SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Baker JE, Norris DM, 1968. Further biological and chemical aspects of host selection by Scolytus multistriatus. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 61, 124855.
  • Bernier L, Yang D, Ouellette GB, Dessureault M, 1996. Assessment of Phaeotheca dimorphospora for biological control of the Dutch elm disease pathogens, Ophiostoma ulmi and O. novo-ulmi. Plant Pathology 45, 60917.
  • Bonsen KJM, Scheffer RJ, Elgersma DM, 1985. Barrier zone formation as a resistance mechanism of elms to Dutch elm disease. IAWA Bulletin 6, 717.
  • Brasier CM, 1981. Laboratory investigation of Ceratocystis ulmi. In: StipesRJ, CampanaRJ, eds. Compendium of Elm Diseases. St Paul, MN, USA: APS Press, 769.
  • Brasier CM, 1991. Ophiostoma novo-ulmi sp. nov., causative agent of the current Dutch elm disease pandemics. Mycopathologia 115, 15161.
  • Brasier CM, 2001. Rapid evolution of introduced plant pathogens via interspecific hybridization. Bioscience 51, 12333.
  • Byers JA, Svihra P, Koehler CS, 1980. Attraction of elm bark beetles to cut limbs on elm. Journal of Arboriculture 6, 2456.
  • Cogolludo-Agustín MA, Agúndez D, Gil L, 2000. Identification of native and hybrid elms in Spain using isozyme gene markers. Heredity 85, 15766.
  • Duchesne LC, Jeng RS, Hubbes M, 1985. Accumulation of phytoalexins in Ulmus americana in response to infection by a nonaggresive strain of Ophiostoma ulmi. Canadian Journal of Botany 63, 67880.
  • Duchesne LC, Hubbes M, Jeng RS, 1986. Mansonone E and F accumulation in Ulmus pumila resistant to Dutch elm disease. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 16, 4102.
  • Elgersma DM, Roosien T, Scheffer RJ, 1993. Biological control of Dutch elm disease by exploiting resistance in the host. In: SticklenMB, SheraldJL, eds. Dutch Elm Disease Research, Cellular and Molecular Approaches. New York, USA: Springer-Verlag, 18892.
  • Gázquez M, Sierra JM, González R, 1998. Aplicación experimental de Verticillium dahliae WCS850, en el control preventivo de la grafiosis del olmo. Ecología 12, 31931.
  • Heybroek HM, 1957. Elm breeding in the Netherlands. Silvae Genetica 6, 1127.
  • Hubbes M, 1993. Mansonones, elicitors and virulence. In: SticklenMB, SheraldJL, eds. Dutch Elm Disease Research, Cellular and Molecular Approaches. New York, USA: Springer-Verlag, 20815.
  • Hubbes M, Jeng RS, 1981. Aggressiveness of Ceratocystis ulmi strains and induction of resistance in Ulmus americana. European Journal of Forest Pathology 11, 25764.
  • Jeng RS, Alfarenas AC, Hubbes M, Dumas M, 1983. Presence and accumulation of fungitoxic substances against Ceratocystis ulmi inUlmus americana: possible relation to induced resistance. European Journal of Forest Pathology 13, 23944.
  • Jobling J, Mitchell A, 1974. Field Recognition of British Elms. Forestry Commission Booklet 42. London, UK: HMSO.
  • Landwehr VR, Phillipsen WJ, Accerno ME, Hatch R, 1981. Attraction of the native elm bark beetle to American elm after the pruning of branches. Journal of Economic Entomology 74, 57780.
  • Lanier GN, Silverstein RM, Peacok JW, 1976. Attractant pheromone of the European bark beetle (Scolytus multistriatus), isolation, identification, synthesis and utilization studies. In: AndersonJF, KayaHK, eds. Perspectives in Forest Entomology. New York, USA: Academic Press, 14975.
  • López JC, Solla A, Menéndez Y, Iglesias S, Gil L, 2000. Escolítidos vectores de la grafiosis en Puerta de Hierro (Madrid) y Valsaín (Segovia) durante el período de 1996–99. Ecología 14, 2117.
  • Murdoch CV, Campana RJ, Hoch J, 1984. On the biological control of Ceratocystis ulmi with Pseudomonas fluorescens. Phytopathology 74, 805.
  • Myers DF, Strobel GA, 1983. Pseudomonas syringae as a microbial antagonist of Ceratocystis ulmi in the apoplast of American elm. Transactions of the British Mycological Society 80, 38994.
  • Ouellette GB, Rioux D, 1992. Anatomical and physiological aspects of resistance to Dutch elm disease. In: BlanchetteA, BiggsR, eds. Defense Mechanisms of Woody Plants against Fungi. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 257301.
  • Pajares JA, 1987. Contribución al Conocimiento de los Escolítidos Vectores de la Grafiosis en la Península Ibérica. Madrid, Spain: Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros de Montes, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, PhD thesis.
  • Polhemus N, 2001. Statistical Analysis using Statgraphics, 1. Basic Statistical Methods. Princeton, NJ, USA: StatPoint LLC.
  • Scheffer RJ, 1983. Biological control of Dutch elm disease by Pseudomonas species. Annals of Applied Biology 103, 2130.
  • Scheffer RJ, 1990. Mechanisms involved in biological control of Dutch elm disease. Journal of Phytopathology 130, 26576.
  • Scheffer RJ, Heybroek HM, Elgersma DM, 1980. Symptom expression in elms after inoculation with combination of an aggressive and non-aggressive strain of Ophiostoma ulmi. Netherlands Journal of Plant Pathology 86, 3157.
  • Scheffer RJ, Elgersma DM, De Weger LA, Strobel GA, 1989a. Pseudomonas for biological control of Dutch elm disease. I. Labelling, detection and identification of Pseudomonas isolates injected into elms: comparison of various methods. Netherlands Journal of Plant Pathology 95, 28192.
  • Scheffer RJ, Elgersma DM, De Weger LA, Strobel GA, 1989b. Pseudomonas for biological control of Dutch elm disease. II. Further studies on the localisation, persistence and ecology of Pseudomonas isolates injected into elms. Netherlands Journal of Plant Pathology 95, 293304.
  • Shi JL, Brasier CM, 1986. Experiments on the control of Dutch elm disease by injection of Pseudomonas species. European Journal of Forest Pathology 16, 28092.
  • Shigo AL, Tippet JT, 1981. Compartmentalization of American elm tissues infected by Ceratocystis ulmi. Plant Disease 65, 7158.
  • Smalley EB, Kais AG, 1966. Seasonal variations in the resistance of various elm species to Dutch elm Disease. In: GerholdHD, SchreinerEJ, McDermottRE, WinieskiJA, eds. Breeding Pest-Resistant Trees. Proceedings of NATO and NSF Advanced Study Institute on Genetic Improvement for Disease and Insect Resistance of Forest Trees, Pennsylvania State University, PA, USA, 1964. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press, 27987.
  • Solla A, 2000. Mejora Genética de Ulmus minor Miller. Selección de Individuos Resistentes a la Grafiosis. Madrid, Spain: Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros de Montes, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, PhD thesis.
  • Solla A, Gil L, 2001. Selección de olmos resistentes a la grafiosis. I. Influencia de la composición del inóculo infectivo. Boletín de Sanidad Vegetal. Plagas 27, 35562.
  • Solla A, Menéndez Y, Gil L, 1998. Resistencia inducida en Ulmus minor s.l. frente a la grafiosis por inoculación previa de Verticillium dahliae. In: Proceedings of the IX National Congress of the Spanish Phytopathological Society, Salamanca, Spain, 1998. Sociedad Española de Fitopatología, 258.
  • Sticher L, Mauch-Mani B, Métraux JP, 1997. Systemic acquired resistance. Annual Review of Phytopathology 35, 23570.
  • Sutherland ML, Mittempergher L, Brasier CM, 1995. Control of Dutch elm disease by induced host resistance. European Journal of Forest Pathology 25, 30718.
  • Tchernoff V, 1965. Methods for screening and for the rapid selection of elms for resistance to Dutch elm disease. Acta Botanica Neerlandica 14, 40952.
  • Webber JF, Kirby SG, 1983. Host feeding preference of Scolytus scolytus. In: BurdekinDA, ed. Research on Dutch Elm Disease in Europe. Forestry Commission Bulletin 60. London, UK: HMSO, 479.
  • Went JC, 1954. The Dutch elm disease. Summary of fifteen years’ hybridisation and selection work (1937–52). Tijdschrift Over Plantenziekten 60, 10927.