Elm mottle virus
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Distribution Table
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Growth Stages
- List of Symptoms/Signs
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Seedborne Aspects
- Plant Trade
- Wood Packaging
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- 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
- Elm mottle virus
Other Scientific Names
- Elm mottle ilarvirus
- Hydrangea mosaic virus
- Lilac white mosaic virus
- EMOV00 (Elm mottle ilarvirus)
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Virus
- Unknown: "Positive sense ssRNA viruses"
- Unknown: "RNA viruses"
- Family: Bromoviridae
- Genus: Ilarvirus
- Species: Elm mottle virus
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page Elm mottle virus (EMoV) is serologically indistinguishable from Hydrangea mosaic virus (Jones, 1985a; Scott, 2001) and is serologically related to Asparagus virus 2, Citrus leaf rugose, Citrus variegation and Tulare apple mosaic viruses (Uyeda and Mink, 1983). These five viruses, together with Spinach latent virus, have been placed in Subgroup 2 of the genus Ilarvirus in the family Bromoviridae (Roosinck et al., 2000).
DescriptionTop of page EMoV has quasi-spherical particles that vary in diameter from ca 24-32 nm (see Pictures) and that sediment as three nucleoprotein components with sedimentation coefficients of 83, 88 and 101S. Particles are disrupted in 2% sodium phosphotungstate but are quasi-spherical in uranyl format and particles are not penetrated by the stain (see Pictures). Purified particle preparations form two bands in caesium chloride solution with buoyant densities of 1.27 and 1.34g/cm³, but only material in the denser band was infective. Purified virus particle preparations contain a major polypeptide of 25 kDa and 5 ssRNA species of ca. 1.3, 1.15, 0.82, 0.39 and 0.3 x 10<(sup)6> (Jones and Mayo, 1974; Jones, 1974).
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.
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Reference||Notes|
|Bulgaria||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Schmelzer et al., 1966; CABI/EPPO, 2004; EPPO, 2014|
|Croatia||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Plese and Juretic, 1999; CABI/EPPO, 2004; EPPO, 2014|
|Czech Republic||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2004; EPPO, 2014|
|Czechoslovakia (former)||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Schmelzer et al., 1966; CABI/EPPO, 2004|
|Germany||Widespread||Native||Invasive||Schmelzer, 1974; CABI/EPPO, 2004; EPPO, 2014|
|Russian Federation||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Schmelzer et al., 1966; CABI/EPPO, 2004; EPPO, 2014|
|Slovakia||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2004; EPPO, 2014|
|UK||Widespread||Native||Invasive||Jones, 1974; Thomas et al., 1983; CABI/EPPO, 2004; EPPO, 2014|
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page EMoV causes chlorotic mosaic and ringspot symptoms in leaves of Syringa vulgaris, Hydrangea macrophylla and Forsythia intermedia (Schmelzer, 1969; Thomas et al., 1983) and is associated with chlorotic mottling and line-pattern symptoms in elm (see Pictures) (Schmelzer, 1969; Jones, 1974).
Growth StagesTop of page Flowering stage, Fruiting stage, Post-harvest, Pre-emergence, Seedling stage, Vegetative growing stage
List of Symptoms/SignsTop of page
|Leaves / abnormal patterns|
Means of Movement and DispersalTop of page
EMoV has no known vector. However, another Ilarvirus (Tobacco streak virus) is transmitted by thrips which damage the leaves when feeding and so allow the entry into plants of viruliferous pollen. As EMoV has been detected in pollen of one natural host (lilac), the virus may be similarly transmitted.
EMoV is transmitted in seeds of infected elm (Jones and Mayo, 1973). The possibility of seed transmission in other hosts has not been tested adequately.
Seedborne AspectsTop of page EMoV is present in the pollen of lilac and, in tests, the virus was transmitted through the seeds of infected elm (Jones and Mayo, 1973).
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|
|Flowers/Inflorescences/Cones/Calyx||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually invisible|
|Fruits (inc. pods)||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually invisible|
|Leaves||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually invisible|
|Roots||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually invisible|
|Seedlings/Micropropagated plants||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually invisible|
|Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually invisible|
|True seeds (inc. grain)||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually invisible|
|Plant parts not known to carry the pest in trade/transport|
|Growing medium accompanying plants|
Wood PackagingTop of page
|Wood Packaging not known to carry the pest in trade/transport|
|Loose wood packing material|
|Processed or treated wood|
|Solid wood packing material with bark|
|Solid wood packing material without bark|
DiagnosisTop of page
EMoV is transmitted mechanically in sap to herbaceous test plants. Chenopodium quinoa is the most sensitive test species, leaves of which develop a faint systemic mosaic followed by mottling 7-10 days after inoculation (see Pictures). Necrotic local lesions develop in Phaseolus vulgaris (see Pictures) and Vigna unguiculata. Several other test species, including those of Nicotiana are infected systemically but develop no symptoms (Jones and Mayo, 1973).
The virus is readily detected serologically in plants using ELISA and other serological methods (Uyeda and Mink, 1983).
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page EMoV is distinct from Elm mosaic virus, a strain of Cherry leaf roll virus (Jones, 1985b) which is found in North America. The two viruses are not related serologically, belong to different virus families, and differ in particle properties, experimental host range and symptomatology (Jones, 1974). EMoV is serologically related to other members of Subgroup 2 of Ilarviruses (Roosinck et al., 2000). In particle properties and composition the virus resembles species in the other subgroups of the genus Ilarvirus but is distinguished from them serologically (Jones, 1974; Roosinck et al., 2000). However, sequence comparisons of the virus coat protein genes has shown that EMoV, Apple mosaic virus, Lilac ring mottle virus and Prunus necrotic ringspot virus are most closely related to Prune dwarf virus (Vaskova et al., 2000).
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.As EMoV is possibly transmitted between plants through infected pollen and is seedborne, effective control is best achieved by planting virus-tested material away from likely sources of infection.
ReferencesTop of page
EPPO, 2014. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm
Jones AT, 1974. Elm mottle virus. CMI/AAB Descriptions of Plant Viruses No.139. Wellesbourne, UK: Association of Applied Biologists, 4 pp.
Jones AT, 1985. Cherry leaf roll virus. AAB Descriptions of Plant Viruses No. 306. Wellesbourne, UK: Association of Applied Biologists. 6 pp.
Jones AT, 1985. Serological relationship between hydrangea mosaic and elm mottle (EmotV) viruses. Report of the Scottish Crop Research Institute for 1984, Dundee, UK, 187-191.
Jones AT; Mayo MA, 1973. Purification and properties of elm mottle virus. Annals of Applied Biology, 75:347-357.
Plese N; Juretic N, 1999. Virusna bolest poljskog brijesta (Ulmus minor Mill.) u Hrvatskoj. Sumarski List, 123(3-4):95-100.
Roosinck MJ; Bujarski J; Ding SW; Hajimorad R; Hanada R; Scott S; Tousignant M, 2000. Family Bromoviridae. In: Van Regenmortel MHV, Fauquet CM, Bishop DHL, Carstens E, Estes M, Lemon S, Maniloff J, Mayo MA, McGeoch D, Pringle CR, Wickner RB, eds. Virus Taxonomy. Seventh Report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. New York, USA: Academic Press, 931-935.
Schmelzer K, 1969. Das Ulmenscheckungs-Virus. Phytopathologische Zeitschrift, 64:39-67.
Schmelzer K, 1974. Untersuchungen an Viren der Zier- und Wildegeholze. 8. Mitteilung Neue Befunde an Forsythia, Hydrangea und Philadelphus sowie Viren und Virosen an Rhamnus, Centaurea, Galvezia, Cistus, Forestiera, Abeliophyllum, Celastrus, Staphylea und Crambe. Zentralblatt fnr Bakteriologie, Parasitenkunde Infektionskrankheiten und Hygiene, II, 129:139-168.
Schmelzer K; Schmidt HE, 1966. Die Viruskrankheiten des Flieders. Archiv Gartenbau, 14:303-314.
Schmelzer K; Schmidt HE; Schmidt HB, 1966. Viruskrankheiten und virusverdachtige Erscheinungen an Forstgeholzen. Archiv fnr Forstwesen, 15:107-120.
Scott S, 2001. Tobacco streak virus. AAB Descriptions of Plant Viruses No. 381. Wellesbourne, UK: Association of Applied Biologists.
Vaskova D; Petrzik K; Spak J, 2000. Molecular variability of the capsid protein of the prune dwarf virus. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 106(6):573-580.
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/