Phakopsora euvitis (grape rust fungus)
- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Distribution Table
- Risk of Introduction
- Habitat List
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Growth Stages
- List of Symptoms/Signs
- Biology and Ecology
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Plant Trade
- Impact Summary
- Economic 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
- Phakopsora euvitis Ono 2000
Preferred Common Name
- grape rust fungus
Other Scientific Names
- Aecidium meliosmae-myrianthi Henn. & Shirai 1900
- Phakopsora ampelopsidis sensu auct.
- Physopella ampelopsidis sensu auct.
- Physopella viala (Lagerh.) Buriticá & J. F. Hennen 1994
- Physopella vitis (Thüm.) Arthur 1906
- Uredo vialae Lagerheim, 1890
- Uredo vitis Thüm. 1898
International Common Names
- English: grape leaf rust; grape rust; grapevine leaf rust; grapevine rust; leaf rust: grapevine; rust: grapevine
- Spanish: roya de la uva; roya de la vid
- French: rouille de la vigne
Local Common Names
- Germany: Rost: Weinrebe
- Japan: budo-sabibyokin
- Portugal: ferrugem da videira
- PHLLAM (Phakopsora euvitis)
Summary of InvasivenessTop of page
The grape leaf rust, P. euvitis, is widely distributed in eastern and southern Asia and has been introduced into northern Australia. Its distribution in the Americas, other than a recent introduction into southwestern Brazil, is unclear, because other Phakopsora rust species on Vitis species have been identified in North and South America. The teleomorph forms have not been compared. The means by which the recent introductions have occurred are not known; the fungus can persist in the uredinial form in warmer climates and dispersal of urediniospores by wind and air currents is a possible means of spread, in addition to transport of infected vines. Australia initiated an eradication programme against this species in 2001 (DAFF, 2009).
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Fungi
- Phylum: Basidiomycota
- Subphylum: Pucciniomycotina
- Class: Pucciniomycetes
- Order: Pucciniales
- Family: Phakopsoraceae
- Genus: Phakopsora
- Species: Phakopsora euvitis
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page
The rust fungus P. euvitis, causes a disease of grape leaves. Species of Phakopsora on different host genera in the Vitaceae differ morphologically as well as in host specificity.
A fungus, causing leaf rust disease of cultivated grapes, was first described and named as Uredo vitis, based on a specimen on Vitis vinifera collected in Aiken, South Carolina, USA, in 1868 (Thümen, 1878a, b). Another uredinial rust fungus on cultivated grapes was found near Kingston, Jamaica, and named Uredo vialae (Lagerheim, 1890). Massee compared the type materials of both U. vitis and U. vialae and found the two to be identical (cited from Dale, 1955).
After the two Uredo species were published, two other rust fungi, collected on Ampelopsis brevipedunculata and Parthenocissus tricuspidata in Tokyo, Japan, were described as Phakopsora ampelopsidis (Dietel, 1898) and Phakopsora vitis (Sydow, 1899). Hiratsuka (1900) found no disjunction in morphological variations among the host-genus limited fungal groups when comparing Japanese isolates on A. brevipedunculata, P. tricuspidata, Vitis coignetiae, Vitis flexuosa and V. vinifera. He concluded that all rusts on vitaceous plants in Japan belonged to P. ampelopsidis, but considered U. vitis different from P. ampelopsidis. In his monographic work on the Japanese species of Phakopsora, Hiratsuka (1935) also concluded that P. vitis and P. ampelopsidis were conspecific and then included U. vitis and U. vialae under the synonym of P. ampelopsidis. Since this monograph, rusts parasitic on vitaceous plants, including cultivated grapes, usually have been referred to as P. ampelopsidis.
Ono (2000) showed that fungal isolates on the three host genera were distinct in their host specificity and life cycle and that the host-delimited rusts were consistently different in number and distribution of urediniospore germ pores, shape and size of uredinial paraphyses, aeciospore wall thickness, teliospore arrangement in the sorus and shape and size of basidiospores. The host-delimited and morphologically different rusts were determined to be distinct species. The fungi retained the names P. ampelopsidis on Ampelopsis and P. vitis on Parthenocissus. As a result, the fungus on Vitis lacked a teleomorph name and was subsequently named P. euvitis (Ono, 2000). This taxonomy is supported by results of the molecular study of Chatasiri and Ono (2008), which placed the isolates of the three species in separate phylogenetic clades within the genus, based on sequences of the D1D2 and ITS2 regions of rDNA.
