Views: 3376, Replies: 20 » Jump to the end
Mar 10, 2014 5:37 AM CST
|Somewhere and somehow I (may have) mislead myself into believing lilies should not be planted with tulips because of an increased risk for TBV. Fact or Fiction? Or is that just another an old myth?|
Mar 10, 2014 6:40 AM CST
|I've heard that too, specifically regarding Rembrandt tulips with the aptly named TBV being responsible for the broken color. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...|
Where are we going, and why am I in this hand-basket?
Mar 10, 2014 3:52 PM CST
|Most tulips sold are produced vegetatively and not by seed, so there is the ever-present possibility of inadvertent viral propagation along with the propagation of the tulips, just as there is for lilies. Also as in lilies, there are viruses that are debilitating or fatal for tulips and ones that can be tolerated. Some are transmittable across the genera, some are not. |
I wish I knew more about the frequency of viruses in tulips, but I know very little. Botanical tulips without a cultivar name attached are likely grown from seed, and therefore should be free of viruses, unless they contract the pathogen in the three years or so that it would take to grow to salable size. I have botanical tulips that seed around my lilies, and think nothing of it.
Assuming the frequency of viruses in tulips is similar to that of lilies (this is the unknown pivotal point), I see no practical difference between in viral introduction between adding tulips or adding more lilies. But yes, when one compares the possible ramifications of adding tulips, as opposed to an unrelated plant that cannot carry transmittable viruses, then tulips would be a poor choice.
Mar 11, 2014 10:08 AM CST
|Rick, you've said a lot here. I want to re-read it a time or two and then I'll post something. Busy with seeds right now (yes, I got in the shed) Anybody else have any comments about TBV with tulips and lilies?|
Mar 12, 2014 5:56 AM CST
|Rick, here's how a got a little confused on the topic of TBV with lilies. A couple weeks ago I read this article on virus put together by the Pacific Bulb Society. Within the article they state that the species of potyviridae family (TBV) virus that infects lilies is different than the species of potyviridae family than the one that infects tulips. They go on to say that the species that infects lilies can not infect tulips. Therefore, with lilies, they now call this LMoV, short for lily mottling virus--formally called TBV. So even though we are dealing with the same symptoms, we now have a different virus with a new name, LMoV. So what can we conclude? If tulips can't get LMoV from lilies because the virus can't infect them, then how can lilies actually get LMoV from tulips if they don't have it in the first place? Here's a link to the article. The part on lilies is about a third of the way down the page, followed by tulips, etc. http://pacificbulbsociety.org/... |
Read the article and see if it makes sense. It left me a little confused with questions. Interesting reading if nothing else.
Mar 12, 2014 6:31 AM CST
Mar 12, 2014 12:24 PM CST
Roosterlorn said:Read the article and see if it makes sense. It left me a little confused with questions. Interesting reading if nothing else.
It seems I remember reading that page many years ago when I was neophyte, but had completely forgotten about it. Thanks for bringing it up, Lorn.
It's important to realize that the page clearly states that it is "by no means inclusive", and that there will be gaps in information. Generally, that should mean that what they say is true, but what they don't say is not inferred, and that may be just as important. Theoretical hypotheses derived from incomplete data may be valuable in future study, but obviously, one can only formulate possibilities from them, not fact.
So in the case with TBV and the Tulipa/Lilium genera.
Roosterlorn said:Within the article they state that the species of potyviridae family (TBV) virus that infects lilies is different than the species of potyviridae family than the one that infects tulips.
Yes, the PBS page clearly states that the LMoV does not infect tulips. This I would take as gospel. But it does not say anything about whether the TBV that infects tulips will not infect lilies. This is an unsubstantiated inference, in my opinion. Indeed further down the page, Lilium spp. are listed as susceptible to TBV, but it could be that this was data gathered before TBV and LMoV were differentiated. Was this just a slip in writing? I don't know. One might ask on the Yahoo Lilium group or the PBS listserve. Nhu Nguyen, among other good resource people are active on both.
More important is to realize that there are many more virus species besides TBV that infect tulips that might also infect lilies, and also the absolute surety that there are many more potentially pertinent viruses yet to be discovered. How prevalent are these in the biosphere? Maybe more common, maybe less. I don't know.
In regards to my previous ruminations on planting tulips and lilies together versus lilies and more lilies together, there could be hundreds of virus species that infect lilies. What about them? Not only have they not been studied, it's likely that they have not even been identified. Moreover, the PBS page's virus species section caveat lector (reader beware) states that if one species is found to be susceptible, then it is assumes that the whole family (not just the genus) is also susceptible. It also clearly states that such a general assertion does not hold true in all cases.
So there are a lot of unanswered questions.
This discussion also makes me wonder, then, which TBVTMV type virus is in tobacco - one that infects lilies or not?
Mar 12, 2014 5:33 PM CST
|Rick, it's funny you mention tobacco as it relates to our conversation. It reminded me of something. Last summer, the guy that plants the corn and soybeans on the farm and I were talking about new farming techniques and GMO corn, grains etc. and how far reaching those products go in our diets of all the things we eat and so on. Farmers can talk all day, but to make a long story short, he mentioned that the Chinese had developed a new anti-virus chemical that would probably make GMO's obsolete one day. He said it was being developed further by the tobacco industry there. Well, we're in the process of working up costs now, so this afternoon, I asked him if he remembered our conversation about the Chinese and their tobacco/ antivirus program. He did, so here's some more interesting reading. The chemical is called 'Dufulin'. He says he has quite a few monthly and quarterly trade publications with articles about it, so when we get together later this month, I have plenty to read. For better or worse, Dufulin or a product like it may one day become a common everyday flower garden pesticide for virus control. http://www.plosone.org/article... |
Not sure if I like the Idea. I know I live in a world full of virus and vectors; and surely with some new ones. But somehow I enjoy being natural as much as possible.
Mar 12, 2014 6:10 PM CST
|Slightly off topic but somewhat relevant, I saw a cool article on the articles section regarding heating bulbs to 120 degrees with a light box and the heat would kill viruses. It was very interesting and the writer did this for amaryllis bulbs with a sacrificial onion to test temp. He said that most of the bulbs did not show virus symptoms anymore.|
Mar 12, 2014 7:38 PM CST
|Joe, I've read that somewhere, also. But you won't catch me doing that to any virused lily bulb I have!|
Mar 12, 2014 8:38 PM CST
|More recently I've read something about that again, too. Apparently the range of error is quite small before you begin cooking the bulb itself. Years ago, I remember Dr. Neil Anderson here at the U of Minnesota talking about that as a possible option. He says all Easter lilies in commerce have the Lily Symtomless virus (LSV), and in fact that is what contributes to keeping them short and compact. He is one of the breeders working on "everblooming" lilies that incorporate Lilium longiflorum (Easter lily) genes...... ought to be releasing something soon, I would think.|
I also remember something about systemic acquired resistance (SAR)..... some other something sprayed on the plant that induces it. Was it aspirin? I don't recall that it was specifically for viruses, though.
Mar 13, 2014 7:46 AM CST
|Rick, relative to TMV, all this stuff makes you wonder about how much we really don't know or haven't discovered yet. I know (I think) I've never observed TMV here. But just because I don't grow tobacco or smoke doesn't mean my lilies won't get it. It's most probably because I don't have any susceptible hosts and/or common vectors in the area at present. Tobacco can have other virus too, like Tobacco Rattle Virus (TRV) and Tobacco Ringspot Virus (TRSV) which can apparently infect lilies, although far less reported. Another thing that puzzles me is that nearly every book I have cautions smokers to thoroughly wash their hands before handling lilies. Well, I've always thought virus live only in a live host and when the host dies, so does the virus. Processed tobacco is pretty dead in my book! So how can that be? |
I think for lily growers like myself, the important thing is staying focused on the three main virus's: Lily Symptomless Virus, Cucumber Mosaic Virus and Lily Mottling Virus or Tulip Breaking Virus. And then, being aware of all the common susceptible hosts and common vectors in the area. It doesn't mean I'm going to stop growing cucumbers, squash, beans and tomatoes, etc., but rather knowing how and where to grow them.
Mar 13, 2014 12:47 PM CST
|Lorn, if you could save a virus bulb that was hard to get why wouldn't you try the heating method? You would probably just throw it out anyway.|
Mar 13, 2014 3:46 PM CST
|Joe, if I had a lily that was the only one or two of its kind in the world that I couldn't part with, here's what I would do upon noticing a virus. First, if I noticed the virus before blooming, I would let it seed or cross it with a sister for seed and save all the pollen I could. Second, I would pull about a half dozen good scales and propagate quite a few more clones even though it's virtually guaranteed they also would be virused for more crossing and more seed and pollen during (n +2,3,4). Young clones, even though virused, are quite vigorous. Hopefully, the seed from these young virused clones would give me a nice tight group with little variation and I'd end up with a nice strain. That's half of the story. The other half has to do with tissue or micro culture. Even though reproduction by this method is vegetative, it's well established that virus free areas often exist in areas of new fast growth such as newly emerging leaves, buds, stems and new scales. And tissue culture is one way to resurrect a virus free duplicate from a virused one. Since I don't have an electron microscope, If I were to do it, I would have probably only a 50-75% success rate the first time through, but repeating the procedure a second time, the numbers jump to about 90% that are virus free. These numbers are from people I know who do this with virused lilies and other virused plants frequently for the challenge, without the aid of an electron microscope and I no longer have any doubt with what they do. I have everything I need for tissue culture here, myself as well. These are the procedures I would take because they are the ones I most familiar with and comfortable in doing.|
As far as using the heat method goes, I'd be afraid I'd damage the bulb beyond recovery; the fear of the unknown as well, I guess. And since I'd have only one bulb to work with it would be a one shot deal--that's a pretty big gamble; all or nothin'. Why not just heat some scales? If I had a dozen virused bulbs to experiment with, it would try it just for knowledge gained, but not on a single bulb. I'd have to learn a whole lot more about it first, Joe.
Mar 13, 2014 4:20 PM CST
|Good explanation! I didn't realize how many other good options there were.|
Mar 13, 2014 8:20 PM CST
Roosterlorn said: Another thing that puzzles me is that nearly every book I have cautions smokers to thoroughly wash their hands before handling lilies. Well, I've always thought virus live only in a live host and when the host dries, so does the virus. Processed tobacco is pretty dead in my book! So how can that be?
Just as all lilies are not the same and can't be expected to perform equally, so it is with viruses (and practically everything else, too). You knew that. The common cold is a virus that is often spread by touch, dead doorknobs, etc. Many viruses simply need moisture to stay alive until their next host comes along. I'm sure there are lots of different survival mechanisms, and TMV's has certainly done well.
But in regard to lilies, this does seem to present a quandary, as we always read lily viruses are only transmitted from lily to lily via live organisms. But I think the best answer is that there are too many unknown variables. Many pathogens spread via different means, depending on their host, as well as their position in their life cycle. It is very possible that the same virus that infects plant #1 cannot produce airborne infectious material, while infected plant #2 (a different species) does. Could it be that lilies can be infected by airborne virus, but cannot produce airborne virus material? And what about TMV? It is probably one of the longest (chronologically) studied plant viruses in existence. Yet with smokers all over, and for many centuries, why do we not see many examples of TMV on lilies? Maybe we do, but just label it "virused" undesignated. I wish I knew.
Mar 13, 2014 8:24 PM CST
Roosterlorn said:Joe, if I had a lily that was the only one or two of its kind in the world that I couldn't part with, here's what I would do upon noticing a virus. First, if I noticed the virus before blooming, I would ... save all the pollen I could.
In the PBS article, there was mention of the possibility of virus transmittal to the mother plant (not the ensuing seed) via infected pollen.
>>>Proceed with caution....
I have everything I need for tissue culture here, myself as well.
The misplace comma prompted a big guffaw.
Although, a couple extra Lorns around might not be a bad thing....
Mar 13, 2014 9:47 PM CST
Where are we going, and why am I in this hand-basket?
Mar 19, 2014 8:45 PM CST
|Here is how virus free plants are produced, short and simple.|
The virused plant is grown in tissue culture at a very warm temp. which causes the plant to out grow the virus (I forget what temp but not 120F ). Then the meristem, the very small, microsopic cells at the tip of the growing point, are excised, grown in tissue culture to a rooted plantlet and grown out into real plants which are them retested to see if they are virus free. Usually several of these meristems are produced in hopes of getting one virus free plant. And that is how heat helps to get rid of plant viruses.
From my distant past as a tissue culture queen.
Mar 20, 2014 4:51 PM CST
|Well I forgot to add that heat treating the bulb my curb some other diseases like Phytoplasmas and can account for increased vigor if the bulb survives. |
Some place in my files I have a recipe for curing lily virus. I have not and probably won't try it but if anyone wants a copy email me and I will send it.