Forest Pathology最新文献

Root-knot nematodes (RKN, Meloidogyne spp.) are among the most important plant pathogenic organisms, causing significant damage, with a wide geographical distribution and being difficult to control. The ability of these nematodes to parasitize native trees from Brazilian biomes is little understood. This study evaluated the host status of 24 native tree species to M. incognita and M. javanica under greenhouse conditions. Overall, 62.5% of the species evaluated (15 out of 24) were classified as susceptible (reproduction factor, RF > 1.0) to M. javanica, whereas 70.8% (17 out of 24) were susceptible to M. incognita. The highest RF values for both nematodes were recorded in Enterolobium contortisiliquum, Handroanthus albus and Senna macranthera, while Cedrela fissilis showed high susceptibility only to M. incognita. Six species were resistant to M. javanica and five to M. incognita, with four species (Campomanesia guazumifolia, Erythrina falcata, Inga edulis and Parapiptadenia rigida) exhibiting resistance to both nematodes. In addition, four species were immune to M. javanica and two to M. incognita, with Apuleia leiocarpa and Myrcianthes pungens being the only species immune to both RKN species. Many of the most susceptible trees are widely distributed in the Cerrado, Brazil's leading grain- and fibre-producing region, indicating potential refuges for RKN near agricultural landscapes. This study provides the first comprehensive evaluation of native Brazilian trees as RKN hosts, filling a major knowledge gap and offering novel insights for sustainable nematode management, forest restoration and biotechnological exploration.

The increasing global demand for products derived from Eucalyptus spp. has stimulated its production in Brazil. However, productivity has declined in recent years due to several factors, with Ceratocystis wilt being one of the most significant. Conventional detection methods rely on visual assessment, histological sections and/or molecular analyses—procedures that are time-consuming and impractical for large-scale monitoring. Proximal or remote sensing based on VIS–NIR–SWIR spectroscopy (400–2500 nm) has been proposed as a non-destructive alternative for characterising plant biochemical and biophysical properties, yet its use for detecting Ceratocystis wilt in Eucalyptus spp. remains underexplored. Here, we evaluated whether leaf reflectance measurements in the VIS–NIR–SWIR range, acquired with a proximal non-imaging sensor, can be used to detect the disease in asymptomatic cuttings (vegetatively propagated plants). For that a greenhouse experiment was established with two Eucalyptus clones, one susceptible and another resistant. Plants were visually assessed and tested via the ‘carrot bait’ method for disease incidence, and spectral measurements collected four times between 12 and 60 h after inoculation. Observations for inoculated plants were compared with those from non-inoculated controls (total n = 77). Classification models trained with Partial Least Squares Discriminant Analysis (PLS-DA), Random Forest with Recursive Feature Elimination (RF + RFE) and Support Vector Machine with Genetic Algorithm (SVM + GA) achieved balanced accuracy of 0.63 ± 0.11, 0.75 ± 0.11 and 0.75 ± 0.13, respectively. Features selected via RFE and GA, or identified as highly important in the PLS-DA, RF + RFE and SVM + GA models, were predominantly located in the visible, NIR and especially the SWIR regions. This distribution is consistent with absorption features associated with leaf water, cellulose, starch and lignin (near 1100–1200 and 2300 nm), as well as proteins (near 1700, 2200 and 2300 nm). Spectra from the apical canopy layer generally provided better classification performance than those from the basal or middle canopy sections. Despite the relatively small dataset and limited number of clones, our results demonstrate the potential of proximal spectroscopy for detecting Ceratocystis wilt in asymptomatic Eucalyptus plants.

The specific proteins from Japanese birch (Betula platyphylla var. japonica plantlet No. 8) callus infected with a canker-rot fungus Inonotus obliquus strain IO-U1 (NBRC 113406) at the early infection stage were identified using proteome analysis. The intact, wounded, and infected calli were prepared, and the protein samples obtained at 2 days post-treatments were subjected to two-dimensional electrophoresis (2-DE) for detecting infection-specific proteins. The infection-specific proteins were then analysed using LC/MS/MS, and the obtained data were subjected to the NCBIprot database for identifying the proteins based on homologous sequences search. A total of 134 protein spots on the 2-DE gel were detected as infection-specific proteins. Of these spots, 10 highly expressed proteins were identified as protochlorophyllide reductase chloroplastic (spot ID 1564), enolase (spot ID 368), mitochondrial-processing peptidase subunit alpha-like (spot ID 441), mitochondrial-processing peptidase subunit alpha isoform B (spot ID 1578), T-complex protein 1 subunit eta (spot ID 356), glutathione S-transferase-like protein (spot ID 1121), glutathione S-transferase-like protein, partial (spot ID 1527), protein WALLS ARE THIN 1-like (spot ID 1444), and 1 Sc-3 (spot IDs 1290 and 1322). The obtained results suggest that Japanese birch callus is capable of inducing several proteins related to photosynthesis, energy production, protein import machinery in mitochondria, protein folding, detoxification, secondary cell wall formation, and PR-10 protein at the early infection stage as responses to defend itself against I. obliquus strain IO-U1 infection.

Çakar D., Şimşek S. A., Yiğit B., Maden S. (2025), Impact of Needle Blight on Stone Pine Decline in Recently Planted Trees in Nallıhan District of Türkiye, Forest Pathology 55 (5): e70042. https://doi.org/10.1111/efp.70042

In the Abstract section, “the three fungi recovered; H. spartii, S. polyspora and V. sordida caused symptoms when inoculated onto healthy needles of P. pinea.” was incorrect. This should have read: The three fungi recovered; Heterotruncatella spartii, Sydowia polyspora and Valsa sordida caused symptoms when inoculated onto healthy needles of Pinus pinea.”

In the original version of this article, in paragraph 12 of the “Materials and Methods” section, the sentence “Many of the necrotic needles also hosted specimens of the Pine needle scale (Chionaspis pinifoliae), and samples were taken to confirm the presence of Pine needle scale” incorrectly included the scientific name.

This should have read: “Many of the necrotic needles also hosted specimens of the Pine needle scale, and samples were taken to confirm the presence of Pine needle scale.”

In Figure 1 the caption, “General blight symptoms on the lower parts of stone pine trees (a); needles showing various necrotic spots and infested by pine needle scale (Chionaspis pinifoliae) (b); necrotic spots caused by Heterotruncatella spartii on the needles (c).” was incorrect.

This should have read: “General blight symptoms on the lower parts of stone pine trees (a); needles showing various necrotic spots and infested by pine needle scale (b); necrotic spots caused by Heterotruncatella spartii on the needles (c).”

In paragraph 12 of the “Occurrence of Needle Blight” section, the text “The presence of pine needle scale (Chionaspis pinifoliae Fitch) was observed on almost all needles, especially on their parts near the needle sheaths (Figure 1b).” was incorrect.

This should have read: “The presence of pine needle scale was observed on almost all needles, especially on their parts near the needle sheaths (Figure 1b).”

In paragraph 93 of the “Discussion” section, the text “Although it was not found on all the necrotic needles, the pine needle scale (Chionaspis pinifoliae) might not only reduce the vigour of the trees but also facilitate the infection of the fungi by producing wounds.” was incorrect.

This should have read: “Although it was not found on all the necrotic needles, the pine needle scale might not only reduce the vigour of the trees but also facilitate the infection of the fungi by producing wounds.”

We apologize for these errors.