Ono (2000) put the anamorphic names of Uredo, Uredo vialae and U. vitis, which had been described from the Americas, in synonymy with P. euvitis. However, Buritica (1994, 1999) identified two new species in the Americas: Phakopsora uva on Vitis in tropical regions; and Phakopsora muscadinae in subtropical areas of the southern USA and Mexico. He considered the first to be the teleomorph of U. vialae and the second to be the teleomorph of U. vitis.
DescriptionTop of page
Spermogonia in clusters on the leaves of Meliosma cuneifolia (China) or Meliosma myriantha (Japan, China) (Meliosmaceae), amphigenous, subcuticular, conical or hemispherical, 90-135 x 60-80 µm.
Aecia mostly hypophyllous, opposite the spermogonia, peridium well-developed, elongate-columnar or cupulate, rupturing at apex. Aeciospores catenulate, subglobose or broadly ellipsoid, often angular, 15-20 x 12-16 µm. Spore wall evenly thin laterally (approximately 1 µm), thickened (-4 µm) apically, colourless, minutely and evenly verrucose.
Uredinia on Vitis hypophyllous, minute, scattered or aggregated in small groups, subepidermal, becoming erumpent, surrounded by abundant paraphyses. Paraphyses cylindrical to weakly incurved, evenly thin-walled or dorsally thick-walled (1.5-4.0 µm), 30-75 µm high. Urediniospores obovoid, obovoid-ellipsoid or oblong-ellipsoid, 15-29 x 10-18 µm. Spore wall evenly approximately 1.5 µm thick, uniformly echinulate. Six or rarely four germ pores, equatorial.
Telia hypophyllous, crustose, brown to blackish-brown, often confluent, subepidermal, applanate. Teliospores more or less regularly arranged in 3-5 layers, oblong to oblong-ellipsoid, 13-32 x 7-13 µm. Spore wall evenly thin, slightly thickened and brownish in the spores of the uppermost layer. Basidiospores reniform, 8-11 x 5-8 µm.
For an additional description and illustrations, see Ono (2000).
DistributionTop of page
Ono (2000) discovered P. euvitis on Vitis throughout eastern Asia. Rust found on Vitis spp. in Asia may be considered to be P. euvitis, although attributed to Phakopsora ampelopsidis or Physopella vitis at the time of the reports (Punithalingam, 1968; CABI/EPPO, 2007). This rust appears to have a wide distribution in China and Southeast Asia, as well as India and Sri Lanka. It was recently reported from northern Australia (Weinert et al., 2003). The Australian isolate differed genetically from Japanese isolates of P. euvitis (Chatasiri and Ono, 2008), thus its introduction may have occurred earlier.
The occurrence of P. euvitis in the Americas is inferred from the taxonomic identification of Uredo vitis on Vitis vinifera from North Carolina, USA, Uredo vialae on cultivated grapes from Jamaica (Ono, 2000), and examination of additional specimens collected from the southern USA (deposited in the Arthur Herbarium (PUR), Purdue University, USA). However, only seven telial specimens from Florida and Georgia, USA, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and Colombia have been deposited in PUR (Ono, 2000). No teliospore germination was observed and basidiospore morphology remains unknown. Host ranges and life cycles of the American isolates of grape rust fungi have not yet been studied sufficiently to confirm the occurrence of P. euvitis in the USA and its geographic distribution in the Americas.
An additional fungus, Phakopsora uva, which also causes rust of grapes, was described by Buriticá (1994) based on a specimen collected in Mexico. Diagnostic characters were stated to include long, basally united paraphyses, with hyaline and evenly thin walls that encircle the entire sorus, and apically thick-walled urediniospores. P. uva was reported to occur on unidentified species of Vitis in Colombia (six specimens) and in Mexico (the holotype). Its host range and geographic distribution is not clear.
Grape leaf rust, identified as P. euvitis according to the description of Ono (2000), has recently spread into southwestern Brazil. It was first identified in the state of Parana (Tessmann et al., 2003), but was soon found also in the states of Mato Grosso (Gava et al., 2003; Souza, 2004), Mato Grosso do Sul (Papa et al., 2003; Naruzawa et al., 2006), Sao Paulo (Tessmann et al., 2004), and Santa Catarina (Sonego et al., 2005). It is not known whether the fungus arrived from a location in the Americas or from elsewhere.
