Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis (bacterial canker of tomato)
- Taxonomic Tree
- Distribution Table
- Risk of Introduction
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Growth Stages
- List of Symptoms/Signs
- Biology and Ecology
- Seedborne Aspects
- Plant Trade
- Detection and Inspection
- Prevention and Control
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.Generate report
PicturesTop of page
IdentityTop of page
Preferred Scientific Name
- Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis (Smith 1910) Davis et al. 1984
Preferred Common Name
- bacterial canker of tomato
Other Scientific Names
- Aplanobacter michiganensis (Smith) Smith 1914
- Bacterium michiganense Smith 1910
- Corynebacterium michiganense (Smith 1910) Jensen 1934
- Corynebacterium michiganense pv. michiganense (Smith) Dye & Kemp 1977
- Corynebacterium michiganense subsp. michiganense (Smith) Carlson & Vidaver 1982
- Erwinia michiganensis (=michiganense) (Smith) Jensen 1934
- Mycobacterium michiganense (Smith) Krasil'nikov 1941
- Phytomonas michiganensis (Smith) Bergey et al. 1923
- Pseudomonas michiganense (Smith) Stevens 1913
- Pseudomonas michiganensis (Smith) Stevens
International Common Names
- English: bird's eye of tomato fruit; vascular tomato wilt
- Spanish: cancer bacteriano del tomate; marchitamiento bacteriano del tomate; ojo de pajaro
- French: chancre bactérien de la tomate
Local Common Names
- Germany: Bakterien-: Tomate Krebs; Bakterien-: Tomate Welke
- Italy: cancro batterico
- CORBMI (Clavibacter michiganensis)
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Bacteria
- Phylum: Actinobacteria [phylum]
- Class: Actinobacteria
- Subclass: Actinobacteridae
- Order: Actinomycetales
- Suborder: Micrococcineae
- Family: Microbacteriaceae
- Genus: Clavibacter
- Species: Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis
DescriptionTop of page C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis is an aerobic, non-motile, Gram-positive, non-sporing, curved rod (for details see Bradbury, 1986 and Sneath et al., 1986).
DistributionTop of page See also CABI/EPPO (1998, No. 253).
Distribution TableTop of page
The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Reference||Notes|
|Armenia||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Azerbaijan||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|China||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Liaoning||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Xinjiang||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|India||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Andhra Pradesh||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Karnataka||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Madhya Pradesh||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Maharashtra||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Tamil Nadu||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Indonesia||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Java||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Iran||Present||1988||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Israel||Widespread||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Japan||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Korea, Republic of||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Lebanon||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Syria||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Thailand||Absent, unreliable record||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Turkey||Widespread||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Uzbekistan||Eradicated||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Vietnam||Absent, unreliable record||EPPO, 2014|
|Algeria||Absent, invalid record||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Congo Democratic Republic||Absent, unreliable record||EPPO, 2014|
|Egypt||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Kenya||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Madagascar||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Morocco||Restricted distribution||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|South Africa||Widespread||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Canary Islands||Transient: actionable, under eradication||EPPO, 2014|
|Tanzania||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Togo||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Tunisia||Restricted distribution||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Uganda||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Zambia||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Zimbabwe||Restricted distribution||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Canada||Widespread||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Alberta||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-British Columbia||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Manitoba||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Nova Scotia||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Ontario||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Quebec||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Saskatchewan||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Mexico||Restricted distribution||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|USA||Widespread||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Alabama||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Arkansas||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-California||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Colorado||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Connecticut||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Florida||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Georgia||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Hawaii||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Illinois||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Indiana||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Iowa||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Kentucky||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Maine||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Maryland||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Massachusetts||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Michigan||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Minnesota||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Montana||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Nebraska||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-New Hampshire||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-New Jersey||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-New York||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-North Carolina||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-North Dakota||Present, few occurrences||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Ohio||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Oklahoma||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Oregon||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Pennsylvania||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-South Dakota||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Utah||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Vermont||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Wyoming||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
Central America and Caribbean
|Belize||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Costa Rica||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Cuba||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Dominica||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Dominican Republic||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Grenada||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Guadeloupe||Present||CPPC, 1990; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Martinique||Absent, unreliable record||CPPC, 1990; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Panama||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Argentina||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Brazil||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Pernambuco||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Sao Paulo||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Chile||Restricted distribution||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; Sepúlveda et al., 2013; EPPO, 2014|
|Colombia||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Ecuador||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Peru||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Uruguay||Widespread||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Austria||Eradicated||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Belarus||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Belgium||Absent, formerly present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Bulgaria||Restricted distribution||****||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Cyprus||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Czech Republic||Present, few occurrences||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Finland||Absent, invalid record||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Former USSR||Present||Bradbury, 1986|
|France||Restricted distribution||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-France (mainland)||Widespread||CABI/EPPO, 2009|
|Germany||Restricted distribution||193*||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Greece||Widespread||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Crete||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Greece (mainland)||Widespread||CABI/EPPO, 2009|
|Hungary||Restricted distribution||1959||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Ireland||Eradicated||194*||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Italy||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2011; EPPO, 2014|
|-Italy (mainland)||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2009|
|-Sardinia||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Sicily||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Jersey||Absent, formerly present||EPPO, 2014|
|Latvia||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|Lithuania||Eradicated||1930||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014; IPPC, 2016|
|Netherlands||Transient: actionable, under eradication||NPPO of the Netherlands, 2013; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014; IPPC, 2014|
|Norway||Eradicated||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Poland||Present, few occurrences||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Portugal||Eradicated||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Romania||Restricted distribution||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Russian Federation||Widespread||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Central Russia||Widespread||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Southern Russia||Widespread||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Western Siberia||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Serbia||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Slovakia||Absent, intercepted only||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Slovenia||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Spain||Present, few occurrences||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Spain (mainland)||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009|
|Switzerland||Widespread||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|UK||Absent, formerly present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-England and Wales||Absent, formerly present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Scotland||Absent, formerly present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Ukraine||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)||Restricted distribution||Bradbury, 1986|
|Australia||Widespread||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-New South Wales||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Queensland||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-South Australia||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Tasmania||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Victoria||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|-Western Australia||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Fiji||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Guam||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|New Caledonia||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|New Zealand||Restricted distribution||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
|Tonga||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2009; EPPO, 2014|
Risk of IntroductionTop of page Risk Criteria Category
Economic Importance High
Seedborne Incidence Moderate
Seed Transmitted Yes
Seed Treatment Yes
Overall Risk Moderate
Notes on Phytosanitary Risk
C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis is an economically important pathogen that is seed transmitted. It should be considered of moderate phytosanitary risk due to its worldwide distribution and the availability of seed treatments to reduce seedborne inoculum.
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page The main host of economic importance is tomato but natural infection has also been reported on Capsicum annuum (Lai, 1976; Moffet and Wood, 1984; Latin et al., 1995); and on the wild plants Solanum douglasii, S. nigrum and S. triflorum (Bradbury, 1986). A number of solanaceous plants are susceptible on artificial inoculation (Thyr et al., 1975). Stamova and Sotirova (1987) claim to have produced leaf wilt by artificial inoculation on maize, wheat, barley, rye and other hosts, but it has not been confirmed by others.
Growth StagesTop of page Flowering stage, Fruiting stage, Seedling stage, Vegetative growing stage
SymptomsTop of page Infected tomato seeds and transplants raised in the greenhouse do not show visible symptoms of the disease; seed germination and seedling stand also appear to be normal (Dhanvantari, 1989; Gitaitis et al., 1991; Chang et al., 1992a). Unilateral wilting or withering of leaflets on one side of the leaf, and bird's eye-spot lesions (raised white spot developing a necrotic centre) on the fruit surface are the outstanding features diagnostic of tomato bacterial canker. In the field, the first symptom is desiccation of the edge of the leaflets. The plant slowly desiccates, with or without exhibiting wilting. Plants infected as young seedlings become stunted and wither rapidly. Numerous small whitish or tan pustules may appear on leaf veins, petioles and peduncles.
In advanced infection, vascular discoloration is seen as brown streaks on the stem and petiole. On cutting stems, petioles and peduncles, particularly at their junctions, a creamy-white, yellow or reddish-brown discoloration of vascular tissue and pith, and cavities within the pith will be evident. Sometimes, a very light pink discoloration of the vascular tissue may cause it to be confused with Verticillium or Fusarium wilt. Under certain circumstances, the brown streaks on the stem or petiole darken and split open as cankers, giving the disease its name. Secondary infections late in the growing season may cause marginal leaf necrosis. Fruits may remain small and fall prematurely, or ripen unevenly. They also often show external marbling and internal bleaching of vascular and surrounding tissue.
Under greenhouse conditions, the first symptom is a reversible wilting of leaves during hot weather, later becoming irreversible. The whole plant then desiccates. Leaves may show white interveinal areas, turning brown and necrotic generally before wilt symptoms appear.
The symptoms described are variable and are influenced by plant age, cultivar type and environmental factors. See Gleason et al. (1993) and Strider (1969) for descriptions and illustrations of canker symptoms.
List of Symptoms/SignsTop of page
|Fruit / lesions: scab or pitting|
|Leaves / necrotic areas|
|Leaves / wilting|
|Leaves / yellowed or dead|
|Stems / canker on woody stem|
|Stems / dieback|
|Stems / discoloration|
|Whole plant / dwarfing|
|Whole plant / plant dead; dieback|
Biology and EcologyTop of page Primary infection of tomato plants originates from contaminated seed. The disease spreads to other seedlings and plants by practices such as clipping and packaging for transplant production; tying and staking of trellis tomatoes; deleafing, suckering and tying in greenhouses, and generally by water splashing caused by rain, overhead irrigation, or chemical sprays. Vascular infection caused by the handling operations leads to stunting of growth, withering, wilting and early plant loss.
Although populations of the canker bacteria decline rapidly when the crop residue is decomposing in the soil, they seem to persist long enough in unbroken crop residue lying on the ground surface to initiate the disease in the following season on new plantings (Gleason et al., 1991; Chang et al., 1992a). Canker bacteria can also survive on volunteer tomato seedlings and alternative host species which can serve as sources of infection (Strider, 1969).
In the field, canker bacteria can spread from plants with primary infection to nearby plants by water splash, movement of machinery, or by people working when the field is wet resulting in marginal necrosis of leaves and fruit spotting (Ricker and Riedel, 1993). Canker bacteria also persist in epiphytic populations on the leaf surface of tomato plants. They cause wilting of leaves and yield reduction (Tsiantos, 1987; Gleason et al, 1991; Chang et al., 1992a).
Young plants have been shown to be more susceptible to canker (Van Vaerenbergh and Chauveau, 1985). Under natural conditions, tomato plants seem to be susceptible throughout their life (Rat et al., 1991). Variability in the length of incubation before symptom expression of bacterial canker depends on plant age, degree of resistance, temperature and inoculum concentration. In a quantitative study of these factors, it was shown that canker symptoms took longer to express and were less severe on older plants, on moderately resistant cultivars, when temperatures were cooler or warmer than 25°C, and under conditions of lower inoculum concentration. Conditions supporting rapid disease development also favour more severe symptoms (Chang et al., 1992b).
The bacterium is located in the xylem vessels (Leyns and De Cleene, 1983) where it can cause lysigenous cavities. Infected vessels contain viscous granular deposits, tylosis and bacterial masses (Marte, 1980). The pathogen produces a toxic glycopeptide which has biological activity (Miura et al., 1986). The pathogen is also reported to produce a heat-labile toxin and a heat-stable polysaccharide (Ueno et al., 1994). A high molecular weight extracellular polysaccharide produced by the bacterium in vitro was found to be similar to the one produced in planta and was suspected to be associated with the production of wilt symptoms in tomato plants (Bulk et al., 1991). Virulence of the canker pathogen has been shown to be associated with a plasmid DNA fragment accounting for the expression of the pathogenic phenotype (Meletzus et al., 1993).
Seedborne AspectsTop of page
The incidence of infection of tomato seeds by C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis reported in the literature varies from <1 to 97% (Strider, 1969; Chang et al., 1991; Dhanvantari and Brown, 1993). This variability may be attributed to the age of seed stocks and seed storage conditions. In storage at room temperature, the viability of seed infection in naturally infected seeds harvested from the field declined from 82 to <1% in 18 months and to 0% in 2 years. In storage at 4°C and 60% RH, the general seed storage conditions and viability of seed infection declined from 100 to <5% in 3 years and 6 months (Dhanvantari, 1993). Indirect evidence from seed disinfection studies indicate that a small percentage of seed infection may be deep-seated within the seed tissue (Dhanvantari and Brown, 1993).
Effect on Seed Quality
Infected tomato seeds are usually indistinguishable from healthy seeds. Germination of infected seeds and the ensuing seedling stand also appear normal (Dhanvantari, 1989; Gitaitis et al., 1991; Chang et al., 1992a).
Studies on transmission of seedborne C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis were carried out with seeds harvested from naturally-infected tomato plants (Dhanvantari, 1989); seed from artificially-inoculated plants (Dhanvantari, 1989; Chang et al., 1992a; Dhanvantari and Brown, 1993); and artificially-infested seeds (Tsiantos, 1987). Infection levels in plants grown from infected seeds varied from ca 1% (Tsiantos, 1987; Chang et al., 1992a), 24-53% (Dhanvantari and Brown, 1993) and 80-90% (Dhanvantari, 1989), depending upon the proportion of infected seeds in the seed batches and seed storage conditions (Dhanvantari, 1993).
More recently, Hadas et al. (2005) described from 0.05% to 4% incidence of bacterial canker in tomato seedlings grown from seed lots containing from 58 to 1,000 c.f.u./g seed, finding a high correlation between c.f.u./g seed and disease incidence. Concentrations of C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis in individual seeds can be highly variable (Kaneshiro and Alvarez, 2003). Populations of 102-104 c.f.u./seed were estimated on naturally infected seeds (Fatmi and Schaad, 1988; Hadas et al., 2005) and 102 c.f.u./seed has been suggested as the probable threshold level for transmission of the pathogen (Kaneshiro et al., 2008). Real-time colonization studies of germinating seeds using a bioluminescent strain showed that C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis aggregated on hypocotyls and cotyledons at an early stage of germination (Xu et al., 2010).
Even low seed transmission rates may result in increased disease incidence as a result of grafting (Xu et al., 2010), trimming, packaging and transportation of transplants (Chang et al., 1991; Gitaitis et al., 1991); pruning and tying of trellis and staked tomato plants; or deleafing, suckering and tying operations in the greenhouse. Kritzman (1991) reported a seed health assay that enables the determination a minimal threshold of C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis that is related to the percentage of diseased seedlings that develop from the same seed lot. Although the relative weight of contaminated seeds as a source of inoculum depends upon the secondary spread of the pathogen, it has been assumed that seed contamination rates as low as 0.01-0.05% (one to five seeds per 10,000) could be enough to initiate an epidemic of bacterial canker in production fields (Chang et al., 1991; Gitaitis et al., 1991).
The pathogen may survive in infected plant debris or on stakes and trellises for long enough to establish a resident population on newly planted tomato seedlings in the following season. This leads to infection via broken trichomes on the leaves or through wounds (Layne, 1967; Gleason et al., 1991; Shirakawa et al., 1991; Chang et al., 1992a). Entry of the bacteria into the leaf may also be gained by withdrawal of contaminated guttation drops through hydathodes (Carlton et al., 1992) or by injury caused by chemical sprays (Farley and Miller, 1973). The role of these local sources of inoculum in bacterial canker was supported by epidemiological studies using molecular typing of natural populations of C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis. These indicate that once the pathogen has been introduced into a region via infected seeds or seedlings, plant debris could be the prime source of inoculum in subsequent years (Keitman et al., 2008; De León et al., 2009; Kawaguchi et al., 2010).
In nutrient film technique (NFT) culture of tomatoes growing in recirculating nutrient solution, it was shown that low populations of the bacterium are sufficient to infect the plants via roots at all stages of development (Griesbach and Lattauschke, 1991). Canker was shown to spread from infected transplants to other plants in recirculating NFT culture with a lag of ca 4 weeks before brown necrotic spots on the leaves and wilt symptoms began to appear on other plants (Dhanvantari, 1995).
Seed treatments for the eradication of C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis from seeds include fermentation, hot water, hydrochloric acid, calcium hypochlorite and sodium hypochlorite, and o-hydroxydiphenyl (o-phenylphenol). Fermentation is routinely used to extract tomato seeds while reducing the population of the canker bacteria, but it can take as long as 96 h to eradicate them. Hydrochloric acid (HCl) has been reported to be consistently effective in eradicating the canker bacteria from tomato seeds. The higher the HCl concentration and the longer the period of treatment, the greater the effectiveness against C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis, but seed germination can be negatively affected. HCl was used to treat the tomato pulp in seed extraction. This treatment, followed by drying the seeds for 3 h, achieved pathogen eradication (Thyr et al., 1973). In contrast, acid extraction by soaking pulp in an equal volume of 5% HCl for 10 min followed by washing did not entirely eliminate C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis from naturally infected seeds (Pradhanang and Collier, 2009). HCl has also been used to soak dry seeds at 1.9% for 5-10 h (Shoemaker and Echandi, 1976; note that the concentration of HCl was erroneously mentioned as 5% in this report but corrected to 1.9% in an attachment to Plant Disease Reporter, 60:454); at 0.6 M (1.9%) for 1 h followed by rinsing in water (otherwise seed germination and seedling emergence would be reduced) (Dhanvantari, 1989) or at 0.1 M without the need for rinsing afterwards (Dhanvantari and Brown, 1993). Tomato pulp can be treated with pectinase-HCl to extract and disinfect the seeds in one step instead of fermentation which takes longer and produces inconsistent results (Dhanvantari, 1989).
In other seed treatments, 0.05% (w/v) o-phenyl phenol was as effective as HCl in disinfecting seed and reducing field incidence of canker (Dhanvantari, 1989; Dhanvantari and Brown, 1993). Calcium hypochlorite is favoured over sodium hypochlorite by the tomato seed industry as it is safe to handle and does not affect seed quality. However, neither treatment at 0.5% (w/v) completely eradicated the pathogen from the seeds. Hot-water treatment at 56°C for 30 min eradicated the pathogen from tomato seeds but resulted in 10-15% reduction in seed germination (Fatmi et al., 1991). Treating tomato seeds with hot water at 50°C for 25 min was effective in disinfecting without impairing seed germination and seedling emergence (Dhanvantari, 1994). Using an accurate thermometer and stirring the water and bags of seed continually to secure rapid penetration of heat to maintain uniform temperature in the seed batches are important procedures in hot-water treatment.
Seed Health Tests
Seed testing is an essential tool for the control of C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis and is important for its regulation and control through phytosanitary certification and quarantine programs in the domestic and international seed trade (De León et al., 2011). Traditionally, tomato seed testing for C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis detection was based on dilution plating of seed extracts on semi-selective media followed by pathogenicity tests as the most practical method to screen a large number of seed lots for canker contamination (Maddox, 1997). However, these protocols show weaknesses in several performance criteria, due to the time required, the interference of saprophytic bacteria and the low level of infection that may be present in naturally infected seeds (De León et al., 2011). Currently, these limitations have led to serological and PCR-based methods being introduced in seed health testing, as a complement to the culture-based standards.
Serological techniques used to detect and identify C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis include agglutination tests, indirect immunofluorescence (IF) (van Vaerenberg and Chauveau, 1987; Franken et al., 1993), immunofluorescence colony staining (IFC) (Veena and van Vuuder, 2002), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (Kramer and Griesbach, 1995), lateral flow devices (e.g. immunostrips) and flow cytometry (Alvarez and Adams, 1999). In addition, immunocapture techniques such as immunomagnetic separation (IMS) can be used to capture target cells from seed extracts prior to plating (De León et al., 2006; De León et al., 2008). Polyclonal antibodies (PAbs) are commercially available for IF, ELISA, agglutination tests or immunostrips, for example, from Loewe, Neogen or Plant Research International.
Monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) have shown higher titer and specificity against C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis than PAbs and the MAb Cmm1 (Alvarez et al., 1993; Kaneshiro et al., 2006) is available in commercial kits for ELISA and immunostrips from Agdia. The most frequently used serological test for the detection of C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis in tomato seed is IF, with a detection limit of approximately 103 cells/ml. This threshold is improved up to 10-102 cells/ml by soaking the seed samples for three days at room temperature before IF (Olivier et al., 2010).
Different pairs of primers have been specifically designed for C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis, such as primers CMM5/CMM6 (Dreier et al., 1995), CM3/CM4 (Sousa-Santos et al., 1997), or PSA-4/PSA-R (Pastrik and Rainey, 1999). It is however advisable to use more than one set of primers to obtain more reliable PCR results. Furthermore, DNA purification is necessary to avoid false negatives due to the presence of PCR inhibitors in seed extracts. In practice, the detection limit of C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis by direct PCR is about 103 c.f.u./ml. Several strategies have been developed to increase this sensitivity, such as Bio-PCR, which involves previous multiplication of the putative pathogen on solid media and subsequent PCR amplification on washes from culture plates. According to Hadas et al. (2005), Bio-PCR was able to detect one contaminated seed in 10,000. In addition to conventional PCR, real-time PCR protocols have recently been developed (Bach et al., 2003; Zhao et al., 2007; Luo et al., 2008). Multiplex PCR has also been described for the simultaneous detection of C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis together with other seedborne pathogens, using previously published primers and either conventional (Özdemir, 2009) or real-time PCR (Johnson and Walcott, 2012).
Standard protocols for tomato seed testing
For C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis, standard seed test protocols are available from the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO, 2005) and the International Seed Federation (ISF) through the International Seed Health Initiative for Vegetable Crops (ISHI-Veg) (ISHI, 2011). The recommended sample size is 10,000 seeds, providing a 95% statistical probability of detecting a 0.03% level of contamination in the seed lot. Both protocols are based on the plating of seed extracts on semi-selective media to isolate the pathogen, followed by a pathogenicity assay. In addition, serological and PCR-based methods have been incorporated to current protocols for presumptive diagnosis and/or identification purposes. These protocols are revised periodically (a new version of the EPPO protocol will be published shortly) and they are available on the ISHI Webpage: http://www.worldseed.org/isf/ishi_vegetable.html and EPPO Webpage: http://archives.eppo.int/EPPOStandards/diagnostics.htm, with a full explanation of seed extract preparation, semi-selective media and pathogenicity tests, as well as the complete protocols for serological and PCR tests.
Published methods are listed as follows:
Semi-selective medium (Fatmi and Schaad, 1988)
Modified semi-selective medium (Waters and Bolkan, 1992)
Semi-selective medium/host plant inoculation (Valarini, 1995)
Immunofluorescence (Franken et al., 1993; van Vaerenbergh and Chauveau, 1987)
ELISA (Kramer and Griesbach, 1995)
PCR (Dreier et al., 1995; Sousa-Santos et al., 1997)
Liquid Plating Assay (Bolkan et al., 1997)
Extraction of the bacterium
1. Place 24 g of the seed sample (approximately 10,000 seeds) in a doubled plastic bag (20 cm x 25 cm and 0.15 mm thick) containing 150 ml sterile phosphate-Tween buffer (7.75 g/l of Na2HPO4 + 1.65 g/l KH2PO4 + 0.2 ml/l Tween 20), pH 7.4.
2. Incubate the plastic bag with its contents in a refrigerator at 4°C for 15 min.
3. After refrigeration, place the plastic bag with its contents in a stomacher (Lab Blender Model 400 Mark II) and blend for 15 min. Double bagging of the seed sample is recommended as insurance against breakage and loss of liquid.
Semi-selective medium for C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis - SCM (Fatmi and Schaad, 1988)
1. Dissolve 2 g K2HPO4; 0.5 g KH2PO4; 0.25 g MgSO4.7H2O; 1.5 g boric acid; 10 g sucrose, 0.1 g yeast extract and 15 g of agar in 980 ml distilled water.
2. After autoclaving, cool to 45-50°C in a water bath and add 100 mg nicotinic acid (dissolved in 20 ml sterile distilled water); 30 mg nalidixic acid (sodium salt, dissolved in 1 ml of 0.1 M NaOH); 10 mg potassium tellurite (1 ml of 1% Chapman tellurite solution from Difco); and 200 mg cycloheximide (dissolved in 1 ml absolute methanol).
Modified semi-selective medium for C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis - mSCM (Waters and Bolkan, 1992)
1. Dissolve 2.62 g K2HPO4.3H20; 0.5 g KH2PO4; 0.25 g MgSO4.7H2O; 1.5 g boric acid; 10 g mannose; and 0.1 g yeast extract in 980 ml distilled water.
2. Add 1 drop (1 ml pipette) of pourite (Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Scientific Division, McGaw Park, IL 60085, USA) and 12 g of agar.
3. After autoclaving, add 100 mg nicotinic acid 30 mg nalidixic acid and 200 mg cycloheximide as previously described for SCM media.
Note on methods: Distribute both media into Petri plates at the rate of 20 ml/plate and store at 4°C until needed.
Yeast extract-dextrose-CaCO2 agar - YDC (Schaad, 1988)
1. This contains 10 g yeast extract, 20 g light powder CaCO3 (Sigma, No. C-6763), 20 g glucose and 15 g agar per 1000 ml.
2. The glucose should be autoclaved separately and the medium cooled to 50°C before pouring plates (the final medium should be white throughout).
Culturing the bacteria
1. Pipette 0.1 ml of 0, 1:10, 1:100 dilutions (prepared using phosphate buffer without Tween) of each sample onto each of the three plates of SCM and mSCM media. Spread with an L-shaped glass rod and incubate at 26°C.
2. Examine the SCM plates after 10 days. C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis colonies on SCM are convex, irregular, mucoid with internal black flecks.
3. Examine the mSCM plates after 7 and 10 days. At 7 days, C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis colonies on mSCM are light grey, 2-3 mm in diam., translucent and easily distinguishable from other mucoid colonies by the presence of many internal flecks (specks). As incubation time increases the colonies become larger and the internal flecks become yellow whereas the non-C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis colonies remain small and have no internal flecks.
4. Compare suspect colonies to a 7-10-day-old streak of a known culture of C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis on mSCM and SCM media.
5. Remove suspected colonies with a sterile transfer loop and streak onto YDC agar and incubate at room temperature (24±1°C).
6. Examine for presence of yellow mucoid colonies (must compare to known culture of C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis on YDC).
7. Confirm identity by immunofluorescence (IF), ELISA and/or pathogenicity test using single colonies.
Note on method: The source of antibodies is AGDIA, 30380 County Rd. 6, Elkhart, Indiana 46514, USA.
Identification of suspected colonies of C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis by IF staining (Schaad, 1978)
1. Grow suspected colonies and a known strain of C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis (control) on YDC for 24-48 h.
2. Make a suspension of cells from single YDC colonies using a loop of cells in a drop (0.1 ml) of saline-formalin solution (0.85% NaCl + 10% formalin).
3. After incubating for 5-10 min transfer 10 µl of the bacterial suspension to a fluorescence slide well (6 mm in diam., 8 wells/slides).
4. Flood with Kirkpatrick's solution (60% ethanol, 30% chloroform and 10% formalin) and incubate in moist chambers for 3 min.
5. Rinse with a fixative, drain and air-dry. Add one drop (1 ml pipette) of C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis antisera and incubate in a moist chamber in the dark for 30 min.
6. Rinse once in saline then in phosphate buffered saline for 10 min. Rinse again in saline then in distilled water and air-dry.
7. Stain with a commercial anti-rabbit goat globulin FITC conjugate as above and mount in 0.5 M carbonate-buffered (pH 9) glycerin.
8. Examine under an epi-fluorescence microscope using 100x objective. Cells that are brightly fluorescent are considered to be positive C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis cells.
Identification of suspected colonies of C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis by ELISA (Kramer and Griesbach, 1995)
1. Grow suspected colonies on YDC for 24-48 h.
2. Prepare solutions from an Agdia ELISA reagent set containing peroxidase labelled conjugates (Agdia, Inc., 30380 County Road 6, Elkhart, IN 46514, USA) as follows:
PBS-Tween (pH 7.4: dilute 8 g NaCl, 0.2 g KH2PO4, 2.9 g Na2HPO4.12H20, 0.2 g KCl and 0.5 ml Tween 20 in 1 L of deionized water.
Coating buffer: dilute 1.59 g Na2CO3, and 2.93 g NaHCO3 in 1 L deionized water. Keep refrigerated.
Substrate buffer (pH 9.8): dilute 97 ml of diethanolamine in 800 ml deionized water and adjust pH with HCl. Keep refrigerated.
Extraction buffer: dilute 20 g PVP-40 (polyvinyl pyrrolidone) and 2 g BSA (bovine albumin) in 1 L PBS-Tween. Keep refrigerated.
3. Dilute the C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis monoclonal antibodies in coating buffer (1:1000 dilution) and load plates by adding 0.2 ml/well.
4. Place plates in closed humid box and incubate at room temperature for 4 h or at 4°C overnight.
5. Remove the coating solution and wash plates by flooding wells with PBS-Tween. Repeat washing three times at 3 min intervals.
6. Dilute suspected colonies (one loop of cells) in 1 ml of extraction buffer and add to duplicate wells (0.2 ml/well). Use extraction buffer and a known culture as controls.
7. Incubate plates at room temperature (24±1°C) for at least 2 h or at 4°C overnight in a closed humid box.
8. Wash plates as previously described.
9. Dilute monoclonal antibodies in the extraction buffer (1:500 dilution) and load plates by adding 0.2 ml/well.
10. Incubate plates at room temperature for 2 h in a closed humid box.
11. Wash plates as previously described.
12. Dilute (1 mg/ml) o-phenylenediamine in substrate solution and load plates by adding 0.2 ml/well.
13. Incubate plates at room temperature in the dark for 15-30 min or until the positive controls develop a dark yellow-orange colour.
14. Stop the reaction by adding a drop of 3 M sulfuric acid to each well.
15. Measure optical density at 490 nm or evaluate visually. Colour intensity is proportional to bacterial concentration. The negative controls (extraction buffer) should be clear with no colour change.
Identification of C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis by pathogenicity test
1. Grow suspected colonies on YDC for 24-48 h.
2. Sterile scissors dipped in inoculum of C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis containing approximately 1 million cells/ml are used to cut the stem of each seedling just above the cotyledons.
3. The top part of the seedling is discarded and the inoculated plants are kept in a greenhouse at 25-27°C.
4. Symptoms such as a one-sided wilt of the leaflets on the inoculated side appear within 7-11 days.
Plant TradeTop of page
|Plant parts liable to carry the pest in trade/transport||Pest stages||Borne internally||Borne externally||Visibility of pest or symptoms|
|Bulbs/Tubers/Corms/Rhizomes||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye|
|Flowers/Inflorescences/Cones/Calyx||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually invisible|
|Fruits (inc. pods)||Yes||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye|
|Growing medium accompanying plants||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually invisible|
|Leaves||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye|
|Roots||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye|
|Seedlings/Micropropagated plants||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually invisible|
|Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye|
|True seeds (inc. grain)||Yes||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually invisible|
|Plant parts not known to carry the pest in trade/transport|
ImpactTop of page Since the first report of the disease in the USA in 1910, bacterial canker has spread throughout the world and causes serious losses to both greenhouse and field tomato crops either by killing the young plants or reducing marketable yields. Reduction in yield may be associated with direct plant loss, reduced numbers of fruit or fruit size. Field experiments have recorded yield losses of 20% or more in Ontario, Canada (Dhanvantari, 1989; Dhanvantari and Brown, 1993); 20-30% in France (Rat et al., 1991); 46% in Illinois, USA (Chang et al., 1992c); and a 10-fold yield reduction after plant loss in Queensland, Australia (Dullahide et al., 1983).
DiagnosisTop of page
Isolation of the causal organism can be attempted on nutrient dextrose agar or yeast peptone glucose agar (Lelliott and Stead, 1987). C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis develops slow-growing, smooth, shining, round, yellow colonies with entire margins. However, white, pink, red and orange mutants do occur (Hayward and Waterson, 1964). Semi-selective media have been found useful for isolation. Popular media are modified versions of CNS agar (Vidaver and Davis, 1988) on which colonies appear in 6-7 days, SCM agar (Fatmi and Schaad, 1988) on which gray-to-black speckled colonies are formed, and m-SCM agar (Waters and Bolkan, 1992), a modification of SCM agar on which clear colonies with yellow flecks appear in 7-9 days. See Gleason et al. (1993) for details on these 'classical' semi-selective media for isolation of C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis. New semi-selective media, as well as new improvement of SCM medium (Koenraadt et al., 2009), have further been reported, such as CMM1 agar (Kaneshiro et al., 2006) on which colonies of C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis are yellow, mucoid and convex, and BCT agar (Ftayeh et al., 2011) on which typical colonies appear creamy to yellow in color, convex and shining.
Bacterial canker of tomato can be diagnosed by the symptoms described (see Symptoms) and by isolation of the causal organism on a non-selective medium or a semi-selective medium followed by a pathogenicity test on a 2- to 4-leaf-stage tomato seedling. The test is carried out by stab inoculation of the seedling at a node with a sterile toothpick charged with fresh inoculum from the selected colonies growing on the isolation plates. Variations of this technique include infiltrating a water-suspension of the inoculum (100,000,000 c.f.u./ml) with a syringe, or excising a leaflet on the first or second leaf with a pair of scissors contaminated with the inoculum (van Steekelenberg, 1985; Gitaitis et al., 1989). Leaf margin curling and one-sided wilting or withering of the leaves in the vicinity of inoculation will occur within 2-3 weeks if the inoculum used is virulent.
Following this approach, the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization has published a protocol for diagnosis of C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis in symptomatic plants (EPPO, 2005). According to the EPPO protocol, suspensions of affected vascular tissue, leaf or fruit spots should be plated on standard nutrient medium and on semi-selective medium. Presumptive colonies should be purified and identified by biochemical characteristics, serological tests or PCR. Pathogenicity of presumptive isolates is confirmed by inoculating tomato seedling. Suspensions of diseased tomato tissue can also be tested by rapid tests (IF and/or PCR) for presumptive diagnosis, but isolation is necessary for a positive detection. The detailed protocol, with full explanation about the preparation of plant tissue suspensions, dilution plating, media, rapid tests, identification of presumptive isolates and pathogenicity test, can be found on the EPPO Webpage: http://archives.eppo.int/EPPOStandards/diagnostics.htm.
Yasuhara-Bell et al. (2013) have developed a diagnostic method using loop-mediated amplification (LAMP) to detect Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis.
Detection and InspectionTop of page Many seed-testing methods have been investigated. Semi-selective media are now routinely used to isolate the pathogen from seed extracts or from plant tissue. The pathogen is not consistently isolated from the vascular tissue of tomato plants or from cankers on leaf petioes. More consistent results are obtained when isolations are made from fruit spots, discolored vascular tissue within the fruit. The section of tissue is suspended in sterile distilled water for 30 min or macerated in a few drops of sterile distilled water. A loopful of the liquid is then spread on agar plates.
Media that were available earlier such as SCM agar (Fatmi and Schaad, 1988) and SMCMM agar (Shirakawa and Sasaki, 1988) may not be sensitive enough due to many antagonists present in the saprophytic flora, or may be too toxic, thus delaying the development of the colonies of the canker bacterium. Modified versions of semi-selective medium CNS agar from which lithium chloride and polymyxin b sulfate are deleted (Vidaver and Davis, 1988) and of SCM (m-SCM) with the deletion of tellurite and the replacement of sucrose with mannose (Waters and Bolkan, 1992), are being used by seed companies in the USA.
Serological methods are sensitive (Rat, 1984) but there are difficulties in obtaining sufficiently specific antisera. Specific and sensitive ELISA methods have been developed and it is claimed that they are useful in the routine analysis of latent infection (Gitaitis et al., 1991; Kramer and Griesbach, 1995). Immunofluorescence staining combined with bioassays have been described (van Vaerenbergh and Chauveau, 1987; Franken et al., 1993) which are specific and sensitive, but expensive and time-consuming. Other methods including fatty acid profiles (Gitaitis and Beaver, 1990), molecular hybridization (Thompson et al., 1989), protein profiles (Bruyne et al., 1987) and PCR methods (Ghedini and Fiore, 1995) have become available. Recently, PCR-based molecular probes specific for C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis and its virulent strains have been reported (Dreier et al., 1995).
Prevention and ControlTop of page
Due to the variable regulations around (de)registration of pesticides, your national list of registered pesticides or relevant authority should be consulted to determine which products are legally allowed for use in your country when considering chemical control. Pesticides should always be used in a lawful manner, consistent with the product's label.Improved management of bacterial canker in tomato has been shown to be possible by the use of healthy seeds, seed treatment, appropriate cultural practices, chemical sprays where needed, hygiene and sanitation (Gleason et al., 1993).
Recent advances have introduced more efficient techniques to aid seed health testing, and many seed companies are using one or more of them. A substantial reduction of infection can be achieved by acid extraction of seeds or treatment of seeds with acid or other disinfectants or hot water (Shoemaker and Echandi, 1976; Dhanvantari, 1989; Fatmi et al., 1991; Dhanvantari and Brown, 1993; Dhanvantari, 1994).
Cultural practices such as deep ploughing to bury infected crop residue after harvest to accelerate decomposition, and crop rotation away from solanaceous crops for at least 2 years, are recommended to reduce the incidence of canker (Gleason et al., 1991). Production of tomato transplants in greenhouses planted in soilless medium in plastic trays, has been found to be feasible and more reliable than field-grown transplants for reducing the risk of bacterial canker (Gleason et al., 1993). They form part of the current production recommendations in Canada and the USA. Copper-based chemicals are usually sprayed on tomato for controlling bacterial diseases but their effect on canker is poorly documented. However, under conditions of frequent rainfall and prolonged wet periods, chemical sprays with copper-containing compounds have been found useful in reducing foliar blight and fruit spotting (Shoemaker, 1992).
Sources of resistance are available (Gardner et al., 1990; Poysa, 1993; van Steekelenberg, 1985) but have not yet been introduced into commercial cultivars.
In protected crops, strict hygiene measures such as early detection, isolation and eradication of infected plants, destruction of crop residues, rinsing hands/gloves and pruning tools with a disinfectant after working each row, and disinfection of structures and equipment are essential to manage canker. See Jarvis (1992) for general greenhouse hygiene.
ReferencesTop of page
Alvarez AM; Adams PD, 1999. Flow cytometry: a promising tool for seed health testing. Ames, Iowa, USA: International Seed Testing Association, 93-97.
Alvarez AM; Derie M; Benedict A; Gabrielson R, 1993. Characteristics of a monoclonal antibody to Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis, 83(12):1405.
Bach HJ; Jessen I; Schloter M; Munch JC, 2003. A TaqMan-PCR protocol for quantification and differentiation of the phytopathogenic Clavibacter michiganensis subspecies. Journal of Microbiological Methods, 52(1):85-91. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T30-46SG5G2-1&_user=10&_handle=W-WA-A-A-AD-MsSAYZA-UUW-AUCUWUEBDV-CEVCZUZYE-AD-U&_fmt=summary&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2003&_rdoc=9&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%234932%232003%23999479998%23349776!&_cdi=4932&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5f6d5e59acea5ab34b6eba0f3f24df50
Biggerstaff CM; Gleason ML; Braun EJ, 2000. Refinement of a nondestructive tomato seed assay for Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis using seed fiber. Seed Science and Technology, 28(2):261-269; 9 ref.
Bolkan HA; Waters CM; Fatmi M, 1997. Clavibacter michiganenesis subsp. michiganensis. Working Sheet 67. ISTA Handbook On Seed Health Testing. Zurich, Switzerland: International Seed Testing Association.
Bruyne Ede; Vantomme R; Ley Jde, 1987. Enzymatic features and SDS gel electrophoretic protein patterns of Corynebacterium michiganense.. Mededelingen van de Faculteit Landbouwwetenschappen, Rijksuniversiteit Gent, 52(3b):1095-1100; 10 ref.
Bulk RW van den; Zevenhuizen LPTM; Cordewener JHG; Dons JJM, 1991. Characterization of the extracellular polysaccharide produced by Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis. Phytopathology, 81(6):619-623
Carlton WM; Gleason ML; Braun EJ, 1992. Entry of Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis into tomato plants through hydathodes. Phytopathology, 82:990-991.
Chang RJ; Ries SM; Pataky JK, 1992b. Effects of temperature, plant age, inoculum concentration, and cultivar on the incubation period and severity of bacterial canker of tomato. Plant Disease, 76(11):1150-1155
Dhanvantari BN, 1993. Seed-borne infection in tomato bacterial canker. Proceedings of the 9th Annual Tomato Disease Workshop, 33-36.
Dhanvantari BN, 1994. Further studies on seed treatment for tomato bacterial canker. Proceedings of the 10th Annual Tomato Disease Workshop, 49-51.
Dhanvantari BN, 1995. Bacterial canker in grenhouse tomato under NFT culture. Proceedings of the 11th Annual Tomato Disease Workshop, 35-36.
Dullahide SR; Moffett ML; Heaton JB; Giles J, 1983. Effect of time of inoculation of Corynebacterium michiganense subsp. michiganense on yield of trellised tomatoes. Australasian Plant Pathology, 12(2):15-16; [2 fig.]; 3 ref.
EPPO, 2005. . http://archives.eppo.org/EPPOStandards/diagnostics.htm
EPPO, 2011. EPPO Reporting Service. EPPO Reporting Service. Paris, France: EPPO. http://archives.eppo.org/EPPOReporting/Reporting_Archives.htm
EPPO, 2014. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm
European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization, 1992. Quarantine procedure No. 39. Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis. Test methods for tomato seeds. Bulletin OEPP, 22(2):219-224
Farley JD; Miller TD, 1973. Spread and control of bacterial canker in tomato plants during clipping. Research Summary, Ohio Agricultural Research Development Center.
Franken AAJM; Kamminga GC; Snijders W; Zouwen PS van der; Birnbaum YE, 1993. Detection of Clavibacter michiganensis ssp. michiganensis in tomato seeds by immunofluorescence microscopy and dilution plating. Netherlands Journal of Plant Pathology, 99(3):125-137
Gardner RG; Shoemaker PB; Echandi E, 1990. Evaluation of tomato lines for resistance to tomato bacterial canker. Tomato Genetics Cooperative Report, 40:10-12.
Gitaitis RD; Beaver RW; Dhanvantari BN, 1989. Detection of Clavibacter michiganense subsp. michiganense in tomato transplants. In: Saettler AW, Schaad NW, Roth DA, eds. Detection of Bacteria in Seed and Other Planting Material. St. Paul, Minnesota, USA: APS Press, 116-122.
Griesbach E; Lattauschke E, 1991. Transmission of Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis in hydroponic cultures of tomatoes and possibilities for controlling the pathogen. Nachrichtenblatt des Deutschen Pflanzenschutzdienstes, 43(4):69-73; 6 ref.
Hadas R; Kritzman G; Klietman F; Gefen T; Manulis S, 2005. Comparison of extraction procedures and determination of the detection threshold for Clavibacter michiganensis ssp. michiganensis in tomato seeds. Plant Pathology, 54(5):643-649. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/servlet/useragent?func=showIssues&code=ppa
Hausbeck MK; Bell J; Medina-Mora C; Podolsky R; Fulbright DW, 2000. Effect of bactericides on population sizes and spread of Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis on tomatoes in the greenhouse and on disease development and crop yield in the field. Phytopathology, 90(1):38-44; 22 ref.
IPPC, 2014. Suspicion of Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis (Cmm). Two tomato fruit production companies and one propagation company of tomato plants. IPPC Official Pest Report, No. NLD-29/1. Rome, Italy: FAO. https://www.ippc.int/
IPPC, 2016. Information on Pest Status in the Republic of Lithuania in 2015. IPPC Official Pest Report, No. LTU-01/2. Rome, Italy: FAO. https://www.ippc.int/
ISHI, 2011. . http://www.worldseed.org/isf/ishi_vegetable.htm
Johnson KL; Walcott RR, 2012. Progress towards a real-time PCR assay for the simultaneous detection of Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis and Pepino mosaic virus in tomato seed. Journal of Phytopathology, 160(7/8):353-363. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1439-0434
Kaneshiro WS; Alvarez AM, 2003. Variability and survival of Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis (Cmm) in seed, 93.
Kaneshiro WS; Ingram DM; Alvarez AM, 2008. Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis threshold levels required for transmission by naturally-infested tomato seed, 98.
Kaneshiro WS; Mizumoto CY; Alvarez AM, 2006. Differentiation of Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis from seed-borne saprophytes using ELISA, Biolog and 16S rDNA sequencing. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 116(1):45-56. http://springerlink.metapress.com/link.asp?id=100265
Kawaguchi A; Tanina K; Inoue K, 2010. Molecular typing and spread of Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis in greenhouses in Japan. Plant Pathology, 59(1):76-83. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/loi/ppa
Kleitman F; Barash I; Burger A; Iraki N; Falah Y; Sessa G; Weinthal D; Chalupowicz L; Gartemann KH; Eichenlaub R; Manulis-Sasson S, 2008. Characterization of a Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis population in Israel. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 121(4):463-475. http://springerlink.metapress.com/link.asp?id=100265
Koenraadt H; Vliet Avan; Neijndorff N; Woudt B, 2009. Improvement of semi-selective media for the detection of Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis in seeds of tomato, 99.
Layne REC, 1967. Foliar trichomes and their importance as infection sites for Corynebacterium michiganense on tomato. Phytopathology, 57:981-985.
Leon LDe; Rodriguez A; Llop P; Lopez MM; Siverio F, 2009. Comparative assessment of genetic diversity of Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis isolates from the Canary Islands by RAPD, BOX, and AFLP. Comparative assessment of genetic diversity of Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis isolates, 58(5):862-871.
León Lde; Rodríguez A; López MM; Siverio F, 2008. Evaluation of the efficacy of immunomagnetic separation for the detection of Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis in tomato seeds. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 104(3):776-786. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2007.03595.x
León Lde; Siverio F; López MM; Rodríguez A, 2011. Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis, a seedborne tomato pathogen: healthy seeds are still the goal. Plant Disease, 95(11):1328-1338. http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/loi/pdis
Leon LDe; Siverio F; Rodriguez A, 2006. Detection of Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis in tomato seeds using immunomagnetic separation, 67(1):141-149.
Leyns F; Cleene Mde, 1983. Histopathology of the bacteriosis caused by inoculation of Corynebacterium michiganense and Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria in tomato stems. Mededelingen van de Faculteit Landbouwwetenschappen Rijksuniversiteit Gent, 48(3):663-670; [2 fig.]; 10 ref.
Leyns F; Lambert B; Joos H; Swings J, 1990. Antifungal bacteria from different crops. Biological control of soil-borne plant pathogens [edited by Hornby, D.] Wallingford, Oxon; UK; CAB International, 437-444
Luo LX; Walters C; Bolkan H; Liu XL; Li JQ, 2008. Quantification of viable cells of Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis using a DNA binding dye and a real-time PCR assay. Plant Pathology, 57(2):332-337. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-3059.2007.01736.x
Maddox D, 1997. Regulatory needs for standardized seed health tests In: McGee DC, ed. Plant Pathogens and the Worldwide Movement of Seeds. St. Paul, USA: APS Press, 81-92.
Meletzus D; Bermpohl A; Dreier J; Eichenlaub R, 1993. Evidence for plasmid-encoded virulence factors in the phytopathogenic bacterium Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis NCPPB382. Journal of Bacteriology, 175(7):2131-2136
Miura L; Romeiro Rda S; Gomes JC, 1986. Production, purification and biological activity of an exotoxin produced in vitro by Corynebacterium michiganense pv. michiganense.. Fitopatologia Brasileira, 11(4):789-794; 9 ref.
Olivier V; Baloche A; Drouin A; Audusseau C; Paillard S; Soubelet H, 2010. Internal methods comparison study and inter-laboratory study on Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis in tomato seeds. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin, 40(2):248-256. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/loi/epp
Ozdemir Z, 2009. Development of a mulitplex PCR assay for the simultaneous detection of Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis, Pseudomonas syringae pv tomato and Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. vesicatoria using pure cultures, 91(2):495-497.
Pradhanang PM; Collier G, 2009. How effective is hydrochloric acid treatment to control Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis contamination in tomato seed? Acta Horticulturae [Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Tomato Diseases, Kusadasi, Turkey, 8-12 October 2007.], No.808:81-85. http://www.actahort.org
Rat B, 1984. Corynebacterium michiganense. Technique de detection dans les semences de tomato. In: Ist International Workshop on Seed Bacteriology.
Rat B; Poissonnier J; Gosique MJ; Burgaud A, 1991. Le point sur chancre bacterien. Fruit et Legume, 86:38-40.
Schaad NW, 1988. Initial identification of common genera. In: Schaad NW, ed. Laboratory Guide for Identification of Plant Pathogenic Bacteria. St. Paul, USA: APS Press, 1-15.
Sepúlveda Chavera GF; Salvatierra Martínez R; Sandoval Briones C; González Vásquez R, 2013. First report of tomato bacterial canker Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis on tomato crops in Arica. IDESIA, 31(2):99-101. http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0718-34292013000200014&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=en
Shirakawa T; Sasaki T, 1988. A selective medium for isolation of Corynebacterium michiganense pv. michiganense, the pathogen of tomato bacterial canker disease. Annals of the Phytopathological Society of Japan, 54(4):540-543; 10 ref.
Shoemaker PB, 1992. Fungicide and Nematicide Tests, 47:155.
Sneath PHA; Mair NS; Sharpe ME; Holt JG, 1986. Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology. Vol. 2. Baltimore, USA: Williams & Wilkins.
Sousa Santos M; Cruz L; Norskov P; Rasmussen OF, 1997. A rapid and sensitive detection of Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis in tomato seeds by polymerase chain reaction. Seed Science and Technology, 25(3):581-584; 5 ref.
Stamova L; Sotirova V, 1987. Reaction of different crops to artificial inoculation with Corynebacterium michiganense (E.F. Sm.) H.L. Jensen. Archiv für Phytopathologie und Pflanzenschutz, 23(3):211-216; 10 ref.
Strider DL, 1969. Bacterial canker of tomato caused by Corynebacterium michiganense: a literature review and bibliography. Technical Bulletin North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, No. 193.
Thyr BD; Webb RE; Jaworski CA; Ratcliffe TJ, 1973. Tomato bacterial canker: control by seed treatment. Plant Disease Reporter, 57:974-977.
Ueno B; Teraoka T; Hosokawa D; Watanabe M, 1994. Biological activities of toxin produced by tomato canker bacterium, Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis, against tomato plant and its callus cells. Annals of the Phytopathological Society of Japan, 60(1):13-19
Vaerenbergh Jvan; Chauveau JF, 1985. Hostplant inoculations for the detection of (latent) Corynebacterium michiganense (E. F. Smith) Jensen. Mededelingen van de Faculteit Landbouwwetenschappen Rijksuniversiteit Gent, 50(3a):973-995; [13 fig., 8 tab.]; 14 ref.
Valarini PJ, 1995. Methods for detection of Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis and Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria in tomato seeds. Revista Brasileira de Sementes, 17(2):179-186; 30 ref.
Vidaver AK; Davis MJ, 1988. Gram-positive bacteria, A. Coryneform plant pathogens. In: Schaad NW, ed. Laboratory Guide for Identification of Plant Pathogenic Bacteria. St. Paul, Minnesota, USA: APS Press, 104-113.
Waters CM; Bolkan HA, 1992. An improved semi-selective medium and method of extraction for detecting Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis in tomato seeds. Phytopathology, 82:1072.
Werner NA; Fulbright DW; Podolsky R; Bell J; Hausbeck MK, 2002. Limiting populations and spread of Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis on seedling tomatoes in the greenhouse. Plant Disease, 86(5):535-542; 23 ref.
Xu XL; Miller SA; Baysal-Gurel F; Gartemann KH; Eichenlaub R; Rajashekara G, 2010. Bioluminescence imaging of Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis infection of tomato seeds and plants. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 76(12):3978-3988. http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/76/12/3978
Yasuhara-Bell J; Kubota R; Jenkins DM; Alvarez AM, 2013. Loop-mediated amplification of the Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis mica gene is highly specific. Phytopathology, 103(12):1220-1226. http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/loi/phyto
Zhao WJ; Chen HY; Zhu SF; Xia MX; Tan TW, 2007. One-step detection of Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis in symptomless tomato seeds using a TaqMan probe. Journal of Plant Pathology, 89(3):349-351. http://www.agr.unipi.it/sipav/jpp/index.html
Distribution MapsTop of page
Unsupported Web Browser:
One or more of the features that are needed to show you the maps functionality are not available in the web browser that you are using.
Please consider upgrading your browser to the latest version or installing a new browser.
More information about modern web browsers can be found at http://browsehappy.com/