. In: Blanchette RA, Biggs AR (eds) Defense mechanisms of woody plants against fungi. Springer series in wood science. Springer, Berlin, pp 41–61Google Scholar
  16. Blumenstein K, Albrectsen BR, Martín JA, Hultberg M, Sieber TN, Helander M, Witzell J (2015) Nutritional niche overlap potentiates the use of endophytes in biocontrol of a tree disease. Biocontrol 60:655–667Google Scholar
  17. Bolyard MG, Hajela RK, Sticklen MB (1991) Microprojectile and Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of pioneer elm. J Arboric 17:34–37Google Scholar
  18. Bosu PP, Wagner MR (2008) Anatomical and nutritional factors associated with susceptibility of elms (Ulmus spp.) to the Elm Leaf Beetle (Coleoptera: chrysomelidae). J Econom Entomol 101:944–954Google Scholar
  19. Boudon-Padieu E, Larrue J, Clair D, Hourdel J, Jeanneau A, Sforza R, Collin E (2004) Detection and prophylaxis of elm yellows phytoplasma in France. Invest Agrar: Sist Recur For 13:71–80Google Scholar
  20. Bouvet GF, Jacobi V, Bernier L (2007) Characterization of three DNA transposons in the Dutch elm disease fungi and evidence of repeat-induced point (RIP) mutations. Fungal Genet Biol 44:430–443PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Bowden CG, Hintz WE, Jeng RS, Hubbes M, Horgen PA (1994) Isolation and characterization of the cerato-ulmin gene of the Dutch elm disease pathogen, Ophiostoma ulmi. Curr Genet 25:323–329PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Bowden CG, Smalley E, Guries RP, Hubbes M, Temple B, Horgen PA (1996) Lack of association between cerato-ulmin production and virulence in Ophiostoma novo-ulmi. Mol Plant-Microbe In 9:556–564Google Scholar
  23. Brasier CM (1986) The d-factor in Ceratocystis ulmi – its biological characteristics and implications for Dutch elm disease. In: Buck KW (ed) Fungal virology. CRC Press, Florida, pp 177–208Google Scholar
  24. Brasier CM (1996) New horizons in Dutch elm disease control. Report on Forest Research 1996. HMSO, London, pp 20–28Google Scholar
  25. Brasier CM (2000a) Intercontinental spread and continuing evolution of the Dutch elm disease pathogens. In: Dunn CP (ed) The elms: breeding, conservation and disease management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, pp 61–72Google Scholar
  26. Brasier CM (2000b) Viruses as biological control agents of the Dutch elm disease fungus Ophiostoma novo-ulmi. In: Dunn CP (ed) The elms, breeding, conservation, and disease management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, pp 201–212Google Scholar
  27. Brasier CM, Kirk SA (2010) Rapid emergence of hybrids between the two subspecies of Ophiostoma novo-ulmi with a high level of pathogenic fitness. Plant Pathol 59:186–199Google Scholar
  28. Brasier CM, Kirk SA, Pipe N, Buck KW (1998) Rare hybrids in natural populations of the Dutch elm disease pathogens Ophiostoma ulmi and O. novo-ulmi. Mycol Res 102:45–57Google Scholar
  29. Brasier CM, Buck K, Paoletti M, Crawford L, Kirk S (2004) Molecular analysis of evolutionary changes in populations of Ophiostoma novo-ulmi. Invest Agrar: Sist Recur For 13:93–103Google Scholar
  30. Bräutigam A, Gowik U (2010) What can next generation sequencing do for you? Next generation sequencing as a valuable tool in plant research. Plant Biol 12:831–841PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Brunet J, Zalapa JE, Pecori F, Santini A (2013) Hybridization and introgression between the exotic Siberian elm, Ulmus pumila, and the native Field elm, U. minor, in Italy. Biol Invasions 15:2717–2730Google Scholar
  32. Brunet J, Zalapa J, Guries R (2016) Conservation of genetic diversity in slippery elm (Ulmus rubra) in Wisconsin despite the devastating impact of Dutch elm disease. Conserv Genet 17:1001–1010Google Scholar
  33. Büchel K, McDowell E, Nelson W, Descour A, Gershenzon J, Hilker M, Soderlund C, Gang DR, Fenning T, Meiners T (2012) An elm EST database for identifying leaf beetle egg-induced defense genes. BMC Genom 13:242Google Scholar
  34. Büchel K, Fenning T, Gershenzon J, Hilker M, Meiners T (2016) Elm defence against herbivores and pathogens: morphological, chemical and molecular regulation aspects. Phytochem Rev 15:961–983Google Scholar
  35. Buisman CJ (1928) The cause of the elm disease. Translated in: Holmes FW, Heybroek HM (1990) Dutch elm disease–the early papers. APS Press, St. Paul, pp 105–110Google Scholar
  36. Buiteveld J, Van Der Werf B, Hiemstra JA (2015) Comparison of commercial elm cultivars and promising unreleased Dutch clones for resistance to Ophiostoma novo-ulmi. iForest 8:158–164Google Scholar
  37. Buiteveld J, Vanden Broeck A, Cox K, Collin E (2016) Human impact on the genetic diversity of Dutch field elm (Ulmus minor) populations in the Netherlands: implications for conservation. Plant Ecol Evol 149:165–176Google Scholar
