Volume 5, Issue 2 (8-2016)                   pps 2016, 5(2): 23-31 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Najafiniya M, Bagheri A, Azadvar M, Salehi M. The Situation of Witches Broom Disease of Sour Lime in Iran. pps. 2016; 5 (2) :23-31
URL: http://yujs.yu.ac.ir/pps/article-1-140-en.html
South Kerman Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Jiroft, Department of Plant Protection, Jiroft, Iran , mnajafinia@iripp.ir
Abstract:   (8203 Views)

Najafiniya  M.,  Bagheri  A., Azadvar M. & Salehi M. 2016. The situation of witches broom disease of sour lime in Iran. Plant Pathology Science 5(2):23-31.

Lime is one of the most important economic and horticultural plants in the southern part of Iran. Among the diseases of citrus in south of Iran, Witches Broom Disease of Lime (WBDL) is one of the major citrus diseases. The causal agent of WBDL is a phytoplasma with the proposed name, Candidatus Phytoplasma aurantifolia. The symptoms of disease start with appearance of witches broom at one-side of the infected tree. The disease then spread to whole parts of plant showing leaf proliferation, shortened internodes, small and pale green leaves, no formation of any spine, flower or fruit and finally death of the infected plants. To control the disease, integrated management and cultural practices has shown to be effective methods. Elimination of symptomatic trees as well of the newly emerged infected branches, chemical or mechanical weed control and a periodic spraying by systemic pesticides against the vector insect, or a combination of these methods is highly recommended. Among the control measures, chemical control of the vector has showed is very effective for reducing the disease spread and severity.

Full-Text [PDF 382 kb]   (657 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special

References
1. Bakhshi M., Arzanlou M. & Babai-Ahari A. 2012. Comprehensive check list of Cercosporoid fungi from Iran. Plant Pathology and Quarantine 2:44–55.
2. Bargabus R. L., Zidack N. K., Sherwood J. W. & Jacobsen B. J. 2004. Screening for the identification of potential biological control agents that induce systemic acquired resistance in sugar beet. Biological Control 30:342–350. 5. Bargabus R. L., Zidack N. K., Sherwood, J. E. & Jacobsen B. J. 2002. Characterization of systemic resistance in sugar beet elicited by a non-pathogenic, phyllosphere-colonizing Bacillus mycoides, biological control agent. Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology 61:289-298. https://doi.org/10.1006/pmpp.2003.0443 [DOI:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2003.11.005]
3. Burzi P., Cerato C., Galletti S., Marinella S. & Sala E. 2008. Trichoderma as a potential biocontrol agent for cercospora leaf spot of sugar beet. Biological Control 53: 917-930.
4. Cohn B., Wolff M., Cirillo P. & Sholtz R. 2007. DDT and breast cancer in young women: new data on the significance of age at exposure. Environmental Health Perspective 115:1406-1412. 8. Collins D. P. & Jacobsen B. J. 2003. Optimizing a Bacillus subtilis isolate for biological control of sugar beet Cercospora leaf spot. Biological Control 26:153-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1049-9644(02)00132-9 9. Coofe D. A. & Scott R. K. 1993. The Sugar Beet Crop: Science in to Practice. Chapman & Hall. [DOI:10.1289/ehp.10260]
5. Groenewald J. Z., Nakashima C., Nishikawa J., Shin H. D., Park J. H., Jama A. N., Groenewald M., Braun, U. & Crous P. W. 2013. Species concepts in Cercospora: spotting the weeds among the roses. Studies in Mycology 75:115–170. 11. Khan J., del Rio L. E., Nelson R., Rivera-Varas V., Secor G. A. & Khan M.F.R. 2008. Survival, dispersal, and primary infection site for Cercospora beticola in sugar beet. Plant Disease 92:741-745. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-92-5-0741 [DOI:10.3114/sim0012]
6. Lartey R. T. 2003. Friendly fungi help in war against Cercospora. http://www.ars.usda.gov.
7. Miller J., Rekoske M. & Quinn A. 1994. Genetic resistance, fungicide protection and variety approval politics for controlling yield losses from Cercospora leaf spot infection. Journal of Sugar Beet Research 31:7-12. [DOI:10.5274/jsbr.31.1.7]
8. Moretti M., Karaoglanidis G., Saracchi M., Fontana A. & Farina G. 2006. Analysis of genotypic diversity in Cercospora beticola Sacc. Field isolates. Annals of Microbiology 56: 215-221. [DOI:10.1007/BF03175008]
9. Pool V. W. & McKay M. B. 1916. Climatic conditions as related to Cercospora beticola. Journal Agricultural Research 6:21-60.
10. Rossi V., Battilani P., Chiusa G., Languasco L. & Racca P. 1999. Components of rate-reducing resistance to Cercospora leaf spot in sugar beet: incubation length, infection efficiency, lesion size. Journal of Plant Pathology 81:25-35.
11. Rossi V., Battilani P., Chiusa G., Languasco L. & Racca P. 2000. Components of rate-reducing resistance to Cercospora leaf spot in sugar beet: condition length, spore yield. Journal of Plant Pathology 82:125–132.
12. Ruppel E. G. 1986. Foliar Diseases Caused by Fungi. Pp. 8-9. In: Compendium of Beet Diseases and Insects. E. D. Whitney & J. E. Duffus (ed.). APS Press, St Paul, Minnesota.
13. Saito K., 1966. Studies on the Cercospora leaf spot resistance in sugar beet breeding. Memoirs of the Faculty of Agriculture Hokkaido 6:113-176.
14. Setiawan G. A., Koch G., Barnes S. R. & Jung C. 2000. Mapping quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for resistance to Cercospora leaf spot (Cercospora beticola Sacc.) in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Theoretical and Applied Genetics 100:1176-1182. [DOI:10.1007/s001220051421]
15. Shane W. W. & Teng P. S. 1992. Impact of leaf spot on root weight, sugar yield and purity of Beta vulgaris. Plant Disease 76:812-820. [DOI:10.1094/PD-76-0812]
16. Siloh-Suh L. A., Lethbridge B. J., Raffel S. J., He H., Clardy J. & Handelsman J. 1994. Biological activities of two fungi static antibiotics produced by Bacillus cereus UW85. Applied Environmental Microbiology 56:713-718.
17. Skaracis G. N. & Biancardi E. 2000. Breeding for Cercospora resistance in Sugar Beet. Pp. 177-196. In: M. I. C. Asher B. Holtschulte B. Richard Molard F. Rosso G. Steinrucken & R. Beckers (ed.). Cercospora Beticola Sacc. Biology, Agronomic Influence and Control Measures in Sugar Beet.
18. Smith G. A. 1985. Response of sugar beet in Europe and the USA to Cercospora beticola infection. Agronomy Journal 77:126-129. 25. Souto G. I., Correa O. S., Montecchia M. S., Kerber N. L., Pucheu N. L., Bachur M. & Garcia A. F. 2004. Genetic and functional characterization of a Bacillus sp. strain excreting surfactin and antifungal metabolites partially identified as iturin-like compounds. Applied Microbiology 97:1247-1256. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2004.02408.x 26. Spikes J. D. 1989. Photosensitization. Pp.79-110. In: The Science of Photobiology. K. C. Smith (ed.). Plenum Press, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-8061-4_3 [DOI:10.2134/agronj1985.00021962007700010030x]
19. Vereijssen J., Schneider M. & Termorshuizen A. J. 2004. Possible root infection of Cercospora beticola in sugar beet. European Journal of Plant Pathology 110:103-106. [DOI:10.1023/B:EJPP.0000010130.38700.88]
20. Vestal E. F. 1933. Pathogenicity, host response and control of Cercospora leaf-spot of sugar beets. Iowa Agricultural Research Station Bulletin 168:43-72.
21. Windels C. E. Bradley C. A. & Khan M. F. R. 2003. Comparison of Cercospora and Bacterial Leaf Spots on Sugar Beet. North Dakota State University and the University of Minnesota, 1244P.
22. Windels C. E., Lamey H. A., Hilde D., Widner J. & Knudsen T. 1998. A Cercospora leaf spot model for sugar beet: in practice by an industry. Plant Disease 82:716-726. [DOI:10.1094/PDIS.1998.82.7.716]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2021 CC BY-NC 4.0 | University of Yasouj Journals System Plant Pathology Science

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb