@article{severns_jagdale_holladay_brannen_noe_cline_2020, title={Potential for the Pathogenicity of Plant-Parasitic Nematodes Associated with Blueberries in Georgia and North Carolina}, volume={21}, ISSN={["1535-1025"]}, DOI={10.1094/PHP-09-19-0069-S}, abstractNote={ Ring (Mesocriconema ornatum) nematode in Georgia (GA) has been associated with blueberry replant disease. A survey of plant-parasitic nematodes (PPNs) from production blueberry fields in GA and North Carolina (NC) was previously presented and evaluated from an abundance perspective. However, PPNs are often patchily distributed, occurring in close physical association with infected plant roots. Soil cores may or may not sample the areas of high nematode abundance, and nematode counts tend to be highly variable because of this patchiness. To evaluate the survey data for potentially unrecognized blueberry PPNs, we reanalyzed nematode survey data from NC and GA using multivariate analyses that integrate both patterns of occurrence and patterns in relative abundance. Indicator species analysis identified ring nematode in GA as a potentially pathogenic nematode, consistent with previous confirmation of pathogenicity through a container study. Indicator species analysis also identified two potentially pathogenic nematodes in NC blueberries: awl (Dolichodorus spp.) and sheath (Hemicycliophora spp.) nematodes. Of the two nematodes, awl shared a similar position in the NC blueberry nematode community when compared with ring nematode in GA. However, awl nematode relative abundance was low enough, when compared with ring nematode in GA, to suggest that although it is likely parasitic on NC blueberries, it may not be pathogenic. Our analysis from a previous survey suggests that PPNs are unlikely to be a threat to NC blueberry production. However, if blueberry replant disease emerges in NC, then ring, awl, and sheath nematodes should be considered as potential causal agents. }, number={1}, journal={PLANT HEALTH PROGRESS}, author={Severns, Paul M. and Jagdale, Ganpati B. and Holladay, Ted and Brannen, Phillip M. and Noe, Jim P. and Cline, William O.}, year={2020}, pages={9–12} }
 @article{jagdale_severns_brannen_cline_2019, title={Occurrence and Distribution of Plant-Parasitic Nematodes on Muscadine Grapes in Georgia and North Carolina}, volume={20}, ISSN={["1535-1025"]}, DOI={10.1094/PHP-06-19-0042-S}, abstractNote={Muscadine grape, Vitis rotundifolia, is native to the southeastern United States, but Georgia (GA) and North Carolina (NC) are the largest North American producers. Plant-parasitic nematodes (PPNs) have become a significant factor affecting the health, quality, production, and maintenance of bunch grapes (V. labrusca, V. vinifera), but little is known about muscadine PPNs. A systematic survey was conducted of PPNs infesting eight and 11 muscadine grape vineyards in GA and NC in August and October 2018, respectively. The most frequently detected PPNs across all samples from both states were Helicotylenchus (90%), Mesocriconema (72%), and Xiphinema (58%). However, 5 Hemicycliophora and 710 Scutellonema nematodes/100 cm3of soil were found only in GA, whereas only 1 Belonolaimus nematode/100 cm3of soil was found only in NC. Ordination of the nematode communities from the samples collected in GA and NC yielded groupings that aligned with the state of origin. Multivariate tests for group membership indicated that several genera were statistically associated with either NC or GA muscadines, and the PPN communities distinctly differed between states. Because muscadine grapes do not have established nematode thresholds, it is not known whether these nematode species are negatively impacting mature grapes.}, number={3}, journal={PLANT HEALTH PROGRESS}, author={Jagdale, Ganpati B. and Severns, Paul M. and Brannen, Phillip M. and Cline, William O.}, year={2019}, pages={194–199} }
 @article{gallardo_stafne_devetter_zhang_li_takeda_williamson_yang_cline_beaudry_et al._2018, title={Blueberry producers' attitudes toward harvest mechanization for fresh market}, volume={28}, number={1}, journal={HortTechnology}, author={Gallardo, R. K. and Stafne, E. T. and DeVetter, L. W. and Zhang, Q. and Li, C. and Takeda, F. and Williamson, J. and Yang, W. Q. and Cline, W. O. and Beaudry, R. and et al.}, year={2018}, pages={10–16} }
 @inproceedings{lin_dinh_sampath_akinci_2016, title={A Computational study of thin film dynamics on micro structured surfaces}, volume={2}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-85002986155&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1115/ht2016-7382}, abstractNote={The present study is motivated by interest in understanding of physical mechanisms that govern the effect of material and micro-structural characteristics of heat surface on boiling heat transfer and burnout at high heat fluxes. The effect was reported and investigated experimentally and analytically over several past decades. Only recently, with the advent of nanotechnology including microscale manufacturing, it becomes possible to perform high heat-flux boiling experiments with control of surface conditions.}, booktitle={Proceedings of the Asme Summer Heat Transfer Conference, 2016, vol 2}, author={Lin, L. Y. and Dinh, N. T. and Sampath, R. and Akinci, N.}, year={2016} }
 @article{stewart_brooks_brannen_cline_brewer_2015, title={Elevated Genetic Diversity in the Emerging Blueberry Pathogen Exobasidium maculosum}, volume={10}, ISSN={["1932-6203"]}, DOI={10.1371/journal.pone.0132545}, abstractNote={Emerging diseases caused by fungi are increasing at an alarming rate. Exobasidium leaf and fruit spot of blueberry, caused by the fungus Exobasidium maculosum, is an emerging disease that has rapidly increased in prevalence throughout the southeastern USA, severely reducing fruit quality in some plantings. The objectives of this study were to determine the genetic diversity of E. maculosum in the southeastern USA to elucidate the basis of disease emergence and to investigate if populations of E. maculosum are structured by geography, host species, or tissue type. We sequenced three conserved loci from 82 isolates collected from leaves and fruit of rabbiteye blueberry (Vaccinium virgatum), highbush blueberry (V. corymbosum), and southern highbush blueberry (V. corymbosum hybrids) from commercial fields in Georgia and North Carolina, USA, and 6 isolates from lowbush blueberry (V. angustifolium) from Maine, USA, and Nova Scotia, Canada. Populations of E. maculosum from the southeastern USA and from lowbush blueberry in Maine and Nova Scotia are distinct, but do not represent unique species. No difference in genetic structure was detected between different host tissues or among different host species within the southeastern USA; however, differentiation was detected between populations in Georgia and North Carolina. Overall, E. maculosum showed extreme genetic diversity within the conserved loci with 286 segregating sites among the 1,775 sequenced nucleotides and each isolate representing a unique multilocus haplotype. However, 94% of the nucleotide substitutions were silent, so despite the high number of mutations, selective constraints have limited changes to the amino acid sequences of the housekeeping genes. Overall, these results suggest that the emergence of Exobasidium leaf and fruit spot is not due to a recent introduction or host shift, or the recent evolution of aggressive genotypes of E. maculosum, but more likely as a result of an increasing host population or an environmental change.}, number={7}, journal={PLOS ONE}, author={Stewart, Jane E. and Brooks, Kyle and Brannen, Phillip M. and Cline, William O. and Brewer, Marin T.}, year={2015}, month={Jul} }
 @article{brewer_turner_brannen_cline_richardson_2014, title={Exobasidium maculosum, a new species causing leaf and fruit spots on blueberry in the southeastern USA and its relationship with other Exobasidium spp. parasitic to blueberry and cranberry}, volume={106}, ISSN={["1557-2536"]}, DOI={10.3852/13-202}, abstractNote={Exobasidium leaf and fruit spot of blueberry (Vaccinium section Cyanococcus) is an emerging disease that has rapidly increased in prevalence throughout the southeastern USA. To determine whether this disease is caused by a new species of Exobasidium, we studied the morphology and phylogenetic relationship of the causal fungus compared with other members of the genus, including the type species E. vaccinii and other species that parasitize blueberry and cranberry (V. macrocarpon). Both scanning electron microscopy and light microscopy were used for morphological characterization. For phylogenetic analyses, we sequenced the large subunit of the rDNA (LSU) from 10 isolates collected from leaf or fruit spots of rabbiteye blueberry (V. virgatum), highbush blueberry (V. corymbosum) and southern highbush blueberry (Vaccinium interspecific hybrid) from Georgia and North Carolina and six isolates from leaf spots of lowbush blueberry (V. angustifolium) from Maine and Nova Scotia, Canada. LSU was sequenced from isolates causing red leaf disease of lowbush blueberry and red leaf spot (E. rostrupii) and red shoot (E. perenne) of cranberry. In addition, LSU sequences from GenBank, including sequences with high similarity to the emerging parasite and from Exobasidium spp. parasitizing other Vaccinium spp. and related hosts, were obtained. All sequences were aligned and subjected to phylogenetic analyses. Results indicated that the emerging parasite in the southeastern USA differs morphologically and phylogenetically from other described species and is described herein as Exobasidium maculosum. Within the southeastern USA, clustering based on host species, host tissue type (leaf or fruit) or geographic region was not detected; however, leaf spot isolates from lowbush blueberry were genetically different and likely represent a unique species.}, number={3}, journal={MYCOLOGIA}, author={Brewer, Marin Talbot and Turner, Ashley N. and Brannen, Phillip M. and Cline, William O. and Richardson, Elizabeth A.}, year={2014}, pages={415–423} }
 @inproceedings{cline_2014, title={New and emerging diseases of blueberry}, volume={1017}, DOI={10.17660/actahortic.2014.1017.2}, booktitle={X international symposium on vaccinium and other superfruits}, author={Cline, W. O.}, year={2014}, pages={45–49} }
 @article{quito-avila_brannen_cline_harmon_martin_2013, title={Genetic characterization of Blueberry necrotic ring blotch virus, a novel RNA virus with unique genetic features}, volume={94}, ISSN={["1465-2099"]}, DOI={10.1099/vir.0.050393-0}, abstractNote={A new disorder was observed on southern highbush blueberries in several south-eastern states in the USA. Symptoms included irregularly shaped circular spots or blotches with green centres on the upper and lower surfaces of leaves. Double-stranded RNA was extracted from symptomatic leaves suggesting the presence of virus(es) possibly involved in the disease. Sequencing revealed the presence of a novel RNA virus with a ~14 kb genome divided into four RNA segments. Sequence analyses showed that the virus, for which we propose the name Blueberry necrotic ring blotch virus (BNRBV), possesses protein domains conserved across RNA viruses in the alpha-virus-like supergroup. Phylogenetic inferences using different genes placed BNRBV in a clade that includes the Bromoviridae, the genus Cilevirus (CiLV) and the recently characterized Hibiscus green spot virus (HGSV). Despite the strong genetic relationships found among BNRBV, Cilevirus and HGSV, the genome of BNRBV contains three features that distinguish it significantly from its closest relatives: (i) the presence of two helicase domains with different evolutionary pathways, (ii) the existence of three conserved nucleotide stretches located at the 3′ non-coding regions of each RNA segment and (iii) the conservation of terminal nucleotide motifs across each segment. Furthermore, CiLV and HGSV possess poly(A)-tailed bipartite and tripartite genomes, respectively, whereas BNRBV has a quadra-partite genome lacking a poly(A) tail. Based on these genetic features a new genus is proposed for the classification of BNRBV.}, journal={JOURNAL OF GENERAL VIROLOGY}, author={Quito-Avila, Diego F. and Brannen, Philip M. and Cline, William O. and Harmon, Philip F. and Martin, Robert R.}, year={2013}, month={Jun}, pages={1426–1434} }
 @article{jagdale_holladay_brannen_cline_agudelo_nyczepir_noe_2013, title={Incidence and pathogenicity of plant-parasitic nematodes associated with blueberry (Vaccinium spp.) replant disease in Georgia and North Carolina}, volume={45}, number={2}, journal={Journal of Nematology}, author={Jagdale, G. B. and Holladay, T. and Brannen, P. M. and Cline, W. O. and Agudelo, P. and Nyczepir, A. P. and Noe, J. P.}, year={2013}, pages={92–98} }
 @article{williamson_cline_2013, title={Mechanized Harvest of Southern Highbush Blueberries for the Fresh Market: An Introduction and Overview of the Workshop Proceedings}, volume={23}, ISSN={["1943-7714"]}, DOI={10.21273/horttech.23.4.416}, abstractNote={T he development of mechanical devices to assist in harvesting cultivated blueberries (Vaccinium species and hybrids) began in the late 1950s. In 1958, U.S. Department of Agriculture engineers located at Michigan State University developed handheld shakers that were used with fabric-lined catch frames as aids for harvesting processed blueberries (Hedden et al., 1959; Monroe and Levin, 1966). These devices substantially increased worker productivity and reduced harvest costs by 55% (Monroe and Levin, 1966). By 1963, 35% of the Michigan crop and 20% of the New Jersey crop were harvested in this fashion. Later Monroe and Levin (1966) described their early attempts to develop a continuous over-the-row blueberry harvester, which required a driver and two additional workers. Testing of over-the-row harvesters began in the late 1950s and by 1966 over-the-row harvesters were available commercially in the United States. Eck (1988) reported that over 100 such machines were in use in the United States by 1971. One of the earliest commercial models, the Harvey Harvester, was featured in an article entitled ‘‘Fantastic New Farm Machines’’ in Popular Mechanics in 1970 (Lamm, 1970). Over time, various harvesters were developed that used different methods to remove ripe berries from canes and they were generally classified as slappers, sway shakers, and rotary shakers (Brown et al., 1996; Mainland, 1993). In their review, Dale et al. (1994) provide a detailed account of blueberry harvester designs up through the early 1990s. Over-the-row harvesters were reported to increase worker productivity by almost 60 times and reduce the cost of harvesting by up to 85% (Brown et al., 1996). However, numerous problems were soon identified with harvesting blueberries mechanically. The primary ones were 1) ground loss of otherwise marketable fruit, 2) detachment of immature berries, 3) reduced berry firmness and quality, and 4) increased postharvest decay and reduced storage life. Machine harvest necessitates increased handling of fruit during grading and sorting, and on blueberries most postharvest decay occurs at the detachment point—the newly exposed stem scar (Ballinger et al., 1978). When both fungal spores and moisture are present on packing lines, this extra handling can greatly increase postharvest decay caused by fungi (Alternaria, Colletotrichum) due to the exposure (rolling) of berries over contaminated surfaces (Cline, 1996). In the first comprehensive report directly comparing the effects of machine and hand harvesting on highbush blueberry (V. corymbosum), Mainland et al. (1975) found that losses of marketable fruit of ‘Wolcott’, ‘Jersey’, ‘Morrow’, and ‘Murphy’ were from 19% to 44% greater for machine harvesting than for hand harvesting. Machine-harvested fruit were 10% to 38% softer than hand-harvested fruit, and soft berries were difficult to identify and remove during grading. Moreover, after 7 d of storage at 21 C, there was 11% to 41% more postharvest decay for the machine-harvested fruit. They concluded that the inability to remove bruised fruit during grading and sorting presented serious problems for maintaining quality during storage. Similar reductions in marketable yield from mechanical harvesting were reported in Michigan by Howell et al. (1976). In general, increased berry softening and decay during storage have been widely reported in association with mechanical blueberry harvesting (Ceponis and Cappellini, 1979; Dale et al., 1994; Howell et al., 1976; Mainland et al., 1971, 1975; Milholland and Jones, 1972). Ballinger et al. (1973) studied factors affecting blueberry firmness and emphasized the importance of careful harvesting and handling procedures, noting that blueberries are easily bruised, leading to softening and subsequent decay during storage. In a review of the literature, Morris (1983) stated that ‘‘decay of machineharvested blueberries during postharvest holding is perhaps the biggest problem of the industry.’’ Reductions in berry firmness and marketable yield were also found for machine-harvested rabbiteye blueberry (V. virgatum). Using the rabbiteye blueberry cultivar Tifblue, Austin and Williamson (1977) reported increased ground loss of marketable fruit, reduced fruit firmness, and more than twice the amount of unmarketable fruit from machine harvesting vs. hand harvesting. Increased berry softening following machine harvesting was also noted for ‘Climax’ and ‘Woodard’ (Miller and Smittle, 1987) and ‘Brightwell’ (NeSmith et al., 2002), although depending on cultivar, the softer machine-harvested fruit may still be considered marketable as fresh fruit. NeSmith et al. (2002) proportionally attributed the causes of ‘Brightwell’ rabbiteye berry softening to the following harvest activities: 20% to 30% loss of firmness due to}, number={4}, journal={HORTTECHNOLOGY}, author={Williamson, Jeffrey G. and Cline, William O.}, year={2013}, month={Aug}, pages={416–418} }
 @article{cline_2004, title={Fungal pathogens associated with blueberry propagation beds in North Carolina}, volume={3}, ISBN={1522-8851}, DOI={10.1300/j301v03n01_21}, abstractNote={SUMMARY Death of blueberry cuttings in commercial rooting beds was observed due to abiotic and biotic causes. Abiotic causes included poor watering practices, water quality, rooting medium, and inadequate drainage due to poor rooting bed design. Biotic causes were attributable to fungi and included (1) non-pathogenic Basidiomycetes colonizing unsterilized rooting media, (2) airborne or rain-splashed pathogens infecting individual cuttings (Botryosphaeria, Pestalotia and other sp.), and (3) Cylindrocladium sp. that spread radially from the initial infection, producing circular dead spots in rooting beds. Re-use of Cylindrocladium-infested media resulted in complete loss of cuttings. Methyl bromide fumigation was successfully used to sanitize infested media.}, number={1}, journal={Small Fruits Review}, author={Cline, B.}, year={2004}, pages={213} }
 @article{cline_2002, title={Blueberry bud set and yield following the use of fungicides for leaf spot control in North Carolina}, ISBN={["90-6605-855-2"]}, ISSN={["0567-7572"]}, DOI={10.17660/actahortic.2002.574.7}, abstractNote={Leaf spot diseases caused by pathogenic fungi, including Septoria albopunctata and Gloeosporium minus may cause premature defoliation of blueberry bushes that results in reduced flower bud set in the fall of the year, and thus reduced yield the following season. The objective of this experiment was to evaluate fungicides for control of disease and to establish whether yield responses occurred the following year. Experiments were conducted during 1998-99 on a 10-yr-old planting of the cultivar Croatan at the North Carolina State University Horticultural Crops Research Station in Castle Hayne, NC. Fungicides were applied as foliar sprays in a randomized complete block design with four replications. A CO2 powered backpack sprayer delivering the equivalent of 50 gallons per acre (468 l/ha) at approximately 40 psi (2.81 kg/cm2), with a single hollow-cone nozzle was used. Treatments were applied from early bloom through small green berry stage on 27 Mar, 8 Apr, 22 Apr and 5 May. Bushes were evaluated by rating percent leaves infected and percent leaf area infected on 7 Aug 98, and percent defoliation on 29 Sep 98. Fruiting twigs and number of flower buds per twig on treated bushes were counted on 28 Jan 99. Berries were harvested 1 Jun 99 to determine yield in the year following leafspot control measures. Of the fungicides tested, only Indar (fenbuconazole) significantly reduced defoliation and increased yields the following year. Nearly 13 months after the last spray was applied, Indar-treated bushes averaged 16.2 dry pints/bush (8.92 liters) vs 11 dry pints/bush (6.06 liters) for unsprayed bushes. Indar increased bud number per bush/number of berries per bush, as well as average number of buds per twig/number of berries per twig. The use of a surfactant did not significantly improve the performance of Indar. As expected, individual berry size was slightly larger on bushes with reduced yields.}, number={574}, journal={PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON VACCINIUM CULTURE}, author={Cline, WO}, year={2002}, pages={71–74} }
 @article{cline_oudemans_2002, title={Diagosis and description of widespread surfactant injury on blueberries in North Carolina}, ISBN={["90-6605-855-2"]}, ISSN={["0567-7572"]}, DOI={10.17660/actahortic.2002.574.12}, number={574}, journal={PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON VACCINIUM CULTURE}, author={Cline, WO and Oudemans, PV}, year={2002}, pages={95–99} }
 @article{cline_1997, title={Postharvest infection of blueberries during handling}, ISBN={["90-6605-839-0"]}, ISSN={["0567-7572"]}, DOI={10.17660/actahortic.1997.446.47}, number={446}, journal={SIXTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON VACCINIUM CULTURE}, author={Cline, WO}, year={1997}, pages={319–324} }
 @article{cline_1997, title={Predicting blueberry stem blight in new plantings}, ISBN={["90-6605-839-0"]}, ISSN={["0567-7572"]}, DOI={10.17660/actahortic.1997.446.61}, number={446}, journal={SIXTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON VACCINIUM CULTURE}, author={Cline, WO}, year={1997}, pages={421–426} }
 @article{cline_1996, title={Postharvest infection of highbush blueberries following contact with infested surfaces}, volume={31}, ISSN={["0018-5345"]}, DOI={10.21273/hortsci.31.6.981}, abstractNote={The effects of inoculum, surface wetness, and stem scar on postharvest fungal infection of highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum L.) fruit were evaluated by exposing berries of the cultivars Bluechip (small, dry stem scar) and Blueray (large, wet stem scar) to infested and noninfested surfaces under wet or dry conditions. Rots caused by Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (Penz.) Penz. & Sacc. in Penz. and Alternaria tenuissima (Kunze:Fr.) Wiltshire were evaluated. Field-harvested berries stored for 7 days at 21 °C resulted in baseline infection levels of 1.5% (`Bluechip') and 18.7% (`Blueray') for C. gloeosporioides, and 10.1% vs. 28.9%, respectively, for A. tenuissima. Wet stem scars, infestation of handling surfaces, and addition of moisture were all responsible for increasing postharvest rots; however, most of the significant increases in rots occurred with a combination of two or more of these factors.}, number={6}, journal={HORTSCIENCE}, author={Cline, WO}, year={1996}, month={Oct}, pages={981–983} }
 @article{cline_milholland_1995, title={Diseases in blueberry fruit at harvest in North Carolina}, volume={3}, DOI={10.1300/j065v03n04_06}, abstractNote={ABSTRACT Blueberries were harvested from 11 cultivars and four breeding selections from four locations in 1989 and 1990. Annual disease losses at harvest averaged 9.6% and were primarily due to five diseases: Mummy berry (Monilinia vaccinii-corymbosi)5.6%, phomopsis soft rot (Phomopsis vaccinii)2.9%, phyllosticta rot (Phyllosticta vaccinii)0.4%, ripe rot (Colletotrichum sp.) 0.4% and alter-naria rot (Alternaria tenuissima)0.2%. Phomopsis soft rot occurred both as a localized calyx-end rot and as a soft rot detectable only by feel. Phyllosticta rot is an early season disease, and 2/3 of the infected fruit were collected at the first harvest date in 1990. Significant differences in disease levels occurred among cultivars and locations. Low levels of ripe rot and alternaria rot were attributed to a 7-day harvesting interval. A previously unreported disorder in the cultivar Cape Fear resulted in soft, unmarketable fruit.}, number={4}, journal={Journal of Small Fruit & Viticulture}, author={Cline, W. O. and Milholland, R. D.}, year={1995}, pages={219} }
 @article{cline_1995, title={Infection of cold-injured blueberry stems by Botryosphaeria dothidea}, volume={3}, DOI={10.1300/j065v03n02_10}, abstractNote={ABSTRACT A blueberry field in Bladen County, NC was examined biweekly or monthly for the first 3 yr to determine conditions associated with high plant mortality in young bushes. Plants grew profusely, did not become completely dormant, and 139 of 500 bushes were cold-injured at first frost in November 1992. Cold-injured stems (ca. 10-30 cm in length) developed a characteristic dead, hook-shaped tip which persisted throughout the following growing season. In 1993, the incidence of B. dothidea in stems injured by cold the previous November was 19%, 39%, and 88% for March, May, and June, respectively. Widespread infection by B. dothidea following cold injury could account for past observations of field epidemics 1 -2 yr after planting.}, number={2}, journal={Journal of Small Fruit & Viticulture}, author={Cline, W. O.}, year={1995}, pages={95} }
 @article{cline_1994, title={Infection of cold-injured blueberry stems by Botryosphaeria dothidea}, volume={78}, DOI={10.1094/pd-78-1010a}, number={10}, journal={Plant Disease}, author={Cline, W. O.}, year={1994}, pages={1010} }
 @article{cline_milholland_1992, title={ROOT DIP TREATMENTS FOR CONTROLLING BLUEBERRY STEM BLIGHT CAUSED BY BOTRYOSPHAERIA-DOTHIDEA IN CONTAINER-GROWN NURSERY PLANTS}, volume={76}, ISSN={["0191-2917"]}, DOI={10.1094/PD-76-0136}, number={2}, journal={PLANT DISEASE}, author={CLINE, WO and MILHOLLAND, RD}, year={1992}, month={Feb}, pages={136–138} }