Chapter 4: Avian coccidiosis as a prototype intestinal disease — host protective immunity and novel disease control strategies

2015 ◽  
pp. 71-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
H.S. Lillehoj ◽  
S.I. Jang ◽  
S.H. Lee ◽  
E.P. Lillehoj
1988 ◽  
Vol 113 (3) ◽  
pp. 435-441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfred V. Bartlett ◽  
Randall R. Reves ◽  
Larry K. Pickering

Plant Disease ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 82 (12) ◽  
pp. 1288-1297 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Burr ◽  
Carlo Bazzi ◽  
Sandor Süle ◽  
Leon Otten

2005 ◽  
Vol 95 (12) ◽  
pp. 1368-1373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dale Walters ◽  
David Walsh ◽  
Adrian Newton ◽  
Gary Lyon

Plants can be induced to develop enhanced resistance to pathogen infection by treatment with a variety of abiotic and biotic inducers. Biotic inducers include infection by necrotizing pathogens and plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria, and treatment with nonpathogens or cell wall fragments. Abiotic inducers include chemicals which act at various points in the signaling pathways involved in disease resistance, as well as water stress, heat shock, and pH stress. Resistance induced by these agents (resistance elicitors) is broad spectrum and long lasting, but rarely provides complete control of infection, with many resistance elicitors providing between 20 and 85% disease control. There also are many reports of resistance elicitors providing no significant disease control. In the field, expression of induced resistance is likely to be influenced by the environment, genotype, and crop nutrition. Unfortunately, little information is available on the influence of these factors on expression of induced resistance. In order to maximize the efficacy of resistance elicitors, a greater understanding of these interactions is required. It also will be important to determine how induced resistance can best fit into disease control strategies because they are not, and should not be, deployed simply as “safe fungicides”. This, in turn, will require information on the interaction of resistance elicitors with crop management practices such as appropriate-dose fungicide use.


1984 ◽  
Vol 115 (22) ◽  
pp. 582-582
Author(s):  
J. Done

1980 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 423-425
Author(s):  
Walter G. Thies ◽  
Peyton W. Owston ◽  
Dian C. Hansen

Several disease control strategies were tested on Douglas-fir (Pseudotsugamenziesii (Mirb.) Franco) seedlings grown in a greenhouse-shadehouse facility in western Oregon. Potting mixture was exposed to two pasteurization treatments combined factorially with four fungicides (benomyl, captan, fenaminosulf, and ethazol) and three application schedules (pregermination drench, postgermination drenches, and a combination of pre- and post-germination drenches). Both pasteurization of the potting mixture and applications of fenaminosulf caused statistically significant phytotoxic effects.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document