  38. Clark SL, Schlarbaum SE, Saxton AM, Hebard FV (2016) Establishment of American chestnuts (Castanea dentata) bred for blight (Cryphonectria parasitica) resistance: influence of breeding and nursery grading. New Forest 47:243–270Google Scholar
  39. Cogolludo-Agustin MA, Agundez D, Gil L (2000) Identification of native and hybrid elms in Spain using isozyme gene markers. Heredity 85:157–166PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Coleman M, A’Hara SW, Tomlinson PR, Davey PJ (2016) Elm clone identification and the conundrum of the slow spread of Dutch elm disease on the Isle of man. New J Bot 6:79–89Google Scholar
  41. Collada C, Fuentes-Utrilla P, Gil L, Cervera MT (2004) Characterization of microsatellite loci in Ulmus minor miller and cross-amplification in U. glabra Hudson and U. laevis Pall. Mol Ecol Resour 4:731–732Google Scholar
  42. Collin E, Bozzano M (2015) Implementing the dynamic conservation of elm genetic resources in Europe: case studies and perspectives. iForest 8:143–148Google Scholar
  43. Collin E, Bilger I, Eriksson G, Turok J (2000) The conservation of elm genetic resources in Europe. In: Dunn CP (ed) The elms: breeding, conservation and disease management. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 281–293Google Scholar
  44. Collin E, Rusanen M, Ackzell L, Bohnens J, De Aguiar A, Diamandis S, Franke A, Gil L, Harvengt L, Hollingsworth P, Jenkins G, Meier-Dinkel A, Mittempergher L, Musch B, Nagy L, Pâques M, Pinon J, Piou D, Rotach P, Santini A, Broeck AV, Wolf AH (2004) Methods and progress in the conservation of elm genetic resources in Europe. Invest Agrar: Sist Recur For 13:261–272Google Scholar
  45. Comeau AM, Dufour J, Bouvet GF, Jacobi V, Nigg M, Henrissat B, Laroche J, Levesque RC, Bernier L (2015) Functional annotation of the Ophiostoma novo-ulmi genome: insights into the phytopathogenicity of the fungal agent of Dutch elm disease. Genome Biol Evol 7:410–430Google Scholar
  46. Corredoira E, San José MC, Vieitez AM, Allona I, Aragoncillo C, Ballester A (2016) Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of European chestnut somatic embryos with a Castanea sativa (Mill.) endochitinase gene. New Forest 47:669–684Google Scholar
  47. Dahlsten DL, Rowney DL, Tait SM (1994) Development of integrated pest management programs in urban forests: the elm leaf beetle (Xanthogaleruca luteola (Müller)) in California, USA. For Ecol Manag 65:31–44Google Scholar
  48. Dorion N, Hassairi A, Guyon P, Godin B, Bigot C (1995) In vitro budding ability of woody internode and Agrobacterium susceptibility as prerequisites for elm genetic transformation. J Plant Physiol 146:699–703Google Scholar
  49. Duchesne LC (1993) Mechanisms of resistance: can they help save susceptible elms? In: Sticklen MB, Sherald JL (eds) Dutch elm disease research—cellular and molecular approaches. Springer, New York, pp 239–254Google Scholar
  50. Et-Touil A, Brasier CM, Bernier L (1999) Localization of a pathogenicity gene in Ophiostoma novo-ulmi and evidence that it may be introgressed from O. ulmi. Mol Plant Microbe In 12:6–15Google Scholar
  51. Fenning TM, Tymens SS, Gartland JS, Brasier CM, Gartland KMA (1996) Transformation and regeneration of English elm using wild-type Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Plant Sci 116:37–46Google Scholar
  52. Fenning TM, Gartland JS, Brasier CM, Tymens SS, Gartland KMA (1997) Strategies for genetic manipulation of elm trees. In: Ahuja MR (ed) Somatic cell genetics and molecular genetics of trees. For Sci vol 49, pp 105–112Google Scholar
  53. Forgetta V, Leveque G, Dias J, Grove D, Lyons R Jr, Genik S, Wright C, Singh S, Peterson N, Zianni M, Kieleczawa J, Hintz W, Jacobi V, Bernier L, Levesque R, Dewar K (2013) Comparison of multiple genome sequencing centers and analysis of the Dutch elm disease fungus genome using the Roche/454 GS-FLX Titanium System. J Biomol Tech 24:39–49PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Foster ES, Heffner E (translators) (1954) Lucius junius moderatus columella: on agriculture II. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, reprinted 1977Google Scholar
  55. Fuentes-Utrilla P, Venturas M, Hollingsworth PM, Squirrell J, Collada C, Stone GN, Gil L (2014) Extending glacial refugia for a European tree: genetic markers show that Iberian populations of white elm are native relicts and not introductions. Heredity 112:105–113PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Ganley RJ, Bulman LS (2016) Dutch elm disease in New Zealand: impacts from eradication and management programmes. Plant Pathol 65:1047–1055Google Scholar
