Multiplication of Ralstonia solanacearum in Capsicum annuum

  • H. Abdullah
  • M. A. Rahman


Bacterial population differed statistically between resistant and susceptible cultivars at the mid stem, collar and mid stem regions and for all techniques of inoculation used. In susceptible cultivar, bacterial population density did not differ significantly from the 8th to 16th day neither for different sites of detection nor for the inoculation techniques used. Bacterial population decreased significantly at all sampling sites in stem-inoculated resistant plants. In root-inoculated plants, the population density increased initially, then decreased significantly among the three sites tested. When soil-inoculated, bacterial population decreased significantly between the root and collar region, and the pathogen was not detected in mid stem region.


Bacterial Population Resistant Cultivar Susceptible Cultivar Bacterial Wilt Chili Pepper 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abdullah H (1992) Hosts of Pseudomonas solanacearum in Malaysia. Pertanika 15:9 – 12Google Scholar
  2. Beckman CH (1987) The nature of wilt diseases of plants. St. Paul Minnesota, APS PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Cafati CR, Saettler AW (1980) Effect of host on multiplication and distribution of bean common blight bacteria. Phytopathology 70:675 – 79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ciampi L, Sequeira L(1980) Multiplication of Pseudomonas solanacearum in resistant potato plants and the establishment of latent infection. Am Potato J 57:319 – 329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ciampi L, Sequeira L, French ER(1980) Latent infection of potato tubers by Pseudomonas solanacearum. Am Potato J 57:377 – 386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grimault V, Prior P (1993) Tomato bacterial wilt resistance associated with tolerance of vascular tissues to Pseudomonas solanacearum. Plant Pathol 42:589 – 94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grimault V, Schmit J, Prior P (1993) Some characteristics involved in bacterial wilt (Pseudomonas solanacearum) resistance in tomato. In: Hartman GL and Hayward AC(eds.) Bacterial wilt Proceedings of an international symposium, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, ROC, 28 – 30 October 1992 ACIAR Proceedings, 45:112 – 119 ACIAR, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  8. Hayward AC (1991) Biology and epidemiology of bacterial wilt caused by Pseudomonas solanacearum. Ann Rev Phytopathol 29:65 – 87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Prior P, Grimault V, Schmit J (1994) Resistance to bacterial wilt (Pseudomonas solanacearum) in tomato: Present status and prospects. In : Hayward AC and Hartman GL (eds.) Bacterial wilt, the disease and its causative agent, Pseudomonas solanacearum pp. 209 – 223 CAB INTERNATIONAL, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Prior P, Beramis M, Chillet M, Schmit J, (1990) Preliminary studies for tomato bacterial wilt (Pseudomonas solanacearum EF Sm..) resistance mechanism. Symbiosis 9:393 – 400Google Scholar
  11. Syed AR, Loke WH (1995) Development and challenges in pest management of vegetables. In: Proceedings of the Seminar on development and challenges of pest management in Malaysia,.28 March 1995. Malacca Malaysian Plant Protect Soc pp 43 – 56Google Scholar
  12. Tomasik AA, Goodman RN (1986) Pathogenesis, migration and population dynamics of Erwinia amylovora in susceptible (Jonathan) and resistant (Red Delicious) apple shoots. In: Civerolo EL, Collmer A, Davis RE and Gillaspie AG (eds.) Plant Pathogenic Bacteria Proceedings of the sixth International Conference on Plant Pathogenic Bacteria 2 – 7 June 1985 Maryland pp 672 – 679Google Scholar
  13. Winstead NN, Kelman A (1952) Inoculation techniques for evaluating resistance to Pseudomonas solanacearum. Phytopathology 42:628 – 634Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Abdullah
  • M. A. Rahman

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations