Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Grapevine Trunk Diseases Associated with Fungi from the Diaporthaceae Family in Croatian Vineyards / Identifikacija Vrsta Roda Fusarium Izoliranih S Plodova Jabuke Nakon Skladištenja Cover

Grapevine Trunk Diseases Associated with Fungi from the Diaporthaceae Family in Croatian Vineyards / Identifikacija Vrsta Roda Fusarium Izoliranih S Plodova Jabuke Nakon Skladištenja

Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology
Volume 63 (2012): Issue 4 (December 2012)
By: ,   and    
Open Access
|Jan 2013
References

References

  1. 1. Cvjetković B. Mikoze i pseudomikoze voćaka i vinove loze [Mycoses and Pseudomycoses of Fruit Trees and Grapevine, in Croatian]. Čakovec: Zrinski; 2010.
    Search in Google Scholar
  2. 2. Gubler WD, Rolshausen PE, Trouillas FP, Urbez-Torres JR, Voege T, Leavitt GM, Weber EA. Grapevine trunk diseases in California. Practical Winery and Vineyard 2005 [displayed 24 September 2012]. Avaliable at http://www.practicalwinery. com/janfeb05/janfeb05p6.htm
    Search in Google Scholar
  3. 3. Armengol J, Vicent A, Torne L, Garcia-Figueres F, Garcia- Jimenez J. Fungi associated with esca and grapevine decline in Spain: a three-year survey. Phytopathol Mediterr 2001;40:325-9.
    Search in Google Scholar
  4. 4. Urbez-Torres JR, Adams P, Kamas J, Gubler DW. Identification, incidence, and pathogenicity of fungal species associated with grapevine dieback in Texas. Am J Enol Vitic 2009;60:497-507.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  5. 5. Aroca A, Garcia-Figueres F, Bracamonte L, Luque J, Raposo R. A survey of trunk disease pathogens within rootstocks of grapevines in Spain. Eur J Plant Pathol 2006;115:195-202.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  6. 6. White CL, Halleen F, Fischer M, Mostert L. Characterisation of the fungi associated with esca diseased grapevines in South Africa. Phytopathol Mediterr 2011;50:204-3.
    Search in Google Scholar
  7. 7. Navarrete F, Abreo E, Betucci L, Martinez S, Lupo S. First report ofas a cause of grapevine dead-arm dieback in Uruguay. Australas Plant Dis Notes 2009;4:117-9.
    Search in Google Scholar
  8. 8. Jordan S, Schilder A., a potential pathogen of grapevines in Michigan. Phytopathology 2005;95:S51.
    Search in Google Scholar
  9. 9. Mostert L, Halleen F, Crous PW, Creaser mL., a forgotten shoot and cane pathogen of grapevines. Australas Plant Pathol 2004;33:295-9.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  10. 10. Mostert L, Crous PW, Petrini O. Endophytic fungi associated with shoots and leaves of, with specific reference to thecomplex. Sydowia 2000;52:46-58.
    Search in Google Scholar
  11. 11. Mostert L, Crous PW, Kang JC, Phillips AJL. Species ofand asp. occurring on grapevines with specific reference to South Africa: morphological, cultural, molecular and pathological characterization. Mycologia 2001;93:146-67.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  12. 12. Merrin SJ, Nair NG, Tarran J. Variation inrecorded on grapevine in Australia and its taxonomic and biological implications. Australas Plant Pathol 1995;24:44-56.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  13. 13. Phillips AJL. The relationship betweenandon grapevines. Mycologia 1999;91:1001-7.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  14. 14. Phillips AJL. Excoriose, cane blight and related diseases of grapevines: a taxonomic review of the pathogens. Phytopathol Mediterr 2000;39:341-56.
    Search in Google Scholar
  15. 15. Niekerk JM, Groenewald JZ, Farr DF, Fourie PH, Halleen F, Crous PW. Reassessment ofspecies on grapevines. Australas Plant Path 2005;34:1-13.
    Search in Google Scholar
  16. 16. Schilder AMC, Erincik O, Castlebury L, Rossman A, Ellis MA. Characterization ofspp. infecting grapevines in the Great Lakes region of North America. Plant Dis 2005;89:755-62.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  17. 17. Kirk PM, Cannon PF, David JC, Stalpers JA. Ainsworth and Bisby’s Dictionary of the Fungi. 10th ed. Wallingford (UK): CABI Publishing; 2010.
    Search in Google Scholar
  18. 18. Uecker FA. A World List ofNames With Notes on Nomenclature, Morphology and Biology (Mycologia Memoir). Port Jervis (NY): Lubrecht & Cramer Ltd; 1988.
    Search in Google Scholar
  19. 19. Rossman AY, Farr DF, Castlebury LA. A review of the phylogeny and biology of the Diaporthales. Mycoscience 2007;48:135-44.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  20. 20. Dhanushka U, Xingzhong L, McKenzie EHC, Chukeatirote E, Bahkali AHA, Hyde KD. The genus: biology, applications, species concepts and names of common phytopathogens. Fungal Divers 2011;50:189-225.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  21. 21. Kaliterna J, Miličević T, Cvjetković B. Nove spoznaje o etiologiji crne pjegavosti vinove loze i taksonomiji vrsta povezanih s patogenom(Sacc.) Sacc. [New Insight into Aetiology of Phomopsis Cane and Leaf Spot of Grapevine and Taxonomy of Species Related to Phomopsis viticola (Sacc.) Sacc., in Croatian]. Glasilo biljne zaštite 2009;5:291-5.
    Search in Google Scholar
  22. 22. Kišpatić J. Crna pjegavost vinove loze -Sacc. „nova” bolest u našim vinogradima [Black Spot of Grapevine -Sacc. a “New” Disease in Croatian Vineyards, in Croatian]. Bilten „Poljodobra” 1973;separat):1-11.
    Search in Google Scholar
  23. 23. Kišpatić J, Seiwerth V, Glavaš M. RaširenjeSacc. u našim vinogradima [Occurrence ofSacc. in Croatian Vineyards, in Croatian]. Poljoprivredna znanstvena smotra 1976;39/49:309-412.
    Search in Google Scholar
  24. 24. Cvjetković B, Miličević T, Ivić D. Crna pjegavost vinove loze ((Sacc.) Sacc.) česta bolest naših vinograda [Black Spot of Grapevine (viticola (Sacc.) Sacc. frequent disease in Croatian Vineyards, in Croatian]. Glasilo biljne zaštite 2009;5:287-90.
    Search in Google Scholar
  25. 25. Scheper RWA, Crane DC, Whisson DL, Scott ES. Theteleomorph ofTaxon 1 on grapevine. Mycol Res 2000;104:226-31.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  26. 26. Rawnsley B, Wicks TJ, Scott ES, Stummer BE.does not causeand leaf spot disease of grapevine in Australia. Plant Dis 2004;88:1005-10.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  27. 27. Vrandečić K, Jurković D, Ćosić J.vrste na vinovoj lozi u istočnoj Hrvatskoj [Species on Grapevine in Eastern Croatia, in Croatian]. Glasilo biljne zaštite 2010;4:246-52.
    Search in Google Scholar
  28. 28. Santos JM, Phillips AJL. Resolving the complex of() species occurring onin Portugal. Fungal Divers 2009;34:111-25.
    Search in Google Scholar
  29. 29. White TJ, Bruns T, Lee S, Taylor JW. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In: Innis MA, Gelfand DH, Sninsky JJ, White TJ, editors. PCR Protocols: A Guide to Methods and Applications. New York (NY): Academic Press;1990. p. 315-22.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  30. 30. Urbez-Torres JR. Leavitt GM. Guerrero JC. Guevara J. Gubler WD. Identification and pathogenicity ofand, the causal agents of bot canker disease of grapevines in Mexico. Plant Dis 2008;92:519-29.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  31. 31. Urbez-Torres JR. Gubler, WD. Pathogenicity of Botryosphaeriaceae species isolated from grapevine cankers in California. Plant Dis 2009;93:584-92.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  32. 32. Phillips AJL.species associated with diseases of grapevines in Portugal. Phytopathol Mediterr 2002;41:3-18.
    Search in Google Scholar
  33. 33. Taylor A, Hardy GEStJ, Wood P, Burgess T. Identification and pathogenicity ofspecies associated with grapevine decline in Western Australia. Australas Plant Pathol 2005;34:187-95.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  34. 34. Thomidis T, Michailides TJ. Studies onas a new pathogen of peach trees in Greece. Plant Dis 2009;93:1293-7.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  35. 35. Vrandečić K, Jurković D, Ćosić J, Postić J, Riccioni L. First report of cane blight on blackberry caused byin Croatia. Plant Dis 2011;95:612.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  36. 36. Anagnostakis SL.() as a pathogen of butternut () in Connecticut. Plant Dis 2007;91:1198.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  37. 37. Curzi M.theae micromycetibus pathogenis. Atti Ist Bot Univ Pavia 1927;3:59-72.
    Search in Google Scholar
  38. 38. Diogo ELF, Santos JM, Phillips AJL. Phylogeny, morphology and pathogenicity ofandspecies on almond in Portugal. Fungal Divers 2010;44:107-15.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  39. 39. Uecker FA, Kuo KC. A newwith long paraphyses. Mycotaxon 1992;64:425-33.
    Search in Google Scholar
  40. 40. Kuo K, Leu LS.a pathogenicfrom vines. Mycotaxon 1998;66:497-99.
    Search in Google Scholar
  41. 41. Vrandečić K. Morfološka i molekularna identifikacija Diaporthe/Phomopsis vrsta s kultiviranog i korovskog bilja [Morphological and molecular identification of Diaporthe/ Phomopsis species from cultivated and weed plants] [dissertation]. Osijek (Croatia); Faculty of Agriculture in Osijek; 2008
    Search in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/10004-1254-63-2012-2226 | Journal eISSN: 1848-6312 (formerly 0004-1254) | Journal ISSN: 0004-1254
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English, Croatian, Slovenian
Page range: 471 - 479
Published on: Jan 16, 2013
Published by: Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Health
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Keywords:
Diaporthe,
Diaporthe eres,
Diaporthe neotheicola,
Croatia,
pathogenicity,
Phomopsis,
Phomopsis viticola,
Diaporthe,
Diaporthe eres,
Diaporthe neotheicola,
Hrvatska,
patogenost,
Phomopsis,
Phomopsis viticola
Related subjects:
Medicine,
Basic medical science,
Basic medical science, other

© 2013 Joško Kaliterna, Tihomir Miličević, Bogdan Cvjetković, published by Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Health
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons License.

Volume 63 (2012): Issue 4 (December 2012)
Previous article
Next article