  57. Gartland JS, McHugh AT, Brasier CM, Irvine RJ, Fenning TM, Gartland KMA (2000) Regeneration of phenotypically normal English elm (Ulmus procera) plantlets following transformation with an Agrobacterium tumefaciens binary vector. Tree Physiol 20:901–907PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Gartland JS, Brasier CM, Fenning TM, Birch R, Gartland KMA (2001) Ri-plasmid mediated transformation and regeneration of Ulmus procera (English elm). Plant Growth Regul 33:123–129Google Scholar
  59. Gartland KMA, McHugh AT, Crow RM, Garg A, Gartland JS (2005) 2004 SIVB congress symposium proceeding: biotechnological progress in dealing with Dutch elm disease. In Vitro Cell Dev-Pl 41:364–367Google Scholar
  60. Gennaro M, Gonthier P, Nicolotti G (2003) Fungal endophytic communities in healthy and declining Quercus robur L. and Q. cerris L. trees in northern Italy. J Phytopathol 151:529–534Google Scholar
  61. Ghelardini L, Santini A (2009) Avoidance by early flushing: a new perspective on Dutch elm disease research. iForest 2:143–153Google Scholar
  62. Gil L, López R, García-Nieto ME (2003) Historia de los olmos en la Península Ibérica. In: Gil L, Solla A, Iglesias S (eds) Los olmos ibéricos: conservación y mejora frente a la grafiosis. Organismo Autónomo Parques Nacionales, pp 69–114Google Scholar
  63. Gil L, Fuentes-Utrilla P, Soto A, Cervera MT, Collada C (2004) English elm (Ulmus procera) is a 2000-year-old Roman clone. Nature 431:1035Google Scholar
  64. Goidanich G (1936) La moria dell’olmo (Graphium ulmi). Ramo Editoriale Degli Agricoltori, RomaGoogle Scholar
  65. Griffin GJ (2000) Blight control and restoration of the American chestnut. J For 98:22–27Google Scholar
  66. Griffin JJ, Jacobi WR, McPherson G et al (2017) Ten-year performance of the United States national elm trial. Arboric Urban For 43:107–120Google Scholar
  67. Gross A, Holdenrieder O, Pautasso M, Queloz V, Siebe TN (2014) Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus, the causal agent of European ash dieback. Mol Plant Pathol 15:5–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Häggman H, Sutela S, Fladung M (2016) Genetic engineering contribution to forest tree breeding efforts. In: Vettori C, Gallardo F, Häggman H, Kazana V, Migliacci F, Pilate G, Fladung M (eds) Biosafety of forest transgenic trees. Springer, Berlin, pp 11–29Google Scholar
  69. Han K, Dharmawardhana P, Arias R, Ma C, Busov V, Strauss S (2010) Gibberellin associated cisgenes modify growth, stature and wood properties in Populus. Plant Biotechnol J 9:162–178Google Scholar
  70. Heybroek HM (1993a) Why bother about the elm? In: Sticklen MB, Sherald JL (eds) Dutch elm disease research: cellular and molecular approaches. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  71. Heybroek HM (1993b) The Dutch elm breeding program. In: Sticklen MB, Sherald J (eds) Dutch elm disease research: cellular and molecular approaches. Springer, New York, pp 16–25Google Scholar
  72. Heybroek HM (2015) The elm, tree of milk and wine. iForest 8:181–186Google Scholar
  73. Hiemstra J (2013) Come-back of the elm as street tree in the Netherlands. Presentation at 3rd international elm conference florence (Italy) 9–11 October 2013. Book of Abstracts: 8Google Scholar
  74. Hintz WE, Jeng RS, Hubbes M, Horgen PA (1991) Identification of three populations of Ophiostoma ulmi (aggressive subgroup) by mitochondrial DNA restriction-site mapping and nuclear DNA fingerprinting. Exp Mycol 15:316–325Google Scholar
  75. Hintz WE, Carneiro JS, Kassatenko I, Varga A, James D (2013) Two novel mitoviruses from a Canadian isolate of the Dutch elm pathogen Ophiostoma novo-ulmi (93–1224). Virol J 10:252PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. Hoegger PJ, Binz T, Heiniger U (1996) Detection of genetic variation between Ophiostoma ulmi and the NAN and EAN races of O. novo-ulmi in Switzerland using RAPD markers. Eur J For Pathol 26:57–68Google Scholar
  77. Holgado-Redondo A (1988) De los trabajos del campo, de Lucio Junio Moderato Columela. Siglo XXI de España y MAPA, MadridGoogle Scholar
  78. Hollingsworth PM, Hollingsworth ML, Coleman M (2000) The European elms: Molecular markers, population genetics, and biosystematics. In: Dunn CP (ed) The elms: breeding, conservation and disease management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, pp 3–20Google Scholar
  79. Hooper WD, Ash HR (1934) Cato and Varro. De re rustica. Loeb Classical Library, LondonGoogle Scholar
  80. Hort AF (1916) Teophrastus. Enquiry into plants. William Heineman–Hardvard University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  81. Hou H, Atlihan N, Lu Z-X (2014) New biotechnology enhances the application of cisgenesis in plant breeding. Front Plant Sci 5:389PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  82. Hubbes M (2004) Induced resistance for the control of Dutch elm disease. Invest Agrar: Sist Recur For 13:185–196Google Scholar
