Pitch Canker R&D Exchange

[jomoco]

I thought this redacted communication between a very big wig heading the current Pitch Canker research here in CA, and myself might be of interest to those of you familiar with Fusarium circinatum here.

Dear Redacted



I am not aware of any research on this topic. I would not expect lighting intensity (or light quality) to have a significant impact on disease but perhaps I would be surprised. On the other hand, factors that favor rapid growth do appear to render trees somewhat more susceptible to damage caused by pitch canker. For example, high nitrogen fertilizer and irrigation, both which promote growth, tend also to increase the severity of pitch canker. This may reflect a differential allocation of carbon toward growth at the expense of defense. If more intense illumination enhanced growth it might also make disease more severe and visa versa. All of this assumes only an indirect effect on disease, i.e., via an effect on the physiology of the tree. If the infection is below ground, as it typically is on saplings, then I would not expect any direct effect on the fungus.



I don’t know if that gets to the essence of your question but that is the best I can do.



Sincerely,



Redacted

Professor and Chair

Department of Plant Pathology


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Redacted
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 12:42 PM
To: Redacted
Subject: Pitch Canker Disease Research



Hi Professor Gordon,



My name is Redacted, a 33 year arborist.



May I respectfully ask if to your knowledge any research has ever been done to determine the efficacy of artificial grow lights in treating Pinus radiata saplings infected with Fusarium circinatum?



Do you have any thoughts on the logical merit of fighting a fungus with artificially intensified sunlight?



Best regards,



Redacted

Climbing Arborist



Any thoughts on this fungal subject guys.

jomoco
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[PB]

High light exposure can lead to stress conditions, treating with artificial lights might be harmful to the plant. It would have to be strictly controlled to be at the correct light intensity.

A fungal attack on a plant triggers numerous stress responses and leads to several different responses. There is a lot of cross talk between these pathways and all play a role in stress response, both biotic and abiotic. In the response, both high nitrogen and irrigation cause stress conditions and the reallocation of resources to deal with these stresses in combination with a fungal attack would simply overload the plant. It would be similar to getting a cut on your arm while fighting off pneumonia and tuberculosis at the same time.

What is your hypothesis of treating plants with artificial light? Do you mind telling me who you corresponded with, send me a PM.

 

[jomoco]

High light exposure can lead to stress conditions, treating with artificial lights might be harmful to the plant. It would have to be strictly controlled to be at the correct light intensity.

A fungal attack on a plant triggers numerous stress responses and leads to several different responses. There is a lot of cross talk between these pathways and all play a role in stress response, both biotic and abiotic. In the response, both high nitrogen and irrigation cause stress conditions and the reallocation of resources to deal with these stresses in combination with a fungal attack would simply overload the plant. It would be similar to getting a cut on your arm while fighting off pneumonia and tuberculosis at the same time.

What is your hypothesis of treating plants with artificial light? Do you mind telling me who you corresponded with, send me a PM.

My interest is the tangential orientation physical fungul infection itself on the tree. Is it located on the highest average shade side of the tree? Like moss growing on the northern side of Live Oaks only, here in socal?

What exactly is the preferred initial pathway route that allows this fungus to girdle and kill an adult or sapling Pinus radiata?

My theory is that it may be possible to artificially balance the direction of light hitting the plant if indeed the initial infection route is on the shaded side. In my opinion a fungus is a fungus, and none of them like sunlight.

Your opinion is please?

jomoco

 

[PB]

My interest is the tangential orientation physical fungul infection itself on the tree. Is it located on the highest average shade side of the tree? Like moss growing on the northern side of Live Oaks only, here in socal?

What exactly is the preferred initial pathway route that allows this fungus to girdle and kill an adult or sapling Pinus radiata?

My theory is that it may be possible to artificially balance the direction of light hitting the plant if indeed the initial infection route is on the shaded side. In my opinion a fungus is a fungus, and none of them like sunlight.

Your opinion is please?

jomoco

From my limited knowledge on pitch canker, it infects wounds that are already present on the plant. I have read that it is an association infection that usually follows the pine weevil. So if the pine weevil likes the low light, it does not mean that the canker does as well, it could just be a coincidence that it is on the shade side of the tree.

I don't think placing artificial light on the fungus will do anything, but I have been know to be wrong before.

The fungus' spores land in open wounds and grow from there.

 

[jomoco]

From my limited knowledge on pitch canker, it infects wounds that are already present on the plant. I have read that it is an association infection that usually follows the pine weevil. So if the pine weevil likes the low light, it does not mean that the canker does as well, it could just be a coincidence that it is on the shade side of the tree.

I don't think placing artificial light on the fungus will do anything, but I have been know to be wrong before.

The fungus' spores land in open wounds and grow from there.

Well this may be worth pursuing in that if the professor's statement that in saplings the fungal infection path is through the soil or roots is true, and I trust he knows his business, then to actually kill the tree I assume at some point it rises above ground to girdle it's victim. In my experience it is invariably true that trees killed by pitch canker exhibit a blue fungal infection zone throughout the cambium vasculature of the entire tree right out into the small branch tips.

I notice that both you and the professor leave a bit of slack in that you both may be mistaken regarding sunlight's possible efficacy in mitigating fungal growth.

I suspect you both may be interested in reading this Cambridge researchers abstract on the ability of sunlight, particularly a certain range of UV light, to interrupt and even stop the fungal spore germination sequence.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6711

Thanks for the interesting discussion Plant, I like R&D on disease mitigation.

jomoco

 

[PB]

http://apsnet.org/mpmi/pdfs/2002/0306-02R.pdf

I am trying to find more info, so I can make a more informed response. If you don't hear from me in a few days, send me a pm.

 

[Ed Roland]

This thread has been of particular interest to me. I wonder if the participating parties have resolved this and if so, would they share their finding with us?

opcorn:

 

[jomoco]

This thread has been of particular interest to me. I wonder if the participating parties have resolved this and if so, would they share their finding with us?

opcorn:

Hey there Woodweasel,

The wheels of academia turn slower than the wheels of government.

Most of the R&D on fungal disease mitigation is centered around food crops.

I will post any developments on this unusual theory of mine either positive or negative as they trickle in to me.

This particular CA professor is ideally equipped to test my theory on saplings in his lab if he determines it has merit.

jomoco