Tea is one of the most widely consumed non‐alcoholic beverages. The tea industry plays a significant role in supporting the economies of producing countries and provides livelihoods for millions of people, especially in rural areas. Diseases affecting the tea plant ( Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze) are a critical concern, as they reduce crop yield and quality. Information on disease‐causing organisms in tea is scattered across the literature, making it difficult for farmers, researchers, and policymakers to comprehensively assess the full spectrum of pathogens, understand their epidemiology, and to develop integrated disease management strategies. The aim of the present checklist is to provide a comprehensive summary of phytopathogens reported to affect tea, including fungi, bacteria, viruses, algae, and other groups, based on information compiled from research and review articles, books and book chapters, monographs, first disease reports, web resources, and previously published checklists. Here, we report the taxonomic diversity and associated diseases of tea phytopathogens, documenting 188 species affecting foliar, stem, and root tissues. The fungi and fungus‐like pathogens (173 species) belong mainly to Ascomycota (142 species), followed by Basidiomycota (29 species) and Oomycota (2 species), and are represented by 49 families. Additional pathogens include 10 bacterial species, 3 viral and 2 algal pathogens. Most pathogens are associated with foliar tissues, with majority of reports originating from mainland China. Outdated nomenclature used in earlier publications was critically reviewed, and updated taxonomic classifications are provided. However, the taxonomy of several pathogens for which molecular data are lacking requires further re‐evaluation particularly through molecular studies of samples collected from other tea‐growing regions. This checklist provides a global overview of tea phytopathogens and serves as a valuable resource for disease management and future taxonomic and molecular research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mahadevan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: