Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-pf7kn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-25T09:48:40.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biological Control of Woollyleaf Bursage (Ambrosia grayi) with Pseudomonas syringae pv. tagetis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Tehmina Sheikh ,
Terry A. Wheeler ,
Peter A. Dotray  and
John C. Zak
Tehmina Sheikh
Affiliation:
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Lubbock, TX 79403-9757
Terry A. Wheeler
Affiliation:
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Lubbock, TX 79403-9757
Peter A. Dotray*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Science, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-2122
John C. Zak
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-3131
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: p-dotray@tamu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted with a biocontrol agent, Pseudomonas syringae pv. tagetis, to determine the optimal application parameters for controlling woollyleaf bursage, a pernicious perennial weed on the Texas Southern High Plains. Parameters investigated were bacterial concentration, time, season, and frequency of application. Pseudomonas syringae pv. tagetis concentration ranging from 104 to 108 colony forming units (CFU)/ml produced similar incidence of disease on woollyleaf bursage. Weekly, biweekly, and triweekly applications were found to be equally effective. Optimal time for application of P. syringae pv. tagetis was at midday. A single application in April, May, or June resulted in higher incidence of disease for 5 wk than the noninoculated plots, whereas single applications in July and August were not consistently different from the noninoculated plots. Weed density was negatively correlated with disease incidence for April, July, and August applications, particularly when correlations were based on disease incidence from 1 to 4 wk prior to weed density measurement. Weed densities during 1997 were lower at the end of the year when bacteria applications were made in April, May, or June, as opposed to July or August, or plots were not inoculated. In 1998, weed density was lower when bacteria applications were made in April as opposed to May or June. These investigations indicate that P. syringae pv. tagetis does infect woollyleaf bursage on the Texas southern High Plains.

Keywords

Woollyleaf bursageAmbrosia grayi (A. Nels.) Shinners #3 AMBGRPseudomonas syringae pv. tagetisbiological controlBiological control agentbiopesticideAT, application timeB, bacteriaCFU, colony forming unitsEP, evaluation periodIOD, incidence of disease
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , June 2001 , pp. 375 - 381
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Campbell, C. L. and Madden, L. V. 1990. Introduction to Plant Disease Epidemiology. New York: J. Wiley. 532 p.Google Scholar
Correll, D. S. and Johnston, M. C. 1979. Manual of the Vascular Plants of Texas. Richardson, TX: The University of Texas at Dallas. 1,881 p.Google Scholar
Currie, R. S. and Thompson, C. R. 2000. Effects of herbicides and application timing on woollyleaf bursage (Ambrosia grayi). Weed Technol. 14: 188–190.Google Scholar
Everitt, J. D., Keeling, J. W., Dotray, P. A., and Osborne, T. S. 2000. Perennial weed management in Roundup Ready (glyphosate-tolerant) and BXN (bromoxynil-tolerant) cotton on the Texas Southern High Plains. In Dugger, P. and Richter, D., eds. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences, San Antonio, TX. January 4-8, 2000. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council of America. pp. 1,487.Google Scholar
Gealy, D. R., Gurusiddaiah, S., and Ogg, A. G. Jr. 1996a. Isolation and characterization of metabolites from Pseudomonas syringae-strain 3366 and their phytotoxicity against certain weed and crop species. Weed Sci. 44: 383–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gealy, D. R., Gurusiddaiah, S., Ogg, A. G. Jr., and Kennedy, A. C. 1996b. Metabolites from Pseudomonas fluorescens strain D7 inhibit downy brome (Bromus tectorum) seedling growth. Weed Technol. 10: 282–287.Google Scholar
Gurusiddaiah, S., Gealy, D. R., Kennedy, A. C., and Ogg, A. G. Jr. 1994. Isolation and characterization of metabolites from Pseudomonas fluorescens-D7 for control of downy brome (Bromus tectorum). Weed Sci. 42: 492–501.Google Scholar
Hellmers, E. 1955. Bacterial leaf spot of African marigold (Tagetes erecta) caused by Pseudomonas tagetis sp. n. Acta Agric. Scand. 5: 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, B. J. 1994. Biological control of annual bluegrass with Xanthomonas campestris pv. poannua in bermudagrass. HortScience. 29: 659–662.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. R., Wyse, D. L., and Jones, K. J. 1996. Controlling weeds with phytopathogenic bacteria. Weed Technol. 10: 621–624.Google Scholar
Keeling, J. W. and Abernathy, J. R. 1988. Woollyleaf bursage (Ambrosia grayi) and Texas blueweed (Helianthus ciliaris) control by dicamba. Weed Technol. 2: 12–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, A. C., Elliot, L. F., Young, F. L., and Douglas, C. L. 1991. Rhizobacteria suppressive to the weed downy brome. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 55: 722–727.Google Scholar
Laberge, C. and Sackston, W. E. 1987. Adaptability and diseases of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus) in Quebec. Can. J. Plant Sci. 67: 349–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, D. E. and Durbin, R. D. 1990. Tagetitoxin inhibits RNA synthesis directed by RNA polymerases from chloroplasts and Escherichia coli . J. Biol. Chem. 265: 493–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menn, J. J. and Hall, F. R. 1999. Biopesticides: present status and future prospects. In Hall, F. R. and Menn, J. J., eds. Biopesticides: Use and Delivery. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press. pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. E. and Durbin, R. D. 1981. Tagetitoxin, a toxin produced by Pseudomonas syringae pv. tagetis: purification and partial characterization of Zinnia elegans . Physiol. Plant Pathol. 18: 157–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodehamel, N. H. and Durbin, R. D. 1985. Host range of strains of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tagetis . Plant Dis. 69: 589–591.Google Scholar
Rhodehamel, N. H. and Durbin, R. D. 1989. Toxin production by strains of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tagetis . Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 35: 499–505.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1990. SAS Procedures Guide. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 276 p.Google Scholar
Shane, W. W. and Baumer, J. J. 1984. Apical chlorosis and leaf spot of Jerusalem artichoke incited by Pseudomonas syringae pv. tagetis . Plant Dis. 68: 257–260.Google Scholar
Sheikh, T., Dotray, P. A., Wheeler, T. A., and Zak, J. C. 1999. Control of woollyleaf bursage with Pseudomonas syringae pv. tagetis . Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 52: 18–19.Google Scholar
Steinberg, T. H., Matthews, D. E., and Durbin, R. D. 1990. Tagetitoxin: a new inhibitor of eukaryotic transcription by RNA polymerase III. J. Biol. Chem. 265: 499–505.Google Scholar
Wheeler, T. A., Dotray, P. A., and Winchester, J. 1998. Root rot by Rhizoctonia solani on Ambrosia grayi in Texas. Plant Dis. 82:959.Google Scholar
Zidack, N. K. and Backman, P. A. 1996. Biological control of kudzu (Pueraria lobata) with the plant pathogen Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola . Weed Sci. 44: 645–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zidack, N. K., Backman, P. S., and Shaw, J. J. 1992. Promotion of bacterial infection of leaves by an organosilicone surfactant: implications for biological weed control. Biol. Control. 2: 111–117.Google Scholar