4.7 Article

Metrafenone resistance in a population of Erysiphe necator in northern Italy

Journal

PEST MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
Volume 72, Issue 2, Pages 398-404

Publisher

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/ps.4060

Keywords

Uncinula necator; Oidium tuckeri; fungicide resistance; benzophenone; pyriofenone; Vitis vinifera

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Metrafenone has been used in Europe in integrated pest management programmes since 2006 to control powdery mildews, including Erysiphe necator. Its exact mode of action is not known, but it is unique among fungicide classes used in powdery mildew management. Recently, resistance to metrafenone was reported in Blumeria graminis f.sp. tritici. In this study we investigated metrafenone resistance in Erysiphe necator in northern Italy. RESULTS: Metrafenone efficacy to control grapevine powdery mildew was monitored in three consecutive years in the field, and its reduced activity was observed in 2013. Out of 13 monoconidial isolates, two sensitive strains were identified, which did not grow at the fungicide concentration recommended for field application. The remaining strains showed variable response to metrafenone, and five of them grew and sporulated similarly to the control, even at 1250 mg L-1 of metrafenone. Moreover, the resistant strains showed cross-resistance to pyriofenone, which belongs to the same FRAC group as metrafenone. CONCLUSION: The results indicate the emergence of metrafenone resistance in an Italian population of Erysiphe necator. Further studies are needed to gain insight into the metrafenone's mode of action and to understand the impact of resistance on changes in the pathogen population structure, fitness and spread of resistant strains, which will be indicative for designing appropriate antiresistance measures. (C) 2015 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available