<strong>Rice</strong> <strong>tungro</strong> <strong>disease</strong> in the PhilippinesX.H. Truong, E.R. Tiongco, E.H. Batay-an, S.C. Mancao, M.J.C. Du, and N.A. JuguanThe rice <strong>tungro</strong> <strong>disease</strong> scenario in the Philippines, research trends, andcurrent extension activities are briefly explained and discussed in this paper.Farmers’ perceptions and knowledge on the subject were also includedbecause farmers make decisions for sustaining farm income and protectingthe agroecosystem. Some farmer groups have used green leafhopper(GLH)-resistant varieties for the past several years through the SeedNetand Farmers' Field School, yet rice <strong>tungro</strong> <strong>disease</strong> (RTD) remains a majorconstraint to rice production. For the first time in rice technology development, rice <strong>tungro</strong> virus (RTV)-resistant advanced breeding lines were identified.A few farmers in RTD-endemic areas evaluated these lines on theirfarms. Seeds of these lines with yields of 3.5–4.5 t ha -1 are being increasedand will be deployed as stopgap materials for farmers during thewet season. Some progress had been made in understanding the genotypesof <strong>tungro</strong> viruses present during recent RTD outbreaks, and the roleof cropping practices and infective GLH or virus inoculum during the pastRTD outbreak in Mindanao. More collaborative efforts in research andextension have to be undertaken to strengthen farmers’ decision makingfor appropriate RTD <strong>management</strong> in the context of a sustainable farmingsystem.RTD outbreaksThe early outbreaks of rice <strong>tungro</strong> <strong>disease</strong> in the 1940s in major rice-growing regionsin the Philippines had reduced yield by 1.4 million t annually (Serrano 1957), longbefore the causal organism of the <strong>disease</strong> was known (Hibino et al 1978, 1991), Majoroutbreaks in 1962, 1969, 1971, 1975, 1977, 1984, 1986, and 1989 in areas associatedwith intensive cultivation of early recommended varieties were reported by municipalagricultural officers (MAO) of the Department of Agriculture (DA), and reviewedby Baria (1997). Recent outbreaks occurred sporadically during 1993-98, affectingareas from 900 to 2,700 ha yearly in Mindanao (Table 1). In addition, about700 ha were affected in Negros Occidental in 1998. Crop loss estimated by the DAprovincial agricultural office from the outbreak in Davao del Norte in 1993 alonereached – P10.6 million (US$406,494). Most of the affected locations commonly reportedwere irrigated lowlands under climatic types III and IV. Dry and wet seasonsin type III are not pronounced; it is relatively dry from November to April and wetduring the rest of the year, whereas rainfall in type IV (>150 mm monthly) is more orless evenly distributed throughout the year. In most cases, rice <strong>tungro</strong> <strong>disease</strong> (RTD)outbreaks were attributed to insufficient irrigation water, which prompted farmers topractice staggered planting. The consolidated report of the DA-MAO showed thatearly infection at the vegetative stage of IR64 and IR60, BPI Ri10, PSB Rc4, 6, 8, 12,20, Masipag, and Bugos induced severe crop losses varying from 39% to 65%.No comprehensive information on the agroecosystem during the reported RTDoutbreaks was available. The only known fact was that recent outbreaks occurredduring August-October. The average monthly rainfall during the same period recorded
Table 1. Profiles of major rice production areas in Mindanao and outbreaks of rice <strong>tungro</strong> <strong>disease</strong>(RTD) in the 1993-98 wet seasons a .Location Province Area harvested Production Average yield RTD Wet season(ha) (t) (t ha -1 ) outbreak Aug-OctEndemicCotabato basinAgusan basinValencia/Pulangi basinNorth CotabatoSultan KudaratSouth CotabatoMaguindanaoDavao del NorteAgusan del SurAgusan del NorteBukidnon42,03038,05036,14052,70028,55010,8809,46053,510132,993121,80798,54491,93193,59833,82226,920188,3153.23.22.71.73.33.12.93.5Kapatagan areaEast LakeshoreBanay-Banay areaHagonoy areaTagao valleySibuguey River basinLanao del NorteLanao del SurDavao OrientalDavao del SurSurigao del SurZamboangadel Sur17,89014,3904,32012,6606,33053,12063,27233,24316,35647,69516,205198,0793.52.33.83.82.63.71,000–8972,0002,7021,2002,00019961993199619981997a From "Strategic <strong>Rice</strong> Areas in Research and Development for Mindanao" and consolidated reports from the Departmentof Agriculture-Provincial and Municipal Agricultural Offices.1997at the Philippine <strong>Rice</strong> Research Institute (Phil<strong>Rice</strong>) experiment station at Midsayap,North Cotabato, for the past 18 years ranged from 170 to 250 mm, which favors greenleafhopper movement. Initial data from light traps at this station showed that theGLH population peak coincided with this rainfall level. Monthly rainfall higher than250 mm or lower than 100 mm gradually decreased the population. Vector populationand infective GLH in relation to weather factors in the RTD outbreak areas must becontinuously monitored over the year to obtain a better <strong>disease</strong> forecast. In an analysisof historical survey data from RTD-endemic areas in Mindanao, Savary et al (1993)reported that a high GLH population coupled with a high proportion of viruliferousvectors associated with specific cropping practices increased RTD incidence. In additionto these variables, the epidemic role of the presence of genotypic variations amongrice <strong>tungro</strong> spherical virus (RTSV) and rice <strong>tungro</strong> bacilliform virus (RTBV)(Cabauatan and Koganezawa 1994, Arboleda et al 1997, Yambao et al 1997, Villegaset al 1997) in the endemic areas must be investigated. De los Reyes et al (1998) alsofound mixed infections and variations in RTBV genotypes during the 1997 <strong>tungro</strong>outbreaks in Zamboanga del Sur and Lanao del Norte and during the 1998 outbreaksin Negros Occidental and Bukidnon. Identification of the selection factors that influencevirus variation in the agroecosystem may be the key to RTD <strong>management</strong>.Farmers' perceptions, knowledge, and control practices of RTDRTD is considered as the most important factor limiting rice production by mostfarmers in endemic areas. Survey information from 658 farmers in five RTD-endemicand RTD-nonendemic provinces (Albay, Davao del Norte, Davao del Sur, North2 Truong et al
- Page 2 and 3: RiceTungro DiseaseManagementEdited
- Page 4 and 5: ContentsRice tungro disease in the
- Page 6 and 7: ForewordThe intensification of rice
- Page 8 and 9: PrefaceProviding farmers with optio
- Page 12 and 13: Cotabato, and Laguna) during 1995-9
- Page 14 and 15: seed growers and farmers to increas
- Page 16 and 17: Fig. 2. Incidence of rice tungro di
- Page 18 and 19: De los Reyes JB, Cabunagan, RC, Col
- Page 20 and 21: Preliminary analysis of genetic var
- Page 22 and 23: Fig. 2. Distinct rice tungro bacill
- Page 24 and 25: Fig. 4. Dendogram depicting the rel
- Page 26 and 27: Preliminary analysis of genetic var
- Page 28 and 29: Table 1. Size characteristics of th
- Page 30 and 31: varieties and did not seem to exert
- Page 32 and 33: Developing breeding lines with RTD
- Page 34 and 35: In CES, 28 entries had low tungro i
- Page 36 and 37: Table 2. Best rice tungro disease-r
- Page 38 and 39: Breeding for rice tungro virus resi
- Page 40 and 41: Table 2. Promising lines resistant
- Page 42 and 43: Table 4. Rice cultivars used as hyb
- Page 44 and 45: Shahjahan MB, Jalani S, Zakri AH, I
- Page 46 and 47: Table 1. Initial 19 transgenic line
- Page 48 and 49: Table 4. Percent infection of trans
- Page 50 and 51: very low level. In fact, transgene
- Page 52 and 53: of Agricultural Research (ICAR). Pr
- Page 54 and 55: Fig. 2. Mean infection with rice tu
- Page 56 and 57: (RTBV) and rice tungro spherical vi
- Page 58 and 59: Table 4. Percent infection a with r
- Page 60 and 61:
GLH numbers were much lower on IR62
- Page 62 and 63:
Cabunagan RC, Hibino H, Sama S, Riz
- Page 64 and 65:
Prospects of virus-resistant variet
- Page 66 and 67:
Tungro in Bali (1987-97)Tungro infe
- Page 68 and 69:
Fig. 5. Proportion of varieties gro
- Page 70 and 71:
Table 3. Percent incidence of rice
- Page 72 and 73:
Evaluating rice germplasm for resis
- Page 74 and 75:
Table 2. Percent infection a with r
- Page 76 and 77:
Rice tungro disease resistance andm
- Page 78 and 79:
Table 1. Percent infection a with r
- Page 80 and 81:
ecommended vector-resistant variety
- Page 82 and 83:
Materials and methodsBatches of ant
- Page 84 and 85:
ReferencesClark MF, Adams AN. 1977.
- Page 86 and 87:
(e.g., Sokal and Rohlf 1995, p 213;
- Page 88 and 89:
Surveillance scheme for tungro fore
- Page 90 and 91:
entrusted with implementing the pro
- Page 92 and 93:
Table 1. Number of mobile nursery t
- Page 94 and 95:
are implemented immediately. The co
- Page 96 and 97:
Farmers’ rice tungro managementpr
- Page 98 and 99:
Experience with tungroAlthough both
- Page 100 and 101:
Table 5. Farmers (%) reporting tung
- Page 102 and 103:
Table 7. Farmers’ reported tungro
- Page 104 and 105:
Table 9. Mean number (standard devi
- Page 106 and 107:
than rice), so they may be reluctan
- Page 108 and 109:
Community-based rice pest managemen
- Page 110 and 111:
Establishment of farmers’ indigen
- Page 112 and 113:
Meanwhile, insects, diseases, and n
- Page 114 and 115:
Table 2. Most important diseases fo
- Page 116 and 117:
Farmers’ knowledge of pest contro
- Page 118 and 119:
ha -1 and above) had a lower RTD in
- Page 120 and 121:
Fig. 4. Three major peaks of green
- Page 122 and 123:
RBB hill -1 and 4% WSB (Fig. 6). In
- Page 124 and 125:
The influence of varietal resistanc
- Page 126 and 127:
Limited data exist on how resistant
- Page 128 and 129:
tember plantings, reaching 13% and
- Page 130 and 131:
Holt J, Chancellor TCB, Reynolds DR
- Page 132 and 133:
glh4, respectively. Planting at the
- Page 134 and 135:
Results and discussionMinimum unit
- Page 136 and 137:
Fig. 4. Transmission efficiency of
- Page 138 and 139:
Table 1. Enzyme-linked immunosorben
- Page 140 and 141:
Leafhopper control by insecticides
- Page 142 and 143:
Fig. 1. Cartoon used for tungro man
- Page 144 and 145:
The role of vector control in rice
- Page 146 and 147:
To establish relationships between
- Page 148 and 149:
Fig. 1. Influence of antifeedants o
- Page 150 and 151:
Fig. 4. Tungro incidence before har
- Page 152 and 153:
ReferencesAryawan IGN, Widiarta IN,
- Page 154 and 155:
Materials and methodsSeedbed protec
- Page 156 and 157:
Table 2. Relationship of RTD incide
- Page 158 and 159:
Management of rice tungro disease b
- Page 160 and 161:
Results and discussionGLH populatio
- Page 162 and 163:
Table 4. Field evaluation of foliar
- Page 164 and 165:
3.6 to 2.7 t ha -1 . These yields w