18577-40918-1-SM
-
Upload
bikash-ranjan-ray -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of 18577-40918-1-SM
-
7/30/2019 18577-40918-1-SM
1/4
Indian Phytopath. 65 (2) : 147-150 (2012)
Sugarcane (Saccharumsp., complex hybrid) is an important
crop for production of commercial cane sugar (sucrose),
molasses (jaggery) or khandseri in India. It is a long duration
crop (early = 300 days, mid-late = 360 days), usually one or
more ratoon crops are maintained for additional return and
its tall dense canopy attracts large number of insect pests
and diseases throughout the year and its vegetative
propagation allows transmission of most of the diseases
for generations. Wilt is a major disease in sugarcane and
one of its causal organisms is parasitic angiosperms (Martin
et al., 1960). Important parasitic angiosperms of sugarcane
are Striga spp. and Centranthera nepalensis D. Don inscrophulariaceae family (obligate root hemiparasite),
Aeginetia indica L., A. pedunculata (Roxb.) Wall., A.
saccharicolaBakh., Christisonia wightiiElmer and Alectra
fluminensis(Vell.) Stearn in Orobanchaceae family (obligate
root holoparasite) and Thesium australeR.Br. and Thesium
residoidesA.W. Hill. in Santalaceae family (facultative root
hemiparasite). Strigaangustifolia(D.Don) C.J. Saldanha, S.
aspera Benth., S. forbesii Benth., S. hermonthica (Del.)
Benth., S. latericea Vatke, S. pubiflora Klotzsch infect
sugarcane in many countries in sub-Saharan Africa (Atera
et al., 2011), S. asiatica (L.) Kuntze infects sugarcane in
peninsular India (Chinnusamy et al., 2009) and S. densiflora
Benth. infects sugarcane in Bangladesh (Matin et al., 1989),Alectra fluminensis is a minor pest of sugarcane in South
America (Parker and Riches, 1993) and Aeginetiaspp. affect
sugarcane in tropical and sub-tropical Asia. Incidence of A.
pedunculata was reported on sugarcane in Myanmar
(Subramaniam, 1936) and Bangladesh (Hedayetullah and
Saha, 1942). A. pedunculata infected sugarcane in
Indonesia (Coert, 1928). Since then Aeginetiaspp. were
never reported on sugarcane or any other crop. Of late, first
major epidemic of A. pedunculata on sugarcane was
reported in India in and around a sugar factory zone in
West Bengal (Ray and Dasgupta, 2003). It has raised serious
threat of further spread and apprehended development of
more virulent races. The crop loss in sugarcane due to
infection of the parasite was estimated to 38% in cane yield,
52% in juice brix, 58% in sucrose and 1.89 t/ha in
commercial cane sugar (Ray and Dasgupta, 2006). The
parasite thrived naturally on a few species of grasses
(Poaceae) viz.Cynodon dactylon, Saccharum spontaneum,
Sorghum bicolorand Vetiveria zizanoides, adjacent to the
infected sugarcane field, they might play a role as collateral
hosts in survival and dissemination of the parasite (Ray
and Dasgupta, 2009).
To control the parasite, the options are: (i) manual
weeding soon after appearance (local farmers practice);(ii) 2,4-D Na at 2 kg ai/ha (sugar factory farm managers
practice; short-lived success); (iii) resistant varieties
(suggestions made; most viable). Large scale replacement
of sugarcane varieties with field resistant cv. NCo 310
proved successful in eradicating A. indica in Taiwan (Lo,
1955). Variability of susceptibility to Striga hermonthica
(Del.) Benth. was observed in Kenya where among 18
sugarcane clones KEN 83-1228, KEN 83-538 and Co 617
were found relatively tolerant to Striga(Mbogo and Osoro,
1992). Erianthus arundinaceous(Retz.) Jeswiet, which is a
source of resistant gene in sugarcane was found susceptible
to A. pedunculata(Ray and Dasgupta, 2010).
The objectives of the present investigation were: (1) to
evaluate the relative tolerance / resistance of elite sugarcane
genotypes / varieties to A. pedunculataand (2) to undertake
a breeding programme involving NCo 310, a sugarcane
variety known to be resistant to A. indica in Taiwan, with
other good Indian varieties and to evaluate the existence
and inheritance of resistance against A. pedunculataamong
progenies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Screening of sugarcane genotypes for their resistance
to A. pedunculata: Single node stalk cuttings of 28
sugarcane varieties/elite genotypes (Table 1) were
germinated in polythene packets filled with sugarcane farm
Sugarcane genetic resistance against holoparasitic angiosperm
Aeginetia pedunculata(Orobanchaceae)
BIKASH RANJAN RAY1* and MRINAL KANTI DASGUPTA21Sugarcane Research Station, Bethuadahari 741126, Nadia2Department of Plant Protection, Institute of Agriculture, Visva-Bharati, Sriniketan 731 236, Birbhum
ABSTRACT: Twenty eight sugarcane genotypes were screened against the total root parasitic angiosperm Aeginetia pedunculata(Orobanchaceae) by root inoculation with parasite seed. All the entries tested showed parasitization and wilt but variations
were observed in respect of first flowering, growing degree days (GDD), area under Aeginetia progress curve (AUAPC) of theparasite and wilting of cane. Breeding of sugarcane by making crosses involving NCo 310 (resistant to A. indica) as either male
or female parent resulted in development of genotypes susceptible to A. pedunculata.
Key words: Aeginetia pedunculata, resistance breeding, sugarcane
RESEARCH ARTICLE
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
-
7/30/2019 18577-40918-1-SM
2/4
148 Indian Phytopathology 65 (2) : 147-150 (2012)
soil and mixed with 5 mg fresh seeds of A. pedunculata.
NCo 310 and BO 91 (highly susceptible to A. pedunculata
at Plassey, West Bengal, India) were taken as standard
check varieties. After sprouting of sugarcane, intact
polypacks sets (to avoid underground spread) were planted
in an experimental plot at Sugarcane Research station,
Bethuadahari, West Bengal, India, with inter-row and inter-
plant spacing of 90cm and 60cm, respectively.
Recommended fertilizer dose 200:100:100 (N:P:K) kg/ha,
irrigation and intercultural operations were followed and
no weeding was done. The experiment was conducted
during 2005 and 2006 as plant and ratoon crops, and the
varieties were replicated thrice. Data recorded on number
of A. pedunculataflowers per sugarcane clump, both in plant
and ratoon crops, at approximately weekly intervals starting
from anthesis. Date of first flowering was recorded and
growing degree days (GDD) for plant and ratoon crop was
calculated by cumulating the temperature of each day
starting from inoculation to first flowering in respective crop.
Area under Aeginetiaprogress curve (AUAPC) was
calculated on the basis of number of A. pedunculataflowers
in a clump daily with the help of a MS Excel based AUDPC
Calculator Programme. As Aeginetiaspp. does not develop
any external symptom on sugarcane prior to wilting, a
disease rating system was adopted to assess wilt severity
according to variety using 1-9 scale similar to Strigarating
(Berner et al., 1997) detailed in Table 2.
Breeding of sugarcane for resistance to A. pedunculata:
A breeding programme was undertaken under National
Hybridization Programme of All India Coordinated Research
Project on Sugarcane, with the objective of developing A.
pedunculata resistant varieties by crossing sugarcane cv.
NCo 310 with other sugarcane varieties having records of
higher yield, juice quality, agronomic characters and
combining ability. The crossing programme was carried out
at the National Hybridization Garden of Sugarcane
Breeding Institute, Coimbatore during November 2003 and
2004. The treatments were T1
Co 87272 NCo 310, T2
NCo
310 CoJ 46, T3
CoLk 91238 NCo 310, T4
CoLk 8002
NCo 310, T5 CoLk 8102 NCo 310, T6 Co 1158 NCo 310,T
7BO 91 (Susceptible check) and T
8NCo 310 (Resistant
check). The fluff (crossed seed) was received during
February and the seeds were sown immediately in soil beds
at Sugarcane Research Station, Bethuadahari, West Bengal,
India to raise seedlings. Seedlings were transplanted during
June to obtain full grown sugarcane plants through
vegetative propagation in the following years. A.
pedunculataseeds were inoculated to the root zone of these
genotypes during May and data recorded on incidence of
the parasite and wilting of sugarcane after emergence of its
flowers in July. In a separate plot two rows of 3 m length
were planted with the same set of genotypes and inoculated
with mixed cultures of red rot pathogen ColletotrichumfalcatumWent pathotypes Cf 07 and Cf 08 in August by
plug method of inoculation (Butler and Khan, 1913) and
Table 1. Characteristics of sugarcane genotypes evaluatedagainst A. pedunculata
Sl. Sugarcane Maturity Resistance against major diseases
No. genotype duration Red rot Smut Wilt
1. BO 91 ML R R R
2. BO 128 ML MR R MR
3. BO 140 E R R MR
4. BO 143 E R R R
5. Co 62033 ML MR R R
6. Co 87268 E R R R
7. Co 0230 E R R MR
8. Co 0231 E MR R MR
9. Co 0234 ML R R R
10. Co 0236 ML MR R R
11. CoB 99161 E MR R MR
12. CoBln 90006 ML MS MR S
13. CoBln 94063 E MR MR MR
14. CoLk 92238 ML MR R R
15. CoLk 94184 E R R MR
16. CoS 767 ML R R R
17. CoSe 92423 ML MR R MR
18. CoSe 95436 E R R R
19. CoSe 96234 E MR R R
20. CoSe 96436 ML MR R MR
21. CoSe 98021 E R R R
22. CoSe 00235 E MS MR MS
23. CoSe 00421 E MR R MR
24. CoSe 01232 ML R R MR
25. CoSe 01434 ML MR R MR
26. CoSe 02235 E MR R R
27. UP 1108 ML R R MR
28. NCo 310 ML MR S MS(Check)
Source: Annual Report, All India Coordinated Research Project onSugarcane 2005-2006; 2006-2007, E = early (300 days), ML = mid-late (360 days), R = resistant, MR = moderately resistant, MS =moderately susceptible, S = susceptible
Table 2. Disease rating scale adopted for Aeginetia pedunculatawilt of sugarcane
Score A. pedunculatashoot / Score Wilted stalk / Cumulative Disease rating
sugarcane clump sugarcane clump (%) score
0 0 1 0 1 Highly resistant (HR)
1 1-5 2 1-25 2-3 Resistant (R)
2 6-10 3 26-50 4-5 Moderately resistant (MR)
3 11-20 4 51-75 6-7 Susceptible (S)4 > 20 5 76-100 8-9 Highly susceptible (HS)
-
7/30/2019 18577-40918-1-SM
3/4
Indian Phytopathology 65 (2) : 147-150 (2012) 149
Table 4. Breeding of sugarcane for development of A. pedunculataresistant cultivar
Treatment Cross (Male Female) No. of clone Brix (%) Red rot rating A. pedunculatawilt rating
T1 Co 87272 NCo 310 30 16.9 MS S
T2 NCo 310 CoJ 46 26 18.6 MS S
T3 CoLk 91238 NCo 310 4 17.9 S HS
T4 CoLk 8002 NCo 310 16 16.9 MS HS
T5 CoLk 8102 NCo 310 7 18.0 MR S
T6 Co 1158 NCo 310 25 17.8 MR S
T7 BO 91 (Susceptible check) 1 19.5 MR S
T8 NCo 310 (Resistant check) 1 16.7 MR S
Table 3. Genetic resistance in sugarcane genotypes against A. pedunculatawilt
Sl. Sugarcane Plant crop Ratoon crop
No. genotype First flower First flower AUAPC Disease First flower First flower AUAPC Disease
(days) (GDD) rating (days) (GDD) rating
1. BO 91 127 2391 63 S 0 0 0 -
2. BO 128 146 2696 269 HS 402 6151 51 S3. BO 140 0 0 0 - 421 6515 83 S
4. BO 143 137 2566 468 HS 407 6664 74 S
5. Co 62033 137 2566 300 HS 0 0 3 -
6. Co 87268 174 3068 77 S 0 0 0 -
7. Co 0230 0 0 0 - 358 5862 1061 HS
8. Co 0231 0 0 0 - 377 6226 100 S
9. Co 0234 122 2297 249 S 358 6151 253 HS
10. Co 0236 0 0 0 - 402 6151 96 S
11. CoB 99161 127 2391 770 HS 407 6644 102 HS
12. CoBln 90006 0 0 0 - 413 6922 189 MR
13. CoBln 94063 0 0 0 - 402 6151 110 HS
14. CoLk 92238 179 3162 14 MR 426 7028 57 MR
15. CoLk 94184 132 2472 241 S 421 6515 74 MR
16. CoS 767 0 0 0 - 407 6664 688 HS
17. CoSe 92423 0 0 0 - 462 7724 30 S
18. CoSe 95436 0 0 0 - 407 6664 93 S
19. CoSe 96234 0 0 0 - 407 6664 380 HS
20. CoSe 96436 0 0 0 - 421 6515 6 S
21. CoSe 98021 0 0 0 - 402 6151 144 S
22. CoSe 00235 138 2360 21 MR 358 5862 9 MR
23. CoSe 00421 0 0 0 - 433 6625 112 S
24. CoSe 01232 0 0 0 - 383 6336 90 S
25. CoSe 01434 0 0 0 - 524 8778 44 S
26. CoSe 02235 0 0 0 - 433 6625 89 S
27. UP 1108 0 0 0 - 480 8061 56 MR
28. NCo 310 137 2566 0 - 433 6625 139 S(Check)
data recorded after 60 days in 0-9 scale by splitting open
the cane longitudinally along the point of inoculation.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
First flowers of A. pedunculataappeared in the root zones
of sugarcane variety BO 91, BO 128, BO 143, Co 62033, Co87268, Co 0234, CoB 99161, CoLk 91238, CoSe 94184
and CoSe 00235 during July to September in both the years,
approximately 3-5 months after inoculation and one month
after a heavy downpour but in case of other varieties,
flowering occurred in the following year. The morphological
features of the flowers resembled with that usually occur in
the sugar factory area. Infected sugarcane clumps
invariably wilted and dried after completion of flowering of
A. pedunculata. During first year, total wilting of clumps were
-
7/30/2019 18577-40918-1-SM
4/4
150 Indian Phytopathology 65 (2) : 147-150 (2012)
observed in BO 91 and Co 87268 and partial wilting was
observed in BO 128, BO 143, Co 62033, CoB 99161, CoSe
94184 and CoSe 00235, whereas, in rest of the varieties
wilting occurred in the second year. Only one or two new
sugarcane shoots came out in the third year but no flower
of A. pedunculatawas observed. Though, all the sugarcane
genotypes were resistant or moderately resistant to major
fungal diseases such as red rot, wilt and smut, none of theentries showed resistance to A. pedunculata, even cv. NCo
310, which was widely used as resistant variety to eradicate
A. indica in Taiwan and used as check variety in this
experiment turned out to be highly susceptible to A.
pedunculata(Table 3). The screening procedure was simple
and reasonably effective in the field. By nature, the parasite
does not spread beyond the experimental area and caused
no threat to the farm cultivation. The sugarcane entries
showed significant variability among themselves in respect
of first flowering, duration of flowering and flower (Table 1).
The AUAPC data represented the number of flower and
duration of flowering in A. pedunculata, which varied widely
according to host (Table 3). The susceptibility of NCo 310 toA. pedunculatafurther confirmed our earlier claim that these
two species of Aeginetiaare distinct in respect of their host
range and that A. pedunculatais more virulent than A. indica.
In fine, no sugarcane genotype was identified as tolerant or
resistant to A. pedunculataand therefore, no variety could
be included in IPM.
Although, there is no A. pedunculataresistant cultivar
in the genetic stock the variation in susceptibility and
selective host range of A. pedunculata among Poaceae
indicate that occurring of genetic resistance is possible.
Primary objective of the resistant breeding programme was
to incorporate resistant gene into the established sugarcane
cultivars because genetic resistance is the most viable and
eco-friendly option for management of parasitic
angiosperms. The only known gene source for resistance
against A. indicawas NCo 310 and considering A. indica
and A. pedunculataare closely related species, 110 clonal
lines were developed through the crosses between NCo
310 and any one of the following varieties as male or female
parent Co 87272, CoJ 46, CoLk 91238, CoLk 8002, CoLk
8102 and Co 1158. Though, these genotypes were good
yielder of sucrose (16.9%-18.6%) and moderately resistant
to red rot disease, they were susceptible to A. pedunculata
(Table 4). The result was expected because in a later
experiment NCo 310 was proved to be susceptible to A.
pedunculata. This differential susceptibility between A.
indicaand A. pedunculata to NCo 310 might be due to
genetic variance between the parasites or might be due to
clonal variance of host or its environment.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Authors are grateful to Dr. Kunal Mondal, Plant Pathologist,
National Research Centre for Medicinal & Aromatic Plants,
Boriavi, Anand, Gujarat, India, for providing MS Excel based
AUDPC Calculator which he had designed. They are also
grateful to the Director, Sugarcane Breeding Institute,
Coimbatore for supply of sugarcane variety NCo 310 and
for undertaking crossing programme comprising NCo 310.
REFERENCES
Atera, E.A., Itoh, K. and Onyango, J.C. (2011). Evaluation of
ecologies and severity of Strigaweed on rice in sub-Saharan
Africa. Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America2(5):752-760.
Berner D.K., Winslow, M.D., Awad, A.E., Cardwell, K.F., Mohan
Raj, D.R. and Kim, S.K. (1997). StrigaResearch Methods
A Mannual. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan,
Nigeria pp. 59-60.
Butler, E.J. and Khan, H.A. (1913). Red rot of sugarcane. Memoirs
of Department of Agriculture, India. Botanical Series6: 151-178.
Chinnusamy, C., Prabhakaran, N.K. and Rathika, S.. (2009).
Ecobiological quantification and integrated management of
parasitic weed Striga asiatica in sugarcane (Saccharumofficinarum) planted in alfasol of southern peninsular India.
Poster, 10th World Congress on Parasitic Plants, Kusadasi,
Turkey, June 8-12, 2009.
Coert, J.H. (1928). Aeginetiaspecies, a root parasite of sugarcane.
Sugar News9: 367-375.
Hedayetullah, S. and Saha, J.C. (1942). A new phanerogamic
parasite of sugarcane in Bengal. Curr. Sci.11(3): 109-110.
Kusano, S. (1908). Further studies on Aeginetia indica. Bulletin of
the College of Agriculture, Tokyo Imperial University, Japan.
8: 59-76.
Lo, T.T. (1950). A report on sugarcane diseases in Taiwan.
Proceedings of ISSCT Congress7: 452-456.
Lo, T.T. (1955). N:Co 310, highly resistant to the root parasite
bunga (Aeginetia indica). Taiwan Sugar2(4): 18-20.
Lopez, M.E. and Barile, R.L. (1964). The effect of differentherbicides in the control of Aeginetia indicaRoxb. Philippine
Sugar Institute Quarterly10(1): 19-31.
Martin, J.P., Abbott, E.V. andHughes, C.G. (1960). Sugarcane
Diseases of the World, Vol. I. Elsevier, Amsterdam. pp 485-
490.
Matin, M.A., Islam, N., Gaffer, M.A. and Rahman, A.B.M.M.(1989). Association of Striga densiflora with sugarcane.
Bangladesh Journal of Sugarcane11: 52-63.
Mbogo, J.O. and Osoro, M.O. (1992). The effect of Striga
hermonthicaon sugarcane, 1. Reacton of sugarcane clones
to Striga hermonthicainfection in Kenya. Proceedings of theAnnual Congress (66 th) South African Sugar Technologists
Association,pp. 114-115.
Parker, C. and Riches, C.R. (1993). Parasitic Weeds of the World:
Biology and Control. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. p. 332.
Ray, B.R.and Dasgupta, M.K. (2003). First report of Aeginetiapedunculatacausing sugarcane wilt in India. Haustorium44:
2-3.
Ray, B.R. and Dasgupta, M.K. (2006). Sugarcane crop loss due
to wilt caused by parasitic angiosperm Aeginetia pedunculata(Roxb.) Wall. (Orobanchaceae). J. Mycol. Plant Pathol. 36(1):31-34.
Ray, B.R.and Dasgupta, M.K. (2009). Three newly recorded
natural hosts of Aeginetia pedunculata (Roxb.) Wall.
(Orobanchaceae). J. Mycol. Plant Pathol. 39(1):163-165.
Ray, B.R. and Dasgupta, M.K. (2010). Erianthus arundinaceus: anew host of Aeginetia pedunculata. J. Mycol. Plant Pathol.
40(2): 283-286.
Subramaniam, L.S. (1936). Diseases of Sugarcane and Methods
for their Control. Imperial Council of Agricultural Research,
Miscellaneous Bulletin No. 10. pp. 25-26.
Received for publication: September 18, 2011
Accepted for publication: April 16, 2012