Submitted:
26 July 2024
Posted:
29 July 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Plant Material
2.2. Experimental Design
2.3. Treatments and Experiment Timeline
2.4. Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus (CLas) Detection
2.5. Tree Size
2.6. Fruit Quality and Yield
2.7. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. CLas Infection
3.2. Tree Size
3.2. Yield, External and Internal Fruit Quality
4. Discussion
Acknowledgments
References
- Graham, J., Gottwald, T., Setamou, M. 2020. Status of Huanglongbing (HLB) outbreaks in Florida, California and Texas. Tropical Plant Pathology, 45: 265-278. [CrossRef]
- Chung, K.R., Brlansky, R.H. (2005). Citrus Diseases Exotic to Florida: Huanglongbing (Citrus Greening). Fact Sheet PP-210 UF/IFAS.
- Ferrarezi, R.S. A.; Qureshi, A.L.; Wright, M.A. Ritenour, and N.P.F. Macan. 2019. Citrus production under screen as a strategy to protect grapefruit trees from huanglongbing disease. Front. Plant Sci. 10:1598. [CrossRef]
- Schumann, A.W., Singerman, A., Wright, A., Ferrarezi, R.S., Qureshi, J., Alferez, F. (2021). 2021–2022 Florida Citrus Production Guide: Citrus Under Protective Screen (CUPS) production systems. EDIS HS1304 https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/HS1304.
- Alferez, F., Albrecht, U., Gaire, S., Batuman, O., Qureshi, J., Zekri, M. (2021a). Individual protective covers (IPCs) for young tree protection from the HLB vector, the asian citrus psyllid. EDIS HS1425 https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/HS1425.
- Gaire,S., Albrecht, U., Batuman, O., Qureshi, J., Zekri, M., Alferez, F. 2022. Individual protective covers (IPCs) to prevent Asian citrus psyllid and Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus from establishing in newly planted citrus trees. Crop protection, 152, 105862. [CrossRef]
- Gaire, S., Albrecht, U., Alferez, F. 2023. Effect of Individual Protective Covers (IPCs) on the physiology of young ‘Valencia’ orange (Citrus sinensis) trees. Hortscience, 58 (12): 1542-1549. [CrossRef]
- Gitelson AA, Viña A, Verma SB, Rundquist DC, Arkebauer TJ, Keydan G, Leavitt B, Ciganda V, Burba GG, Suyker AE. 2006. Relationship between gross primary production and chlorophyll content in crops: Implications for the synoptic monitoring of vegetation productivity. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 111(D8). [CrossRef]
- Baldwin, E., Plotto, A., Manthey, J., McCollum, G., Bai, J., Irey, M., Cameron, R., Luzio, G. 2010. Effect of Liberibacter Infection (Huanglongbing Disease) of Citrus on Orange Fruit Physiology and Fruit/Fruit Juice Quality: Chemical and Physical Analyses. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 2, 1247–1262. [CrossRef]
- Dala-Paula BM, Plotto A, Bai J, Manthey JA, Baldwin EA, Ferrarezi RS and Gloria MBA (2019). Effect of Huanglongbing or Greening Disease on Orange Juice Quality, a Review. Front. Plant Sci. 9:1976. [CrossRef]
- Boakye, D., Alferez, F. (2022). Fruit yield in sweet orange trees under Huanglongbing (HLB) conditions is influenced by reproductive phenological characteristics of the scion-rootstock combination. Agriculture, 12(11), 1750. [CrossRef]
- Tang, L., Chhajed, S. and Vashisth, T., 2019. Preharvest fruit drop in Huanglongbing-affected ‘Valencia’sweet orange. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 144(2),pp.107-117.
- Wutscher, H.K. and L.L. Hill. 1995. Performance of ‘Hamlin' Orange on 16 Rootstocks in East-central Florida. HortScience. 30(1):41-43. [CrossRef]
- Jifon, J.L. & Syvertsen, J.P. 2003. Moderate shade can increase net gas exchange and reduce photoinhibition in citrus leaves. Tree Physiology, 23, 119–127.
- Suh, J.H., Guha, A., Wang, X., Li, S.-Y., Killiny, N., Vincent, C., Wang, Y. 2021. Metabolomic analysis elucidates how shade conditions ameliorate the deleterious effects of greening (Huanglongbing) disease in citrus. The Plant Journal, 108: 1798-1814. [CrossRef]
- Alferez, F, Uilian de Carvalho, D, Boakye, D. (2021b). Interplay between abscisic acid and gibberellins, as related to ethylene and sugars, in regulating maturation of non-climacteric fruit. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 22: 669. [CrossRef]
- Rosales, R., Burns, J.K. 2011. Phytohormone Changes and Carbohydrate Status in Sweet Orange Fruit from Huanglongbing-infected Trees. J Plant Growth Regul 30, 312–321. [CrossRef]
- Liao, H.K., and Burns, J. 2012. Gene expression in Citrus sinensis fruit tissues harvested from huanglongbing-infected trees: comparison with girdled fruit. J.Exp. Bot. 63, 3307–3319. [CrossRef]
- Alferez, F., Vincent, C., Vashisth, T. (2018). Effects of homobrassinolides on HLB-affected trees in Florida. Citrus Industry, pp 18-21, October 2018.
