Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 469

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Biological Control of Chestnut Blight in Europe

Heiniger, U·1994·Annual Review of Phytopathology

Abstract

Cryphonectria parasitica (Murr.) Barr. (Syn. Endothia parasitica (Murr.) And. & And.), the causal agent of chestnut blight, is a fungal pathogen of Castanea and Quercus species. After its introduction at the beginning of this century, C. parasitica virtually eliminated C. dentata Borkh. as an important forest tree species in the eastern United States. A similar result was anticipated when chestnut blight was found in Europe, but the unexpected appearance of transmissible hypovirulence–a unique natural biocontrol phenomenon–prevented the European chestnut (C. sativa Mill.) from succumbing to the blight (for reviews see 5, 51, 69, 92, 101, 103, 130). Castanea sativa was introduced by the Romans from Minor Asia (79). This tree species was formerly of major economic importance in the mountainous areas of Southern Europe, in the southern foothills of the Alps from Italy into Hungary, and along the Black Sea. It provided timber, firewood, tannin, and litter bed on marginal land, and produced nuts for human consumption and animal forage. Chestnuts are traditionally grown as coppices with a rotation period of 15 to 30 years, as coppices with standards, in high forests, and in orchards. The latter are often formed of old-growth giant trees (100 years is not uncommon), grafted with the local varieties (Figure 1). Socioeconomic changes and the introduction of the devastating chestnut blight (C. parasitica) caused a rapid decline in chestnut cultivation in many regions after the second world war (54, 76). Natural dissemination of hypovirulence has allowed many chestnut stands to recover. Renewed interest in this tree species and the economic importance of its nuts (3) led to a revival of chestnut cultivation in Europe. Selected nut-producing varieties of C. sativa are now cultivated in plantations. This review concentrates on the epidemic of chestnut blight in Europe, the biology of hypovirulence, and its effect on the phytosanitary situation in European chestnut stands.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev.phyto.32.1.581

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 14 references

Cited by

See all 469

Metadata

Authors
Heiniger, U.
Venue
Annual Review of Phytopathology
Published
1994-01-01
Volume
32
Issue
1
Pages
581-599
ISSN
0066-4286 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2119992952
Cited by
469
References
14
FWCI
5.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Biological Control of Chestnut Blight in Europe. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1146/annurev.phyto.32.1.581
The paper
Heiniger, U. (1994). Biological Control of Chestnut Blight in Europe. Annual Review of Phytopathology. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.phyto.32.1.581

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.