  83. Hubbes M, Jeng RS (1981) Aggressiveness of Ceratocystis ulmi strains and induction of resistance in Ulmus americana. Eur J For Pathol 11:257–264Google Scholar
  84. Hunter P (2016) Plant microbiomes and sustainable agriculture. EMBO Rep 17:1696–1699PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  85. Iglesias S (2005) Normativa de comercialización de material forestal de reproducción. In: Alía A, Alba N, Agúndez D, Iglesias S (eds) Manual para la Comercialización y Producción de Semillas y Plantas Forestales, Materiales de Base y Reproducción. Organismo Autónomo Parques Nacionales, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Madrid, pp 39–58Google Scholar
  86. Jacobs DF (2007) Toward development of silvical strategies for forest restoration of American chestnut (Castanea dentata) using blight-resistant hybrids. Biol Conserv 137:497–506Google Scholar
  87. Jacobs DF, Dalgleish HJ, Nelson CD (2013) A conceptual framework for restoration of threatened plants: the effective model of American chestnut (Castanea dentata) reintroduction. New Phytol 197:378–393PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Jeng RS, Hubbes M (1983) Identification of aggressive and non-aggressive strains of Ceratocystis ulmi by polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis of intramycelial proteins. Mycotaxon 17:445–455Google Scholar
  89. Jeng RS, Duchesne LC, Sabourin M, Hubbes M (1991) Mitochondria1 DNAs restriction length polymorphisms of aggressive and non-aggressive isolates of Ophiostoma ulmi. Mycol Res 95:537–542Google Scholar
  90. Khoshraftar S, Hung S, Khan S, Gong Y, Tyagi V, Parkinson J, Sain M, Moses AM, Christendat D (2013) Sequencing and annotation of the Ophiostoma ulmi genome. BMC Genom 14:162–172Google Scholar
  91. Knight KS, Slavicek JM, Kappler R, Pisarczyk E, Wiggin B, Menard K (2012) Using Dutch elm disease-tolerant elm to restore floodplains impacted by emerald ash borer. In: Sniezko RA et al (ed) Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on the genetics of host–parasite interactions in forestry: disease and insect resistance in forest trees. 2011 July 31–August 5, Eugene, OR. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-240. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, pp 317–323Google Scholar
  92. Knight KS, Haugen LM, Pinchot CC, Schaberg PG, Slavicek JM (2017). American elm (Ulmus americana) in restoration plantings: a review. In: Proceedings of the American elm restoration workshop 2016, USDA General Technical Report NRS-P-174, pp 133–140Google Scholar
  93. Kolb TE, Fettig CJ, Ayres MP, Bentz BJ, Hicke JA, Mathiasen R, Stewart JE, Weed AS (2016) Observed and anticipated impacts of drought on forest insects and diseases in the United States. For Ecol Manag 380:321–334Google Scholar
  94. Kubisiak TL, Milgroom MG (2006) Markers linked to vegetative incompatibility(vic) genes and a region of high heterogeneity and reduced recombination near the mating type locus (mat) in Cryphonectria parasitica. Fungal Genet Biol 43:453–463PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. Kwong RM, Field RP (1994) Elm leaf beetle history and distribution in southern Victoria. Plant Protect Quart 9:43–47Google Scholar
  96. Ledford H (2015) CRISPR, the disruptor. Nature 522:20–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Lee IM, Martini M, Marcone C, Zhu SF (2004) Classification of phytoplasma strains in the elm yellows group (16SrV) and proposal of ‘Candidatus Phytoplasma ulmi’ for the phytoplasma associated with elm yellows. Int J Syst Evol Micr 54:337–347Google Scholar
  98. Li M, López R, Venturas M, Pita P, Gordaliza GG, Gil L, Rodríguez-Calcerrada J (2015) Greater resistance to flooding of seedlings of Ulmus laevis than Ulmus minor is related to the maintenance of a more positive carbon balance. Trees 29:835–848Google Scholar
  99. Li M, López R, Venturas M, Martín JA, Domínguez J, Gordaliza GG, Gil L, Rodríguez-Calcerrada J (2016) Physiological and biochemical differences among Ulmus minor genotypes showing a gradient of resistance to Dutch elm disease. For Pathol 46:215–228Google Scholar
  100. Mackenthun GL (2000) Native Elms of Saxony, Germany. In: Dunn CP (ed) The elms: breeding, conservation, and disease management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp 305–314Google Scholar
  101. Mackenthun GL (2004) The role of Ulmus laevis in German floodplain landscapes. Invest Agrar: Sist Recur For 13:55–63Google Scholar
  102. Mackenthun GL (2013) Elm Losses and their Causes over a 20 Year period—A long-term Study of Ulmus in Saxony, Germany. In: 3rd international elm conference, Florence (Italy) 9–11 October 2013. Book of abstracts, CNR-IPP Institute of Plant ProtectionGoogle Scholar
  103. Marcone C (2017) Elm yellows: a phytoplasma disease of concern in forest and landscape ecosystems. Forest Pathol 47:e12324Google Scholar
  104. Marcotrigiano M (2017) Elms revisited. Arboric Urban For 43:217–241Google Scholar
  105. Martín JA, Solla A, Coimbra MA, Gil L (2008) Metabolic fingerprinting allows discrimination between Ulmus pumila and U. minor, and between U. minor clones of different susceptibility to Dutch elm disease. For Pathol 38:244–256Google Scholar
  106. Martín JA, Solla A, Esteban LG, De Palacios P, Gil L (2009) Bordered pit and ray morphology involvement in elm resistance to Ophiostoma novo-ulmi. Can J For Res 39:420–429Google Scholar
  107. Martín JA, Solla A, Gil L, García-Vallejo MC (2010) Phenological and histochemical changes of Ulmus minor due to root absorption of phenol: implications for resistance to DED. Environ Exp Bot 69:175–182Google Scholar
  108. Martín JA, Witzell J, Blumenstein K, Rozpedowska E, Helander M, Sieber T, Gil L (2013) Resistance to Dutch elm disease reduces presence of xylem endophytic fungi in elms (Ulmus spp.). PLoS ONE 8:e56987PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  109. Martín JA, Solla A, Venturas M, Collada C, Domínguez J, Miranda E, Fuentes P, Burón M, Iglesias S, Gil L (2015a) Seven Ulmus minor clones tolerant to Ophiostoma novo-ulmi registered as forest reproductive material in Spain. iForest 8:172–180Google Scholar
  110. Martín JA, Macaya-Sanz D, Witzell J, Blumenstein K, Gil L (2015b) Strong in vitro antagonism by elm xylem endophytes is not accompanied by temporally stable in planta protection against a vascular pathogen under field conditions. Eur J Plant Pathol 60:655–667Google Scholar
  111. Masuya H, Brasier C, Ichihara Y, Kubono T, Kanzaki N (2010) First report of the Dutch elm disease pathogens Ophiostoma ulmi and O. novo-ulmi in Japan. Plant Pathol 59:805Google Scholar
  112. Mauch-Mani B, Slusarenko AJ (1996) Production of salicylic acid precursors is a major function of phenylalanine ammonia-lyase in the resistance of Arabidopsis to Peronospora parasitica. Plant Cell 8:203–212PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  113. McNabb HS Jr, Heybroek HM, MacDonald WL (1970) Anatomical factors in resistance to Dutch elm disease. Neth J Plant Pathol 76:196–204Google Scholar
  114. Meiners T, Hilker M (2000) Induction of plant synomones by oviposition of a phytophagous insect. J Chem Ecol 26:221–232Google Scholar
  115. Melville R (1975) Ulmus. In: Stace CA (ed) Hybridization and the flora of the British Isles. Academic Press, London, pp 292–299Google Scholar
  116. Mittempergher L (2000) Elm yellows in Europe. In: Dunn CP (ed) The elms: breeding, conservation, and disease management. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Boston, pp 103–119Google Scholar
  117. Mittempergher L, La Porta N (1991) Hybridization studies in the Eurasian species of elm (Ulmus spp.). Silvae Genet 40:237–243Google Scholar
  118. Mittempergher L, Santini A (2004) The history of elm breeding. Invest Agrar: Sist Recur For 13:161–177Google Scholar
  119. Morris H, Brodersen C, Schwarze FWMR, Jansen S (2016) The parenchyma of secondary xylem and its critical role in tree defense against fungal decay in relation to the CODIT model. Front Plant Sci 7:1665PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  120. Moure-Casas A (Trans.) (1990) Tratado de agricultura: Medicina veterinaria. Poema de los injertos/Paladio; traducción, introducción y notas de Ana Moure Casas. Editorial Gredos, MadridGoogle Scholar
  121. Nasmith C, Jeng R, Hubbes M (2008a) Targeted gene analysis in Ulmus americana and U. pumila tissues. For Pathol 38:90–103Google Scholar
  122. Nasmith C, Jeng R, Hubbes M (2008b) A comparison of in vivo targeted gene expression during fungal colonization of DED-susceptible Ulmus americana. For Pathol 38:104–112Google Scholar
  123. Newbanks D, Bosch A, Zimmermann MH (1983) Evidence for xylem dysfunction by embolization in Dutch elm disease. Phytopathology 73:1060–1063Google Scholar
  124. Newcombe G (2011) Endophytes in forest management: four challenges. In: Pirttilä AM, Frank AC (eds) Endophytes of forest trees: biology and applications, forestry sciences 80. Springer, Berlin, pp 251–262Google Scholar
  125. Newhouse AE, Schrodt F, Liang H, Maynard CA, Powell WA (2007) Transgenic American elm shows reduced Dutch elm disease symptoms and normal mycorrhizal colonization. Plant Cell Rep 26:977–987PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. Newsome RD, Kozlowski TT, Tang ZC (1982) Responses of Ulmus americana seedlings to flooding of soil. Can J Bot 60:1688–1695Google Scholar
