1887

Microbial Genomics logo

Volume 10, Issue 5

Deep population structure linked to host vernalization requirement in the barley net blotch fungal pathogen Open Access

Abstract

Invasive fungal pathogens pose a substantial threat to widely cultivated crop species, owing to their capacity to adapt to new hosts and new environmental conditions. Gaining insights into the demographic history of these pathogens and unravelling the mechanisms driving coevolutionary processes are crucial for developing durably effective disease management programmes. is a significant fungal pathogen of barley, consisting of two lineages, Ptt and Ptm, with global distributions and demographic histories reflecting barley domestication and spread. However, the factors influencing the population structure of remain poorly understood, despite the varietal and environmental heterogeneity of barley agrosystems. Here, we report on the population genomic structure of in France and globally. We used genotyping-by-sequencing to show that Ptt and Ptm can coexist in the same area in France, with Ptt predominating. Furthermore, we showed that differences in the vernalization requirement of barley varieties were associated with population differentiation within Ptt in France and at a global scale, with one population cluster found on spring barley and another population cluster found on winter barley. Our results demonstrate how cultivation conditions, possibly associated with genetic differences between host populations, can be associated with the maintenance of divergent invasive pathogen populations coexisting over large geographic areas. This study not only advances our understanding of the coevolutionary dynamics of the Pt-barley pathosystem but also prompts further research on the relative contributions of adaptation to the host versus adaptation to abiotic conditions in shaping Ptt populations.

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): local adaptation , Net Form Net Blotch (NFNB) , population genomics , Pyrenophora teresf.maculata , Pyrenophora teresf.teres , Spot Form Net Blotch (SFNB) , spring barley , temperature and winter barley
Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • ANR (Award ANR-10-INBS-09)
    • Principle Award Recipient: NotApplicable
  • Fonds de Soutien à l'obtention végétale (Award HELMO)
    • Principle Award Recipient: RomainValade
© 2024 The Authors
  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. This article was made open access via a Publish and Read agreement between the Microbiology Society and the corresponding author’s institution.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001241
2024-05-07
2024-05-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/mgen/10/5/mgen001241.html?itemId=/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001241&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Bebber DP, Gurr SJ. Crop-destroying fungal and oomycete pathogens challenge food security. Fungal Genet Biol 2015; 74:62–64 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Palm ME. Systematics and the impact of invasive fungi on agriculture in the United States. BioScience 2001; 51:141 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Palm ME, Rossman AY. Invasion Pathways of Terrestrial Plant-Inhabiting Fungi. Bioinvasions: Pathways, Vectors, and Management Strategies New York, USA: Island Press, New York; 2003 pp 31–43
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Gladieux P, Feurtey A, Hood ME, Snirc A, Clavel J et al. The population biology of fungal invasions. Mol Ecol 2015; 24:1969–1986 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bebber DP, Holmes T, Gurr SJ. The global spread of crop pests and pathogens. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 2014; 23:1398–1407 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Gladieux P, Guérin F, Giraud T, Caffier V, Lemaire C et al. Emergence of novel fungal pathogens by ecological speciation: importance of the reduced viability of immigrants. Mol Ecol 2011; 20:4521–4532 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Feurtey A, Lorrain C, McDonald MC, Milgate A, Solomon PS et al. A thousand-genome panel retraces the global spread and adaptation of a major fungal crop pathogen. Nat Commun 2023; 14:1059 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Thierry M, Charriat F, Milazzo J, Adreit H, Ravel S et al. Maintenance of divergent lineages of the rice blast fungus Pyricularia oryzae through niche separation, loss of sex and post-mating genetic incompatibilities. PLoS Pathog 2022; 18:e1010687 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  9. McMullan M, Percival-Alwyn L, Sawford K, Kaithakottil G, Grey M et al. Analysis of wild plant pathogen populations reveals a signal of adaptation in genes evolving for survival in agriculture in the beet rust pathogen (Uromyces beticola). Evol Biol 2021 