Chrysomyxa rhododendri (European Rhododendron rust)
- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Distribution Table
- Habitat List
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
- Growth Stages
- List of Symptoms/Signs
- Biology and Ecology
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Pathway Causes
- Pathway Vectors
- Plant Trade
- Impact Summary
- Economic Impact
- Environmental Impact
- Risk and Impact Factors
- Detection and Inspection
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- Gaps in Knowledge/Research Needs
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.Generate report
PicturesTop of page
IdentityTop of page
Preferred Scientific Name
- Chrysomyxa rhododendri De Bary 1879
Preferred Common Name
- European Rhododendron rust
Other Scientific Names
- Chrysomyxa ledi var. rhododendri Savile 1955
- Melampsoropsis rhododendri Arthur 1906
- Uredo rhododendri DC. 1815
International Common Names
- English: needle: spruce rust; rhododendron-spruce needle rust; rust: Azalea spp.
- Spanish: roya de la azalea; roya vesicular de las aciculas del abeto
- French: rouille du rhododendron; rouille vesiculaire des aiguilles de l'epicea
Local Common Names
- Germany: Blasenrost; fichte rost blasen
- CHMYRH (Chrysomyxa ledi var. rhododendri)
Summary of InvasivenessTop of page
C. rhododendri is a heteroecious rust fungus; an obligate parasite completing stages of its life cycle on different plants. Mating of haploid strains occurs on species of Picea, followed by the production of asexual aeciospores that infect Rhododendron species. Another asexual form producing urediniospores occurs on Rhododendron, followed by the production of teliospores (the sexual stage). All stages are known from Europe. The fungus was reported in 1954 on Rhododendron in the northwestern USA, but the aecial form has not been found in North America. The fungus is a Regulated Pest for the USA; it has been introduced into the UK, New Zealand and Australia. As an invasive species, this rust is damaging on species of Picea and Rhododendron. As latent infections on Rhododendron can be overlooked, accidental introduction of the rust may occur through the importation of these popular ornamental plants (Savile, 1973).
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Fungi
- Phylum: Basidiomycota
- Subphylum: Pucciniomycotina
- Class: Pucciniomycetes
- Order: Pucciniales
- Family: Coleosporiaceae
- Genus: Chrysomyxa
- Species: Chrysomyxa rhododendri
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page
Savile (1950) reduced this species to a variety of Chrysomyxa ledi, basing the name on Uredo rhododendri; however, this was an incorrect placement of an anamorph in a teleomorphic genus. A subsequent publication (Savile, 1955) of the variety with a description of the teleomorph, is an illegitimate later homonym of the 1950 taxon (Crane, 2001). Crane (2001) found morphological differences between C. ledi and C. rhododendri originally described and illustrated by de Bary (1879), to be consistent in existing specimens, and so retained de Bary’s species in an examination of North American Chrysomyxa.
DescriptionTop of page
C. rhododendri is a heteroecious rust. The aecial stage occurs on needles of Picea species, and the uredinial and telial stages occur on the leaves of Rhododendron species.
Spermogonia: amphigenous, subepidermal, globose, yellow, turning brown.
Aecia: amphigenous (on both sides of needles), cylindrical, 0.3-1.3 mm diameter, single or confluent; peridium white, margin lacerate, peridial cells concave, smooth on outside, internal wall convex, with low irregular warts. Aeciospores in chains, globose, ovoid to ellipsoid, one or both ends flattened, or with a small cap, and indistinct longitudinal stripe, 18-30 x 16-22 µm, pale-orange; wall 2.0-3.5 µm thick, including warts.
Uredinia: hypophyllous (on lower side of leaves), scattered, erumpent, round, orange-red, on previous year’s leaves, petioles and twigs. Peridium inconspicuous. Urediniospores in chains, ellipsoid, ovoid, one or both ends flattened or with a small cap, longitudinal stripe, 18-32(-36) x 14-22 µm, thin-walled; wall with warts included 1.0-3.0 µm.
Telia: hypophyllous, orange-red, in groups or confluent, erumpent, to 1 mm long; teliospores in chains, chains in rows. Spores cuboid to ellipsoid, 20-28 x 12-21 µm, thin-walled, smooth, rounded, densely crowded.
See Crane (2001).
DistributionTop of page
C. rhododendri has a circumpolar distribution throughout the northern hemisphere, but is apparently absent from southern Asia, Tibet, and perhaps Japan (Crane, 2001; 2005), although Chen (2002) recorded this species in Tibet. Endemic to alpine and boreal areas of Europe, it was absent from the UK until introductions to Scotland and England occurred early in the twentieth century (Bennell, 1985). In subsequent decades, the rust was accidentally introduced into Australia and New Zealand (Bennell, 1985).
This species was reported to be introduced into the USA in 1954 (Gould et al., 1955), but Crane (2001), after examining specimens from California and Washington, determined that those outbreaks on imported cultivated Rhododendron spp. were most likely due to a native rust species, Chrysomyxa reticulata. Crane (2001) also suggests that the American species, C. reticulata, was introduced at least once into the UK on Rhododendron plants and was mistaken for the European species. C. rhododendri in the uredinial stage is found in northern parts of Canada on the native Rhododendron lapponicum, but because telia have not been observed, there is no apparent danger of infection of spruces [Picea] (Savile, 1950;Ziller, 1974). Although C. rhododendri probably does occur on cultivated species and varieties in North America, Crane (2001) suggests that the identity of rusts found on Rhododendron should be verified carefully.
Crane (2005) and Crane et al. (2005) also found that many specimens from southern Asia and Japan identified as C.rhododendri are various native species, so that it is doubtful whether C.rhododendri occurs in the centre of origin for Rhododendron. Specimens from northeastern Russia and northern China were consistent with the morphology of the European species.
Distribution TableTop of page
The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.Last updated: 10 Jan 2020
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Reference||Notes|
|-Hebei||Present||Chen (2002); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|-Heilongjiang||Present||Crane (2005); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|-Jilin||Present||Crane (2001); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|-Liaoning||Present||Chen (2002); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|-Qinghai||Present||Chen (2002); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|-Shaanxi||Present||Cao ZhiMin et al. (2000); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|-Sichuan||Present||Chen (2002); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|-Tibet||Present||Chen (2002); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|-Yunnan||Present||Chen (2002); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|Japan||Absent, Unconfirmed presence record(s)||CABI/EPPO (2012); Kobayashi (2007)|
|Mongolia||Present||Braun (1999); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|Nepal||Absent, Unconfirmed presence record(s)||CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|North Korea||Absent, Unconfirmed presence record(s)||CABI/EPPO (2012); BPI (US National Fungus Collections) (2009)|
|South Korea||Present||Cho and Shin (2004); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|Taiwan||Present||Hiratsuka and Chen (1991); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|Austria||Present||Native||Tubeuf (1893); Jaap (1908); Crane (2001); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|Belgium||Present||Native||Oudemans (1905); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|Czechia||Present||Native||Šafránková (2008); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|France||Present||Native||Maire (1905); Dufrenoy (1932); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|Germany||Present||Native||Braun (1999); Crane (2001); CABI/EPPO (2012); CABI (Undated)|
|Ireland||Present||Spaulding (1961); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|Italy||Present||Native||Traverso (1903); Spaulding (1961); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|Luxembourg||Present||Native||Oudemans (1905); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|Netherlands||Present||Native||Oudemans (1905); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|Norway||Present||Native||Jøestad (1962); Gjaerum (1974); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|Portugal||Present||Native||GONÇALVES DA CUNHA (1936); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|Romania||Present||Native||Savulescu (1953); Crane (2001); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|Russia||Present||Native||Sydow and Sydow (1915); Kuprevich and Transchel (1957); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|-Eastern Siberia||Present||Native||Kuprevich and Transchel (1957); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|-Northern Russia||Present||Native||Kuprevich and Transchel (1957); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|-Russian Far East||Present||Azbukina (1984); Crane (2001); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|-Western Siberia||Present||Native||Kuprevich and Transchel (1957); BPI (US National Fungus Collections) (2009); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|Spain||Present||Native||CABI/EPPO (2012); CABI (Undated)|
