Advertisement

Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection

, Volume 125, Issue 3, pp 297–309 | Cite as

Efficacy of different fungicides against the leaf spot of lettuce caused by Allophoma tropica

  • Ilenia Pintore
  • Giovanna Gilardi
  • Angelo Garibaldi
  • Maria Lodovica Gullino
Original Article

Abstract

The efficacy of different fungicides, belonging to different chemical groups, was in vitro and in vivo tested in glasshouse trials against Allophoma tropica, the causal agent of a new leaf spot on lettuce. The in vitro trials showed that only a few fungicides were effective in inhibiting the mycelial growth of the four tested strains of A. tropica: the most effective fungicide, with the lowest ED50 and MIC values, was penconazole. Prochloraz, propiconazole, boscalid and fludioxonil showed low ED50 values, but high MIC values. The results from the in vivo trials showed that all the tested fungicides significantly reduced Phoma leaf spot incidence and severity, although differences were observed in the achieved disease pressure in the four trials. Generally, in the presence of an average disease severity in the untreated control, the best disease severity reduction (up to 90%) was provided 9 days after the application of fludioxonil, mancozeb, pyraclostrobin + boscalid, propiconazole and iprodione. Fludioxonil and iprodione showed a persistent effect (up to 90%) still being evident 12 days after the application. Generally, in the presence of a high disease severity in the untreated control, 9 days after the application of fludioxonil, mancozeb, iprodione and pyraclostrobin + boscalid provided a disease severity reduction up to 80%. Moreover, copper provided a disease severity reduction from 84 to 89%, applied as preventative treatment, resulting of special interest, particularly for crops grown under organic farming rules.

Keywords

Lactuca sativa Chemical control In vitro and in vivo assay Leaf spot 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has received funding from the EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No. 633999 (EMPHASIS). The authors would like to thank Marguerite Jones for the language revision.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aveskamp MM, De Gruyter J, Crous PW (2008) Biology and recent developments in the systematic of Phoma, a complex genus of major quarantine significance. Fungal Divers 31:1–16Google Scholar
  2. Aveskamp MM, De Gruyter J, Woudenberg JHC, Verkley G, Crous PW (2010) Highlights of the Didymellaceae. A polyphasic approach to characterise Phoma and related pleosporalean genera. Stud Mycol 65:1–60CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartlett DW, Clough JM, Godwin JR, Hall AA, Hamer M, Parr-Dobrzanski B (2002) The strobilurin fungicides. Pest Manag Sci 58:649–662CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Blancard D, Lot H, Maisonneuve B (2003) Maladies des salads. Identifier, connaître et maîtriser. INRA, ParisGoogle Scholar
  5. Brent JK, Hollomon DW (2007) Fungicide resistance: the assessment of risk. FRAC Monogr 2:1–28Google Scholar
  6. Chen Q, Jang JR, Zhang GZ, Cai L, Crous PW (2015) Resolving the Phoma enigma. Stud Mycol 82:137–217CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Conlin AC, McCarter SM (1983) Effectiveness of selected chemicals in inhibiting Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato in vitro and in controlling bacterial speck. Plant Dis 67:639–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eckert MR, Rossall S, Selleyc A, Fitta BDL (2010) Effects of fungicides on in vitro spore germination and mycelial growth of the phytopathogens Leptosphaeria maculans and L. biglobosa (Phoma stem canker of oilseed rape). Pest Manag Sci 66:396–405PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Farr DF, Rossman AY (2016) Fungal databases—Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory ARS, USDA. Retrieved from http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases
  10. Garibaldi A, Gullino ML (2010) Emerging soilborne diseases of horticultural crops and new trends in their management. Acta Hortic 883:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garibaldi A, Gilardi G, Ortu G, Gullino ML (2012) First report of leaf spot of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) caused by Phoma tropica in Italy. Plant Dis 96:1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Garibaldi A, Gilardi G, Gullino ML (2014) Critical aspects in disease management as a consequence of the evolution of soil-borne pathogens. Acta Hortic 1044:43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gilmenez VI, Luisi N (1978) Tolerance to benomyl in Phoma tracheiphila. Phytopathol Mediterr 17:77 (abstract) Google Scholar
  14. Gullino ML, Gilardi G, Garibaldi A (2009) Chemical control of downy mildew on lettuce and basil under greenhouse. Commun Agric Appl Biol Sci 74(3):933–940PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gullino ML, Tinivella F, Garibaldi A, Kemmitt GM, Bacci L, Sheppar B (2010) Mancozeb: paste, present and future. Plant Dis 94:1076–1087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gullino ML, Gilardi G, Garibaldi A (2014) Seed-borne pathogens of leafy vegetable crops. In: Gullino ML, Munkvold G (eds) Global perspectives on the health of seeds and plant propagation material. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 47–58Google Scholar
  17. Gullino ML, Gilardi G, Gatribaldi A (2017) Evaluation of the severity of leaf spot of lettuce, caused by Allophoma tropica, under a climate change scenario. Phytopathol Mediterr 56:235–241Google Scholar
  18. Jarvis WR (1980) Epidemiology. In: Coley-Smith JR, Jarvis WR (eds) The biology of botrytis. Academic Press, London, pp 219–250Google Scholar
  19. Koike ST (2006) Phoma basal rot of romaine lettuce in California caused by Phoma exigua: occurrence, characterization and control. Plant Dis 90:1268–1275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Król E (2005) Influence of some chemicals on the viability of Phomopsis viticola sacc. spores. J Plant Prot Res 45:195–203Google Scholar
  21. Leyronas C, Fatnassi H, Bardin M, Boulard T, Nicot PC (2011) Modelling Botrytis cinerea spore exchanges and production in unheated greenhouses. J Plant Pathol 93:407–414Google Scholar
  22. Leyronas C, Duffaud ML, Pares L, Jeannequin B, Nicot PC (2015) Flow of Botrytis cinerea inoculum between lettuce crop and soil. Plant Pathol 64:701–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Margot P, Huggenberger F, Amrein J, Weiss B (1998) CGA 279202: a new broad-spectrum strobilurin fungicide. In: Proceedings of the Brighton crop protection conference. British Crop Protection Council, Farnham, pp 375–82Google Scholar
  24. Matheron ME, Porchas M (2004) Activity of boscalid, fenhexamid, fluazinam, fludioxonil, and vinclozolin on growth of Sclerotinia minor and S. sclerotiorum and development of lettuce drop. Plant Dis 88:665–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mostert L, Denman S, Crous PW (2000) In vitro screening of fungicides against Phomopsis viticola and Diaporthe perjuncta. S Afr J Enol Vitic 21(2):62–65Google Scholar
  26. O’Neill TM, Bennison J, Gaze RH (2000) Pests and diseases of protected vegetables and mushrooms. In: Alford DV (ed) Pest and disease management handbook. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp 317–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pasche JS, Wharam CM, Gudmestad NC (2004) Shift in sensitivity of Alternaria solani in response to QoI fungicides. Plant Dis 88:181–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pethybridge SJ, Hay FS, Groom T, Wilson CR (2008) Improving fungicide-based management of ray blight disease in Tasmanian pyrethrum fields. Plant Dis 92:887–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schneider R, Boerema GH (1975) Phoma tropica n. sp. ein an Gewächshauspflanzen häufig vorkommender, nicht pathogener. Pilz Phytopathol Z 83:362–366Google Scholar
  30. Van de Graaf P, O’Neill TM, Chartier-Hollis JM, Joseph ME (2003) Aspects of the biology and control of benzimidazole resistant isolates of Phoma clematidina, cause of leaf spot and wilt in clematis. J Phytopathol 151:442–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutsche Phytomedizinische Gesellschaft 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ilenia Pintore
    • 1
  • Giovanna Gilardi
    • 1
  • Angelo Garibaldi
    • 1
  • Maria Lodovica Gullino
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Innovation in the Agro-Environmental Sector, AGROINNOVAUniversity of TorinoGrugliascoItaly
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences (DISAFA)University of TorinoGrugliascoItaly

Personalised recommendations