Next Article in Journal
Investigating the Inhibitory Effect of Lactic Acid on Biofilm Production by Raw Chicken Meat Campylobacter spp. Isolates in Pure and Mixed Cultures
Previous Article in Journal
Changes in Soil Physico-Chemical Properties and Seedling Growth of Green Gram (Vigna radiata L.) under Sodic Soil as Affected by Soil Amendments: An Incubation Study
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Proceeding Paper

Evaluation of Citrus Cultivars for Tolerance to Citrus Tristeza Virus (CTV), Aphis gossypii and Their Management by Limiting Vector Population †

1
Department of Plant Pathology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad 38000, Pakistan
2
College of Plant Protection, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Presented at the 3rd International Electronic Conference on Agronomy, 15–30 October 2023; Available online: https://iecag2023.sciforum.net/.
Biol. Life Sci. Forum 2023, 27(1), 30; https://doi.org/10.3390/IECAG2023-15754
Published: 1 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Proceedings of The 3rd International Electronic Conference on Agronomy)

Abstract

:
Citrus tristeza virus (CTV) is one of the most destructive diseases affecting citrus and is a major cause of reductions in citrus yield. CTV epidemics have caused the death of millions of citrus trees globally. The present study aims to evaluate citrus cultivars against CTV and its vector (aphid) population. The highest levels of infection and vector population were recorded in Mangal Singh, whereas the lowest were found in the early fruiter (20%). Early fruiter had a maximum level of tolerance against Citrus tristeza virus. CTV is replicated in the phloem cells of plants and is transmitted by the aphid specie Aphis gossypii. Thus, the maximum vector population mirrors the highest infection. Chemical plant nutrients, including micro-mix (Zn, Fe, Cu, Mn), NPK, zinc, and the insecticide Lufenoron, were used to limit the impact of CTV and A.gossyii. Lufenuron caused maximum disease inhibition, followed by the plant nutrients zinc, NPK, and micro-mix, respectively. However, Lufenoron significantly decreased the population of Aphis gossypi. The results indicate that the early fruiter has the lowest percent disease index and vector population. Moreover, Lufenuron is the best solution for controlling vector population and disease inhibition.

1. Introduction

Citrus tristeza virus (CTV), a member of the genus Closterovirus, represents one of the most intricate viruses with an overwhelmingly complex biology. Moreover, the characterization of CTV has been performed on a molecular basis [1]. Citrus tristeza virus is the most challenging due to its efficient vector transmission system and the lack of resistant cultivars. CTV causes stem pitting in different citrus cultivars, and leads to significant losses in fruit quality and quantity worldwide. It spreads all over the world through aphid vectors and the exchange of infected budwood [2]. Toxoptera citricida and Aphis gossypi are the most efficient and important vectors of CTV in citrus-growing countries [3] while in Pakistan, the two aphid species A. gossypii and A. spiraecola are mainly responsible for disease transmission.
The symptom phenology of CTV is based on virus strains. Mild isolates of CTV do not cause decline on sour orange rootstock, while virulent strains cause stem pitting in the main trunk [4]. When favorable environmental conditions prevail, plants can become dry and dead [5]. Much of the success in controlling Citrus tristeza virus losses has been obtained by using cross-protection and transgenic plants in citrus-producing countries such as South Africa, Australia, and Brazil [6]. CTV is controlled by limiting its vector (aphid) population. Biological control involves the use of natural enemies, and has shown significant results against aphid populations, with P. longispinus sp. being completely controlled by biological methods [7]. The use of cross-protection and transgenic plants against CTV is laborious and takes a long time. Thus, the present study is designed to determine resistant sources against CTV.

2. Methods

The present study was carried out at the research area of the Department of Plant Pathology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan (31.4278° N, 73.0758° E). Two individual experiments were carried out following a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) and RCBD with a factorial arrangement. In the first experiment, fourteen citrus cultivars were planted, following R × R and P × P distances of 90 cm. In the second experiment, the highly susceptible cultivar “Mangal Singh” was planted following the same planting geometry. All cultural and agronomic practices were followed to keep field health.
Cultivars were screened by following the scale described in Table 1. In the second experiment, nutrients (NPK, zinc, micro-mix (Mn, Fe)) and the chemical Lufenuron were evaluated at three different concentration (3, 5, 7 g−1 L of water) against aphid populations and CTV on the highly susceptible cultivar “Mangal Singh”.
The percent disease index was measured using the following equation:
P e r c e n t   D i s e a s e   I n d e x ( % ) = T o t a l   n u m b e r   o f   n u m e r i c a l   r a t i n g s N u m b e r   o f   o b s e r v a t i o n × 100 M a x i m u m   d i s e a s e   r a t i n g

3. Results and Discussion

Results from the first experiment (Table 2) revealed that none of the cultivars showed an immune or resistant response against CTV. However, early fruiter showed moderately resistant response with a minimal Percent Disease Index (20%) and low aphid population. The moderately resistant response expressed in early fruiter could be used by researcher to incorporate resistant genes into advanced lines of citrus with good horticultural attributes. The results of the current study are in line with the work of Broadbent et al., [7] who also evaluated citrus cultivars towards CTV, and concluded that the use of resistance sources was the only way for effective management of CTV.
Data from the second experiment in Table 3 revealed that among plant nutrients/insecticide, Lufenuron caused maximum CTV disease inhibition, with a minimal Percent Disease Index (20.12%). Among concentrations, the maximum suppression of the disease was observed when all these nutrients/insecticides were applied at 7 g L−1 of water, followed by 5 g L−1 of water, while the minimum suppression was recorded at a concentration of 3 g L−1 of water, as it showed the maximum percent disease index.
Aphis gossypii is the major vector for CTV transmission, and the application of insecticide is the primary pest management strategy for controlling aphid populations [8]. The frequent application of chemicals (insecticides) may accelerate the development of aphid resistance. Therefore, strategies such as chemical rotation and nonchemical approaches should be implemented to reduce aphid resistance [9].
Applications of chemicals (Thiamethoxam) can lower aphid pressure by increasing mortality and delaying colonization [10]. Among the four chemicals, Lufenuron showed significant results in minimizing the vector population. Outcomes of contemporary studies are supported by the work of Kerns and Stewart [11], who used carbofuran and acephate against aphid populations. The current study is also in agreement with the work of Franco et al., [12] highlighting that the application of chemicals is the best way to control citrus mealy bug and aphids. The results of the present study are supported by the findings of Barnier et al., [13] emphasizing the use of insecticides in the suppression of A. gossypii, which also controls CTV.

4. Conclusions

Present investigations were conducted to find the source of resistance against citrus tristeza virus (CTV) in citrus cultivars. Results revealed that early fruiter has the maximum tolerance against CTV and exhibits a minimum vector population. Moreover, Lufenuron application significantly limits the A. gossypii population and disease incidence.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization; writing-original draft, H.R.; review and editing, M.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Davino, S.; Willemsen, A.; Panno, S.; Davino, M.; Catara, A.; Elena, S.F.; Rubio, L. Emergence and phylodynamics of Citrus tristeza virus in Sicily, Italy. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e66700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Cambra, M.; Gorris, M.T.; Marroquın, C.; Román, M.P.; Olmos, A.; Martınez, M.; de Mendoza, A.H.; López, A.; Navarro, L. Incidence and epidemiology of Citrus tristeza virus in the Valencian Community of Spain. Virus Res. 2000, 71, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Marroquín, C.; Olmos, A.; Gorris, M.T.; Bertolini, E.; Martınez, M.C.; Carbonell, E.A.; de Mendoza, A.H.; Cambra, M. Estimation of the number of aphids carrying Citrus tristeza virus that visit adult citrus trees. Virus Res. 2004, 100, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Yokomi, R.K.; Selvaraj, V.; Maheshwari, Y.; Saponari, M.; Giampetruzzi, A.; Chiumenti, M.; Hajeri, S. Identification and characterization of Citrus tristeza virus isolates breaking resistance in trifoliate orange in California. Phytopathology 2017, 107, 901–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Moreno, P.; Garnsey, S.M. Citrus Tristeza diseases—A worldwide perspective. In Citrus Tristeza Virus Complex and Tristeza Diseases; Karasev, A.V., Hilf, M.E., Eds.; American Phytopathological Society: Saint Paul, MN, USA, 2010; pp. 247–260. [Google Scholar]
  6. Da Graca, J.V.; Van vuren, S.P. Managing Citrus tristeza virus losses using cross protection. In Citrus Tristeza Virus Complex and Tristeza Diseases; Karasev, A.V., Hilf, M.E., Eds.; American Phytopathological Society: Saint Paul, MN, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  7. Gross, S.; Blumberg, D.; Drishpon, Y.; Mendel, Z. The spherical mealybug, Nipaecoccusviridis: New data on its distribution, damage, natural enemies and control. Phytoparasitica 2001, 29, 62. [Google Scholar]
  8. Hodgson, E.W.; VanNostrand, G.; O’Neal, M.E. Yellow Book: Report of Insecticide Evaluation for Soybean Aphid; Department of Entomology, Iowa State University: Ames, IA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  9. O’Neal, M.E.; Johnson, K.D. Insect Pests of Soybean and Their Management. In The Soybean: Botany, Production and Uses; Singh, G., Ed.; CABI: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2010; pp. 300–324. [Google Scholar]
  10. McCornack, B.P.; Ragsdale, D.W. Efficacy of thiamethoxam to suppress soybean aphid populations in Minnesota soybean. Crop Manag. 2006, 5, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kerns, D.L.; Stewart, S.D. Sublethal effects of insecticides on the intrinsic rate of increase of cotton aphid. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2000, 94, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Franco, J.C.; Suma, P.; da Silva, E.B.; Blumberg, D.; Mendel, Z. Management strategies of mealybug pests of citrus in Mediterranean countries. Phytoparasitica 2004, 32, 507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Barnier, J.; Grafton-Cardwell, B.; Polek, M. Citrus tristeza virus (CTV): Then and now. Citrograph 2010, 1, 16–23. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Disease data were recorded by following visual observations and a rating scale, as seen.
Table 1. Disease data were recorded by following visual observations and a rating scale, as seen.
Sr.DescriptionScoreReaction
1Disease symptoms are not present0Immune
2Few spots present on the tip, covers less than 10% leaf area1Resistant
3Purplish brown patches, covers less than 20% leaf area2Moderately resistant
4Patches along paler outer region, covers up to 40% leaf area3Moderately susceptible
5Long lines are present, covers up to 75% leaf area4Susceptible
6Leaves completely dried, or its breakdown occurs from the stalk5Highly susceptible
Table 2. Evaluation of citrus cultivars against citrus tristeza virus disease under field conditions.
Table 2. Evaluation of citrus cultivars against citrus tristeza virus disease under field conditions.
Sr.CultivarsPercent Disease Index (PDI)Aphid Population (per Plant)ScoreReactions
1Early Fruiter20 k49 i2MR
2Sweet Lemon33 j83 h3MS
3Mayer Lemon33.06 j85 h3MS
4Saccri39.33 i93 gh3MS
5Malta40 h101 fgh3MS
6Zarica XI41.33 h106 fgh4S
7Jafa41.50 h116 efg4S
8Kinnow46.16 g120 efg4S
9Grape Fruit52.90 f129 def4S
10Feultral’s lemon56.83 e142 cde4S
11Mitha66.53 d157 bcd5HS
12Red blood69.33 c165 bc5HS
13China Lemon80 b175 ab5HS
14Mangal Singh85.90 a203 a5HS
LSD1.302629.93
Mean values in a column sharing similar letters do not differ significantly, as determined by the LSD test (p ≤ 0.05), lower case alphabet shows the means difference among PDI and aphid population.
Table 3. Percent Disease Index of CTV affected by different nutrients/chemicals at different concentrations.
Table 3. Percent Disease Index of CTV affected by different nutrients/chemicals at different concentrations.
ConcentrationConcentration
Treatments3 g L−15 g L−17 g L−1Mean
NPK28.90 e26.77 f24.50 g26.72 c
Zinc22.80 h21.63 hi18.83 j21.09 d
Micro-Mix46.60 b42.53 e39.60 d42.91 b
Leuran21.93 hi20.80 i17.63 j20.12 d
Control85.80 a85.80 a85.80 a85.90 a
Mean41.23 a39.55 b37.27 c
Lower case alphabet shows the means difference among PDI and aphid population. LSD at (p ≤ 0.05) for Treatments = 0.746, Concentration = 0.578, and Treatments × Concentration = 1.291. NPK = Mixture of Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Raza, H.; Younas, M. Evaluation of Citrus Cultivars for Tolerance to Citrus Tristeza Virus (CTV), Aphis gossypii and Their Management by Limiting Vector Population. Biol. Life Sci. Forum 2023, 27, 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/IECAG2023-15754

AMA Style

Raza H, Younas M. Evaluation of Citrus Cultivars for Tolerance to Citrus Tristeza Virus (CTV), Aphis gossypii and Their Management by Limiting Vector Population. Biology and Life Sciences Forum. 2023; 27(1):30. https://doi.org/10.3390/IECAG2023-15754

Chicago/Turabian Style

Raza, Hassan, and Muhammad Younas. 2023. "Evaluation of Citrus Cultivars for Tolerance to Citrus Tristeza Virus (CTV), Aphis gossypii and Their Management by Limiting Vector Population" Biology and Life Sciences Forum 27, no. 1: 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/IECAG2023-15754

APA Style

Raza, H., & Younas, M. (2023). Evaluation of Citrus Cultivars for Tolerance to Citrus Tristeza Virus (CTV), Aphis gossypii and Their Management by Limiting Vector Population. Biology and Life Sciences Forum, 27(1), 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/IECAG2023-15754

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop