You're using an outdated browser. Please upgrade to a modern browser for the best experience.
Submitted Successfully!
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic. For video creation, please contact our Academic Video Service.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Muhammad Ashfaq
 -- 5060 2023-04-29 08:50:57 |
2 format correct
Jessie Wu
 + 2 word(s) 5062 2023-05-04 04:36:22 |

Video Upload Options

We provide professional Academic Video Service to translate complex research into visually appealing presentations. Would you like to try it?
No, upload directly Yes

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Ali, S.; Hameed, A.; Muhae-Ud-Din, G.; Ikhlaq, M.; Ashfaq, M.; Atiq, M.; Ali, F.; Zia, Z.U.; Naqvi, S.A.H.; Wang, Y. History, Taxonomy and Control of Citrus Canker. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/43645 (accessed on 20 July 2025).
Ali S, Hameed A, Muhae-Ud-Din G, Ikhlaq M, Ashfaq M, Atiq M, et al. History, Taxonomy and Control of Citrus Canker. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/43645. Accessed July 20, 2025.
Ali, Subhan, Akhtar Hameed, Ghulam Muhae-Ud-Din, Muhammad Ikhlaq, Muhammad Ashfaq, Muhammad Atiq, Faizan Ali, Zia Ullah Zia, Syed Atif Hasan Naqvi, Yong Wang. "History, Taxonomy and Control of Citrus Canker" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/43645 (accessed July 20, 2025).
Ali, S., Hameed, A., Muhae-Ud-Din, G., Ikhlaq, M., Ashfaq, M., Atiq, M., Ali, F., Zia, Z.U., Naqvi, S.A.H., & Wang, Y. (2023, April 29). History, Taxonomy and Control of Citrus Canker. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/43645
Ali, Subhan, et al. "History, Taxonomy and Control of Citrus Canker." Encyclopedia. Web. 29 April, 2023.
History, Taxonomy and Control of Citrus Canker
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/agronomy13041112

Citrus canker (CC), caused by one of the most destructive subfamilies of the bacterial phytopathogen Xanthomonas citri subsp. Citri (Xcc), poses a serious threat to the significantly important citrus fruit crop grown worldwide.

citrus canker tree streptomycin

1. Origin and History

Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri (Xcc) and Xanthomonas citri subsp. aurantifolii (Xca) are causal agents of Citrus Bacterial Canker (CBC), a devastating disease that severely affects citrus plants. Citrus, Poncirus, Fortunella, and their hybrids are the most common natural host genera [1]. In addition, natural infections have been described in Atalantiabuxifolia, Casimiroa edulis, Citropsisdaweana, Clausenaharmandiana, Eremocitrus glauca, Microcitrus spp., Naringicrenulata, Swingleaglutinosa, and Zanthoxylum ailanthoides [2]. Canker lesions on the oldest citrus herbaria have been observed at the Royal Botanic Gardens in Kew, England, suggesting that citrus canker (CC) originated in India and Java rather than other countries of the Orient. The authors of the reference [3] found citrus canker symptoms in herborized plant samples collected in 1827–1831 (Citrus medica) from India, in 1842–1844 (C. aurantifolia) from Indonesia, and in 1865 (from Japanese citrus samples erroneously identified as a citrus scab at this time); thus, it is likely that the disease began in tropical Asia, probably in South China, Indonesia, and India, before spreading to other citrus-growing regions via citrus species [4]. According to the authors of the reference [5], although citrus canker was reported for the first time in 1914 in the USA [6], the disease was actually a serious problem in Florida several years earlier following its official detection around 1910 [6][7]. Citrus canker is believed to have been first reported in Texas in 1911, in the Upper Gulf Coast area [6]. CC was later reported in the Gulf countries region of the United States in 1915, and it is supposed that a shipment of diseased nursery stock from Asia is what caused the outbreak there [4]. Before the turn of the century, the disease had also surfaced in South Africa [5], South America [6], and Australia [7]. According to these reports, quarantines, inspections of nurseries and orchards, and the on-site burning of sick trees eliminated the disease in these nations and the Gulf States. Eradication attempts have been made in several places but have failed in the face of epidemiological outbreaks in Australia, Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina, Oman, Reunion Island, and Saudi Arabia, whereas there are still many ongoing active eradication programs in Florida, Uruguay, and Brazil [8]. Citrus is the third most popular fruit in India, after mango and banana, and CC is one of the main obstacles to its growth. It was first reported from Punjab [9][10][11]. More instances of it were also noted in the following states: Assam [11], Andhra Pradesh [12], Tamil Nadu [13], Karnataka [14], Madhya Pradesh [15], Rajasthan [15], and Uttar Pradesh [16]. Others have mentioned the occurrence of CC on limes and other citrus cultivars. Furthermore, the cultivation of lime has become a major issue for citrus growers across the nation due to the persistence of the disease.

2. Taxonomy

The genus Xanthomonas comprises of150 pathovars and 28 species [17]; due to pathogenicity tests, bacterium was given the name Pseudomonas citri in the early 1900s [18]. The bacterium was later divided into other genera, including Phytomonas, and was finally classified as X. citri in late 1930 [19]. The Xanthomonas genus contains 27 phytopathogens that are responsible for serious diseases in crops and ornamental plants [20]. The genus has 150 distinct pathovars, 240 genera, and 68 host families [17][18][19][21]. Xanthomonas infection affects a wide range of plants, fruits, cereals, and nuts from the Solanaceae and Brassicaceae families, which include around 350 species. Among them, 124 species are monocots and 268 are dicots [20].
CC is classified into three distinct types: A, B, and C; Xcc is the causative agent of canker A and no citrus species are immune to Xcc after being artificially inoculated, indicating that genetic resistance is not an option and that field tolerance is mainly due to the difference in growth habits [22]. In 2002, the genome of the Xcc strain 306 was completely sequenced and compared to the genomes of other Xanthomonas spp. that cause pathogenicity in different plants [23][24][25]. X. fuscans subsp. aurantifolii type B (XauB), is the pathogen of canker B. compared to canker A, where symptoms take longer to appear, likely due to the slower growth rate of XauB in culture [26][27][28]. X. fuscans subsp. aurantifolii type C (XauC) is also the causal agent Canker C, is similar to type A, but is only found in C. aurantifolia [29]. Recently, a new strain of X. fuscans subsp. aurantifolii has been identified and is associated with swingle citrumelo in Brazil [30].
To demonstrate the association of CC type A, Xanthomonas citri strains within this species were given the title of strain A [20]. In the 1970s, two new bacterial CC-causing Xanthomonads were found, initially classified as Group C strains, which only produce canker lesions in key lime, and Group B strains, which have a broader host range [31][32]. The bacterium was still classified as X. citri until 1978, when it was moved to X. campestris pv. citri in order to maintain citri at the specific level [33]. Gabriel proposed the reclassification of the bacterium as X. citri in 1989 [34]. Vauterin identified the bacteria as Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri using DNA-DNA hybridization and denaturation rates [33]. Recent suggestions for significant changes to the classification of Xanthomonas, based on multilocus sequence analysis and digital DNA-DNA hybridization of full genome nucleotides, were made in 2016 by Constantin and their team. They recommended the name Xanthomonas citri pv. citri for the causal agent of CC type A [35]. Their suggestions were accepted and published in the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology [36]. The bacteria are polar flagellated, rod-shaped, and Gram-negative. In addition, colonies on petri plates produce yellow colors as a result of the presence of a carotenoid pigment called Xanthomonadin, also referred to as xanthan, which has a glossy look due to an exopolysaccharide (EPS) [37][38][39]. The bacterial classification consists of the kingdoms Prokaryote, phylum Proteobacteria, class Gamma-proteobacteria, order Xanthomonadales, family Xanthomonadaceae, genus Xanthomonas, species citri, and pathovar citri [40] (Table 1).
Table 1. X. citri subsp. citri Asiaticum (Canker A) classification details, from the start of the studies.
Sr.No. Genus Specie *f.sp./**pv/***subsp. Year Reference
1. Pseudomonas citri not reported 1915 [18]
2. Xanthomonas citri not reported 1915 [18]
3. Bacterium citri not reported 1916 [5]
4. Bacillus citri not reported 1920 [35]
5. Phytomonas citri not reported 1923 [36]
6. Xanthomonas citri not reported 1939 [19]
7. Xanthomonas citri Aurantifolia 1972 [37]
8. Xanthomonas campestris Aurantifolia 1978 [31]
9. Xanthomonas campestris Citri 1980 [38]
10. Xanthomonas citri Aurantifolia 1989 [32]
11. Xanthomonas axonopodis Citri 1995 [33]
12. Xanthomonas smithii Citri 2005 [39]
13. Xanthomonas citri Citri 2006 [41]
14. Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri 2007 [42]
15. Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri 2016 [34]
*f.sp = forma special; **pv = pathovar; ***subsp = sub specie.

3. Control

For many years, the most widely used methods for disease control were to cut down infected trees to prevent the spread of the infection [43]. However, some citrus growers use varieties that are resistant to disease and are grown in nurseries free of CC. Additionally, copper-based bactericides have been used to control CC for over two decades [20]. Unfortunately, the repeated application of these bactericides has led to the emergence of copper-resistant strains of Xanthomonas spp. [44][45]. Moreover, copper-based bactericides can potentially cause phytotoxicity and other adverse environmental impacts, such as leaving copper residues on plants and cultivated soils. These consequences ultimately increase the cost of production [46].
International cooperation and research are crucial for effectively reducing the effects of this disease. The origins of infection must be found, efficient disease control strategies must be created, and researchers must collaborate to share resources and best practices. This endeavor to coordinate research and create policies to aid in reducing the spread of the disease has to involve international organizations and governments. To study the epidemiology, biology, and management of CC, international research initiatives like the global citrus canker research and development project have been developed. These initiatives have the ability to offer insightful information on the illness and create efficient controls and prevention measures. Researchers can develop better management and containment measures and a better understanding of the disease thanks to this kind of research.
Additionally, it is crucial to improve a nation’s ability to track and detect CC while international organizations and states must collaborate to create and implement efficient surveillance systems and capacity-building initiatives if they are to achieve this. This will make it more likely that outbreaks will be identified early and controlled in a timely way. Ultimately, worldwide cooperation and research can lessen the effect of CC on the world’s citrus business. By taking these steps, researchers can improve disease control techniques, strengthen surveillance systems, and guarantee that outbreaks are rapidly identified and efficiently treated.

3.1. Cultural Control

If a disease is not common in a certain area, its best measure is to eradicate it [40]. Quarantine and elimination are two effective management methods employed in many countries to control pathogen introduction and spread [47]. Eradication efforts often involve destroying citrus species by cutting them down and burning them [48]. The infested property is quarantined and then the eradication process is implemented for a period of up to one year, with inspections occurring at least twice a year [48]. Regulatory measures have been implemented to allow survey teams to look for infected citrus trees, cut them down, and eliminate them. Moreover, survey teams will take action to identify and remove susceptible trees within 125 feet of a diseased tree [49][50]. In response to the changing prevalence of CC in Brazilian plantations, authorities now suggest planting less susceptible varieties and practicing appropriate orchard management to prevent and control the disease. In Brazil, if the infection rate is 0.5% or less, then all plants within a 30 m radius of affected plantation will be cut down. However, if the infection rate exceeds 0.5%, then the entire block will be removed [50].
In addition, Brazilian authorities have also implemented various other strategies to control citrus canker in the affected areas. These include monitoring and controlling the spread of the disease, using fungicides to prevent and treat the disease, and removing and destroying any infected plants. More recently, Brazilian authorities have also implemented a mass vaccination program in some areas to reduce the risk of CC. The Brazilian government has recently declared that areas and states where CC is endemic are no longer bound by the requirement to eliminate canker-affected or suspected trees [IN21, Ministry of Agriculture Livestock and Supply, MAPA; São Paulo, Brazil, 2018]. At a height of roughly 1900 feet, new canker infections appear in known source trees [51]. The “1900 ft rule” was a brand-new regulation that went into effect in January 2000. The destruction of all ill citrus trees, as well as any healthy trees that were within 1900 feet of an infected tree, was mandated by this law, which went into effect in March 2000 [51]. The 1900 ft rule can be used to eradicate dooryard citrus from contaminated areas because each circle with a radius of 1900 feet has a surface area of 1.06 km2 (0.41 miles) [47]. Prior to the onset of the monsoon, trimming the diseased twigs and applying a 1% Bordeaux mixture on a regular basis both proved to be quite effective in managing the illness. Likewise, Bordeux contains copper and it prevents the secondary infection by the pathogen at the point of wound where pruning has been performed; however, now-a-days nano particles have been performing much more than the bactericides alone, or with the loading of nanoparticles that may be of copper, zinc, iron, titanium oxide, etc. These are the nano compounds which can have much impact if used after loading upon bactericides [52][53][54][55].

3.2. Chemical Control

Studies have shown that the application of 3–4 sprays of a 1% Bordeaux mixture to pruned, diseased twigs between November and December can be an effective management strategy for CC [56][57][58]. Furthermore, applying 1% Bordeaux with 4 sprays of a 5000 ppm copper–oxychloride combination has yielded positive results in controlling the disease [57][58]. Additionally, chemicals such as Ultrasulphur, Perenox, and a combination of Blitox–nickel chloride, and sodium arsenate–copper sulphate, have been used to treat citrus cankers [59][60]. To manage acid lime cankers, a 1% glycerin spray and 500–1000 ppm streptomycin-sulphate have been used [61]. Moreover, two prunings and 6 sprays of 1000 ppm streptomycin have been found to minimize acid lime cankers [62]. Finally, a combination of Agrimycin and streptocycline–Bordeaux mixture has been reported to be an efficient antibiotic treatment for CC [63].
The Paushamycin–Blitox and Bordeaux mixture showed the most effective control of CC in field experiments with several chemicals [64]. Young plants have reportedly been treated in nurseries by having a neem cake solution applied to their leaves [65]. Streptocycline with copper oxychloride (0.1%) applied ideally every 7 and 15 days has been reported to be particularly efficient against CC [65]. A neem powder solution with streptomycin (100 ppm) and copper oxychloride (0.3%) applied together on clipped affected twigs has proven to be particularly effective at controlling the disease [66]. Three applications of copper hydroxide or copper ammonium carbonate with maneb with completely ripe grapefruit trees were evaluated in field studies. The applications reduced the number of lesions on fruits but not on foliage, according to the results. The most effective product for treating cankers was discovered to be copper ammonium carbonate with 8% metallic copper [67]. Mancozeb was added to copper spray in order to combat copper resistance [68]. It was advised to apply sprayable ammonium detergent disinfectants on individuals or equipment coming into contact with citrus in quarantine areas for hygiene reasons [69].

3.3. Biological Control

It has become more and more common to create ecologically friendly treatments for plant illnesses [40]. Researchers are looking into more ecological techniques to control phytopathogens in the field because of the development of chemical residue in soils and water supplies, as well as consumer concerns [40]. Recent research has used the antagonistic behavior of bacteria and chemicals produced from plants to control the CC pathogen [40]. Studies on the biological control of CC are, however, still in their infancy [38][70]. Certain bacterial strains have been reported to have aggressive anti-CC properties in vitro, including Bacillus subtilis, Pseudomonas syringae, Pseudomonas fluorescence, and Erwinia herbicola, isolated from citrus phylloplane [71][72][73][74]. It has been found to be difficult, however, to find antagonistic bacteria that can survive on mature citrus tree leaves [75]. For instance, Pseudomonas aeruginosa produces a secondary metabolite that is an antibiotic of organ copper, which can reduce the formation of canker lesions on Valencia oranges by as much as 90% [75].
Streptomycin sulphate is commonly used to control CC caused by Xcc [76]. However, due to the possibility of strains developing resistance to streptomycin and the risk of antibiotic resistance in other bacteria, regular spraying of streptomycin has been prohibited by European authorities [77]. Therefore, it is essential to identify more effective ways to control CC as it is still spreading, and an estimated 12 million USD is spent on its control annually [78][79].
When it comes to the management and control of plant diseases, biocontrol agents, such as chemical bactericides, are gaining attention. These agents are environmentally friendly and have a range of modes of action, making them a recommended option for managing pathogenic microbes [80][81]. Nearly three-hundred-thousand species of plants on Earth are hosts for endophytes [82]. The term “endophyte” was first used by De Bary in 1866, and he classified them as microorganisms, usually bacteria or fungi, which live inside healthy plants without causing any visible signs of infection to the host [83][84][85]. However, under favorable conditions, some endophytic bacteria, to some extent, behave like dormant pathogens that help in the infection of the host plant [85]. By producing antimicrobial compounds and phytohormones, endophytic bacteria can aid in plant development, defense, stimulate host plant immunity by SAR and ISR, and disease resistance [85][86]. Numerous Bacillus spp., in particular B. oryzicola, B. subtilis, B. velezensis, B. amyloliquefaciens FZB42, B. methylotrophicus, and B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum, have been observed for their capability to biocontrol a range of bacterial phytopathogens, such as X. oryzae pv. oryzae [87]. The commercial availability of bacillus-based products has increased recently. Some examples include RhizoPlus, RhizoVital, Amylo-X WG, and Sonata [88].
The researchers observed a bacteriolytic effect on Xcc, but no evidence of phytotoxicity was identified [89]. Several P. aeruginosa secondary metabolites decreased canker formation when used at low micromolar quantities [90][91]. P. aeruginosa must be carefully controlled because it is an opportunistic human infection, making it dangerous to use as a BCA [47]. BCAs have also been recommended as Bacillus spp. because they reduced Xcc growth both in vivo and in vitro [92][93][94]. Xcc quorum sensing molecule DSFisdegraded; numerous species of Pseudomonas and Bacillus, as well as Citrobacter, isolated from phylloplane of a sweet orange inhibit the growth and development of cankers [95]. The defense mechanisms of these bacterial species against CC infected trees were not studied. By generating bacteriocins, other bacterial species, including Cronobacter and Enterobacter, also prevented Xcc development in vitro [96].
Bacteriophages can be used to differentiate between different subgroups of bacteria within a species [96]. A commonly used technique for identifying X. citri strains is the use of Cp1 and Cp2 phages [97]. However, utilizing phages for biological control is not without its difficulties [98]. High quantities of phages must be sprayed on the surface of the leaf in order for them to be effective, as they have a limited active life span [99]. XacN1, a giant phage, is capable of infecting a variety of X. citri isolates, making it a suitable candidate for further field studies [100]. A combination of phages from orange orchards and ASM has been demonstrated to lessen canker symptoms in both greenhouse and outdoor experiments [101]. Phage and copper–mancozeb used together, however, did not result in an improvement in CC control over copper–mancozeb used alone [102]. Its interesting to note that filamentous integrative phages, such as XACF1, have been demonstrated to lessen the pathogenicity of Xcc, suggesting that they might be employed as CC biocontrol agents [103].

