Table 2.

Results of 1992 anthracnose resistance screening study.1

Species% Diseased foliage2
July 17July 28Sept 2
C. alba ‘Bloodgood’6 a36 a48 b
C. alba ‘Elegantissma’8 a18 b88 c
C. alternifolia3 a7 a8 a
C. amomum3 a3 a11 a
C. augustata5 a5 a5 a
C. controversa3 a23 b13 a
C. florida ‘Cherokee Princess’38 b72 c76 c
C. kousa15 a7 a13 a
C. kousa var chinensis18 ab60 c88 c
C. mas2 a4 a5 a
C. mas ‘Golden Glory’3 a3 a8 a
C. stolonifera ‘Flaviramea’28 b71 c82 c
C. stolonifera ‘Isanti’4 a9 ab46 b ‘
C. stolonifera ‘Kelseyi’38 b61 c58 bc
C. stolonifera ‘Ruby’3 a4 a6 a
  • 1 Differences in disease severity between locations were significant. As such, data were combined and means separation performed.

  • 2 Anthracnose estimated using the Horsfall-Barratt disease assessment scale (6). The percentage of diseased foliage represents the visual estimate of the percentage of symptomatic leaves within the tree canopy.

  • 3 Within each column, means followed by the same letter do not significantly differ according to Duncan’s New Multiple Range Test (p = 0.05).