Invasive Species Compendium

Detailed coverage of invasive species threatening livelihoods and the environment worldwide

Datasheet

Phyllachora maydis
(black spot of maize)

Toolbox

Datasheet

Phyllachora maydis (black spot of maize)

Summary

  • Last modified
  • 27 September 2018
  • Datasheet Type(s)
  • Documented Species
  • Pest
  • Preferred Scientific Name
  • Phyllachora maydis
  • Preferred Common Name
  • black spot of maize
  • Taxonomic Tree
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •   Kingdom: Fungi
  •     Phylum: Ascomycota
  •       Subphylum: Pezizomycotina
  •         Class: Sordariomycetes
  • Summary of Invasiveness
  • P. maydis, a perithecial ascomycete, causes a tar spot disease of maize that is usually a minor problem. More significant damage to leaves and yield is caused by the fungus Monographella maydis whose infec...

Don't need the entire report?

Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.

Generate report

Pictures

Top of page
PictureTitleCaptionCopyright
Tar spots on Zea mays. Original x7.5.
TitleSymptoms
CaptionTar spots on Zea mays. Original x7.5.
CopyrightUSDA-ARS/Systematic Mycology & Microbiology Laboratory
Tar spots on Zea mays. Original x7.5.
SymptomsTar spots on Zea mays. Original x7.5. USDA-ARS/Systematic Mycology & Microbiology Laboratory
'Fisheye' spots developed around tarspots on Zea mays. Original x7.5.
TitleSymptoms
Caption'Fisheye' spots developed around tarspots on Zea mays. Original x7.5.
CopyrightUSDA-ARS/Systematic Mycology & Microbiology Laboratory
'Fisheye' spots developed around tarspots on Zea mays. Original x7.5.
Symptoms'Fisheye' spots developed around tarspots on Zea mays. Original x7.5.USDA-ARS/Systematic Mycology & Microbiology Laboratory
Blight developing between 'fisheye' spots on Zea mays. Original x7.5.
TitleSymptoms
CaptionBlight developing between 'fisheye' spots on Zea mays. Original x7.5.
CopyrightUSDA-ARS/Systematic Mycology & Microbiology Laboratory
Blight developing between 'fisheye' spots on Zea mays. Original x7.5.
SymptomsBlight developing between 'fisheye' spots on Zea mays. Original x7.5.USDA-ARS/Systematic Mycology & Microbiology Laboratory
Perithecia in cross section of tarspot lesion on Zea mays. Original x100.
TitlePerithecia
CaptionPerithecia in cross section of tarspot lesion on Zea mays. Original x100.
CopyrightUSDA-ARS/Systematic Mycology & Microbiology Laboratory
Perithecia in cross section of tarspot lesion on Zea mays. Original x100.
PeritheciaPerithecia in cross section of tarspot lesion on Zea mays. Original x100.USDA-ARS/Systematic Mycology & Microbiology Laboratory
Asci of Phyllachora maydis. Original x400. Note scale bar.
TitleAsci
CaptionAsci of Phyllachora maydis. Original x400. Note scale bar.
CopyrightUSDA-ARS/Systematic Mycology & Microbiology Laboratory
Asci of Phyllachora maydis. Original x400. Note scale bar.
AsciAsci of Phyllachora maydis. Original x400. Note scale bar.USDA-ARS/Systematic Mycology & Microbiology Laboratory
Ascospores of Phyllachora maydis. Original x1000.  Note scale bar.
TitleAscospores
CaptionAscospores of Phyllachora maydis. Original x1000. Note scale bar.
CopyrightUSDA-ARS/Systematic Mycology & Microbiology Laboratory
Ascospores of Phyllachora maydis. Original x1000.  Note scale bar.
AscosporesAscospores of Phyllachora maydis. Original x1000. Note scale bar.USDA-ARS/Systematic Mycology & Microbiology Laboratory

Identity

Top of page

Preferred Scientific Name

  • Phyllachora maydis Maubl. 1904

Preferred Common Name

  • black spot of maize

International Common Names

  • English: tar spot; tar spot of maize
  • Spanish: mancha de asfalto; mancha negra; mancha negra del maiz
  • French: tache noire du mais

Local Common Names

  • Germany: Blattschorf: Mais

EPPO code

  • PHYRMA (Phyllachora maydis)

Summary of Invasiveness

Top of page

P. maydis, a perithecial ascomycete, causes a tar spot disease of maize that is usually a minor problem. More significant damage to leaves and yield is caused by the fungus Monographella maydis whose infection follows that of the tar-spot fungus, at least where studied in Mexico (Hock et al., 1992; 1995). The source of initial inoculum for both fungi is not determined. The disease they cause occurs in the cooler and higher elevations of Mexico, and Central and South America, and the West Indies, so their ability to spread over land through other climatic zones may be limited. Not known to be seedborne or to infect other species, P. maydis could be transported on fresh or dry maize leaves or husks, or products made from them, from which ascospores would have to be produced and carried by wind or rain splash to maize [Zea mays].

Taxonomic Tree

Top of page
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •     Kingdom: Fungi
  •         Phylum: Ascomycota
  •             Subphylum: Pezizomycotina
  •                 Class: Sordariomycetes
  •                     Subclass: Sordariomycetidae
  •                         Order: Phyllachorales
  •                             Family: Phyllachoraceae
  •                                 Genus: Phyllachora
  •                                     Species: Phyllachora maydis

Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature

Top of page

P. maydis is a member of a large genus of fungi causing ‘tar spot’ on grasses and other plants. It is the only species reported on Zea and is restricted to Zea (Parbery, 1967; 1971). Like other species of Phyllachora, it has a pycnidial anamorph in the genus Linochora (Parbery, 1967; Muller and Samuels, 1984). Parbery (1967) confirmed Petrak’s determination that the anamorph of Phyllachora graminis, the type species, is not in the genus Leptostromella. Characters of the anamorph are useful in distinguishing species within the genus (Parbery and Langdon, 1964).

Description

Top of page

Clypeus amphigenous, developing in epidermis, generally circular, 0.5-2.0 mm diameter, dark-brown to black, glossy. Ascomata perithecial subglobose, ostiolate, aggregated or scattered, subepidermal beneath clypeus, 170-350 µm diameter. Paraphyses numerous, filiform, longer than asci, to 125 µm. Asci narrowly cylindrical, 8-10 x 80-100 µm, pedicel short. Ascospores uniseriate in ascus, hyaline, aseptate, broadly ellipsoid, 5.5-8.5 x (8-)10-14 µm (often 13-14 µm). Conidiomata pycnidial, subepidermal beneath clypeus, often in younger lesions. Conidiophores branched at two or three levels, branches tapering, 11-16 x 1.0-1.5 µm. Conidia filiform, hyaline, 10-15 x 0.5 µm, gradually tapering to apex. For additional descriptions see Dalby (1917), Orton (1944), Parbery (1967), and Liu (1973).

Distribution

Top of page

This fungus is reported from parts of Mexico, Central and South America and the West Indies (Hock et al., 1995; Cline, 2005). Known primarily from the cooler and higher elevations (Malaguti and Subero, 1972; Bajet et al., 1994), it may be unable to spread by its own ability through the drier or hotter tropics. Watson (1971) lists it as present in Brazil, but Hock et al. (1995) state that there are no reports of it there, or farther south in the continent.

Distribution Table

Top 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/RegionDistributionLast ReportedOriginFirst ReportedInvasiveReferenceNotes

North America

MexicoLocalisedNative Not invasive Hock et al., 1989; Hock et al., 1989

Central America and Caribbean

Costa RicaPresentNative Not invasive Bajet et al., 1994
CubaPresentIntroducedArnold, 1986
Dominican RepublicPresentIntroducedBajet et al., 1994
El SalvadorPresentNative Not invasive Bajet et al., 1994
GuatemalaPresentNative Not invasive Bajet et al., 1994
HaitiPresentBajet et al., 1994
HondurasPresentNative Not invasive McGuire and Crandall, 1967
NicaraguaPresentNative Not invasive McGuire and Crandall, 1967
PanamaPresentNative Not invasive Bajet et al., 1994
Puerto RicoPresentIntroducedLiu, 1973
Trinidad and TobagoPresentIntroducedBaker and Dale, 1951
United States Virgin IslandsPresentIntroducedStevenson, 1975

South America

BoliviaPresentIntroducedBajet et al., 1994
BrazilAbsent, unreliable recordWatson, 1971
ColombiaPresentIntroducedBajet et al., 1994
EcuadorPresentIntroducedBajet et al., 1994
PeruPresentIntroducedBajet et al., 1994
VenezuelaPresentIntroducedBajet et al., 1994

Risk of Introduction

Top of page

Not known to be seedborne, the two pathogenic fungi of the “tar spot complex” could be transported beyond their known distribution on fresh or dry maize leaves or husks, or products made from them. Ascospores of P. maydis and conidia of Monographella maydis would then have to be carried by wind or rain splash to maize [Zea mays]. To cause the serious damage that occurs in the native range, the two fungi would need to be introduced together in order to threaten the crop, unless M. maydis was already present or other species will interact with P. maydis as M. maydis does. Suitable environmental conditions of temperature, relative humidity and/or rainfall are required for the sequence of infections that results in the blight on maize. P. maydis by itself usually causes a low level of necrosis (Hock et al., 1995), although this level might be economically significant in some areas.

Habitat

Top of page

The disease is favoured by cool temperatures, 16-20°C, and high relative humidity (Bajet et al., 1994). Severe disease was observed during a winter in lowland eastern Mexico when temperatures were in the range of 17-22°C, mean relative humidity was greater than 75%, more typical of mid-altitude zones, and there were more than 7 hours of leaf wetness per night (Hock et al., 1995). Rainfall was not a significant factor in disease progress and severity. In Mexico, disease is most severe at elevations of 700-1600 m and in the cooler months from November to April, at lower altitudes (Bajet et al., 1994).

Habitat List

Top of page
CategoryHabitatPresenceStatus
Terrestrial-managed
Cultivated / agricultural land Principal habitat Harmful (pest or invasive)

Hosts/Species Affected

Top of page

P. maydis is restricted to Zea mays (maize) (Parbery, 1967), and was not found on other grasses, including other Zea species, in Mexico (Hock et al., 1995).

Growth Stages

Top of page Flowering stage, Fruiting stage, Vegetative growing stage

Symptoms

Top of page

Initial symptoms are small, yellow-brown spots on either side of the leaf. The raised glossy black clypeus covering the ascomata, surrounded by a narrow chlorotic border, develops in the spot. Spots are circular, oval, sometimes angular or irregular, and may coalesce to form stripes up to 10 mm long (Liu, 1973).

Some spots enlarge around the ascomata, with an initially water-soaked area becoming necrotic, to form circular-oval brown lesions 3-8 mm diameter with a dark outer edge (Bajet et al., 1994); this is called the “fish-eye” symptom (Hock et al., 1992). These larger lesions coalesce after 7-14 days; areas between spots become water-soaked and dry out. When conditions favour disease, leaves may be fully dead in 21-30 days. The fungus spreads from the lowest leaves to upper leaves, leaf sheathes and the husks of developing ears (Bajet et al., 1994).

As many as 4000 lesions may form on a leaf, and, in susceptible genotypes, 80% or more of the leaf area is affected, leaving little green tissue or killing the plant (Ceballos and Deutsch, 1992). Affected ears have reduced weight and loose kernels, and kernels at the ear tip may germinate prematurely (CIMMYT, 2003).

List of Symptoms/Signs

Top of page
SignLife StagesType
Leaves / abnormal colours
Leaves / fungal growth
Leaves / necrotic areas
Leaves / yellowed or dead
Seeds / shrivelled
Whole plant / plant dead; dieback

Biology and Ecology

Top of page

Ascospores of Phyllachora spp. on Australian grasses are actively discharged after rain or high relative humidity and collect in glutinous masses at the ostioles, from which they are probably dispersed by rain splash (Parbery, 1963a). Hock et al. (1995) trapped windborne ascospores of P. maydis in Mexico during periods of high humidity, with a maximum in the evening hours. Most of the spores trapped were in clusters of three or four; the fungus was able to spread up to 75 m from infected plants. In the laboratory, ascospores germinate best between 10 and 20°C, but poorly outside this range (Dittrich et al., 1991).

In eastern lowland Mexico, tar spot begins to appear approximately 2 weeks before flowering and reaches a maximum severity approximately 6 weeks later (Hock et al., 1995). Infection may also occur at the 8 to 10 leaf stage (Hock et al., 1989).

The clypeus (stroma) of Phyllachora species grows separately in the epidermis on either side of the leaf and is not an extension of the perithecia (Parbery, 1963b).

The pycnidia of the Linachora asexual state appear early in infection (Parbery, 1967; Hock et al., 1992). Spores of the anamorphs of Phyllachora species tested did not germinate in water on slides or on host plants, and probably serve as spermatia in mating (Parbery and Langdon, 1963).

Physiology and Phenology

Phyllachora species are generally obligate parasites, and cannot be cultured on the usual laboratory media (Parbery, 1963b). The apparent necrotrophic activity of P. maydis (Dalby, 1917; Liu, 1973; Bajet et al., 1994) is unusual for a fungus that should require living plant cells for its support, which suggests that the fungus is not fully adapted to its host.

Associations

P. maydis is seldom found alone in affected tissue (Bajet et al., 1994). The anamorphic form of Monographellamaydis usually grows in the necrotic areas around the ascomata (Muller and Samuels, 1984; Bajet et al., 1994) and is the cause of the severe blighting (Hock et al., 1995). In lowland eastern Mexico, when only P. maydis was present on a leaf, no leaf blight occurred (Bajet et al., 1994). Leaf inoculations with M. maydis were not usually successful unless P. maydis infections were already present, and lesions caused by M. maydis have not been observed in the field without the tar spot fungus in the centre (Hock et al., 1992). This other pathogen may be present as an endophyte (Muller and Samuels, 1984; Bajet et al., 1994) or an epiphyte (CIMMYT, 2003); in either case, its shift to pathogenicity depends primarily on infection of the plant by P. maydis. Hock et al. (1992) observed that P. maydis develops first on the leaves, and they suggest that it may provide a means of entry for the second fungus. Symptoms caused by M. maydis then appeared as early as 2 days after P. maydis was visible; the majority of lesions produced by M. maydis occurred within 7 days after the tar spot was seen.

The temperature range for optimal germination of M. maydis conidia in water is 25-30°C, and germination was faster in the dark (Dittrich et al., 1991). The optimal temperature range for growth in culture is 24-27°C, and corresponds to that typical of the November to February period in lowland eastern Mexico (Muller and Samuels, 1984). The higher optimum for the second pathogen may be a factor in its later appearance, following P. maydis infection in cooler months (Hock et al., 1995). Conidia in dried leaves in the laboratory or in leaves on the ground from August to December in lowland Mexico, began losing viability after 1 month, although survival outdoors was better (Hock et al., 1995).

Another member of the fungus complex associated with tar spot is Coniothyrium phyllachorae, a pycnidial fungus that is considered to be a hyperparasite on Phyllachora. Maublanc (1904) described it as occurring in the clypeus (“stroma”) and empty perithecia of P.maydis. Hock et al. (1995) found almost 50% of P. maydis lesions containing pycnidia of Coniothyrium 2 weeks before harvest. Its incidence on P. maydis is independent of lesion infection by Monographella maydis (Hock, 1991). Tar spot lesions containing C. phyllachorae are smaller (Hock et al., 1989; 1995).

Rainfall Regime

Top of page Bimodal

Natural enemies

Top of page
Natural enemyTypeLife stagesSpecificityReferencesBiological control inBiological control on
Coniothyrium phyllachorae Parasite Fruit bodies to species Hock et al., 1992; Maublanc, 1904

Means of Movement and Dispersal

Top of page

Natural Dispersal

Windborne ascospores of P. maydis were trapped in Mexico during periods of high humidity with a maximum in the evening (Hock et al., 1995). Plants located up to 100 feet away from a source of inoculum were infected in Puerto Rico (Liu, 1973). Parbery (1963a) suggested rain splash as a dispersing agent for Phyllachora on grasses in Australia. Rainfall was not a major factor in severity of the disease in lowland eastern Mexico (Hock et al., 1995).

Other than maize, a source of initial inoculum for a new crop is unknown (Hock et al., 1995). If maize [Zea mays] is not in continuous cultivation locally and the fungus does not survive well in crop debris, then volunteer plants or wild species of Zea or other grasses are the likely sources of ascospores. The disease was not found on grasses or on wild Zea (teosinte) in Mexico (Hock et al., 1995). In eastern lowland Mexico, the disease is observed on maize throughout the year (Bajet et al., 1994). Tropical and subtropical maize cropping patterns may allow the pathogen to persist and multiply.

Accidental Introduction

This has not been reported, but the natural means of dispersal may not be sufficient to explain spread between environmentally favourable areas of maize cultivation at higher elevations in South America or to islands in the Caribbean. Transport of ears in the husk or of items made with leaves or husks are possible means of introduction.

Seedborne Aspects

Top of page

No species of Phyllachora are reported as seedborne (Richardson, 1990). Hock et al. (1995) considered infestation of maize [Zea mays] seed by either P. maydis or Monographella maydis unlikely in that the fungi would not penetrate through the husks to the ear. They were unable to isolate M. maydis from seeds.

Pathway Vectors

Top of page
VectorNotesLong DistanceLocalReferences
Plants or parts of plantsSome survival in crop debris, dried leaves Yes Hock et al., 1995
WindAscospores Yes Hock et al., 1995; Liu, 1973

Plant Trade

Top of page
Plant parts liable to carry the pest in trade/transportPest stagesBorne internallyBorne externallyVisibility of pest or symptoms
Leaves fruiting bodies; 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
Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches

Impact Summary

Top of page
CategoryImpact
Economic/livelihood Negative

Impact: Economic

Top of page

The disease can cause an estimated yield loss for farmers of up to 30% in Mexico, with an average loss of 8% (Hock et al., 1995); the crop area affected could be as much as 500,000 hectares (Hock et al., 1989). A yield loss of 46% due to the disease occurred in unsprayed test plots in Veracruz, Mexico (Bajet et al., 1994); some portion of the damage was due to Fusarium stalk rot to which tar spot apparently predisposes the plant. Greater losses were suggested to be possible where environmental conditions are more favourable or cultivars grown are more susceptible. Other types of losses may include reductions in quality of grain, plants used for feed, or husks used for food wrapping (Bajet et al., 1994).

Estimated yield losses of up to 75% in the 2008/2009 season were reported to have occurred in the northern provinces of Guatemala (ProMED, 2009).

Risk and Impact Factors

Top of page Invasiveness
  • Has a broad native range
  • Highly mobile locally
  • Has high reproductive potential
Impact outcomes
  • Host damage
  • Negatively impacts agriculture
  • Negatively impacts livelihoods
Impact mechanisms
  • Pathogenic
Likelihood of entry/control
  • Difficult to identify/detect as a commodity contaminant
  • Difficult/costly to control

Diagnosis

Top of page

No DNA sequences for this species are available in GenBank as of October 2009, but sequences for the 18S and ITS2 regions of rDNA for Phyllachora graminis have been recorded (NCBI, 2009).

Detection and Inspection

Top of page

Lower leaves should be examined for small, raised, glossy, dark, circular, or oval to irregular, spots, or for brown lesions, often with a dark border, having a dark ascomata at the centres (CIMMYT, 2003).

Similarities to Other Species/Conditions

Top of page

Orton (1944) distinguished P. maydis among species of Phyllachora on grasses on the basis of its ellipsoid, uniseriate ascospores, the intermediate length of asci, and the size and shape of the clypeus. According to his key, other North American species that are similar, occur on grasses in genera such as Andropogon, Anthephora, Bouteloua, Panicum, Paspalum, Spartina and Stenotaphrum.

According to the only monograph of the genus (Parbery, 1967; 1971), the morphologically similar species of Phyllachora cause tar spot on Boutetoua, Cynodon, and Chloris. P. maydis is restricted to Zea. Species reported on Sorghum were distinguished by the shape of the ascus from Phyllachora oxyspora, and the greater length of ascospores from both P. oxyspora and Phyllachorasacchari (Parbery, 1967).

Among other leaf spots on maize [Zea mays], tar spot is unique in the dark glossy clypeus, 0.5-2.0 mm diameter, produced in the epidermis, with or without a larger brown necrotic area developing around it (Carson, 1999; CIMMYT, 2003).

Prevention and Control

Top of page

Prevention

SPS Measures

P. maydis has been intercepted at ports in the USA coming from Mexico and Guatemala (Cline, 2005).

Control

Cultural Control and Sanitary Measures

Measures to reduce the initial inoculum for a new crop would depend on the source of that inoculum and cultivation practices. Where maize [Zea mays] is grown continuously in the vicinity, efforts at sanitation are not likely to be effective. Elsewhere, removal of volunteer plants or wild maize relatives may be appropriate. Ascospores of P. maydis survived in crop debris for 3 months or longer (Hock et al., 1995); the removal or destruction of the debris may be useful if a new crop will be planted in that interval.

Biological Control

Reduction in size of P. maydis lesions due to hyperparasitism soon after infection suggests that Coniothyrium phyllochorae may be suitable for use as a control (Hock et al., 1995).

Chemical Control

Fenpropimorph (one or two treatments) and mancozeb applied every 10 days were found to be the most effective fungicides in field plot tests in Mexico (Bajet et al., 1994).

Incorporation of resistance into maize cultivars is the preferred method of control due to the cost of chemicals, and, in Mexico, CIMMYT (Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo) has developed resistant breeding lines and varieties for different ecological niches (Bajet et al., 1994). Resistance to P. maydis appears to be due primarily to a single dominant gene, but additive effects were also detected (Ceballos and Deutsch, 1992). Although progress was difficult and slow, because the tar spot problem involves the two fungi, CIMMYT obtained 14 inbred lines that were “almost immune” (Vasal et al., 1999).

Gaps in Knowledge/Research Needs

Top of page

The means of persistence and sources of initial inoculum other than maize [Zea mays] need to be determined. In addition, important questions concerned with whether Monographella maydis or a related species, an endophyte, or epiphyte of maize elsewhere, introduced with P. maydis, could result in high disease severity. In addition, it should be determined how susceptible to either pathogen maize cultivars grown elsewhere in environments favourable for tar spot are.

References

Top of page

Arnold GRW, 1986. Lista de Hongos Fitopatogenos de Cuba ([English title not available]). Havana, Cuba: Editorial Cientifico-Tecnica, 207 pp.

Bajet NB; Renfro BL; Valdez C JM, 1994. Control of tar spot of maize and its effect on yield. International Journal of Pest Management, 40(2):121-125.

Baker Red; Dale WT, 1951. Fungi of Trinidad and Tobago. Mycol Pap., Commonw. mycol. Inst, 33:123 pp.

Carson ML, 1999. Diseases of minor importance or limited occurrence. In: Compendium of Corn Diseases [ed. by White, \D. G.]. St Paul, Minnesota, USA: American Phytopathological Society, 23-25.

Ceballos H; Deutsch JA, 1992. Inheritance of resistance to tar spot complex in maize. Phytopathology, 82(5):505-512.

CIMMYT, 2003. Maize Diseases: A guide for field identification. 4th Edition., Mexico: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, 119 pp. http://www.cimmyt.org/english/docs/field_guides/maize/pdf/mzDis_foliar.pdf

Cline E, 2005. Phyllachora maydis. Nomenclature fact sheet. Maryland, USA: Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory. http://nt.ars-grin.gov/sbmlweb/fungi/nomensheets.cfm

Dalby NE, 1917. Phyllachora as the cause of a disease of corn, and a general consideration of the genus Phyllachora. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science, 120:230-238.

Dittrich U; Hock J; Kranz J; Renfro BL, 1991. Germination of Phyllachora maydis ascospores and conidia of Monographella maydis. Cryptogamic Botany, 2(2-3):214-218.

Hock J, 1991. [English title not available]. (Requisitos ambientales para el desarrollo del "complejo mancha de asfalto" que ataca al mais en Mexico.) Phytopathology, 81:693.

Hock J; Dittrich U; Renfro BL; Kranz J, 1992. Sequential development of pathogens in the maize tarspot disease complex. Mycopathologia, 117(3):157-161.

Hock J; Kranz J; Renfro BL, 1989. [English title not available]. (El "complejo mancha de asfalto" de maiz, su distribucion geografica, requisition ambientales e importancia economica en Mexico.) Revista Mexicana de Fitopatologia, 7:129-135.

Hock J; Kranz J; Renfro BL, 1995. Studies on the epidemiology of the tar spot disease complex of maize in Mexico. Plant Pathology, 44(3):490-502.

Liu L-J, 1973. Incidence of tar spot disease of corn in Puerto Rico. Journal of Agriculture of the University of Puerto Rico, 42(3):211-216.

Malaguti G; Subero LJ, 1972. [English title not available]. (La mancha de asfalto del mais.) Agronomia Tropical, 22:443-445.

Maublanc A, 1904. [English title not available]. (Especes nouvelles de champignons inferieurs.) Bulletin de la Societe Mycologique de France, 20:70-74.

McGuire JU; Crandall BS, 1967. Survey of insect pests and plant diseases of selected food crops of Mexico, central America and Panama. USDA Int. agric. Development Service., 157 pp.

Müller E; Samuels GJ, 1984. Monographella maydis sp. nov. and its connection to the tar-spot disease of Zea mays. Nova Hedwigia, 40(1/4):113-121.

NCBI, 2009. Entrez cross-database search engine. Maryland, USA: National Center for Biotechnology Information. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/gquery

Orton CR, 1944. Graminicolous species of Phyllachora in North America. Mycologia, 36(1):18-53 pp.

Parbery DG, 1963. Studies on graminicolous species of Phyllachora Fckl. I. Ascospores-their liberation and germination. Australian Journal of Botany, 2(2):117-130.

Parbery DG, 1963. Studies on graminicolous species of Phyllachora Fckl. II. Invasion of the host and development of the fungus. Australian Journal of Botany, 2(2):131-140.

Parbery DG, 1967. Studies on graminicolous species of Phyllachora Nke. in Fckl. A taxonomic monograph. Australian Journal of Botany, 15:271-375.

Parbery DG, 1971. Studies on graminicolous species of Phyllachora Nke. in Fckl. VI. Additions and corrections to part V. Australian Journal of Botany, 19(2):207-235.

Parbery DG; Langdon RFN, 1963. Studies on graminicolous species of Phyllachora Fckl. III. The relationship of certain scolecospores to species of Phyllachora. Australian Journal of Botany, 11:141-151.

Parbery DG; Langdon RFN, 1964. Studies on graminicolous species of Phyllachora Fckl. Evaluation of the criteria of species. Australian Journal of Botany, 12:265-281.

ProMED, 2009. Undiagnosed fungus, maize - Guatemala (02): tar spot. ProMED-mail 20 April 2009: 20020420.1491. http://www.promedmail.org

Richardson MJ, 1990. An annotated list of seed-borne diseases. Zurich, Switzerland: The International Seed-Testing Association.

Stevenson JA, 1975. The fungi of Puerto Rico and the American Virgin Islands. Contribution of Reed Herbarium Reed Herbarium. Baltimore, Maryland, USA, No. 23:743 pp.

Vasal SK; Srinivasan G; Cordova H; Pandey S; Jeffers D; Bergvinson D; Beck D, 1999. Inbred line evaluation nurseries and their role in maize breeding at CIMMYT. Maydica, 44(4):341-351.

Watson AJ, 1971. Agriculture Handbook., 111 pp.

Links to Websites

Top of page
WebsiteURLComment
Maize Diseases: a Guide for Field Identification: Foliar fungal diseaseshttp://www.cimmyt.org/english/docs/field_guide/maize/pdf/mzDis_foliar.pdf

Organizations

Top of page

Mexico: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Lisboa 27, Apdo, Postal 6-641, 06600, http://www.cimmyt.org

Contributors

Top of page

06/11/09 Original text by:

Systematic Mycology & Microbiology Laboratory, USDA-ARS, 10300 Baltimore Ave., Beltsville, MD 20705, USA

Distribution Maps

Top of page
You can pan and zoom the map
Save map