Phytophthora megakarya (black pod of cocoa)
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Distribution Table
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
- Growth Stages
- List of Symptoms/Signs
- Biology and Ecology
- Seedborne Aspects
- Plant Trade
- Detection and Inspection
- 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
- Phytophthora megakarya Brasier & M.J. Griffin
Preferred Common Name
- black pod of cocoa
International Common Names
- English: seedling blight of cocoa; trunk canker of cocoa
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Chromista
- Phylum: Oomycota
- Class: Oomycetes
- Order: Peronosporales
- Family: Peronosporaceae
- Genus: Phytophthora
- Species: Phytophthora megakarya
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page
A fourth species with papillate sporangia also causes disease in cocoa (Phytophthora citrophthora); however, this species has persistent sporangia and can thus be readily distinguished from the other species.
Lee and Taylor (1992) used rDNA variation to study evolutionary relationships among these species. The ITS I and ITS II regions showed low or undetectable intraspecific variability. However, interspecific nucleotide difference was 0.3-14.6%. A common lineage was proposed for P. palmivora and P. megakarya, and P. capsici and P. citrophthora also appear to show a close relationship.
DescriptionTop of page
P. megakarya is a member of Group II of Phytophthora, as defined by Stamps et al. (1990). It produces caducous papillate sporangia, is heterothallic and antheridia are amphigynous.
Sporangia are limoniform, obpyriform or ellipsoid with rounded bases, varying from 20-60 x 13-41 µm, with a length-breadth ratio of 1.2-1.6, and are formed in a sympodium. Sporangia are caducous, with pedicels ranging from 10-30 µm long.
Oogonia are produced in paired cultures of A1 and A2 compatibility types only. The A1 compatibility type is most frequently isolated. Oogonia range in size from 19-37 (av. 27) µm, and taper to a funnel-shaped base at the oogonial stalk. Antheridia are amphigymous, spherical, averaging 13 µm long. Oospores are plerotic 23-28 µm diam. with a wall thickness ranging from 1.5-3 µm.
DistributionTop of page
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: 15 Dec 2020
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Reference||Notes|
|Equatorial Guinea||Present, Widespread||Original citation: Zentmeyer (1987)|
|Gabon||Present, Widespread||Original citation: Zentmeyer (1987)|
|Ghana||Present, Widespread||Original citation: Zentmeyer (1987)|
|Papua New Guinea||Present|
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page
Host Plants and Other Plants AffectedTop of page
|Ananas comosus (pineapple)||Bromeliaceae||Habitat/association|
|Carica papaya (pawpaw)||Caricaceae||Habitat/association|
|Cola nitida (bitter cola)||Sterculiaceae||Unknown|
|Colocasia esculenta (taro)||Araceae||Habitat/association|
|Elaeis guineensis (African oil palm)||Arecaceae||Habitat/association|
|Funtumia elastica (West African rubber tree)||Apocynaceae||Other|
|Mangifera indica (mango)||Anacardiaceae||Habitat/association|
|Musa x paradisiaca (plantain)||Musaceae||Habitat/association|
|Persea americana (avocado)||Lauraceae||Habitat/association|
|Ricinodendron heudelotii (njangsa)||Euphorbiaceae||Other|
|Theobroma cacao (cocoa)||Malvaceae||Main|
|Xanthosoma sagittifolium (elephant ear)||Araceae||Habitat/association|
Growth StagesTop of page
SymptomsTop of page
Black pod caused by P. megakarya and P. palmivora can be distinguished because P. megakarya produces lesions with irregular edges on the fruit whereas lesions caused by P. palmivora have regular borders and are generally smaller (Erwin and Ribeiro, 1996). Pods are susceptible at all stages of development and may be infected at any place on the surface. The first symptom is a brown to black spot on the pod, which spreads rapidly in all directions and eventually covers the whole pod. The beans become infected internally about 15 days after the initial infection and are soon of no commercial value.
Generally, pods closest to the ground are first infected, with the disease rapidly spreading to affect fruit on the entire tree. P. megakarya can also cause seedling blight and trunk cankers (Zentmeyer, 1987), but its capacity to cause root rot is equivocal. Luz and Mitchell (1994) reported that even at high inoculum levels P. megakarya caused little damage to roots and no seedling mortality. Despreaux et al. (1987) also indicated that P. megakarya is not pathogenic to cocoa roots. Gregory et al. (1984), however, stated that P. megakarya is primarily a root-infecting pathogen.
List of Symptoms/SignsTop of page
|Fruit / lesions: black or brown|
|Fruit / mummification|
|Fruit / premature drop|
|Roots / soft rot of cortex|
|Seeds / rot|
|Seeds / shrivelled|
|Stems / canker on woody stem|
|Whole plant / damping off|
|Whole plant / plant dead; dieback|
Biology and EcologyTop of page
Despreaux et al. (1987) reported that the inoculum potential of soil declined rapidly with time outside epidemic periods, principally because it had low saprophytic capability and was not pathogenic on cocoa roots. They reported that the fungus could survive, however, between the bark and sapwood on cocoa stems for several months.
The fungus is dispersed by caducous sporangia, and the disease is clearly polycyclic. Sporangia form on the surface of infected pods at relative humidities in the range 60-80% RH and temperatures between 20-30°C (Gregory, 1969). Sporangia can germinate directly via a germ tube, or indirectly to release about 30 zoospores.
Wet, showery conditions are essential for infection and spread. Wood (1974) has shown that long periods of relative humidity at saturation point are required for the rapid spread of disease. The theory that relative humidity is the most important climatic factor helps to explain the higher incidence in Nigeria than in Ghana, and the almost complete absence of black pod disease in Malaysia.
The role of sexuality in nature in producing oospores is unclear. Erselius and Shaw (1982) found a low fecundity of A1 x A2 P. megakarya crosses, in terms of both number of well-formed oospores produced and percentage germination. This is surprising for intraspecific crosses. In nature, the A1 compatibility type is most common, whereas in the work of Erselius and Shaw (1982), the A2 compatibility type was most commonly generated in the laboratory crosses.
Seedborne AspectsTop of page
Since P. megakarya appears to be confined to West Africa, it is essential to implement strategies to limit its spread, particularly in nursery material.
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|
|Bark||fungi/hyphae; fungi/spores||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye|
|Fruits (inc. pods)||fungi/hyphae; fungi/spores||Yes||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye|
|Leaves||fungi/hyphae; fungi/spores||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually invisible|
|Roots||fungi/hyphae; fungi/spores||Yes||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually invisible|
|Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches||fungi/hyphae; fungi/spores||Yes||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye|
|Wood||fungi/hyphae; fungi/spores||Yes||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye|
|Plant parts not known to carry the pest in trade/transport|
ImpactTop of page
DiagnosisTop of page
Detection and InspectionTop of page
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page
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.Introduction
Control of P. megakarya revolves around three strategies; cultural methods, chemical control and disease resistance. At present, control relies upon cultural methods.
Inoculum levels of P. megakarya are rapidly reduced in the absence of the host, and cocoa is the only known host. This affords opportunities to limit the spread through ensuring that disease-free nursery material is planted when clonal material is used for propagation. Spread can also be restricted by surface disinfestation of harvesting implements before moving from one tree to another.
Improved control is also obtained by avoiding bare earth (thus reducing spore splash) within the plantation (Waller and Holderness, 1997). Management of the amount of light entering the canopy is also critical, to ensure improved aeration and to promote the drying of the pod surface. Planting under thinned jungle is commonly employed in West Africa and, while cheap and simple, provides uneven shade which is difficult to regulate (Wood, 1975). Shade is critical in young trees to promote development of the most productive canopy shape. Clear felling of jungle, followed by planting of temporary and permanent shade trees, allows more effective regulation of light (Wood, 1975).
Other cultural control methods include improving sanitation by removing infected pods and pod husks. These need to be removed from the plantation to where they no longer provide an effective inoculum source. Also, ripe healthy pods should be regularly harvested, often daily (Thorold, 1959).
Soil tunnels built upon the trunk surface by ants are also responsible for moving inoculum of P. megakarya into the infection court (Gregory and Maddison, 1981). Sometimes tunnels are built onto the tops of pods as a shelter for tended mealy bugs, exacerbating the black pod disease problem. Ant management is a critical management issue.
Fungicides have been extensively used for black pod control. In Nigeria, commercial applications began in 1953, using carbide Bordeaux mixture (Thorold, 1953). Copper derivatives are still commonly used in West Africa, and in Zambia and Zaire (Mabbett, 1997). In Togo, the use of metalaxyl and red copper oxide reduced losses from 80% to 3% and 19%, respectively (Djiekpor et al., 1981). These workers proposed integrated control based on cultural and chemical treatments, plus the use of resistant planting material.
Because at least four different species of Phytophthora cause black pod disease, control through the use of disease resistance is likely to be more challenging than when only one species is involved. It has been recognized that Amelonado types of cocoa are more resistant to black pod diseases than Amazon, Trinitario and Criollo types (Wood, 1975). Breeding for resistance is being actively pursued. Nyasee et al. (1995) advocated the use of a leaf disc inoculation method for testing the disease reactions of prospective parents in a breeding programme. Cocoa clones tested for resistance to black pod with leaf bioassays responded in the same rank order as those reported for fruit inoculation. Blaha (1987) indicated the potential usefulness of esterase bands as markers for resistance. More recent work has focused on the use of DNA markers for identifying black pod resistant phenotypes (Despreaux and Eskes, 1997). These workers found a poor correlation between reactions of clones in the field and those obtained with leaf disc inoculation. They generated a saturated linkage map, and identified two quantitative trait loci (QTLs) in the parents that accounted for 46% of the total variation. These results indicate that progress can be made through breeding to improve black pod resistance.