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Servedio MR, Van Doorn GS, Kopp M, Frame AM, Nosil P. Magic traits in speciation: ‘magic’ but not rare?. Trends Ecol Evol 2011; 26:389–397 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Giraud T, Villaréal L, Austerlitz F, Le Gac M, Lavigne C. Importance of the life cycle in sympatric host race formation and speciation of pathogens. Phytopathology 2006; 96:280–287 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Giraud T, Gladieux P, Gavrilets S. Linking the emergence of fungal plant diseases with ecological speciation. Trends Ecol Evol 2010; 25:387–395 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Le Gac M, Giraud T. Existence of a pattern of reproductive character displacement in Homobasidiomycota but not in Ascomycota. J Evol Biol 2008; 21:761–772 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Menardo F, Praz CR, Wyder S, Ben-David R, Bourras S et al. Hybridization of powdery mildew strains gives rise to pathogens on novel agricultural crop species. Nat Genet 2016; 48:201–205 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  15. McMullan M, Rafiqi M, Kaithakottil G, Clavijo BJ, Bilham L et al. The ash dieback invasion of Europe was founded by two genetically divergent individuals. Nat Ecol Evol 2018; 2:1000–1008 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Hessenauer P, Fijarczyk A, Martin H, Prunier J, Charron G et al. Hybridization and introgression drive genome evolution of Dutch elm disease pathogens. Nat Ecol Evol 2020; 4:626–638 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Rogério F, Van Oosterhout C, Ciampi-Guillardi M, Correr FH, Hosaka GK et al. Means, motive and opportunity for biological invasions: genetic introgression in a fungal pathogen. Mol Ecol 2023; 32:2428–2442 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Ebert D, Fields PD. Host-parasite co-evolution and its genomic signature. Nat Rev Genet 2020; 21:754–768 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Gladieux P, Ropars J, Badouin H, Branca A, Aguileta G et al. Fungal evolutionary genomics provides insight into the mechanisms of adaptive divergence in eukaryotes. Mol Ecol 2014; 23:753–773 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Stukenbrock EH, Bataillon T. A population genomics perspective on the emergence and adaptation of new plant pathogens in agro-ecosystems. PLoS Pathog 2012; 8:e1002893 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Barrett LG, Thrall PH, Burdon JJ, Linde CC. Life history determines genetic structure and evolutionary potential of host-parasite interactions. Trends Ecol Evol 2008; 23:678–685 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Stukenbrock EH, McDonald BA. The origins of plant pathogens in agro-ecosystems. Annu Rev Phytopathol 2008; 46:75–100 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Thrall PH, Oakeshott JG, Fitt G, Southerton S, Burdon JJ et al. Evolution in agriculture: the application of evolutionary approaches to the management of biotic interactions in agro-ecosystems. Evol Appl 2011; 4:200–215 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Zhan J, Thrall PH, Burdon JJ. Achieving sustainable plant disease management through evolutionary principles. Trends Plant Sci 2014; 19:570–575 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Williams PD. Darwinian interventions: taming pathogens through evolutionary ecology. Trends Parasitol 2010; 26:83–92 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  26. LeBlanc N, Cubeta MA, Crouch JA. Population genomics trace clonal diversification and intercontinental migration of an emerging fungal pathogen of boxwood. Phytopathology 2021; 111:184–193 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Dutech C, Barrès B, Bridier J, Robin C, Milgroom MG et al. The chestnut blight fungus world tour: successive introduction events from diverse origins in an invasive plant fungal pathogen. Mol Ecol 2012; 21:3931–3946 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Sotiropoulos AG, Arango-Isaza E, Ban T, Barbieri C, Bourras S et al. Global genomic analyses of wheat powdery mildew reveal association of pathogen spread with historical human migration and trade. Nat Commun 2022; 13:4315 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Taliadoros D, Feurtey A, Wyatt N, Barrès B, Gladieux P et al. Emergence and spread of the barley net blotch pathogen coincided with crop domestication and cultivation history. PLoS Genet 2024; 20:e1010884 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Liu Z, Ellwood SR, Oliver RP, Friesen TL. Pyrenophora teres: profile of an increasingly damaging barley pathogen. Mol Plant Pathol 2011; 12:1–19 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Jayasena KW, Van Burgel A, Tanaka K, Majewski J, Loughman R. Yield reduction in barley in relation to spot-type net blotch. Austral Plant Pathol 2007; 36:429 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Galano T, Bultosa G, Fininsa C. Malt quality of 4 barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) grain varieties grown under low severity of net blotch at Holetta, West Shewa, Ethiopia. Afri J Biotechnol 2011; 10:797–806
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Carlsen SA, Neupane A, Richards JK, Faris JD et al. Characterizing the Pyrenophora teres f. maculata–barley interaction using pathogen genetics. G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics 2017; 7:2615–2626 [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Smedegård-Petersen V. Inheritance of genetic factors for symptoms and pathogenicity in hybrids of Pyrenophora teres and Pyrenophora graminea. J Phytopathol 1977; 89:193–202 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Dahanayaka BA, Vaghefi N, Snyman L, Martin A. Investigating in vitro mating preference between or within the two forms of Pyrenophora teres and its hybrids. Phytopathology 2021; 111:2278–2286 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Turo C, Mair W, Martin A, Ellwood S, Oliver R et al. Species hybridisation and clonal expansion as a new fungicide resistance evolutionary mechanism in Pyrenophora teres spp. Evol Biol 2021 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Akhavan A, Turkington TK, Kebede B, Xi K, Kumar K et al. Genetic structure of Pyrenophora teres f. teres and P. teres f. maculata populations from western Canada. Eur J Plant Pathol 2016; 146:325–335 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Çelik AO, Ölmez F, Karakaya A. Mating type idiomorphs of Pyrenophora teres in Turkey. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture 2018
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Poudel B, McLean MS, Platz GJ, McIlroy JA, Sutherland MW et al. Investigating hybridisation between the forms of Pyrenophora teres based on Australian barley field experiments and cultural collections. Eur J Plant Pathol 2019; 153:465–473 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Leišova L, Minariˇḱova V, Kučera L, Ovesná J. Genetic diversity of Pyrenophora teres isolates as detected by AFLP analysis. J Phytopathol 2005; 153:569–578 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Yuzon JD, Wyatt NA, Vasighzadeh A, Clare S, Navratil E et al. Hybrid inferiority and genetic incompatibilities drive divergence of fungal pathogens infecting the same host. Genetics 2023; 224:iyad037 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Rau D, Attene G, Brown AHD, Nanni L, Maier FJ et al. Phylogeny and evolution of mating-type genes from Pyrenophora teres, the causal agent of barley “net blotch” disease. Curr Genet 2007; 51:377–392 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Ellwood SR, Syme RA, Moffat CS, Oliver RP. Evolution of three Pyrenophora cereal pathogens: recent divergence, speciation and evolution of non-coding DNA. Fungal Genet Biol 2012; 49:825–829 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Louw J, Holz G. Relative importance of the barley net blotch pathogens Pyrenophora teres f. teres (net-type) and P. teres f. maculata (spot-type) in South Africa. Afr Plant Prot 1996; 2:89–95
     [Google Scholar]
  45. McLean MS, Howlett BJ, Hollaway GJ. Epidemiology and control of spot form of net blotch (Pyrenophora teres f. maculata) of barley: a review. Crop Pasture Sci 2009; 60:303 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Liu ZH, Friesen TL. Identification of Pyrenophora teres f. maculata, causal agent of spot type net blotch of barley in North Dakota. Plant Dis 2010; 94:480 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Liu ZH, Zhong S, Stasko AK, Edwards MC, Friesen TL. Virulence profile and genetic structure of a North Dakota population of Pyrenophora teres f. teres, the causal agent of net form net blotch of barley. Phytopathology 2012; 102:539–546 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Serenius M, Manninen O, Wallwork H, Williams K. Genetic differentiation in Pyrenophora teres populations measured with AFLP markers. Mycol Res 2007; 111:213–223 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Vasighzadeh A, Sharifnabi B, Javan‐Nikkhah M, Seifollahi E, Landermann‐Habetha D et al. Population genetic structure of four regional populations of the barley pathogen Pyrenophora teres f. maculata in Iran is characterized by high genetic diversity and sexual recombination. Plant Pathol 2021; 70:735–744 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Dahanayaka BA, Vaghefi N, Knight NL, Bakonyi J, Prins R et al. Population structure of Pyrenophora teres f. teres barley pathogens from different continents. Phytopathology 2021; 111:2118–2129 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Zohary D, Hopf M. Domestication of Plants in the Old World Oxford University Press; 2000
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Jones H, Civáň P, Cockram J, Leigh FJ, Smith LM et al. Evolutionary history of barley cultivation in Europe revealed by genetic analysis of extant landraces. BMC Evol Biol 2011; 11:1–12 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Russell J, Mascher M, Dawson IK, Kyriakidis S, Calixto C et al. Exome sequencing of geographically diverse barley landraces and wild relatives gives insights into environmental adaptation. Nat Genet 2016; 48:1024–1030 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Leisova L, Minarikova V, Kucera L, Ovesna J. Quantification of Pyrenophora teres in infected barley leaves using real-time PCR. J Microbiol Methods 2006; 67:446–455 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Herten K, Hestand MS, Vermeesch JR, Van Houdt JKJ. GBSX: a toolkit for experimental design and demultiplexing genotyping by sequencing experiments. BMC Bioinformatics 2015; 16:73 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 2014; 30:2114–2120 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Andrews S. FastQC: A Quality Control Tool for High Throughput Sequence Data Cambridge, United Kingdom: Babraham Bioinformatics, Babraham Institute; 2010
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Ewels P, Magnusson M, Lundin S, Käller M. MultiQC: summarize analysis results for multiple tools and samples in a single report. Bioinformatics 2016; 32:3047–3048 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Wyatt NA, Richards JK, Brueggeman RS, Friesen TL. Reference assembly and annotation of the Pyrenophora teres f. teres isolate 0-1. G3: genes, Genomes, Genetics 2018; 8:1–8 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Wyatt NA, Friesen TL. Four reference quality genome assemblies of Pyrenophora teres f. maculata: a resource for studying the barley spot form net blotch interaction. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 2021; 34:135–139 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Langmead B, Salzberg SL. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat Methods 2012; 9:357–359 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Li H. A statistical framework for SNP calling, mutation discovery, association mapping and population genetical parameter estimation from sequencing data. Bioinformatics 2011; 27:2987–2993 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Danecek P, Bonfield JK, Liddle J, Marshall J, Ohan V et al. Twelve years of SAMtools and BCFtools. Gigascience 2021; 10:giab008 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Douiyssi A, Rasmusson DC, Roelfs AP. Responses of barley cultivars and lines to isolates of Pyrenophora teres. Plant Dis 1998; 82:316–321 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Manni M, Berkeley MR, Seppey M, Zdobnov EM. BUSCO: assessing genomic data quality and beyond. Curr Protoc 2021; 1:e323 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Smit AFA, Hubley R, Green P. Repeatmasker Open-4.0. 2013–2015; 2015
  67. Smit AFA, Hubley R. 2015 Repeatmodeler Open-1.0. repeat Masker; 2008 http://www repeatmasker org
  68. Katoh K, Toh H. Recent developments in the MAFFT multiple sequence alignment program. Brief Bioinform 2008; 9:286–298 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Siol M, Coudoux T, Ravel S, De Mita S. EggLib 3: a python package for population genetics and genomics. Mol Ecol Resour 2022; 22:3176–3187 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Simpson JT, Wong K, Jackman SD, Schein JE, Jones SJM et al. ABySS: a parallel assembler for short read sequence data. Genome Res 2009; 19:1117–1123 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Frichot E, Mathieu F, Trouillon T, Bouchard G, François O. Fast and efficient estimation of individual ancestry coefficients. Genetics 2014; 196:973–983 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Kamvar ZN, Tabima JF, Grünwald NJ. Poppr: an R package for genetic analysis of populations with clonal, partially clonal, and/or sexual reproduction. PeerJ 2014; 2:e281 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Korunes KL, Samuk K. pixy: unbiased estimation of nucleotide diversity and divergence in the presence of missing data. Mol Ecol Resour 2021; 21:1359–1368 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Miles A, Io BP, Murillo R, Ralph P, Harding N et al. Cggh/Scikit-Allel: V1. 3.3 (version V1. 3.3). Zenodo 2021; 3:3
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Zhang C, Dong S-S, Xu J-Y, He W-M, Yang T-L. PopLDdecay: a fast and effective tool for linkage disequilibrium decay analysis based on variant call format files. Bioinformatics 2019; 35:1786–1788 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Akhavan A, Turkington TK, Askarian H, Tekauz A, Xi K et al. Virulence of Pyrenophora teres populations in western Canada. Can J Plant Pathol 2016; 38:183–196 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Latorre SM, Reyes-Avila CS, Malmgren A, Win J, Kamoun S et al. Differential loss of effector genes in three recently expanded pandemic clonal lineages of the rice blast fungus. BMC Biol 2020; 18:88 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Nei M, Li WH. Mathematical model for studying genetic variation in terms of restriction endonucleases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1979; 76:5269–5273 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Roux C, Fraïsse C, Romiguier J, Anciaux Y, Galtier N et al. Shedding light on the grey zone of speciation along a continuum of genomic divergence. PLoS Biol 2016; 14:e2000234 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Serenius M, Mironenko N, Manninen O. Genetic variation, occurrence of mating types and different forms of Pyrenophora teres causing net blotch of barley in Finland. Mycol Res 2005; 109:809–817 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Arabi MI, Barrault G, Sarrafi A, Albertini L. Variation in the resistance of barley cultivars and in the pathogenicity of Drechslera teres f. sp. maculata and D. teres f. sp. teres isolates from France. Plant Pathol 1992; 41:180–186 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  82. McLean MS, Howlett BJ, Hollaway GJ. Spot form of net blotch, caused by Pyrenophora teres f. maculata, is the most prevalent foliar disease of barley in Victoria, Australia. Austral Plant Pathol 2010; 39:46 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Marshall JM, Kinzer K, Brueggeman RS. First report of Pyrenophora teres f. maculata the cause of spot form net blotch of barley in Idaho. Plant Dis 2015; 99:1860
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Lammari H-I, Rehfus A, Stammler G, Fellahi ZEA, Benbelkacem A et al. Occurrence and frequency of spot form and net form of net blotch disease of barley in Algeria. J Plant Dis Prot 2020; 127:35–42 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Cherif M, Harrabi M, Morjane H. Distribution and importance of wheat and barley diseases in Tunisia 1989 to 1991. Rachis 1994; 13:25–34
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Rau D, Brown AHD, Brubaker CL, Attene G, Balmas V et al. Population genetic structure of Pyrenophora teres Drechs. the causal agent of net blotch in Sardinian landraces of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Theor Appl Genet 2003; 106:947–959 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Leisova L, Kucera L, Minarikova V, Ovesna J. AFLP‐based PCR markers that differentiate spot and net forms of Pyrenophora teres. Plant Pathol 2005; 54:66–73 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Statkevičiūtė G, Brazauskas G, Semaškienė R, Leistrumaitė A, Dabkevičius Z. Pyrenophora teres genetic diversity as detected by ISSR analysis. Agriculture 2010; 97:91–98
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Damgaci E. Arpa Ağbenek (Pyrenophora teres Drechs.) hastalığının yayılış durumu, neden olduğu verim kaybı ve verim bileşenlerine etkisi üzerinde araştırmalar. Plant Protection Bulletin/Bitki Koruma Bülteni 2014; 54:
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Lartey RT, Caesar-TonThat TC, Caesar AJ, Sainju UM, Evans RG. First report of spot form net blotch caused by Pyrenophora teres f. maculata on barley in the Mon-Dak area of the United States. Plant Dis 2013; 97:143 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Haggag WM. First report of the spot form of net blotch of barley caused by Pyrenophora teres f. sp. maculata in Egypt. J Plant Pathol 2010; 92:S118
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Ficsor A, Bakonyi J, Tóth B, Tomcsányi A, Palágyi A et al. First report of spot form of net blotch of barley caused by Pyrenophora teres f. maculata in Hungary. Plant Dis 2010; 94:1062 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Teferi TA, Wubshet ML, Aregawi TB. Occurrence and intensity of net and spot blotch of barley in South Tigray, Ethiopia. Glob J Pests Dis Crop Protect 2015; 3:113–123
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Hessenauer P, Feau N, Gill U, Schwessinger B, Brar GS et al. Evolution and adaptation of forest and crop pathogens in the Anthropocene. Phytopathology 2021; 111:49–67 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Stauber L, Badet T, Feurtey A, Prospero S, Croll D. Emergence and diversification of a highly invasive chestnut pathogen lineage across southeastern Europe. elife 2021; 10:e56279 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001241
Loading
Deep population structure linked to host vernalization requirement in the barley net blotch fungal pathogen
M Gen 10, 001241 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1099/mgen.0.001241
/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001241
/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001241
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

EXCEL

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error