The Botanical Review

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 131–146 | Cite as

Rootrots of cereals. II

  • P. M. Simmonds


The literature on rootrots of cereals that has appeared since the first review reveals a continued interest in these maladies. There have been no major changes in research trends. There have been, however, notable elaborations of work previously initiated, in many cases with ingeniously devised techniques. Advances have been made in studies on the relationship between root disease organisms and soil and other micro-organisms. Much information has been added to our knowledge of the take-all rootrot by intensive research in Germany, England and Australia. In North America it appears that common rootrot may now be classed as a major research challenge. Browning rootrot of wheat, once of great economic importance in Canada, has declined with the introduction of better farming practices and the application of control methods developed after years of research. Helminthosporium blight has appeared as a serious stem, crown and rootrot of oats. There are several types of cereal rootrots considered of minor importance at present, but these must be kept under surveillance. Notable progress has been made in fundamental studies on the perplexing variability of the pathogensHelminthosporium sativum andFusarium spp.


Botanical Review Root Disease Seminal Root Crown Root Crown Rust 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Adam, D. B. On the occurrence ofCercosporella herpotrichioides Fron in South Australia. Jour. Aust. Inst. Agr. Sci.6: 48–51. 1940.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anwar, A. F. Factors affecting the survival ofHelminthosporium sativum andFusarium lini in soil. Phytopath.39: 1005–1019. 1949.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blair, I. D. Studies on the growth in soil and the parasitic action of certainRhizoctonia solani isolates from wheat. Canad. Tour. Res. C.20: 174–185. 1942.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    —. Behavior of the fungusRhizoctonia solani Kuhn in the soil. Ann. App. Biol.30: 118–127. 1943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bruehl, G. W.Rhizoctonia solani in relation to cereal crown and foot rots. Phytopath.41: 375–377. 1951.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Christensen, J. J. andF. R. Davies. Variation inHelminthosporium sativum induced by a toxic substance produced byBacillus mesentericus. Phytopath.30: 1017–1033. 1940.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ciferri, R. Report on the activity of the Cryptogamic Laboratory, the Phytopathological Obseratory and the Centre for Fungicidal Studies during the year 1943. Atti Inst. Bot. Univ. Pavia, V.1(4): 279–362. 1944. Rev. App. Myc.25: 251. 1946.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Conners, I. L. andD. B. O. Saville. Canadian Plant Disease Survey, 29th Annual Report. 1949.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elliott, Charlotte. Relative susceptibility to Pythium rootrot of twelve dent corn inbreds. Jour. Agr. Res.64: 711–723. 1942.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garrett, S. D. Soil conditions and the take-all disease of wheat. Ann. App. Biol.23: 667–699. 1936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    —. Soil conditions and the take-all disease of wheat. V. Further experiments on the survival ofOphiobolus graminis in infected wheat stubble buried in the soil. Ann. App. Biol.27: 199–204. 1940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    —. Utilization of nitrogen byOphiobolus graminis. Nature145: 108. 1940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    —. Soil conditions and the take-all disease of wheat. VI. The effect of plant nutrition upon disease resistance. Ann. App. Biol.28: 14–18. 1941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    -. The take-all disease of cereals. Imp. Bur. Soil Sci., Tech. Bull. 41. 1942.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    —. Competition for nitrogen between the take-all fungus and the roots of crop plants. Nature152: 417. 1943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    —. Soil conditions and the take-all disease of wheat. VIII. Further experiments on the survival ofOphiobolus graminis in infected wheat stubble. Ann. App. Biol.31: 186–191. 1944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    -. Root disease fungi. 177 pp. 1944.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    —. Soil conditions and the take-all disease of wheat. IX. Interactions between host plant nutrition, disease escape and disease resistance. Ann. App. Biol.35: 14–17. 1948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    —. Ecology of the root inhabiting fungi. Biol. Rev.25: 220–254. 1950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    —. Ecological groups of soil fungi: a survey of substrate relationship. New Phytol.50: 149–166. 1951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    — andR. W. G. Dennis. Note on the occurrence ofOphiobolus graminis Sacc. var.avenae E. M. Turner in Scotland in 1942. Trans. Brit. Myc. Soc.26: 146–147. 