Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Low-Cost Optoelectronic Sensor for Early Screening of Citrus Greening in Leaves

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper reports that a hand-held LED reflectance sensor priced under ₹5,000 identifies citrus greening (HLB)-infected leaves with 89.58% accuracy and 93.75% precision in the infrared band.

desk verdict A useful low-cost hardware idea undercut by a measurement-level train/test split; the reported 89.58% accuracy should not be trusted until leaf-level validation is done. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.02656 v1 pith:LEVTDDGP submitted 2025-09-02 q-bio.OT eess.IV

Ramji Gupta , Ashis Kumar Das , Sushmita Mena , Saurav Bharadwaj This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.OTeess.IV
keywords HuanglongbingcitrusgreeningLEDreflectancesensorRandomForestinfraredsensingplantdiseasescreeningspectroscopymachinelearning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper's goal is to show that citrus greening (Huanglongbing, HLB) can be screened for with a cheap, portable LED-based reflectance sensor instead of research-grade spectrometers or lab assays. The proposed device illuminates the upper surface of a leaf with white and infrared LEDs, records reflected intensities in four spectral bands (blue, green, red, infrared), and feeds the normalized readings to machine-learning classifiers. The central result is that a Random Forest model on the infrared band separates HLB-infected from healthy leaves with 89.58% accuracy and 93.75% precision, with the green band close behind. If the result holds, smallholder farmers could screen trees for a few thousand rupees and reserve PCR tests for suspected positives, which matters because HLB has no cure and spreads before symptoms appear.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is reflectance spectroscopy with two illumination sources and four wavelength channels. White LEDs excite chlorophyll-sensitive bands (blue 465 nm, green 525 nm, red 615 nm) and an IR LED/photodiode pair reads around 940 nm. The paper's physiological explanation is that IR reflectance tracks starch accumulation caused by phloem blockage in infected leaves, while the green band tracks chlorophyll decline; these four intensity features, scaled to [0,1], are classified by Random Forest with 500 bootstrap-aggregated trees. This machinery translates an expensive spectroscopy measurement into four cheap intensity readings that still carry enough disease information for t

What would settle it

Retrain the Random Forest with all ten measurements from each leaf kept in the same training or test fold (leaf-disjoint cross-validation). If the resulting test accuracy falls well below 89.58%, the published number is inflated by reading-level leakage; alternatively, collect fresh leaves from a second tree and apply the already trained model—if accuracy collapses, the model has not generalised beyond the original tree.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a minimal optoelectronic circuit—an Arduino Nano driving a TCS34725 colour sensor and a custom 940 nm IR emitter–photodiode pair—captures disease-relevant reflectance changes from the adaxial leaf surface. The underlying physical claim is that HLB infection blocks phloem transport, causes abnormal starch accumulation and chlorophyll loss, and these biochemical shifts alter how leaves reflect light at the sensor's chosen wavelengths. After min-max normalization and training on reflectance measurements from 24 leaves, Random Forest achieved 89.58% test accuracy and 93.75% precision in the IR band, and 85.42% accuracy in the green band. The authors position the device as a

Load-bearing premise

The reported accuracy rests on treating the ten reflectance readings from each leaf as independent samples and splitting them randomly between training and testing; if the split is done leaf-wise instead, the model may be memorising leaf-specific patterns, and the 89.58% figure could drop sharply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the sensor works as reported, citrus orchards in low-income settings could run a first-pass screen with a device costing under ₹5,000 and send only positives for qPCR confirmation.
  • Infrared and green band reflectance become practical proximal markers for HLB-related starch and chlorophyll changes, measurable outside a laboratory.
  • The reported result suggests that four narrow wavelength channels can reproduce, at lower accuracy, what research-grade vis-NIR spectrometers do across hundreds of wavelengths.
  • The device could be redeployed for routine monitoring of symptom progression if starch and chlorophyll signatures shift with disease severity.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because all infected leaves showed blotchy mottle and green island symptoms and came from one tree, the paper's 'early screening' claim is tested only on visibly symptomatic leaves; a genuinely early field test would target asymptomatic qPCR-positive leaves, on which this sensor has not yet been evaluated.
  • The reading-level split means the 89.58% figure likely overstates leaf-level generalization; a leaf-disjoint cross-validation would give a fairer estimate and is a direct next step.
  • If starch and chlorophyll are the underlying discriminative signals, the same four-band sensor could plausibly detect other phloem-limited or nutrient-stress conditions, but nothing in the paper demonstrates that.
  • Field deployment will face temperature, humidity, and leaf-age variability; a calibration set spanning orchards, seasons, and cultivars is a natural extension, not yet reported.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a low-cost LED-based reflectance sensor for distinguishing citrus greening (HLB)-infected from healthy citrus leaves. The sensor uses white and IR LEDs with a color sensor (TCS34725) and a custom IR photodiode module, and reflectance measurements in blue, green, red, and IR bands are classified with k-NN, decision tree, and random forest. The authors report best performance for Random Forest in the IR band: 89.58% accuracy and 93.75% precision. They claim the device costs under ₹5000 and could serve as a hand-held early-screening tool. The evaluation uses 24 leaves (7 healthy, 17 infected) with 10 spot measurements per leaf, split 80:20 at the measurement level.

Significance. If the result held under proper validation, a ~$60/₹5000 hand-held reflectance sensor with ~90% accuracy would be a genuinely useful screening tool for smallholder citrus growers, and the physiological rationale (starch accumulation visible in IR, chlorophyll loss in green) is plausible. The paper also provides a useful comparison with expensive research-grade spectrometers. However, the current evaluation has fundamental flaws: the train/test split is at the measurement level, so the same leaf appears in both training and test sets; the 'healthy' leaves were not confirmed negative by qPCR; and all infected leaves were visibly symptomatic. These issues mean the headline accuracy cannot be interpreted as performance on new leaves or as evidence for 'early' detection. The engineering contribution is promising, but the central claim as stated is not supported by the reported experimental design.

major comments (5)
  1. [§2.1, §2.3] The train/test split is at the measurement level, not the leaf level. Ten reflectance measurements are taken from each of 24 leaves (Section 2.1), and the 80:20 stratified split is applied to 'the full dataset' (Section 2.3). Thus the same leaf contributes measurements to both training and test partitions. Reflectance spot measurements from one leaf share leaf thickness, surface texture, sensor contact, and lighting conditions; a 500-tree random forest can exploit these leaf-specific artifacts rather than disease biology. The reported 89.58% accuracy (Table 1) is therefore not an estimate of performance on new leaves. Leaf-grouped cross-validation (e.g., leave-one-leaf-out or grouped k-fold) must be reported, along with per-leaf predictions and confidence intervals.
  2. [§2.1] The 'healthy' leaf label is not validated. The branches from which the leaves were taken were qPCR-positive for HLB, and no qPCR test on the 7 healthy-appearing leaves is reported. These leaves may be asymptomatic but infected. At the same time, the 17 infected leaves all exhibited blotchy mottle and green island symptoms. The classification therefore discriminates visibly symptomatic leaves from asymptomatic leaves on the same infected tree, not healthy vs. diseased leaves. The authors must either confirm the healthy leaves as qPCR-negative (and ideally sample from disease-free trees) or explicitly reframe the claim as 'symptomatic vs. asymptomatic leaf discrimination.'
  3. [§3.2, Table 1] Several reported performance metrics are internally inconsistent. For Random Forest IR, precision is 0.9375 and recall is 0.9231, but F1-score is listed as 0.9091; the harmonic mean of these two values is approximately 0.930. Similar inconsistencies appear for k-NN Green and Decision Tree Blue. This suggests either arithmetic errors or misreported confusion-matrix values. Please provide the confusion matrices for all models and bands and recompute the metrics, or share code so the numbers can be reproduced.
  4. [§4, Abstract] The claim of 'early detection' or 'early screening' is not supported by the data. All infected leaves already had visible HLB symptoms (blotchy mottle, green islands; Section 2.1). No asymptomatic infected leaves were tested. If the device is being proposed for early screening, the authors need to include asymptomatic infected leaves (confirmed by qPCR) or tone down the claim to 'detection of symptomatic HLB leaves.' This is a load-bearing issue for the stated contribution.
  5. [§3.3, §3.4] The evaluation is based on a single tree and only 24 leaves, with no confidence intervals, no external validation set, and no code/data availability. The ROC/PR AUC values reported in Section 3.3 inherit the same measurement-level leakage. With only ~48 test measurements (unbalanced), the uncertainty around 89.58% is large. At minimum, the authors should provide bootstrap or leaf-level confidence intervals and make the data available. Without this, the central accuracy claim cannot be independently checked.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1] Typo: 'spreaded' should be 'spread.' Also 'Disease is highly destructive' should be 'The disease is highly destructive.'
  2. [§3.4, Table 2] Cost is given as 'under ₹5000' in the text but '$60' in Table 2. Please clarify the currency and the basis of the estimate (component price, prototype cost, or projected manufacturing cost).
  3. [§2.3] The description of hyperparameters is incomplete: k-NN uses k=3, Random Forest uses 500 trees and √p features, but no maximum-depth or pruning details are given for the decision tree. A brief hyperparameter table would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Figure 3] The learning curves are described in §3.3, but the figure panels are not individually labeled in the text. Please ensure that panel (d) is clearly referenced and that axes and legends are legible.
  5. [General] No data availability or code availability statement is provided. Given the reproducibility concerns, these statements are essential and should be added.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Reported 89.58% IR accuracy rests on a measurement-level train/test split that allows the same leaves to appear in both partitions, so the headline 'prediction' is partly a re-description of the training leaves.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sections 2.1 (Leaf Samples) and 2.3 (Machine Learning Techniques); result reported in Section 3.2 and Table 1]
    "'Ten reflectance measurements were randomly taken from different adaxial spots on each leaf.' ... 'The full dataset was stratified into independent training and test partitions in an 80:20 ratio to enable unbiased performance estimation.'"

    With 7 healthy and 17 infected leaves and 10 spot measurements per leaf, the dataset contains 240 measurements. The 80:20 split is applied to the full measurement set, not to leaves, so the same leaf can (and typically does) contribute to both training and test partitions. A 500-tree Random Forest can memorize per-leaf artifacts such as surface texture, sensor contact, and lighting, making the 'test' accuracy on sibling spots partly a re-description of the training leaves rather than a prediction for new leaves. Therefore the reported 89.58% accuracy is not an out-of-leaf generalization estimate; the 'independent partitions' claim fails by construction.

full rationale

The central quantitative claim is the Random Forest IR-band accuracy (89.58%) in the Abstract and Section 3.2. The evaluation protocol in Sections 2.1 and 2.3 creates a 240-measurement dataset from 24 leaves and splits it 80:20 at the measurement level, so each leaf can appear in both training and test. A Random Forest can exploit leaf-specific reflectance offsets, meaning the test accuracy is at least partially within-leaf memorization rather than cross-leaf prediction. The paper calls the split 'independent,' but the independence holds only at the spot level, not at the leaf level—the level at which a screening tool must generalize. This is a fitted-input-called-prediction circularity: the model is fitted to leaves whose sibling measurements are then used as the test set. In addition, the selection of the IR band and Random Forest as 'most effective' is made from the same test-set comparisons, compounding the optimism. The self-citations in the paper ([7], [14], [21], [1]) are background material and qPCR methodology and are not load-bearing for the accuracy claim. The lack of qPCR confirmation for the 'healthy' leaves and the absence of code/data/confidence intervals are correctness and evidence concerns, not additional circularity. On balance, the central generalization claim is partially circular by construction, warranting a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The central performance claim rests on domain assumptions about leaf storage, sample independence, the accuracy of healthy-leaf labels, sensor calibration, and single-split generalization, plus a set of un-tuned ML hyperparameters. The most consequential assumption is leaf-level independence; if it is false, the reported accuracy is not a valid estimate of disease discrimination.

free parameters (5)
  • k-NN number of neighbors k = 3
    Fixed at 3 without tuning or sensitivity analysis (Section 2.3).
  • Random Forest number of trees = 500
    500 bootstrap trees chosen; no search reported (Section 2.3).
  • Random Forest features per split = sqrt(p)
    Default heuristic; no tuning (Section 2.3).
  • Decision tree max depth / pruning = unspecified
    'predefined maximum depth' mentioned but not quantified (Section 2.3).
  • train/test split ratio = 0.8/0.2
    Single split; no repeated cross-validation, so metrics have unknown variance (Section 2.3).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Storage at 0 to 5°C and 30 to 50% RH preserves the leaf optical properties measured by the sensor.
    Stated in Section 2.1; no control experiment verifies that reflectance signatures remain stable under storage.
  • domain assumption Measurements from the same leaf are statistically independent replicates.
    Implicit in treating 10 spots per leaf as separate samples in Section 2.1 and in the 80:20 split in Section 2.3; violates standard leaf-level experimental design.
  • domain assumption The healthy leaves are genuinely HLB-free.
    Section 2.1 confirms only that branches from which leaves were taken were qPCR positive for HLB; no negative qPCR result is reported for the healthy leaves.
  • domain assumption The TCS34725 color sensor and the homemade IR module yield readings proportional to leaf reflectance at 465, 525, 615, and 940 nm.
    Section 2.2 describes components and ranges, but no calibration against a reflectance standard or verification of linearity is given.
  • domain assumption The ground-truth label (symptomatic appearance plus branch-level qPCR) corresponds to leaf-level infection status.
    Section 2.1 labels leaves by branch qPCR; individual leaves are not independently tested.
  • domain assumption Generalization can be estimated from a single 80:20 split on one tree.
    Section 2.3 reports no cross-validation and no test on independently collected leaves.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Low-Cost Optoelectronic Sensor for Early Screening of Citrus Greening in Leaves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LEVTDDGP

@misc{pith2026250902656,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Low-Cost Optoelectronic Sensor for Early Screening of Citrus Greening in Leaves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LEVTDDGP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02656}
}
read the original abstract

Citrus greening, or Huanglongbing (HLB), is a serious disease affecting citrus crops, with no known cure. Early detection is essential, but current methods are often expensive. To address this, a low-cost, portable sensor was developed to distinguish between HLB-infected and healthy citrus leaves using a LED-based optical sensing circuit. The device uses white and infrared (IR) LEDs to illuminate the adaxial leaf surface and measures change in reflectance intensities caused by differences in biochemical compositions between healthy and HLB-infected leaves. These changes, analyzed across four spectral bands (blue, green, red, and IR), were processed using machine learning models, including Random Forest. Experimental results indicated that the IR band was the most effective, with the Random Forest model achieving an accuracy of 89.58% and precision of 93.75%. Similarly, the green band also achieved an accuracy of 85.42% and precision of 90.62%. These results suggest that this LED-based optical system could be a hand-held screening tool for early detection of HLB, providing small-scale farmers with a cost-effective solution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02656 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sweet orange leaves collected from Nagpur district of Maharashtra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Colour and (b) IR reflectance measurement of leaves. (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Normalized reflectance intensities across varying wavelengths. (b) ROC curves with AUC values for Random Forest models, indicating classification performance. (c) PR curves with AUC values for the same models, emphasizing performance on imbalanced datasets. (d) Learning curves showing training and validation scores of Random Forest models as a function of training set size. Random Forest models were evaluated us… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Diagnostics for citrus greening disease (huanglongbing): Current and emerging technologies,

    A. K. Das, S. K. Sharma, and N. Thakre, “Diagnostics for citrus greening disease (huanglongbing): Current and emerging technologies,” in Plant Biotechnology: Progress in Genomic Era, S. M. P. Khurana and R. K. Gaur, Eds., Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2019, pp. 597–630. doi: 10.1007/978- 981-13-8499-8_26

    doi:10.1007/978- 2019

  2. [2]

    Citrus Huanglongbing (HLB): Diagnostic and management options,

    D. Thakuria et al., “Citrus Huanglongbing (HLB): Diagnostic and management options,” Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol., vol. 125, p. 102016, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.pmpp.2023.102016

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Optical Techniques for Fungal Disease Detection in Citrus Fruit: A Review,

    N. Ghanei Ghooshkhaneh and K. Mollazade, “Optical Techniques for Fungal Disease Detection in Citrus Fruit: A Review,” Food Bioprocess Technol., vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 1668–1689, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s11947-023-03005-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11947-023-03005-4 2023

  4. [4]

    Real-time on-site detection of the three ‘Candidatus Liberibacter’ species associated with HLB disease: a rapid and validated method,

    F. Morán, M. Herrero-Cervera, S. Carvajal-Rojas, and E. Marco-Noales, “Real-time on-site detection of the three ‘Candidatus Liberibacter’ species associated with HLB disease: a rapid and validated method,” Front. Plant Sci., vol. 14, 2023, doi: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1176513

    work page arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Huanglongbing: Pathogen detection system for integrated disease management – A review,

    Y. Iftikhar, S. Rauf, U. Shahzad, and M. A. Zahid, “Huanglongbing: Pathogen detection system for integrated disease management – A review,” J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.jssas.2014.04.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jssas.2014.04.006 2016

  6. [6]

    ‘Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus’ infection alters the reflectance profile in asymptomatic citrus plants,

    J. G. A. Vieira et al., “‘Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus’ infection alters the reflectance profile in asymptomatic citrus plants,” Pest Manag. Sci., vol. n/a, no. n/a, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.1002/ps.8528

    work page doi:10.1002/ps.8528 2024

  7. [7]

    Optical screening of citrus leaf diseases using label-free spectroscopic tools: A review,

    S. Bharadwaj, A. Midha, S. Sharma, G. S. Sidhu, and R. Kumar, “Optical screening of citrus leaf diseases using label-free spectroscopic tools: A review,” J. Agric. Food Res., vol. 18, p. 101303, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.jafr.2024.101303

    work page arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Visible-near infrared spectroscopy for detection of Huanglongbing in citrus orchards,

    S. Sankaran, A. Mishra, J. M. Maja, and R. Ehsani, “Visible-near infrared spectroscopy for detection of Huanglongbing in citrus orchards,” Comput. Electron. Agric., vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 127–134, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2011.03.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compag.2011.03.004 2011

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Recent advances in emerging techniques for non - destructive detection of seed viability: A review,

    Y. Xia, Y. Xu, J. Li, C. Zhang, and S. Fan, “Recent advances in emerging techniques for non - destructive detection of seed viability: A review,” Artif. Intell. Agric., vol. 1, pp. 35–47, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.aiia.2019.05.001. 14

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    An optimized protocol for DNA extraction from wheat seeds and loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) to detect Fusarium graminearum contamination of wheat grain,

    K. Abd-Elsalam, A. Bahkali, M. Moslem, O. E. Amin, and L. Niessen, “An optimized protocol for DNA extraction from wheat seeds and loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) to detect Fusarium graminearum contamination of wheat grain,” 2011. doi: 10.3390/ijms12063459

    2011 doi

  3. [11]

    LAMP -based foldable microdevice platform for the rapid detection of Magnaporthe oryzae and Sarocladium oryzae in rice seed,

    M. K. Prasannakumar, P. B. Parivallal, D. Pramesh, H. B. Mahesh, and E. Raj, “LAMP -based foldable microdevice platform for the rapid detection of Magnaporthe oryzae and Sarocladium oryzae in rice seed,” Sci. Rep., vol. 11, no. 1, p. 178, 2021, doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-80644-z

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    Next-Generation Sequencing Accelerates Crop Gene Discovery,

    K. Le Nguyen, A. Grondin, B. Courtois, and P. Gantet, “Next-Generation Sequencing Accelerates Crop Gene Discovery,” Trends Plant Sci., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 263–274, Mar. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2018.11.008

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    Challenges for Managing Candidatus Liberibacter spp. (Huanglongbing Disease Pathogen): Current Control Measures and Future Directions ,

    R. A. Blaustein, G. L. Lorca, and M. Teplitski, “ Challenges for Managing Candidatus Liberibacter spp. (Huanglongbing Disease Pathogen): Current Control Measures and Future Directions ,” Phytopathology®, vol. 108, no. 4, pp. 424–435, Oct. 2018, doi: 10.1094/phyto-07-17-0260-rvw

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    The assessment of reflectance ratios for determination of water content in leaves using shorter end of near-infrared spectroscopy,

    S. Bharadwaj and R. Kumar, “The assessment of reflectance ratios for determination of water content in leaves using shorter end of near-infrared spectroscopy,” in Proc.SPIE, May 2022, p. 60. doi: 10.1117/12.2624474

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    Sensing systems for precision agriculture in Florida,

    W. S. Lee and R. Ehsani, “Sensing systems for precision agriculture in Florida,” Comput. Electron. Agric., vol. 112, pp. 2–9, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2014.11.005

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    Identification of Citrus Greening (HLB) Using a VIS-NIR Spectroscopy Technique,

    A. R. Mishra, D. Karimi, R. Ehsani, and W. S. Lee, “Identification of Citrus Greening (HLB) Using a VIS-NIR Spectroscopy Technique,” Trans. ASABE, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 711–720, 2012, doi: 10.13031/2013.41369

    2012

  9. [17]

    An evaluation of a vision -based sensor performance in Huanglongbing disease identification,

    A. Pourreza, W. S. Lee, E. Etxeberria, and A. Banerjee, “An evaluation of a vision -based sensor performance in Huanglongbing disease identification,” Biosyst. Eng., vol. 130, pp. 13–22, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2014.11.013

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    Huanglongbing (Citrus Greening) detection using visible, near infrared and thermal imaging techniques,

    S. Sankaran, J. M. Maja, S. Buchanon, and R. Ehsani, “Huanglongbing (Citrus Greening) detection using visible, near infrared and thermal imaging techniques,” 2013. doi: 10.3390/s1 30202117

    2013 doi

  11. [19]

    Evaluation of an active optical sensor for detection of Huanglongbing (HLB) disease,

    A. Mishra, D. Karimi, R. Ehsani, and L. G. Albrigo, “Evaluation of an active optical sensor for detection of Huanglongbing (HLB) disease,” Biosyst. Eng., vol. 110, no. 3, pp. 302–309, 2011, doi: 15 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2011.09.003

    2011 doi

  12. [20]

    Visible-near infrared spectroscopy based citrus greening detection: Evaluation of spectral feature extraction techniques,

    S. Sankaran and R. Ehsani, “Visible-near infrared spectroscopy based citrus greening detection: Evaluation of spectral feature extraction techniques,” Crop Prot., vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 1508–1513, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2011.07.005

    2011 doi

  13. [21]

    Current Distribution of Huanglongbing (citrus greening disease) in India as Diagnosed by Real-Time PCR,

