Phytoplasmas: Plant Pathogenic Bacteria - I 2018
DOI: 10.1007/978-981-13-0119-3_6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fruit Crop Phytoplasmas

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 200 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…P. pyri´ belong to the same 16SrX group, their pathogenicity is quite different in their respective host plants Malus domestica (apple), Prunus persica (peach) and Pyrus communis (pear). Apple trees can survive a phytoplasma infection for decades, whereas phytoplasma-infected peach and pear trees often die after a few years and sometimes even after a few weeks (quick decline of pear) [ 3 , 4 , 9 , 46 , 47 ]. This indicates a higher tolerance resulting in better survival rate for phytoplasma-infected apple compared with pear and peach; however, the underlying reason is not known yet.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…P. pyri´ belong to the same 16SrX group, their pathogenicity is quite different in their respective host plants Malus domestica (apple), Prunus persica (peach) and Pyrus communis (pear). Apple trees can survive a phytoplasma infection for decades, whereas phytoplasma-infected peach and pear trees often die after a few years and sometimes even after a few weeks (quick decline of pear) [ 3 , 4 , 9 , 46 , 47 ]. This indicates a higher tolerance resulting in better survival rate for phytoplasma-infected apple compared with pear and peach; however, the underlying reason is not known yet.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The fruit tree diseases apple proliferation (AP), pear decline (PD) and European stone fruit yellows (ESFY), are of high economic significance, causing annual crop losses of around half a billion Euro in Europe, alone [ 1 , 2 ]. Intra- and interspecific differences in the response of fruit trees to these phytoplasma diseases have been observed over the last decades under both experimental and natural infection conditions [ 3 , 4 ]. Intraspecific differences have been explained by varying susceptibility of tree species and genotypes (rootstocks and cultivars) to phytoplasmas as well as virulence of phytoplasma strains [ 5 – 9 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Phytoplasma prunorum' (16SrX-F) is the major and economically most important phytoplasma affecting plum (Prunus domestica) in Europe. This phytoplasma also induces economically significant damages on Japanese plum trees and represents one of the major limiting factors of plum production in Mediterranean countries (Fiore et al 2018). In temperate areas of South America, different phytoplasmas affecting stone fruit trees have been reported (Quiroga et al 2018;Fernández et al 2013Fernández et al , 2017 however; to our knowledge, there has been no reports of infections in plum.…”
mentioning
confidence: 98%
“…P. pyri belong to the same 16SrX group their pathogenicity is quite different in their respective host plants Malus domestica (apple), Prunus persica(peach) and Pyrus communis (pear). Apple trees can survive a phytoplasma infection for decades whereas phytoplasma-infected peach and pear trees often die after some weeks (quick decline of pear) to a few years (Fiore et al, 2019;Marcone et al, 2010;Marcone & Rao 2019;Seemüller et al, 1986Seemüller et al, , 2018. This indicates that the M. domestica / Ca.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Intra-and interspecific differences in the response of fruit trees to phytoplasma diseases have been observed over the last decades under both experimental and natural infection conditions (Fiore et al, 2019;Marcone & Rao, 2019). However, only few studies provide firm data on host response, host-pathogen interaction and on anatomical, physiological and molecular basis of resistance (Seemuller & Harries, 2010), which is still poorly understood (Marcone & Rao, 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%