Preprint Article Version 1 NOT YET PEER-REVIEWED

Resistance to Rose Rosette Virus and Transmission Attributes

  1. Department of Plant Pathology, Division of Agriculture, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA
Version 1 : Received: 26 October 2016 / Approved: 27 October 2016 / Online: 27 October 2016 (11:50:52 CEST)

How to cite: Di Bello, P.; Thekke-Veetil, T.; Druciarek, T.; Tzanetakis, I. Resistance to Rose Rosette Virus and Transmission Attributes. Preprints 2016, 2016100119 (doi: 10.20944/preprints201610.0119.v1). Di Bello, P.; Thekke-Veetil, T.; Druciarek, T.; Tzanetakis, I. Resistance to Rose Rosette Virus and Transmission Attributes. Preprints 2016, 2016100119 (doi: 10.20944/preprints201610.0119.v1).

Abstract

Rosette caused by rose rosette virus (RRV) is the most devastating malady of rose in the United States. Because of the recent discovery of the virus and the completion of Koch’s postulates all assumptions about the disease are based on visual observations of material that may or may have not been infected by the virus. This study addresses several aspects of virus and disease epidemiology. Twenty rose genotypes were screened for mite and/or virus resistance. Phyllocoptes fructiphilus the only known vector of RRV, was able to establish, lay eggs and develop to nymphs and adults in all genotypes. ‘Stormy Weather’ shows resistance to the virus as assessed by both mite and cleft-grafting transmission experiments. The acquisition/latent and inoculation access periods were studied revealing long acquisition/latent periods but rapid inoculation time frames. The outputs of this study will assist in the better management of the vector and the disease. The resistant genotype identified could be used in areas with high disease pressure to minimize spread and for identification of the mechanisms behind resistance or as breeding material to incorporate virus resistance to new cultivars. The short inoculation access period indicates that chemical control for the vector may be a challenging undertaking.

Subject Areas

transmission; resistance; detection, Emaravirus

Readers' Comments and Ratings (2)

Soundness of evidence/arguments presented:
Conclusions well supported
100%
Most conclusions supported (minor revision needed)
0%
Incomplete evidence (major revision needed)
0%
Hypothesis, unsupported conclusions, or proof-of-principle
0%
Comment 1
Received: 28 October 2016
Commenter: Henry Kuska
Commenter's Affiliation: retired, University of Akron
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: There appears to be a typing error on page 2.
"Acquisition and inoculation access periods (IAP and AAP respectively) .....) should have instead (AAP and IAP respectively.....)
+ Respond to this comment
Comment 2
Received: 29 October 2016
Commenter: Peter Harris
Commenter's Affiliation: retired English professor, WVU Tech
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: The experiment seems well designed, with satisfactory controls. I noticed some errors in spelling/punctuation/sentence structure. The ones I noticed are listed below. Since I was not looking for these things, there may be others I did not notice. I do wonder why you use "rose" instead of "roses".

Bellind's Dream (p. 5) > Belinda's Dream. Veterans Honor (p.5) > Veterans' Honor. "Grafts where kept" (p.4) > "Grafts were kept" what Henry said (p. 2)
19 States > 19 states (p.2, p.9) originals ones > original ones (p.4) test positive > tested positive (p.8) evaluated with > evaluated, with (p. 8) (i) minimize the persistence of the virus after overwintering in the root system and (ii),
as a substitute of plant removal that eliminate the source of viruliferous mites for
further spread. (>maintain same structure in 1 and ii)
+ Respond to this comment
Discuss and rate this article
Views 343
Downloads 142
Comments 2
Metrics 0
Discuss and rate this article

×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.