An Outbreak of Gummosis of Mango Trees Caused by <i>Lasiodiplodia theobromae</i> in Guangxi, South China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mango (Mangifera indica L.) is an economically important fruit in southern provinces of China. In May 2012, field surveys including 2,250 mango trees were done in nine orchards of five different counties in Guangxi Province. An outbreak of gummosis was observed in the province involving over 30,000 ha with an average of 50% disease incidence (DI) and a maximum of 70% in some orchards. Until then, gummosis had been considered a common but not serious disease. In 2012, high temperatures in April and extensive rain in May favored increased disease development. Infected plants showed abundant gum secretion from branches, stems, and main trunks. Some branches died from the disease. During the early stages of infection, branches or stems turned brown followed by xylem necrosis and exudation of a milky sap. The sap turned yellow and finally formed amber gum within several days. Initially, the gum appeared as small droplets, increasing in number, and covering most of the branches and the trunk with bark cracking under severe conditions. On potato dextrose agar (PDA), isolates with similar morphology were consistently recovered from symptomatic plant tissues after surface sterilization in 75% ethanol for 30 seconds and then in 0.1% mercuric chloride for 1 min. Five single-spore isolates from five different locations in Guangxi Province were used to evaluate characteristics of the pathogen. On PDA, cultures were gray with an irregularly distributed, fast-growing, and fluffy aerial mycelium, showing a dark underside as the colony changed from greenish to black after 5 days at 28°C. After 1 month, cultures produced globose pycnidia. Conidia were elliptical and hyaline when immature, becoming dark brown and one-septate, longitudinally striate when mature, and ranged from 20.0 to 28.0 × 10.5 to 16.0 μm (average 23.3 × 13.7 μm). Paraphyses produced within the tissues of pycnidia were hyaline, cylindrical, nonseptate, and up to 61 μm long. The fungus was identified as Lasiodiplodia theobromae (Pat.) Griffon & Maubl. (=Botryosphaeria rhodina (Cooke) Arx) based on morphological and cultural characteristics (1,2). The rDNA internal transcribed spacer region of one isolate showed 100% identity to L. theobromae (GenBank HM346876.2) and was deposited in GenBank (JX982240). Pathogenicity of the five isolates was tested in the field on healthy tissues in June 2012. Five green twigs and five 3-year-old branches were used. Three wounds were made on each twig or branch with a sterilized needle. Mycelial plugs were placed on wounds and covered with Parafilm. Uncolonized PDA plugs were used as controls. Two weeks later, typical brown lesions were observed on inoculated branches, and gum exuded from infected wounds. No symptoms were seen on the controls. Koch's postulates were fulfilled by reisolation of L. theobromae from diseased branches. L. theobromae is well documented as a pathogen of mango. In China, the disease was observed in the 1990s in Hainan Province, and the causal agents were identified as L. theobromae and Colletotrichum gloeosporioides Penz. & Sacc based on morphological observation (3). To our knowledge, this is the most severe outbreak reported from China. References: (1) V. S. de Oliveira Costa et al. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 127:509, 2010. (2) F. Wang et al. Plant Dis. 95:1378, 2011. (3) Q. C. Xiao et al. Tropical Crops Research (in Chinese) 2:25, 1995.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".