|Switzerland||Present||Native||Körnicke (1877); Jaap (1908); Oechslin (1927); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|Ukraine||Present||Native||Kuprevich and Transchel (1957); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|United Kingdom||Present, Localized||Introduced||Invasive||Grove (1913); Dennis and Foister (1942); Bennell (1985); CABI/EPPO (2012);||First reported: <1915|
|Canada||Present||Native||Savile (1950); Parmelee (1989); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|-British Columbia||Present||Native||Cummins and Stevenson (1956); Crane (2001); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|-Manitoba||Present||Native||Cummins and Stevenson (1956); Crane (2001); CABI/EPPO (2012); CABI (Undated)|
|-Newfoundland and Labrador||Present||Native||Cummins and Stevenson (1956); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|-Northwest Territories||Present||Native||Crane (2001); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|Greenland||Present||Native||Crane (2001); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|United States||Present||CABI (Undated a)||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-California||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Gould and Shaw (1969)||Probably Chrysomyxa reticulata|
|-Oregon||Present, Localized||Introduced||Invasive||Eglitis et al. (1966)||Probably Chrysomyxa reticulata|
|-Washington||Present, Localized||Introduced||1954||Invasive||Gould et al. (1955); Eglitis et al. (1966)||Probably Chrysomyxa reticulata|
|-New South Wales||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Bennell (1985); CABI/EPPO (2012)||First reported: <1932|
|-Tasmania||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Bennell (1985); CABI/EPPO (2012)||First reported: <1985|
|-Victoria||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Bennell (1985); CABI/EPPO (2012)|
|New Zealand||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Dingley (1969); CABI/EPPO (2012); CABI (Undated)||First reported: <1924|
IntroductionsTop of page
|Introduced to||Introduced from||Year||Reason||Introduced by||Established in wild through||References||Notes|
|Natural reproduction||Continuous restocking|
|Australia||<1932||Horticulture (pathway cause)||Yes||Bennell (1985)|
|England and Wales||Europe||<1937||Horticulture (pathway cause)||Yes||Bennell (1985)|
|New Zealand||<1924||Horticulture (pathway cause)||Yes||Dingley (1969)|
|Scotland||Europe||<1915||Horticulture (pathway cause)||Yes||Bennell (1985)|
|Scotland||USA||1980||Horticulture (pathway cause)||Bennell (1985); Crane (2001)||Chrysomyxa reticulata?|
|Washington||1954||Horticulture (pathway cause)||Gould et al. (1955)||Chrysomyxa reticulata?|
HabitatTop of page
In Europe, the rust is considered a native of sub-alpine and boreal forests (Bauer and Schwaninger, 2007; Safránková, 2008). Gould et al. (1955) noted the unexpectedness of the appearance of what was thought to be invasive C. rhododendri on imported rhododendrons in the lowland coastal areas of the Pacific Northwest of North America. Although the species occurs in northern Canada (Parmelee, 1989), no continuous range of infection on native species in the areas south towards the state of Washington was observed. Crane (2001) considers this disparity of habitat to be support for her suggestion that the outbreaks were due instead to a species native to the Pacific Northwest.
Habitat ListTop of page
|Terrestrial – Managed||Cultivated / agricultural land||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Protected agriculture (e.g. glasshouse production)||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Managed forests, plantations and orchards||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Terrestrial ‑ Natural / Semi-natural||Natural forests||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page
Farr et al. (1996) list more than 60 Rhododendron species, varieties, hybrids and cultivars of worldwide origin as hosts of C. rhododendri. Other published lists are also extensive (Bennell, 1985; Roane, 1986). Given that there are Chrysomyxa species that can be confused readily with C. rhododendri (Crane, 2001; 2005; Crane et al., 2005), some of these reports should be reconsidered. There are fewer host species in Picea, but misidentification of the aecial form may also have occurred. Reported aecial hosts are listed in Safránková (2008), and BPI (2009).
Host Plants and Other Plants AffectedTop of page
Growth StagesTop of page Vegetative growing stage
SymptomsTop of page
Infection of Picea results in transverse yellowed bands on the current year’s new needles, or whole needles may be chlorotic. The white columnar peridia of the aecia project from the undersides of the needles in summer. The needles are shed by winter, leaving bare shoots (Murray, 1955; Bennell, 1985; Bauer and Schwaninger, 2007). In spring, red-brown spots develop on both sides of the leaves of many Rhododendron species, although the yellow pustules of the uredinia are primarily hypophyllous. In some species, uredinia also appear on leaf scars and twigs. Infected leaves are usually dropped the next year, after the telia expire, but heavily infected leaves may be dropped before winter; some species retain mature infected leaves for more than 2 years (Bennell, 1985; Safránková, 2008).
In spring, red-brown spots develop on both sides of the leaves of many Rhododendron species, although the yellow pustules of the uredinia are primarily hypophyllous. In some species, uredinia also appear on leaf scars and twigs. Infected leaves are usually dropped the next year, after the telia expire, but heavily infected leaves may be dropped before winter; some species retain mature infected leaves for more than 2 years (Bennell, 1985; Safránková, 2008).
List of Symptoms/SignsTop of page
|Leaves / abnormal colours|
|Leaves / abnormal leaf fall|
|Leaves / fungal growth|
|Leaves / yellowed or dead|
Biology and EcologyTop of page
Teliospores on rhododendron leaves germinate in spring to produce basidiospores that infect the young spruce [Picea] needles. Minute haploid spermagonia are the mating organs; plasmogamy after fertilization results in the production of aecia on needles during the summer. Aeciospores then infect young rhododendron leaves, and the fungus overwinters in these leaves. Brownish-orange telia, as well as yellow uredinia, develop on the undersides of leaves in spring from the previous year’s infection (Bennell, 1985). Urediniospores are a repeating spore, spreading the organism to susceptible new leaves during suitable conditions of cool temperature, low light, and high relative humidity (Roane, 1986).
Some differences have been noted in interactions between the rust pathogen and various Rhododendron hosts, apparently influenced by local climate. The fungus need not complete the full cycle of stages on both hosts, because it can persist and spread in the uredinial form through one or more generations per year on rhododendrons (Bennell, 1985). The observed absence of infection on spruce in northern Canada indicates that conditions cause this pattern on Rhododendron lapponicum (Parmelee, 1989). On the other hand, because current leaves of deciduous “azaleas” are shed in autumn, infection of the new leaves requires inoculum from spruce or evergreen rhododendrons in the spring (Bennell, 1985). In the UK, naturalized Rhododendron ponticum is susceptible to infection by aeciospores, but not urediniospores, and uredinia do not usually develop on that species (Bennell, 1985). In the highly susceptible Rhododendron charitopes, infection is not limited to leaves, and sporulation can occur on petioles, bud scales, pedicels and cataphylls (Bennell, 1985).
ClimateTop of page
|Cs - Warm temperate climate with dry summer||Tolerated||Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry summers|
|Df - Continental climate, wet all year||Preferred||Continental climate, wet all year (Warm average temp. > 10°C, coldest month < 0°C, wet all year)|
|Dw - Continental climate with dry winter||Preferred||Continental climate with dry winter (Warm average temp. > 10°C, coldest month < 0°C, dry winters)|
Means of Movement and DispersalTop of page
Rust aeciospores, urediniospores and sporidia (basidiospores) are distributed by wind and rain-splash (Bennell, 1985).
Introduction has occurred as the result of importation of rhododendron plants for ornamental purposes (Bennell, 1985). The latency of infections, particularly over winter, makes accidental introduction likely unless post-entry quarantine is practiced (Savile, 1973). Air travel and transport increase the likelihood of introduction of infected rhododendron plants from the wild, but transport of spruce seedlings with infected needles is unlikely, because the symptoms of current infections are conspicuous (Bennell, 1985).
Pathway CausesTop of page
Pathway VectorsTop of page
Plant TradeTop of page
|Plant parts liable to carry the pest in trade/transport||Pest stages||Borne internally||Borne externally||Visibility of pest or symptoms|
|Leaves||hyphae; spores||Yes||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually invisible|
|Seedlings/Micropropagated plants||hyphae||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually invisible|
|Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches||hyphae||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually invisible|
|Plant parts not known to carry the pest in trade/transport|
|Fruits (inc. pods)|
|Growing medium accompanying plants|
|True seeds (inc. grain)|
Impact SummaryTop of page
Economic ImpactTop of page
Although the loss of needles in autumn may usually have a “slight or transient” effect on the growth of spruce [Picea] trees (Hansen, 1997), Mayr et al. (2001) found that intense infections did have an effect on annual increments of wood production in subalpine Picea abies. Some of the damaged needles are retained (Mayr et al., 2009), therefore their increased transpiration, leading to increased water loss in winter, may be another factor affecting tree growth, particularly at the alpine timberline. Furthermore, natural regeneration of P. abies stands and use of the species in afforestation of alpine and boreal areas, may be hindered by C. rhododendri, because the reduction of photosynthetic capacity resulting from loss of the newest foliage has a greater effect on seedlings (Bauer and Schwaninger, 2007). Roane (1986) states that rusts on Rhododendron are not usually a serious problem, although some species and varieties may be severely damaged. Post-entry quarantine that may require more than 6 months (Bennell, 1985), imposes an additional cost on trade in rhododendrons. Local occurrence of this rust may hinder trade in plants and germplasm.
Roane (1986) states that rusts on Rhododendron are not usually a serious problem, although some species and varieties may be severely damaged. Post-entry quarantine that may require more than 6 months (Bennell, 1985), imposes an additional cost on trade in rhododendrons. Local occurrence of this rust may hinder trade in plants and germplasm.
Environmental ImpactTop of page
Given the difficulty of identifying species, rusts may be introduced to new host species in the centres of their diversity (C. rhododendri to southern China) with unforeseeable consequences for the hosts. The outbreak reported in the northwestern USA (Gould et al., 1955), even if actually due to a native species, is an example of what may happen when susceptible plant species encounter a new rust. Bauer and Schwaninger (2007) suggest that the burden of C. rhododendri attacks is one factor affecting species composition on west-facing slopes of alpine valleys, where Pinus cembra, rather than Picea abies, is predominant in association with native Rhododendron.
Risk and Impact FactorsTop of page Invasiveness
- Invasive in its native range
- Proved invasive outside its native range
- Has a broad native range
- Abundant in its native range
- Highly mobile locally
- Has high reproductive potential
- Reproduces asexually
- Host damage
- Negatively impacts forestry
- Reduced amenity values
- Parasitism (incl. parasitoid)
- Highly likely to be transported internationally accidentally
- Difficult to identify/detect as a commodity contaminant
- Difficult to identify/detect in the field
- Difficult/costly to control
DiagnosisTop of page
Vialle et al. (2009) have obtained and deposited sequences for the LSU region of rRNA for 10 Chrysomyxa species, including C. rhododendri, but at least an equal number are lacking in the genus.
Detection and InspectionTop of page
Leaves, particularly the undersides, of Picea and Rhododendron plants must be examined under low power magnification for the presence of sporulating structures (spermogonia, aecia, uredinia, telia). Where small yellow to red spots appear, these should be re-examined after incubation. A period of post-entry quarantine should be sufficient to detect latent (overwintering) infections (Savile, 1973; Bennell, 1985). Aeciospores from Picea and urediniospores from Rhododendron should be examined at high magnification, including SEM, in order to identify the rust species.
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page
A number of species of Chrysomyxa occur on either Picea or Rhododendron, or on both, and new species are likely to be identified in areas where plants in these genera are part of the native flora. The work of Crane (2001; 2005) and Crane et al. (2005), including descriptions of new species, demonstrates the continuing need to clarify identities and relationships in the genus. Species are identified and distinguished by aeciospore and urediniospore size, shape and ornamentation and by peridial wall form and cell ornamentation; characters that require close and careful examination. All teliospores in this genus are one-celled and produced in chains; they do not provide many diagnostic characters. When Chrysomyxa rusts appear on introduced plants, the species known from the source area as well as the area of introduction should be considered. According to Crane (2005), “Detailed, well-illustrated descriptions of these rusts are needed for identification”, and Crane (2001) provides such descriptions and a key to nine species of the genus on spruce [Picea] and Rhododendron. Some rusts are known only from the asexual uredinial stage on rhododendrons, without connection to a telial stage or aecial host, although they may appear likely to be related to Chrysomyxa (Crane, 2001; 2005; Crane et al., 2005).
Among recently-described species, Chrysomyxa reticulata, known only from North America, differs from C. rhododendri in having smaller urediniospores, mostly less than 20 µm diameter, with an area of reticulate ornamentation, and smaller aeciospores, also mostly less than 20 µm diameter (Crane, 2001). Caeomatsukubaense, described by Crane et al. (2005) from Asian specimens that were originally identified as C. rhododendri, differs in urediniospore surface ornamentation, observable using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), as well as in the sequence of the large subunit of rDNA.
Puccinia rhododendri, an autoecious rust on native rhododendrons, has been occasionally reported from Europe (Gaumann, 1959). In the genus Puccinia, teliospores are usually two-celled and urediniospores are echinulate (Wilson and Henderson, 1966).
According to Sinclair and Lyon (2005), yellowing and defoliation may occur to the current year’s needles of certain spruce species as a result of fluoride injury. Chlorosis develops from needle tips and the affected portion eventually turns red-brown. Older needles also develop symptoms, but more slowly. Other sensitive species growing nearby would show injury symptoms, and a source of the air pollutant could be identified.
Prevention and ControlTop of page
Due to the variable regulations around (de)registration of pesticides, your national list of registered pesticides or relevant authority should be consulted to determine which products are legally allowed for use in your country when considering chemical control. Pesticides should always be used in a lawful manner, consistent with the product's label.
Given the possibility of latent infections in Rhododendron, phytosanitary post-entry quarantine of imported plants is inevitable (Roane, 1986). Bennell (1985) notes the need to prevent introduction of new pathotypes of C.rhododendri to areas where the species already occurs. Clearly, if the species is, in fact, not present in the USA in areas climatically favourable for the rust and where spruce [Picea] and Rhododendron grow together, introduction of any C.rhododendri should be prevented (USDA/APHIS, 2008).
Collection and destruction of infected Rhododendron leaves is suggested (Roane, 1986). Bennell (1985) proposes removal of all of the previous year’s leaves that are retained by, or fallen off, the plants as part of an eradication effort in gardens or nurseries; an alternative would be complete destruction of heavily infected plants.
The rust can be spread locally by the distribution of infected Rhododendron plants or cuttings from a nursery or other garden (Bennell, 1985). Measures suggested to prevent this include timing of transport to the early spring, so that sporulation from latent infections would soon be evident, or removal of the previous year’s leaves; the potential source of inoculums.
Adequate aeration in Rhododendron plantings should reduce the humidity and free moisture needed for spore germination (Bennell, 1985; Roane, 1986). Planting should be avoided where the alternate host is growing or the alternate host should be removed in the vicinity of the more valuable planting of either spruce or rhododendron (Bennell, 1985; Hansen, 1997).
Although Bennell (1985) discussed the use of various fungicides, such as zineb, triadimefon and oxycarboxin, as a complement to eradication efforts, Roane (1986) does not propose their use for rust control. In any case, most fungicides applied to rhododendrons for the control of powdery mildew will be effective against rust (Cox, 1993). The use of fungicides is not the preferred strategy to protect young spruce trees (Hansen, 1997).
Although many are recorded as susceptible to C. rhododendri (Bennell, 1985; Roane, 1986), knowledge of the species, hybrids and varieties of Rhododendron may allow selection of appropriate plants for a particular area. Many hybrids are more susceptible than their parents (Bennell, 1985). Among Picea species used in plantations in the UK, Picea sitchensis showed resistance to this rust (Bennell, 1985).
Gaps in Knowledge/Research NeedsTop of page
The work of Crane (2001; 2005) and Crane et al. (2005) demonstrates that further information is needed, including detailed descriptions of known and not-yet identified species within the range of their hosts. Comparative data on susceptibility of species or cultivars to known or new rust species would aid in quarantine efforts as well as in the selection of suitable plants for introduction.
ReferencesTop of page
Bauer H; Schwaninger C, 2007. Phytopathogens at the alpine timberline. In: Trees at their upper limit: treelife limitation at the Alpine timberline [ed. by Wieser, G.\Tausz, M.]. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag GmbH, 163-170.
BPI (US National Fungus Collections), 2009. Fungal Databases - Specimens. Beltsville, USA: Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, USDA. www.nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/specimens/specimens.cfm
Chen MM, 2002. Forest fungi phytogeography: Forest fungi phytogeography of China, North America, and Siberia and international quarantine of tree pathogens. Sacramento, USA: Pacific Mushroom Research and Education Center, 469 pp.
Crane PE, 2001. Morphology, taxonomy, and nomenclature of the Chrysomyxa ledi complex and related rust fungi on spruce and Ericaceae in North America and Europe. Canadian Journal of Botany, 79(8):957-982.
Crane PE, 2005. Rust fungi on rhododendrons in Asia: Diaphanopellis forrestii gen. et sp. nov., new species of Caeoma, and expanded descriptions of Chrysomyxa dietelii and C. succinea. Mycologia, 97(2):534-548.
