Table 4.
Species1 | Conidia |
Paraphyses |
Reference | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Conidial size (μm) (L × W)2 | Mean (μm) (L × W)3 | L/W4 | long (μm)5 | wide (μm)6 | ||
Do. citrimurcotticola | (21.5–)23–25.5(–27)× (8.5–)9.5–11(–14) | 24.4×10.3 | 2.4 | – | – | This study |
Do. striata | (21–)23–26(–29.4) × (8.9–)9–12(–15.1) | 25.1 × 10.7 | 2.4 | – | – | Abdollahzadeh et al. (2014) |
Do. uruguayensis | (17–)22–22.5(–26.5) × (7–)9–9.5(–12) | 22 × 9.25 | 2.4 | – | – | Pérez et al. (2010) |
Lasiodiplodia acaciae | (21.5–)25–29.5(–31) × (11–)12–14(–15) | 27.3 × 12.9 | 2.1 | 69 | 2–5 | Zhang et al. (2021) |
L. aquilariae | (23–)25–28(–29) × 12–16 | 26.9 × 14.1 | 1.8 | 100 | 3 | Wang et al. (2019) |
L. cinnamomi | (17.5–)18.7–21.1(–22.4) × (11.5–)12.7–14.1(–15.5) | 19.9 × 13.4 | 1.5 | 106 | 3–4 | Jiang et al. (2018) |
L. citricola | (20–)22–27(–31) × (10.9–)12–17(–19) | 24.5 × 15.4 | 1.6 | 125 | 3–4 | Abdollahzadeh et al. (2010) |
L. guilinensis | (23–)28–31(–33.5)× (13.5–)15–16.5(–17) | 29.6 ×15.7 | 1.9 | 75 | 2–5 | This study |
L. huangyanensis | (21–)28–32.5(–34) × (13–)14–16(–17) | 30.1× 15 | 2 | 82 | 3–4 | This study |
L. linhaiensis | (24.5–)27–30(–32)× (12.5–)13.5–15(–16) | 28.5 × 14.2 | 2 | 80 | 2–6 | This study |
L. microconidia | (18–)19–22(–23) × 10–15 | 20.8 × 13.2 | 1.5 | 90 | 3 | Wang et al. (2019) |
L. ponkanicola | (16–)23.5–27.5(–28.5)× (11–)13–14.5(–15.5) | 25.4 × 13.7 | 1.9 | 87 | 2–5 | This study |
Sphaeropsis citrigena | (27–)28–33(–34) × (14.5–)15–18.5(–19) | 30.5 × 16.8 | 1.8 | 25 | 3–5 | Phillips et al. (2008) |
S. linhaiensis | (26.5–)28.5–35(–38)× (11.5–)14–18(–19.5) | 31.6 × 15.9 | 2 | 27 | 1–5 | This study |
1 Isolates and measurements in bold were examined in this study.
2 Minimum – (average – standard deviation) – (average + standard deviation) – maximum or minimum – maximum, L × W = length × width.
3 L × W = average length × average width.
4 L/W = average length/average width.
5 Maximum.
6 Maximum or minimum – maximum.