- Alferez, F., Vincent, C., Vashisth, T. (2019). Update on Brassinosteroids for HLB management. Citrus Industry, 100, 6, pp 16-18.
- Pérez-Hedo, M.; Urbaneja, A.; Alférez, F. 2024. Homobrassinolide Delays Huanglongbing Progression in Newly Planted Citrus (Citrus sinensis) Trees. Plants, 13, 1229. [CrossRef]
- Archer, L. , Kunwar, S., Alferez, F., Batuman, O., Albrecht, U. 2023. Trunk injection of oxytetracycline for Huanglongbing management in mature grapefruit and sweet orange trees. Phytopathology 113: 1010-1021. [CrossRef]
- Archer, L.; Qureshi, J.; Albrecht, U. Efficacy of trunk injected imidacloprid and oxytetracycline in managing Huanglongbing and Asian citrus psyllid in infected sweet orange (Citrus sinensis) trees. Agriculture 2022, 12(10), 1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]




| 6 months after IPC removal | 30 months after IPC removal | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor | RS diameter (mm) | SC diameter (mm) | Tree height (m) | Canopy volume (m3) | LAI | RS diameter (mm) | SC diameter (mm) | Tree height (m) | Canopy volume (m3) | LAI |
| Cover | ||||||||||
| No IPC | 55.4 | 49.1b | 1.6b | 0.8 | 1.10b | 65.82 | 58.36b | 1.8b | 0.99b | 1.6b |
| IPC | 59.8 | 56.5a | 2.1a | 0.9 | 2.21a | 70.17 | 67.13a | 2.55a | 1.4a | 3.7a |
| P-value | 0.176 | 0.05* | <0.001*** | 0.479 | 0.01** | 0.26 | 0.001*** | 0.01** | 0.01** | 0.001*** |
| Insecticide rate | ||||||||||
| Full | 61.6a | 57.3a | 1.9 | 1.2a | 1.57 | 71.4a | 61.37a | 2.35 | 1.54a | 2.44 |
| Half | 61.4a | 56.8a | 1.9 | 0.9ab | 1.42 | 62b | 58.36a | 2.25 | 1.24a | 1.97 |
| No | 50.4b | 45.2b | 1.8 | 0.5b | 1.97 | 51.4c | 46.33b | 2.1 | 0.55b | 2.21 |
| P-value | 0.012* | 0.018* | 0.534 | 0.004** | 0.41 | 0.008** | 0.011* | 0.13 | 0.01* | 0.41 |
| 2020-2021 season | 2021-2022 season | 2022-2023 season | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 months after IPC removal | 18 months after IPC removal | 30 months after IPC removal | ||||||||||
| Factor | Brix | TTA (%) | Ratio | Color a/b |
Brix | TTA (%) | Ratio | Color a/b |
Brix | TTA (%) | Ratio | Color a/b |
| No IPC | 7.5b | 0.6 | 12.5b | -0.1b | 7.0b | 1.1b | 6.4b | -0.12b | 6.4b | 1.1b | 5.8b | -0.14b |
| IPC | 10.9a | 0.8 | 13.6a | 0.2a | 9.6a | 0.84a | 11.4a | 0.15a | 7.6a | 0.9a | 8.4a | 0.17a |
| P-value | 0.009** | 0.29 | 0.015* | 0.001** | 0.01* | 0.1 | 0.0004*** | 0.001** | 0.01* | 0.1 | 0.0001*** | 0.04* |
| Insecticide rates | ||||||||||||
| Full | 8.7 | 0.8 | 10.9 | -0.1 | 8.2 | 0.9 | 9.1 | -0.1 | 7.0 | 1.0 | 7 | -0.12 |
| Half | 9.9 | 0.8 | 12.4 | -0.1 | 8.3 | 0.8 | 10.4 | 0.05 | 6.8 | 0.9 | 7.5 | 0.1 |
| No | 9.2 | 0.6 | 15.3 | 0.15 | 7.6 | 0.9 | 8.4 | -0.15 | 6.0 | 0.9 | 6.7 | -0.2 |
| P-value | 0.28 | 0.29 | 0.015* | 0.16 | 0.23 | 0.25 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.24 | 0.22 | 0.14 | 0.07 |
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. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).