## 1 Introduction
There are also plenty of naturally occurring resources to be considered for plant protection purposes [15], including phages, pathogen-resistant plant varieties, pathogen-antagonistic bacteria or fungi, natural active compounds, among others [16]. The efficacy of phage-based approaches has been demonstrated as early as in 1924 [17]. Views into the development of this method are focused on the proposal of better delivery systems and extending the shelf life of the formulations [15], as UV light easily inactivates phage particles [18]. The phage-based techniques also suffer from an extremely narrow spectrum of action, limited to even single strains. Passing to plant-resistant varieties, growers are not often convinced to use them due to higher costs of the planting material. In 2017, the research performed by [PERSON] et al. [19] contained a questionnaire completed by 63 biocontrol experts from over 20 countries, which marked that further studies in this field should be focused mostly on multiple interactions. Also, other features were noted, including application techniques, formulations, and instructions for growers, or just mentioning socioeconomic factors [19]. However, the most important aspect is that further optimization under laboratory conditions is needed before integration into agricultural systems. It is worth underlining that in the case of many plant pathogenic bacteria, prevention of disease symptoms development is the only available approach [20]. Therefore, accurate diagnosis of the disease-causing agent becomes crucial. There are plenty of options for the proposal of diagnostic techniques enabling early detection of the pathogens [21], which may be based on real-time PCR [22], multiplex PCR, loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) [23], fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), microarrays, sequencing (metagenomics, amplicon sequencing), or immunological techniques (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) [24; 25]). On the other hand, there are physical methods that do not require registration procedures but can adversely affect plant growth or target beneficial microflora [20]. Physical methods, such as the utilization of hot water, warm dry air, or UV radiation [20] are also implemented for food preservation purposes and in greenhouse farming. Aiming to introduce a higher number of physical approaches to the plant protection sector, scientists have recently focused on the putative implementation of cold atmospheric pressure plasma-based (CAPP) technology into agriculture. The term \"plasma\" was coined by [PERSON] in 1927. Overall, plasma is an ionized gas, which can be formed under the defined discharge atmosphere, including open-to-air, helium, argon, or nitrogen. Generally, plasma can be divided into two main types, such as hot plasma and cold plasma; however, most of the controlled plasma applications are based on the utilization of CAPPs [26]. During CAPP ignition, a variety of reactive oxygen (ROS) and nitrogen species (RNS), charged particles, free electrons, and electric fields are produced [27], making CAPP a universal tool for controlled applications in plasma medicine [28], environmental protection [29], food processing [30], and agriculture [31]. Considering that the controlled application of CAPP in agriculture is mainly associated with generation of ROS, RNS, and UV light of antimicrobial properties, this approach has been so far studied in terms of the inactivation of bacteria and fungi [32; 33; 34; 35; 36; 37; 38]. Though implementation of CAPP into agriculture may result in further benefits like plant growth promotion triggered by the plasma exposure [39; 40; 41; 42; 43; 44], reduction in pesticide contamination in the environment [45], and effective remediation of soil and water [46; 47].