I’m Retired

Last Updat­ed on 2022-11-03

This page con­tains a sum­ma­ry of pre­vi­ous research work and will be a repos­i­to­ry for unpub­lished (in peer-review jour­nals) data and analy­ses result­ing from my work as a research sci­en­tist.

With the col­lab­o­ra­tion of stu­dents and col­leagues, a num­ber of use­ful con­tri­bu­tions have been made to crop pro­tec­tion and pro­duc­tion. We were the first to demon­strate the effi­ca­cy under field con­di­tions of the fun­gus Epic­oc­cum nigrum for bio­con­trol of white mould of bean and that fungi­cide-tol­er­ant strains of E. nigrum could be pro­duced and used effec­tive­ly. Lar­vae of the insect Bradysia coprophi­la were found to be effi­cient con­sumers of scle­ro­tia of the plant path­o­gen­ic fun­gus Scle­ro­tinia scle­ro­tio­rum; enzymes in the sali­vary gland secre­tions of the lar­vae reduced the abil­i­ty of the scle­ro­tia to ger­mi­nate and feed­ing activ­i­ty of the lar­vae was shown to be affect­ed by soil chem­istry and type. Col­lab­o­ra­tive stud­ies also lead to the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of a new bio­her­bi­cide for man­age­ment of the weed Con­volvu­lus arven­sis. Research con­duct­ed on dis­eases of med­i­c­i­nal herbs result­ed in new find­ings con­cern­ing the eti­ol­o­gy and ecol­o­gy of root and foliar dis­eases of gin­seng, gold­enseal, evening prim­rose, ste­via, and oth­er plants.

Research pub­li­ca­tion list and CV (2007)
Most peer-reviewed pub­li­ca­tions are avail­able in pdf for­mat at Research­Gate.

‘Recent’ Research Projects:

1) Rhex­o­cer­cosporid­i­um panacis. This fun­gus is a pathogen of gin­seng (Panax quin­que­folius). My lab dis­cov­ered and named this fun­gus and we were the first to demon­strate its role as a pathogen of gin­seng and cause of the dis­ease ‘rust­ed root’. This dis­ease (also known as ‘the rust’ or ‘rusty root’) was first described by Hilde­brand in Ontario in the 1930s and was wide­spread through­out gin­seng-grow­ing regions in North Amer­i­ca at that time. Symp­toms and some his­tor­i­cal notes can be found in the first cita­tion below. Sev­er­al dif­fer­ent fun­gi have been iden­ti­fied as pos­si­ble caus­es of this dis­ease, but none of them (until the dis­cov­ery of R. panacis) were able to ade­quate­ly repro­duce the symp­toms. See here for some back­ground infor­ma­tion on this dis­ease.

Rust­ed root dis­ease is char­ac­ter­ized by slight­ly raised red­dish brown to black root lesions of vary­ing size. Small blis­ter-like lesions expand and coa­lesce to form large lesions that pos­sess a dif­fuse mar­gin. The peri­d­er­mal tis­sue often becomes very dark red, almost black, in col­or as the dis­ease pro­gress­es. The lesions, regard­less of size, remain super­fi­cial; how­ev­er, peri­d­er­mal tis­sue is rup­tured and sloughed off, giv­ing the root a pit­ted or scabbed appear­ance. Frag­ments of the black­ened and rup­tured peri­d­erm may remain attached to the root at har­vest. When roots have been dried, lesions often appear light brown in col­or. Except where symp­toms are severe, the dis­ease appears to have lit­tle effect on yield; how­ev­er, the dis­col­ored, scab­by, and often deformed appear­ance of dis­eased roots reduces their val­ue. The term “rusty root” also is applied to this dis­ease; how­ev­er, Hildebrand’s use of “rust­ed root” has his­tor­i­cal prece­dence and may be prefer­able, in part due to the use of “rusty root” to refer to oth­er unre­lat­ed prob­lems that occa­sion­al­ly are observed on roots.

Fig 1 Reeleder

Note: Click on the above image to view more clear­ly in a sep­a­rate page.

