Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection

, Volume 126, Issue 2, pp 145–152 | Cite as

Sensitivity and efficacy of the succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor fluxapyroxad, against raspberry spur blight fungus Didymella applanata

  • Uroš Vojinović
  • Biljana Pavlović
  • Brankica Tanović
  • Milan StevićEmail author
Original Article


Didymella applanata, the causal agent of raspberry spur blight, is a destructive plant pathogen that can cause serious reductions in total yield. The use of fungicides plays a crucial role in successful control of the pathogen. The sensitivity of 94 isolates (66 collected during 2013 and 28 in 2017) of D. applanata to the succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor, fluxapyroxad, was evaluated in this study. In addition, the efficacy of fluxapyroxad in raspberry spur blight control in the field was determined. The isolates tested in this study showed different sensitivity to fluxapyroxad in vitro. The EC50 values of total number of isolates tested were ranged from 0.82 to 5.92 µg ml−1. The ranges of EC50 values for the isolates varied between the localities where the isolates originated from and also the year of isolation. The mean EC50 values in the group of isolates obtained in 2013 were 1.95 µg ml−1 ± 0.81 (0.82 to 4.05 µg ml−1), while the EC50 values for those isolated in 2017 were ranged from 1.16 to 5.78 µg ml−1 (mean = 3.24 µg ml−1 ± 1.38). The efficacy trials were conducted during 2017 and 2018 in a commercial raspberry field at two locations in western part of Serbia. Applied in both concentration rates 0.02 and 0.03% of the formulated product (0.006 and 0.009% of a.i.), fluxapyroxad showed a very high efficacy in spur blight control in practical condition.


Didymella applanata Fluxapyroxad Sensitivity Efficacy 



This research was carried out within the Project III46008, supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Amiri A, Heath SM, Peres NA (2014) Resistance to fluopyram, fluxapyroxad, and penthiopyrad in Botrytis cinerea from strawberry. Plant Dis 98:532–539. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Avenot HF, Michailides TJ (2010) Progress in understanding molecular mechanisms and evolution of resistance to succinate dehydrogenase inhibiting (SDHI) fungicides in phytopathogenic fungi. Crop Prot 29:643–651. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ellis MA (2008) Spur blight of red raspberries, Ohio State University Extension. Accessed 04 Oct 2018
  4. EPPO (2012) Design and analysis of efficacy evaluation trials—PP 1/152(4). In: EPPO standards: guidelines for the efficacy evaluation of plant protection products. EPPO Bulletin, Vol 42, p 367–381Google Scholar
  5. Faby R (2008) Control of cane diseases in raspberries. Acta Hortic 777:323–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. FAOSTAT (2016) Food and agricultural commodities production. Accessed 10 Sep 2018
  7. Finney DJ (1971) Probit analysis. University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Gouot JM (1994) Characteristics and population dynamics of Botrytis cinerea and other pathogens resistant to dicarboximides. In: Delp CJ (ed) Fungicide resistant in North America. The American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, pp 53–55Google Scholar
  9. Gudmestad NC, Arabiat S, Miller JS, Pasche JS (2013) Prevalence and impact of SDHI fungicide resistance in Alternaria solani. Plant Dis 97:952–960. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. James T, Popko JR, Hyunkyu S, Lee J, Yamada T, Hoshino Y, Jung G (2018) Resistance of Sclerotinia homoeocarpa field isolates to succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor fungicides. Plant Dis 102:2625–2631. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Karaoglanidis SG, Ioannidis PM, Thanassoulopoulos CC (2000) Reduced sensitivity of Cercospora beticola isolates to sterol demethylation inhibiting fungicides. Plant Pathol 49:567–572. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lawson HM, Wiseman JS (1983) Techniques for the control of cane vigour in red raspberry in Scotland: effects of timing and frequency of cane removal treatments on growth and yield in cv Glen Clove. J Hortic Sci 58:247–260. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mercader JV, Abad-Somovilla A, Agulló A, Abad-Fuentes A (2017) Fluxapyroxad haptens and antibodies for highly sensitive immunoanalysis of food samples. J Agric Food Chem 65:9333–9341. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Mikulic-Petkovsek M, Schmitzer V, Stampar F, Veberic R, Koron D (2014) Changes in phenolic content induced by infection with Didymella applanata and Leptosphaeria coniothyrium, the causal agents of raspberry spur and cane blight. Plant Pathol 63:185–192. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mirković B, Tanović B, Hrustić J, Mihajlović M, Stević M, Delibašić G, Vukša P (2015a) Toxicity of copper hydroxide, dithianon, fluazinam, tebuconazole and pyraclostrobin to Didymella applanata isolates from Serbia. J Environ Sci Health Part B Pestic Food Contam Agric Wastes 50: 175–183. Accessed 10 Oct 2018
  16. Mirković B, Tanović B, Stević M, Hrustić J, Mihajlović M, Delibašić G, Vukša P (2015b) Toxicity of mancozeb, chlorothalonil, captan, fluopyram, boscalid, and difenoconazole to Didymella applanata isolates from Serbia. J Environ Sci Health Part B Pestic Food Contam Agric Wastes 50: 845–850. Accessed 10 Oct 2018
  17. Punithalingam E (1982) Didymella applanata. In: Commonwealth Mycological Institute (CMI) descriptions of pathogenic fungi and bacteria. Kew, Surrey,Vol 74, p 731–740Google Scholar
  18. Shternshis MV, Beljaev AA, Shpatova TV, Duzhak AB, Panfilova ZI (2006) The effect of chitinase on Didymella applanata, the causal agent of raspberry cane spur blight. BioControl 51:311–322. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sierotzki H, Scalliet G (2013) A review of current knowledge of resistance aspects for the next-generation succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor fungicides. Phytopathology 103: 880–887 Accessed 10 Oct 2018
  20. Stević M, Pavlović B, Tanović B (2017) Efficacy of fungicides with different modes of action in raspberry spur blight (Didymella applanata) control. Pestic Phytomed 32: 25–32. Accessed 10 Oct 2018
  21. Veloukas T, Markoglou AN, Karaoglanidis GS (2013) Differential effect of SdhB gene mutations on the sensitivity to SDHI fungicides in Botrytis cinerea. Plant Dis 97:118–122. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Williamson B (1991) Spur blight. In: Ellis MA, Converse RH, Williams RN, Williamson B (eds) Compendium of raspberry and blackberry diseases and insects. APS Press, St. Paul, pp 7–9Google Scholar
  23. Williamson B (2003) A possible resurgence of minor fungal diseases of Rubus caused by reductions in fungicide use. IOBC-WPRS Bull 26:139–146Google Scholar
  24. Williamson B, Hargreaves AJ (1981) Effects of Didymella applanata and Botrytis cinerea on axillary buds, lateral shoots and yield of red raspberry. Ann Appl Biol 97:55–64. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ye YH, Ma L, Dai ZC, Xiao Y, Zhang YY, Li DD, Wang JX, Zhu HL (2014) Synthesis and antifungal activity of nicotinamide derivatives as succinate dehydrogenase inhibitors. J Agric Food Chem 62:4063–4071. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Yin WX, Adnan M, Shang Y, Lin Y, Luo CX (2018) Sensitivity of Botrytis cinerea from nectarine/cherry in China to six fungicides and characterization of resistant isolates. Plant Dis 102:2578–2585. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutsche Phytomedizinische Gesellschaft 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Uroš Vojinović
    • 1
  • Biljana Pavlović
    • 1
  • Brankica Tanović
    • 2
  • Milan Stević
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Faculty of AgricultureUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia
  2. 2.Institute of Pesticides and Environmental ProtectionBelgradeSerbia

Personalised recommendations