Table 4.
Conidial measurements of Botryosphaeriaceae species examined in this study and comparison with measurements described in previous studies.
| Species1 | Conidial size (μm) (L × W)2 | Mean (μm) (L × W)3 | L/W4 | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Botryosphaeria auasmontanum | (8.1–)8.8–11.3(–13) × (2.5–)2.9–3.9(–5) | 10.1 × 3.4 | 3.0 | Slippers et al. (2014) |
| B. corticis | (20.5–)23.5–32.5(–34.5) × (5.0–)5.5–7(–7.5) | 28.9 × 6.4 | 4.5 | Phillips et al. (2006) |
| B. dothidea | (20–)23–27(–30) × 4–5(–6) | 26.2 × 5.4 | 4.9 | Slippers et al. (2004a) |
| B. fabicerciana | (16.5–)19.5–24.5(–26) × (4.5–)5–6.5(–7.5) | 22.0 × 5.8 | 3.8 | Chen et al. (2011c) |
| B. fusispora | (16.5–)19–23.5(–28.5) × 5–6(–8) | 21.2 × 5.6 | 3.8 | This study |
| B. fusispora | 16–22 × 4–5.5 | 20.0 × 5.0 | 4.0 | Liu et al. (2012) |
| B. kuwatsukai | (18.5–)20–24.5(–26) × 5–7(–8) | 22.3 × 6.2 | 3.6 | Xu et al. (2015a) |
| B. minutispermatia | 8–14 × 3–4 | 13.0 × 3.5 | 3.7 | Ariyawansa et al. (2016) |
| B. pseudoramosa5 | (8–)10–13(–16) × (4–)4.5–5(–6) | 11.5 × 4.6 | 2.5 | This study |
| B. qingyuanensis5 | (15–)19.5–24.5(–28.5) × (5–)6–6.5(–7.5) | 22.0 × 6.2 | 3.5 | This study |
| B. ramosa | (11–)12–15(–16) × (4.7–)5–6(–7) | 13.5 × 5.5 | 2.3 | Pavlic et al. (2008) |
| B. rosaceae | 20–31 × 6–8 | 26.2 × 6.7 | 3.9 | Zhou et al. (2017) |
| B. scharifii | (11.5–)13–17(–19) × 4–6.5 | 15.4 × 5.2 | 2.7 | Abdollahzadeh et al. (2013) |
| B. sinensia | (15–)19–29 × 5–7 | 24.3 × 5.9 | 4.1 | Zhou et al. (2016) |
| B. wangensis5 | (20.5–)22–26(–29) × (4.5–)5.5–6.5(–7.5) | 23.8 × 6.0 | 3.9 | This study |
| Lasiodiplodia brasiliense | 22.7–29.2 × 11.7–17 | 26.0 × 14.6 | 1.8 | Netto et al. (2014) |
| L. brasiliense | (22–)25–27(–28) × (12–)13.5–15(–15.5) | 26.0 × 14.4 | 1.8 | This study |
| L. pseudotheobromae | (22.5–)23.5–32(–33) × (13.5–)14–18(–20) | 28.0 × 16.0 | 1.7 | Alves et al. (2008) |
| L. pseudotheobromae | (22.5–)24.5–28.5(–31.5) × (12–)13–15(–16) | 26.5 × 13.8 | 1.9 | This study |
| L. theobromae | (19–)21–31(–32.5) × (12–)13–15.5(–18.5) | 26.2 × 14.2 | 1.9 | Alves et al. (2008) |
| L. theobromae | (21–)24–26.5(–29.5) × (11–)12.5–14(–16) | 25.3 × 13.1 | 1.9 | This study |
| Neofusicoccum algeriense | (14.5–)17–18(–21) × (4.5–)5.5–5.7(–6.5) | 17.6 × 5.6 | 3.1 | Berraf-Tebbal et al. (2014) |
| N. batangarum | (12–)14–17.5(–20) × (4–)4.5–6(–6.5) | 15.5 × 5.5 | 2.9 | Begoude et al. (2010) |
| N. cordaticola | 18–28 × 4.5–7 | 23.3 × 5.3 | 4.3 | Pavlic et al. (2009b) |
| N. hongkongense5 | (11.5–)13–15.5(–17.5) × (4–)4.5–5(–5.5) | 14.1 × 4.7 | 3.0 | This study |
| N. kwambonambiense | 16–28 × 5–8 | 22.3 × 6.3 | 3.6 | Pavlic et al. (2009b) |
| N. microconidium5 | (10–)11.5–13(–14.5) × (4–)4.5–5.5(–6) | 12.3 × 5.0 | 2.5 | This study |
| N. mangiferae | (11–)12–15(–17.5) × 5–6.6 | 13.6 × 5.4 | 2.0–2.5 | Slippers et al. (2005) |
| N. occulatum | 14–22 × 3.5–7.5 | 18.3 × 5.2 | 3.5 | Sakalidis et al. (2011) |
| N. parvum | (12–)13.5–21(–24) × 4–6(–10) | 17.1 × 5.5 | 3.2 | Phillips et al. (2013) |
| N. parvum | (15.5–)16.5–19(–21) × (4.5–)5–6(–6.5) | 17.9 × 5.5 | 3.3 | This study |
| N. ribis | (16–)19–23(–24) × 5–6(–7) | 20.8 × 5.5 | 3.8 | Slippers et al. (2004a) |
| N. sinense | (15.2–)17.6–20.4(–23) × (6.9–)7.4–8(–9) | 18.7 × 7.7 | 2.4 | Zhang et al. (2017) |
| N. sinoeucalypti5 | (13–)15–20.5(–25.5) × (4–)5–5.5(–6.5) | 17.7 × 5.2 | 3.4 | This study |
| N. umdonicola | 15–23.5 × 4.5–6.5 | 19.4 × 5.5 | 3.5 | Pavlic et al. (2009b) |
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 Novel species described in this study.