Berry and Cilas (1994) also reported differences in parental reactions to P. megakarya following laboratory and field evaluation. They found general combining abilities were the only significant factors influencing yield, and the superiority of one parent, UPA 134, was confirmed.
These results indicated that natural variability does exist for reaction to P. megakarya in cocoa, which can be effectively exploited in breeding programmes.
ReferencesTop of page
Akrofi, A. Y., Amoako-Atta, I., Assuah, M., Asare, E. K., 2015. Black pod disease on cacao (Theobroma cacao, L) in Ghana: spread of Phytophthora megakarya and role of economic plants in the disease epidemiology. Crop Protection, 72, 66-75. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2015.01.015
Appiah, A. A., Opoku, I. Y., Akrofi, A. Y., 2004. Natural occurrence and distribution of stem cankers caused by Phytophthora megakarya and Phytophthora palmivora on cocoa. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 110(10), 983-990. doi: 10.1007/s10658-004-0811-6
Blaha G, 1983. Effect of light on Phytophthora palmivora and Phytophthora megakarya, agents causing brown rot on cocoa pods. Café Cacao Thé (Paris), 27:91-112.
Blaha G, 1987. Enzymatic polymorphism of the Phytophthora causal agents of black pod disease: research into variability linked to host-parasite interaction in cocoa. Proceedings of the Tenth International Cocoa Research Conference, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, 17-23 May 1987. London, UK: Cocoa Producers' Alliance, 397-406
Despreaux D; Cambrony D; Clement D; Nyasse S; Partiot M, 1987. Study of cocoa black pod in Cameroon: description of new control methods. Proceedings of the Tenth International Cocoa Research Conference, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, 17-23 May 1987. London, UK: Cocoa Producers' Alliance, 407-412
Eckert JW; Tsao PH, 1962. A selective antibiotic medium for isolation of Phytophthora and Pythium from plant roots. Phytopathology, 52:771-777.
Erselius LJ; Shaw DS, 1982. Protein and enzyme differences between Phytophthora palmivora and P. megakarya: evidence for self-fertilization in pairings of the two species. Transactions of the British Mycological Society, 78(2):227-238
Erwin DC; Ribeiro OK, 1996. Phytophthora Diseases Worldwide. St Paul, Minnesota, USA: American Phytopathological Society Press.
Forster H; Coffey MD, 1991. Approaches to the taxonomy of Phytophthora using polymorphisms in mitochondrial and nuclear DNA. In: Lucas JA, Shattock RC, Shaw DS, Cooke LR, eds. Phytophthora. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gregory PH, 1969. Black pod disease project report. London, UK: Cocoa, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance.
Gregory PH, 1972. Black Pod Disease Project Report. London, UK: Cocoa Chocolate and Confectionary Alliance.
Holmes, K. A., Evans, H. C., Wayne, S., Smith, J., 2003. Irvingia, a forest host of the cocoa black-pod pathogen, Phytophthora megakarya, in Cameroon. Plant Pathology, 52(4), 486-490. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-3059.2003.00869.x
Kroon, L. P. N. M., Bakker, F. T., Bosch, G. B. M. van den, Bonants, P. J. M., Flier, W. G., 2004. Phylogenetic analysis of Phytophthora species based on mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequences. Fungal Genetics and Biology, 41(8), 766-782. doi: 10.1016/j.fgb.2004.03.007
Lee SB; Taylor JW, 1992. Phylogeny of five fungus-like protoctistan Phytophthora species, inferred from the internal transcribed spacers of ribosomal DNA. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 9(4):636-653
NyaseT S; Cilas C; Herail C; Blaha G, 1995. Leaf inoculation as an early screening test for cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) resistance to Phytophthora black pod disease. Crop Protection, 14(8):657-663; 16 ref.
Nyassé, S., Grivet, L., Risterucci, A. M., Blaha, G., Berry, D., Lanaud, C., Despréaux, D., 1999. Diversity of Phytophthora megakarya in Central and West Africa revealed by isozyme and RAPD markers. Mycological Research, 103(10), 1225-1234. doi: 10.1017/S0953756299008369
Thorold CA, 1953. The control of black pod disease of cocoa in the western region of Nigeria. Report of the Cocoa Conference, 108-115.
