iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry


Comparison of commercial elm cultivars and promising unreleased Dutch clones for resistance to Ophiostoma novo-ulmi

Joukje Buiteveld (1)   , Bert Van Der Werf (1), Jelle A Hiemstra (2)

iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry, Volume 8, Issue 2, Pages 158-164 (2015)
doi: https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor1209-008
Published: Aug 07, 2014 - Copyright © 2015 SISEF

Research Articles

Collection/Special Issue: 3rd International Elm Conference, Florence (Italy - 2013)
The elms after 100 years of Dutch Elm disease
Guest Editors: A. Santini, L. Ghelardini, E. Collin, A. Solla, J. Brunet, M. Faccoli, A. Scala, S. De Vries, J. Buiteveld

Elms, and especially Ulmus × hollandica have been dominant and very much appreciated trees in cities and rural landscape for centuries in the Netherlands. As a result of two Dutch Elm Disease (DED) epidemics in the 20th century these trees largely disappeared from the landscape. Despite the introduction of new cultivars with increased levels of DED-resistance, by the end of the 20th century the elm had disappeared from the top 20 list of trees produced by Dutch nurseries. New cultivars with increased resistance to DED are used to a limited extent only. Apparently the lasting problems with DED in old cultivars has led to a lack of confidence in the resistance of these latest released cultivars among urban foresters and landscape managers. This paper reports on a study that aims at restoring the position of the elm as a street tree in the Netherlands by providing information on resistance to O. novo-ulmi causing DED of the currently available cultivars. All elm cultivars currently on the Dutch market were compared in an inoculation test. In 2007 a field experiment of 18 cultivars, one species and 10 non-released clones from the Dutch elm breeding program was established. Two cultivars were used as reference clones: “Commelin” (relatively susceptible) and “Lobel” (relatively resistant). In 2008 and 2009 the elms were stem-inoculated with Ophiostoma novo-ulmi and disease development was assessed throughout the summer and the following year. Clear differences in resistance to O. novo-ulmi were found between the cultivars, with “Columella”, “Sapporo Autumn Gold”’ and “Rebella” being highly resistant and significantly different from “Lobel” and “Regal”, “Urban”, “Belgica”, “Den Haag” and the U. laevis seedlings being the most susceptible and comparable to “Commelin”. The non-released clones performed comparable to “Lobel’”or even better. The ranking of the cultivars based on their level of resistance to O. novo-ulmi in this field test corresponds well with experience in urban green practice. Our conclusion is that there is a wide range of cultivars available with a good to excellent level of resistance. The available cultivars have a broad genetic base due to different parentage and use of exotic germplasm in the crossings. This broad genetic background may contribute to the stability of resistance in case new forms of the disease appear. The non-released clones performed well compared to the released cultivars and give good opportunities to further broaden the current range of cultivars on the Dutch and European market.


DED-resistance, Elm Cultivars, Ulmus, Inoculation Test, Ophiostoma novo-ulmi

Authors’ address

Joukje Buiteveld
Bert Van Der Werf
Alterra, Wageningen UR, P.O. box 47, 6700AA Wageningen (The Netherlands)
Jelle A Hiemstra
Applied Plant Research, Wageningen UR, P.O. Box 85, 2160 AB Lisse (The Netherlands)

Corresponding author

Joukje Buiteveld


Buiteveld J, Van Der Werf B, Hiemstra JA (2015). Comparison of commercial elm cultivars and promising unreleased Dutch clones for resistance to Ophiostoma novo-ulmi. iForest 8: 158-164. - doi: 10.3832/ifor1209-008

Academic Editor

Alberto Santini

Paper history

Received: Dec 20, 2013
Accepted: May 18, 2014

First online: Aug 07, 2014
Publication Date: Apr 01, 2015
Publication Time: 2.70 months

Breakdown by View Type

(Waiting for server response...)

Article Usage

Total Article Views: 44858
(from publication date up to now)

Breakdown by View Type
HTML Page Views: 37454
Abstract Page Views: 2305
PDF Downloads: 3933
Citation/Reference Downloads: 18
XML Downloads: 1148

Web Metrics
Days since publication: 3600
Overall contacts: 44858
Avg. contacts per week: 87.22

Article Citations

Article citations are based on data periodically collected from the Clarivate Web of Science web site
(last update: Feb 2023)

Total number of cites (since 2015): 19
Average cites per year: 2.11


Publication Metrics

by Dimensions ©

Articles citing this article

List of the papers citing this article based on CrossRef Cited-by.

Geurts P, Hiemstra JA (2002)
Zomereik populairste boom voor stedelijk gebied [Pedunculate oak most popular tree for urban green]. Tuin & Landschap 4: 36-37. [in Dutch]
Green CE, Guries RP, Smalley EB (1985)
Early screening of elms for resistance to Ceratocystis ulmi. Plant Disease 69: 60-63.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Guries RP, Smalley EB (1990)
Selecting and testing elms: the Wisconsin elm breeding program. In: Proceedings of the “7th Conference of the Metropolitan Tree Improvement Alliance - METRIA 7: Trees for the Nineties”. The Morton Arboretum, Lisle (Illinois, USA) 11-12 June 1990, pp. 21.
Heybroek H (1993)
The Dutch elm breeding program. In: “Dutch elm disease research: Cellular and molecular approaches” (Sticklen MB, Sherald JL eds). Springer Verlag, New York, USA, pp. 16-25.
Heybroek HM, Goudszwaard L, Kaljee H (2009)
Iep of Olm, Karakterboom van de lage landen [Elm, tree with character of the Low Countries]. KNNV Uitgeverij Zeist, pp. 272. [in Dutch]
Hiemstra JA, Buiteveld J, Kopinga J, Kranenborg KG, Ravesloot MBM, van der Sluis BJ, de Vries SMG (2006)
Belang en toekomst van de iep [Importance and future of the elm]. PPO-Bomen, Lisse, The Netherlands, pp. 50. [in Dutch]
Manly BFJ (2007)
Randomization, bootstrap and Monte Carlo methods in Biology. Chapman and Hall/CRC, London, UK, pp. 455.
Martin J, Solla A, Venturas M, Collada C, Dominguez J, Fuentes P, Iglesias S, Gil L (2014)
Seven Ulmus minor clones tolerant to Ophiostoma novo-ulmi registered as forest reproductive material in Spain. iForest (early view): e1-e7.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Mittempergher L, Santini A (2004)
The history of elm breeding. Investigación Agraria Sistemas y Recursos Forestales 13: 161-177.
Online | Gscholar
Pinon J (2007)
Les ormes résistants à la graphiose [Elms resistant to Dutch elm disease]. Forêt-entreprise 175: 37-41.
Pinon J, Lohou C, Cadic A (1998)
Hybrid elms (Ulmus spp.): adaptability in Paris and behaviour towards Dutch elm disease (Ophiostoma novo-ulmi). Acta Horticulturae 496: 107-114.
Pinon J, Husson C, Collin E (2005)
Susceptibility of native French elm clones to Ophiostoma novo-ulmi. Annals of Forest Science 62 (7): 689-696.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Santini A, Fagnani A, Ferrini F, Mittempergher L (2002)
San Zanobi and Plinio elm trees. Hortscience 37:1139-1141.
Santini A, Fagnani A, Ferrini F, Ghelardini L, Mittempergher L (2005)
Variation among Italian and French elm clones in their response to Ophiostoma novo-ulmi inoculation. Forest Pathology 35 (3): 183-193.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Santini A, Fagnani A, Ferrini F, Ghelardini L, Mittempergher L (2007)
“Fiorente” and “Arno” elm trees. Hortscience 42 (3): 712-714.
Online | Gscholar
Santini A, Pecori F, Pepori A, Brookes A (2012)
“Morfeo” elm: a new cultivar resistant to Dutch elm disease. Forest Pathology 42 (2): 171-176.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Smalley EB, Guries RP (1993)
Breeding elms for resistance to Dutch elm disease. Annual Review of Phytopathology 31: 325-352.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Solla A, Martín JA, Ouellette G, Gil L (2005)
Influence of plant age on symptom development in Ulmus minor following inoculation by Ophiostoma novo-ulmi. Plant Disease 89 (10): 1035-1040.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Sutherland ML, Mittempergher L, Brasier CM (1995)
Control of Dutch elm disease by induced host resistance. Forest Pathology 25 (6-7): 307-315.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Sutherland ML, Pearson S, Brasier CM (1997)
The influence of temperature and light on defoliation levels of elm by Dutch elm disease. Phytopathology 87: 576-581.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Tchernoff V (1965)
Methods for screening and for the rapid selection of elms for resistance to Dutch elm disease. Acta Botanica Neerlandica 14 (4): 409-452.
CrossRef | Gscholar
Webber JF (2000)
Insect vector behavior and the evolution of Dutch elm disease. In: “The elms: breeding, conservation and disease management” (CP Dunn ed). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, USA, pp. 47-60.

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. More info