  127. Nielsen LR, Kjær ED (2010a) Gene flow and mating patterns in individuals of wych elm (Ulmus glabra) in forest and open land after the influence of Dutch elm disease. Conserv Genet 11:257–268Google Scholar
  128. Nielsen LR, Kjær ED (2010b) Fine-scale gene flow and genetic structure in a relic Ulmus laevis population at its northern range. Tree Genet Genomes 6:643–649Google Scholar
  129. Nigg M, Bernier L (2016) From yeast to hypha: defining transcriptomic signatures of the morphological switch in the dimorphic fungal pathogen Ophiostoma novo-ulmi. BMC Genom 17:920Google Scholar
  130. Nigg M, Laroche J, Landry CR, Bernier L (2015) RNAseq analysis highlights specific transcriptome signatures of yeast and mycelial growth phases in the Dutch elm disease fungus Ophiostoma novo-ulmi. G3-Genes Genom Genet 5:2487–2495Google Scholar
  131. O’Callaghan DP, Gallager EM, Lanier GN (1980) Field evaluation of pheromone-baited trap trees to control elm bark beetle vectors of Dutch elm disease. Environ Entomol 9:181–185Google Scholar
  132. Oheimb G, Brunet J (2007) Dalby Söderskog revisited: long-term vegetation changes in a south Swedish deciduous forest. Acta Oecol 31:229–242Google Scholar
  133. Oliveira H, Sousa A, Alves A, Nogueira AJA, Santos C (2012) Inoculation with Ophiostoma novo-ulmi subsp. americana affects photosynthesis, nutrition and oxidative stress in in vitro Ulmus minor plants. Env Exp Bot 77:146–155Google Scholar
  134. Ouellette GB, Rioux D (1992) Anatomical and physiological aspects of resistance to Dutch elm disease. In: Blanchette RA, Biggs AR (eds) Defense mechanisms of woody plants against fungi. Springer series in wood science. Springer, Berlin, pp 257–307Google Scholar
  135. Pajares JA, Martínez de Azagra A (1990) Métodos y estrategias en el control de la grafiosis. In: Gil L (ed) Los olmos y la grafiosis en España. ICONA, Colección Técnica, pp 215–246Google Scholar
  136. Pajares JA, García S, Díez JJ, Martín D, García-Vallejo MC (2004) Feeding responses by Scolytus scolytus to twig bark extracts from elms. Invest Agrar: Sist Recur For 13:217–225Google Scholar
  137. Parker GR, Leopold DJ (1983) Replacement of Ulmus americana L in a mature east-central Indiana woods. B Torrey Bot Club 110:482–488Google Scholar
  138. Perdiguero P, Venturas M, Cervera MT, Gil L, Collada C (2015) Massive sequencing of Ulmus minor’s transcriptome provides new molecular tools for a genus under the constant threat of Dutch elm disease. Front Plant Sci 6:541PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  139. Perdiguero P, Sobrino-Plata J, Venturas M, Martín JA, Gil L, Collada C (2018) Gene expression tradeoffs between defence and growth in English elm induced by Ophiostoma novo-ulmi. Plant Cell Environ 41:198–214PubMedGoogle Scholar
  140. Perez-Garcia I (2016) Evaluación de Ulmus pumila L. y Populus spp. como cultivo energético en corta rotación. PhD thesis, Universidad Politécnica de MadridGoogle Scholar
  141. Pérez-Jiménez A, Martínez Díez A (Trans.) (1978) Hesíodo, obras y fragmentos. Editorial Gredos, MadridGoogle Scholar
  142. Peterken G, Mountford EP (1998) Long-term change in an unmanaged population of wych elm subjected to Dutch elm disease. J Ecol 86:205–218Google Scholar
  143. Pieterse CM, Van der Does D, Zamioudis C, Leon-Reyes A, Van Wees SC (2012) Hormonal modulation of plant immunity. Annu Rev Cell Dev Bi 28:489–521Google Scholar
  144. Pita P, Rodríguez-Calcerrada J, Medel D, Gil L (2018) Further insights into the components of resistance to Ophiostoma novo-ulmi in Ulmus minor: hydraulic conductance, stomatal sensitivity and bark dehydration. Tree Physiol 38:252–262PubMedGoogle Scholar
  145. Postma J, Goossen-van de Geijn H (2016) Twenty-four years of Dutch Trig application to control Dutch elm disese. Biocontrol 16:305–312Google Scholar
  146. Powell WA, Catranis CM, Maynard CA (2000) Design of selfprocessing antimicrobial peptides for plant protection. Lett Appl Microbiol 31:163–168PubMedGoogle Scholar
  147. Rhee SY, Mutwil M (2014) Towards revealing the functions of all genes in plants. Trends Plant Sci 19:212–221PubMedGoogle Scholar
  148. Richens RH (1983) Elm. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  149. Roden LC, Ingle RA (2009) Lights, rhythms, infection: the role of light and the circadian clock in determining the outcome of plant–pathogen interactions. Plant Cell 21:2546–2552PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  150. Rodríguez-Calcerrada J, Li M, López R, Cano FJ, Oleksyn J, Atkin OK, Pita P, Aranda I, Gil L (2017) Drought-induced shoot dieback starts with massive root xylem embolism and variable depletion of non-structural carbohydrates in seedlings of two tree species. New Phytol 213:597–610PubMedGoogle Scholar
  151. Ryals JA, Neuenschwander UH, Willits MG, Molina A, Steiner HY, Hunt MD (1996) Systemic acquired resistance. Plant Cell 8:1809–1819PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  152. Saba G, Parizanganeh AH, Zamani A, Saba J (2015) Phytoremediation of heavy metals contaminated environments: screening for native accumulator plants in Zanjan-Iran. Int J Environ Res 9:309–316Google Scholar
  153. Santini A, Faccoli M (2015) Dutch elm disease and elm bark beetles: a century of association. iForest 8:126–134Google Scholar
  154. Santini A, Fagnani A, Ferrini F, Mittempergher L, Brunetti M, Crivellaro A, Macchioni N (2004) Elm breeding for DED resistance, the Italian clones and their wood properties. Invest Agrar: Sist Recur For 13:179–184Google Scholar
  155. Santini A, Montaghi A, Vendramin GG, Capretti P (2005) Analysis of the Italian Dutch elm disease fungal population. J Phytopathol 153:73–79Google Scholar
  156. Santini A, Pecori F, Ghelardini L (2012) The Italian elm breeding program for Dutch elm disease resistance. In: Sniezko RA et al (ed) Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on genetics of host–parasite interactions in forestry. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-240. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Albany, CA, pp 326–335Google Scholar
  157. Santini A, Ghelardini L, De Pace C, Desprez-Loustau ML, Capretti P, Chandelier A, Cech T, Chira D, Diamandis S, Gaitniekis T, Hantula J, Holdenrieder O, Jankovsky L, Jung T, Jurc D, Kirisits T, Kunca A, Lygis V, Malecka M, Marcais B, Schmitz S, Schumacher J, Solheim H, Solla A, Szabò I, Tsopelas P, Vannini A, Vettraino AM, Webber J, Woodward S, Stenlid J (2013) Biogeographical patterns and determinants of invasion by forest pathogens in Europe. New Phytol 197:238–250PubMedGoogle Scholar
  158. Scheffer RJ (1983) Biological control of Dutch elm disease by Pseudomonas species. Ann Appl Biol 103:21–30Google Scholar
  159. Scheffer RJ (1990) Mechanisms involved in biological control of Dutch elm disease. J Phytopathol 130:265–276Google Scholar
  160. Scheffer RJ, Voeten JGWF, Guries RP (2008) Biological control of Dutch elm disease. Plant Dis 92:192–200Google Scholar
  161. Sherif SM, Shukla MR, Murch SJ, Bernier L, Saxena PK (2016) Simultaneous induction of jasmonic acid and disease-responsive genes signifies tolerance of American elm to Dutch elm disease. Sci Rep-UK 6:21934Google Scholar
  162. Sherif SM, Erland LA, Shukla MR, Saxena PK (2017) Bark and wood tissues of American elm exhibit distinct responses to Dutch elm disease. Sci Rep-UK 7:7114Google Scholar
  163. Sherman-Broyles SL, Broyles SB, Hamrick JL (1992) Geographic distribution of allozyme variation in Ulmus crassifolia. Syst Bot 17:33–41Google Scholar
  164. Sinclair WA, Welch DS, Parker KG, Tyler RJ (1974) Selection of American elms for resistance to Ceratocystis ulmi. Plant Dis Rep 58:784–788Google Scholar
  165. Smalley EB, Guries RP, Lester RP (1993) American liberty elms and beyond: going from the impossible to the difficult. In: Sticklen MB, Sherald JL (eds) Dutch elm disease research: cellular and molecular approaches. Springer, New York, pp 26–45Google Scholar
  166. Solla A (2000) Mejora genética de Ulmus minor Miller. Selección de ejemplares resistentes a la grafiosis. PhD thesis, Universidad Politécnica de MadridGoogle Scholar
  167. Solla A, Gil L (2002a) Xylem vessel diameter as a factor in resistance of Ulmus minor to Ophiostoma novo-ulmi. For Pathol 32:123–134Google Scholar
  168. Solla A, Gil L (2002b) Influence of water stress on Dutch elm disease symptoms in Ulmus minor. Can J Bot 80:810–817Google Scholar
  169. Solla A, Gil L (2003) Evaluating Verticillium dahliae for biological control of Ophiostoma novo-ulmi in Ulmus minor. Plant Pathol 52:579–585Google Scholar
  170. Solla A, Bohnens J, Collin E, Diamandis S, Franke A, Gil L, Burón M, Santini A, Mittempergher L, Pinon J, Broeck AV (2005) Screening European elms for resistance to Ophiostoma novo-ulmi. For Sci 51:134–141Google Scholar
  171. Solla A, Dacasa MC, Nasmith C, Hubbes M, Gil L (2008) Analysis of Spanish populations of Ophiostoma ulmi and O. novo-ulmi using phenotypic characteristics and RAPD markers. Plant Pathol 57:33–44Google Scholar
  172. Solla A, López-Almansa JC, Martín JA, Gil L (2015) Genetic variation and heritability estimates of Ulmus minor and Ulmus pumila hybrids for budburst, growth and tolerance to Ophiostoma novo-ulmi. iForest 8:422–430Google Scholar
  173. Sutherland ML, Brasier CM (1995) Effect of d-factors on in vitro cerato-ulmi production by the Dutch Elm Disease pathogen Ophiostoma novo-ulmi. Mycol Res 99:1211–1217Google Scholar
  174. Sutherland ML, Mittempergher L, Brasier CM (1995) Control of Dutch elm disease by induced host resistance. Eur J For Pathol 25:307–318Google Scholar
  175. Sutherland ML, Pearson S, Brasier CM (1997) The influence of temperature and light on defoliation levels of elm by Dutch elm disease. Phytopathology 87:576–581PubMedGoogle Scholar
  176. Temple B, Horgen PA, Bernier L, Hintz WE (1997) Cerato-ulmin, a hydrophobin secreted by the causal agents of Dutch elm disease, is a parasitic fitness factor. Fungal Genet Biol 22:39–53PubMedGoogle Scholar
  177. Temple B, Pines PA, Hintz WE (2006) A nine year genetic survey of the causal agent of Dutch elm disease, Ophiostoma novo-ulmi, in Winnipeg, Canada. Mycol Res 110:594–600PubMedGoogle Scholar
  178. Temple B, Bernier L, Hintz WE (2009) Characterization of the polygalacturonase gene of the Dutch elm disease pathogen Ophiostoma novo-ulmi. N Z J For Sci 39:29–37Google Scholar
  179. Tovar A (1975) Columela y el vino de Jerez. In: Homenaje nacional a Lucio Junio Moderato Columela. Asociación de Publicistas y Escritores Agrarios Españoles, Cádiz pp 93–99Google Scholar
  180. Townsend AM (1979) Influence of specific combining ability and sex of gametes on transmission of Ceratocystis ulmi resistance in Ulmus. Phytopathology 69:643–645Google Scholar
  181. Townsend AM (2000) USDA genetic research on elms. In: Dunn CP (ed) The elms: breeding, conservation, and disease management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp 271–278Google Scholar
  182. Townsend AM, Santamour FS (1993) Progress in the development of disease-resistant elms. In: Sticklen MB, Sherald JL (eds) Dutch elm disease research: cellular and molecular approaches. Springer, New York, pp 46–50Google Scholar
  183. van Alfen NK, Turner NC (1975) Influence of a Ceratocystis ulmi toxin on water relations of elm (Ulmus americana). Plant Physiol 55:3112–3316Google Scholar
  184. van Loon LC, Rep M, Pieterse CM (2006) Significance of inducible defense-related proteins in infected plants. Annu Rev Phytopathol 44:135–162PubMedGoogle Scholar
  185. Venturas M, López R, Martín JA, Gascó A, Gil L (2014) Heritability of Ulmus minor resistance to Dutch elm disease and its relationship to vessel size, but not to xylem vulnerability to drought. Plant Pathol 63:500–509Google Scholar
  186. Venturas M, Fuentes-Utrilla P, López R, Perea R, Fernández V, Gascó A, Guzmán P, Li M, Rodríguez-Calcerrada J, Miranda E, Domínguez J, González-Gordaliza G, Zafra E, Fajardo-Alcántara M, Martín JA, Ennos R, Nanos N, Lucena JJ, Iglesias S, Collada C, Gil L (2015) Ulmus laevis in the Iberian Peninsula: a review of its ecology and conservation. Forest 8:135–142Google Scholar
  187. Ware GH (2000) The promise and future of urban elms. In: Dunn CP (ed) The elms: breeding, conservation, and disease management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp 331–339Google Scholar
  188. Webber JF (1987) The influence of the d2 factor on survival and infection by the Dutch elm disease pathogen Ophiostoma ulmi. Plant Pathol 36:531–538Google Scholar
  189. Webber JF (1993) D factors and their potential for controlling Dutch elm disease. In: Sticklen MB, Sherald JL (eds) Dutch elm disease research—cellular and molecular approaches. Springer, New York, pp 322–332Google Scholar
  190. Webber JF (2004) Experimental studies on factors influencing the transmission of Dutch elm disease. Invest Agrar: Sist Recur For 13:197–205Google Scholar
  191. Webber JF, Hedger JN (1986) Comparison of interactions between Ceratocystis ulmi and elm bark saprobes in vitro and in vivo. T Brit Mycol Soc 86:93–101Google Scholar
  192. Wegener R, Schulz S, Meiners T et al (2001) Analysis of volatiles induced by oviposition of elm leaf beetle Xanthogaleruca luteola on Ulmus minor. J Chem Ecol 27:499–515PubMedGoogle Scholar
  193. Whiteley RE (2004) Quantitative and molecular genetic variation in Ulmus laevis Pall. PhD Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural SciencesGoogle Scholar
  194. Wiegrefe SJ, Sytsma KJ, Guries RP (1994) Phylogeny of elms (Ulmus, Ulmaceae): molecular evidence for a sectional classification. Syst Bot 19:590–612Google Scholar
  195. Zalapa JE, Brunet J, Guries RP (2009) Patterns of hybridization and introgression between invasive Ulmus pumila (Ulmaceae) and native U. rubra. Am J Bot 96:1116–1128PubMedGoogle Scholar
  196. Zalapa JE, Brunet J, Guries RP (2010) The extent of hybridization and its impact on the genetic diversity and population structure of an invasive tree, Ulmus pumila (Ulmaceae). Evol Appl 3:157–168PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juan A. Martín
    • 1
  • Juan Sobrino-Plata
    • 1
  • Jesús Rodríguez-Calcerrada
    • 1
  • Carmen Collada
    • 1
  • Luis Gil
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de Sistemas y Recursos Naturales, ETSI Montes, Forestal y del Medio NaturalUniversidad Politécnica de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations