Identifying disease threats and management practices for bio-energy crops

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Identifying disease threats and management practices forbio-energy cropsAlison Stewart1 and Matthew Cromey2

Current research on bio-energy crops is focused almost

exclusively on selection of high performing varieties and

development of optimum agronomic practices, but there has

been only cursory reference to diseases. Given the fact that

diseases cause significant yield losses worldwide on a range of

economic crops, including some that are now being grown for

biofuel production, it seems short-sighted to ignore the risk that

diseases may pose to successful establishment and

economics of bio-energy crop production. New disease threats

are likely to emerge alongside existing diseases as bio-energy

crop monocultures become commonplace worldwide. The

development of low-cost integrated disease management

strategies will be an imperative.

Addresses1 Bio-Protection Research Centre, P.O. Box 84, Lincoln University,

Canterbury, New Zealand2 New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research, Private Bag 4704,

Christchurch, New Zealand

Corresponding author: Stewart, Alison ([email protected])

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2011, 3:75–80

This review comes from a themed issue on Terrestrial systems

Edited by Andy W Sheppard, S Raghu, Cameron Begley and

David M Richardson

Received 21 May 2010; Accepted 21 October 2010

Available online 18th November 2010

1877-3435/$ – see front matter

# 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

DOI 10.1016/j.cosust.2010.10.008

IntroductionDisease control is an issue that appears to have been

given little consideration in the development of biofuel

agronomy. New bio-energy crops will be exposed to the

same risk of significant yield losses caused by disease as

other major crop species worldwide. Lessons from

historical experiences highlight the risk of major dis-

ease epidemics (e.g., USA southern corn leaf blight and

Irish potato late blight). Limited genetic diversity

associated with modern crops and large crop monocul-

tures, which reduce local biodiversity levels and natural

antagonists of pest and pathogen species [1–3], sub-

stantially increases the potential severity of disease

outbreaks. This report highlights some of the predicted

disease issues that need to be considered and identifies

disease management strategies that will likely provide

the best opportunity for sustainable production of bio-

www.sciencedirect.com

energy crops in the future, based on current successful

paradigms in crop protection.

Biofuel agronomy and diseaseLand used for biofuel production is predicted to increase

3–4-fold over the next few decades [4]. Meeting the need

for the massive increase in productive land required to

grow these crops is challenging, with cultivation on margin-

alised land likely to become common place. This, in itself,

will exacerbate problems with disease through comprom-

ised plant health in sub-optimal growing conditions. Local

ecosystems will change to adapt to new crops being grown

in new locations as a result of this increased land usage

[5,6]. Aerial dispersal from new crops cultivated in new

locations will be a major factor in the introduction of new

diseases [7] and national biosecurity strategies must evolve

to address this (Box 1). Indeed, sporadic disease outbreaks

in bioenergy crops are now being reported with increasing

regularity and management programmes for these out-

breaks are being developed on an ad hoc basis [8–12].

Existing disease management strategies forexisting cropsPest and disease management programmes will have a

significant impact on the economic viability of many

emerging biofuel crop species; firstly, in the costs associ-

ated with the development and execution of these pro-

grammes and, secondly, in yield losses associated with

disease outbreaks. Research programmes must adapt to

incorporate aspects of disease management into biofuel

crop feasibility studies (Box 2). The diseases of crops,

such as sugarcane, maize, canola and soybean, are very

diverse and provide a good example of the scope of the

disease problems that could affect new biofuel crop

species. For example, the significant losses in sugarcane,

from yield decline through soil-borne disease and ratoon

stunting disease (caused by the bacterium Leifsonia xylia[13,14]), and in canola, from black leg or stem canker

(caused by air-borne spores of Leptosphaeria maculans[15]). Although disease management strategies already

exist for first-generation bio-energy crops currently used

for food production, biofuel production requires low-cost

disease management systems for economic viability,

which excludes the use of most chemicals. Thus, new,

more economical strategies are required.

New diseases for new cropsSecond-generation bio-energy crops are largely new crop

species for which no disease management strategies exist.

Grasses, such as Miscanthus spp. and switchgrass (Panicum


mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.10.008

76 Terrestrial systems

Box 1 Quarantine Standards: A New Zealand Example.

Nursery stock of Miscanthus � giganteus, a sterile hybrid between

M. sinensis and M. sacchariflorus, can only be imported into New

Zealand from the UK or USA [57]. Stock must be in tissue culture,

conform to strict requirements (including the derivation from mother

plants shown to be free of four specified, regulated pathogens and

showing no visible symptoms of several others), kept for at least 90

days in post-entry quarantine, and undergo a number of treatments

and/or PCR tests. The regulated pathogen list is made up of two

bacteria, two viruses and 28 fungi. Many of the fungi are only

identified to generic level, suggesting that the pathogen list for this

species is incomplete [57]. Unlike Miscanthus giganteus, which

cannot be imported as seed, Miscanthus sinensis can be imported

into New Zealand as seed only (not as nursery stock). Seed imports

are listed as ‘basic’, which means that only a standard phytosanitory

certificate is required [57].

The limited understanding of pests/pathogens associated with a new

crop species means that pathogens can potentially enter a region

and become established before their significance is known.

Measures, such as fungicide seed treatment, may kill fungal

pathogens in seed imports, but will not eradicate seed-borne viruses

or bacteria. Inspection of nursery stock for possible disease

symptoms will not detect asymptomatic pathogen infections or

diseases with latent periods longer than the required post-entry

quarantine (PEQ) period.

virgatum), have not previously been grown in perennial

monoculture stands. Therefore, the disease threats to

these species in an intensive cropping scenario can only

be predicted based on the scant data available

[8,11,12,16–23]. It is anticipated that disease threats for

these new crops will arise from contact with similar crop

species. Indeed, reports of diseases, such as barley yellow

dwarf virus [24], rust (Puccinia emaculata) [11,23] and smut

(Tilletia maclaganii) [12], associated with miscanthus and

switchgrass are beginning to appear.

Woody plant species, such as willow, poplar and pine, are

also being investigated for second-generation biofuel

production [25]. Growth of poplars in short-rotation cop-

pice for biofuel production has led to an increase in rust

Box 2 Biofuel Crops: The New Zealand model.

New Zealand needs to begin sustainable production of biofuel

feedstocks to meet biofuel sales obligations of 3.4% of total petrol

and diesel sold by 2012 [58]. The majority of this production is

intended to occur on land deemed unsuitable for conventional food

crops, using new and existing feedstocks. A wide range of plant

species, including latex bearing plants and seed oils, is being

evaluated in a new, long-term, government-funded research pro-

gramme on cost-effective feedstock production on marginal land.

This programme is unique in that, from the outset, it includes

research on the biosecurity risks of potential plant species being

tested as biodiesel feedstocks, with sustainable management

programmes being developed for the predicted high priority pests

and diseases. The sustainable management programmes investi-

gated in this research include ecological engineering to enhance

insect pest biocontrol through increased local biodiversity and the

use of microbial bioinoculants for plant growth enhancement and

disease control.


outbreaks caused by Melampsora spp. The use of three

genotype mixtures in willow plantations significantly

reduced the impact of rust outbreak [26]. However, it

is predicted that resistant genotypes will break down over

a period of 8–10 years exposure to the pathogen and that

new multi-virulent pathotypes will develop [26].

New management strategiesA proactive, multidisciplinary systems approach to mana-

ging diseases of bio-energy crops is necessary. Traditional

methods of control, such as cultural and biological prac-

tices and the use of resistant cultivars, will form the

backbone of effective, low cost disease management

systems. Integration of the entire spectrum of manage-

ment tools available, including managing pathogen inocu-

lum levels, targeted fungicide usage, crop rotation and

site selection, will enable prescriptive disease control

strategies to be developed. Improved technologies, such

as integrated avirulence management (IAM) [27], inte-

grated nutrient and pest management systems, optimised

irrigation systems and tillage management [4], will enable

intensified land use in marginal regions, where disease

management can be integrated into broader crop man-

agement systems. Now further technological advances to

fundamental disease control strategies are required to

create effective, economical solutions that complement

the novel cropping scenarios of biofuel agronomy.

BreedingThe development of successful breeding programmes for

disease resistance will be crucial for sustainable production

of bio-energy crops. One of the greatest risks is that

breeding programmes will rely on a narrow genetic base

of resistance. Stacked genetic resistance within clonal

crops or strategic management of multiple strains of clonal

crops containing single dominant genes must be available

to ensure pathogen threats do not overcome the resistance

strategies (e.g., [28]). Genetic engineering for improved

pest and disease resistance in many species is possible [29],

with the technology required for the production of geneti-

cally modified biofuel feedstocks developing rapidly (e.g.,

sorghum [30]; switchgrass [31,32]; and miscanthus [33]).

Remedial soil improversAdvances have been made to traditional composts through

microbial inoculation to enhance the microbial diversity

in compost-amended soils [34–37]. This strategy could

enable specific composts to be developed for different

types of soils and crops using inexpensive resources. For

example, municipal waste compost can be significantly

enriched with beneficial microbes, nutrients and plant

growth promoters using a range of waste products [38].

BiocharBiochar, produced from thermally decomposed organic

material, improves nutrient retention, cation exchange

capacity [39] and soil structure [40]. It also enhances


Diseases of bio-energy crops Stewart and Cromey 77

nutrient use efficiency and decreases soil acidity [41]. All

of these factors can lead to increased plant health and

vigour, especially in highly degraded and nutrient poor

soils [42]. Biochar application has positive effects on the

plant root zone through increased populations of

beneficial microbes and arbuscular mycorrhiza coloniza-

tion [41]. Pores within the biochar particles provide a

refuge for the mycorrhizal fungi, promoting their growth

[43]. Thus, biochar might also provide a delivery system

for plant growth-promoting microorganisms and those

with potential for biocontrol.

Microbial bioinoculantsNew technologies in the form of microbial bioinocu-

lants may be beneficial in enhancing seedling establish-

ment and improving crop performance in marginalised

land (e.g., [44–46]). Commercial microbial bioinoculant

products generally contain Bacillus spp., pseudomonads

or Trichoderma spp. [47]. These products can be used to

improve seedling vigour in transplants (e.g., Acaciamangium [48]) and nursery stock (e.g., palm oil [49])

transferred to the field in marginalized land. Microbial

bioinoculants can be used for pasture and arable crops,

such as perennial ryegrass, oilseed rape and maize,

which are sown directly into the field. For example,

a soil application of granules containing a mix of four

strains of Trichoderma atroviride gave a 20% increase in

seedling emergence in ryegrass pastures with a result-

ing 10–20% increase in yield (kg DM/ha). This yield

benefit was attributed to a combination of direct plant

growth enhancement through root stimulation and con-

trol of soil-borne pathogens that cause pre/post-emer-

gence damping-off and root rot diseases (e.g.,

Rhizoctonia, Fusarium, Pythium spp.) (W Kandula

et al., abstract in Proceedings of the 16th Australasian PlantPathology Society Conference, Adelaide, Australia, Septem-

ber 2007).

Microbial inoculants can be highly cost effective com-

pared to fungicide applications. For example, New Zeal-

and research has shown that treatment of Pinus radiataseeds in forest nurseries with a mix of five strains of

Trichoderma was able to enhance seedling establishment

and vigour, improve disease resistance and increase the

number of seedlings meeting technical specifications for

commercial use [50]. This single seed treatment replaced

multiple fungicide applications. Similar results have been

achieved in acacia nurseries in Malaysia, where a single

trichoderma treatment has eliminated the need for any

fungicide applications in the nursery [48].

Future disease management strategiesCanola

A comprehensive disease management strategy based

on IAM was developed in response to the catastrophic

breakdown of genetic resistance to L. maculans in

canola in Europe and Australia in the early 2000s


[51,52]. Residue management, manipulation of sowing

date, use of polygenic resistant cultivars and strategic

use of fungicide treatments form the basis of this

disease management strategy for the key economically

important diseases of canola (i.e., sclerotinia rot and

phoma stem canker or black leg caused by L. maculans).IAM amalgamates these disease management concepts

in a complex system that reduces the selection pressure

on pathogen populations brought about by plant disease

resistance, while also reducing the size of the pathogen

populations through a combination of cultural, physical,

biological and chemical means [27]. However, practices

such as stubble management, tillage, fungicide and

fertiliser application are likely to be limiting factors

in economic biodiesel production where low input

systems are essential. Therefore, economic assessment

of these practices and their respective effects on yield

will be necessary to optimize IAM for use in biodiesel

production.

Sugarcane

The disease management model currently employed for

sugarcane production in Australia is also based on

advances to traditional methods including residue reten-

tion, minimum tillage, a leguminous crop rotation and

remote controlled machinery using GPS guidance [53].

This system improves sugar yield, reduces costs and

provides additional income from crops such as soybean

and peanut, with a concurrent improvement in soil health.

Breaking the sugarcane monoculture reduces populations

of important nematode pests of sugarcane (i.e., lesion

nematode (Pratylenchus), root knot nematode (Meloido-gyne)). Minimum tillage plus inputs of organic matter

enhance soil biological activity, which promotes the de-

velopment of disease suppressive soils [53]. The chal-

lenge ahead lies in determining which of these practices

will translate into economically viable options for use in

biofuel production.

Switchgrass

Eighty-three species of fungi are associated with

switchgrass in the USA (Fungal databases, systematic

mycology and microbiology laboratory; URL: http://

nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/). However, little is

known of the significance of most of these species or

if they are pathogenic. Rust (Puccinia emaculata) appears

to be the most prevalent disease threat at this stage

[11,23], although yield losses and stand decline from

smut, caused by Tilletia maclagani [20], and outbreaks of

bunt, caused by T. pulcherrima [8], have also been

reported. Switchgrass is also susceptible to viral infec-

tions, with barley yellow dwarf virus (BYDV) reported

on natural populations of P. virgatum in Kansas [54].

These few reports on diseases of switchgrass serve as a

warning that their epidemic potential has yet to be

reached. It is clear that as the acreage of switchgrass

increases, there will be a corresponding increase in


http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/

http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/


disease risk. It is likely that this risk will mimic that

observed on cereals with rust, smut and virus diseases

causing economic damage. In addition, the long resi-

dence time of switchgrass (up to 20 years) will rapidly

promote the build up of soil-borne diseases resulting in

progressive yield decline after 5–6 years. Cultivation of

multiple grass varieties within the same region has been

mooted as a strategy to reduce the risk of pest and

disease outbreaks [55], but such a strategy may have

limitations for pathogens with wide host ranges.

Clearly, proactive collaborative research by agrono-

mists, plant breeders and plant pathologists is required

to develop a comprehensive picture of potential disease

threats and management strategies for this crop.

Willow and poplar

Willow and poplar are increasingly being grown in the

UK, Sweden and other parts of Europe in short rotation

coppice as a renewable energy source. The greatest limit-

ing factor in growing short rotation willow and poplar is

the susceptibility of many genotypes currently available

to rust caused by Melampsora spp. Rust can be controlled

by intensive use of fungicides, but this is not a viable

option for use on a low value crop being grown as a source

of renewable energy. The use of willow genotype mix-

tures as an alternative low cost and effective strategy

could significantly reduce the impact of rust in the plan-

tation by delaying disease onset, retarding inoculum

build-up and reducing disease levels at the end of the

season [26,56]. It is predicted that the use of resistant

genotypes alone will not be sustainable, with resistance

breakdown likely to occur after 8–10 years of exposure to

the disease. Inter-species and intra-species mixtures of

rust resistant genotypes offer the best option for sustain-

ability over the predicted 25–30 year of the life of a

plantation.

ConclusionsThere will be a significant increase in the production of

new bioenergy crops worldwide over the next 10–20

years and the risks from diseases will also increase

substantially with major economic losses predicted.

One of the biggest challenges to be overcome in order

to achieve sustainable production of bioenergy crops

will be to convince growers to take a proactive approach

to pest and disease management rather than the reac-

tive ‘spray and pray’ mentality that has prevailed for so

long. This will require the development of robust IDM

systems and extensive grower outreach programmes.

Multiple applications of expensive pesticides to ame-

liorate the effects of such diseases will not be econ-

omical. It is essential that proactive measures are taken

from the outset to minimize the impact of key diseases.

It will be important to predict the priority disease

threats for any new bioenergy crops being grown and

implement a range of crop management strategies to

effectively manage these threats. The most valuable


control strategy will be the use of resistant cultivars. As

such, breeding for disease resistance needs to be a high

research priority for new bioenergy crops. This can be

supplemented with crop monitoring practices to detect

diseases at the earliest stage, the implementation of a

range of crop hygiene practices to reduce the build-up

of pathogen inoculum within the crop and the use of

soil amendments/composts to enhance natural disease

suppression. In situations where disease levels reach

economic thresholds, then targeted applications of

microbial bioinoculants and/or fungicides will be essen-

tial. The technology surrounding biological products is

expanding rapidly with numerous cost effective bio-

logical products now available. In addition to disease

control, microbial bioinoculants can deliver other crop

benefits such as root growth promotion, drought toler-

ance, enhanced nutrition, and increased oil production.

This added value will make them an increasingly

attractive option to growers.

AcknowledgementsNZ Foundation for Research Science & Technology LINX0802 SecondGeneration Biodiesel Feedstocks. Dr. Sarah Hunger for editorial assistance.The OECD Cooperative Research Programme provided support for theauthors to attend a Biosecurity in the New Bioeconomy summit organisedby CSIRO in Canberra Australia from 17 to 21 November 2009.

References1. Landis DA, Gardiner MM, van der Werf W, Swinton SM: Increasing

corn for biofuel production reduces biocontrol services inagricultural landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008,105:20552-20557.

2. Losey J, Vaughan M: The economic value of ecological servicesprovided by insects. BioScience 2006, 56:311-323.

3. Bianchi FJJA, Booij CJH, Tscharntke T: Sustainable pestregulation in agricultural landscapes: a review on landscapecomposition, biodiversity, and natural pest control. Proc R socLond B Biol Sci 2006, 273:1715-1727.

4. Marvier M: Pharmaceutical crops in California, benefits andrisks. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 2008, 28:1-9.

5. Burdon JJ, Thrall PH: Coevolution of plants and their pathogensin natural habitats. Science 2009, 324:755-756.

6. Landis DA, Werling BP: Arthropods and biofuel productionsystems in North America. Insect Sci 2010, 17:220-236.

7. Brown JKM, Hovmøller MS: Aerial dispersal of pathogens on theglobal and continental scales and its impact on plant disease.Science 2002, 297:537.

8. Carris LM, Castlebury LA, Zale J: First report of Tilletiapulcherrima bunt on switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) inTexas. Plant Dis 2008, 92:1707.

9. Perry DH, Tomaso-Peterson M, Baird R: First report ofOphiosphaerella herpotricha causing spring deadspot of bermudagrass in Mississippi. Plant Dis 2008, 92:482.

10. Raj SK, Kumar S, Snehi SK, Pathre U: First report of cucumbermosaic virus on Jatropha curcas in India. Plant Dis 2008, 92:171.

11. Zale J, Freshour L, Agarwal S, Sorochan J, Ownley BH, Gwinn KD,Castlebury LA: First report of rust on switchgrass (Panicumvirgatum) caused by Puccinia emaculata in Tennessee.Plant Dis 2008, 92:1710.

12. Thomsen PM, Brummer EC, Shriver J, Munkvold GP: Biomassyield reductions in switchgrass due to smut caused by Tilletiamaclaganii. Plant Health Progress 2008. March: doi:10. 1094/PHP-2008-0317-01-RS.


Diseases of bio-energy crops Stewart and Cromey 79

13. Karp A, Shield I: Bioenergy from plants and the sustainableyield challenge. New Phytol 2008, 179:15-32.

14. Comstock J: Sugarcane yield loss due to ratoon stunt. J AmSoc Sugarcane Technol 2008, 28:22-31.

15. Fitt BDL, Brun H, Barbetti MJ, Rimmer SR: Worldwideimportance of phoma stem canker (Leptosphaeria maculansand L. biglobosa) on oilseed rape (Brassica napus). Eur J PlantPathol 2006, 114:3-15.

16. Christian DG, Lamptey JNL, Forde SMD, Plumb RT: First report ofbarley yellow dwarf luteovirus on miscanthus in the UnitedKingdom. Eur J Plant Pathol 1994, 100:167-170.

17. Takeuchi J, Horie H, Nishimura S: First report of stagonosporaleaf spot of Miscanthus sinensis var. condensatus in Japan.Ann Rep KT Plant Prot Soc 2002, 49:85-87.

18. O’Neill NR, Farr DF: Miscanthus blight; a new foliar disease ofornamental grasses and sugarcane incited by Leptosphaeriasp. and its anamorphic state Stagonospora sp. Plant Dis 1996,80:980-987.

19. Thinggaard K: Study of the role of fusarium in the fieldestablishment problem of miscanthus. Acta Agr Scand 1997,47:238-241.

20. Gravert CE, Tiffany LH, Munkvold GP: Outbreak of smut causedby Tilletia maclaganii on cultivated switchgrass in Iowa. PlantDis 2000, 84:596.

21. Gustafson DM, Boe A, Jin Y: Genetic variation for Pucciniaemaculata infection in switchgrass. Crop Sci 2003,43:755-759.

22. Zeiders KE: Helminthosporium spot blotch of switchgrass inPennsylvania. Plant Dis 1984, 68:120-122.

23. Hirsch RL, TeBeest DO, Bluhm BH, West CP: First report of rustcaused by Puccinia emaculata on switchgrass in Arkansas.Plant Dis 2010, 94:381.

24. Lamptey JNL, Plumb RT, Shaw MW: Interactions between thegrasses Phalaris arundinacea, Miscanthus sinensis andEchinochloa crus-galli, and barley and cereal yellow dwarfviruses. J Phytopathol 2003, 151:463-468.

25. Yuan JS, Tiller KH, Al-Ahmad H, Stewart NR, Stewart CN Jr:Plants to power: bioenergy to fuel the future. Trends Plant Sci2008, 13:421-429.

26. McCracken AR, Dawson WM: Rust disease (Melampsoraepitea) of willow (Salix spp.) grown as short rotation coppice(SRC) in inter- and intra-species mixtures. Ann Applied Biol2003, 143:381-393.

27. Aubertot JN, West JS, Bousset-Vaslin L, Salam MU, Barbetti MJ,Diggle AJ: Improved resistance management for durabledisease control: A case study of phoma stem canker ofoilseed rape (Brassica napus). Eur J Plant Pathol 2006,114:91-106.

28. Sivasithamparam K, Barbetti MJ, Li H: Recurring challengesfrom a necrotrophic fungal plant pathogen: a case studywith Leptosphaeria maculans (causal agent of blacklegdisease in brassicas) in Western Australia. Ann Bot-Lond 2005,96:363-377.

29. Chapotin SM, Wolt JD: Genetically modified crops for thebioeconomy: meeting public and regulatory expectations.Transgenic Res 2007, 16:675-688.

30. Sharma HC, Reddy BVS, Dhillon MK, Venkateswaran K, Singh BU,Pampapathy G, Folkertsma RT, Hash CT, Sharma KK:Host plant resistance to insects in sorghum: presentstatus and need for future research. J SAT Agric Res 2005,1:1-8.

31. Xi YJ, Fu CX, Ge YX, Nandakumar R, Hisano H, Bouton J,Wang ZY: Agrobacterium-mediated transformation ofswitchgrass and inheritance of the transgenes. BioEnergy Res2009, 2:275-283.

32. Somleva MN, Tomaszewski Z, Conger BV: Agrobacterium-mediated genetic transformation of switchgrass. Crop Sci2002, 42:2080-2087.


33. Zili Y, Puhua Z, Chengcai C, Xiang L, Wenzhong T, Li W,Shouyun C, Zuoshun T: Establishment of genetictransformation system for Miscanthus sacchariflorus andobtaining of its transgenic plants. High Technol Lett 2004,10:27-31.

34. Nakasaki K, Hiraoka S, Nagata H: A new operation for producingdisease-suppressive compost from grass clippings. ApplEnviron Microb 1998, 64:4015-4020.

35. Montanari M, Ventura M, Innocenti G, Sabatini MA: Compostas a substrate for trichoderma. Acta Hortic 2004,27:187-190.

36. Postma J, Montanari M, van den Boogert PHJF: Microbialenrichment to enhance the disease suppressive activity ofcompost. Eur J Soil Biol 2003, 39:157-163.

37. Noble R, Coventry E: Suppression of soil-borne plant diseaseswith composts: a review. Biocontrol Sci Technol 2005,15:3-20.

38. Kavitha R, Subramanian P: Bioactive compost — a value addedcompost with microbial inoculants and organic additives.J Applied Sci 2007, 7:2514-2518.

39. Liang B, Lehmann J, Solomon D, Kinyangi J, Grossman J,O’Neill B, Skjemstad JO, Thies J, Luizao FJ, Petersen J et al.:Black carbon increases cation exchange capacity in soils. SoilSci Soc Am J 2006, 70:1719-1730.

40. Glaser B, Lehmann J, Zech W: Ameliorating physical andchemical properties of highly weathered soils in thetropics with charcoal — a review. Biol Fert Soils 2002,35:219-230.

41. Sohi SP, Krull E, Lopez-Capel E, Bol R: Chapter two — a reviewof biochar and its use and function in soil. In Advances inAgronomy. Edited by Sparks DL. Elsevier Inc.; 2010:47-82.

42. Lehmann J: Bio-energy in the black. Front Ecol Environ 2007,5:381-387.

43. Warnock DD, Lehmann J, Kuyper TW, Rillig MC: Mycorrhizalresponses to biochar in soil — concepts and mechanisms.Plant Soil 2007, 300:9-20.

44. Ambadkar CV, Jadhav VT: Effect of different bioinoculantson seed germination, seedling emergence and seedlingmortality of Rangpur lime. Intl J Plant Sci 2007, 2:72-74.

45. Yildrim E, Donmez MF, Turan M: Use of bioinoculants inameliorative effects on radish plants under salinity stress.J Plant Nutr 2008, 31:2059-2074.

46. Singh AK Jamaludd: Effect of bioinoculants and stone mulchon performance of biodiesel and medicinal plant specieson limestone mined, spoil. Mycorrhiza News 2009,21:31-33.

47. Stewart A: Commercial biocontrol — reality or fantasy?Australas Plant Path 2001, 30:127-131.

48. Bioprotection of Acacia mangium with Trichoderma inMalaysia. Microbial Products: Exploiting Microbial Diversity forSustainable Plant Production. Edited by Hill RA, Ambrose A, SajaliNA, Yatim M, Valdez RB, Agbayani F, Bungang J, Minchin R,Stewart A, Zydenbos SM, Jackson TA. New Zealand PlantProtection Society; 2009:51-56.

49. Abdullah F: Trichogreen, the biocontrol agent and growthenhancer for the oil palm industry. Available from: http://www.researchsea.com/html/article.php/aid/2109/cid/2/research/controlling_basal_stem_rot_disease_in_palm_oil.html AsiaResearch News; 2007.

50. Hohmann P, Jones EE, Hill RA, Stewart A: Ecological studies ofTrichoderma bio-inoculants in the soil ecosystem of Pinusradiata. In IUFRO International Forest Biosecurity Conference.Edited by Richardson M, Hodgson C, Forbes A. New ZealandForest Research Institute (Scion) Ltd.; 2009:195-196.

51. Rouxel T, Penaud A, Pinochet X, Brun H, Gout L, Delourme R,Schmit J, Balesdent M: A ten-year survey of populations ofLeptosphaeria maculans in France indicates a rapidadaptation towards the Rlm1 resistance gene of oilseed rape.Eur J Plant Path 2003, 109:871-881.


http://www.researchsea.com/html/article.php/aid/2109/cid/2/research/controlling_basal_stem_rot_disease_in_palm_oil.html




52. Sprague SJ, Balesdent M, Brun H, Hayden HL, Marcroft SJ,Pinochet X, Rouxel T, Howlett BJ: Major gene resistance inBrassica napus (oilseed rape) is overcome by changes invirulence of populations of Leptosphaeria maculans inFrance and Australia. Eur J Plant Path 2006, 114:33-40.

53. Stirling GR: The impact of farming systems on soil biology andsoilborne diseases: examples from the Australian sugar andvegetable industries — the case for better integration ofsugarcane and vegetable production and implications forfuture research. Australas Plant Path 2008, 37:1-18.

54. Garrett KA, Dendy SP, Power AG, Blaisdell GK, Alexander HM,McCarron JK: Barley yellow dwarf disease in naturalpopulations of dominant tallgrass prairie species in Kansas.Plant Dis 2004, 88:574.


55. Lewandowski I, Scurlock JMO, Lindvall E, Christou M: Thedevelopment and current status of perennial rhizomatousgrasses as energy crops in the US and Europe. BiomassBioenerg 2003, 25:335-361.

56. Begley D, McCracken AR, Dawson WM, Watson S: Interactionin short rotation coppice willow. Salix viminalis genotypemixtures. Biomass Bioenerg 2009, 33:163-173.

57. Anon: MAF Biosecurity New Zealand Standard 155.02.06Importation of Nursery Stock. MAF Biosecurity New Zealand;2009 :. http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/ihs/155-02-05.pdf.

58. Anon: New Zealand Energy Strategy to 2050 — Powering OurFuture. Ministry for Economic Development; 2007.


http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/ihs/155-02-05.pdf

Identifying disease threats and management practices for bio-energy crops

Documents

Transcript of Identifying disease threats and management practices for bio-energy crops