The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Sensitivity of Penicillium digitatum and P. italicum to Postharvest Citrus Fungicides in California
Abstract
Penicillium digitatum isolates (326), collected in California citrus groves and packinghouses, were assayed qualitatively for their sensitivity to imazalil, thiabendazole, and o-phenylphenol. Eighteen typical triple-resistant isolates, acquired in each of 3 years (1988, 1990, and 1994), were assayed quantitatively for their sensitivity to each of the three fungicides. No significant differences were found in the mean sensitivity of the isolates collected in different years. However, the proportion of isolates that were resistant to all three fungicides increased from 43% in 1988 to 77% in 1990 and 74% in 1994. Imazalil-resistant biotypes of P. digitatum were isolated frequently in California packinghouses, while resistant P. italicum was rare. No fungicide-resistant biotypes of either species were collected from citrus groves. Wild-type P. italicum was slightly less sensitive than wild-type P. digitatum to all three fungicides. The concentration of imazalil producing 50% growth inhibition (EC 50) was three times greater when the age of the P. digitatum assay inoculum was increased from 12 to 24 h. Activity of imazalil increased with pH of the assay medium in the range pH 5.1 to 5.9, reflecting the greater concentration of dissociated imazalil at the higher pH value.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
B IOLOGICAL C ONTROL OF P OSTHARVEST D ISEASES OF F RUITS
Janisiewicz, W. J., & Korsten, L. (2002) · Annual Review of Phytopathology · doi:10.1146/annurev.phyto.40.120401.130158 · Cited by 1,013
Effects of chitosan on control of postharvest diseases and physiological responses of tomato fruit
Liu, J., Tian, S., Meng, X., & Xu, Y. (2007) · Postharvest Biology and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2006.12.019 · Cited by 527
Yao, H., & Tian, S. (2005) · Postharvest Biology and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2004.09.001 · Cited by 405
Khan, N., Martínez-Hidalgo, P., Ice, T. A., Maymon, M., Humm, E. A., Nejat, N., Sanders, E. R., Kaplan, D., & Hirsch, A. M. (2018) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2018.02363 · Cited by 282
Meng, X., Yang, L., Kennedy, J. F., & Tian, S. (2010) · Carbohydrate Polymers · doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2010.01.057 · Cited by 254
Metadata
- Authors
- Holmes, G. J., & Eckert, J. W.
- Venue
- Phytopathology®
- Publisher
- Scientific Societies
- Published
- 1999-09
- Volume
- 89
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 716-721
- ISSN
- 0031-949X (ISSN-L)
- 1943-7684
- OpenAlex
- W2095047853
- Cited by
- 293
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Sensitivity of Penicillium digitatum and P. italicum to Postharvest Citrus Fungicides in California. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1094/phyto.1999.89.9.716
- The paper
- Holmes, G. J., & Eckert, J. W. (1999). Sensitivity of Penicillium digitatum and P. italicum to Postharvest Citrus Fungicides in California. Phytopathology®. https://doi.org/10.1094/phyto.1999.89.9.716
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.