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|
|Bangladesh||Present||Zaman, 1982; Ono, 2000; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|China||Present||Cummins and Ling, 1950; Tai, 1979; Ono, 2000; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Anhui||Present||Liou and Wang, 1935; Cummins, 1950; Tai, 1979; Ono, 2000; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Fujian||Present||Zhuang, 1983; Ono, 2000; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Gansu||Present||Tai, 1979; Wei and Zhuang, 1997; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Guangdong||Present||Tai, 1979; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Guangxi||Present||Cummins, 1950; Tai, 1979; Ono, 2000; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Guizhou||Present||Cummins, 1950; Tai, 1979; Ono, 2000; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Hong Kong||Present||Yen, 1979; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Hunan||Present||Tai, 1979; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Jiangsu||Present||Tai, 1979; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Jiangxi||Present||Tai, 1979; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Shaanxi||Present||Tai, 1979; Wei and Zhuang, 1997; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Shandong||Present||Tai, 1979; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Sichuan||Present||Tai, 1979; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Yunnan||Present||Tai, 1979; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|East Timor||Present||Weinert et al., 2003; Chatasiri and Ono, 2008|
|India||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Maharashtra||Present||Patil et al., 1998; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Tamil Nadu||Present||Ramakrishnan and Sundaram, 1955; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Uttar Pradesh||Present||Mundkur, 1943; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|Indonesia||Present||Ono, 2000; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Irian Jaya||Present||Weinert et al., 2003|
|-Java||Present||Boedijn, 1960; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|Japan||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Sydow and Sydow, 1915; Hiratsuka, 1935; Ito, 1938; Hiratsuka, 1960; Hiratsuka et al., 1992; Ono, 2000; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Hokkaido||Present||Hiratsuka, 1935; Hiratsuka, 1944; Hiratsuka, 1960; Ono, 2000; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Honshu||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Dietel, 1902; Hiratsuka, 1935; Togashi, 1936; Hiratsuka, 1944; Hiratsuka, 1960; Ono, 2000; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Kyushu||Present||Hiratsuka, 1935; Hiratsuka, 1944; Hiratsuka, 1960; Ono, 2000; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Ryukyu Archipelago||Present||Hiratsuka, 1935; Hiratsuka, 1944; Hiratsuka, 1960; Ono et al., 1992; Ono, 2000; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Shikoku||Present||Hiratsuka, 1935; Hiratsuka, 1944; Hiratsuka, 1960; Ono, 2000; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|Korea, DPR||Present||Ono, 2000; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|Korea, Republic of||Present||Ito, 1938; Kim, 1963; Ono, 2000; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|Malaysia||Present||Ono, 2000; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Peninsular Malaysia||Present||Singh, 1980; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Sabah||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|Myanmar||Present||Ono, 2000; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|Philippines||Present||Stevens, 1932; Ono, 2000; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|Sri Lanka||Widespread||Anon., 1936; Petch and Bisby, 1950; Punithalingam, 1968; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|Taiwan||Present||Hiratsuka, 1935; Ito, 1938; Hiratsuka, 1943; Hiratsuka, 1944; Tai, 1979; Ono, 2000; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|Thailand||Present||Ono, 2000; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|USA||Restricted distribution||Ono, 2000; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Alabama||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-California||Absent, unreliable record||CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Florida||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-North Carolina||Present, few occurrences||Clayton and Ridings, 1970; Milholland, 1991; Ono, 2000; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-South Carolina||Present||Ono, 2000; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
Central America and Caribbean
|Barbados||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|Costa Rica||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|Cuba||Absent, unreliable record||CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|Guatemala||Absent, unreliable record||CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|Jamaica||Present||Cockerell, 1891; Cockerell, 1893; Dale, 1955; Ono, 2000; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|Puerto Rico||Absent, unreliable record||Arthur, 1915; Arthur, 1917; ROURE, 1963; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|Trinidad and Tobago||Absent, unreliable record||CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|Brazil||Present||Introduced||2001||Invasive||Tessmann et al., 2004; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Mato Grosso||Present||Introduced||2003||Invasive||Souza, 2004; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Minas Gerais||Present||Xavier et al., 2012|
|-Parana||Widespread||Introduced||2001||Invasive||Tessmann et al., 2004; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Rio Grande do Sul||Present||Introduced||2003||Invasive||Papa et al., 2003; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Santa Catarina||Present||Introduced||2005||Invasive||Sonego et al., 2005|
|-Sao Paulo||Present||Introduced||2003||Invasive||Tessmann et al., 2004; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|Colombia||Absent, unreliable record||CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|Venezuela||Absent, unreliable record||CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|Russian Federation||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Northern Russia||Present||Azbukina, 1984; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|-Russian Far East||Present||Azbukina, 1984; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014|
|Australia||Eradicated||IPPC, 2006; CABI/EPPO, 2007; IPPC, 2008; EPPO, 2014; IPPC, 2015|
|-Australian Northern Territory||Eradicated||Weinert et al., 2003; CABI/EPPO, 2007; EPPO, 2014; IPPC, 2015|
IntroductionsTop of page
Risk of IntroductionTop of page
Infection can cause significant damage to leaves as well as defoliation, resulting in yield loss (Sonego et al., 2005). The fungus can be controlled by the use of resistant varieties and application of fungicides. Unless urediniospores can be transported in a viable condition by long-distance air currents, the fungus is unlikely to be introduced to new regions by means other than on infected green tissue of grapes or related plants.
Habitat ListTop of page
|Terrestrial – Managed||Cultivated / agricultural land||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Terrestrial ‑ Natural / Semi-natural||Natural forests||Present, no further details||Natural|
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page Cross inoculation experiments with Japanese isolates showed that the fungus parasitizes Vitis amurensis, Vitis coignetiae, Vitis ficifolia, Vitis flexuosa, and Vitis labrusca varieties Campbell Early, Delaware and Kyoho, producing uredinia and telia on the leaves (Ono, 2000). The other species of Vitis listed are inferred as hosts of this fungus based on morphological similarity and taxonomic relationship of their reported rust pathogens. All fungal isolates on the Japanese Vitis species and grape cultivars were shown to form spermogonia and aecia on Meliosma myriantha (Meliosmaceae).
Growth StagesTop of page Flowering stage, Fruiting stage, Vegetative growing stage
SymptomsTop of page
Spermogonial-aecial infection causes pale-yellowish, circular or orbicular lesions on the leaves of the alternate host, Meliosma myriantha. Tiny orange-brown dots (spermogonia) appear on the adaxial surface of the lesion and become blackish. Dome-shaped, pale-yellowish, orange-coloured aecia appear on the abaxial surface of the lesion, usually opposite the spermogonia. The aecia grow into a long columnar shape, the tip of which opens to release aeciospores.
Uredinial-telial infection on Vitis causes yellowish to brownish lesions of various shapes and sizes. Sometimes no appreciable lesion is formed on the upper leaf surface even though fungal sporulation takes place on the lower surface. Yellowish-orange masses of urediniospores are produced in uredinia formed on the abaxial surface of the lesion. Telium formation follows the uredinial stage; the telia are formed around the uredinia or separately. The telia are crust-like and orange-brown initially, but become dark-brown or almost black. Heavy infection is not rare, causing entire leaves to become yellow or brown with dense uredinium and/or telium production. Heavy infection causes early senescence and dropping of the leaves.
List of Symptoms/SignsTop of page
|Leaves / abnormal colours|
|Leaves / abnormal leaf fall|
|Leaves / fungal growth|
|Leaves / necrotic areas|
|Leaves / yellowed or dead|
|Stems / stunting or rosetting|
Biology and EcologyTop of page
Where the alternate hosts are present, teliospores, on fallen or persistent leaves of the grapevine, germinate in the spring and disperse thin-walled basidiospores that are wind-borne to Meliosma trees. Ono (2000) obtained teliospore germination at 18-20ºC in the dark. Infected alternate host leaves produced subcuticular spermogonia within 7-15 days. Production of asexual spores in aecia on the lower surfaces of leaves on inoculated plants occurred after another 7-14 days (Ono, 2000).
In nature, aeciospores are wind-borne to Vitis leaves. In experiments, inoculation with aeciospores succeeded when plants were sprayed with distilled water and incubated in a mist chamber at 20ºC for 48 hr (Ono, 1994, 2000). Infected leaves bear uredinia and dispersal of urediniospores, primarily by wind, can result in repeated cycles of infection on Vitis, as environmental conditions permit, through the growing season. Leu and Wu (1983) found the optimal temperature for germination to be 24ºC with a minimum of 8ºC and a maximum of 32ºC. Inoculation of wet leaves with urediniospores produced new uredinia on Vitis within 5-19 (rarely 25) days (Ono, 2000). The fungus penetrates the leaf through stomata, therefore the youngest leaves that lack mature stomata, are not infected (Leu and Wu, 1983). In Brazil, both young and mature grape leaves can be infected (Angelotti et al., 2008).
Telia develop in autumn on the lower sides of the leaves near uredinia. The fungus may overwinter as telia, but in tropical and subtropical climates, may persist solely in the uredinial state without the need for an alternate host (Leu, 1988). Uredinial mycelium may survive unfavourable conditions in dormant buds (Weinert et al., 2003).
This rust appears to be limited in host range to the genera of its known hosts. In test inoculations, basidiospores of P. euvitis from different Vitis species infected only Meliosma myriantha, not Meliosma tenuis (Ono, 2000). Aeciospores produced on the alternate host from any of the basidiospore infections were not specific in their pathogenicity, infecting wild and cultivated Vitis species. Urediniospores from different Vitis species also showed no specificity of infection on those species in Japan (Ono, 2000). On the other hand, neither aeciospores nor urediniospores successfully infected plants of the species tested in the related genera of Ampelopsis, Cayratia or Parthenocissus (Ono, 2000).
ClimateTop of page
|Af - Tropical rainforest climate||Preferred||> 60mm precipitation per month|
|Cf - Warm temperate climate, wet all year||Preferred||Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, wet all year|
|Df - Continental climate, wet all year||Preferred||Continental climate, wet all year (Warm average temp. > 10°C, coldest month < 0°C, wet all year)|
Means of Movement and DispersalTop of page
Urediniospores and basidiospores of rusts are distributed by wind (Alexopoulos et al., 1996). Long-distance dispersal of urediniospores may be prevented by desiccation through the thin spore walls (Weinert et al., 2003).
Weinert et al. (2003) suggested that grape leaf rust could have entered northern Australia from islands to the north on wind currents, on clothing, or as the result of illegal plant introductions.
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 not visible to the naked eye but usually visible under light microscope|
|Plant parts not known to carry the pest in trade/transport|
|Growing medium accompanying plants|
|True seeds (inc. grain)|
Impact SummaryTop of page
Economic ImpactTop of page
Heavy infection near harvest time, which often occurs in warm temperate and subtropical regions, would cause considerable fruit-quality reduction and yield loss. Heavy infection and resultant premature defoliation during the growing season also causes poor growth of the shoot, which results in retarded growth of the grapevines in the next spring and subsequent reduction in fruit setting and enrichment of fruit during the growing season. According to Ozoe and Kadowaki (1971), heavily diseased vines sprouted 6 days later than slightly diseased vines, and the diameter of new shoots formed from the heavily diseased vines was narrower than those of the slightly diseased vines (0.56 vs. 0.63 cm). The flowering time was 3 days later, the number of flower/fruit clusters per shoot was lower (1.3 vs. 2.2) and the number of flowers per cluster was reduced (38.4 vs. 62.0) for the heavily diseased vines. The number of mature fruits per cluster was considerably reduced (12.5 vs. 52.4); thus, weight of a fruit cluster was significantly lower (9.1 vs. 30.3 g) than for the slightly diseased vines.
Risk and Impact FactorsTop of page Invasiveness
- Invasive in 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 agriculture
- Negatively impacts livelihoods
- Difficult to identify/detect as a commodity contaminant
DiagnosisTop of page
This fungus seems to be highly host-specific, being restricted to the genus Vitis (Ono, 2000). Thus, correct identification of the host will facilitate the identification of this species within Phakopsora.
P. euvitis forms cylindrical or weakly incurved uredinial paraphyses with a moderately thickened dorsal wall (1.5-4 µm) and a thin ventral wall, six scattered germ pores in the urediniospore and a kidney-shaped basidiospore, by which characters it can be distinguished from the morphologically similar Phakopsora ampelopsidis on Ampelopsis and Phakopsora vitis on Parthenocissus.
Nevertheless, except for characters of the uredinial paraphrases, the differences in morphology of the species on Vitaceae are subtle, and not all of the spore forms will be available for examination at one time. Sequences of the D1D2 and ITS2 regions of ribosomal DNA for four species (Chatasiri and Ono, 2008) are available in GenBank for comparison with those of isolates (NCBI, 2009).
Detection and InspectionTop of page
The lower leaf surfaces of Vitis species must be examined for minute yellowish powdery uredinia and flat brown subepidermal telia.
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page
Phakopsora uva in tropical America (Buritica, 1999) differs from P. euvitis in the thinner walls of the paraphyses and urediniospores. Phakopsora muscadine, reported from the southern USA and Mexico, is more like P. euvitis, but has fewer layers and shorter spores in the telia and its urediniospores have thicker apical walls (Buritica, 1999).
Uredo caucensis, also described from tropical South America, differs from the uredinial form of P. euvitis in having larger spores (Leu, 1988). Other rusts occurring on Vitis species include Phakopsora cronartiiformis, an Asian species with brown verrucose urediniospores, and Catenulopsora vitis that produces its teliospores in chains (Leu, 1988).
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.
Due to the danger of introduction into the Northern Territory, Australia has placed P. euvitis on its NAQS listed of targeted plant pathogens (AQIS, 2009).
A public awareness campaign in Northern Australia resulted in additional reports on the extent of grape leaf rust spread (Weinert et al., 2003).
A National Grapevine Leaf Rust Eradication Program was started in 2001 to eradicate the fungus from the Northern Territory of Australia (DAFF, 2009).
Field trials of chemical protectants and eradicants have been carried out to control the rust disease in conjunction with other foliar diseases. However, most of the results have not been published. Ozoe and Kadowaki (1971) reported that application benomyl and BDC was effective. Of eight fungicides tested in Brazil, propiconazole, tebuconazole and azoxystrobin provided the best control (Naruzawa et al., 2006).
The use of resistant species and cultivars is most promising in preventing rust epidemics in grapevine cultivation. In a field study conducted in Maharashtra, India, Vitis beriandieri, Vitis candicans, Vitis champini, Vitis palmata, Vitis parviflora and Vitis tiliifolia were highly resistant to a local isolate of P. euvitis (reported as Phakopsora ampelopsidis) (Patil et al., 1998). In contrast, the cultivars Thomson Seedless and Tas-A-Ganesh, widely grown in Maharashtra, appeared susceptible.
Leu (1988) observed that cultivars derived from tropical Vitis species, such as Vitis tiliaefolia and Vitis simpsonii, are almost immune, whereas those derived from temperate zone species are susceptible. In Japan, all cultivars including Delaware, Campbell Early and Kyoho, which are widely cultivated and derived from Vitis labrusca and Vitis vinifera, were highly susceptible to local isolates of the rust fungus; among the wild species, only Vitis flexuosa is highly resistant, whereas Vitis amurensis, Vitis coignetiae, and Vitis ficifolia are highly susceptible (Y Ono, Ibaraki University, Ibaraki, Japan, unpublished data). In a field survey in Sukothai, Thailand, in December, 1985, cultivars Sehwarse, Ramsey and Carolina were found to be highly susceptible (Y Ono, Ibaraki University, Ibaraki, Japan, unpublished data).
Field observations in vineyards in Orlando, Florida, USA in November, 1923 (Shear, 1924) demonstrated that most of the cultivars were defoliated prematurely due to heavy infection of the rust fungus. However, cultivars Fern, Blondin, Wonder, Royal and Carmen showed considerable resistance; the last cultivar proved to be the most successful at resisting the rust infection in Florida (Shear, 1924).
Compared with cultivars derived from V. labrusca and V. vinifera, most of the cultivars derived from Vitis rotundifolia seemed to be highly resistant or even immune to the rust fungus (Clayton and Ridings, 1970). The field survey conducted in 1967 at the Central Crops Research Station at Clayton, North Carolina, USA, revealed that of the 742 cultivars surveyed, only 3% were highly susceptible whereas 82% showed no rust (Clayton and Ridings, 1970). Following inoculation with naturally formed urediniospores under greenhouse conditions, NC57-56 and Howard showed high susceptibility; Higgins and Hunt were slightly susceptible and NC17-123, NC20-30, NC11-137, Magnolia, Pamlico, Topsail, Scuppernong, Roanoke, Tarheel, Albemarle, Chowan and Thomas showed no sign of infection. Of the V. labrusca cultivars inoculated, Portland and Fredonia were slightly susceptible whereas Niagara and Concord were immune (Clayton and Ridings, 1970).
Rootstock cultivars were the most resistant of 15 genotypes tested in Brazil, exhibiting a hypersensitive response to infection and yielding low numbers of small uredinia (Angelotti et al., 2008). Evidence of both qualitative and quantitative resistance to leaf rust was observed.
Gaps in Knowledge/Research NeedsTop of page
The identities and relationships of the rust fungi in Phakopsora on grapes in the Americas should be clarified to determine the actual distribution of these pathogens and the threat of their introduction to other areas. Efforts to select and breed for resistant tropical cultivars should continue.
ReferencesTop of page
Angelotti F; Scapin CR; Tessmann DJ; Vida JB; Vieira RA; Souto ERde, 2008. Genetic resistance of grape genotypes to rust. (Resistência de genótipos de videira à ferrugem.) Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, 43(9):1129-1134. http://www.scielo.br/pab
Anon., 1936. A list of the diseases of cultivated plans in Ceylon. Bulletin of Department of Agriculture, Ceylon, No. 88.
AQIS, 2009. Target lists of weeds, insects, plant and animal pests and diseases. Canberra, Australia: Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. http://www.daff.gov.au/aqis/quarantine/naqs/target-lists?
Arthur JC, 1906. Eine auf die Struktur und Entwicklungsgeschichte begründete Klassifikation der Uredineen. Res. Sci. Congr. Internatl. Bot. Vienne, 331-348.
Arthur JC, 1917. Uredinales of Porto Rico based on collections by H H Whetzel and E W Olive. Mycologia, 9:55-104.
Arthur JC; Cummins GB, 1936. Philippine rusts in the Clemens collection 1923-1926, II. Philippine Journal of Science, 61:463-488.
Boedijn KB, 1960. The Uredinales of Indonesia. Nova Hedwigia, 1:463-496.
Buruticá P, 1994. Cambios taxonomico y nuevos registros de Uredinales de la Flora Andina. Revista del Instituto de Ciencias Naturales y Ecolologia, 5:173-190.
Chatasiri S; Ono Y, 2008. Phylogeny and taxonomy of the Asian grapevine leaf rust fungus, Phakopsora euvitis, and its allies (Uredinales). Mycoscience, 49(1):66-74. http://www.springerlink.com/content/4t68028682116p3q/fulltext.pdf
Clayton CN; Ridings WH, 1970. Grape rust, Physopella ampelopsidis, on Viis rotundifolia in North Carolina. Phytopathology, 60:1022-1023.
Cockerell TDA, 1891. Additions o the fauna and flora of Jamaica. Journal of the Institute of Jamaica, 1:31-32.
Cockerell TDA, 1893. Notes on some fungi collected in Jamaica. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 20:295-297.
Cummins GB, 1950. Uredinales of Continental China collected by S Y Cheo I. Mycologia, 42:779-797.
Cummins GB; Ling L, 1950. An index of the plant rusts recorded for Continental China and Manchuria. Plant Disease Reporter (supplement), 196:520-556.
Cummins GB; Ramachar P, 1958. The genus Physopella (Uredinales) replaces Angiopsora. Mycologia, 50:741-744.
Dale WT, 1955. A preliminary list of Jamaican Uredinales. Mycolological Papers, CMI, No. 60.
Dietel P, 1898. Einige Uredineen aus Ostasien. Hedwigia, 37:212-218.
Dietel P, 1902. Uredineae japonicae. III. Botanische Jahrbücher für Systematik, Pflanzengeschichte und Pflanzengeographie, 32:47-52.
EPPO, 2014. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm
Gava R; Sonego OR; Garrido LRda, 2003. [English title not available]. (Ocorrência da ferrugem da videira no Rio Grande do Sul e Mato Grosso.) In: Congresso Brasileiro de Viticultura e Enologia 10, Bento Gonçalves, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 55.
Hennings P, 1900. Fungi japonici. Botanische Jahrbücher für Systematik, Pflanzengeschichte und Pflanzengeographie, 28:259-280.
Hiratsuka N, 1935. Phakopsora of Japan II. Botanical Magazine, Tokyo, 49:853-860.
Hiratsuka N, 1943. Uredinales of Formosa (contributions to the rust-flora of Eastern Asia IV). Memoirs of the Tottori Agricultural College, 7:1-90.
Hiratsuka N, 1944. Melampsoracearum Nipponicarum (contributions to the rust-flora of Eastern Asia V). Memoirs of the Tottori Agricultural College, 7:91-273.
Hiratsuka N, 1960. A provisional list of Uredinales of Japan proper and the Ryukyu Islands. Science Bulletin of Divisions of Agriculture, Home Economics and Enginering, University of Ryukyus, 7:189-314.
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.
Hiratsuka Naohaeu, 1900. Notes on some Melampsorae of Japan. III. Japanese species of Phacopsora. Botanical Magazine, Tokyo, 14:87-93.
Hiratsuka Naohide, 1928. Additional notes on the Melampsoraceae of Hokkaido. Botanical Magazine, Tokyo, 42:503-504.
IPPC, 2015. Absence of Ditylenchus destructor in Australia. IPPC Official Pest Report, No. AUS-11/2. Rome, Italy: FAO. https://www.ippc.int/
Ito S, 1938. Mycological flora of Japan. Vol. 2. Basidiomycetes. No. 2. Uredinales - Melampsoraceae. Tokyo, Japan: Yokendo (in Japanese).