1943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    — andH. H. Mann. Soil conditions and the take-all disease of wheat. X. Control of the disease under continuous cropping of a spring-sown cereal. Ann. App. Biol.35: 435–442. 1948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Glynne, Mary D. andWendy M. Richie. Sharp eye spot of wheat caused byCorticium (Rhizoctonia) solani. Nature152: 161. 1943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gorter, G. J. Eye-spot lodging disease of wheat. Farming in South Africa, March, 1941.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Greaney, F. J. Influence of time, rate and depth of seeding on the incidence of root rot in wheat. Phytopath. 36: 252–264. 1946.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hanson, E. W., H. E. Milliron andJ. J. Christensen. The relation of the bluegrass billbug,Calendra parvula (Gyllenhal), to the development of basal stem rot and rootrot of cereals and grasses in North Central United States. Phytopath.40: 527–543. 1950.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Johnston, C. L. andF. J. Greaney. Studies on the pathogenicity ofFusarium species associated with rootrot of wheat. Phytopath.32: 670–684. 1942.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kingsolver, C. H. New oat disease increases importance of seed treatment. Univ. Missouri, Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. 312. 1947.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ledingham, R. J. Observations on antagonism in inoculation tests of wheat withHelminthosporium sativum P. K. and B. andFusarium culmorum (W. G. Sm.) Sacc. Sci. Agr.22: 688–704. 1942.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    —,B. J. Sallans andP. M. Simmonds. The significance of the bacterial flora on wheat seed in inoculation studies withHelminthosporium sativum. Sci. Agr.29: 253–262. 1949.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Litzenberger, S. C. andH. C. Murphy. Methods for determining resistance of oats toHelminthosporium victoriae. Phytopath.37: 790–800. 1947.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ludbrook, W. V. Root amputation experiments with wheat under dry conditions in relation to attacks byOphiobolus graminis Sacc. Jour. Coun. Sci. & Ind. Res.15: 129–134. 1942.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ludwig, R. A. andA. W. Henry. Studies on the microbiology of recontaminated sterilized soil in relation to its infestation withOphiobolus graminis. Canad. Jour. Res. C.21: 343–350. 1943.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Machacek, J. E. An estimate of loss in Manitoba from common rootrot in wheat. Sci. Agr. 24: 70–77. 1943.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    — andF. J. Greaney. Further experiments on the control by seed disinfection of root rotting fungi in wheat. Phytopath.31: 379–393. 1941.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Meehan, F. andH. C. Murphy. A newHelminthosporium blight of oats. Science104: 413–414. 1946.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Oswald, J. W. Cultural variation, taxonomy and pathogenicity ofFusarium species associated with cereal rootrots. Phytopath.39: 359–376. 1949.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    —. Etiology of cereal rootrots in California. Hilgardia19: 447–462. 1950.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Padwick, G. W. A new disease of wheat in India. Current Sci. (Bangalore)9: 179–190. 1940. Rev. App. Myc.19: 465. 1940.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pisarev, V. E. andE. S. Malinovskaya. The breeding of spring wheats resistant toFusarium. Trans. Inst. Grain Fmg., non-black soil Distr.10: 35–58. 1941. Rev. App. Myc.24: 184. 1945.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sallans, B. J. The importance of various roots to the wheat plant. Sci. Agr.23: 17–26. 1942.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    —. Interrelations of common rootrot and other factors with wheat yields in Saskatchewan. Sci. Agr.28: 6–21. 1948.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    — andR. J. Ledingham. An outbreak of common rootrot in southwestern Saskatchewan in 1942. Sci. Agr.23: 589–598. 1943.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sanford, G. B. Soil-borne diseases in relation to the microflora associated with various crop and soil amendments. Soil Sci.61: 9–21. 1946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Simmonds, P. M. Rootrots of cereals. Bot. Rev.7: 308–332. 1941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    —. The influence of antibiosis in the pathogenicity ofHelminthosporium sativum. Sci. Agr.27: 625–633. 1947.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    — andB. J. Sallans. Testing wheat seedlings for resistance toHelminthosporium sativum. Sci. Agr.26: 25–34. 1946.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    —,— andR. J. Ledingham. The occurrence ofHelminthosporium sativum in relation to primary infections in common rootrot of wheat. Sci. Agr.30: 407–417. 1950.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Slagg, C. M. andH. Fellows. Effects of certain soil fungi and their by-products onOphiobolus graminis. Jour. Agr. Res.75: 279–295. 1947.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Snyder, W. C. andH. N. Hansen. The species concept inFusarium. Am. Jour. Bot.27: 64–67. 1940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Stumbo, C. R., P. L. Gainey andF. E. Clark. Microbiological and nutritional factors in the take-all disease of wheat. Jour. Agr. Res.64: 653–665. 1942.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Tinline, R. D. Studies on the perfect stage ofHelminthosporium sativum. Canad. Jour. Bot. C.29: 467–478. 1951.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Turner, Elizabeth M.Ophiobolus graminis Sacc. var.avenae var. n., as the cause of take-all or Whiteheads of oats in Wales. Trans. Brit. Myc. Soc.24: 269–281. 1940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Tyner, L. E. The effect of crop debris on the pathogenicity of cereal root-rotting fungi. Canad. Jour. Res. C.18: 289–306. 1940.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    —. Effect of crop debris, plant roots and crop sequence on the microbial flora of the soil in relation to rootrot in cereal crops. Canad. Jour. Res. C.26: 86–93. 1948.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    — andW. C. Broadfoot. Studies on foot and root rot of wheat. VII. Some factors affecting the health of wheat seedlings in nutrient solutions. Canad. Jour. Res. C.21: 18–26. 1943.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    ——. Field tests of the differential reaction of wheat varieties to root rot. Sci. Agr.24: 153–163. 1943.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Vanterpool, T. C. Studies on browning rootrot of cereals. VI. Further contributions on the effects of various soil amendments on the incidence of the disease in wheat. Canad. Jour. Res. C.18: 240–257. 1940.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    -. The decline of browning rootrot. [In press]. 1952.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    — andR. Sprague.Pythium arrhenomanes on cereals and grasses in the northern Great Plains. Phytopath.32: 327–328. 1942.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Welch, A.Pythium root necrosis of oats. Iowa State Coll. Jour. Sci.19: 361–399. 1945.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    White, N. H. The sexuality ofOphiobolus graminis Sacc. Jour. Coun. Sci. & Ind. Res.12: 209–212. 1939.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    —. Physiological studies of the fungusOphiobolus graminis Sacc. I. Growth factor requirements. Jour. Coun. Sci. & Ind. Res.14: 137–146. 1941.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    —. The genetics ofOphiobolus graminis Sacc. Jour. Coun. Sci. & Ind. Res.15: 119–123. 1942.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    —. The pathogenicity of single spore isolates ofOphiobolus graminis under field conditions. Jour. Coun. Sci. & Ind. Res.16: 93–94. 1943.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    —. The effect of biotin and thiamin on the growth of fungi isolated from lesioned roots of take-all affected wheat. Jour. Aus. Inst. Agr. Sci.9: 36. 1943.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    —. Physiological studies on the fungusOphiobolus graminis Sacc. II. Carbon and nitrogen requirements. Jour. Coun. Sci. & Ind. Res.16: 234–244. 1943.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    —. The etiology of take-all disease of wheat. 3. Factors concerned with the development of take-all symptoms in wheat. 4. The effect of agronomic practices on the incidence and severity of takeall. Jour. Coun. Sci. & Ind. Res.20: 66–86. 1947.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Winter, A. G. Untersuchungen über den Einfluss biotischer Faktoren auf die Infektion des Weizens durchOphiobolus graminis. Zeit. Pflkrankh.50: 113–134. 1940.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    —. Der Einfluss partieller Sterilization des Bodens auf die Entwicklung der Laufhyphen vonOphiobolus graminis. Phytopath. Zeit.14: 204–302. 1942.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    —. Untersuchungen über die Beziehungen zwischenOphiobolus graminis und anderen Organismen mit Hilfe der Augwuchsplattenmethode. Arch. Mikrobiol.14: 240–270. 1949. Rev. App. Myc.29: 93. 1950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    —. Untersuchungen über die Ökologie und den Massenweshel bodenbewohnender mikroskopischer. I. Die Bedeutung organischer Nahrstoffe für die Entwicklung vonOphiobolus graminis in der Rhizosphäre und im freien Boden. Arch. Mikrobiol.15: 42–71. 1950. Rev. App. Myc.30: 223. 1951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Wollenweber, H. W. andO. A. Reinking. Die Fusarien. 355 pp. 1935.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Zogg, H. Untersuchungen über Fusskrankheiten des Getreides. Schweiz. Landw. Mh.28: 250–252. 1950. Rev. App. Myc.30: 313. 1951.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden 1953

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. M. Simmonds
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Plant PathologyScience ServiceSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations