Dutch elm disease
cryptogamic disease caused by Ophiostoma ulmi fungus
Dutch elm disease is caused by an Ascomycete fungus that kills elm trees, and is spread by elm bark beetles. Believed to be originally native to Asia, the disease was accidentally introduced into America, Europe, and New Zealand. In these regions it has devastated native and exotic populations of elms that did not have resistance to the disease. The name "Dutch elm disease" refers to its identification from 1921 onwards in the Netherlands by the Dutch phytopathologists Christine Buisman and Marie Beatrice Schol-Schwarz, who both worked with Johanna Westerdijk. The disease affects multiple species in the genera Ulmus and Zelkova, and is carried from tree to tree by any of several species of beetle, especially bark beetles of the genus Scolytus.
Multiple types of treatment or prevention have been attempted. The use of insecticides against the beetle vectors was tried in America in the 1940s and 1950s, causing significant harm to other organisms including insects and birds. Several fungicides are effective at protecting individual trees by injection every two or three years, as long as the root system has not been infected. A vaccine, Dutch Trig, uses a different fungus, Verticillium albo-atrum, to induce an immune response in individual trees. Breeding of elms resistant to Dutch elm disease has been attempted in the Netherlands, America, and Italy.
The public source identifies “Dutch elm disease” as cryptogamic disease caused by Ophiostoma ulmi fungus. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Dutch, disease and cryptogamic.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Dutch elm disease”, the useful work is to connect “cryptogamic disease caused by Ophiostoma ulmi fungus” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Stable identifiers, scientific names and standards terminology offer the best bridge between this overview and specialist evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 8, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q845598. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1921.
A general summary may omit uncertainty, sample limits or methodological disagreement that is explicit in the technical record. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Check terminology, classification and the date of the cited evidence. Scientific names and technical consensus can change while older records retain historical value.
- Current terminology
- Classification context
- Finding cited technical literature
Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Dutch elm disease”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Dutch elm disease primary sources, Dutch elm disease archive and Dutch research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Dutch elm disease”?
- Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
- Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Dutch elm disease” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.