3.4. Resistant Varieties

Citrus varieties that are more resistant to cankers, such as ‘Valencia’ oranges and mandarins, may be beneficial in countries where the condition is both widespread and severe. For example, the ‘CC’ strain has been reported to be resistant to seedless limes [58]. In Japan, the ‘Tangi’ cultivar has been reported to have resistance to the cankers [104]. Furthermore, some aggressive citrus cultivars have been found to have narrow stomatal openings, lower stomatal frequencies, and greater amounts of phenols and amino acids [105]. The number of lesions per inoculation site can be measured to determine a citrus’ genotype resistance to CC type A without the necessity for bacterial population research. The “Lakeland” type of limequat might be a good seed parent for the development of sour citrus fruit [106]. Tangerine (Citrus sinensis, C. reticulata) cultivar “Setoka”, an improved Kuchinotsu No. 37–Murcott variety, was introduced in 1998. It is known as “Tangor Norin No. 8” in Japan, and its fruits ripen in February. This new variety of tree contains fruits that are almost entirely seedless, have few thorns, strong parthenocarpic tendencies, polyembryonic seeds, and trees with intermediate-to-decreased vigor. It is resistant to both CC and citrus scab. Its 200–280 g, oblate-shaped fruit has a thin, orange-to-deep-orange skin, extremely soft and juicy flesh, a flavor that is pleasant and aromatic, a low amount of acid content of 0.8 to 1.2 g per 100 mL, and a high concentration of soluble solids of 12 to 13% [107]. Citrus scab and cankers are resistant to certain late-maturing cultivars, such as “Shiranuhi”, “Youkou”, “Miho-core”, and “Hareyaka” [108][109][110]. It has also been discovered that Amaka, a tangor created by crossing “Kiyomi” tangor (C. unshiu; C. sinensis), is relatively resistant to CC [107]. As they exhibit resistance to citrus scab, but only modest resistance to CC, the mid- to late-maturing cultivars “Akemi” and “Harumi” have been recommended for cultivation in Japan [111][112]. Ultimately, introducing resistance genes into cultivars that are susceptible is the most efficient strategy to stop these diseases. For transformation, embryogenic calluses from navel orange “Newhall”, one of China’s most widely used commercial cultivars because of its seedlessness and benefits, “Early Gold” sweet orange, and “Murcott” tangerine were used to separate protoplasts. GFP-expressing transgenic embryoids were observed. The three cultivars’ regenerated shoots were grafted in vitro to accelerate their growth. The six “Early Gold” sweet orange shoots that were treated to PCR analysis all contained the Xa21 gene, whereas none of the nineteen samples of navel orange Newhall did [113].
Citrus bacterial spot and Xcc were examined in the greenhouse by foliar spraying of induced systemic resistance (ISR) compounds, harpin protein and acibenzolar-S-methyl against them. This was done 3–7 days prior to inoculation. In spray programsutilizing copper hydroxide (CuOH) and copper oxychloride (COC) in sweet orange orchards in southern Brazil with low-to-moderate disease incidence of citrus canker, the ISRs were studied in terms of this activity. Sprays of COC and CuOH considerably and modestly decreased the incidence of cankers and early fruit drop. Actigard, COC, and CuOH did not significantly lessen citrus canker and early fruit drop on citrus leaves as compared to Cu alone. ISRs cannot currently be suggested to support Cu programs for the management of CC because of a lack of further control [114]. Citrus rootstocks can significantly influence both fruit yield and susceptibility to CC. Citrumelo Swingle, and Flying dragon rootstocks were found to have the highest productivity index and the lowest occurrences of CC disease. However, Rangpur and Volkameriana rootstocks, while encouraging a higher crop load, demonstrated a greater susceptibility to CC [115].

3.5. Induced Systemic Resistance

Plants possess an active resistance mechanism, known as induced systemic resistance (ISR), which can be triggered by either biotic or abiotic infection. This technique enhances the plant’s physical and chemical defenses against infection [116]. Chemicals such as salicylic acid, benzothiadiazoles, and harpin protein are being used successfully to increase the plant’s resistance to diseases [117][118]. ISR can also prevent the emergence of pathogen resistance and control the disease [94]. Early in the season, ISR activity can be used to amplify the protective effects of copper, which inhibit the growth of bacteria on expanding leaves [119]. Examples of chemicals used for the treatment of CC include Actigard (a benzothiadiazole approved for use in the USA) and Eden Bioscience (a harpin protein product approved for use in Europe and South America) [120]. Moreover, several ISR inducers are currently being studied for their potential to control Xcc in Florida. These include Messenger, Nutri-phite, Oxycom, and FNX-100 [47]. Transgenesis has also been used against the CC for increasing tolerance to Xcc. When three lines of sweet orange—Hamlin, Pera, and Natal—had their genomes modified with the Xa21gene, the severity of the disease was considerably reduced. When produced in the extremely sensitive Anliucheng, the Xa21gene’s promoter appeared to be more successful in promoting disease resistance. RpfF, which encodes for a quorum-sensing gene that can disrupt bacterial communication by reducing the activation of virulence proteins, was introduced into transgenic Carrizo citrange and sweet orange plants in order to improve their tolerance to pathogen infection. The expression of the flesh fly AMP sarcotoxin also improved the tolerance to Xcc [121].

3.6. Leaf Miner Control

Cankers that are not spread by leaf miners, but a large influx of bacteria through leaf miner galleries, can increase the severity of the disease, making it difficult to control [48]. To reduce the risk of the disease, it is important to control leaf miners during the initial summer growth period; however, there is no effective way to manage leaf miners during the later summer flushes. As there is no visible damage during the spring growth, it is important to take preventive action [120]. Applying petroleum oil, Agri-mek, Spintor, Micromite, and Assail immediately can help to reduce leaf minor damage [48][121].
A conventional Chinese management method was used to achieve even budding, which entails pruning to delay budding until late autumn, and the gathering and removal of fallen leaves during the winter [122]. This restricts growth to the period of the year when P. citrella moths are at their lowest population. Additionally, fertilizing trees regularly and preventing drought boosts their resilience to attack by P. citrella. According to studies, citrus trees treated with avermectin have an 86.2–100% success rate in controlling P. citrella [123]. These two extracts can also effectively control P. citrella by preventing mating at very low pheromone deployment rates [124]. Moreover, Smith and Hoy (1995) reported the use of parasitoids Ageniaspiscitricola as a successful means of controlling P. citrella [125].
Studies have found that P. citrella has mortality rates of 80–97% when exposed to Bacillus thuringiensis strains 04-1, 454, and HD-1 [122]. To prevent the recent spread of the species, programs for biological control have been implemented in Israel, Australia, and Florida in the United States, wherein natural enemies have been introduced [126][127]. These programs have included cultural practices, the potential release of parasitoids and predators, and precisely-timed injections of Bacillus thuringiensis [122]. Mating disruption can be a highly effective management technique when combined with biological control and minimal chemical control, provided growers have access to pheromone dispensers.

3.7. Control through Plant Extracts

Alternative strategies for controlling plant pathogenic bacteria must be developed in order to reduce or mitigate the negative effects of synthetic pesticides on the environment [128][129]. Green plants can be utilized as a valuable source of natural pesticides and have been demonstrated to be an effective chemotherapeutic alternative to synthetic pesticides [130]. Numerous studies have displayed the potential of various plant byproducts, such as extracts and diffusates, to combat different pathogenic bacteria and fungi [131][132][133][134][135]. Unfortunately, antibiotics are often beyond the financial reach of the average farmer in Pakistan due to their comparatively high costs and the fact that small farmers’ economic circumstances are not ideal [136]. In light of this, it appears that plant extracts and diffusates may be a suitable solution for treating bacterial plant diseases [137]. To reduce the spread of Xcc, farming communities have utilized a variety of plant extracts, including Azadirachtaindica, Dalbrgia sissoo, Allium sativum L., Calotropis gigantea, Allium cepa L., Melia azedarach, Eucalyptuscamelduensis, and Gardenia florida [137]. A general term used to describe any volatile, aromatic chemical produced by plants is “essential oil” [138].
Antibacterial effects of essential oils against pathogenic and phytopathogenic microorganisms have long been recognized [139]. Numerous essential oils from the citrus species Fortunella spp., Citrus aurantifolia, and Citrus aurantium have been proven to eradicate Xcc [140]. In disc diffusion trials, citral from C. aurantifolia significantly reduced the development of Xcc, while geranyl acetate, limonene, and transcaryophyllene from the Fortunella species had small effects [140]. Considering that citral has an MIC of 0.5 mg/mL, large doses are required to manage Xcc in vitro conditions [140]. The development of Xcc was reduced by Chinese sumac (Rhus chinensis) leaf gallnut extracts in water and acetone at a concentration of 1 mg/mL, suggesting that other plant-derived compounds can be helpful against CC [141]. The bioactive compounds were methyl gallates and gallic acids after the gallnut leaf extracts had been further isolated [141]. Comparing methyl gallates (MIC 0.1 mg/mL) to gallic acids (MIC 4 mg/mL), the latter was substantially less active [141]. Synthetic gallates inhibited Xcc host colonization following artificial infiltration at low micromolar concentrations in vitro, but when applied to already developed cankers, these substances decreased the bacterial population [142].
Similar to pyridinium-tailored compounds, alkyl gallate amphiphile structures display improved chemical entry in target cells; in Xcc, membrane permeabilization and the divisional septum have been identified as the chemicals’ main targets [143]. Further molecular development produced more lipophilic and deadly monoacetylated alkyl gallates from these substances, which were initially discovered to be low in toxicity in human cells [143]. C. coriariaisis a potential host plant for controlling Xanthomonas [144]; the diffusates of Terminalia chebula, Phyllanthus emblica, Sapindusmukoross, and Acacia nilotica were found to be the most effective ones against Xcc in forest trees [145]. Psidium guajava L. leaf extracts in methanol could be used to produce antibacterial treatments to manage plant pathogenic bacteria because they could prevent the growth of Xanthomonas spp. at all concentrations [146].

3.8. Control of Citrus Canker through Wind Break Systems

In a particular reference [147], it was emphasized that the interaction between precipitation and high-speed winds plays a crucial role in the dispersal of substantial amounts of bacteria from infected citrus trees. The authors of this research suggested that reducing the sources of inoculum and controlling wind speed could be effective strategies for mitigating the spread of the disease. In some regions of northeastern Argentina, natural windbreaks are commonly used to shield citrus orchards from the prevailing southern winds [148]. This choice of location for the windbreaks is supported by an analysis of the synoptic-scale atmospheric circulation pattern that accompanies precipitation events in the area. The typical large-scale atmospheric circulation pattern begins with southerly winds blowing from the South Atlantic Anticyclone (located around 30° S latitude) over the South American continent, accompanied by anticyclonic conditions in the mid-troposphere [149][150]. This pattern usually persists for a few days, after which a wave front originating from the Pacific Ocean crosses the Andes and generates an extratropical cyclone in the eastern or northeastern part of Argentina. This cyclone is typically associated with a cold front that advances towards the northeastern region, resulting in significant precipitation events. During this stage, the prevailing wind direction over northeastern Argentina is generally from the south or southwest. A study conducted by the authors of reference [151][152][153][154][155] in Concordia, which is located in the northeastern region of Entre Ríos Province in Argentina, demonstrated that implementing windbreaks, either alone or in combination with copper-based bactericides, resulted in a significant decrease in the advancement of citrus canker disease.
The impact of windbreaks on the incidence of citrus canker disease was investigated by the authors of references [156][157][158][159][160] in Bella Vista. Three separate blocks of Citrus species were planted at increasing distances to the north of a natural windbreak, and the researchers monitored the disease intensity weekly. Regression analysis revealed a significant positive correlation (R2: 0.62–0.96) between the distance from the windbreak and the observed disease intensity. At a distance of 117 m from the windbreak (i.e., the last row of the grove), the intensity of citrus canker was found to be 2- to 10-fold greater than that observed at a distance of 19 m (i.e., the first row), for all cultivars and on various dates. In the same experimental grove, the authors of references [161][162] aimed to identify the weather variables that were most strongly associated with mid-season grapefruit canker disease. They based their analysis on the average observations of three blocks and conducted their investigations over 14 and 18 growing seasons, respectively, without taking into account the distance from the windbreak. In both studies, the weather variables calculated during the spring were examined, and it was found that the total number of days with precipitation exceeding 12 mm, the total number of days with concurrent precipitation exceeding 12 mm, and mean daily wind speeds (measured at the Bella Vista meteorological station) exceeding 2.6 km/h were the most strongly correlated variables [163].

3.9. Factors Affecting Successful Eradication of Citrus Canker

Xcc’s possess distinct features that make them highly appropriate for eradication, as they cannot survive outside their host lesion for an extended period of time. Additionally, Xcc’s lack a reliable vector for transmission, while their increased lesions can be rapidly and accurately identified. Furthermore, the majority of commercially cultivated citrus plants are extremely sensitive to these bacteria, making disease control measures only marginally successful and relatively costly, even though they were successful in eliminating the disease in Florida, Australia, and South Africa in the past [47].

References

  1. Löffler, F.E.; Yan, J.; Ritalahti, K.M.; Adrian, L.; Edwards, E.A.; Konstantinidis, K.T.; Müller, J.A.; Fullerton, H.; Zinder, S.H.; Spormann, A.M. Dehalococcoides mccartyi gen. nov., sp. nov., obligately organohalide-respiring anaerobic bacteria relevant to halogen cycling and bioremediation, belong to a novel bacterial class, Dehalococcoidia classis nov., order Dehalococcoidales ord. nov. and family Dehalococcoidaceae fam. nov., within the phylum Chloroflexi. Int. J. Syst. Evol. 2013, 63, 625–635.
  2. Licciardello, G.; Caruso, P.; Bella, P.; Boyer, C.; Smith, M.W.; Pruvost, O.; Robene, I.; Cubero, J.; Catara, V. Pathotyping citrus ornamental relatives with Xanthomonas citri pv. citri and X. citri pv. aurantifolii refines our understanding of their susceptibility to these pathogens. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 986.
  3. Jenkins, A.E.; Fawcett, H.S. Records of Citrus scab mainly from herbarium specimens of the genus Citrus in England and the United States. Phytopathology 1933, 23, 475–482.
  4. Loucks, K.W. Citrus Canker and its Eradication in Florida. In Unpublished Manuscript Archives of the Florida; Department of Agriculture, Division of Plant Industry: Gainesville, FL, USA, 1934; p. 110.
  5. Gochez, A.M.; Behlau, F.; Singh, R.; Ong, K.; Whilby, L.; Jones, J.B. Panorama of citrus canker in the United States. Trop. Plant Pathol. 2020, 45, 192–199.
  6. Berger, E. Citrus canker in the Gulf Coast country, with notes on the extent of citrus culture in the localities visited. Proc. Fla. State Hortic. Soc. 1914, 27, 120–127.
  7. Stall, R.E.; Civerolo, E.L. Research relating to the recent outbreak of citrus canker in Florida. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1991, 29, 399–420.
  8. EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH). Scientific Opinion on the risk to plant health of Xanthomonas citri pv. citri and Xanthomonas citri pv. aurantifolii for the EU territory. EFSA J. 2014, 12, 3556.
  9. Garnsey, S.M.; Ducharme, E.P.; Lightfied, J.W.; Seymour, C.P.; Griffiths, J.T. Citrus canker. Citrus Ind. 1979, 60, 5–6.
  10. Ngoc, L.; Vernière, C.; Jouen, E.; Ah-You, N.; Lefeuvre, P.; Chiroleu, F.; Gagnevin, L.; Pruvost, O. Amplified fragment length polymorphism and multilocus sequence analysis-based genotypic relatedness among pathogenic variants of Xanthomonas citri pv. citri and Xanthomonas campestris pv. bilvae. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2010, 60, 515–525.
  11. Patel, M.; Allayyanavaramath, S.; Kulkarni, Y. Bacterial shot-hole and fruit canker of Aegle marmelos Correa. Curr. Sci. 1953, 22, 216–217.
  12. Favaro, M.A.; Micheloud, N.G.; Roeschlin, R.A.; Chiesa, M.A.; Castagnaro, A.P.; Vojnov, A.A.; Gmitter, F.G., Jr.; Gadea, J.; Rista, L.M.; Gariglio, N.F.; et al. Surface barriers of mandarin ‘Okitsu’ leaves make a major contribution to canker disease resistance. Phytopathology 2014, 104, 970–976.
  13. Luthra, J.C.; Sattar, A. Citrus canker and its control in Punjab. Punjab Fruit J. 1942, 6, 179–182.
  14. Chowdhury, S. Citrus canker in Assam. Pl. Prot. Bull. 1951, 3, 78–79.
  15. Govinda Rao, P. Citrus diseases and their control in Andhra State. Andhra Agric. J. 1954, 1, 187–192.
  16. Ramakrishnan, T.S. Common Diseases of Citrus in Madras State; Government of Madras Publication: New Delhi, India, 1994.
  17. Aiyappa, K.M. Citrus canker-Xanthomonas citri (Hasse) Dowson. Mysore Agric. J. 1958, 13, 164–167.
  18. Parsai, P.S. Citrus canker. In Proceedings of the Seminar on Diseases of Horticultural Plants, Simla, India, 10–15 June 1959; pp. 91–95.
  19. Prasad, N.; Mathur, R.L.; Sehgal, S.P. Molya disease of wheat and barley in Rajasthan. Curr. Sci. 1959, 28, 453.
  20. Berk, Z. Citrus Fruit Processing. In Crop Protection Compendium, Global Module, 4th ed.; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2016.
  21. Nirvan, R. Citrus canker and its control. Hort. Adv. 1961, 5, 171–175.
  22. Bull, C.T.; De Boer, S.H.; Denny, T.P.; Firrao, G.; Saux, M.F.-L.; Saddler, G.; Scortichini, M.; Stead, D.; Takikawa, Y. List of new names of plant pathogenic bacteria (2008–2010). J. Plant Pathol. 2012, 94, 21–27.
  23. Hasse, C.H. Pseudomonas citri, the cause of citrus canker, a preliminary report. J. Agric. Res. 1915, 4, 97–100.
  24. Dowson, W.J. On the systematic position and generic names of the gram negative bacterial plant pathogens. Zent. Bakteriol. Parasitenkd. Infekt. Hyg. 1939, 100, 177–193.
  25. Bull, C.T.; De Boer, S.H.; Denny, T.P.; Firrao, G.; Saux, M.F.; Saddler, G.S.; Scortichini, M.; Stead, D.E.; Takikawa, Y. Comprehensivelist of names of plant pathogenic bacteria(1980–2007). J. Plant Pathol. 2010, 92, 551–592.
  26. Brunings, A.M.; Gabriel, D.W. Xanthomonas citri: Breaking the surface. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2003, 4, 141–157.
  27. Gochez, A.M.; Minsavage, G.V.; Potnis, N.; Canteros, B.I.; Stall, R.E.; Jones, J.B. A functional Xop AG homolog in Xanthomonas fuscanspv. aurantifolii strain C limits the host range. Plant Pathol. 2015, 64, 1207–1214.
  28. Moreira, L.M.; Almeida, N.F., Jr.; Potnis, N.; Digiampietri, L.A.; Adi, S.S.; Bortolossi, J.C.; da Silva, A.C.; da Silva, A.M.; de Moraes, F.E.; de Oliveira, J.C.; et al. Novel insights into the genomic basis of citrus canker based on the genome sequences of two strains of Xanthomonas fuscans subsp. aurantifolii. BMC Genom. 2010, 11, 238.
  29. da Silva, A.R.; Ferro, J.A.; Reinach, F.d.C.; Farah, C.S.; Furlan, L.R.; Quaggio, R.B.; Monteiro-Vitorello, C.B.; Van Sluys, M.-A.; Almeida, N.A.; Alves, L. Comparison of the genomes of two Xanthomonas pathogens with differing host specificities. Nature 2002, 417, 459–463.
  30. Moreira, L.M.; de Souza, R.E.; Almeida, N.F.; Setubal, J.C.; Oliveira, J.C.F.; Furlan, L.R.; Ferro, J.A.; da Silva, A.C.R. Comparative genomics analyses of citrus-associated bacteria. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2004, 42, 163–184.
  31. Moreira, L.M.; De Souza, R.F.; Digiampietri, L.A.; Da Silva, A.C.R.; Setubal, J.C. Comparative analyses of Xanthomonas and Xylella complete genomes. Omics J. Integr. Biol. 2005, 9, 43–76.
  32. Civerolo, E.L. Bacterial canker disease of citrus. J. Rio Gd. Val. Hortic. Soc. 1984, 37, 127–145.
  33. Namekata, T. Estudoscomparativos Entre Xanthomonas citri (Hasse) Dow., Agente Causal Do Cancrocítrico e Xanthomonas citri (Hasse) Dow., n.f. sp. Aurantifolia, Agente Causal da Cancrose do Limoeiro Galego; University of São Paulo: Piracicaba, Brazil, 1971.
  34. Jaciani, F.J.; Destéfano, S.A.L.; Neto, J.R.; Belasque, J., Jr. Detection of a New Bacterium Related to Xanthomonas fuscans subsp. aurantifolii Infecting Swingle Citrumelo in Brazil. Plant Dis. 2009, 93, 1074.
  35. Bansal, K.; Kumar, S.; Patil, P.B. Phylogenomic insights into diversity and evolution of nonpathogenic Xanthomonas strains associated with citrus. mSphere 2020, 5, e00087-20.
  36. Patané, J.S.L.; Martins, J.; Rangel, L.T.; Belasque, J.; Digiampietri, L.A.; Facincani, A.P.; Ferreira, R.M.; Jaciani, F.J.; Zhang, Y.; Varani, A.M.; et al. Origin and diversification of Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri pathotypes revealed by inclusive phylogenomic, dating, and biogeographic analyses. BMC Genom. 2019, 20, 700.
  37. Young, J.M.; Dye, D.W.; Bradbury, J.F.; Panagopoulos, C.G.; Robbs, C.F. Proposed nomenclature and classification for plant pathogenic bacteria. N. Z. J. Agric. 1978, 21, 153–177.
  38. Jalan, N.; Kumar, D.; Andrade, M.O.; Yu, F.; Jones, J.B.; Graham, J.H.; White, F.F.; Setubal, J.C.; Wang, N. Comparative genomic and transcriptome analyses of pathotypes of Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri provide insights into mechanisms of bacterial virulence and host range. BMC Genom. 2013, 14, 551.
  39. Ngoc, L.B.T.; Vernière, C.; Pruvost, O.; Kositcharoenkul, N.; Phawichit, S. First report in Thailand of Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri-A* causing citrus canker on lime. Plant Dis. 2007, 91, 771.
  40. Bock, C.H.; Parker, P.E.; Gottwald, T.R. Effect of simulated wind-driven rain on duration and distance of dispersal of Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri from canker-infected citrus trees. Plant Dis. 2005, 89, 71–80.
  41. Gabriel, D.W.; Kingsley, M.T.; Hunter, J.E.; Gottwald, T.R. Reinstatement of Xanthomonas citri (ex Hasse) and X. phaseoli (ex Smith) to species and reclassification of all X. campestris pv. citri strains. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 1989, 39, 14–22.
  42. Vauterin, L.; Hoste, B.; Kersters, K.; Swings, J. Reclassification of Xanthomonas. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 1995, 45, 472–489.
  43. Graham, J.H.; Gottwald, T.R.; Cubero, J.; Achor, D.S. Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri: Factors affecting successful eradication of citrus canker. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2004, 5, 1–15.
  44. Richard, D.; Tribot, N.; Boyer, C.; Terville, M.; Boyer, K.; Javegny, S.; Roux-Cuvelier, M.; Pruvost, O.; Moreau, A.; Chabirand, A.; et al. First report of copper-resistant Xanthomonas citri pv. citri pathotype A causing Asiatic citrus canker in Réunion, France. Plant Disease 2017, 101, 503.
  45. Swarup, S.; De Feyter, R.; Brlansky, R.H.; Gabriel, D.W. A pathogenicity locus from Xanthomonas citri enables strains from several pathovars of X. campestris to elicit cankerlike lesions on citrus. Phytopathology 1991, 81, 802–809.
  46. Randsborg, K. Introduction. EPPO Bull. 1979, 9, 341–342.
  47. Teper, D.; Pandey, S.S.; Wang, N. The HrpG/HrpX Regulon of Xanthomonads—An Insight to the Complexity of Regulation of Virulence Traits in Phytopathogenic Bacteria. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 187.
  48. Hall, D.G.; Gottwald, T.R.; Bock, C.H. Exacerbation of citrus canker by citrus leafminer Phyllocnistis citrella in Florida. Fla. Entomol. 2010, 93, 558–566.
  49. Humphries, J. Bacteriology. J. Murray. 1974. Available online: https://search.library.uq.edu.au/primo-explore/fulldisplay?vid=61UQ&tab=61uq_all&docid=61UQ_ALMA21106794260003131&lang=en_US&context=L (accessed on 30 March 2023).
  50. Tan, X.; Huang, S.; Ren, J.; Yan, W.; Cen, Z. Study on a bacterial strain Bt8 for biocontrol against citrus bacterial canker. Wei Sheng Wuxue Bao Acta Microbiol. 2006, 46, 292–296.
  51. Constantin, E.C.; Cleenwerck, I.; Maes, M.; Baeyen, S.; Van Malderghem, C.; De Vos, P.; Cottyn, B. Genetic characterization of strains named as Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. dieffenbachiae leads to a taxonomic revision of the X. axonopodis species complex. Plant Pathol. 2016, 65, 792–806.
  52. Balogh, B.; Canteros, B.I.; Stall, R.E.; Jones, J.B. Control of citrus canker and citrus bacterial spot with bacteriophages. Plant Dis. 2008, 92, 1048–1052.
  53. Koizumi, M.; Kochinotsu, B. Relation of temperature to the development of citrus canker lesions in the spring. Proc. Int. Soc. Citric. 1977, 3, 924–928.
  54. McCollum, G.; Bowman, K.; Gottwald, T. Screening Citrus Germplasm for Resistance to Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri. Hort. Sci. 2006, 41, 1048E–1049E.
  55. Lahaye, T.; Bonas, U. Molecular secrets of bacterial type III effector proteins. Trends Plant Sci. 2001, 6, 479–485.
  56. Leite, R., Jr.; Mohan, S. Integrated management of the citrus bacterial canker disease caused by Xanthomonas campestris pv. citri in the State of Paraná, Brazil. Crop. Prot. 1990, 9, 3–7.
  57. Nazaré, A.C.; Polaquini, C.R.; Cavalca, L.B.; Anselmo, D.B.; Saiki, M.D.F.C.; Monteiro, D.A.; Zielinska, A.; Rahal, P.; Gomes, E.; Scheffers, D.-J.; et al. Design of antibacterial agents: Alkyl dihydroxybenzoates against Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 3050.
  58. Stall, R.E.; Seymour, C.P. Canker, a threat to citrus in the Gulf-Coast states. Plant Dis. 1983, 67, 581–585.
  59. Stein, B.; Ramallo, J.; Foguet, L.; Graham, J.H. Citrus leafminer control and copper sprays for management of citrus canker on lemon in Tucuman, Argentina. In Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society; Florida State Horticultural Society: Alexandria, VA, USA, 2007; Volume 120, pp. 127–131.
  60. Verdejo-Lucas, S.; McKenry, M.V. Management of the citrus nematode, Tylenchulus semipenetrans. J. Nematol. 2004, 36, 424.
  61. Cooksey, D.A.; Azad, H.R.; Cha, J.S.; Lim, C.K. Copper resistance gene homologs in pathogenic and saprophytic bacterial species from Tomato. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1990, 56, 431–435.
  62. Silva, I.C.; Regasini, L.O.; Petrãnio, M.S.; Silva, D.H.S.; Bolzani, B.S.; Belasque, J., Jr.; Sacramento, L.V.S.; Ferreira, H. Antibacterial activity of alkyl gallates against Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri. J. Bacteriol. 2013, 195, 85–94.
  63. McGuire, R.G. Evaluation of bactericidal chemicals for control of Xanthomonas on citrus. Plant Dis. 1988, 72, 1016–1020.
  64. Cacciola, S.O.; Lio, G.M.D.S. Management of citrus diseases caused by Phytophthora spp. In Integrated Management of Diseases Caused by Fungi, Phytoplasma and Bacteria; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 61–84.
  65. Talibi, I.; Boubaker, H.; Boudyach, E.H.; Ait Ben Aoumar, A. Alternative methods for the control of postharvest citrus diseases. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2014, 117, 1–17.
  66. Luiz, M.H.R.; Takahashi, L.T.; Bassanezi, R.C. Optimal control in citrus diseases. Comput. Appl. Math. 2021, 40, 191.
  67. Paracer, C. Some important diseases of fruit trees. Punjab Hort. J. 1961, 1, 45–47.
  68. Graham, J.H.; Johnson, E.G.; Myers, M.E.; Young, M.; Rajasekaran, P.; Das, S.; Santra, S. Potential of nano-formulated zinc oxide for control of citrus canker on grapefruit trees. Plant Dis. 2016, 100, 2442–2447.
  69. Patel, R.; Desai, M. Control of Citrus Canker 1. Indian J. Hortic. 1970, 27, 93–98.
  70. Behlau, F.; Fonseca, A.E.; Belasque, J. A comprehensive analysis of the Asiatic citrus canker eradication programme in Sao Paulo state, Brazil, from 1999 to 2009. Plant Pathol. 2016, 65, 1390–1399.
  71. Kishun, R.; Chand, R. Studies on germplasm resistance and chemical control of citrus canker. Indian J. Hortic. 1987, 44, 126–132.
  72. Patel, M.; Padhya, A. Sodium arsenite-Copper sulphate spray for the control of citrus canker. Curr. Sci. 1964, 33, 87–88.
  73. Ram, G.; Nirvan, R.; Saxena, M. Control of citrus canker. Prog. Hort. 1972, 12, 240–243.
  74. Rangaswami, G.; Rao, R.R.; Lakshaman, A. Studies on the control of citrus canker with Streptomycin. Phytopathology 1959, 49, 224–226.
  75. Balaraman, K.; Purushotman, R. Control of citrus canker on acid lime. South Indian Hortic. 1981, 29, 175–177.
  76. El-Goorani, M.A. The occurrence of citrus canker disease in United Arab Emirates (UAE). J. Phytopathol. 1989, 125, 257–264.
  77. Kale, K.; Raut, J.; Ohekar, G. Efficacy of fungicides and antibiotics against acidlime (Citrus aurantifolia (Christm.) swingle) canker. Pesticides 1988, 22, 26–27.
  78. Dakshinamurthi, V.; Rao, D. Preliminary studies on the control of citrus Canker on acid lime. Andhra Agric. J. 1959, 6, 145–148.
  79. Kale, K.; Kolte, S.; Peshney, N. Economics of chemical control of citrus canker caused by Xanthomonas campestris pv. citri under field conditions. Indian Phytopathol. 1994, 47, 253–255.
  80. Kumar, A.; Sharma, N.; Ahmad, M.; Siddiqui, M.W. Climate change, food security, and livelihood opportunities in mountain agriculture. Clim. Dyn. Hortic. Sci. 2015, 28, 349–360.
  81. Timmer, L. Evaluation of bactericides for control of citrus canker in Argentina. In Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society; Florida State Horticultural Society: Alexandria, VA, USA, 1988; pp. 6–9.
  82. Del Campo, R.; Russi, P.; Mara, P.; Mara, H.; Peyrou, M.; De León, I.P.; Gaggero, C. Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri enters the VBNC state after copper treatment and retains its virulence. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2009, 298, 143–148.
  83. Das, K.; Datta, K.; Karmakar, S.; Datta, S.K. Antimicrobial peptides—Small but mighty weapons for plants to fight phytopathogens. Protein Pept. Lett. 2019, 26, 720–742.
  84. Das, R.M.B.; Mondal, P.; Khatua, D.; Mukherjee, N. Biological management of citrus canker on acid lime through Bacillus subtilis (S-12) in West Bengal, India. J. Biopestic. 2013, 7, 38–41.
  85. Ota, T. Interactions in vitro and in vivo between Xanthomonas campestris pv. citri and Antagonistic pseudomonas sp. Jpn. J. Phytopathol. 1983, 49, 308–315.
  86. Goto, M.; Yaguchi, Y. Relationship between defoliation and disease severity in citrus canker. Jpn. J. Phytopathol. 1979, 45, 689–694.
  87. Unnamalai, N.; Gnanamanickam, S. Pseudomonas fluorescens is an antagonist to Xanthomonas citri (Hasse) Dye, the incitant of citrus canker. Curr. Sci. 1984, 53, 703–704.
  88. Graham, J.H.; Leite, R.P.; Yonce, H.D.; Myers, A.M. Streptomycin controls citrus canker on sweet orange in Brazil and reduces risk of copper burn on grapefruit in Florida. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 2008, 121, 118–123.
  89. Chen, X.H.; Scholz, R.; Borriss, M.; Junge, H.; Mogel, G.; Kunz, S.; Borriss, R. Dicidin and bacilysin produced by plant-associated Bacillus amyloliquefaciens are ecient in controlling fire blight disease. J. Biotechnol. 2009, 140, 38–44.
  90. Liu, B.; Qiao, H.; Huang, L.; Buchenauer, H.; Han, Q.; Kang, Z.; Gong, Y. Biological control of take-all in wheat by endophytic Bacillus subtilis E1R-j and potential mode of action. Biol. Control 2009, 49, 277–285.
  91. Gouda, S.; Das, G.; Sen, S.K.; Shin, H.S.; Patra, J.K. Endophytes: A treasure house of bioactive compounds of medicinal importance. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 1538.
  92. Nguyen, H.T.; Yu, N.H.; Jeon, S.J.; Lee, H.W.; Bae, C.-H.; Yeo, J.H.; Lee, H.B.; Kim, I.-S.; Park, H.W.; Kim, J.-C. Antibacterial activities of penicillic acid isolated from Aspergillus persii against various plant pathogenic bacteria. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2016, 62, 488–493.
  93. Chen, X.H.; Koumoutsi, A.; Scholz, R.; Eisenreich, A.; Schneider, K.; Heinemeyer, I.; Morgenstern, B.; Voss, B.; Hess, W.R.; Reva, O.; et al. Comparative analysis of the complete genome sequence of the plant growth-promoting bacterium Bacillus amyloliquefaciens FZB42. Nat. Biotechnol. 2007, 25, 1007–1014.
  94. Paulsen, I.T.; Press, C.M.; Ravel, J.; Kobayashi, D.Y.; Myers, G.S.A.; Mavrodi, D.V.; DeBoy, R.T.; Seshadri, R.; Ren, Q.; Madupu, R.; et al. Complete genome sequence of the plant commensal Pseudomonas fluorescens Pf-5. Nat. Biotechnol. 2005, 23, 873–878.
  95. Strobel, G.; Daisy, B. Bioprospecting for microbial endophytes and their natural products. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2003, 67, 491–502.
  96. Hallmann, J.; Quadt-Hallmann, A.; Mahaee, W.F.; Kloepper, J.W. Bacterial endophytes in agricultural crops. Can. J. Microbiol. 1997, 43, 895–914.
  97. Nisa, H.; Kamili, A.N.; Nawchoo, I.A.; Shafi, S.; Shameem, N.; Bandh, S.A. Fungal endophytes as prolific source of phytochemicals and other bioactive natural products: A review. Microb. Pathog. 2015, 82, 50–59.
  98. Hentschel, U.; Steinert, M.; Hacker, J. Common molecular mechanisms of symbiosis and pathogenesis. Trends Microbiol. 2000, 8, 226–231.
  99. Cao, Y.; Pi, H.; Chandrangsu, P.; Li, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhou, H.; Xiong, H.; Helmann, J.D.; Cai, Y. Antagonism of two plant-growth promoting Bacillus velezensis isolates against Ralstonia solanacearum and Fusarium oxysporum. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 4360.
  100. Chen, L.; Heng, J.; Qin, S.; Bian, K. A comprehensive understanding of the biocontrol potential of Bacillus velezensis LM2303 against Fusarium head blight. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0198560.
  101. Cawoy, H.; Bettiol, W.; Fickers, P.; Ongena, M. Bacillus-based biological control of plant diseases. Pestic. Mordern World-Pestic. Use Manag. 2009, 1849, 273–298.
  102. Marco, G.M.; Stall, R.E. Control of bacterial spot of pepper initiated by strains of Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria that differ in sensitivity to copper. Plant Dis. 1983, 67, 779–781.
  103. de Oliveira, A.G.; Spago, F.R.; Simionato, A.S.; Navarro, M.O.; da Silva, C.S.; Barazetti, A.R.; Andrade, G. Bioactive organocopper compound from Pseudomonas aeruginosa inhibits the growth of Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 113.
  104. Murate, L.S.; de Oliveira, A.G.; Higashi, A.Y.; Barazetti, A.R.; Simionato, A.S.; da Silva, C.S.; Simões, G.C.; Santos, I.M.O.D.; Ferreira, M.R.; Cely, M.V.T.; et al. Activity of secondary bacterial metabolites in the control of citrus canker. In Embrapa Soja-Artigoemanais de congresso (ALICE). Agric. Sci. 2015, 6, 295–303.
  105. Spago, F.R.; Mauro, C.I.; Oliveira, A.G.; Beranger, J.P.O.; Cely, M.V.T.; Stanganelli, M.M.; Andrade, G. Pseudomonas aeruginosa produces secondary metabolites that have biological activity against plant pathogenic Xanthomonas species. Crop Prot. 2014, 62, 46–54.
  106. Huang, T.P.; Tzeng, D.D.S.; Wong, A.C.L.; Chen, C.H.; Lu, K.M.; Lee, Y.H.; Huang, W.D.; Hwang, B.F.; Tzeng, K.C. DNA polymorphisms and biocontrol of Bacillus antagonistic to citrus bacterial canker with indication of the interference of phyllosphere biofilms. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e42124.
  107. Rabbee, M.F.; Ali, M.S.; Baek, K.-H. Endophyte Bacillus velezensis isolated from Citrus spp. Controls streptomycin-resistant Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri that causes citrus bacterial canker. Agronomy 2019, 9, 470.
  108. Choi, J.; Moon, E. Identification of novel bioactive hexapeptides against phytopathogenic bacteria through rapid screening of a synthetic combinatorial library. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2009, 19, 792–802.
  109. Gholami, D.; Goodarzi, T.; Aminzadeh, S.; Alavi, S.M.; Kazemipour, N.; Farrokhi, N. Bacterial secretome analysis in hunt for novel bacteriocins with ability to control Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri. Iran J. Biotechnol. 2015, 13, 10–19.
  110. Ahmad, A.A.; Askora, A.; Kawasaki, T.; Fujie, M.; Yamada, T. The filamentous phage XacF1 causes loss of virulence in Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri, the causative agent of citrus canker disease. Front. Microbiol. 2014, 5, 321.
  111. Nilsson, A.S. Phage therapy-constraints and possibilities. Upsala J. Med. Sci. 2014, 119, 192–198.
  112. Kering, K.K.; Kibii, B.J.; Wei, H. Biocontrol of phytobacteria with bacteriophage cocktails. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2019, 75, 1775–1781.
  113. Yoshikawa, G.; Askora, A.; Blanc-Mathieu, R.; Kawasaki, T.; Li, Y.; Nakano, M.; Ogata, H.; Yamada, T. Xanthomonas citri jumbo phage XacN1 exhibits a wide host range and high complement of tRNA genes. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 4486.
  114. Ibrahim, Y.E.; Saleh, A.A.; Al-Saleh, M.A. Management of Asiatic citrus canker under field conditions in Saudi Arabia using bacteriophages and acibenzolar-s-methyl. Plant Dis. 2017, 101, 761–765.
  115. Buttimer, C.; McAuliffe, O.; Ross, R.P.; Hill, C.; O’Mahony, J.; Coffey, A. Bacteriophages and bacterial plant diseases. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 34–41.
  116. Wei, J.F.; Wei, L.G.; Qin, G.M.; Luo, G.F. Resistance of six recommended varieties of Japan navel orange to citrus bacteria. Plant Prot. Q. 1995, 2, 18–19.
  117. Pullaiah, N.; Moses, G.J.; Kumar, P.S.R. Biochemical nature of resistance in citrus canker disease (Xanthomonas campestris pv. citri (Hasse) Dye). Andhra Pradesh J. Agric. Sci. 1993, 21, 172–173.
  118. Viloria, Z.; Drouillard, D.L.; Graham, J.H.; Grosser, J.W. Screening triploid hybrids of ‘Lakeland’ limequat for resistance to citrus canker. Plant Dis. 2004, 88, 1056–1060.
  119. Matsumoto, R. ‘Shiranuhi’, a late-maturing citrus cultivar. Bull. Natl. Instig. Fruit Tree Sci. 2001, 35, 115–120.
  120. Matsumoto, R.; Okudai, N.; Yamamoto, M.; Takahara, T.; Yamada, Y.; Oiyama, I.; Ishiuchi, D.; Asada, K.; Ikemiya, H.; Murata, H.; et al. A new citrus cultivar ‘Youkou’. Bull. Fruit Tree Res. Stn. 1999, 33, 67–76.
  121. Matsumoto, R.; Okudai, N.; Yamamoto, M.; Yamada, Y.; Takahara, T.; Oiyama, I.; Ishiuchi, D.; Asada, K.; Ikemiya, H.; Murata, H.; et al. A new citrus cultivar ‘Miho-core’. Bull. Fruit Tree Res. Stn. 1999, 33, 57–66.
  122. Matsumoto, R.; Okudai, N.; Yamamoto, M.; Yamada, Y.; Takahara, T.; Oiyama, I.; Ishiuchi, D.; Asada, K.; Ikemiya, H.; Murata, H.; et al. A new citrus cultivar ‘Hareyaka’. Bull. Fruit Tree Res. Stn. 1999, 33, 47–56.
  123. Yoshida, T.; Yamada, Y.; Nesumi, H.; Ueno, I.; Ito, Y.; Yoshioka, T.; Hidaka, T.; Ieki, H.; Shichijo, T.; Kihara, T.; et al. New citrus cultivar ‘Harumi’. Bull. Fruit Tree Res. Stn. 2000, 34, 43–52.
  124. Yoshida, T.; Yamada, Y.; Ueno, I.; Shichijo, T.; Nesumi, H.; Hidaka, T.; Ito, Y.; Yoshioka, T.; Kihara, T.; Ieki, H.; et al. New citrus cultivar ‘Akemi’. Bull. Fruit Tree Res. Stn. 2000, 34, 53–62.
  125. Guo, W.W.; Grosser, J.W. Transfer of a potential canker resistance gene into Citrus protoplasts using gfp as the selectable marker. Acta Hortic. 2004, 632, 255–258.
  126. Graham, J.H.; Leite, J.R.P. Lack of control of citrus canker by induced systemic resistance compounds. Plant Dis. 2004, 88, 745–750.
  127. Reis, B.; Koller, O.C.; Schwarz, S.F.; Theisen, S.; Sartori, I.A.; Nichele, F.S.; Lorscheiter, R.; Petry, H.B. Fruit production and incidence of citrus canker lesions on ‘Monte Parnaso’ navel orange budded on seven rootstocks. Cienc. Rural. 2008, 38, 672–678.
  128. Lin, Y.; He, Z.; Rosskopf, E.N.; Conn, K.L.; Powell, C.A.; Lazarovits, G. A nylon membrane bag assay for determination of the effect of chemicals on soilborne plant pathogens in soil. Plant Dis. 2010, 94, 201–206.
  129. Kessmann, H.; Staub, T.; Hofmann, C.; Maetzke, T.; Herzog, J.; Ward, E.; Uknes, S.; Ryals, J. Induction of systemic acquired disease resistance in plants by chemicals. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1994, 32, 439–459.
  130. Romero, A.; Kousik, C.; Ritchie, D. Resistance to bacterial spot in bell pepper induced by acibenzolar-S-methyl. Plant Dis. 2001, 85, 189–194.
  131. Wei, Z.-M.; Laby, R.J.; Zumoff, C.H.; Bauer, D.W.; He, S.Y.; Collmer, A.; Beer, S.V. Harpin, elicitor of the hypersensitive response produced by the plant pathogen Erwinia amylovora. Science 1992, 257, 85–88.
  132. Swarup, S.; Yang, Y.; Kingsley, M.T.; Gabriel, D.W. An Xanthomonas citri pathogenicity gene, pthA, pleiotropically encodes gratuitous avirulence on nonhosts. Mol. Plant Microbe. Interact. 1992, 5, 204–213.
  133. Kobayashi, A.K.; Vieira, L.G.; Bespalhok Filho, J.C.; Leite, R.P.; Pereira, L.F.; Molinari, H.B.; Marques, V.V. Enhanced resistance to citrus canker in transgenic sweet orange expressing the sarcotoxin IA gene. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2017, 149, 865–873.
  134. Zhang, A.G.; O’Leary, C.; Quarles, W. Chinese IPM for citrus leafminer (update). IPM Pract. 1994, 16, 10–13.
  135. Liu, J.F.; Wang, C.X.; Yang, W.H.; Liu, Z.C. Field trials on the control of pest insects on vegetable and Citrus with the antibiotic Agrimec. Nat. Enemies Insects 1992, 14, 83–88.
  136. Stelinski, L.L.; Miller, J.R.; Rogers, M.E. Mating disruption of citrus leafminer mediated by a noncompetitive mechanism at a remarkably low pheromone release rate. J. Chem. Ecol. 2008, 34, 1107–1113.
  137. Smith, J.M.; Hoy, M.A. Rearing methods for Ageniaspis citricola (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) and Cirrospilus quadristriatus (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) released in a classical biological control program for the citrus leafminer Phyllocnistis citrella (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae). Fla. Entomol. 1995, 78, 600–608.
  138. Neale, C.; Smith, D.; Beattie, G.A.C.; Miles, M. Importation, host specificity testing, rearing and release of three parasitoids of Phyllocnistis citrella Stainton (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae) in eastern Australia. Aust. J. Entomol. 1995, 34, 343–348.
  139. Argov, Y.; Rssler, Y. Introduction, release and recovery of several exotic natural enemies for biological control of the citrus leafminer, Phyllocnistis citrella, in Israel. Phytoparasitica 1996, 24, 33–38.
  140. Mahajan, A.; Das, S. Plants and microbes-Potential source of pesticide for future use. Pestic. Inf. 2003, 28, 33–38.
  141. Balandrin, M.F.; Klocke, J.A.; Wurtele, E.S.; Bollinger, W.H. Natural plant chemicals: Sources of industrial and medicinal materials. Science 1985, 228, 1154–1160.
  142. Dorman, H.; Deans, S.G. Antimicrobial agents from plants: Antibacterial activity of plant volatile oils. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2000, 88, 308–316.
  143. Parameswari, C.; Tulasi Latha, A. Antibacterial activity of Ricinus communis leaf extract. Indian Drugs 2001, 38, 587–588.
  144. Rath, C.; Dash, S.; Mishra, R. In vitro susceptibility of Japanese mint (Mentha arvensis L.) essential oil against five human pathogens. Indian Perfum. 2001, 45, 57–62.
  145. Britto, S.J.; Senthilkumar, S. Antibacterial activity of Solanum incanum L. leaf extracts. Asian J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Environ. Sci. 2001, 3, 65–66.
  146. Bylka, W.; Szaufer-Hajdrych, M.; Matławska, I.; Goślińska, O. Antimicrobial activity of isocytisoside and extracts of Aquilegia vulgaris L. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2004, 39, 93–97.
  147. Shimpi, S.; Bendre, R. Stability and antibacterial activity of aqueous extracts of Ocimumcanum leaves. Indian Perfum. 2005, 49, 225.
  148. Tahir, H.A.; Sahi, S.T.; Habib, A.; Haq, I.U.; Ahmad, A.; Ashraf, W. Evaluation of plant extracts as biocontrol agents against Xanthomonas axonopodis pv citri the cause of citrus canker. Pak. J. Phytopathol. 2016, 28, 35–43.
  149. Rios, J.L. Essential oils: What they are and how the terms are used and defined. In Essential Oils in Food Preservation, Flavor and Safety; Academic Press: London, UK, 2016; pp. 3–10.
  150. Pandey, A.K.; Kumar, P.; Singh, P.; Tripathi, N.N.; Bajpai, V.K. Essential oils: Sources of antimicrobials and food preservatives. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 7, 2161.
  151. Mirzaei-Najafgholi, H.; Tarighi, S.; Golmohammadi, M.; Taheri, P. The effect of citrus essential oils and their constituents on growth of Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri. Molecules 2017, 22, 591.
  152. Feng, C.T.; Su, H.J.; Chen, C.T.; Ho, W.C.; Tsou, Y.R.; Chern, L.L. Inhibitory effects of Chinese medicinal herbs on plant-pathogenic bacteria and identification of the active components from gallnuts of Chinese sumac. Plant Dis. 2012, 96, 1193–1197.
  153. Wang, P.Y.; Fang, H.S.; Shao, W.B.; Zhou, J.; Chen, Z.; Song, B.A.; Yang, S. Synthesis and biological evaluation of pyridiniumfunctionalized carbazole derivatives as promising antibacterial agents. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2017, 27, 4294–4297.
  154. Król, E.; de Sousa Borges, A.; da Silva, I.L.; Polaquini, C.R.; Regasini, L.O.; Ferreira, H.; Scheffers, D.J. Antibacterial activity of alkyl gallates is a combination of direct targeting of FtsZ and permeabilization of bacterial membranes. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 390.
  155. Mohana, D.; Raveesha, K. Anti-bacterial activity of Caesalpinia coriaria (Jacq.) Willd. against plant pathogenic Xanthomonas pathovars: An eco-friendly approach. J. Agric. Technol. 2006, 2, 317–327.
  156. Akhtar, M.A.; Rahber-Bhatti, M.; Aslam, M. Antibacterial activity of plant diffusate against Xanthomonas campestris pv. citri. Int. J. Pest Manag. 1997, 43, 149–153.
  157. Bock, C.H.; Graham, J.H.; Gottwald, T.R.; Cook, A.Z.; Parker, P.E. Wind speed effects on the quantity of Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri dispersed downwind from canopies of grapefruit trees infected with citrus canker. Plant Dis. 2010, 94, 725–736.
  158. Gottwald, T.R.; Timmer, L.W. The efficacy of windbreaks in reducing the spread of citrus canker caused by Xanthomonas campestris pv. citri. Trop Agric. 1995, 72, 194–201.
  159. Canteros, B.I. Ecology of endemic citrus canker: Seasonal fluctuations of disease intensity. Abstract 3.7.41. In Proceedings of the 7th International Plant Pathology Congress (ICPP), Edinburgh, UK, 9–16 August 1998; Volume 3.
  160. Canteros, B.I. Management of citrus Canker in Argentina: A review. Proc. Int. Soc. Citric. 2006, 515–523.
  161. Moschini, R.C.; Canteros, B.I.; Martínez, M.I. Ecuaciones Predictivas de la Intensidad de la Cancrosis de los Cítrus en Base a Variables Meteorológicas. Abstract V Cong; Argentino de Citricultura: Concordia, Argentina, 2005; p. 24.
  162. Moschini, R.C.; Canteros, B.I.; Marcó, G.M.; Cazenave, G. Modelos Logísticos Predictivos de la Cancrosis de los Cítricos en Bella Vista y su Uso en el Área Citrícola Española. Abstract VI Cong; Argentino de Citricultura: Tucumán, Argentina, 2010; p. 79.
  163. Moschini, R.C.; Canteros, B.I.; Martínez, M.I. Quantification of the environmental effect on citrus canker intensity at increasing distances from a natural windbreak in northeastern Argentina. Australas. Plant Pathol. 2014, 43, 653–662.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Plant Sciences; Agriculture, Dairy & Animal Science
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Subhan Ali
,
Akhtar Hameed
,
Ghulam Muhae-Ud-Din
,
Muhammad Ikhlaq
,
Muhammad Ashfaq
,
Muhammad Atiq
,
Faizan Ali
,
Zia Ullah Zia
,
Syed Atif Hasan Naqvi
,
Yong Wang
View Times: 1.0K
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 04 May 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Academic Video Service
    Feedback