Rice tungro disease management - IRRI books - International Rice ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Fig. 2. Incidence of rice tungro disease (RTD) in varieties with different resistance characteristicsunder four methods of crop establishment. DS = direct seeding.Synchrony can also be achieved by rotating two rice crops with a nonrice cropsuch as mungbean, as farmers do in Hagonoy, Davao del Sur. Another importantcomponent of cultural practices is the broadcasting method or direct seeding. Cropestablishment by direct seeding has become popular in both dry and wet seasons inMidsayap to shorten planting time right after irrigation during land preparation. Farmersconsider this method to be easier, faster, and cheaper than transplanting (Truong et al,Community-based rice pest management, this volume). GLH-resistant varieties suchas IR56 established by transplanting or direct seeding had the lowest incidence ofRTD (2–12%) (Fig. 2A-D). A high seeding rate (120 kg ha -1 ), however, reduced theinfection rate of RTD on GLH-resistant varieties IR62 and PSB Rc 34 and susceptiblevarieties IR64 and IR66 during the first 4–5 wk after broadcasting (Fig. 2B). Diseaseincidence on IR64 reached as high as 60-80% as the crop grew older, while diseaseincidence on IR62 and PSB Rc 34 remained low (8–18%). Likewise, rotation of twoto three GLH-resistant varieties after two to three cropping seasons and synchronoustransplanting based on communal seedbed preparation were promoted by the BoholAgricultural Promotion Center (APC), and are being practiced by farmers within the40-ha contiguous irrigated farms. APC regularly monitored leafhoppers andplanthoppers by kerosene light trap, and conducted training for extension workers ofLGUs on identifying RTD symptoms and on other diagnostic tests.Rice tungro disease 7
ConclusionsRTD has declined markedly in Central Luzon rice production areas since the majoroutbreak in 1971. However, it remains the most important rice disease in the irrigatedlowland ecosystem, especially in locations with insufficient irrigation water and staggeredplanting practices such as some areas in Mindanao. These are commonly knownas “hot spots” or endemic rice tungro areas. Major outbreaks have sporadically occurredin the past 8 yr and affected from 900 to 2,700 ha annually. More research andextension efforts are needed to understand and regularly monitor the agroecosystemto forecast RTD development and to avoid disease outbreaks. RTD management inthese areas largely depended on the campaign to practice regular planting with a fallowperiod or synchronous planting, availability of GLH-resistant varieties, and insecticideapplication. The introduction of a few advanccd breeding lines resistant torice tungro virus has just begun and is limited to some farmers' groups in rice tungroendemicvillages in Midsayap, North Cotabato.ReferencesAlfonso AA, Viray MCC, Maramara GV, Tiongco ER, hfartin HC. 1906, Transfer of tungroresistance from O. rufipogon into cultivated rice. In: Philippine R & D highlights 1996.Maligaya, Muñoz, Nueva Ecija (Philippines): DA-PhilRice. p 38–39,Angeles ER, Cabunagan RC, Tiongco ER, Azzam O, Teng PS, Khush GS, Chancellor TCB.1998. Advanced breeding lines with resistance to rice tungro viruses. Int. Rice. Res. Notes23(1):17–18.Arboleda M, Sta. Cruz F, Cabauatan PQ, Muhsin M, Bhatrarai I, Baw A, Anh H, Azzam O.1997. Genomic variation of rice tungro bacilliform virus in the Philippines, Indonesia,and Vietnam. Abstract submitted at the General Meeting of The lnternational Program onRice Biotechnology, 15–19 September 1997, Malacca, Malaysia.Bajet NB, Daquioag RD, Hibino H. 1985. Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent assay to diagnosetungro. J. Plant Prot. Trop. 2:125–129.Baria AR. 1997. Status of rice tungro disease in the Philippines: a guide to current and futureresearch. In: Chancellor TCB, Thresh JM, editors. Epidemiology and management of ricetungro disease. Chatham (UK): Natural Resources Institute.Cabauatan PQ, Koganezawa H. 1994. Symptomatic strains office tungro bacilliform virus. Int.Rice Res. Newsl. 19(2):11–12.Cabunagan RC, Angeles ER, Tiongco ER, Villareal S, Azzam O, Teng PS, Khush GS, ChancellorTCB, Truong XH, Mancao S, Astika IGN, Muis A, Chowdhury AK, Ganapathy T,Subramanian N. 1998. Multilocational evaluation of promising advanced breeding linesfor resistance to rice tungro viruses. Int. Rice Res. Notes 23(1):15–17,Cabunagan RC, Angeles E, Tiongco EC, Villareal S, Truong XH, Astika IGN, Muis A,Chowdhury AK, Ganapathy T, Chancellor TCB, Teng, PS, Khush GS. 1995. Evaluationof rice germplasm for resistance to tungro disease. In: Chancellor TCB, Teng PS, HeongKL. editors. Rice tungro disease epidemiology and vector ecology. IRRI-NRI. p 92–99.Dahal G, Hibino H, Cabunagan RC, Tiongco ER, Flores ZM, Aguiero VM. 1990. Changes incultivar reactions to tungro due to changes in “virulence“ of leafhopper vector. Phytopathology80(7):659–665.8 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 10 and 11: Rice tungro disease in the Philippi
Page 12 and 13: Cotabato, and Laguna) during 1995-9
Page 14 and 15: seed growers and farmers to increas
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
show all

Rice tungro disease management - IRRI books - International Rice ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?