Integrated disease management approaches for late blight of potato caused by Phytophthora infestans: A concise review

Introduction

The potato (Solanum tuberosum L.), a vital global crop from the Solanaceae family, is valued for its nutrition, economic importance, and adaptability. It ranks fourth after corn, wheat, and rice in global production, with major growers including China, Russia, and India. In India, nearly 2.32 million hectares produce over 56 million metric tons annually, with Uttar Pradesh leading at 19.17 million tonnes. Potatoes provide energy-rich starch, vitamin C, potassium, and fiber, consumed widely across diverse climates and soils. Late blight, caused by the oomycete Phytophthora infestans, poses a severe threat to potato and tomato crops worldwide, causing significant yield losses and economic damage. Historically, it triggered the Irish Potato Famine (1843-1845). Current yield losses from late blight are highest in Sub-Saharan Africa (44%), followed by Latin America, Southeast Asia, and others. In India, losses average 10-15%, with some regions experiencing up to 85% crop damage depending on variety susceptibility and environmental conditions. Effective potato farming requires good soil, crop rotation, certified seed tubers, and integrated disease management (IDM). IDM combines cultural, biological, chemical controls, and resistant varieties for sustainable blight control. Breeding and biotechnological advances, including maintaining genetic diversity, are essential to enhance resistance and yield. This review provides a comprehensive overview of late blight biology, disease dynamics, and management strategies.

Biology and Epidemiology of Phytophthora infestans

Late blight in potatoes, caused by Phytophthora infestans, produces characteristic symptoms on leaves, stems, and tubers, as illustrated in Figures 1 to 3. Initial signs typically appear as pale green to dark brown, water-soaked spots, often near leaf tips and edges. These lesions rapidly grow into large, brown to purplish-black necrotic areas and are usually the first visible indicators of infection (Fry, 2008) [20] . When environmental conditions are conducive, the disease progresses quickly, causing widespread blight that can destroy entire leaves or plants, giving them an appearance ilar to frost injury (Grunwald and Flier, 2005). In moist conditions, a white, downy growth develops on the undersides of leaves, particularly along the borders of dead tissue, signaling active sporulation (Fry and Goodwin, 1997) [21] . Stems may develop dark brown to black elongated lesions; although less frequent than leaf infections, they can girdle the stem and result in plant death during severe outbreaks (Haverkort et al., 2009) [29] . On tubers, the disease causes irregular, sunken areas with a brown to purple discoloration (Fry, 2008). When cut open, infected tubers reveal reddishbrown to dark brown granular decay extending inward from the skin (Grunwald and Flier, 2005). Affected tissue is typically firm, dry, and discolored, clearly distinct from healthy parts. These damaged tubers are also vulnerable to secondary bacterial infections, which can lead to soft rot and further deterioration both in the field and during storage.

Host range

Phytophthora infestans is widely recognized for causing significant damage to several crops, especially those in the Solanaceae family. While its host range is limited, it primarily targets potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) and tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum), serving as the main pathogen responsible for late blight (Fry and Goodwin, 1997; Nowicki et al., 2012) [46,21] . Nevertheless, under specific environmental conditions, this pathogen can also infect other solanaceous species such as brinjal (eggplant) and chili peppers, resulting in further agricultural losses.

Etiology and biology of phytophthora infestans

Phytophthora infestans, the organism that causes late blight, is believed to have originated in Central Mexico (Zimnoch-Guzowska et al., 2003). Its mycelium grows inside host tissue and consists of transparent, coenocytic hyphae that branch extensively and spread between plant cells. These hyphae produce ple or double club-shaped structures called haustoria, or haustoroid extensions that penetrate host cells. The sporangiophores are thick-walled and segmented, with lateral branches that display periodic bulbous swellings-sites where sporangia form. Sporangia themselves are multinucleate, thinwalled, and translucent, typically oval, pear-shaped, or lemonshaped, each bearing a noticeable apical papilla. From this papilla, biflagellate zoospores mobile spores are released directly from the sporangia. Cooler conditions promote zoospore production, whereas warmer temperatures encourage direct germination via germ tubes. The pathogen's high variability leads to the frequent appearance of new pathogenic strains, complicating disease management in agriculture. Additionally, sectoring within fungal ies, commonly seen in lab cultures, adds further complexity. Early work by Giddings and Berg (1919) [22] and Berg (1926) [5] played a key role in identifying genetic and phenotypic diversity within P. infestans populations.

