The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF CHESTNUT BLIGHT WITH HYPOVIRULENCE: A Critical Analysis
Abstract
▪ Abstract Most hypovirulence in the chestnut blight fungus, Cryphonectria parasitica, is associated with infection by fungal viruses in the family Hypoviridae. Hypovirulence has controlled chestnut blight well in some locations in Europe and in Michigan in the United States. In contrast, with few exceptions, biological control has failed almost completely in eastern North America. Therapeutic treatment of individual cankers is successful in most cases, but the success of hypovirulence at the population level depends on the natural spread of viruses. Characteristics of three interacting trophic levels (virus, fungus, and tree), plus the environment, determine the success or failure of hypovirulence. Vegetative incompatibility restricts virus transmission, but this factor alone is a poor predictor of biological control. Any factor reducing the rate of chestnut blight epidemics enhances hypovirus invasion. Overall, however, not enough is understood about the epidemiological dynamics of this system to determine the crucial factors regulating the establishment of hypovirulence in chestnut forests.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
RECOMBINATION AND THE MULTILOCUS STRUCTURE OF FUNGAL POPULATIONS
Milgroom, M. G. (1996) · Annual Review of Phytopathology · doi:10.1146/annurev.phyto.34.1.457 · Cited by 549
Self-citation
Cited by
Köhl, J., Kolnaar, R., & Ravensberg, W. J. (2019) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2019.00845 · Cited by 1,382
Rigling, D., & Prospero, S. (2018) · Molecular Plant Pathology · doi:10.1111/mpp.12542 · Cited by 478
Alabouvette, C., Olivain, C., Migheli, Q., & Steinberg, C. (2009) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.03014.x · Cited by 364
Biological control of plant diseases – What has been achieved and what is the direction?
Collinge, D. B., Jensen, D. F., Rabiey, M., Sarrocco, S., Shaw, M. W., & Shaw, R. H. (2022) · Plant Pathology · doi:10.1111/ppa.13555 · Cited by 319
Chiba, S., Salaipeth, L., Lin, Y.-H., Sasaki, A., Kanematsu, S., & Suzuki, N. (2009) · Journal of Virology · doi:10.1128/jvi.01830-09 · Cited by 286
Metadata
- Authors
- Milgroom, M. G., & Cortesi, P.
- Venue
- Annual Review of Phytopathology
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2004-09-01
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 311-338
- ISSN
- 0066-4286 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-2107
- OpenAlex
- W2100184190
- Cited by
- 487
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 0.62
- 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 WITH HYPOVIRULENCE: A Critical Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1146/annurev.phyto.42.040803.140325
- The paper
- Milgroom, M. G., & Cortesi, P. (2004). BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF CHESTNUT BLIGHT WITH HYPOVIRULENCE: A Critical Analysis. Annual Review of Phytopathology. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.phyto.42.040803.140325
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.
