Bacteria and fungal spores as ice nuclei from Coffea arabical L.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X9362Abstract
Airborne microorganisms from bacterial and fungal species are able toact as ice nuclei and can affect sensible crops to frost such as coffee trees.Consequently, frost is one of the major problems in South-Southeasterncoffee crops in Brazil. In this research, it was found three categories oforganisms with ice nuclei activity (INA) in coffee leaves, basing in themean freezing point of saline solution, around -17oC. The first category,with strong INA, it was found the Pseudomonas syringae var. garceae, acoffee tree pathogenic, as INA+. Pseudomonas syringae var. syringaebehaves with soft less INA+ efficiency, comparing to the var. garceae.This last variety also causes aureolar spot disease. The second categorypresents a partial ice nuclei activity, including two other bacteria, Pantoeaagglomerans (that is known as ice nuclei), and Corynebacterium, withmean freezing point from -7oC to -10oC. And the third category presentsnon-ice nuclei activity (INA-), with freezing point below -11oC, includingall other bacteria and fungi. Additionally, H.vastatrix, acoffee rust disease,which already causes lots of prejudice to the crops, can be associatedwith an INA+ bacterium, causing frost. That result deserves a refinedresearch, trying to elucidate how this association should be done.74UFSM, 33 (2)Therefore, two rust coffee diseases and aureole spot, as well as the presenceof Pantoea agglomerans, can be directly or indirectly associated to icenuclei activity, demanding a higher bio-control, particularly duringwintertime, due the possibility of frost damage.Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