Crane PE; Yamaoka Y; Engkhaninun J; Kakishima M, 2005. Caeoma tsukubaense n. sp., a rhododendron rust fungus of Japan and southern Asia, and its relationship to Chrysomyxa rhododendri. Mycoscience, 46(3):143-147. http://www.springerlink.com/content/p519865x68433555/?p=61f874b1f2524ab4a73627885ca7e90a&pi=2
Hiratsuka N; Sato S; Katsuya K; Kakishima M; Hiratsuka Y; Kaneko S; Ono Y; Sato T; Harada Y; Hiratsuka T; Nakayama K, 1992. The Rust Flora of Japan. Takezono, Ibaraki, Japan: Tsukuba Shuppankai, 1205 pp.
Körnicke FA, 1877. Mykologische beitrage. Hedwigia, 16:33-40.
Laubert R; Trappmann W; 1929, April. Diseases and Injuries of Azaleas and Rhododendrons. (Krankheiten und Beschädigungen an Azaleen und Rhododendren.) Flugblatt. Biologische Reichsanstalt fur Land- und Forstwirtschaft, 99-100. Berlin, 8 pp.
Llorens i Villagrassa I, 1984. Contribution to the knowledge of Uredinales, Ustilaginales and Phragmobasidiomycetes of Spain. I. (Aportación al conocimiento de los Uredinales, Ustilaginales y Fragmobasidiomicetos de España. I.) Anales de Biología, 1(Special Section 1):35-45.
Maire R, 1905. Notes sur quelques champignons nouveaux ou peu connus. Bulletin de la Société Mycologique de France, 21:137-167.
Mayr S; Schwienbacher F; Beikircher B; Damon B, 2009. Damage in needle tissues after infection with Chrysomyxa rhododendri increases cuticular conductance of Picea abies in winter. Protoplasma, 235:1-7.
Murray JS, 1955. Rusts of British Forest Trees. Forestry Commission booklet no. 4. Rusts of British Forest Trees. Forestry Commission booklet no. 4. London, UK: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 15 pp.
Oechslin M, 1927. The distribution of Alpine Rose rust, Chrysomyxa rhododendri, in the canton of Uri during the summers 1924 to 1926. (Die Verbreitung des Alpenrosenrostes, Chrysomyxa rhododendri, im Kanton Uri in den Sommern 1924-1936.) Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Forstwesen, 78:316-323 pp.
USDA/APHIS, 2008. Circular 34: Diseases of Picea spp. Post-entry Quarantine Manual for State Inspectors. Washington DC, USA: USDA, 10-152. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/domestic/downloads/postentry.pdf
Wilson M; Henderson DM, 1966. British rust fungi. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
BPI (US National Fungus Collections), 2009. Fungal Databases - Specimens., Beltsville, USA: Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, USDA. http://www.nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/specimens/specimens.cfm
CABI, Undated. Compendium record. Wallingford, UK: CABI
CABI, Undated a. CABI Compendium: Status inferred from regional distribution. Wallingford, UK: CABI
CABI, Undated b. CABI Compendium: Status as determined by CABI editor. Wallingford, UK: CABI
Chen M M, 2002. Forest fungi phytogeography: Forest fungi phytogeography of China, North America, and Siberia and international quarantine of tree pathogens. Sacramento, USA: Pacific Mushroom Research and Education Center. 469 pp.
Crane P E, 2001. Morphology, taxonomy, and nomenclature of the Chrysomyxa ledi complex and related rust fungi on spruce and Ericaceae in North America and Europe. Canadian Journal of Botany. 79 (8), 957-982. DOI:10.1139/cjb-79-8-957
Crane P E, 2005. Rust fungi on rhododendrons in Asia: Diaphanopellis forrestii gen. et sp. nov., new species of Caeoma, and expanded descriptions of Chrysomyxa dietelii and C. succinea. Mycologia. 97 (2), 534-548. DOI:10.3852/mycologia.97.2.534
Oechslin M, 1927. The distribution of Alpine Rose rust, Chrysomyxa rhododendri, in the canton of Uri during the summers 1924 to 1926. (Die Verbreitung des Alpenrosenrostes, Chrysomyxa rhododendri, im Kanton Uri in den Sommern 1924-1936.). Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Forstwesen. 316-323.
ContributorsTop of page
19/08/09 Original text by:
Distribution MapsTop of page
Unsupported Web Browser:
One or more of the features that are needed to show you the maps functionality are not available in the web browser that you are using.
Please consider upgrading your browser to the latest version or installing a new browser.
More information about modern web browsers can be found at http://browsehappy.com/