Skip to main content

Molecular reassessment of diaporthalean fungi associated with strawberry, including the leaf blight fungus, Paraphomopsis obscurans gen. et comb. nov. (Melanconiellaceae)

ABSTRACT

Phytopathogenic fungi in the order Diaporthales (Sordariomycetes) cause diseases on numerous economically important crops worldwide. In this study, we reassessed the diaporthalean species associated with prominent diseases of strawberry, namely leaf blight, leaf blotch, root rot and petiole blight, based on molecular data and morphological characters using fresh and herbarium collections. Combined analyses of four nuclear loci, 28S ribosomal DNA/large subunit rDNA (LSU), ribosomal internal transcribed spacers 1 and 2 with 5.8S ribosomal DNA (ITS), partial sequences of second largest subunit of RNA polymerase II (RPB2) and translation elongation factor 1-α (TEF1), were used to reconstruct a phylogeny for these pathogens. Results confirmed that the leaf blight pathogen formerly known as Phomopsis obscurans belongs in the family Melanconiellaceae and not with Diaporthe (syn. Phomopsis) or any other known genus in the order. A new genus Paraphomopsis is introduced herein with a new combination, Paraphomopsis obscurans, to accommodate the leaf blight fungus. Gnomoniopsis fragariae comb. nov. (Gnomoniaceae), is introduced to accommodate Gnomoniopsis fructicola, the cause of leaf blotch of strawberry. Both of the fungi causing leaf blight and leaf blotch were epitypified. Fresh collections and new molecular data were incorporated for Paragnomonia fragariae (Sydowiellaceae), which causes petiole blight and root rot of strawberry and is distinct from the above taxa. An updated multilocus phylogeny for the Diaporthales is provided with representatives of currently known families.

INTRODUCTION

The order Diaporthales is one of the largest and best-defined orders in the Sordariomycetes (Castlebury et al. 2002; Zhang et al. 2006; Rossman et al. 2007). The order comprises many destructive plant pathogens causing diseases on various crops, ornamental plants and forest trees, as well as numerous endophytic and saprobic fungal species (Udayanga et al. 2011, 2015; Shuttleworth and Guest 2017; Senanayake et al. 2017a; Jiang et al. 2019, 2020). It currently contains approximately 31 families supported by molecular data, with many recent additions and segregations of genera and families within the order (Castlebury et al. 2002; Lumbsch and Huhndorf 2007; Rossman et al. 2007, 2015, 2016; Yang et al. 2018; Voglmayr et al. 2017, 2019a; Jiang et al. 2020). Although the phylogenetic relationships and species composition of the majority of commonly encountered pathogenic genera are known, much work remains to be done concerning more obscure taxa from various geographic locations around the world (Zhang and Blackwell 2001; Rossman et al. 2007; Yun and Rossman 2011; Crous et al. 2012a, 2012b; Walker et al. 2012; Rossman et al. 2015).

The genus Fragaria, better known as strawberry, belongs in the plant family Rosaceae and is well known for its edible fruits (Hancock 1999). Worldwide, there are more than 25 described species, including wild species and many hybrids and cultivars (Potter et al. 2000; Staudt 2009; Zhong et al. 2018). The modern cultivated/garden strawberry, Fragaria × ananassa (Weston) Duchesne ex Rozier is one of the most important economic fruit crops worldwide (Simpson 2018). Pre- and post-harvest fungal diseases caused by various pathogens have a great impact on strawberry production, decreasing subsequent fruit yield and quality (Maas 1998; Koike et al. 2009; Xu et al. 2015; Baroncelli et al. 2015; Abdelfattah et al. 2016). Among those pathogenic fungi, three of the destructive species namely Gnomoniopsis fructicola, Paragnomonia fragariae, and Phomopsis obscurans are members of the order Diaporthales (Sordariomycetes, Ascomycota).

Among various plant pathogens, Phomopsis obscurans is known to cause leaf blight and fruit rot in most of the strawberry growing regions of the world (Plakidas 1964; Sutton 1965; Eshenaur and Milholland 1989; Maas 1998; Ellis et al. 2000; Udayanga et al. 2011). Due to the implementation of one name for pleomorphic fungi, all species formerly known as Phomopsis and phylogenetically congeneric should now be placed in the genus Diaporthe (Udayanga et al. 2012, 2014a, 2014b; Rossman et al. 2014; Gomes et al. 2013; Fan et al. 2018). However, the generic placement of the strawberry leaf blight fungus has always been subject to uncertainty.

Ellis and Everhart (1894) formally described the species causing leaf blight of Fragaria as Phoma obscurans based on a collection from West Virginia (USA). The fungus was reported from various regions of North America in subsequent studies. A severe outbreak of leaf blight was reported from Indiana in 1919 (Anderson 1920; Plakidas 1964). The causal agent of this outbreak was identified by Anderson (1920) as Dendrophoma obscurans. Sutton (1965) revisited the concept of Dendrophoma and suggested D. obscurans was not congeneric with the type species, D. cytisporoides. The type species of Dendrophoma, D. cytosporoides, belongs to the family Chaetosphaeriaceae (Chaetosphaeriales) based on available molecular data (Crous et al. 2012a). Phoma obscurans has been also known as Sphaeropsis obscurans and Phyllosticta obscurans in taxonomic literature (Kuntze 1898; Tassi 1902). However, the taxonomic affinity of P. obscurans to either Sphaeropsis or Phyllostica was unknown. Based on comparisons with representative Phomopsis species, the name Phomopsis obscurans was proposed for the leaf blight fungus, by Sutton (1965).

In 1916, Sphaeronaemella fragariae was reported to be the causal agent of “Sphaeronaemella” rot in strawberry (Stevens and Peterson 1916; Maas 1998). This species was not accepted in the mycoparasitic genus Sphaeronaemella by Malloch (1974), as a sexual morph was not known (Stevens and Peterson 1916). Hausner and Reid (2004) utilized nuc 18S rDNA sequence data of the ex-syntype isolate (CBS 118.16) of S. fragariae and confirmed it did not group with the type species of Sphaeronaemella, S. helvellae. Therefore, they considered it to be a synonym of Phomopsis obscurans in the Diaporthales. In the study by Senanayake et al. (2017a), the name Microascospora fragariae was proposed, based on S. fragariae and unauthenticated ITS sequences from an unpublished study. However, the name Phoma obscurans has since been found to be the oldest name for this fungus.

Similarly, confusion has existed among Gnomonia-like species associated with strawberry (Sogonov et al. 2008; Walker et al. 2010). The name Gnomonia comari is commonly used in older literature to refer to the fungus causing leaf blotch and fruit rot of strawberry. However, Sogonov et al. (2008) expanded the concept of Gnomoniopsis (Gnomoniaceae) to include G. comari as Gnomoniopsis comari. That same study revealed G. comari to be distinct from the causal agent of leaf blotch and petiole blight of strawberry in Europe and North America, known as Gnomoniopsis fructicola. Therefore, G. comari is now considered to be associated exclusively with Comarum palustre and not as a pathogen of strawberry.

The third diaporthalean fungus associated with strawberry, Paragnomonia fragariae, is known to cause petiole blight and root rot of perennial strawberry in Northern Europe and has been shown to be not congeneric with Gnomonia (Gnomoniaceae) based on molecular data (Moročko and Fatehi 2007). Morphologically, this species is similar to gnomoniaceous taxa with an apparently limited distribution in Europe and no known asexual morph (Moročko 2006; Moročko and Fatehi 2007). Recently, Moročko-Bičevska et al. (2019) lectotypified it based on illustrations from the original description, providing taxonomic and nomenclatural clarifications, and designating an epitype specimen from Latvia,

The aims of this study were to infer the evolutionary relationships and revise the taxonomy of diaporthalean fungi associated with strawberry utilizing fresh collections, ex-type isolates and preserved fungal specimens from herbaria. An updated multilocus phylogeny of the order diaporthales, including fungal isolates from strawberry and modern taxonomic descriptions and illustrations are provided for the fungi reassessed in this study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sample sources and morphology

Strains of pathogenic fungi causing leaf blight of strawberry (Phomopsis obscurans) were obtained from a conventionally managed, matted-row production system at a private farm in Germantown, MD, USA (Black et al. 2002). In addition, samples were collected from two locations at the Beltsville Agriculture Research Center (USDA-ARS) in Beltsville, MD, where neither fumigants nor fungicides had been used: the Student Discovery Garden and yield-trial plots for the strawberry breeding program (Lewers et al. 2019). Pure cultures of the pathogens were isolated by single spore isolation (Udayanga et al. 2012) from leaf specimens with typical mature disease symptoms. Other fresh specimens and pure cultures were obtained from culture collections and various contributors (Table 1). Holotype and other specimens were obtained from the United States National Fungus Collections (BPI) and other herbaria.

Table 1 Isolates and DNA sequences used in this study

Morphological descriptions were based on pycnidia or perithecia formed on inoculated alfalfa stems placed on 2% water agar (WA), as well as from type specimens. Digital images of fruiting bodies were captured using a Discovery V20 stereomicroscope and AxioCam HrC digital camera (Carl Zeiss Microscopy, Thornwood, New York, USA) imaging system. Whenever possible, 20–30 measurements were made of the structures mounted in 5% KOH using a Carl Zeiss Axioplan2 compound light microscope. The sample sizes are given in parentheses with mean and standard deviation. Triplicates of the cultures for each isolate were used for determining colony characters on Potato Dextrose Agar (PDA), Malt Extract Agar (MEA, Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA), and V8 juice agar (V8A) (Dhingra and Sinclair 1985) at 25 °C in indoor light. After 1 wk., and color of the colonies were recorded. The colony color codes are given within the parenthesis according to the charts by Rayner (1970). For determination of growth rates, triplicate PDA plates were inoculated with 5 mm in diam plugs of actively growing fungal cultures. Mycelial growth was measured daily along two perpendicular lines drawn at the center of the colonies and continued for two weeks. Radial growth rates were calculated and expressed in mm day− 1. Digital images were captured and cultural characteristics were observed as described in Udayanga et al. (2014a, 2014b).

DNA extraction, PCR and sequencing

Mycelial scrapings (50–60 mg) from the leading edge of cultures on PDA, incubated for 4–5 d at 25 °C were harvested and lysed in tubes containing 500 μm garnet media and a 6mm zirconium bead (OPS Diagnostics, Lebanon, New Jersey) with the Fast Prep FP120 benchtop bead-beating instrument (Thermo Fischer Scientific Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts) for 60 s (20 s × 3 with 10 s intervals). Genomic DNA was extracted with the DNeasy Plant Mini Kit (Qiagen, Inc., Valencia, California) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. DNA was eluted from DNAeasy mini spin column using 50 μl of elution buffer and visualized with agarose gel electrophoresis in 1% agarose gels stained with SYBR Safe DNA Gel Stain (Invitrogen, Eugene, Oregon).

The nuc rDNA internal transcribed spacer ITS1–5.8S-ITS2 region (ITS), nuc 28S rRNA gene (LSU), translation elongation factor 1-alpha (TEF1) and second largest subunit of RNA polymerase II (RPB2) gene regions were amplified on a Bio-Rad Dyad Peltier thermal cycler in a 25 μL reaction volume: 10–15 ng genomic DNA, 12.5 μL Quick load Taq 2x Master Mix (New England BioLabs, Ipswich, Massachusetts), 1 μL 10 mM of each primer, and nuclease-free water to adjust volumes to 25 μL. Amplification and DNA sequencing of ITS region were performed using forward and reverse primer pair ITS1 and ITS4 (White et al. 1990), as described by Udayanga et al. (2014a). Amplification of 28S ribosomal DNA region was performed using the forward and reverse primer pair LROR and LR7 (Vilgalys and Hester 1990), under the following conditions: 95 °C 5 min, (95 °C: 60 s, 55 °C: 60 s, 72 °C: 60 s) × 39 cycles, 72 °C 10 min. DNA sequencing was performed using the same PCR primers with additional internal primers LR3R and LR5 (Rehner and Samuels 1995). The RPB2 gene region was amplified using the forward and reverse primer pair, fRPB2-5F and fRPB2-7cR (Liu et al. 1999) under the following conditions: 95 °C 5 min, 95 °C 1 min, [55 °C 2 min - increase 0.2 °C per second until 72 °C (slow ramp), 72 °C 2 min] × 34 cycles, 72 °C 10 min and sequenced using the same primers. The TEF1 region was amplified and sequenced using the primer pair EF728f (Carbone and Kohn (1999) and EF2 (Rehner (2001), using a modified touchdown PCR protocol: 95 °C 5 min, [95 °C: 30 s, 66 °C: 30 s decrease 1 °C in every cycle, 72 °C: 80 s cycle to step 2] × 10 cycles [95 °C: 30 s, 56 °C 30 s, 72 °C 80 s] × 40 cycles, 72 °C 10 min.

PCR products were visualized as above. Excess primers and dNTPs were removed from PCR mixtures with ExoSAP-IT (USB Corp., Cleveland, Ohio) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Amplicons were sequenced using the BigDye Terminator v. 3.1 cycle sequencing kit (Life Technologies, Grand Island, New York) on an Applied Biosystems 3130xl Genetic Analyzer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, Massachusetts).

Sequence alignment and phylogenetic analyses

The newly generated raw sequences were assembled into contigs with Sequencher 5.0 for Windows (Gene Codes Corp., Ann Arbor, Michigan). Additional sequences were obtained from GenBank, including ex-type or other reference sequences (Table 1). All sequence conversions and manual alignments were performed in Bioedit v.7.2.5 (Hall 1999) and CLC Sequence Viewer 7.7 (http://www.clcbio.com/products/clc-sequence-viewer/). Sequences were aligned with MAFFT v.7 using Auto (FFT-NS-1, FFT-NS-2, FFT-NS-i or L-INS-i depending on data size) strategy (http://mafft.cbrc.jp/alignment/server/) (Katoh and Standley 2013).

Isolates were selected to represent each of the 31 known families in the Diaporthales based on the latest available literature. Each taxon selected was represented by at least an LSU sequence. In addition to fungal isolates from Fragaria, several new sequences were generated for representative taxa of the order: Ophiognomonia rosae (DMW 108, CBS 851.79), Melanconiella spodiaea (AR 3457, AR 3462), Diaporthe eres (AR 5193), D. novem (AR 4855), D. citri (AR 3405), D. helianthi (CBS 592.81) and Mazzantia galii (AR 4658). Two taxa in the Magnaporthales (Sordariomycetes), Pyricularia grisea (M83) and Ceratosphaeria aquatica (MFLU18–2323), were used as outgroup taxa in the phylogenetic analyses.

Phylogenetic reconstructions of concatenated and individual gene regions were performed using Maximum Likelihood (ML) and Bayesian Inference (BI) (Felsenstein 1981; Huelsenbeck et al. 2001). Individual datasets were tested for congruency using the 70% reciprocal bootstrap (BS) threshold method as described by Gueidan et al. (2007). ML gene trees were estimated using the software RAxML 8.2.8 Black Box (Stamatakis 2006; Stamatakis et al. 2008) in the CIPRES Science Gateway platform (Miller et al. 2010). For the concatenated dataset, all free-modal parameters were estimated by RAxML with an ML estimate of 25 per site rate categories. The concatenated dataset was partitioned by locus and the gaps were treated as missing data. The RAxML analysis utilized the GTRCAT model of nucleotide substitution with the additional options of modeling rate heterogeneity (G) and proportion invariable sites (I).

Bayesian analysis was performed using MrBayes v. 3.1.2 (Huelsenbeck and Ronquist 2001) and substitution models were determined in MrModeltest v. 2.3 (Nylander 2004). Bayesian reconstructions were performed using MrBayes 3.1.2. Six simultaneous Markov chains were run for 1,000,000 generations and trees were sampled every 100 generations, resulting in 10,000 total trees. The first 25% of the trees, representing the burn-in phase of the analyses, were discarded, and the remaining trees were used for calculating posterior probabilities (PP) in the majority rule consensus tree. Trees were visualized in FigTree v. 1.4.4 (Rambaut 2018). The DNA sequence alignments, single gene and combined trees were deposited in the USDA AgData Commons: https://doi.org/10.15482/USDA.ADC/1518737.

RESULTS

Phylogenetic analyses, limits and boundaries of genera and families

In total, 60 new DNA sequences were generated in this study. The approximate sizes of the target fragments of ITS, LSU, RPB2 and TEF1 were observed to be 600 bp, 1200 bp, 1000 bp and 650 bp, respectively. The remaining sequences were downloaded from GenBank (Table 1). Each gene region was aligned individually before concatenation in a sequence alignment consisting of 103 taxa representing 48 genera in 31 families of Diaporthales, including the isolates of fungi associated with Fragaria obtained in this study. The final combined four gene alignment consisted of 3899 total characters including gaps. Each taxon is represented by at least the LSU sequence. The ML tree resulting from the RAxML analysis had a final ML Optimization Likelihood of − 61,871.952114 and the following model parameters: alpha = 0.344711, pi(A) = 0.239113, pi(C) = 0.263167, pi(G) = 0.271106, and pi(T) = 0.226613. This tree was used to represent the phylogeny of the order Diaporthales (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure1

ML tree generated based on combined LSU, ITS, RPB2, and TEF1 alignment of representative taxa in the order Diaporthales. Isolates from Fragaria are indicated in red. Ex-type/epitype isolates are in bold and marked with asterisk (*). The ML bootstrap values/Bayesian PP greater than 90% /0.90 are indicated above or below the respective branches. The tree is rooted with Pyricularia grisea (M83) and Ceratosphaeria aquatica (MFLU 18–2323) (Magnaporthaceae, Magnaporthales)

The phylogeny inferred from the combined analysis of four loci resolved deeper nodes where confusion has remained at familial and generic boundaries when using only LSU data or other single gene regions (trees available at https://doi.org/10.15482/USDA.ADC/1518737). Major monophyletic groups representing families and genera were resolved with well-supported branches. Both BI and ML trees resolved the 31 families and 48 genera including the new genus described herein.

Multilocus phylogeny generated in this study placed the Fragaria isolates in the Melanconiellaceae, Sydowiellaceae and Gnomoniaceae. Based on the combined analysis, we determined that the isolates from strawberry causing leaf blight known to date as Phomopsis obscurans, are distinct from their closest relatives classified in Melanconiella, Microascospora or Greeneria. Therefore, a new genus Paraphomopsis is described below to accommodate the species formerly known as Phomopsis obscurans. The combined analysis further revealed that Paraphomopsis obscurans appears to be a sister taxon to Microascospora rubi, the type species of Microascospora. However, in the LSU and TEF1 single gene analyses, Microascospora rubi and Paraphomopsis obscurans were found to be non-monophyletic, and they were diverged based on ITS and RPB2 single gene trees. The ML bootstrap and BPP values for the node that groups Microascospora rubi and Paraphomopsis obscurans in the combined analysis were 65% and 0.68, respectively (≤90%/0.90, not shown in Fig. 1). Therefore, the taxa were not considered to be congeneric based on combined phylogeny. The three representative ITS sequences (HM854850, HM854852, HM854849), used by Senanayake et al. (2017a) to propose the name Microascopora fragariae (synonymized under Paraphomopsis obscurans below) were not included in the analyses due to lack of LSU sequences for those isolates. However, the ITS sequences for these isolates were 100% identical with the isolates of Paraphomopsis obscurans generated for this study.

The leaf blotch pathogen of strawberry, Gnomoniopsis fructicola, is currently placed in Gnomoniaceae with new molecular data from multiple isolates. The genus Gnomoniopsis (including syn. Sirococcus) represents a basal lineage to the rest of the genera in Gnomoniaceae, which contains the genera Gnomonia, Plagiostoma, Cryptodiaporthe, Apiognomonia, Discula, Cryptosporella, Ophiognomonia and Anisogramma. However, to preserve the historical concept of the widely accepted family Gnomoniaceae, which includes the major non-stromatic lineages in the Diaporthales, it is considered as a diverse single taxonomic entity with the assumption that intermediate genera in this family remain to be discovered. The closest family Melanconidaceae is clearly distinct from Gnomoniaceae. The new sequences generated for the fresh collection of the petiole blight and root rot pathogen, placed it within the Sydowiellaceae and conspecific with the recently designated epitype of Paragnomonia fragariae (F129/P3/1) with high ML bootstrap and BPP.

Taxonomy

Based on the molecular phylogenetic assessment of the order we introduce a new genus and combination to accommodate the strawberry leaf blight fungus, with lecto- and epitypification of the taxon. A new combination is introduced for Gnomoniopsis fructicola, with lecto- and epitypification providing a revision of synonyms. The remaining strawberry isolates collected in this study belonged to Paragnomonia fragrariae, for which we provide a description based on fresh collections from France.

Fig. 2
figure2

Morphology of Paraphomopsis obscurans (BPI 919201, culture CBS 143829/M1262, isolate DS020). a Infected leaf of Fragaria × ananassa. b–d Leaf blight symptoms under stereo microscope. e,f Pycnidia on alfalfa stems on WA. g Pycnidia on PDA. h Conidiophores. i,j Conidia. k 7-d-old culture on PDA. l 7-d-old culture on MEA. m 7-d-old culture on V8A. Scale bars: a = 4 cm, b = 1.5 cm, c,d = 1 cm, e-g = 300 μm, h-j = 10 μm

Paraphomopsis Udayanga & Castl., gen. nov. Fig. 2.

MycoBank: MB 835529.

Type species: Paraphomopsis obscurans (Ellis & Everh.) Udayanga & Castl.

Etymology: Morphologically similar to the well-known asexual morph Phomopsis (curr. name Diaporthe), but phylogenetically distinct.

Description: Asexual morph coelomycetous. Pycnidia globose, ostiolate, embedded in tissue, erumpent at maturity, with a slightly elongated, black neck, wider towards the apex at maturity; walls parenchymatous, consisting of 3–4 layers of medium brown textura angularis. Conidiophores hyaline, smooth, branched, ampulliform, long, slender, wider at the base, Conidiogenous cells phialidic, cylindrical, terminal, slightly tapering towards apex, alpha conidia aseptate, hyaline, smooth, ellipsoidal to fusiform, often biguttulate, rarely multiguttulate with minute particles aggregated towards the ends, base subtruncate. Sexual morph unknown.

Notes: Paraphomopsis can be distinguished from its closely related genera (Greeneria, Melanconiella, Microascopsora) in Melanconiellaceae based on both molecular phylogeny and morphology. The genus Paraphomopsis is morphologically described herein, exclusively based on the characters of the asexual morph. The asexual morph of Melanconiella usually consists of both dark brown melanconium-like conidia as well as hyaline discosporina-like conidia (Voglmayr et al. 2012). Similarly, the genus Greeneria, which is typified by G. uvicola, forms pale brown conidia, smooth, variously shaped ranging from fusiform, oval, to ellipsoidal, each with a truncate base and obtuse to bluntly pointed apex (Farr et al. 2001). In Paraphomopsis, although the appearance of conidia is superficially similar to Diaporthe (syn. Phomopsis), micropscopic examination revealed that the shape and overall appearance are distinct from those in Diaporthe species. In general, conidia of Paraphomopsis are fusiform with minute guttules toward the end of the conidia, whereas most Diaporthe species form ovate to clavate conidia with no or prominent biguttulate or multiguttulate conidia. The morphology of sexual morph of the new genus described here remains unknown and is not available for comparison with other closely related genera. Although, the genus Paraphomopsis represents a sister clade to Microascopora in the phylogeny presented (Fig. 1), the asexual morph of the latter remains undetermined. The sexual morph of Microascospora distinct from other genera in the same family having immersed, solitary ascomata with narrow papilla with smaller hyaline, aseptate ascospores bearing long appendages (Senanayake et al. 2017a, 2017b). However, the sexual morph of the saprobic genus Melanconiella is identified by its inconspicuous ectostroma projecting above the substrate and the hyaline, yellow or brown ascopsores, with or without short, blunt appendages and occasionally with a thin gelatinous sheath (Voglmayr et al. 2012; Senanayake et al. 2017a, 2017b).

Paraphomopsis obscurans (Ellis & Everh.) Udayanga & Castl. comb. nov. Fig. 2.

MycoBank: MB 835530.

Basionym: Phoma obscurans Ellis & Everh., Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil. 46: 357. 1894.

Sphaeropsis obscurans (Ellis & Everh.) Kuntze, Revis. gen. pl. (Leipzig) 3(2): 1–576. 1898.

Phyllosticta obscurans (Ellis & Everh.) Tassi, Bulletin Labor. Orto Bot. de R. Univ. Siena 5: 13. 1902.

Dendrophoma obscurans (Ellis & Everh.) H.W. Anderson, University of Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station Bull. 229: 135. 1920.

Phomopsis obscurans (Ellis & Everh.) B. Sutton, Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc. 48(4): 615. 1965.

= Sphaeronaemella fragariae F. Stevens & Peterson, Phytopathology 6: 258. 1916.

Microascospora fragariae (F. Stevens & Peterson) Senan., Maharachch. & K.D. Hyde, Stud. Mycol. 86: 279. 2017.

Type: USA. WEST VIRGINIA: Fayette Co., on leaves of Fragaria sp., 08 July 1894, Nutall LW (1600 (7620) (J.B. Ellis 554)), (Lectotype designated here BPI 521547; MBT393834); ibid. (Iso-lectotype designated here, BPI 357247; MBT 393835); USA. MARYLAND: Beltsville Agriculture Research Center, Beltsville, on leaves of Fragaria × ananassa, 21 May 2015, Udayanga D. DS020, (Epitype designated here, BPI 919201; MBT 393833, ex-epitype culture M1262 = CBS 143829). GenBank: ITS = MT378347; LSU = MT378361; TEF1 = MT383096; RPB2 = MT383077.

Description: Pycnidia on alfalfa stems on WA: globose, ostiolate, scattered over the substrate, 40–55 μm diam, embedded in tissue, erumpent at maturity, with a slightly elongated, black neck 60–100 μm high, wider towards the apex at maturity, often with a yellowish, conidial cirrus extruding from ostiole; walls parenchymatous, consisting of 3–4 layers of medium brown textura angularis. Conidiophores hyaline, smooth, branched, ampulliform, long, slender, wider at the base, 9–12 μm long and wide. Conidiogenous cells phialidic, cylindrical, terminal, slightly tapering towards apex, 1.5–2.5 μm diam at the widest point. Collarette present and conspicuous. Paraphyses absent. Alpha conidia 5–7 × 1.5–2.2 μm (avg. ± SD = 6 ± 0.5 × 2 ± 0.2, n = 30), abundant in culture and on alfalfa stems, aseptate, hyaline, smooth, ellipsoidal to fusiform, often biguttulate and rarely multiple guttules and confined to minute particles clumped towards the vertices of the spore, base subtruncate. Beta conidia unknown.

Culture on PDA under artificial light at 25 °C for 1 wk., growth rate: 4.5 ± 0.2 mm/day (n = 3), white, sparse aerial mycelium, with pale olivaceous grey (120) pigmentation and abundant sporulation with aging, olivaceous grey (107) pigmentation developing in reverse.

Additional specimens examined: USA. MARYLAND: Beltsville Agriculture Research Center, Beltsville, on leaves of Fragaria × ananassa, 22 May 2015, Udayanga D. DS013 (BPI 919179), living culture M1259; ibid, 19 June 2015, Udayanga D. DS021, June 082015 DS134 (BPI 19204); ibid, DS016 (BPI 919180), living culture M1261; ibid, Greenhouses at Beltsville Agriculture Research Centre, Beltsville, on leaves of Fragaria × ananassa, 29 Sept. 2015, Udayanga D. GR002 (BPI 919182); ibid, Davis Mill Road, Germantown (Montgomery County), on leaves of Fragaria × ananassa ‘Darselect’, 24 June 2015, Butler B. DS053 (BPI 919185) living culture M1276; ibid, Davis Mill Road, Germantown (Montgomery County), on leaves of Fragaria × ananassa ‘Darselect’, 12 Oct. 2016, Butler B. DS090 (BPI 919192).

Geographic distribution: Australia (Cook and Dubé 1989; Shivas 1989; Cunnington 2003), Brazil (Mendes et al. 1998), Brunei Darussalam (Peregrine and Bin Ahmad 1982), Bulgaria (Bobev 2009), China (Jinping 2011; Shi et al. 2013), Egypt (Haggag 2009; Abd-El-Kareem et al. 2019), Malawi (Peregrine and Siddiqi 1972), Myanmar (Thaung 2008), South Africa (Crous et al. 2000), Tonga (Dingley et al. 1981), USA: Florida, Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Washington, West Virginia (Alfieri Jr et al. 1984; Cash 1953; Shaw 1973; Maas 1998; Farr and Rossman 2020).

Notes: Although the appearance of conidia is superficially similar to Phomopsis (Syn. Diaporthe), microscopic examination revealed that the shape and overall appearance of guttules are distinct from those in Diaporthe species. In general, conidia of Paraphomopsis obscurans are fusiform with minute guttules toward the end of the conidia, whereas most Diaporthe species bear ovate to clavate conidia with no or prominent biguttulate or multiguttulate conidia. Paraphomopsis obscurans can be distinguished from the closely related species Microascospora rubi and other genera in the family Melanconiellaceae based on its morphology and robust support of the multilocus phylogeny. Due to confusion of nomenclature and taxonomy, previous records of the pathogen from various geographic locations were linked to multiple names: Phoma obscurans, Sphaeronaemella fragariae and Phomopsis obscurans, or misidentified as Gnomonia fragariae, Gnomonia comari and Gnomoniopsis fragariae. Therefore, the actual distribution of the fungus may be largely underestimated.

Fig. 3
figure3

Morphology of Gnomoniopsis fragariae (BPI 877447, CBS 121226). a,b Infected leaves of Fragaria sp.. c Pycnidia on leaf surface. d Perithecia on alfalfa stems on WA. e Pycnidia on alfalfa stems on WA. f Single perithecium on WA. g–k Asci l Ascospores. m Pycnidia on culture. n Conidiophores. o Conidia. p 7-d-old culture on PDA. q 7-d-old culture on MEA. r 7-d-old culture on V8A. Scale bars: a,b = 3 cm, c = 300 μm, d,e = 800 μm, f = 200 μm, g-l = 10 μm, m = 600 μm, n = 15 μm, o = 12 μm

Gnomoniopsis fragariae (Laib.) Udayanga & Castl. comb. nov. Fig. 3.

MycoBank: MB 835531.

Basionym: Zythia fragariae Laib., Arb. K. biol. Anst. f. Land-u-Forstwirt 6: 79–80. 1908.

= Gnomonia fragariae f. fructicola G. Arnaud, Traite de Pathologie Vegetale Encyclopedie Mycologique (Paris): 1558. 1931.

Gnomonia fructicola (G. Arnaud) Fall, Can. J. Bot. 29: 309. 1951.

Gnomoniopsis fructicola (G. Arnaud) Sogonov, Stud. Mycol. 62: 47. 2008.

= Gloeosporium fragariae G. Arnaud, Traite de Pathologie Vegetale Encyclopedie Mycologique (Paris): 1558. 1931.

= Phyllosticta grandimaculans Bubák & Krieg., in Bubák, Annls mycol. 10(1): 46. 1912.

Type: Illustration Abb. 3, page 80 (as Zythia fragariae) in Laibach (1908) Arbeiten aus der Kaiserlichen Biologischen Anstalt für Land- und Forstwirtschaft 6: 80 (Lectotype designated here; MBT 393837), Digitized by Universitätsbibliothek Johann Christian Senckenberg (UB Frankfurt am Main) and accessed here on 16 September 2020: http://www.digizeitschriften.de/dms/resolveppn/?PID=urn:nbn:de:hebis:30:4-16524, Image 114: Page 80). USA. MARYLAND: Beltsville, May 2006, Turechek (Epitype designated here BPI 877447, MBT 393837; ex-epitype culture AR 4275 = CBS 121226). GenBank: ITS = EU254824, LSU = EU255115, TEF1 = EU221961, RPB2 = EU219250.

Description: Perithecia on alfalfa stems black, solitary, superficial on substrate, globose, 200–250 μm diam, with long tapering neck co-occurring on stems and on WA with pycnidia together, multiple tapering perithecial necks protruding through substrata, 400–500 × 20–25 μm. Asci 29–33 × 6–9 μm (avg. ± SD = 31 ± 2 × 7 ± 1.5, n = 30), unitunicate, 8-spored, arranged obliquely uniseriate, irregularly biseriate or irregularly multiseriate, sessile or freely arranged, elongate to clavate, with conspicuous refractive ring at the apex. Ascospores 7–10 × 1.9–2.6 μm (avg. ± SD = 8.7 ± 0.7 × 2. 3 ± 0.2), hyaline, fusiform, one septate or bicellular, constricted at septum, 4-guttulate, and one cell is slightly smaller than the other.

Pycnidia on alfalfa stems on WA, globose, black, ostiolate, solitary, 50–100 μm diam, embedded in tissue, erumpent at maturity, with a short or inconspicuous neck, often with a yellowish, conidial cirrus extruding from ostiole; walls parenchymatous, consisting of 2–3 layers of medium brown textura angularis. Conidiophores 8–17 × 1–2.5 (avg. ± SD = 12 ± 2.5 × 2 ± 0.4), hyaline, smooth, unbranched or rarely branched at the base, ampulliform, long, slender and wider at the base. Conidiogenous cells phialidic, cylindrical, terminal, slightly tapering towards apex, 7–9 μm diam. Paraphyses absent. Alpha conidia 5.8–6.5 × 1.9–2.5 (avg. ± SD = 6 ± 0.4 × 2.2 ± 0.2), abundant in culture and on alfalfa stems, aseptate, hyaline, smooth, ellipsoidal to ovoid, biguttulate, base subtruncate, Beta conidia unknown.

Culture on PDA under artificial light at 25 °C for 1 wk., growth rate: 2.5 ± 0.2 mm/day (n = 3) white with irregular margins, in center with aggregations of mouse grey (118) crust like aerial mycelia with age or readily sporulating with yellow conidial cirri on black perithecia, dark mouse grey (119) pigmentation developing in reverse.

Additional specimens examined: FRANCE: Yvelines (formerly Seine-et-Oise), Chevreuse, on Fragaria sp., (date unknown), culture deposited 1934, G. Arnaud (CBS 208.34). Type of Phyllosticta grandimaculans: GERMANY: Sachsen, Königstein, on leaves of Fragaria sp., 1906–1912; W. Krieger, Krieger, Fungi Saxon. Exs. nr. 2179, (Krypto-S, F48606 Lectotype for P. grandimaculans designated here), ibid. (isotypes CUP, BPI 352482); DENMARK: Rindsholm, on leaves of Fragaria sp., 11 Oct. 1904, Lind J (BPI 352477).

Geographic distribution: Australia (Gomez et al. 2017), Belgium (Sogonov et al. 2008; Walker et al. 2010), Canada: British Columbia (Sogonov et al. 2008), China (Tai 1979); Denmark (this study), France (Sogonov et al. 2008; Walker et al. 2010), Germany (this study) Switzerland (Walker et al. 2010), Taiwan (Anonymous 1979), USA: Maryland, New York, Michigan (Alexopoulos and Cation 1952; Sogonov et al. 2008; Walker et al. 2010; Farr and Rossman 2020).

Notes: The name of the leaf blotch fungus was documented in phytopathological literature as Gnomonia comari (syn. Gnomoniopsis comari) before Sogonov et al. (2008) identified it as Gnomoniopsis fructicola. However, the earlier name Zythia fragariae (1908) represents the oldest name for this taxon as the asexual state of G. fructicola (Fall 1951). Although Arnaud (1931) identified the asexual state as a Gloeosporium sp., Fall (1951) mentions it as identical to Z. fragariae. Attempts to find type material for Zythia fragariae in European herbaria were unsuccessful. Therefore, the illustration available from the protologue is designated as a lectotype herein with a modern epitype designated. Microscopic observation of the isotype specimens of Phyllosticta grandimaculans housed in BPI, S and CUP and comparison of symptoms revealed that this species is conspecific with Gnomoniopsis fragariae. This pathogen appears to occur both in Europe and North America and is commonly associated with cultivated and wild species and varieties of Fragaria (Bolton 1954; van Adrichem and Bosher 1958; Maas 1998).

Fig. 4
figure4

Morphology of Paragnomonia fragariae AG16076 (BPI 919211 and living culture CBS 143831). a-d Infected petioles of Fragaria sp. e-j Asci k-q Ascospores. r 7-d-old cultures on PDA. s 7-d-old cultures on MEA. t 7-d-old cultures on V8A. Scale bars: a, b = 2 cm, c,d = 1000 μm, e = 30 μm, f-j = 16 μm, k,p,q = 18 μm, l–o = 20 μm

Paragnomonia fragariae (Kleb.) Senan. & K.D. Hyde, Mycosphere 8: 199. 2017. Fig. 4.

Basionym: Gnomonia fragariae Kleb., Haupt- und Nebenfruchtformen der Askomyzeten: Eine Darstellung eigener und der in der Literatur niedergelegten Beobachtungen über die Zusammenhänge zwischen Schlauchfrüchten und Konidienfruchtformen. 1: 285. 1918.

Type: Illustration Abb. 205, page 286., in H. Klebahn, Haupt-und Nebenfruchtformen der Askomyzeten: Eine Darstellung eigener und der in der Literatur niedergelegten Beobachtungenüber die Zusammenhänge zwischen Schlauchfrüchten und Konidienfruchtformen. 1918 (Lectotype designated by Moročko-Bičevska et al. (2019); Latvia: Tukums, Pūre, on dead petioles of Fragaria × ananassa, Lat: 57.0323418, Lon: 22.9160658, 20 Oct 2013, I. Moroĉko-Biĉevska & J. Fatehi F129 [Epitype F367871(S); Iso-epitype DAU100004631 (DAU); ex-epitype culture F129/P3/1 = MSCL1603. ITS = MK524430, LSU = MK524447, TEF1 = MK524466].

Description: Perithecia on crown and petioles of Fragaria, non stromatal, black, globose, arranged in immersed clusters on the base of the crown or solitary on petioles of the infected plants, 200–300 μm diam, bearing tapering black perithecial necks protruding from infected tissue 130–150 × 20–25 μm. Asci 50–60 × 8–10 (avg. ± SD = 56 ± 4 × 9 ± 1) μm unitunicate, 8-spored, sessile on defined hymenium or freely arranged with aging, elongate to clavate with conspicuous refractive ring at the terminals. Ascospores 14–17 × 3.5–5 (avg. ± SD = 16 ± 1.3 × 4 ± 0.4) μm, hyaline, fusiform to ellipsoid, straight to slightly curved, one septate or bicellular, with a conspicuous septum, slightly constricted at the septum, often 4-guttulate, two mucilaginous appendages present at the either ends of the ascospores. Asexual morph not seen in culture.

Culture on PDA under artificial light at 25 °C for 1 wk., growth rate: 2.8 ± 0.2 mm/day (n = 3) white, with sparse aerial mycelium, with irregular margins, rhizoid form of growth and in center and at edges with grayish yellow (57) pigmentation with age, dull green (70) pigmentation developing in reverse.

