Advertisement

Responses of Gymnosperm Bark Tissues to Fungal Infections

  • S. Woodward
Part of the Springer Series in Wood Science book series (SSWOO)

Abstract

Although the bark of trees provides the initial barrier to agents with the potential to damage the economically important internal woody tissues, it has received comparatively little attention in terms of responses to wounding and infection when compared with the wood itself. Until relatively recently, the majority of studies on bark concentrated on taxonomic comparisons (Eremin 1976) and the relationship between physical properties and commercial uses in consolidated board or reinforced plastic (e.g. Krahmer and Wellons 1973, Wellons and Krahmer 1973, Miller et al. 1974). Examination of bark extractives was based on their potential industrial and pharmaceutical uses (Hergert 1960, Rogers 1967) and little attention was paid to the role of these compounds in the tree itself, despite the fact that, from investigations on other plants, many were known to possess antimicrobial activity. During the past 15 years, however, the importance of the bark as a barrier to pests and diseases has become more widely recognized, and significant advances have been made in our understanding of the nature of responses to infection in these tissues (Mullick 1977, Biggs et al. 1984, Biggs 1985, Pearce 1987, 1989).

Keywords

Coniferyl Alcohol Secondary Phloem Pitch Canker Bark Tissue Heterobasidion Annosum 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aitken EAB 1986 Brunchorstia pinea on conifers. PhD Thesis, Dep For, Univ Aberdeen Alcubilla M, Diaz-Palacio MP, Kreutzer K, Laatsch W, Rehfuess KE, Wenzel G 1971Google Scholar
  2. Beziehungen zwischen dem Ernährungszustand der Fichte (Picea abies Karst.), ihrem Kernfäulebefall and der Pilzehemmwirkung ihres Basts. Eur J For Pathol 1:100–114Google Scholar
  3. Bailey JA 1982 Mechanisms of phytoalexin accumulation. In: Bailey JA, Mansfield JM (eds) Phytoalexins. Blackie, Glasgow London, 289–318Google Scholar
  4. Barrows-Broaddus J, Dwinell LD 1983 Histopathology of Fusarium moniliforme var. subglutinans in four species of southern pines. Phytopathology 73: 882–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biggs AR 1985 Suberized boundary zones and the chronology of wound response in tree bark. Phytopathology 75: 1191–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biggs AR, Merrill W, Davis DD 1984 Discussion: response of bark tissues to injury and infection. Can J For Res 14: 351–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bingham RT, Squillace AE, Wright JW 196(1 Breeding blister rust resistant western white pine. Silvae Genet 9: 33–41Google Scholar
  8. Bloch R 1953 Defense reactions of plants to the presence of toxins. Phytopathology 43: 351–354Google Scholar
  9. Bloomberg WJ, Reynolds G 1982 Factors affecting transfer and spread of Phellinus weirii mycelium in roots of second growth Douglas fir. Can J For Res 12: 424–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buczacki ST 1973 A microecological approach to larch canker biology. Trans Br Mycol Soc 61: 315–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chou CKS, Zabkiewicz JA 1976 Toxicity of monoterpenes from Pinus radiata cortical oleoresin to Diplodea pinea spores. Eur J For Pathol 6: 354–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cobb FW, Krstic M, Zavarin E, Barber HW 1968 Inhibitory effects of volatile oleoresin components on Fomes annosus and four Ceratocystis species. Phytopathology 58: 1327–1335Google Scholar
  13. De Groot RC 1972 Growth of wood-inhabiting fungi in saturated atmospheres of monoterpenoids. Mycologia 64: 863–870PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Drago-Toscano CD 1989 Variation in defence mechanism activities in Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr.) and its relation to disease resistance and susceptibility. PhD Thesis, Green Coll, Univ OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Dwinell LD, Barrows-Broaddus J 1981 Pitch canker in seed orchards. In: Proc 16th Southern Forest Tree Improvement Conference. VA Polytech Inst State Univ, Blacksburg, VA, 234–240Google Scholar
  16. Ehrlich J, Opie RS 1940 Mycelial extent beyond blister rust cankers on Pinus monticola. Phytopathology 30: 611–620Google Scholar
  17. Ennos RA, Swales KW 1988 Genetic variation in tolerance of host monoterpenes in a population of the ascomycete canker pathogen Crumenulopsis sororia. Plant Pathol 37: 407416Google Scholar
  18. Eremin VM 1976 Anatomiya kory vidov Picea Sovetskogo Souza. Bot Z 61: 700–709Google Scholar
  19. Esau K 1977 Anatomy of seed plants, 2nd edn. John Wiley, New York, 550 ppGoogle Scholar
  20. Flodin K, Fries N 1978 Studies on volatile compounds from Pinus sylvestris and their effect on wood-decomposing fungi. II. Effects of some volatile compounds on fungal growth. Eur J For Pathol 8: 300–310Google Scholar
  21. Forrest GI 1982 Preliminary work on the relation between resistance to Fomes annosus and the monoterpene composition of Sitka spruce resin. In: Heybroek HM, Stephan BR, Weissenberg K (eds) Resistance to diseases and pests in forest trees. PUDOC, Wageningen, 194–197Google Scholar
  22. Friend J 1976 Lignification in infected tissue. In: Friend J, Threlfall DR (eds) Biochemical aspects of plant-parasite relationships. Academic Press, New York London, 291–303Google Scholar
  23. Gibbs JN 1968 Resin and the resistance of conifers to Fomes annosus. Ann Bot 32: 649–665Google Scholar
  24. Gromova AS, Tyukavkina NA, Lutskii VI, Kalabin GA, Kushnarev DF 1975 (Hydroxystilbenes of the inner bark of Pinus sibirica.) Khim Prirod Soed 6: 677–682Google Scholar
  25. Hart JH 1981 Role of stilbenes in decay and disease resistance. Annu Rev Phytopathol 19: 437–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hart JH, Shrimpton DM 1979 Role of stilbenes in resistance of wood to decay. Phytopathology 69: 1138–1143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hergert HL 1960 Chemical composition of tannins and polyphenols from conifer wood and bark. For Prod J 10: 610–617Google Scholar
  28. Hintikka W 1970 Selective effect of terpenes on wood-decomposing hymenomycetes. Karstenia 11: 28–32Google Scholar
  29. Hoff RJ, McDonald GI 1972 Resistance in Pinus armandii to Cronartium ribicola. Can J For Res 2: 303–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hopkins JC 1963 Atropellis canker of lodgepole pine: etiology, symptoms, and canker development rates. Can J Bot 41: 1535–1545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kennedy RW 1956 Fungicidal toxicity of certain extraneous components of Douglas-fir heartwood. For Prod J 6: 80–84Google Scholar
  32. Kinloch BB 1982 Mechanisms and inheritance of rust resistance in conifers. In: Heybroek HM, Stephan BR, Weissenberg K (eds) Resistance to diseases and pests in forest trees. PUDOC, Wageningen, 119–129Google Scholar
  33. Kirk TK 1971 Effects of micro-organisms on lignin. Annu Rev Phytopathol 9: 185–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kolattukudy PE 1981 Structure, biosynthesis, and biodegradation of cutin and suberin. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 32: 539–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Krahmer RL, Wellons JC 1973 Some anatomical and chemical characteristics of Douglas fir cork. Wood Sci 6: 97–105Google Scholar
  36. Krebill RG 1968 Histology of canker rusts in pines. Phytopathology 58: 155–164Google Scholar
  37. Kuc J, Shain L 1977 Antifungal compounds associated with disease resistance in plants. In: Seigel MR, Sister HD (eds) Antifungal compounds, vol 2. Dekker, New York, 497–535Google Scholar
  38. Ladejtschikova EI, Pasternak GM 1982 Biochemical aspects of the resistance of Pinus sylvestris. to Fomes annosus. In: Heybroek HM, Stephan BR, Weissenberg K (eds) Resistance to diseases and pests in forest trees. PUDOC, Wageningen, 198–205Google Scholar
  39. Manners GD, Swan EP 1971 Stilbenes in the barks of five Canadian Picea species. Phytochemistry 10: 607–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Miller DJ, Wellons JC, Krahmer RL, Short PH 1974 Reinforcing plastics with Douglas fir bark fiber. For Prod J 24: 18–22Google Scholar
  41. Miller T, Cowling EB, Powers HR, Blalock TE 1976 Types of resistance and compatibility in slash pine seedlings infected by Cronartium fusiforme. Phytopathology 66: 1229–1235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mullick DB 1975 A new tissue essential to necrophylactic periderm formation in the bark of four conifers. Can J Bot 53: 2443–2457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mullick DB 1977 The non-specific nature of defense in bark and wood during wounding, insect and pathogen attack. Recent Adv Phytochem 11: 395–442Google Scholar
  44. Pearce RB 1987 Antimicrobial defence in perennial plants. In: Pegg GF, Ayres, PG (eds) Fungal infection of plants: establishment, progress and outcome of infection. Cambridge Univ Press, 219–238Google Scholar
  45. Pearce RB 1989 Cell wall alterations and antimicrobial defense in perennial plants. In: Lewis NG, Paice MG (eds) Plant cell wall polymers: biogenesis and biodegradation. Am Chem Soc Symp Ser 399, Washington, DC, 346–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Peek R-D, Liese W, Parameswaran N 1972 Infektion and Abbau der Wurzelrinde von Fichte durch Fomes annosus. Eur J For Pathol 2: 104–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ponchet J, Andréoli C 1989 Histopathologie du chancre cortical du cypres à Seiridium cardinale. Eur J For Pathol 19: 212–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Prior C 1976 Resistance by Corsican pine to attack by Heterobasidion annosum. Ann Bot 40: 261–279Google Scholar
  49. Ride J 1978 The role of cell wall alterations in resistance to fungi. Ann Appl Biol 89: 302–306Google Scholar
  50. Rishbeth J 1951a Observations on the biology of Fomes annosus with particular reference to East Anglian pine plantations. II. Spore production, stump infection, and saprophytic activity in stumps. Ann Bot 15: 1–21Google Scholar
  51. Rishbeth J 1951b Observations on the biology of Fomes annosus with particular reference to East Anglian pine plantations. III. Natural and experimental infection of pines, and some factors affecting severity of the disease. Ann Bot 15: 221–246Google Scholar
  52. Rishbeth J 1970 The role of basidiospores in stump infection by Armillaria mellea. In: Tousson TA, Bega RV, Nelson PE (eds) Root diseases and soilborne pathogens. Univ Cal Press, Berkeley, 141–146Google Scholar
  53. Rittinger PA, Biggs AR, Peirson DR 1987 Histochemistry of lignin and suberin deposition in boundary layers formed after wounding in various plant species and organs. Can J Bot 65: 1886–1892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rockwood DL 1973 Monoterpene-fusiform rust relationships in loblolly pine. Phytopathology 63: 551–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rockwood DL 1974 Cortical monoterpene and fusiforme rust resistance relationships in slash pine. Phytopathology 64: 976–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rogers IH 1967 A review of the wood and bark extractives of spruces. For Prod Lab, Vancouver, Inf Rep VP-X16Google Scholar
  57. Rudman P 1962 The causes of natural durability in timber. IX. The antifungal activity of heartwood extractives in a wood substrate. Holzforschung 16: 74–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rudman P 1963 The causes of natural durability in timber. XI. Some tests of the fungitoxicity of wood extractives and related compounds. Holzforschung 17: 54–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rudman P 1965 The causes of natural durability in timber. XVIII. Further notes on the fungitoxicity of wood extractives. Holzforschung 19: 57–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Russel CE, Berryman AA 1976 Host resistance to the fir engraver beetle. I. Monoterpene composition of Abies grandis pitch blisters and fungus-infected wounds. Can J Bot 54: 14–18Google Scholar
  61. Schuck HJ 1982 Monoterpenes and resistance of conifers to fungi. In: Heybroek HM, Stephan BR, Weissenberg K (eds) Resistance to diseases and pests in forest trees. PUDOC, Wageningen, 169–175Google Scholar
  62. Shain L 1967 Resistance of sapwood in stems of loblolly pine to infection by Fomes annosus. Phytopathology 57: 1034–1045Google Scholar
  63. Shain L 1971 The response of sapwood of Norway Spruce to infection by Fomes annosus. Phytopathology 61: 301–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Srivastava LM 1964 Anatomy, chemistry, and physiology of hark. Int Rev For Res 1:203–277 Thomas HE 1934 Studies on Armillaria mellea ( Vahl) Quél., infection, parasitism and host resistance. J Agr Res 48: 187–218Google Scholar
  65. Vance CP, Kirk TK, Sherwood RT 1980 Lignification as a mechanism of disease resistance. Annu Rev Phytopathol 18: 259–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wallis GW 1976 Growth characteristics of Phellinus (Poria) weirii in soil and on root and other surfaces. Can J For Res 6: 229–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wallis GW, Reynolds G 1962 Inoculation of Douglas fir roots with Poria weirii. Can J Bot 40: 637–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wellons JD, Krahmer RL 1973 Self bonding in bark composites. Wood Sci 6: 112–122Google Scholar
  69. Woeste U 1956 Anatomische Unterschungen über die Infektionswege einiger Wurzelpilze. Phytopathol Z 26: 225–272Google Scholar
  70. Woo JY, Martin NE 1981 Hypha-like haustoria of the haploid stage of Cronartium ribicola in Pinus monticola observed with the scanning electron microscope. Eur J For Pathol 11: 193199Google Scholar
  71. Woodward S, Pearce RB 1988a The role of stilbenes in the resistance of Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis ( Bong.) Carr.) to entry of decay fungi. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 33: 127–149Google Scholar
  72. Woodward S, Pearce RB 1988b Wound-associated responses in Sitka spruce root hark challenged with Phaeolus schweinitzii. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 33: 151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Ydenderson A 1979 Lachnellula willkommii — canker formation and the role of microflora. A literature review. Eur J For Pathol 9: 347–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zimmerman W, Seemüller E 1984 Degradation of raspberry suberin by Fusarium solani f.sp. pisi and Armillaria mellea. Phytopathol Z 110: 192–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Woodward

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations