Talk:Citrus greening disease

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Agriculture Low‑importance

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Microbiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Molecular Biology: MCB

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Comments

On the American Phytopathological Society website there is a photo described as: "Mandarin orange (Citrus reticulata Blanco) with symptoms of yellow shoot and citrus greening, caused by Candidatus Linberobacter (sic) asiaticum, which is vectored by the Asian citrus psyllid, Diaphorina citri." Note that the causative organism is not Serratia marcescens (an organism that is not very fastidious), but by an organism that has not yet been cultured. The correct spelling of the organism's genus is Liberobacter. Webpage URL: http://www.apsnet.org/online/archive/1999/iw00006.htm

The introduction of this error by MPulier seems inexcusable to me, since I can guess how it occurred. I was involved in a publication chasing down the pathogen of a vine decline in cucurbits. The initial guess was that the citrus greening organism might be involved. The tests proved that though a bacterium was involved, it was not the citrus greening organism. Rather, it turned out to be Serratia marcescens. I suspect that sloppy reading of the article (Avila et al. 1998. Phytopathology 88:428) led to the error.

Actually the correct name is Liberibacter (not Liberobacter). As of February 2007 this Gram negative alpha-proteobacteria has not been cultured or sequenced. Koch's postulates have not been completed on this disease so there is no definite proof that Liberibacter species are responsible for citrus greening.

Citrus greening or Huanglongbing is widely recognised as being caused by Candidatus, identifying the pathogen otherwise is misleading. 155.205.201.11 02:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zheng, D., Armstrong, DM., Yao, W., Wu, B., Luo, W., Powell, C., Hunter, W., Luo, F., Gabriel, D., Duan, Y. 2024. Towards the completion of Koch's postulates for the citrus huanglongbing bacterium, Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus. Horticulture Research 11(3), 1-17, uhae011, https://doi.org/10.1093/hr/uhae011

Requested Move 2008

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

"Citrus vein phloem degeneration" is not a very commonly-used name for this disease; according to [1], that name is only used in Indonesia. I propose moving the article to Citrus Greening Disease or Huanglongbing (I sort of prefer huanglongbing, since it's one of the earliest names for the disease yet it's still widely used). SheepNotGoats (Talk) 16:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there have been no opposing !votes, I went ahead and moved the page. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 18:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Likubin

Although the US govt sites seem to suggest likubin is the same thing as huanglongbing, neither Taiwan sites nor Chinese sites identify them as the same thing. "Likubin" is actually "sheath blight", affecting rice. Xihe (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed text related to likubin. Xihe's assertion is supported by a document retrieved from the University of Florida that identifies likubin as a viral disease with a different insect vector: http://www.imok.ufl.edu/hlb/database/pdf/00002097.pdf Woodega (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent name usage in article

I have edited the article to consistently use "citrus greening disease" throughout, since the use of all the different names without explanation is incredibly confusing. I chose "citrus greening disease" since it's the canonical name on Wikipedia and all other names redirect here. Should the article be moved, say to "Huanglongbing", then it would make since that the article be again edited to use that consistently throughout. Woodega (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo a naturally immune cultivar?

I'm not sure of the difference between a cultivar and a variety, but Bingo is not GMO: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/12/04/503183540/after-a-sour-decade-florida-citrus-may-be-near-a-comeback Jhfrontz (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

California

There is huge outbreak of this bacteria in California as of mid? 2017, literally over 200 citrus trees found infected. I am not sure why this is not noted here, the news has been relatively quiet about it, but the information out there is well sourced. If someone who is involved with this topic does not update this article soon, I will update 134.186.234.108 (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source saying there are over 340: https://www.thepacker.com/... 134.186.234.108 (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style must not be changed without wide consensus

An editor has now repeatedly tried to change this article to Vancouver citation style.

Wikipedia policy forbids changing citation style without wide consensus. The presence of a few Vancouver refs accidentally inserted by careless editors is not a mandate for such a style change.

I have accordingly restored the last, first style for authors' names that was in use in this article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before my first edit, there was a mix of citation styles (e.g., last-first, first-last, first initials, and full first names). I standardized these to a consistent format, added templates to unformatted citations, and included missing authors. Given this, it's not accurate to describe the consistent citation style that subsequent editor followed as careless; it was a reasonable approach. The edit was disruptive because those authors were added by me, and I did not alter their formatting; they were absent before my initial edit. Boghog (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. However the "consistent format" you changed the article to was Vancouver, which it seems is the only format you like. You must not allow your personal preference for that style to influence your judgement; the style was certainly not the predominant one in this article. My edit was not disruptive in the slightest; I immediately went on to restore the (very modest) amount of subsequent editing, as I noted I would do in my edit comment. Your subsequent edit, however, certainly was disruptive, as contrary to the whole of the rest of the article, it was still in Vancouver! WP:AGF, I've tidied it up for you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was absolutely disruptive. You did not restore all the information in your subsequent edits. I restored newly added information that you reverted, and then you reverted it again because you did not like the style. That is disruptive. Please pay more careful attention before reverting. In particular, you removed the author, "work", and the citation templates from:

* Impact of Citrus Greening on Citrus Operations in Florida

* Can Genetic Engineering Save the Florida Orange?

* Spinach genes may stop deadly citrus disease

That is not acceptable. Boghog (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just say that I did something absolutely necessary. I immediately set to work to restore the edits after yours; if I didn't notice that among the damage you did, there was a small bit of constructive work, well, that's how the cookie crumbles. Thank you for restoring it, even if in the wrong format. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your last revert was not absolutely necessary. It was disruptive. Thank you for not reverting it again. Boghog (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasn't. I removed the Vancouver material which you shouldn't have put there, and which, second time around, you should not have added de novo. I've explained what I did, which very possibly involved a small error, now corrected; it wasn't remotely disruptive. That's enough now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you often revert other editors' contributions just because you don't like the formatting? The appropriate solution is to reformat, not revert. Boghog (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]