This article was downloaded by: [Pennsylvania State University]

On: 11 August 2014, At: 11:38

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Journal of Industrial Hemp

Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjih20

Differentiating Powdery Mildew

from False Powdery Mildew
a b
John M. McPartland & Karl W. Hillig
a
GW Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. , 53 Washington Street
Ext., Middlebury, VT, 05753, USA
b
Indiana University , Bloomington, IN, USA
Published online: 11 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: John M. McPartland & Karl W. Hillig (2008) Differentiating
Powdery Mildew from False Powdery Mildew, Journal of Industrial Hemp, 13:1, 78-87,
DOI: 10.1080/15377880801898758

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15377880801898758

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
 indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 11:38 11 August 2014
 1537-789X
1537-7881
WJIH
Journal of Industrial Hemp
Hemp, Vol. 13, No. 1, Feb 2008: pp. 0–0

CANNABIS CLINIC
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 11:38 11 August 2014

Differentiating Powdery Mildew from False

Powdery Mildew
John M. McPartland
Cannabis
Journal ofClinic
Industrial Hemp

Karl W. Hillig

ABSTRACT. This note continues the “Cannabis Clinic” series, present-

ing diseases and pests of hemp, featuring color illustrations of signs and
symptoms. The fungus Trichothecium roseum produces a white fuzz that
covers branches, leaves, and flowering tops of hemp. These symptoms
have been confused with true powdery mildew, caused by Sphaerotheca
macularis. We illustrate the differences between disease caused by Tri-
chothecium roseum (henceforth dubbed “false powdery mildew”) and dis-
ease caused by Sphaerotheca macularis.

KEYWORDS. Sphaerotheca macularis, powdery mildew, echter

Mehltau, Trichothecium roseum, false powdery mildew, Cannabis sativa

John M. McPartland is a research fellow, GW Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., 53 Washing-

ton Street Ext., Middlebury, VT 05753 USA (E-mail: mcpruitt@verizon.net).
Karl W. Hillig studied Cannabis systematics at Indiana University, Bloomington,
IN, USA.
Address correspondence to: Karl W. Hillig, 1010 Saratoga Road, Ballston
Lake, NY 12019 USA (E-mail: khillig1@mac.com).
Journal of Industrial Hemp, Vol. 13(1) 2008
Available online at http://jih.haworthpress.com
© 2008 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
78 doi:10.1080/15377880801898758
 Cannabis Clinic 79

INTRODUCTION

This installment of the “Cannabis Clinic” series describes fungal diseases

facing hemp cultivators, caused by Sphaerotheca macularis and Trichoth-
ecium roseum. Sphaerotheca macularis causes powdery mildew, also known
as “mold” in the UK and “echter mehltau” (true mildew) in Germany. This
disease was first reported on Cannabis, of unknown provenance, in South
Africa (Doidge, Bottomley, van der Plank, and Pauer, 1953), followed by
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 11:38 11 August 2014

reports of hemp infestation in Russia and Italy (Hirata, 1966), and on feral
hemp and drug cultivars in the U.S. (McPartland, 1983; McPartland and
Cubeta, 1997). The same species commonly infests hop (Humulus lupulus)
throughout the world (McPartland, Clarke, and Watson, 2000).
The second fungus, T. roseum, has been isolated from hemp stems
in Italy (Ghillini, 1951) and Iowa (Fuller and Norman, 1945). It also
causes seed-borne infections in Italy (Ciferri, 1941; Ferri, 1961) and
Russia (Pospelov, Zapromatov, and Domasheva, 1957). More
recently, T. roseum has been isolated from leaves and flowering tops
of drug plants in Pakistan (Nair and Ponnappa, 1974; Ponnappa,
1977), Amsterdam (the Netherlands), Afghanistan (McPartland et al.,
2000), and New Zealand (McPartland and Rhode, 2005).

CAUSAL ORGANISMS AND DESCRIPTIONS

Common Name: Powdery Mildew

Sphaerotheca macularis (Wallroth:Fries) Lind, 1913
=Erysiphe macularis (Wallroth) Fries 1824
=Sphaerotheca humuli (DeCandolle) Burrill 1887
Anamorph: Oidium sp. = Acrosporium sp.
Description
Superficial hyphae flexous, branched, translucent to nearly transparent,
cell diameters 4–7 μm, lengths averaging (37-) 64.5 (-80) μm (Figure 1).
Conidiophores upright, simple, translucent in transmitted light but white
in reflected light, 50–100 μm tall. Conidia produced in chains, translucent
to white (turning brown with age), containing fibrosin bodies (which
disappear with age), ovate to barrel-shaped, single-celled, averaging
30.2 ×14.0 μm (Figure 2). Cleistothecia not yet seen on Cannabis, but on
 80 JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP

FIGURE 1. Powdery mildew fungus, Sphaerotheca macularis pulled off

surface of a hemp leaflet. Left, a chain of condida; right, a tangle of
superficial hyphae. LM × 400, in lactophenol and cotton blue stain.
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 11:38 11 August 2014

Humulus they are globose, black, smooth, 60–125 μm in diameter, with

few to many hyphal appendages. Asci one per cleistothecium, broadly
elliptical, 8-spored, 50–90 × 45–75 μm. Ascospores ellipsoidal to oval,
hyaline, unicellular, 18–25 × 12–18 μm.
Symptoms
Early warning signs of S. macularis infection include raised humps
or blisters on upper leaf surfaces. From these areas the nearly invisible
superficial hyphae form a mat on the surface of the leaf, with conspic-
uous white conidiophores arising off the surface (Figure 3). Mildew
may remain isolated in irregular pustules or coalesce over the entire
leaf. Petioles and small branches may also become infested under
epidemic conditions. Leaves soon look like they were dusted with
flour (Figure 4). The fungus produces copious amounts of conidia,
which spread by the slightest breeze to sites of secondary infection.
Infected plants remain alive for indefinite periods or prematurely wilt,
then turn yellow, brown, and die. If the disease is permitted to run
its course, black specks (fungal cleistothecia) arise in the mat of
superficial hyphae.
 Cannabis Clinic 81

FIGURE 2. Powdery mildew fungus, Sphaerotheca macularis, with a

chain of conidia arising from the surface of a hemp leaflet. LM × 400,
false-color transmitted light.
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 11:38 11 August 2014

FIGURE 3. Powdery mildew fungus, Sphaerotheca macularis, nearly

invisible superficial hyphae form a mat on the surface of the leaf, with
conspicuous conidiophores arising off the surface. LM × 100, reflected light.
 82 JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP

FIGURE 4. Powdery mildew fungus, Sphaerotheca macularis, dried

specimen with classic “powdery” or “dusty” appearance. Photo courtesy
of John McPartland (Hemp Diseases and Pests, Plate 61).
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 11:38 11 August 2014

Epidemiology
S. macularis overwinters as dormant mycelia or cleistothecia in
plant debris. Conidia of S. macularis germinate best near 100%
relative humidity (RH), although the conidia tolerate RH down to 10–
30%, with optimal growth at 15–20°C. Young seedlings may become
infected in early spring but take weeks to show symptoms. Low light
intensity (indoors) or shaded areas (outdoors) increase disease sever-
ity, as does poor air circulation. Losses multiply as plants approach
maturity.

Common Name:
False Powdery Mildew
Trichothecium roseum (Persoon:Fries) Link, 1809.
= Cephalothecium roseum Corda 1838.

Description
Superficial hyphae flexous, branched, translucent under transmitted
light (microscope) but white under reflected light. Conidiophores
upright, unbranched, often with 3 septa near the base, up to 2 mm long,
4–5 μm wide. Conidia form in zig-zag chains, individually ellipsoidal to
pyriform with truncate basal scars, 2-celled with upper cell larger and
rounder than lower cell, translucent (pink en masse), with a thick smooth
wall, 12–23 × 8–10 μm (Figure 5).
 Cannabis Clinic 83

FIGURE 5. False powdery mildew fungus, Trichothecium roseum with

several conidia forming at the end of condiophores. LM × 400, false-color
transmitted light.
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 11:38 11 August 2014

Symptoms
The superficial hyphae may form a mat on the surface of the leaf, or
extend into a web that completely encases small flowers. Disease caused
by T. roseum on Cannabis was previously called “pink rot” (McPartland
et al., 2000). However, this is a bit misleading, because the fungus ini-
tially presents as a white fuzz covering leaves or flowering tops, and a
faint pink tint arises only after the production of conidia (Figure 6). In
Amsterdam (The Netherlands), the fungus was observed to grow on stems
of branches and to girdle the plants. Girdled plants wilted and toppled
over. Ghillini (1951) and Fuller and Norman (1945) noted that the fungus
ruins hemp fibers. Dried mycelial mats of T. roseum may appear yellow-
ish in color when observed through a microscope (Figure 7).
 84 JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP

FIGURE 6. False powdery mildew fungus, Trichothecium roseum, a

luxurious growth of hyphae and conidia enveloping a flowering top. Photo
courtesy of John McPartland (Hemp Diseases and Pests, Plate 66).
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 11:38 11 August 2014

FIGURE 7. False powdery mildew fungus, Trichothecium roseum, dried

specimen mixed with wilted and discolored glandular trichomes on
flowering tops. LM × 100, transmitted light.
 Cannabis Clinic 85

Epidemiology
Trichothecium roseum overwinters on crop debris or in the soil. It
occurs worldwide as a saprophyte of stored foodstuffs, and is a weak par-
asite of living plants. It also turns up in forest leaf litter, termite nests,
paper mill slime, sewage sludge, and hundreds of other substrates. The
fungus starts growing on pest excreta lying upon the surface of hemp
leaves (e.g., snail slime and aphid honeydew). It gains energy from these
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 11:38 11 August 2014

substrates and then invades healthy plant tissue.

Trichothecium roseum grows and sporulates best in humid conditions.
Fuller and Norman (1945) described the fungus “dominating” retted
hemp during warm, humid weather. Trichothecium roseum is harmful to
humans because it produces a toxic metabolite called trichothecene.

Differential
The condia of S. macularis and T. roseum are easy to differentiate
under a microscope or a strong hand-lens—S. macularis conidia are sin-
gle-celled and barrel-shaped, whereas T. roseum conidia are two-celled
and teardrop-shaped. Also, aged conidia of S. macularis turn light brown,
while aged conidia of T. roseum turn light pink.
To the naked eye, the fungi are harder to differentiate. The superficial
hyphae of S. macularis tend to form a tangled but flat mat on the surface
of the leaf, whereas T. roseum superficial hyphae grow more luxuriously
and may web parts of the plant together. However, particularly virulent
strains of S. macularis growing in optimal conditions may also cover
plants in luxurious growth.

Control
Both diseases seem to be on the rise. Cannabis plants of Afghani or
Pakistani descent (including hybrids with narrow-leafed drug strains) are
particularly susceptible to S. macularis and T. roseum. In-breeding may
exacerbate the problem. Avoid susceptible germplasm if these fungi are
endemic in your area.
Both fungi cause epidemics in clonal cuttings, because cloning
chambers maintained at near 100% RH with little airflow provide a perfect
germination tank for S. macularis and T. roseum conidia. Succulent
seedlings treated with excess nitrogen suffer the greatest damage. Do not
overuse nitrogen. In optimal conditions for fungal growth, conidia arise
about 1 week after infection, and create epidemics of secondary infections.
 86 JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP

Prevent secondary infections by carefully pruning and removing

infected material. For T. roseum, which grows saprophytically, eliminate
pollen and pest excreta lying upon the surface of plants. Evidence sug-
gests that T. roseum may cause seed-borne infections, so seed from
infected plants should not be sown. Avoid overcrowding of plants, over-
head irrigation, and excess humidity.
Two biological controls for powdery mildew are available. The hyper-
parasitic fungus Ampelomyces quisqualis attacks S. macularis. It is supplied
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 11:38 11 August 2014

as dried, powdered conidia in wettable granules, 50 × 109 condia/g (trade-

names M-10™ or AQ-10™). Conidia are mixed with water and sprayed on
plants. Ampelomyces quisqualis grows best in high humidity and at temper-
atures between 20–30°C, so it is perfect for cloning chambers. The fungus
works better when mixed and sprayed with horticultural oil. The bacterium
Bacillus subtilis (tradename Serenade™) may also prevent powdery mil-
dew, but has not proven to be as effective as A. quisqualis or chemical
sprays. Although the effects of these biocontrol agents against T. roseum
have not been tested, B. subtilis works against a wide array of fungi.
Chemical controls include bicarbonates, horticultural oils, plant oils,
and sulfur. None of these chemicals are officially approved for use on
Cannabis, but they find wide off-label use on Cannabis. A 0.5% solution
of sodium bicarbonate (e.g., baking soda, 15 mg per 4 liters or 3 tsp. per
gallon) prevents powdery mildew, but cannot control an established infes-
tation. The spray may injure young seedlings, so test a few plants before
spraying the whole crop. Potassium bicarbonate (e.g., Kaligreen™) can
be used the same way. Unfortunately, sodium and potassium bicarbonates
may deleteriously affect soil structure and should be used sparingly. The
bicarbs can be combined with hort oil.
Highly refined horticultural (petroleum-based) oils such as JMS Stylet
Oil and Sunspray Ultra-Fine Spray Oil are least likely to damage young
seedlings. Plant-derived oils include neem oil (e.g., Powdery Mildew
Killer™) or jojoba oil (e.g., E-rase™). These chemicals work preventa-
tively and may arrest a mild infection after symptoms have arisen.
Sulfur may control mild-to-moderate infestations. Wettable sulfurs
formulated with detergent-type surfactants (e.g., Safer Garden Fungicide™)
work better than sulfur dusts against powdery mildew. Oils and sulfur sprays
should never be applied in temperatures above 30°C (90°F) or applied to
drought-stressed plants. Never apply oils and sulfur simultaneously; the
applications need to be separated by at least 2 weeks. As plants grow and
produce new leaves, additional applications may be necessary at 7- to 10-day
intervals, especially under conditions conducive to fungal growth.
 Cannabis Clinic 87

REFERENCES

Ciferri, R. 1941. Manuale di patologia vegetale. Societa Editrice Dante Alighieri, Roma,
Italy. 730 pp.
Doidge, E. M., Bottomley, A. M., van der Plank, J. E., Pauer, G. D. 1953. A revised list of
plant diseases in South Africa. So. African Dept. Agr., Sci Bull. 345.
Ferri, F. 1961. Microflora dei semi di canapa. Progresso Agricolo (Bologna) 7:349–356.
Fuller, W. H., Norman, A. G. 1945. Biochemical changes involved in the decomposition
Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at 11:38 11 August 2014

of hemp bark by pure cultures of fungi. Jour. Bact. 50:667–671.

Ghillini, C. A. 1951. I parassiti nemici vegetali della canapa. Notiz. sulle Malatt. delle
Piante 15:29–36.
Hirata, K. 1966. Host range and geographical distribution of the powdery mildews.
Niigata University Press, Niigata, Japan. 472 pp.
McPartland, J. M. 1983. Fungal pathogens of Cannabis sativa in Illinois. Phytopathology
72:797.
McPartland, J. M., Cubeta, M. A. 1997. New species, combinations, host associations and
location records of fungi associated with hemp (Cannabis sativa). Mycological
Research 101:853–857.
McPartland, J. M., Rhode, B. 2005. New hemp diseases and pests in New Zealand. J
Industrial Hemp 10:99–108.
McPartland, J. M., Clarke, R. C., Watson, D. P. 2000. Hemp diseases and pests. CABI
Publications, Wallingford, UK.
Nair, K.R., Ponnappa, K. M. 1974. Survey for natural enemies of Cannabis sativa and
Papaver somniferum. India Station Report, Commonwealth Institute of Biological
Control, Wallingford, UK. pp 39–40.
Ponnappa, K. M. 1977. New records of fungi associated with Cannabis sativa. Indian
Journal of Mycology and Plant Pathology 7:139–142.
Pospelov, A. G., Zapromatov, N. G., Domasheva, A. A. 1957. Fungal flora of the Kirghiz
SSR. Vol. 1. Systematic list of species and geographical distribution. Frunze, Kirghiz
SSR. 128 pp.