<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Blomquist, C. L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Yakabe, L. E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rooney-Latham, S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">McRoberts, N.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Thomas, C.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Detection of Phytophthora ramorum in Nurseries and Forest Lands in California in 2004 to 2009</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Plant Disease</style></secondary-title><short-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Plant Disease</style></short-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2016</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jan-01-2016</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/10.1094/PDIS-12-14-1302-RE</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">100</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">139 - 148</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;From December 2004 through May 2009, samples were collected from California nurseries and wild lands to survey for &lt;em&gt;Phytophthora ramorum&lt;/em&gt; and comply with federal regulations of nursery stock. Samples were prescreened by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) that detects &lt;em&gt;Phytophthora&lt;/em&gt; spp. and tested by culture, &lt;em&gt;P. ramorum&lt;/em&gt;-specific real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and nested PCR. Yearly percentages of infected samples ranged from 0.6 to 2.3%. &lt;em&gt;Camellia&lt;/em&gt; spp., &lt;em&gt;Rhododendro&lt;/em&gt;n spp., &lt;em&gt;Magnolia&lt;/em&gt; spp., &lt;em&gt;Pieris&lt;/em&gt; spp., and &lt;em&gt;Laurus nobilis&lt;/em&gt; tested positive the most frequently in the nurseries and &lt;em&gt;Lithocarpus densiflorus&lt;/em&gt;, &lt;em&gt;Umbellularia californica&lt;/em&gt;, and &lt;em&gt;Quercus agrifolia&lt;/em&gt; tested positive most often from wild lands. Of the 118,410 samples isolated onto PARP media, 0.8% was identified as &lt;em&gt;P. ramorum&lt;/em&gt;. Of 115,056 samples tested by ELISA, 5.9% tested positive for &lt;em&gt;Phytophthora&lt;/em&gt; spp. Of the 6,520 samples tested by PCR, 12.4% tested positive for &lt;em&gt;P. ramorum&lt;/em&gt;. The false-negative, positive, and internal control failure rates of the assays are discussed. After removing the seasonal effect of sampling strategy, isolation of the pathogen into culture was found to be seasonally dependent whereas detectability by PCR and ELISA was not. To our knowledge, this is the first evaluation of a regulatory testing program for a plant pathogen on this scale using standardized assays.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue></record></records></xml>