Strawberry vein banding virus (vein banding of strawberry)
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Distribution Table
- Risk of Introduction
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Growth Stages
- List of Symptoms/Signs
- Biology and Ecology
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Plant Trade
- Vectors and Intermediate Hosts
- 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
- Strawberry vein banding virus
Preferred Common Name
- vein banding of strawberry
Other Scientific Names
- Strawberry veinbanding caulimovirus
- Strawberry virus 5
International Common Names
- English: strawberry leaf curl
- Spanish: clorosis zonal de los nervios de la fresa
- French: liséré des nervures du fraisier
- Russian: okaimlenie zhilok zemlianiki
Local Common Names
- Czechoslovakia (former): prosvetlování zilek jahodníku
- Germany: Adernmosaik der Erdbeere
- SVBV00 (Strawberry vein banding caulimovirus)
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Virus
- Unknown: "DNA and RNA reverse transcribing viruses"
- Family: Caulimoviridae
- Genus: Caulimovirus
- Species: Strawberry vein banding virus
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page
Strawberry vein banding virus is included in the Caulimovirus genus of the Caulimoviridae family. Strains of SVBV that have been identified include Strawberry leaf curl virus (Prentice, 1952), Strawberry yellow veinbanding virus (Frazier and Posnette, 1958), Strawberry necrosis virus (Schöninger, 1958), Strawberry chiloensis veinbanding virus (Frazier, 1960) and Strawberry eastern veinbanding virus (Frazier, 1960). In North America, most strains found on the west coast are more severe than those found along the east coast. The east coast isolates do not exist in ATCC. Four European isolates from the Czech Republic, Norway and Germany are more than 99% identical, according to the nucleotide sequence of part of the coat protein gene (Mráz et al., 1998b).
DescriptionTop of page
Cytoplasmic inclusion bodies typical of other caulimoviruses have been reported in the vascular parenchyma and mesophyll cells of infected plants (Kaname, 1975; Kitajima et al., 1973; Frazier and Converse, 1980; Morris et al., 1980). Isolated virions ca 50 nm in diameter were also found in phloem parenchyma cells of symptomatic Fragaria vesca indicator clones (Fránová-Honetslegrová et al., 1999). Native viral DNA is circular and double-stranded with two single-stranded discontinuities (Stenger et al., 1988). It contains 7876 nucleotides (Petrzik et al., 1998b). Seven open reading frames potentially code for proteins of 37.8; 18.3; 16.6; 56.0; 81.1; 59.0 and 12.6 kDa.
DistributionTop of page Reports of the occurrence of SVBV before 1995 have been based exclusively on the disease symptoms. Nucleic acid-based detection techniques (polymerase chain reaction and western hybridization) confirmed the presence of SVBV infection in samples from the USA (western type), Germany, Norway, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Federal Republic Yugoslavia.
In Germany, old references are based on symptoms that might be strawberry vein banding. The German experts on strawberry viruses at the Landesanstalt für Pflanzenschutz in Stuttgart have never detected it. Mráz et al. (1996) detected SVBV in plants obtained from Germany.
In Norway, Mráz et al. (1996) detected SVBV in Danish strawberry plants (cv. Mimek) introduced to Norway for scientific purposes. Danish authorities report that the virus has never been detected in strawberry plants, inside or outside the compulsory certification system.
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|
|China||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Hebei||Present||Wang and Tang, 1994; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Heilongjiang||Present||Wang and Tang, 1994; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Hubei||Present||Wang and Tang, 1994; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Jiangxi||Present||Wang and Tang, 1994; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Jilin||Present||Wang and Tang, 1994; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Liaoning||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Shandong||Present||Wang and Tang, 1994; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Shanxi||Present||Wang and Tang, 1994; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Zhejiang||Present||Wang and Tang, 1994; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Japan||Present, few occurrences||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Egypt||Present||Ragab et al., 2009|
|Canada||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-British Columbia||Present||Conners, 1967; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Ontario||Present||Conners, 1967; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|USA||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Arkansas||Present, few occurrences||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-California||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Idaho||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Louisiana||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Maryland||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Oregon||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Brazil||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Sao Paulo||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Chile||Present, few occurrences||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Austria||Absent, no pest record||EPPO, 2014|
|Czech Republic||Present, few occurrences||Honetslegrová et al., 1995; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Czechoslovakia (former)||Restricted distribution||Erbenová, 1980|
|Denmark||Absent, invalid record||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Germany||Absent, invalid record||Domes et al., 1996; EPPO, 2014|
|Hungary||Restricted distribution||****||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Ireland||Absent, invalid record||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Italy||Restricted distribution||Pisi, 1983; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Norway||Absent, intercepted only||Mráz et al., 1996; EPPO, 2014|
|Russian Federation||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Russian Far East||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|Serbia||Present||Petrzik et al., 1998a; EPPO, 2014|
|Slovakia||Present, few occurrences||Petrzik et al., 1998a; CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|UK||Absent, intercepted only||EPPO, 2014|
|Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002|
|Australia||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-New South Wales||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Tasmania||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2002; EPPO, 2014|
|-Victoria||Present||EPPO, 2012; EPPO, 2014|
Risk of IntroductionTop of page
SVBV is listed as an A2 quarantine pest by EPPO (OEPP/EPPO, 1978) and is also of quarantine significance for IAPSC. The most important factors in evaluating the potential of SVBV in a new area are the presence of aphid vectors and their mobility. Because of the range of vector species, conditions can be defined only in so far as they affect aphids in general. For example, extremely low winter temperatures killing overwintering nymphs and adults; windy climates restricting activity of alatae.
EPPO (EPPO, 1990) recommends that importing countries can require that Fragaria ananassa plants for planting, from countries where the pest occurs, should be derived from mother plants tested and found free from SVBV during the last three growing seasons and should have been maintained under conditions preventing their reinfestation; the consignment must come from a field found free (in the immediate vicinity) of the virus during the last growing season.
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page
SVBV is known to occur only on species of Fragaria. The main host is Fragaria vesca (wild strawberry). Commercial strawberries may also be infected, but diagnostic symptoms are usually only apparent when Strawberry latent C virus is present simultaneously (EPPO/CABI, 1996). The garden burnet (Sanguisorba minor) has been established as a symptomless experimental host by graft inoculation and by the dark strawberry aphid vector Chaetosiphon jacobi (Mullin et al., 1980).
Growth StagesTop of page Flowering stage, Fruiting stage, Vegetative growing stage
SymptomsTop of page
Clear banding pattern along main and secondary veins is induced on F. vesca clones if SVBV is present alone in host plants. Usually SVBV occurs in strawberries in a complex with other diseases, which mask or intensify the vein banding pattern (Frazier and Morris, 1987).
Symptoms initially appear on the youngest developing leaf; there is epinasty of midribs and petioles, a tendency for opposite halves of leaflets to be appressed, irregular, wavy leaflet margins, and slight crinkling of the laminae. Usually, these symptoms are mild and are not all present simultaneously. It is not until the affected leaf expands that clearing, followed by yellowish banding of some or all of the veins, becomes visible. Often, this coloration occurs in scattered discontinuous streaks of varying lengths along the main and secondary veins.
The second and third leaves formed after symptom onset are affected more severely than the first or any subsequent leaf; in older leaves, chlorotic streaks are reduced in number, scattered and confined to portions of the leaflets. This may be followed by the appearance of a series of apparently healthy leaves and then reappearance of mild or severe symptoms (Frazier, 1955; Mellor and Fitzpatrick, 1961; Miller and Frazier, 1970; Smith, 1972).
On commercial strawberries, there are no very diagnostic symptoms but, if strawberry latent C disease is also present, the reaction to infection is intermediate to that on Fragaria vesca (EPPO/CABI, 1996). In cv. Marshall, for example, the veinbanding is usually diffuse, commonly located along the main veins and may often appear as spots. As affected leaves mature, the veinbanded areas may gradually disappear, or they may become brownish-red or necrotic. On outdoor plants especially, the veins become discoloured, without previous chlorosis. Affected leaflets characteristically exhibit epinasty, mild crinkling and wavy margins.
SVBV usually does not induce distinct symptoms in commercial cultivars, and often the only indications of infection are loss of vigour, stunting, lowered yields, and general 'running out' of a cultivar. SVBV rarely occurs singly in strawberry; frequently several viruses are present, and together they cause more severe reductions of productivity and fruit quality (Spiegel and Martin, 1998).
List of Symptoms/SignsTop of page
|Fruit / reduced size|
|Leaves / abnormal colours|
|Leaves / abnormal patterns|
Biology and EcologyTop of page
Acyrthosiphon pelargonii, Amphorophora rubi, A. idaei, Aphis idaei, A. rubifolii, Aulacorthum solani, Chaetosiphon fragaefolii, C. jacobi, C. tetrarhodum, C. thomasi, Macrosiphum rosae, M. pelargonii, Myzus ascalonicus, M. ornatus and M. persicae are vectors of SVBV. Of these, Chaetosiphon species are the most efficient vectors in glasshouse experiments, although other genera are probably important vectors when they occur in large numbers and frequently move from plant to plant. Aphids can acquire and transmit the virus in 30-120 minutes, but persistence in the vector is short, usually less than 8 h (semi-persistent type). There are differences in the efficiency of clonal lines of aphids, and evidence that some species will transmit only certain strains of SVBV. Aphis gossypii, A. fabae, Aulacorthum solani and Macrosiphum euphorbiae failed to transmit the virus in a limited number of trials.
SVBV is transmissible by grafting and by Cuscuta subinclusa. Attempts to transmit SVBV mechanically have been unsuccessful. The incubation period in the indicator host varies from 2 to 5 weeks depending on the strain.
Means of Movement and DispersalTop of page In the field, aphid vectors transmit the virus. Because of the ability of certain aphid species to undertake long, high-altitude flights, wide natural dissemination is possible. This is, however, limited by the relatively short persistence of the virus in the vector.
In international trade, SVBV is liable to be carried on infected plants and propagating material of strawberries.
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||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye|
|Seedlings/Micropropagated plants||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually invisible|
|Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually invisible|
Vectors and Intermediate HostsTop of page
|Chaetosiphon fragaefolii||EFSA Panel on Plant Health, PLH.||Insect|
ImpactTop of page
Fruit yield and size are affected and runner production reduced. In combination with strawberry latent C disease, SVBV reduced yield by 17% in the first fruiting year, and total and saleable fruit by 88 and 100%, respectively, in the third year (Bolton, 1974).
DiagnosisTop of page
Diagnosis must usually be made or confirmed by use of virus-free Fragaria vesca indicator plants. Research in California, USA, has shown that the F. vesca clone UC-6 and the F. virginiana clone UC-12 are superior for detecting and diagnosing SVBV. A modified leaf grafting technique is used (Frazier, 1974). F. vesca semperflorens Alpine is also a very sensitive diagnostic indicator clone for this virus (Frazier and Morris, 1987). An ELISA test can be performed using Cauliflower mosaic virus antisera (Morris et al., 1980; Honetslegrová et al., 1995). However, routine serological detection requires the production of an SVBV-specific antiserum. A combination of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and southern blotting gives the best results: PCR alone can produce unclear or smeared bands in some samples. Treating PCR products with the corresponding SVBV probe clearly discriminates positive and negative samples. An amount of nucleic acid corresponding to 2 µg (50 µg) of fresh plant tissue could be detected in PCR (or in southern blots, respectively) (Mráz et al., 1999). Nucleic acid isolation from fresh plant tissue was the best template for PCR, and primers amplifying the shortest product should be recommended (Petrzik et al., 1998a). For further information on diagnosis and quantification of SVBV using molecular approaches, see Mahmoudpour (2004). Zhang et al. (2009) were able to detect SVBV using multiplex RT-PCR.
Vaskova et al. (2004) developed an assay for the detection of SVBV in Fragaria spp. based on nuleic acid sequence based amplification (NASBA) and real-time detection using molecular beacons (real-time NASBA). When compared with biological indexing and a PCR-based detection method, the assay was found to offer a fast, sensitive and reliable approach to the routine diagnosis of strawberry stock material.
Detection and InspectionTop of page
Visual examination of the symptoms of SVBV on commercial cultivars on strawberry is not reliable.
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page
Phylogenetic data carried out on the amino acid sequence of the ORF V reveals that SVBV shows a close relationship to Cauliflower mosaic virus, Figwort mosaic virus and Carnation etched ring virus (Petrzik et al., 1998b).
A serological relatedness between SVBV and some Cauliflower mosaic virus isolates has been reported (Morris et al., 1980).
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.
There are no specific control measures. SVBV is highly resistant to inactivation by heat therapy but it can be eliminated from plants by means of meristem tip culture. As a consequence, the use of certified planting material is the best control procedure, and certification schemes for the production of healthy planting material of strawberry are in operation in several EPPO countries. EPPO is at present (November 2000) preparing an internationally acceptable certification scheme for strawberries. Control of aphids with insecticides could reduce the incidence of the disease.
Elimination of the virus from mother plants by runner tip culture (Miller and Belkengren, 1963) or by heat treatment for 10 days at 42°C (Bolton, 1967) has been reported. The elimination of the type strain of SVBV from experimentally infected Hood plants by meristem tip culture was 100% whether or not the plants were preheat treated for 6 weeks at 37°C (Mullin and Schlegel, 1978). In these tests, the cultured plants were indexed and discarded after 6 months. This could prove to be an insufficient incubation period for cloned meristems, as some dahlia plants similarly treated to eliminate Dahlia mosaic virus remained symptomless for up to 10 months (Mullin and Schlegel, 1978).
ReferencesTop of page
Bolton AT, 1967. The inactivation of vein banding and latent C viruses in strawberries by heat treatment. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 47:375-380.
Conners IL, 1967. An annotated index of plant diseases in Canada and fungi recorded on plants in Alaska, Canada and Greenland. Research Branch, Canada Department of Agriculture, Publ. 1251.
EPPO, 1990. Specific quarantine requirements. EPPO Technical Documents, No. 1008. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization.
EPPO, 2012. EPPO Reporting Service. EPPO Reporting Service. Paris, France: EPPO. http://archives.eppo.org/EPPOReporting/Reporting_Archives.htm
EPPO, 2014. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm
Erbenová M, 1980. The occurrence of some virus diseases on strawberry. Proceedings of the 8th Czechoslovak Plant Protection Conference, Prague, 177-178.
Fránová-Honetslegrová J; Mráz I; Nebesá¢ová J; Sfp M, 1999. Preferential banding of secondary veins in strawberry is caused by mixed virus infection. Acta Virologica, 43:349-355.
Frazier NW, 1955. Strawberry vein banding virus. Phytopathology, 45:307-312.
Frazier NW, 1960. Differential transmission of four strains of strawberry vein banding virus by four aphid vectors. Plant Disease Reporter, 44:436-437.
Frazier NW, 1974. Detection of graft-transmissible diseases in strawberry by a modified leaf grafting technique. Plant Disease Reporter, 58:203-207.
Frazier NW; Converse RH, 1980. Strawberry vein banding virus. Description of Plant Viruses No. 219. Kew, Surrey, UK: Commonwealth Mycological Institute and the Association of Applied Biologists.
Frazier NW; Morris TJ, 1987. Strawberry vein banding. In: Converse RH, ed. Virus diseases of small fruits. USDA Agriculture Handbook No. 632, 16-20.
Frazier NW; Posnette AF, 1958. Relationships of the strawberry viruses of England and California. Hilgardia, 27(17):455-513.
Honetslegrová J; Mráz I; Spak J, 1995. Detection and Isolation of Strawberry Vein Banding Virus in the Czech Republic. Acta Horticulturae, 385:29-32.
Kaname T, 1975. Particles discovered in Fragaria vesca infeccted with strawberry latent A virus (SLAV) and strawberry vein banding virus (SVBV). Annals of Phytopathological Society of Japan, 41:288.
Kitajima J; Betti A; Costa AS, 1973. Strawberry vein banding virus, a member of the cauliflower mosaic virus group. Journal of General Virology, 20:117-119.
Mellor FC; Fitzpatrick RE, 1961. Strawberry viruses. Canadian Plant Disease Survey, 41:218-255.
Miller PW; Belkengren RO, 1963. Elimination of yellow-edge, crinkle and vein banding viruses and certain other virus complexes from strawberries by excision and culturing of apical meristems. Plant Disease Reporter, 47:298-300.
Miller PW; Frazier NW, 1970. In: Frazier NW, ed. Virus diseases of small fruits and grapevines, a handbook. Berkeley, California, USA: University of California, 8-10.
Mráz I; Fránová J; Sfp M, 1996. Non-radioactive probe for the detection of strawberry vein banding virus. Proceedings of the 4th International EFPP symposium, Diagnosis and identification of plant pathogens, Bonn, Germany, 115.
Mráz I; Petrzik K; Chvalová D; Sfp M; Fránová J, 1999. Experiences with testing of strawberry vein banding virus in strawberries by PCR and dot blot hybridization. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection, 106:231-236.
Mráz I; Petrzik K; Sfp M; Honetslegrová-Fránová J, 1998. Variability in coat protein sequence homology among American and European sources of strawberry vein banding virus. Plant Disease, 82:544-546.
Mullin RH; Morris TJ; Schlegel DE, 1980. Current research on strawberry virus diseases. IV. Experimental transmission of five strawberry viruses to Sanguisorba minor, the garden burnet. California Strawberry Advisory Board, Strawberry News Bulletin 26, No. 14.
OEPP/EPPO, 1978. Strawberry vein banding virus. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 8 (2). EPPO data sheets on quarantine organisms No. 101.
Petrzik K; Mráz I; Duliæ-Markoviæ I, 1998a. Quarantine strawberry vein banding virus firstly detected in another two european states. Acta Virologica, 42:87-89.
Pisi A, 1983. Le virosi delle piante da frutto. Italia Agricola.
Prentice IW, 1952. Resolution of strawberry virus complexes. V. Experiments with viruses 4 and 5. Annals of Applied Biology, 39:487-494.
Ragab M; El-Dougdoug K; Mousa S; Attia A; Sobolev I; Spiegel S; Freeman S; Zeidan M; Tzanetakis IE; Martin RR, 2009. Detection of strawberry viruses in Egypt. Acta Horticulturae [VI International Strawberry Symposium, Huelva, Spain, 3-7 March 2008.], No.842:319-322. http://www.actahort.org/books/842/842_58.htm
Schöninger G, 1958. Erdbeervirosen in Deutschland. III. Das Erdbeer-Nekrosevirus: Ein weiteres nichtpersistentes Virus. Phytopathologische Zeitschrift, 32:325-332.
Smith IM; McNamara DG; Scott PR; Holderness M, 1997. Quarantine pests for Europe. Second Edition. Data sheets on quarantine pests for the European Union and for the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. Quarantine pests for Europe. Second Edition. Data sheets on quarantine pests for the European Union and for the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization., Ed. 2:vii + 1425 pp.; many ref.
Spiegel S; Martin RR, 1998. Virus and Virus-like Diseases. In: Maas JL, ed. Compendium of strawberry diseases. St. Paul, USA: APS Press, The American Phytopathological Society, 62-63.
Thompson JR; Wetzel S; Klerks MM; Vašková D; Schoen CD; Špak J; Jelkmann W, 2003. Multiplex RT-PCR detection of four aphid-borne strawberry viruses in Fragaria spp. in combination with a plant mRNA specific internal control. Journal of Virological Methods, 111(2):85-93.
Wang Q; Tang H, 1994. Strawberry culture in China. Chronica Horticulturae, 34:4-6.
Zhang ZhiHong; Chang LinLin; Yang HongYi; Xiao Min; Li He; Dai HongYan, 2009. Diagnosis and molecular analysis of strawberry viruses in China. Acta Horticulturae [VI International Strawberry Symposium, Huelva, Spain, 3-7 March 2008.], No.842:187-190. http://www.actahort.org/books/842/842_25.htm
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/