    A. K. Das, S. Nerkar, S. Bawage, and A. Kumar, “Current Distribution of Huanglongbing (citrus greening disease) in India as Diagnosed by Real-Time PCR,” J. Phytopathol., vol. 162, no. 6, pp. 402– 406, Jun. 2014, doi: 10.1111/jph.12195

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    Huanglongbing: Devastating Disease of Citrus,

    G. McCollum and E. Baldwin, “Huanglongbing: Devastating Disease of Citrus,” in Horticultural Reviews, Volume 44, 2016, pp. 315–361. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119281269.ch7

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    Detection of citrus Huanglongbing at different stages of infection using a homemade electronic nose system,

    Q. Xu, Y. Su, L. Sun, and J. Cai, “Detection of citrus Huanglongbing at different stages of infection using a homemade electronic nose system,” Comput. Electron. Agric., vol. 229, p. 109845, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2024.109845

    2025

  16. [24]

    Modeling huanglongbing transmission within a citrus tree,

    C. Chiyaka, B. H. Singer, S. E. Halbert, J. G. Morris, and A. H. C. van Bruggen, “Modeling huanglongbing transmission within a citrus tree,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 109, no. 30, pp. 12213– 12218, Jul. 2012, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1208326109

    2012 doi

  17. [25]

    Asymptomatic spread of huanglongbing and implications for disease control,

    J. A. Lee, S. E. Halbert, W. O. Dawson, C. J. Robertson, J. E. Keesling, and B. H. Singer, “Asymptomatic spread of huanglongbing and implications for disease control,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 112, no. 24, pp. 7605–7610, Jun. 2015, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1508253112

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    Spread of citrus huanglongbing (greening disease) following incursion into Papua New Guinea,

    R. I. Davis, T. G. Gunua, M. F. Kame, D. Tenakanai, and T. K. Ruabete, “Spread of citrus huanglongbing (greening disease) following incursion into Papua New Guinea,” Australas. Plant Pathol., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 517–524, 2005, doi: 10.1071/AP05059

    2005 doi

  19. [27]

    Effects and side effects of penicillin injection in huanglongbing affected grapefruit trees,

    K. Shin et al., “Effects and side effects of penicillin injection in huanglongbing affected grapefruit trees,” Crop Prot., vol. 90, pp. 106–116, 2016, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2016.08.025

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    Asian citrus psyllid, iaphorina citri, vector of citrus huanglongbing disease,

    D. G. Hall, M. L. Richardson, E.-D. Ammar, and S. E. Halbert, “Asian citrus psyllid, iaphorina citri, vector of citrus huanglongbing disease,” Entomol. Exp. Appl., vol. 146, no. 2, pp. 207–223, Feb. 2013, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/eea.12025

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

    S. S. Leong, S. C. T. Leong, and G. A. Beattie, “Effect of Horticultural Mineral Oil on Huanglongbing 16 Transmission by Diaphorina citri Kuwayama (Hemiptera: Psyllidae) Population in a Commercial Citrus Orchard in Sarawak, Malaysia, Northern Borneo,” 2021. doi: 10.3390/insect...

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    Anatomical distribution of abnormally high levels of starch in HLB-affected Valencia orange trees,

    E. Etxeberria, P. Gonzalez, D. Achor, and G. Albrigo, “Anatomical distribution of abnormally high levels of starch in HLB-affected Valencia orange trees,” Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol., vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 76–83, 2009, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmpp.2009.09.004

    2009 doi

  23. [31]

    Developing Citrus Huanglongbing (HLB) Management Strategies Based on the Severity of Symptoms in HLB-Endemic Citrus-Producing Regions,

    J. Li et al., “Developing Citrus Huanglongbing (HLB) Management Strategies Based on the Severity of Symptoms in HLB-Endemic Citrus-Producing Regions,” Phytopathology®, vol. 109, no. 4, pp. 582– 592, Nov. 2018, doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-08-18-0287-R

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.