Microscopic fungi antagonistic to chestnut blight- Cryphonectria parasitica (Murrill) Barr.

Paper Details

Research Paper 01/05/2018
Views (357) Download (85)

Microscopic fungi antagonistic to chestnut blight- Cryphonectria parasitica (Murrill) Barr.

Irina Danelia, Nino Zakariashvili, Gulnara Badridze, Lali Kutateladze, Maia Jobava, Nino Lomidze, Ketevan Benashvili
Int. J. Micro. Myco.7( 3), 14-23, May 2018.
Certificate: IJMM 2018 [Generate Certificate]


The extent of cryphonecrosis among the chestnut populations of three Imeretian (west Georgia) villages: Darka, Eto, and Chala has been evaluated. 23 strains of Cryphonectria parasitica (Murrill) Barr (syn. Endothia parasitica (Murrill) were isolated and identified from the bark of sick trees. The collection of strains of the plant pathogen fungus has been created. The strategy of the struggle against the chestnut blight, based on the application of antagonistic to C. parasitica microscopic fungi, has been elaborated. For this purpose 50 strains of different microscopic fungi were isolated and identified (till genus) from the soil samples picked just under the stems of sick trees of above mentioned locations. The dominating genera of micromycetes in forest brown soils have been revealed. Strong biological antagonists of the plant pathogenic fungus, belonging to genera Penicillium, Trichoderma and Aspergillus have been selected on the base of the investigation of antagonistic activity of the “aboriginal” flora of studied soils. The collection of antagonistic to C. parasitica microscopic fungi, among them of new biological agents, has been created. The vegetative compatibility of the isolated strains of C. parasitica was investigated as well.


Akilli S, Katircioğlu YZ, Maden S. 2009. Vegetative compatibility types of Cryphonectria parasitica, causal agent of chestnut blight, in the Black Sea region of Turkey. Forest Pathology 39(6), 390-396.

Akilli S, Katircioğlu YZ, Maden S. 2011. Biological control of chestnut canker caused by Cryphonectria parasitica, by antagonistic organisms and hypovirulent isolates. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 35(5), 515-523.

Anagnostakis SL. 1977. Vegetative incompatibility in Endothia parasitica. Experimental Mycology   1(4), 306-316.

Anagnostakis SL. 1994. Protecting chestnut trees from blight. Northern Nut Growers Association (USA).

Arx, von JA. 1970. The genera of fungi sporulating in pure culture. Gramer Lehre, 1-288.

Bilaiy VI, Koval EZ. 1988. Aspergills. Kiev, Naukova Doumka (in Russian).

Crous PW, Shivas RG, Quaedvlieg W, Van der Bank M, Zhang Y, Summerell BA, Guarro J, Wingfield MJ, Wood AR, Alfenas AC, Braun U. 2014. Fungal Planet.

Dugan FM. 2006. The Identification of Fungi. An Illustrated Introduction with Keys, Glossary and Guide to Literature. APS Press, St. Paul, MN. USA. 176.

Fomin GS, Fomin AG. 2001. Soil. Monitoring on Quality and Ecologic Safety in Accordance with International Standards. Moscow. VNII standard (in Russian).

Groome PC, Tattar TA, Mount MS. 2001. Bacteria found on American chestnut bark and their potential in biocontrol of chestnut blight. Arboricultural Journal 25(3), 221-234.

Heiniger U, Rigling D. 1994. Biological control of chestnut blight in Europe. Annual review of phytopathology 32(1), 581-599.

Kreisel H, Fisher G. 1969. Grundzuge eines haturlichen systems der pilze. Jena.

Litvinov A. 1967. Guide of microscopic soil fungi. Leningrad (in Russian).

MacDonald WL, Double ML. 2004. Hypovirulence: use and limitations as a chestnut blight biological control. In: Restoration of American chestnut to forest lands. Proceedings of a Conference and Workshop 7-95.

Malloch D. 1981. Moulds, their isolation, cultivation, and identification. University of Toronto Press.

Milgroom MG, Cortesi P. 2004. Biological control of chestnut blight with hypovirulence: a critical analysis. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol 42, 311-338.

Pidoplichko NM, Mylko AA. 1971. Atlas of Mucosal Fungi. Kiev, Naukova Dumka (in Russian).

Prospero S, Lutz A, Tavadze B, Supatashvili A, Rigling D. 2013. Discovery of a new gene pool and a high genetic diversity of the chestnut blight fungus Cryphonectria parasitica in Caucasian Georgia. Infection, Genetics and Evolution 20, 131-139.

Puia CE, Grogorescu DA, Miclea RV. 2012. The Morphology and the Biological Control of Cryphonectria parasitica. Bulletin of the University of Agricultural Sciences & Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca. Agriculture 69(1).

Rigling D, Prospero S. 2018. Cryphonectria parasitica, the causal agent of chestnut blight: Invasion history, population biology and disease control. Molecular plant pathology 19(1), 7-20.

Robin C, Heiniger U. 2001. Chestnut blight in Europe: diversity of Cryphonectria parasitica, hypovirulence and biocontrol. Forest Snow and Landscape Research 76(3), 361-367.

Smith AR. 2013. Biological Control of Cryphonectria Parasitica with Streptomyces and an Analysis of Vegetative Compatibility Diversity of Cryphonectria Parasitica in Wisconsin, USA. Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin–La Crosse.

Waksman SA, Curtis RE. 1916. The actinomyces of the soil. Soil Science 1(2), 99-134.

Warcup JH. 1950. The soil-plate method for isolation of fungi from soil. Nature 166, 117.-118.

Wilhelm E, Arthofer W, Schafleitner R, Krebs B. 1998. Bacillus subtilis an endophyte of chestnut (Castanea sativa) as antagonist against chestnut blight (Cryphonectria parasitica). Plant cell, tissue and organ culture 52(1-2), 105-108.

Zviagintsev NDG. 1980. Methods of Soil Microbiology and Biochemistry. Moscow University, 12-14. (in Russian).