Geographic distribution: Confirmed distribution in Germany: Hamburg (Klebahn 1918), Switzerland:Vaud, Les Barges, Valais, Tessin (Bolay 1971; Monod 1983), United Kingdom, Latvia (all across the country), Sweden:Uppsala, Vastra (Moročko 2006; Moročko 2006), Lithuania:Kaunas, Siauliai and Finland: Parainen (Moročko-Bičevska et al. 2019), France (in this study).

Additional specimens examined: FRANCE: Côte-d’Or, Fontaine-Française, Le Revers des Lochères, on Fragaria sp. (cultivated), 20 May 2016, Alain Gardiennet AG16076 (BPI 919211), GF 300 = M1530 = CBS 143831; Véronnes, 14 rue Roulette, on Fragaria vesca, 10 June 2012, Alain Gardiennet AG12071 (BPI 919213); Bourberain, 37 route de Chazeuil, on Fragaria × ananassa, 10 June 2012, Alain Gardiennet AG12072 (BPI 919212), Côte-d’Or, Bretenière, la Garande, on Fragaria sp. (cultivated), 23 June 2018, Alain Gardiennet AG18036, UK: on Fragaria sp. dates and collector unknown (IMI 10064, living culture CBS 146.64 = ATCC 16651).

Notes: The holotype specimen of Gnomonia fragariae was not available in Klebahn’s collection in BREM (pers. comm. Michael Stiller). The specimen (IMI 100647) linked to CBS 146.64 housed in K consists of a dry culture and slides, which may not contain conspicuous fungal structures to observe (pers. comm. Angela Bond & Paul Cannon); however, molecular data are available. Senanayake et al. (2017b) described the taxon without typifications and clarifications of affiliated names or specimens. Therefore, Moročko-Bičevska et al. (2019) designated original drawings by Klebahn (1918) specified in his original publication as a lectotype of G. fragariae and a freshly collected specimen from Latvia as an epitype, based on its morphology on the host and in culture.

DISCUSSION

Post- and pre-harvest fungal diseases of strawberry cause significant annual losses to strawberry production (Maas 1998; Garrido et al. 2011). Phytopathogenic fungi are able to infect each and every part of the strawberry plant including leaves, petioles, fruits, sepals, stolon, crown and root systems at any age of the growth (Garrido et al. 2016). Although the fungal genera Botrytis, Colletotrichum, Fusarium and Verticillium causes major diseases of strawberry, several other pathogens also have significant impact on annual production (Leroch et al. 2013; Baroncelli et al. 2015). Species in the order Diaporthales also have been generally associated with strawberry diseases, although much confusion exists regarding the taxonomy, nomenclature, and evolutionary relationships of the taxa (Maas 1998; Garrido et al. 2016). In this study, evolutionary relationships of the leaf blight and leaf blotch pathogens widely known from North American strawberry fields and other strawberry growing regions in the world were revisited. Fresh collections of diseased specimens, pure cultures and multilocus phylogenetic analysis were used to resolve taxonomic problems. Type and other historic specimens from herbaria were observed and compared with fresh fungal collections to provide comprehensive nomenclatural clarification.

Leaf blight of strawberry was initially identified by characteristic large V-shaped necrotic lesions along major veins bearing black protruding necks of the pycnidia when examined under the stereo microscope (Fig. 2). Although the fungus infects leaves early in the growing season, leaf blight symptoms are more common on older leaves near or during harvest. The pathogen can weaken the plants through the destruction of older foliage and can also infect runner stems, calyxes, and fruits in some varieties (Maas 1998). The leaf blotch fungus, Gnomoniopsis fragariae is characterized by purplish to brown blotches and in later stages by large necrotic spots with abundant conidiomata around the major veins of the leaf (Fig. 3). The spots often occur on the end of a leaflet and are rounded to wedge shaped. This fungus can be found on the petiole, calyx, fruit stalk, and fruit. New collections of petiole blight and root rot pathogens were found in France occurring on stalks of perennial Fragaria sp. The symptoms often are confused with the early stages of leaf scorch caused by Diplocarpon fragariae (Helotiales) and leaf blotch caused by G. fragariae. Weakened plants may overwinter, which can result in reduced yields in the following season in commercial cultivations. Under conditions highly favorable for disease development, leaf blight can cause severe defoliation leading to plant death. Leaf blight fungus is often listed as a leading threat to strawberry and commonly co-occurs with other pathogens causing leaf blotch, leaf scorch and numerous leaf spots (Maas 1998). Close inspection of symptoms of various fresh specimens and historical collections housed in the U. S. National Fungus Collections revealed that it is possible to distinguish these taxa based on symptomology as well as microscopic examination of the fungal structures when present.

One additional species associated with strawberry included in the analysis is Ophiogonomia rosae (Gnomoniaceae) as identified by Walker et al. (2012) and represented by isolate CBS 128442 isolated from Fragaria vesca (Fig. 1). The same study reported the occurrence of O. rosae on overwintered leaves of F. vesca, Comarum palustre, Rosa sp., and Rubus sp. (Rosaceae) from various geographic regions of the world. Pathogenicity on these hosts is unknown, but it is likely O. rosae either possesses a saprobic lifestyle or is perhaps a weakly opportunistic pathogen. No specific reports of it as a pathogen of strawberry are known to exist and symptomology remains unknown.

The family composition of the order Diaporthales has changed with various classification systems originally based on morphology and later based on phylogenetic analyses (Wehmeyer 1975; Barr 1978; Castlebury et al. 2002), with Diaporthaceae, Gnomoniaceae, Valsaceae, Melanconidaceae and Pseudovalsaceae as the earliest defined families based on morphological characters (Wehmeyer 1975; Barr 1978; Vasilyeva 1987; Castlebury et al. 2002; Gryzenhout et al. 2006; Cheewangkoon et al. 2010; Crous et al. 2015). We confirmed that the Melanconiellaceae, which is broadly defined in this study, is a well-resolved family distinct from other closely related families. However, it is widely known that Melanconium-like taxa are polyphyletic and scattered throughout the order, and therefore need to be redefined with reference to the placement of the type species. The genus Melanconiella was considered as Diaporthales incertae sedis until recently and placed in Sphaeriales in early classifications (Clements and Shear 1931). It is now classified within Melanconiellaceae with numerous other species (Voglmayr et al. 2012; Du et al. 2017). Melanconiella species were known to be associated with the host family Betulaceae, including Betula, Carpinus, Corylus and Ostrya, and considered to be highly host specific. Du et al. (2017) described M. cornuta associated with canker and dieback of Cornus controversa (Cornaceae) and Juglans regia (Juglandaceae) from China. Greeneria uvicola causes bitter rot and necrotic fleck of grapes (Vitis spp., Vitaceae) in North America, Australia and elsewhere in the world and often misidentified and is often confused with other common diaporthalean pathogens on grapevines including Diaporthe ampelina (Diaporthaceae) (Farr et al. 2001; Steel et al. 2007; Longland and Sutton 2008). Microascospora rubi is associated with Rubus ulmifolia from Italy but appears to be a saprobe (Senanayake et al. 2017a). However, the generic delimitation and species diversity within the family Melanconiellaceae are yet to be resolved with more collections and molecular data of closely related taxa.

Early morphology-based classification systems placed species that occur singly within the substrate without any stromatic development in the family Gnomoniaceae (Wehmeyer 1975; Barr 1978; Monod 1983). However, molecular data and large-scale sampling of taxa have revealed that gnomoniaceous taxa sensu Wehmeyer (1975) and Monod (1983) are polyphyletic. Improvements in phylogenetic understanding have ultimately resulted in a more natural classification, leading to better insights into the evolutionary history of the Diaporthales and other Sordariomycetes (Zhang et al. 2006; Hongsanan et al. 2017; Guterres et al. 2019). These methods have also led to improvements of the understanding of the seemingly minor morphological differences of the sexual morphs of these ascomycete genera for identification purposes. Therefore, finding and utilizing phylogenetically informative genes are critical to obtain compelling, yet previously unrecognized, data to develop new evolutionarily significant insights and to encourage innovative practices in modern fungal systematics.

Due to the morphological plasticity of both asexual and sexual morphs, confusion has remained in generic and family-level classifications of many diaporthalean fungi. Phylogenetic analyses based on single gene trees have been often problematic. The conventionally used nuc 28S rDNA roughly distinguished taxa at generic and family levels, but several genera and families were poorly supported or otherwise not distinguished. Single morphological characters previously used to segregate genera or families in ascomycetes have often been found to be discordant with multilocus phylogenies and phylogenomic analyses (Choi and Kim 2017; Yang et al. 2018; Voglmayr et al. 2019b).

The best approach for developing knowledge about species in this diverse group of plant-associated fungi is through a consolidated platform utilizing morphological data, multigene phylogeny, as well as host associations and historical background information connected to voucher specimens in herbaria. For instance, correct identification of Paraphomopsis obscurans required the time-consuming process of sifting through the complicated historical literature of various genera within Diaporthales as well as unrelated genera and observation of numerous specimens. From this historical research, it was evident that previous authors observed morphological and physiological distinctions from other genera including Dendrophoma, Diaporthe, Phoma, Phyllostica, Sphaeronaemella, and Zythia. As the taxonomic opinions were based on the observation of the vouchered specimens, it was possible to reassess these opinions based on the same or other authentic specimens. To this end, a consolidated approach of multilocus phylogenetic analyses and morphological observations will provide the best resolution for taxonomists, evolutionary biologists, plant pathologists, and quarantine officials in their efforts to address issues regarding accurate identification, host plant associations and interactions, and disease management.

CONCLUSIONS

Molecular phylogeny based on newly generated DNA sequences of diaporthalean fungi associated with strawberry diseases revealed that the leaf blight pathogen represents a new evolutionary lineage within the family Melanconiellaceae, distinct from closely related taxa. The combined phylogeny based on four loci (ITS, LSU, RPB2, and TEF1) together with morphological data illustrate the generic and family-level relationships in this diverse order of fungi. Although, leaf blight, leaf blotch, petiole blight and root rot fungi of strawberry are frequently encountered, the taxonomy, accurate naming and geographic distribution were largely overlooked until recently. Therefore, this study highlights the need for revisiting poorly known genera of phytopathogenic diaporthalean fungi in order to establish their evolutionary relationships and provide reference DNA sequences for accurate identification purposes.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are available in the Ag Data Commons, U.S. Department of Agriculture https://doi.org/10.15482/USDA.ADC/1518737

Abbreviations

avg.:

Average

BI:

Bayesian Inference

BPI:

United States National Fungus Collections

BPP:

Bayesian Posterior Prabalities

ITS:

Ribosomal internal transcribed spacers 1 and 2 with 5.8S ribosomal DNA

LSU:

28S ribosomal DNA/large subunit rDNA

MEA:

Malt Extract Agar

ML:

Maximum Likelihood

nuc 18S rDNA:

Nuclear 18S/ small subunit of ribosomal DNA

PDA:

Potato Dextrose Agar

rDNA:

Ribosomal DNA

5.8S:

Ribosomal DNA 5.8S region

RPB2:

Partial sequences of second largest subunit of RNA polymerase II

SD:

Standard Deviation

TEF1:

Translation elongation factor 1-α

V8A:

V8 juice Agar

WA:

Water Agar

wk:

Week

REFERENCES

  1. Abdelfattah A, Wisniewski M, Nicosia MGLD, Cacciola SO, Schena L (2016) Metagenomic Analysis of Fungal Diversity on Strawberry Plants and the Effect of Management Practices on the Fungal Community Structure of Aerial Organs. PLoS One 11(8):e0160470. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160470

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Abd-El-Kareem F, Elshahawy IE, Abd-Elgawad MM (2019) Management of strawberry leaf blight disease caused by Phomopsis obscurans using silicate salts under field conditions. Bulletin of the National Research Centre 43(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42269-018-0041-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alexopoulos CJ, Cation D (1952) Gnomonia fragariae in Michigan. Mycologia 44(2):221–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00275514.1952.12024190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Alfieri SA Jr, Langdon KR, Wehlburg C, Kimbrough JW (1984) Index of Plant Diseases in Florida (Revised). Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Division of Plant Industry Bulletin 11:1–389

    Google Scholar 

  5. Anderson HW (1920) Dendrophoma leaf blight of strawberry. Agriculture Experiment Bulletin of University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign 229:127–136

    Google Scholar 

  6. Anonymous (1979) List of plant diseases in Taiwan. Plant Protection Society, Republic of China

  7. Baroncelli R, Zapparata A, Sarrocco S, Sukno SA, Lane CR, Thon MR, Vannacci G, Holub E, Sreenivasaprasad S (2015) Molecular diversity of anthracnose pathogen populations associated with UK strawberry production suggests multiple introductions of three different Colletotrichum species. PLoS One 10(6):e0129140. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129140

  8. Barr ME (1978) Diaporthales in North America with emphasis on Gnomonia and its segregates, Mycologia Memoirs Series, No. 7. Published for the New York Botanical Garden by J. Cramer in collaboration with the Mycological Society of America, Lehre

    Google Scholar 

  9. Black BL, Enns JM, Hokanson SC (2002) A comparison of temperate-climate strawberry production systems using eastern genotypes. Hort Technology 12(4):670–675. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.12.4.670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bobev S (2009) Reference guide for the diseases of cultivated plants (Translated from Russian). Makros Publishers

  11. Bolay A (1971) Contribution à la connaissance de Gnomonia comari Karsten (syn. G. fructicola [Arnaud] Fall): étude taxonomique, phytopathologique et recherches sur sa croissance in vitro. Berichte der Schweizerischen Botanischen Gesellschaft 81:398–482. https://doi.org/10.5169/seals-57134

  12. Bolton AT (1954) Gnomonia fructicola on strawberry. Canadian Journal of Botany 32(1):172–181. https://doi.org/10.1139/b54-015

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Carbone I, Kohn LM (1999) A method for designing primer sets for speciation studies in filamentous ascomycetes. Mycologia 91(3):553–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/00275514.1999.12061051

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cash EK (1953) A record of the fungi named by J.B. Ellis Part II. U.S. Department of Agriculture Special Publication, Beltsville, Maryland. pp. 166–345. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.149755

  15. Castlebury LA, Rossman AY, Jaklitsch WJ, Vasilyeva LN (2002) A preliminary overview of the Diaporthales based on large subunit nuclear ribosomal DNA sequences. Mycologia 94(6):1017–1031. https://doi.org/10.1080/15572536.2003.11833157

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cheewangkoon R, Groenewald JZ, Verkley GJM, Hyde KD, Wingfield MJ, Gryzenhout M, Summerell BA, Denman S, Toanun C, Crous PW (2010) Re-evaluation of Cryptosporiopsis eucalypti and Cryptosporiopsis-like species occurring on Eucalyptus leaves. Fungal Diversity 44(1):89–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-010-0041-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Choi J, Kim SH (2017) A genome tree of life for the fungi kingdom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(35):9391–9396. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1711939114

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Clements FE, Shear CL (1931) The genera of fungi. H. W. Wilson and Co., New York

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cook RP, Dubé AJ (1989) Host-pathogen index of plant diseases in South Australia. Field Crops Pathology Group South Australian Department of Agriculture

  20. Crous PW, Phillips AJL, Baxter AP (2000) Phytopathogenic Fungi from South Africa. University of Stellenbosch, Department of Plant Pathology Press, Stellenbosch, Western Cape South Africa

    Google Scholar 

  21. Crous PW, Verkley GJM, Christensen M, Castaneda-Ruiz RF, Groenewald J (2012a) How important are conidial appendages ? Persoonia-Molecular Phylogeny and Evolution of Fungi 28(1):126–137. https://doi.org/10.3767/003158512X652624

    CAS  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Crous PW, Summerell BA, Shivas RG, Carnegie AJ, Groenewald JZ (2012b) A re-appraisal of Harknessia (Diaporthales), and the introduction of Harknessiaceae. Persoonia-Molecular Phylogeny and Evolution of Fungi 28(1):49–65. https://doi.org/10.3767/003158512X639791

    CAS  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Crous PW, Carris LM, Giraldo A, Groenewald JZ, Hawksworth DL, Hernández-Restrepo M, Jaklitsch WM, Lebrun MH, Schumacher RK, Stielow JB, van der Linde EJ, Vilcāne J, Voglmayr H, Wood AR (2015) The Genera of Fungi – fixing the application of the type species of generic names - G 2: Allantophomopsis, Latorua, Macrodiplodiopsis, Macrohilum, Milospium, Protostegia, Pyricularia, Robillarda, Rotula, Septoriella, Torula, and Wojnowicia. IMA Fungus 6:163–198. https://doi.org/10.5598/imafungus.2015.06.01.11

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Cunnington J (2003) Pathogenic fungi on introduced plants in Victoria. A host list and literature guide for their identification. Department of Primary Industries, State of Victoria Knoxfield, Victoria Australia

  25. Dhingra OD, Sinclair JB (1985) Culture media and their formulas. In: Basic Plant Pathology Methods. CRC Press Inc. Boca Raton, Florida, pp 345–394

    Google Scholar 

  26. Dingley JM, Fullerton RA, McKenzie EHC (1981) Survey of Agricultural Pests and Diseases. Technical Report Volume 2. Records of Fungi, Bacteria, Algae, and Angiosperms Pathogenic on Plants in Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Niue, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Western Samoa. FAO, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  27. Du Z, Fan XL, Yang Q, Tian CM (2017) Host and geographic range extensions of Melanconiella, with a new species M. cornuta in China. Phytotaxa 327(3):252–260. https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.327.3.4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ellis JB, Everhart BM (1894) New species of fungi from various localities. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 46:322–384

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ellis MA, Nita M, Madden LV (2000) First report of Phomopsis fruit rot of strawberry in Ohio. Plant Disease 84(2):199–199. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS.2000.84.2.199C

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Eshenaur BC, Milholland RD (1989) Factors influencing the growth of Phomopsis obscurans and disease development on strawberry leaf and runner tissue. Plant Disease 73(10):814–819. https://doi.org/10.1094/PD-73-0814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Fall J (1951) Studies on fungus parasites of strawberry leaves in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Botany 29(4):299–315. https://doi.org/10.1139/b51-029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Fan X, Yang Q, Bezerra JD, Alvarez LV, Tian C (2018) Diaporthe from walnut tree (Juglans regia) in China, with insight of the Diaporthe eres complex. Mycological Progress 17(7):841–853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11557-018-1395-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Farr DF, Rossman AY. Fungal Databases, U.S. National Fungus Collections, ARS, USDA. Available from: https://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/. Accessed 25 Apr 2020

  34. Farr DF, Castlebury LA, Rossman AY, Erincik O (2001) Greeneria uvicola, cause of bitter rot of grapes, belongs in the Diaporthales. Sydowia 53(2):185–199

    Google Scholar 

  35. Felsenstein J (1981) Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: a maximum likelihood approach. Journal of Molecular Evolution 17(6):368–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01734359

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Garrido C, Carbú M, Fernández-Acero FJ, González-Rodríguez VE, Cantoral JM (2011) New insights in the study of strawberry fungal pathogens. Genes Genomes Genomics 5:24–39

    Google Scholar 

  37. Garrido C, González-Rodríguez VE, Carbú M, Husaini AM, Cantoral JM (2016) Fungal Diseases of Strawberry and their Diagnosis. In: Husaini AJ, Neri D (eds) Strawberry: Growth. Development and Diseases, CABI, Wallingford, UK, pp 157–195. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781780646633.0157

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. Gomes RR, Glienke C, Videira SIR, Lombard L, Groenewald JZ, Crous PW (2013) Diaporthe: a genus of endophytic, saprobic and plant pathogenic fungi. Persoonia 31(1):1–41. https://doi.org/10.3767/003158513x666844

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Gomez AO, Mattner SW, Oag D, Nimmo P, Milinkovic M, Villalta ON (2017) Protecting fungicide chemistry used in Australian strawberry production for more sustainable control of powdery mildew and leaf blotch. Acta Horticulturae 1156(1156):735–742. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2017.1156.108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Gryzenhout M, Myburg H, Wingfield BD, Wingfield MJ (2006) Cryphonectriaceae (Diaporthales), a new family including Cryphonectria, Chrysoporthe, Endothia and allied genera. Mycologia 98(2):239–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/15572536.2006.11832696

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Gueidan C, Roux C, Lutzoni F (2007) Using a multigene phylogenetic analysis to assess generic delineation and character evolution in Verrucariaceae (Verrucariales, Ascomycota). Mycological Research 111(10):1145–1168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mycres.2007.08.010

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Guterres DC, Galvão-Elias S, dos Santos MDDM, de Souza BCP, de Almeida CP, Pinho DB, Miller RNG, Dianese JC (2019) Phylogenetic relationships of Phaeochorella parinarii and recognition of a new family, Phaeochorellaceae (Diaporthales). Mycologia 111(4):660–675. https://doi.org/10.1080/00275514.2019.1603025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Haggag WM (2009) First report of Phomopsis leaf blight of strawberry in Egypt. Journal of Plant Pathology 91:239. https://doi.org/10.4454/jpp.v91i1.649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Hall TA (1999) BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symposium Series 41:95–98

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Hancock JF (1999) Strawberries. CABI, Wallingford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  46. Hausner G, Reid J (2004) The nuclear small subunit ribosomal genes of Sphaeronaemella helvellae, Sphaeronaemella fimicola, Gabarnaudia betae, and Cornuvesica falcata: phylogenetic implications. Canadian Journal of Botany 82(6):752–762. https://doi.org/10.1139/b04-046

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Hongsanan S, Maharachchikumbura SS, Hyde KD, Samarakoon MC, Jeewon R, Zhao Q et al (2017) An updated phylogeny of Sordariomycetes based on phylogenetic and molecular clock evidence. Fungal Diversity 84(1):25–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-017-0384-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist F (2001) MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 17(8):754–755. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/17.8.754

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist F, Nielsen R, Bollback JP (2001) Bayesian inference of phylogeny and its impact on evolutionary biology. Science 294(5550):2310–2314. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1065889

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Jiang N, Fan XL, Crous PW, Tian CM (2019) Species of Dendrostoma (Erythrogloeaceae, Diaporthales) associated with chestnut and oak canker diseases in China. MycoKeys 48:67–96. https://doi.org/10.3897/mycokeys.48.31715

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Jiang N, Fan X, Tian C, Crous PW (2020) Reevaluating Cryphonectriaceae and allied families in Diaporthales. Mycologia 112(2):267–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/00275514.2019.1698925

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Jinping W (2011) Pathogen identification and fungicide-screening of the leaf blight of strawberry. Plant Protection 37:172–176

    Google Scholar 

  53. Katoh K, Standley DM (2013) MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Molecular Biology and Evolution 30(4):772–780. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst010

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Klebahn H (1918) Haupt- und Nebenfruchtformen der Askomyzeten. Gebrüder Borntraeger, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  55. Koike ST, Kirkpatrick SC, Gordon TR (2009) Fusarium wilt of strawberry caused by Fusarium oxysporum in California. Plant Disease 93(10):1077. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-93-10-1077A

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Kuntze O (1898) Revisio generum plantarum, Arthur Felix, Leipzig 3(3):527. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.327

  57. Leroch M, Plesken C, Weber RW, Kauff F, Scalliet G, Hahn M (2013) Gray mold populations in German strawberry fields are resistant to multiple fungicides and dominated by a novel clade closely related to Botrytis cinerea. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 79(1):159–167. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02655-12

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Lewers KS, Enns JM, Castro P (2019) ‘Keepsake’ strawberry. HortScience 54(2):362–367. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI13613-18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Liu YJ, Whelen S, Hall BD (1999) Phylogenetic relationships among ascomycetes: evidence from an RNA polymerase II subunit. Molecular Biology and Evolution 16(12):1799–1808. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a026092

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Longland JM, Sutton TB (2008) Factors affecting the infection of fruit of Vitis vinifera by the bitter rot pathogen Greeneria uvicola. Phytopathology 98(5):580–584. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-98-5-0580

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Lumbsch HT, Huhndorf SM (2007) Notes on ascomycete systematics Nos. 4408–4750. Myconet 13:59

    Google Scholar 

  62. Maas JL (1998) Compendium of strawberry diseases. The American Phytopathological Society. St. Paul. https://doi.org/10.1094/9780890546178

  63. Mendes MAS, da Silva VL, Dianese JC, Ferreira MASV, dos Santos CEN, Urben AF, Castro C (1998) Fungos em Plants no Brasil. Embrapa-SPI/Embrapa-Cenargen, Brasilia

    Google Scholar 

  64. Miller MA, Pfeiffer W, Schwartz T (2010) Creating the CIPRES Science Gateway for inference of large phylogenetic trees. In: Gateway Computing Environments Workshop (GCE), 2010. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New Orleans, LA, pp 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/GCE.2010.5676129

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  65. Monod M (1983) Monographie taxonomique des Gnomoniaceae. Beihefte zur Sydowia 9:1–315

    Google Scholar 

  66. Moročko I (2006) Characterization of the strawberry pathogen Gnomonia fragariae, and biocontrol possibilities [Doctoral dissertation]. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae, Uppsala, p. 71. SLU Service/Repro. https://pub.epsilon.slu.se/1181/1/ISBN91-576-7120-6%28Morocko%29.pdf

  67. Moročko I, Fatehi J (2007) Molecular characterization of strawberry pathogen Gnomonia fragariae and its genetic relatedness to other Gnomonia species and members of Diaporthales. Mycological Research 111(5):603–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mycres.2007.03.012

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Moročko-Bičevska I, Fatehi J, Sokolova O (2019) Reassessment of Paragnomonia (Sydowiellaceae, Diaporthales) and typification of Paragnomonia fragariae, the cause of strawberry root rot and petiole blight. Fungal Biology 123(11):791–803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funbio.2019.08.002

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Nylander JAA (2004) MrModeltest Version 2. Program Distributed by the Author. Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Uppsala https://github.com/nylander/MrModeltest2/releases

    Google Scholar 

  70. Peregrine WTH, Bin Ahmad K (1982) Brunei, a first annotated list of plant diseases and associated organisms. Commonwealth Mycological Institute, Kew, Richmond, Surrey

    Google Scholar 

  71. Peregrine WTH, Siddiqi MA (1972) A revised and annotated list of plant diseases in Malawi. Commonwealth Mycological Institute, Kew, Surrey

    Google Scholar 

  72. Plakidas AG (1964) Strawberry Diseases. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge

    Google Scholar 

  73. Potter D, Luby JJ, Harrison RE (2000) Phylogenetic relationships among species of Fragaria (Rosaceae) inferred from non-coding nuclear and chloroplast DNA sequences. Systematic Botany 25(2):337–348. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Rambaut A (2018) FigTree v1.4.4, a graphical viewer of phylogenetic trees. Available via https://github.com/rambaut/figtree/releases. Accessed 25 Apr 2020

    Google Scholar 

  75. Rayner RW (1970) A mycological colour chart. Commonwealth Mycological Institute, Kew

    Google Scholar 

  76. Rehner SA (2001) Primers for elongation factor 1-α (EF1-α). Avialable via http://ocid.NACSE.ORG/research/deephyphae/EF1primer.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2015

    Google Scholar 

  77. Rehner SA, Samuels GJ (1995) Molecular systematics of the Hypocreales: a teleomorph gene phylogeny and the status of their anamorphs. Canadian Journal of Botany 73(S1):816–823. https://doi.org/10.1139/b95-327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Rossman AY, Farr DF, Castlebury LA (2007) A review of the phylogeny and biology of the Diaporthales. Mycoscience 48(3):135–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10267-007-0347-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Rossman AY, Udayanga D, Castlebury LA, Hyde K (2014) Proposal to conserve the name Diaporthe eres against all other competing names (Ascomycota, Diaporthales, Diaporthaceae). Taxon 63(4):934–935. https://doi.org/10.12705/634.23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Rossman AY, Adams GC, Cannon PF, Castlebury LA, Crous PW, Gryzenhout M, Jaklitsch WM, Mejia LC, Stoykov D, Udayanga D, Voglmayr H, Walker DM (2015) Recommendations of generic names in Diaporthales competing for protection or use. IMA fungus 6(1):145–154. https://doi.org/10.5598/imafungus.2015.06.01.09

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Rossman AY, Cavan Allen W, Braun U, Castlebury LA, Chaverri P, Crous PW, Hawksworth DL, Hyde KD, Johnston P, Lombard L, Romberg M (2016) Overlooked competing asexual and sexually typified generic names of Ascomycota with recommendations for their use or protection. IMA fungus 7(2):289–308. https://doi.org/10.5598/imafungus.2016.07.02.09

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Senanayake IC, Crous PW, Groenewald JZ, Maharachchikumbura SS, Jeewon R, Phillips AJ, Bhat JD, Perera RH, Li QR, Li WJ, Tangthirasunun N (2017a) Families of Diaporthales based on morphological and phylogenetic evidence. Studies in Mycology 86:217–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simyco.2017.07.003

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Senanayake IC, Maharachchikumbura SSN, Jeewon R, Promputtha I, Al-Sadi AM, Camporesi E, Hyde KD (2017b) Morphophylogenetic study of Sydowiellaceae reveals several new genera. Mycosphere 8(1):172–217. https://doi.org/10.5943/mycosphere/8/1/15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Shaw CG (1973) Host fungus index for the Pacific Northwest - I. Hosts. Washington State University, Washington. Agricultural Experimental Station Bulletin 756:1–121

    Google Scholar 

  85. Shi H, Wu H, Zhang C, Shen X (2013) Monitoring and characterization of resistance development of strawberry Phomopsis leaf blight to fungicides. European Journal of Plant Pathology 135(4):655–660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10658-012-0102-6

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Shivas RG (1989) Fungal and bacterial diseases of plants in Western Australia. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 72:1–62

    Google Scholar 

  87. Shuttleworth LA, Guest DI (2017) The infection process of chestnut rot, an important disease caused by Gnomoniopsis smithogilvyi (Gnomoniaceae, Diaporthales) in Oceania and Europe. Australasian Plant Pathology 46(5):397–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13313-017-0502-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Simpson D (2018) The Economic Importance of Strawberry Crops. In: Hytönen T, Graham J, Harrison R (eds) The Genomes of Rosaceous Berries and Their Wild Relatives. Compendium of Plant Genomes. Springer, Cham., p 212. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76020-9_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  89. Sogonov MV, Castlebury LA, Rossman AY, Mejía LC, White JF (2008) Leaf-inhabiting genera of the Gnomoniaceae, Diaporthales. Studies in Mycology 62:1–77. https://doi.org/10.3114/sim.2008.62.01

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Stamatakis A (2006) RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models. Bioinformatics 22(21):2688–2690. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btl446

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Stamatakis A, Hoover P, Rougemont J (2008) A rapid bootstrap algorithm for the RAxML web servers. Systematic Biology 57(5):758–771. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150802429642

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Staudt G (2009) Strawberry biogeography, genetics, and systematics. Acta Horticulturae 842(842):71–84. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2009.842.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Steel CC, Greer LA, Savocchia S (2007) Studies on Colletotrichum acutatum and Greeneria uvicola: Two fungi associated with bunch rot of grapes in subtropical Australia. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 13(1):23–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2007.tb00068.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Stevens FL, Peterson A (1916) Some new strawberry fungi. Phytopathology 6:258–267

    Google Scholar 

  95. Sutton BC (1965) Typification of Dendrophoma and a reassessment of D. obscurans. Transactions of the British Mycological Society 48(4):611–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-1536(65)80038-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Tassi F (1902) I generi Phyllosticta Pers., Phoma Fr., Macrophoma (Sacc.) Berl. & Voglino e i loro generi analoghi, giusta la legge danalogia. Bollettino del Laboratorio de Orto Botanico Reale Universita Siena 5:1–76

  97. Tai FL (1979) Sylloge Fungorum Sinicorum (in Chinese). Science Press, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

  98. Thaung MM (2008) Biodiversity survey of coelomycetes in Burma. Australasian Mycologist 27:74–110

    Google Scholar 

  99. Udayanga D, Liu X, McKenzie EH, Chukeatirote E, Bahkali AH, Hyde KD (2011) The genus Phomopsis: biology, applications, species concepts and names of common phytopathogens. Fungal Diversity 50(1):189–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-011-0126-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Udayanga D, Liu X, Crous PW, McKenzie EH, Chukeatirote E, Hyde KD (2012) A multi-locus phylogenetic evaluation of Diaporthe (Phomopsis). Fungal Diversity 56(1):157–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-012-0190-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Udayanga D, Castlebury LA, Rossman AY, Hyde KD (2014a) Species limits in Diaporthe: molecular re-assessment of D. citri, D. cytosporella, D. foeniculina and D. rudis. Persoonia-Molecular Phylogeny and Evolution of Fungi 32(1):83–101. https://doi.org/10.3767/003158514X679984

    CAS  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. Udayanga D, Castlebury LA, Rossman AY, Chukeatirote E, Hyde KD (2014b) Insights into the genus Diaporthe: phylogenetic species delimitation in the D. eres species complex. Fungal Diversity 67(1):203–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-014-0297-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Udayanga D, Castlebury LA, Rossman AY, Chukeatirote E, Hyde KD (2015) The Diaporthe sojae species complex: Phylogenetic re-assessment of pathogens associated with soybean, cucurbits and other field crops. Fungal Biology 119(5):383–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funbio.2014.10.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Van Adrichem MC, Bosher JE (1958) Leaf blotch and petiole blight of strawberry caused by Gnomonia fructicola. Plant Disease Report 42:772–775

    Google Scholar 

  105. Vasilyeva LN (1987) Pyrenomycetes and Loculoascomycetes of the northern Far East. Russian Academy of Sciences, Leningrad

    Google Scholar 

  106. Vilgalys R, Hester M (1990) Rapid genetic identification and mapping of enzymatically amplified ribosomal DNA from several Cryptococcus species. Journal of Bacteriology 172(8):4238–4246. https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.172.8.4238-4246.1990

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  107. Voglmayr H, Rossman AY, Castlebury LA, Jaklitsch WM (2012) Multigene phylogeny and taxonomy of the genus Melanconiella (Diaporthales). Fungal Diversity 57(1):1–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-012-0175-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Voglmayr H, Castlebury LA, Jaklitsch WM (2017) Juglanconis gen. nov. on Juglandaceae, and the new family Juglanconidaceae (Diaporthales). Persoonia 38(1):136–155. https://doi.org/10.3767/003158517X694768

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. Voglmayr H, Jaklitsch WM, Mohammadi H, Chakusary MK (2019a) The genus Juglanconis (Diaporthales) on Pterocarya. Mycological Progress 18(3):425–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11557-018-01464-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. Voglmayr H, Fournier J, Jaklitsch WM (2019b) Two new classes of Ascomycota: Xylobotryomycetes and Candelariomycetes. Persoonia 42(1):36–49. https://doi.org/10.3767/persoonia.2019.42.02

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Walker DM, Castlebury LA, Rossman AY, Sogonov MV, White JF (2010) Systematics of genus Gnomoniopsis (Gnomoniaceae, Diaporthales) based on a three gene phylogeny, host associations and morphology. Mycologia 102(6):1479–1496. https://doi.org/10.3852/10-002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Walker DM, Castlebury LA, Rossman AY, Mejía LC, White JF (2012) Phylogeny and taxonomy of Ophiognomonia (Gnomoniaceae, Diaporthales), including twenty-five new species in this highly diverse genus. Fungal Diversity 57(1):85–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-012-0200-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Wehmeyer LE (1975) The pyrenomycetous fungi. Mycologia Memoir No. 6. The New York Botanical Garden. J. Cramer Publishing, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  114. White TJ, Bruns T, Lee SJWT, Taylor JW (1990) Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. PCR protocols: a guide to methods and applications 18:315–322

    Google Scholar 

  115. Xu X, Passey T, Wei F, Saville R, Harrison RJ (2015) Amplicon-based metagenomics identified candidate organisms in soils that caused yield decline in strawberry. Horticulture Res 2(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/hortres.2015.22

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Yang Q, Fan XL, Du Z, Tian CM (2018) Diaporthosporellaceae, a novel family of Diaporthales (Sordariomycetes, Ascomycota). Mycoscience 59(3):229–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.myc.2017.11.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Yun HY, Rossman AY (2011) Tubakia seoraksanensis, a new species from Korea. Mycotaxon 115(1):369–373. https://doi.org/10.5248/115.369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Zhang N, Blackwell M (2001) Molecular phylogeny of dogwood anthracnose fungus (Discula destructiva) and the Diaporthales. Mycologia 93(2):355–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/00275514.2001.12063167

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Zhang N, Castlebury LA, Miller AN, Huhndorf SM, Schoch CL, Seifert KA, Rossman AY, Rogers JD, Kohlmeyer J, Volkmann-Kohlmeyer B, Sung GH (2006) An overview of the systematics of the Sordariomycetes based on a four-gene phylogeny. Mycologia 98(6):1076–1087. https://doi.org/10.1080/15572536.2006.11832635

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Zhong Y, Guo C, Chu J, Liu H, Cheng ZM (2018) Microevolution of the VQ gene family in six species of Fragaria. Genome 61(1):49–57. https://doi.org/10.1139/gen-2017-0038

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project was funded by USDA-ARS Projects 8042-21220-257-00-D and 8042-22000-298-00-D. Dhanushka Udayanga thanks University of Sri Jayewardenepura for facilitating ongoing research. The authors wish to thank Shannon Dominick (BPI) for facilitating loans from various herbaria and assistance at BPI, Tunesha Phipps and Ryan Vo for technical assistance, W. Cavan Allen for nomenclatural assistance, John Enns, Phil Edmonds, and the USDA-ARS Beltsville Research Support Services for field and greenhouse support, herbarium curators and managers of CUP, S, K, FR, BONN, BREM and UPS for the loan of specimens and/or providing information about specimens in their collections. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture or any of the other coauthors’ institutions.

Adherence to national and international regulations

Not applicable.

Funding

This project was funded by USDA-ARS Projects 8042–21220–257-00-D and 8042–22000–298-00-D and was supported in part by the appointment of Dhanushka Udayanga to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Research Participation Program administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) through an interagency agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and USDA (contract number DE579AC05-06OR23100).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

DU and LAC designed the research. DU performed the experiments. DU, DSM, SDM performed data analysis. LAC, KL and AG contributed with specimens and/or funds for research. All authors contributed to data interpretation and manuscript writing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dhanushka Udayanga.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not Applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Udayanga, D., Miriyagalla, S.D., Manamgoda, D.S. et al. Molecular reassessment of diaporthalean fungi associated with strawberry, including the leaf blight fungus, Paraphomopsis obscurans gen. et comb. nov. (Melanconiellaceae). IMA Fungus 12, 15 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43008-021-00069-9

Download citation

KEYWORDS

  • foliar fungi
  • Fragaria
  • leaf blotch
  • plant pathogens
  • petiole blight
  • Sordariomycetes
  • one new taxon