Skip the header
Open access
Technical Factsheet
Basic
4 October 2022

Didymella fabae (leaf and pod spot)

Identity

Preferred Scientific Name
Didymella fabae G.J. Jellis & Punithalingam 1991
Preferred Common Name
leaf and pod spot
Other Scientific Names
Ascochyta fabae Speg. 1899
Ascochyta pisi var. fabae R. Sprague 1947
International Common Names
English
Ascochyta blight
Ascochyta blight of broad beans
blight of bean
leaf and pod spot of faba beans
leaf spot of bean
leaf stem and pod spot
Spanish
antracnosis del frijol
French
anthracnose
ascochyta du haricot
ascochytosis
Local Common Names
Germany
Blattfleckenkrankheit: Bohne
EPPO code
ASCOFA (Ascochyta fabae)

Pictures

Symptoms on autumn-planted bean plant arising from infected seed.
Field symptoms
Symptoms on autumn-planted bean plant arising from infected seed.
PGRO
Didymella fabae leaf lesions.
Leaf lesions
Didymella fabae leaf lesions.
PGRO
Ascochyta leaf lesion showing pycnidia.
Leaf lesion
Ascochyta leaf lesion showing pycnidia.
PGRO
Ascochyta leaf and pod spot on Vicia faba.
Leaf and pod spot
Ascochyta leaf and pod spot on Vicia faba.
PGRO
Symptoms
M. Fawaz Azmeh/University of Damascus
Symptoms on pods
M. Fawaz Azmeh/University of Damascus
Ascochyta fabae symptoms on Vicia faba. Cirrhi exudation after 3 days of incubation in a humid chamber.
Symptoms on pod
Ascochyta fabae symptoms on Vicia faba. Cirrhi exudation after 3 days of incubation in a humid chamber.
M. Fawaz Azmeh/University of Damascus
Ascochyta fabae symptoms on Vicia faba seeds.
Symptoms on seeds
Ascochyta fabae symptoms on Vicia faba seeds.
M. Fawaz Azmeh/University of Damascus
Pycniospores
M. Fawaz Azmeh/University of Damascus

Distribution

This content is currently unavailable.

Host Plants and Other Plants Affected

HostHost statusReferences
Onobrychis viciifolia (sainfoin)Unknown
Eken (2003)
Vicia (vetch)Wild host 
Vicia angustifolia (Narrowleaf vetch)Other 
Vicia faba (faba bean)Main
Raynes and Bretag (2001)
Rubiales and Trapero-Casas (2002)
Bayaa and Kabbabeh (2000)
Vicia hirsuta (hairy tare (UK))Other 
Vicia sativa (common vetch)Wild host 
Vicia tetraspermaOther 

Symptoms

Symptoms occur on leaves, stems and pods. Where seedlings have grown from infected seeds, lesions are more obvious on the upper parts of the stem and on the older leaves. Lesions on the leaves are usually circular, dark brown and initially about 1 mm diameter. After a short time, the lesions become larger and slightly sunken with a pale-brown to dark-grey centre surrounded by a broad, dark, chocolate-coloured margin. As the spots enlarge, they become more irregular in shape and coalesce to cover larger areas of the leaf. Some zonation may occur within the necrotic area of the lesions, which may cause confusion with lesions of chocolate spot caused by Botrytis fabae. A more general browning of the vascular tissue of the leaf may occur as the lesions develop. Prominent, dark pycnidia develop within the lesions, particularly as the leaves age or when conditions are moist. The pycnidia can vary in abundance and are sometimes concentrically arranged.
On the stems, the lesions are usually smaller at the early stages of infection, but elongate up the stem and become markedly sunken. Stem lesions are usually darker than those on leaves, and contain scattered pycnidia. When the lesions are deeply sunken, either the stems of the plants may break at the point of infection, causing the plants to lodge or, if infection occurs at an early stage, the stems may bend upwards producing a kink where the stems regrow vertically. At the seedling stage, when infection originates from the seed, the combination of stem and leaf infection may result in the death of the plant.
As the pods develop, lesions can be produced over the surface. They become very deep with dark brown centres containing abundant pycnidia. In damp conditions, the conidial masses produced are pale pink to yellow. Well-developed lesions may penetrate the pod wall and affect seed set or may blemish the developing seeds within the pod. However, seed staining does not always indicate infection by the pathogen, because other saprobic organisms may invade the damaged tissue of the pod. Colonies of D. fabae can also frequently be isolated from unstained seed during routine seed health tests in the laboratory (A Biddle, [address available from CABI], personal observation, 2000).

List of Symptoms/Signs

Symptom or signLife stagesSign or diagnosis
Plants/Fruit/lesions: on pods  
Plants/Fruit/premature drop  
Plants/Growing point/lesions  
Plants/Leaves/abnormal colours  
Plants/Leaves/abnormal leaf fall  
Plants/Leaves/necrotic areas  
Plants/Leaves/yellowed or dead  
Plants/Seeds/discolorations  
Plants/Seeds/lesions on seeds  
Plants/Seeds/shrivelled  
Plants/Stems/discoloration of bark  
Plants/Stems/lodging; broken stems  
Plants/Whole plant/plant dead; dieback  
Plants/Whole plant/seedling blight  
Plants/Whole plant/uprooted or toppled  

Prevention and Control

Prevention

SPS measures: Seed certification

In the UK, much emphasis has been placed on the production of healthy seed, as the seed has long been considered to be an important source of inoculum. The present UK Seed Certification Scheme is based on standards of maximum levels of seedborne infection permitted (NIAB, 2000) as follows:
- Pre-basic seed: 1 infected seed per 1000;
- Basic seed: 2 infected seeds per 1000;
- Certified seed first generation: 2 infected seeds per 500;
- Certified seed second generation: 4 infected seeds per 200.
No standards are applicable to farm-saved seed that is not sold, but it is recommended that the seed should be tested and discarded if infection exceeds 3%. Seed with between 1 and 3% infection may be used following suitable seed treatment (Knott et al., 1994).
Internationally, prevention of the pathogen’s movement in seed is necessary to prevent not only its introduction into new areas, but also the possible introduction of more virulent races, strains or pathotypes where the disease already occurs as well as the introduction of the second mating type where that is absent, which would allow development of greater variation in the pathogen. A likely danger of importation and storage of broad bean seed in germplasm collections is that it may also maintain viability of D. fabae in any infected seed as has happened for related legume pathogens (Kaiser, 1997).
Control

Cultural control

Due to the risk of carryover of infested crop debris, it is recommended that faba beans [Vicia faba] are not grown in the same field in the following season. A rotation of at least four legume-free years is recommended for the production of beans and peas in the UK (Knott et al., 1994). Such a break should allow for the natural destruction of any soilborne inoculum. However, rotation plans must take into consideration the results of Trapero-Casas and Kaiser (2009), who found that the related chickpea pathogen, Didymella rabiei, can infect non-host plants, including common weeds, without causing disease, and that it could reproduce on the dead material of some of those non-host plants that might be used in the rotation. If D. fabae has the same capacity for persistence away from its primary host, then choices of crops used in rotation and weed control practices in those crops may be affected.
Avoidance of fields adjacent to a previous crop of beans and adequate destruction of volunteer plants before sowing will reduce the possibility of splash-borne inoculum, but the discovery of the teleomorph (Jellis and Punithalingam, 1991) suggests a significant risk of infection by wind-blown ascospores from more distant crop debris. The practice of minimum cultivation following a bean crop will allow a greater proportion of crop debris to be left on the soil surface, permitting the possible development of the teleomorph. In Canada, A. fabae did not survive over winter in the soil in field plots in which crop debris had been ploughed under the previous year (Wallen and Galway, 1977).
In addition to such measures, Davidson and Kimber (2007) suggest the selection of planting dates that will separate the most susceptible period of crop growth from the likely time of ascospore production, if doing so will not also reduce yield by missing the most agronomically favourable period of the season.
Intercropping of broad beans with cereals such as maize or wheat has been suggested as a control measure for the chocolate spot disease caused by Botrytis species (Stoddard et al., 2010). The barriers created to aerial spread of Botrytis conidia by the non-host plants would seem likely to be effective against rain-splash dispersal of Ascochyta conidia as well.

Biological control

Early results of work on control of the related legume pathogen, D. rabiei, with saprophytic fungi have been positive, presenting a possible alternative for control of D. fabae. Application of Aureobasidium pullulans to infested chickpea debris reduced suppressed incidence of disease in both the greenhouse and the field (Dugan et al., 2009).

Chemical Control

Due to the variable regulations around (de-)registration of pesticides, we are for the moment not including any specific chemical control recommendations. For further information, we recommend you visit the following resources:
PAN pesticide database (www.pesticideinfo.org)
Your national pesticide guide

Impact

Ascochyta blight is a common and occasionally destructive disease that has been reported from all six continents (Gaunt, 1983). The extent of the damage caused by the disease depends on weather conditions (McKenzie and Morrall, 1975; Maurin and Tivoli, 1992) and cultivar resistance. Madeira et al. (1988) reported that the disease reduced the leaf area index and dry matter production and that a significant seed weight reduction of 15% was incurred. Yield losses of 32-41% were reported in several years in the Czech Republic (Ondrej, 1991); similar levels were observed in New Zealand (Hampton, 1980). In the drier areas of eastern England, crop losses are relatively low although pod infection can become severe later in the season, especially in autumn-sown crops, resulting in high levels of seedborne infection. Worldwide yield losses can be as high as 90 to 100% in susceptible varieties (Yu, 1947; Hawtin and Stewart, 1979; Hanounik and Robertson, 1988).

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

History

Published online: 4 October 2022

Language

English

Authors

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

VIEW ALL METRICS

SCITE_

Citations

Export citation

Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.

EXPORT CITATIONS

View Options

View options

Get Access

Login Options

Restore your content access

Enter your email address to restore your content access:

Note: This functionality works only for purchases done as a guest. If you already have an account, log in to access the content to which you are entitled.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share on social media

Related Articles

Skip the navigation