Thorold CA, 1959. Methods of controlling black pod disease (caused by Phytophthora palmivora) of Theobroma cacao in Nigeria. Annals Applied Biology, 46:225-237.
Tsao PH, 1983. Factors affecting isolation and quantitation of Phytophthora from soil. In: Erwin DC, Bartnicki-Garcia S, Tsao PH, eds. Phytophthora: Its Biology, Taxonomy, Ecology and Pathology. St Paul, Minnesota, USA: American Phytopathological Society, 219-236.
Wood GAR, 1974. Black pod meteorological factors. In: Gregory PH, ed. Phytophthora Diseases of Cocoa. London, UK: Longman.
Zentmyer GA, 1987. Taxonomic relationships and distribution of species of Phytophthora causing black pod of cocoa. Proceedings of the Tenth International Cocoa Research Conference, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, 17-23 May 1987. London, UK: Cocoa Producers' Alliance, 391-395.
Akrofi A Y, Amoako-Atta I, Assuah M, Asare E K, 2015. Black pod disease on cacao (Theobroma cacao, L) in Ghana: spread of Phytophthora megakarya and role of economic plants in the disease epidemiology. Crop Protection. 66-75. DOI:10.1016/j.cropro.2015.01.015
Appiah A A, Opoku I Y, Akrofi A Y, 2004. Natural occurrence and distribution of stem cankers caused by Phytophthora megakarya and Phytophthora palmivora on cocoa. European Journal of Plant Pathology. 110 (10), 983-990. DOI:10.1007/s10658-004-0811-6
Asia P H, Blaha G, Hebbar P K, Sanogo S, Bowers J H, 2002. Effect of fungicides for black pod control on soil microflora in Papua New Guinea. In: Phytopathology, 92 USA: American Phytopathological Society. S2. https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=132691
CABI, Undated. Compendium record. Wallingford, UK: CABI
CABI, Undated a. CABI Compendium: Status as determined by CABI editor. Wallingford, UK: CABI
Despreaux D, Cambrony D, Clement D, Nyasse S, Partiot M, 1987. Study of cocoa black pod in Cameroon: description of new control methods. (Étude de la pourriture brune des cabosses su cacaoyer au Cameroun: definition de nouvelles méthodes de lutte.). In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Cocoa Research Conference, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, 17-23 May 1987. [Proceedings of the Tenth International Cocoa Research Conference, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, 17-23 May 1987.], London, UK: Cocoa Producers' Alliance. 407-412.
Djiekpor E K, Goka K, Lucas P, Partiot M, 1981. Cocoa black pod rot caused by Phytophthora sp. in Togo: assessment and control strategies. (La pourriture brune des cabosses du cacaoyer due a Phytophthora sp. au Togo: evaluation et stragegies de lutte.). Cafe Cacao The. 25 (4), 263-268.
Holmes K A, Evans H C, Wayne S, Smith J, 2003. Irvingia, a forest host of the cocoa black-pod pathogen, Phytophthora megakarya, in Cameroon. Plant Pathology. 52 (4), 486-490. DOI:10.1046/j.1365-3059.2003.00869.x
Kebe I B, N'Guessan F K, Keli J Z, Bekon A K, 2002. Cocoa IPM research and implementation in Côte d'Ivoire. In: West Africa Regional Cocoa IPM Workshop, Cotonou, Benin, 13-15 November, 2001. Proceedings. [ed. by Vos J, Neuenschwander P]. Newbury, UK: CPL Press. 45-53, 49-57 (Fr).
Kroon L P N M, Bakker F T, Bosch G B M van den, Bonants P J M, Flier W G, 2004. Phylogenetic analysis of Phytophthora species based on mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequences. Fungal Genetics and Biology. 41 (8), 766-782. DOI:10.1016/j.fgb.2004.03.007
Ndoumbe-Nkeng M, Cilas C, Nyemb E, Nyasse S, Bieysse D, Flori A, Sache I, 2004. Impact of removing diseased pods on cocoa black pod caused by Phytophthora megakarya and on cocoa production in Cameroon. Crop Protection. 23 (5), 415-424. DOI:10.1016/j.cropro.2003.09.010
Nyassé S, Grivet L, Risterucci A M, Blaha G, Berry D, Lanaud C, Despréaux D, 1999. Diversity of Phytophthora megakarya in Central and West Africa revealed by isozyme and RAPD markers. Mycological Research. 103 (10), 1225-1234. DOI:10.1017/S0953756299008369
Oudemans P, Coffey M D, 1991. Isozyme comparison within and among worldwide sources of three morphologically distinct species of Phytophthora. Mycological Research. 95 (1), 19-30. DOI:10.1016/S0953-7562(09)81358-0
Distribution MapsTop of page
Select a dataset
CABI Summary Records
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/