Kim CJ, 1963. A provisional list of Uredinales of Korea. Korean Journal of Microbiology, 1:51-64.
Lagerheim NG, 1890. Sur un nouveau parasfte dangereux de la Vigne. Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'académie des sciences. Paris, 110:728-729.
Liou T-n; Wang Y-c, 1935. Materials for study on rusts of China. IV. Contribution of the Institute of Botany, National Academy, Peiping, 3:401-411.
Mortensen JA, 1973. Dog ridge, a superior grape rootstock for Florida. Proceedings of the 85th Annual Meeting of the Florida State Horticultural Society, 1973:275-279.
Mundkur BB, 1943. Indian species of Phakopsora and Bubakia. Mycologia, 35:538-545.
Naruzawa ES; Celoto MIB; Papa MFS; Tomquelski GV; Boliani AC, 2006. Epidemiological studies and chemical control of Phakopsora euvitis. (Estudos epidemiológicos e controle químico de Phakopsora euvitis.) Fitopatologia Brasileira, 31(1):41-45. http://www.scielo.br/pdf/fb/v31n1/a07v31n1.pdf
Ono Y; Uematsu K; Hikita M, 1992. Rust flora of the Ryukyu Islands, Japan. Bulletin of the Faculty of Education, Ibaraki University (Natural Science), No. 41, 127-151.
Ozoe S; Kadowaki Y, 1971. Ecology and control of the grapevine rust disease. Shokubutsuboeki, 25:401-404.
Papa MFS; Celoto MYB; Tomquelski GV; Naruzawa ES; Boliani AC, 2003. [English title not available]. (Ocorrência de ferrugem da videira em São Paulo e Mato Grosso do Sul e controle químico em dois sistemas de condução.) Fitopatologia Brasileira, 28:320.
Petch T; Bisby GR, 1950. The fungi of Ceylon. Peradeniya Manual 6, Colombo: Government Publications Bureau, 111 pp.
Ramakrishnan TS; Sundaram NV, 1955. Additions to fungi of Madras - XVII. Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Science, Series B, 41:189-195.
Stevens FL, 1932. Additional Philippine Uredineae. Bulletin of the University of the Philippines, Natural and Applied Science, 2:441-447.
Sydow P, 1899. Diagnosen neuer, aus verschiedenen Gegenden stammender Pilze. Hedwigia Beiblatt, 38:140-144.
Sydow P; Sydow H, 1915. Monographia Uredinearum seu specierum omnium ad hunc usque diem cognitarum descriptio et adumbratio systematica. Vol. III. Pucciniaceae (excl. Puccinia et Uromyces) - Melampsoraceae - Zaghouaniaceae - Coleosporiaceae. Fratres Borntraeger. Lipsiae.
Tessmann DJ; Dianese JC; Genta W; Vida JB; May-de Mio LL, 2004. Grape rust caused by Phakopsora euvitis, a new disease for Brazil. Fitopatologia Brasileira, 29(3):338. http://www.scielo.br/pdf/fb/v29n3/20377.pdf
Thümen FKAEJ von, 1878. Die Pilze des Weinstockes.
Togashi K, 1936. A contribution to the parasitic fungus flora of Mt. Iwate, Iwate Prefecture. Bulletin of the Imperial College of Agricuture and Forestry, 22:1-61.
Wei S-x; Zhuang J-y, 1997. Species checklist of Uredinales of the Qingling Mountains. In: Mao X-j, Zhuang J-y, eds. Fungi of the Qingling Mountais. Chinese Agricultural Science Publishing, 24-83 (in Chinese with English summary).
Xavier AA; Dariva JM; Ribeiro RCF; Mizobutsi EH, 2012. Occurrence of the grape leaf rust in Minas Gerais. (Ocorrência da ferrugem da vtdeira em Minas Gerais.) Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura, 34(1):317-319. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_issues&pid=0100-2945&lng=pt&nrm=iso
Yen J-m, 1975. Étude sur les Champignons parasites du Sud-Est Asiatique. XXIV. Les Urédinées de Formose. Revue de Mycologie, 39:251-267.
Zhang N; Zhuang JY; Wei SX, 1997. Fungal flora of the Daba Mountains: Uredinales. Mycotaxon, 61: 49-79.
Zhuang JY, 1983. A provisional list of Uredinales of Fujian Province, China. Acta Mycologica Sinica, 2(3):146-158
ContributorsTop of page
06/11/09 Updated 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/