Content uploaded by Giovanni Mian
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Giovanni Mian on Feb 08, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Actinidia plant genotypes impact on Oomycetes pattern of
Kiwifruit Vine Decline Syndrome
Background Kiwifruit Vine Decline Syndrome (KVDS) (Fig. 1) is one of the
most important diseases of Actinidia within Italian sector. Aetiology is still
debated as KVDS is considered a disbiosis, primarily caused by
Oomycetes (Savian et al., 2022). Since there aren’t any effective control
strategies, the most promising tool to overcome KVDS is the use of
resistant species, being candidate rootstocks or for breeding purposes.
Thus, Actinidia genotypes (Table) with different behaviour to KVDS have
been identified in the field (Mian et al., 2022).
Aims The aims of this research were to understand the Oomycetes species
involved in KVDS and how this patho-community can be influenced and
modified by plant genotype. For this purpose, a metabarcoding approach
was used.
Giovanni Mian, Paolo Ermacora, Giuseppe Firrao, Marta Martini, Guido Cipriani
Department of Agricultural, Food, Environmental and Animal Sciences, University of Udine, Via delle Scienze 206, 33100 Udine, IT
Conclusions:we found significant differences (data not shown) between genotypes in terms of oomycetes
detected in the endosphere, which correlated with the symptoms displayed. Resistance of A. macrosperma
and A. arguta to KVDS seems to be related to their ability to shape the root pathobiome. In our conditions,
Phytophthora sp. subclade7b (Yang et al., 2017) was predominant in sensitive genotypes. On the other
hand, Pythium clade F (Globisporangium intermedium) was mainly detected in asymptomatic plants
confirming studies of Türkkan et al., 2022 and suggesting that might compete with Phytophthora sp.
recruitment in resistant plants.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Pol Hw MG Ma183 Ma176
Root Symptoms Incidence (%)
Results
- At sampling time only cv. Hayward and
A. polygama showed root-rot
symptoms (55-75%) (Fig. 2).
-Phytophthora sp. was the predominant
oomycete, together with G.
intermedium (Fig. 3).
- G. intermedium was especially found in
resistant species, while Phytophthora
sp. on sensitive ones (Fig. 3).
010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Hw_end
Pol_end
MG_end
Ma183_end
Ma176_end
Endosphere relative abundance compositions (%)
Pythium clade F (Globisporangium intermedium) Phytophthora subclade 7b
Pythium clade F (Globisporangium attrantheridium) Phytopythium (Phytopythium vexans)
Pythium clade F (Globisporangium sylvaticum) Pythium clade J (Globisporangium perplexum)
Aplanopsis terrestris Pythium clade B - cluster B2a (Pythium coloratum)
Phytopythium (Phytopythium chamaehyphon) Phytophthora clade 2
Pythium clade A (Pythium monospermum) Phytopythium (Phytopythium litorale)
Pythium clade E (Pythium camurandrum) Pythium clade F (Globisporangium macrosporum)
Pythium clade I (Gliosporangium heterothallicum) Pythium clade E (Pythium rostratifingens)
Saprolegniales sp. (unkonw species) others
Species
genotype
/cv
A
. macrosperma
Ma183; Ma176
A. arguta
Miss green (MG)
A.
polygama
Polygama
70 (Pol)
A.
deliciosa
Hayward (
Hw)
References
Savian et al, 2022 doi10.1094/PBIOMES-03-22-0019-R, Riit et al., 2016 doi: 10.3897/mycokeys.14.9244, Türkkan et al., 2022 doi: 10.1094/PDIS-05-21-0961-RE, Mian et al., 2022 doi.org/10.3390/ horticulturae8070627
Figure 1
Table
Figure 2
Figure 3