Taxonomy and life cycle

Phytophthora infestans is classified within the Oomycetes, a group of fungus-like organisms characterized by intricate life cycles (Fig. 4) that involve both asexual and sexual phases (Judelson, 1997) [31] . During asexual reproduction, the pathogen produces sporangia that, under favorable conditions, release motile zoospores. These zoospores can swim through water films, encyst on surfaces, and then germinate to invade host plant tissues. When environmental conditions are conducive, this asexual cycle can repeat several in a single week, enabling swift disease spread (Nowicki et al., 2012) [46] . Sporangia typically survive between growing seasons within infected host tissue, though their persistence in soil or dead organic material remains poorly understood. The frequent repetition of the asexual cycle allows for multiple infection events during one growing season (Drenth et al., 1995) [16] . Sexual reproduction takes place when isolates of opposite mating types A1 and A2 interact, resulting in the formation of oospores. These thick-walled structures can remain viable in soil and plant debris for long periods, acting as a primary source of inoculum in future seasons (Judelson, 1997).

Disease cycle and epidemiology

The infection cycle of P. infestans starts when sporangia or zoospores come into contact with potato leaves, stems, or tubers. Given suitable environmental conditions, these spores germinate and enter plant tissue through natural openings like stomata or through injuries. Inside the host, the pathogen spreads between cells and forms haustoria specialized structures that draw nutrients from living plant cells. This process causes cell death and produces the typical signs of late blight, such as watersoaked spots on foliage, stems, and tubers (Birch and Whisson, 2001) [6] . In areas where soil temperatures stay under 30°C, the pathogen can survive between seasons as inactive mycelium in tubers left in fields. When seed tubers are stored in cool conditions, any infected ones become a main source of inoculum for the following crop. P. infestans depends on living plant material to persist, including seed tubers, discarded potatoes, volunteer plants, other solanaceous hosts, and even infested soil (Shinners et al., 2003; Kirk et al., 2013) [33,55] . The organism is highly adaptable and capable of fast spread when conditions are favorable. Initial dispersal typically happens via airborne sporangia, rain splash, or human-assisted movement of infected material (Fry, 2008) [20] . Secondary infections occur when new spores from diseased plants reach healthy ones, fueling ongoing outbreaks. Environmental conditions play a major role in disease development. Sporangia formation and zoospore release thrive in high humidity (over 90% RH), rainfall, and temperatures between 15 and 25°C. Extended periods of leaf wetness are essential, as they enable zoospores to move, settle, and encyst on plant surfaces (Harrison, 1992) [28] . Tuber infection levels are strongly linked to rainfall during foliar sporulation. The highest rates of tuber infection occur with frequent, heavy rains, especially once about half the leaf canopy is affected (Arora et al., 1987) [3] .

Host-pathogen interactions

Potato plants can be affected by late blight at any stage of growth, though the greatest vulnerability occurs during tuber development. The disease manifests as water-soaked spots that quickly enlarge, causing widespread tissue breakdown. Affected tubers develop a distinct brown, grainy rot that extends deep into the flesh, making them unsuitable for sale (Crosier, 1934). The relationship between P. infestans and the potato involves intricate molecular communication. The pathogen releases effector proteins that alter host cell functions, promoting infection and dampening the plant's immune defenses (Bos et al., 2009). These effectors are introduced into plant cells through specialized structures called haustoria. In turn, the plant has developed multiple defense strategies to identify and resist invasion. These include pathogen recognition receptors (PRRs) that respond to common microbial features, initiating basic immune responses (Kamoun et al., 1999). Some plants also carry resistance (R) genes capable of detecting specific pathogen effectors, which activates a stronger immune reaction known as effector-triggered immunity (ETI) (Jones and Dangl, 2006). Nevertheless, due to the high genetic diversity of P. infestans, the pathogen can rapidly evolve, bypassing plant resistance and giving rise to new, more aggressive strains.

Cultural practices

Cultural practices play a crucial role in controlling late blight, with effective strategies including crop rotation, removal of volunteer plants, and maintaining clean field conditions to limit initial infection sources. To reduce leaf moisture and lower disease risk, it is recommended to avoid overhead or nighttime irrigation and to promote sufficient airflow around plants (Draper et al., 1994) [15] . Planting pathogen-free seed potatoes and ensuring appropriate spacing between plants can further help curb disease spread (Stevenson et al., 2007) [62] .

Comprehensive management also includes disposing of cull piles and volunteer potatoes, using sound harvesting and storage methods, and applying fungicides when needed (Davis et al., 2009) [13] . Studies by Bodker et al. (2006) [7] and Hannukkala et al. (2007) [26] show that rotating potato crops with intervals of three or more years significantly decreases the likelihood of soilbased infections caused by Phytophthora infestans.

Chemical control of Late Blight

Fungicides continue to play a critical role in managing late blight, a severe potato disease caused by Phytophthora infestans.

Commonly used protectant fungicides, including chlorothalonil and mancozeb, are applied preventively. These multi-site inhibitors work on the leaf surface to block spore germination and entry into plant tissue. Their broad mode of action targeting several biochemical processes ultaneously makes the development of resistance less likely. Alongside these, systemic fungicides such as metalaxyl are also frequently used (Table 2). These compounds are taken up by the plant and move upward through the tissues, offering curative and even eradicative effects against existing infections, which is especially beneficial during disease outbreaks. However, widespread reliance on metalaxyl has led to the emergence of resistant pathogen strains across the globe, including in India (Arora et al., 2014) [4] . Resistance typically arises when repeated applications of single-site fungicides favor mutants that either reduce the fungicide's binding ability or increase its breakdown within the pathogen. When such resistant populations become dominant, previously effective treatments fail, often resulting in significant crop damage.

Biological Control of Late Blight

Biological control offers a practical alternative to chemical fungicides in managing Phytophthora infestans, the pathogen responsible for potato late blight. A number of antagonistic microorganisms such as species from the genera Trichoderma and Bacillus have proven effective in suppressing this damaging disease. These biocontrol agents function through various strategies: they may outcompete the pathogen for resources and space, produce substances that inhibit its growth, or stimulate the plant's own defence mechanisms. For instance, Bacillus subtilis strain B5 has been tested using dual culture methods and shown to inhibit the growth of P. infestans (Ajay and Sunaina, 2005) [2] . Other microbes, including Pseudomonas fluorescens, Pseudomonas sp., Aspergillus flavus, A. niger, Penicillium sp., Trichoderma virens, and T. harzianum, have also been reported to restrict the pathogen's development (Lal et al., 2013) [36] . The diversity of these effective organisms provides a solid foundation for developing commercial biocontrol solutions. Ongoing research aims to create stable, easy-to-use biological products with consistent performance and longer storage life, enabling their integration into existing crop protection systems (Whipps, 2001) [66] . When combined with good agricultural practices and resistant potato varieties, biological control can reduce dependence on synthetic fungicides, delay the emergence of resistance, and promote more sustainable potato farming. [25] .

Researchers are now investigating tools such as CRISPR/Cas9 to create potato varieties with enhanced resistance by accurately modifying resistance (R) genes and analysing the factors that contribute to the pathogen's virulence (Vleeshouwers and Oliver, 2014) [65] .

Epidemiological modelling

Improvements in epidemiological modelling are strengthening the capacity to anticipate late blight outbreaks and support timely, targeted disease control strategies. At its foundation, disease prediction modelling aims to determine when a disease might first emerge, how quickly it could spread, and how serious it may become, by systematically evaluating data on weather patterns, crop traits, pathogen dynamics, or combinations of these interrelated factors. For potato late blight caused by Phytophthora infestans, such models are especially useful because the pathogen's spore production, spread, and infection process are strongly influenced by moisture levels, temperature, and the length of time leaves remain wet.

Global development of predictive models

Around the world, many models have been developed and applied to forecast potato late blight (Singh et al., 2013). Early efforts include the Beaumont period (1947) in England, the Wallin model (1962) in the U.S., and the well-known BLITECAST system introduced by Krause et al. (1975). These typically use meteorological indicators such as relative humidity above 90%, temperatures between 10-25°C, and extended leaf wetness to calculate "severity values" or "infection risk scores." More recent versions go further by incorporating biological aspects of the pathogen like sporangia survival and latent period duration along with host resistance traits and real-time spore monitoring. Together, these advances allow for dependable assessments that guide decisions on whether, when, and which fungicides to apply.

Integration into Decision Support Systems (DSS)

When embedded in decision support systems, these models help farmers use fungicides more efficiently, cutting down on unnecessary applications while still maintaining effective disease control (Skelsey et al., 2009) [60] . A typical DSS delivers clear guidance: for instance, "no spray required" during dry spells, "apply protective spray" under moderate risk, or "apply curative treatment within 48 hours" when risk is high. Field trials show that model-driven spraying can reduce the number of applications by 30-50% compared to fixed calendar schedules, without affecting yield or tuber quality. This leads to lower production costs, less environmental impact, and a slower rise in fungicide resistance. [50] . These adaptations involved adjusting model parameters to reflect regional differences in climate such as frequency of fog, dew formation, and daily temperature fluctuations as well as local strains of P. infestans (including those resistant to metalaxyl) and commonly cultivated potato varieties with varying degrees of susceptibility. This highlights an important point: although modelling frameworks can be shared across regions, they must be fine-tuned and validated locally to ensure accuracy.

Future outlook

Looking forward, late blight modelling is evolving toward integration with remote sensing technologies-such as satellite and drone-based vegetation indices-real-time spore detection using molecular or immunological methods, and machine learning techniques capable of analysing complex, nonlinear relationships among multiple variables. Mobile platforms-like apps that automatically pull local weather data-are making these advanced tools accessible even to small-scale farmers. When paired with farmer training programs and localised weather monitoring networks, these models become powerful tools for sustainable disease management, reducing chemical use, protecting farm income, and ensuring stable potato production despite the ongoing evolution of the pathogen.

References

1. Agrios GN. Plant Pathology. 5th ed. London, New York: Academic Press; 2005. 922 p.
2. Ajay S, Sunaina V. Direct inhibition of Phytophthora infestans, the causal organism of late blight of potato by Bacillus antagonist. Potato J. 2005;32:179-180.
3. Arora DK, Upadhyay RS, Singh CS. Biological control of plant pathogens using antagonistic fungi. Indian Phytopathol. 1987;40(3):334-341.
4. Arora RK, Sharma S, Singh BP. Late blight disease of potato and its management. Potato J. 2014;41(1):16-40.
5. Berg A. Tomato late blight and its relation to late blight of potato. West Virginia Agric Exp Stn Tech Bull. 1926;205:131.
6. Birch PRJ, Whisson SC. Phytophthora infestans enters the genomics era. Mol Plant Pathol. 2001;2(5):257-263.
7. Bødker L, Pedersen H, Kristensen K, Møller L, Lehtinen A, Hannukkala A. Influence of crop history of potato on early occurrence and disease severity of potato late blight caused by Phytophthora infestans. In: Westerdijk CE, Schepers HTAM, editors. Proc 9th Workshop of an European Network for Development of an Integrated Control Strategy of Potato Late Blight. PPO Special Report. 2006;11:53-56.
8. Bos JIB, Armstrong MR, Gilroy EM, Boevink PC, Hein I, Taylor RM, et al. Phytophthora infestans effector AVR3a is essential for virulence and manipulates plant immunity by stabilizing host E3 ligase CMPG1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;107(21):9909-9914.
9. Bradshaw JE, Bonierbale M. Potatoes. In: Carena MJ, editor. Handbook of Plant Breeding. 2010;7:11-56.
10. Camire ME, Kubow S, Donnelly DJ. Potatoes and human health. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2009;49:823-840.
11. Chakraborty A, Singh BP, Ahmad I, Sharma S. Forecasting late blight of potato in the plains of West Bengal using JHULSACAST model. Potato J. 2014;41:in press.
12. Crosier W. Studies in the biology of Phytophthora infestans (Mont.) de Bary. Cornell Univ Agric Exp Stn Mem. 1934;155:1-40.
13. Davis RM, Nunez J, Aegerter BJ. Potato Late Blight. University of California Statewide IPM Program; 2009.
14. De Haan S, Burgos G, Liria R, Rodriguez F, CreedKanashiro H, Bonierbale M. The nutritional contribution of potato varietal diversity in Andean food systems: a case study. Am J Potato Res. 2019;96:151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12230-018-09707-2
15. Draper MA, Secor GA, Gudmestad NC, Lamey HA, Preston D. Leaf blight diseases of potato: late blight. North Dakota State University Agriculture and University Extension. 1994;1084.
16. Drenth A, Janssen EM, Govers F. Formation and survival of oospores of Phytophthora infestans under natural conditions. Plant Pathol. 1995;44(1):86-94.
17. Dutt BL. Bacterial and fungal diseases of potato. New Delhi: ICAR; 1979.
18. Elansky SN, Smirnov AN, Dyakov Y, Dolgova A, Filippov A, Kozlovsky B, et al. Genotypic analysis of Russian isolates of Phytophthora infestans from Moscow region, Siberia and Far East. J Phytopathol. 2001;149:605-611.
19. Erwin DC, Bartnicki-Garcia S, Psao PH. Phytophthora its biology, taxonomy and pathology. St Paul (MN): American Phytopathological Society; 1983.
20. Fry WE. Phytophthora infestans: the plant (and R gene) destroyer. Mol Plant Pathol. 2008;9(3):385-402.
21. Fry WE, Goodwin SB. Resurgence of the Irish potato famine fungus. BioScience. 1997;47(6):363-371.
22. Fry WE, Goodwin SB. Re-emergence of potato and tomato late blight in the United States. Plant Dis. 1997;81(12):1349-1357.
23. Giddings NJ, Berg A. A comparison of the late blight of tomato and potato: a preliminary report. Phytopathology. 1919;9:209-210.
24. Gisi U, Cohen Y, Silué D. Fungicide resistance in Phytophthora infestans: problems and perspectives. In: Lamour K, Kamoun S, editors. Oomycete Genetics and Genomics: Diversity, Interactions and Research Tools. Wiley-Blackwell; 2011. p. 243-258.
25. Grünwald NJ, Flier WG. The biology of Phytophthora infestans at its center of origin. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2005;43:171-190.
26. Haas BJ, Kamoun S, Zody MC, Jiang RHY, Handsaker RE, Cano LM, et al. Genome sequence and analysis of the Irish potato famine pathogen Phytophthora infestans. Nature. 2009;461(7262):393-398.
27. Hannukkala AO, Kaukoranta T, Lehtinen A, Rahkonen A. Late blight epidemics on potato in Finland 1933-2002; increased and earlier occurrence associated with climate change and lack of rotation. Plant Pathol. 2007;56:167-176.
28. Hardy BB, Trognit Z, Forbes GA. Late blight breeding at CIP. Circular (Lima-Peru). 1995;21:2-5.
29. Harrison JG. Effects of the environment on late blight of potatoes. In: Ingram DS, Williams PH, editors. Advances in Plant Pathology. 1992;8:101-134.
30. Haverkort AJ, Struik PC, Visser RGF, Jacobsen E. Applied biotechnology to combat late blight in potato caused by Phytophthora infestans. Potato Res. 2009;52:249-264.
31. Jones JDG, Dangl JL. The plant immune system. Nature. 2006;444:323-329.
32. Judelson HS. The genetics and biology of Phytophthora infestans: modern approaches to a historical challenge. Fungal Genet Biol. 1997;22(2):65-76.
33. Kamoun S, Huitema E, Vleeshouwers VGAA. Resistance to oomycetes: a general role for the hypersensitive response? Trends Plant Sci. 1999;4(5):196-200.
34. Kirk W, Wharton P, Hammerschmidt R, Abu-el Samen F, Douches D. Late blight. Michigan State University Extension Bulletin E-2945; 2013.
35. Krause RA, Massie IB, Hyre RA. BLITECAST: a computerized forecast of potato blight. Plant Dis Rep. 1975;59:95-98.
36. Kumar S, Singh PH, Garg ID, Paul SMP. Integrated management of potato diseases. Indian Hortic. 2003;48:2527.
37. Lal M, Arora RK, Maheswari U, Rawal S, Yadav S. Impact of late blight occurrence on potato productivity during 2013-14. Int J Agric Stat Sci. 2016;28:67-70.
38. Lal M, Sharma S, Yadav S, Kumar S. Management of late blight of potato. In: Potato from Incas to All over the World. 2018. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72472
39. Lal M, Singh AP, Tomar S, Hussain T, Sharma S, Kaushik SK, et al. Antagonistic effect of bioagents against three potato fungal diseases and their fungicidal sensitivity. Vegetos. 2013;26:362-367.
40. Large EC. Losses caused by potato blight in England and Wales. Plant Pathol. 1958;7(2):39-48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3059.1958.tb00820.x
41. Lozoya-Saldana H. Evolution of vertical and horizontal resistance and its application in breeding resistance to potato late blight. Potato J. 2011;38(1):1-8.
42. Madden LV. Measuring and modeling crop losses at the field level. Phytopathology. 1983;73(11):1591-1596.
43. Mekonen S, Tadesse T. Effect of varieties and fungicides on potato late blight (Phytophthora infestans) management. Agrotechnology. 2018;7(2). https://doi.org/10.4172/21689881.1000182
44. Mercure P. Early blight and late blight of potato. University of Connecticut IPM; 1998.
45. Mohammad SI. Smart proactive warning system for early prediction of potato late blight via machine learning. 2021;11(4):2177-2193.
46. Njualem DK, Demo P, Mendoza HA, Koi JT, Nana SF. Reaction of some potato genotypes to late blight in Cameroon. Afr Crop Sci J. 2001;1(1):209-213.
47. Nowicki M, Foolad MR, Nowakowska M, Kozik EU. Potato and tomato late blight caused by Phytophthora infestans: an overview of pathology and resistance breeding. Plant Dis. 2012;96(1):4-17.
48. Nyankanga RO, Wien HC, Olanya OM, Ojiambo PS. Farmers' cultural practices and management of potato late blight in Kenya highlands: implications for integrated disease management. Int J Pest Manag. 2004;50(2):135144. https://doi.org/10.1080/09670870410001691812
49. Pandiri K, Murugan DN, Goel R, Sharma T, Singh N, Sen AK, et al. POT-Net: Solanum tuberosum leaf disease classification using optimized deep convolutional neural network. Image Sci J. 2022;70(6):387-403.
50. Pandit R, Bhatta R, Bhusal P, Acharya B, Subedi S, Shrestha J. Response of local potato cultivars to late blight disease (Phytophthora infestans) under field conditions. Agro Bali Agric J. 2020;3(1):28-37.
51. Pundhir VS, Singh BP, Ahmad I, Sharma S, Kushwaha HS, Singh VK, et al. Forecasting late blight of potato in Tarai region of Uttarakhand using JHULSACAST model. Potato J. 2014;41:in press.
52. Ram CN, Dalal PK, Maurya MK, Singh S, Uppadhayay DK, Jha A, et al. Advance production technology of potato. Abhiram Prakashan; 2024.
53. Selvaraj T. Field evaluation of new fungicide Victory 72 WP for management of potato and tomato late blight (Phytophthora infestans) in West Shewa highland, Oromia, Ethiopia. J Plant Pathol Microbiol. 2013;4(8). https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-7471.1000192
54. Shapiro L, Hager M, Springen K, Hayden T. Is organic better? Newsweek. 1998 Jun 1:54-57.
55. Sharma HB, KC HB. Participatory IDM research on potato late blight through farmer's field school. In: Proc Fourth National Workshop on Horticulture. Kathmandu: Horticulture Research Division, Nepal Agricultural Research Council; 2004.
56. Shinners CT, Bains P, McLaren D, Thomson J. Commercial potato production-disease management. Guide to Commercial Potato Production Prairies. Western Potato Council; 2003.
57. Singh VK, Shailbala, Pundhir VS. Forecasting models for potato late blight management: a review. Agric Rev. 2013;34(2):87-96.
58. Singh BP, Bhat NM. Emerging trends in the epidemiology of late blight of potato. Annu Rev Plant Pathol. 2003;2:4383.
59. Singh BP, Shekhawat GS. Potato late blight in India. Technical Bulletin No. 22. Central Potato Research Institute, Shimla; 1999.
60. Singh BP, Ahmad I, Sharma VC, Shekhawat GS. JHULSACAST: a computerized forecast of potato late blight in western Uttar Pradesh. Potato J. 2000;27:25-34.
61. Skelsey P, Rossing WAH, Kessel GJT, van der Werf W. Scenario studies of effects of host resistance and climate change on late blight epidemics in potato. Agric Syst. 2009;99(2-3):37-48.
62. Son SW, Kim HY, Choi GJ, Lim HK, Jang KS, Lee SO, et al. Bikaverin and fusaric acid from Fusarium oxysporum show antioomycete activity against P. infestans. J Appl Microbiol. 2008;104:692-698.
63. Stevenson WR, Loria R, Franc GD, Weingartner DP. Compendium of Potato Diseases. 2nd ed. St Paul (MN): American Phytopathological Society; 2007.
64. Tiwari I, Shah KK, Tripathi S, Modi B, Subedi S, Shrestha J. Late blight of potato and its management through fungicides and organic amendments: a review. J Agric Nat Resour. 2021;4(1):301-320.