After path­o­genic­i­ty assays with var­i­ous fun­gal gen­era iso­lat­ed from dis­eased roots using agar-based cul­ture media (yield­ing main­ly Fusar­i­um and Cyn­dro­car­pon iso­lates) failed to repro­duce observed dis­ease symp­toms, my lab began using DNA extrac­tion tech­niques in 2004 and 2005. Our first set of extrac­tions from dis­eased-tis­sue sam­ples (ampli­fied using uni­ver­sal fun­gal primers) yield­ed a wide vari­ety of species when sub­mit­ted to Gen­Blast but, con­sis­tent­ly, we found DNA iden­ti­fied as belong­ing to a Rhex­o­cer­cosporid­i­um species. Healthy gin­seng root tis­sue did not con­tain this DNA sequence. Com­par­i­son of this DNA to DNA extract­ed from iso­lates of Rhex­o­cer­cosporid­i­um caro­tae (the only oth­er known species in this genus) sug­gest­ed that the Rhex­o­cer­cosporid­i­um from gin­seng was a pre­vi­ous­ly unde­scribed species. When we used some alter­na­tive agar media (which sup­pressed com­pet­ing Fusar­i­um and Cyn­lin­dro­car­pon species ade­quate­ly), we were able to iso­late this fun­gus con­sis­tent­ly from dis­eased gin­seng root tis­sue. Using gin­seng roots (grown in green­hous­es to avoid field-relat­ed latent infec­tions), we were able to repro­duce symp­toms of the dis­ease.

The iso­lates of Rhex­o­cer­cosporid­i­um from gin­seng were suf­fi­cient­ly dif­fer­ent from R. caro­toae that we have described a new species, R. panacis, to accom­mo­date these iso­lates.

Our pub­lished sci­en­tif­ic arti­cles rel­e­vant to this top­ic are:

Reeled­er, R.D., S.M.T. Hoke, Yun Zhang 2006. Rust­ed root of gin­seng (Panax quin­que­folius) is caused by a species of Rhex­o­cer­cosporid­i­um. Phy­topathol­o­gy Nov 2006, Vol­ume 96, Num­ber 11, 1243–1254. DOI: 10.1094/PHYTO-96–1243

Reeled­er, RD. 2007. Rhex­o­cer­cosporid­i­um panacis sp. nov., a new anamor­phic species caus­ing rust­ed root of gin­seng (Panax quin­que­folius). Mycolo­gia 99(1): 91–98.

The fol­low­ing reports, which add sup­ple­men­tary data, have not been pub­lished in peer-review jour­nals (except as abstracts):

Sug­gest­ed man­age­ment options for this dis­ease:

  • Eval­u­ate use of car­ben­daz­im, thio­phanate-methyl, and fen­hexa­m­id as pos­si­ble seed treat­ments, pre or post-strat­i­fi­ca­tion.
  • Avoid use of soil/sand con­t­a­m­i­nat­ed with R. panacis for seed strat­i­fi­ca­tion. Con­sid­er above-ground con­trolled strat­i­fi­ca­tion pro­ce­dures. The fact that some lots of strat­i­fied seed are free of R. panacis sug­gests that some grow­ers are suc­cess­ful in reduc­ing the inci­dence of contamination/infection.
  • Use detec­tion meth­ods such as qPCR to avoid plant­i­ng into R. panacis — infest­ed soil.

2) Cylin­dro­car­pon destruc­tans — the cause of ‘dis­ap­pear­ing root rot’ and ‘gin­seng replant decline’ can be detect­ed in soil using qPCR

[in prepa­ra­tion]
Cylin­dro­car­pon destruc­tans f.sp. panacis (Ily­onec­tria radi­ci­co­la) caus­es dis­ap­pear­ing root rot of gin­seng and is like­ly respon­si­ble for a replant decline that lim­its repeat­ed use of land for gin­seng pro­duc­tion (Ker­naghan, Reeled­er, and Hoke 2007)(Reeled­er, Roy, and Capell 2002)(Jang et al 2010).

Both dis­ap­pear­ing root rot and gin­seng replant fail­ure, or replant decline, are com­mon issues in gin­seng pro­duc­tion. As long ago as 1935, Hilde­brand showed that Cylin­dro­car­pon destruc­tans (then known as Ramu­la­ria) caused root rots of gin­seng in Ontario (Cana­da) so severe that noth­ing was left of the root but parts of the peri­d­erm — the root had ‘dis­ap­peared’. Fur­ther, grow­ers dis­cov­ered that, once land had been cropped once to gin­seng (the typ­i­cal gin­seng pro­duc­tion cycle is 3–4 years), it often could not be used suc­cess­ful­ly to grow gin­seng a sec­ond time. Attempts to do so often result­ed in crop fail­ure, with many plants dying with­in two years. This occurred despite treat­ment of soil pri­or to plant­i­ng with the chem­i­cal fumi­gants that have become avail­able in more recent decades. The cause has long been unknown but has been attrib­uted to soil nutri­tion, soil tox­ins, etc. In a series of microplot field and green­house exper­i­ments, we showed that, although fumi­ga­tion failed to resolve the prob­lem, steam treat­ment (pas­teur­iza­tion) large­ly elim­i­nat­ed symp­toms. The only pathogen which was 1) able, in path­o­genic­i­ty tri­als, to con­sis­tent­ly repro­duce the symp­toms of decline (severe root rot fol­lowed by plant death), and 2) iso­lat­ed con­sis­tent­ly from symp­to­matic roots was C. destruc­tans . The evi­dence thus sug­gests that C. destruc­tans is the cause of replant decline and that decline is real­ly an out­break of dis­ap­pear­ing root rot; an out­break that is sim­ply occur­ring ear­li­er in the pro­duc­tion cycle than is usu­al­ly the case.

Know­ing the cause, while impor­tant, does not pro­vide a solu­tion to the prob­lem — the inabil­i­ty to use land for suc­ces­sive crops of gin­seng. Although in-vit­ro and soil drench tests iden­ti­fy some pos­si­ble can­di­date fungi­cides, they may not be suf­fi­cient­ly effec­tive or eco­nom­ic to use under field con­di­tions. Short of a fea­si­ble con­trol or man­age­ment strat­e­gy, one approach that might be use­ful would be the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of fields or sec­tions of fields where the pathogen is absent. Those loca­tions could then be plant­ed to gin­seng with less risk of crop fail­ure.

Using real-time poly­merase chain reac­tion (qPCR) meth­ods, we have been able to detect C. destuc­tans in field soils many years after pro­duc­tion of gin­seng and demon­strate exper­i­men­tal­ly that the PCR sig­nal cor­re­lates with dis­ease sever­i­ty. With this method, the poten­tial of a field site to be used for gin­seng could be rapid­ly eval­u­at­ed.

With the coop­er­a­tion of gin­seng grow­ers, we were sub­se­quent­ly able to iden­ti­fy sev­er­al addi­tion­al loca­tions pre­vi­ous­ly cropped to gin­seng and com­pare them to fields not pre­vi­ous­ly used for gin­seng. Using these meth­ods we were able to map pop­u­la­tions of C. destruc­tans in nat­u­ral­ly-infest­ed field soils and detect the pathogen in soils many years after gin­seng pro­duc­tion. The method may be use­ful in avoid­ing the use of infest­ed soil in gin­seng plant­i­ngs.  We pro­vide data here show­ing that con­cen­tra­tions of DNA of C. destruc­tans in soil cores col­lect­ed from soil pre­vi­ous­ly cropped to gin­seng are gen­er­al­ly high­er in top 7.5 cm por­tions of cores than at greater depths. Analy­sis of DNA in soil cores from tran­sects tak­en across fields both recent­ly cul­ti­vat­ed to gin­seng and sev­er­al years fol­low­ing pro­duc­tion showed that amounts of Cylin­dro­car­pon DNA across tran­sects var­ied marked­ly. [data and fur­ther analy­sis to be added]