• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
002   control options for rice bacterial panicle blight, don groth

002 control options for rice bacterial panicle blight, don groth






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.


12 of 2 previous next

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
  • so good
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
  • This disease also takes place in China. There is almost no research on it and even thought it was a disease caused by fungus Altalaria. This presenation is very helpfu to me.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    002   control options for rice bacterial panicle blight, don groth 002 control options for rice bacterial panicle blight, don groth Presentation Transcript

    • Control Options for Rice C t l O ti f Ri Bacterial Panicle Blight Groth D E 1, Rush M C 2, Shahjahan A K M 2, Groth, D.E. Rush, M.C. Shahjahan, A.K.M. Sha, X.1, and Ham, J. 2 LSU AgCenter, 1Rice Research Station, Rayne, LA and 2Department of Plant Pathology and Crop Physiology, Baton Rouge, Ro ge LA USA
    • Major Rice Diseases
    • Bacterial Panicle Blight
    • Areas of research Etiology Epidemiology Cultural C lt l management t Foliar pesticides Seed treatments Disease resistance
    • Etiology Isolation by plant inoculation Bacterial species as determined by BioLog Burkholderia glumae most prevalent Others identified – B. B gladioli – B. cepacea – B. pyrrpcinia py p Development of a real-time PCR to identify B. real- glumae and B. gladioli in green tissues
    • Isolation and identification
    • Epidemiology B. gladioli found surviving in soil but not B. glumae Spread of epiphytic populations limited during growing season 38 and 40°C for optimum for bacteria 40°
    • Cultural management Nitrogen management – Higher N rate more disease Planting date – Late planted rice more disease Exposed to higher temperatures
    • Foliar Applications Antibiotics Coppers Oxolinic A id O li i Acid Micro nutrient mixtures Growth regulators
    • Tested Products In-vitro In-
    • Foliar Trials Applied between boot and heading Various rates ex. Starner 0.35-0.50 lb ai/A 0.35- ai/A Inoculated and uninoculated t i l I l t d d i l t d trials Coppers tend to be toxic Antibiotics were not very effective Oxolinic acid (Starner 20WP) best
    • Difficulties with foliar applications No prediction or scouting methods Erratic occurrence Regulatory problems R l t bl Cost of preventative sprays Toxicity of coppers Increased yields and milling erratic No h i l N chemical control i th near f t t l in the future
    • Scouting and Determining Need Damage is most severe during periods of unusually hot weather or unusually hot nights. No y y g scouting methods are available and no chemical control agents are labeled to control bacterial panicle blight.
    • Seed treatments Materials tested – Coppers fungicides – Antibiotics – Oxolinic acid Development of ELISA and PCR t t f D l t f d tests for identifying infected seed-lots seed- Seed treatments erratic
    • Disease resistance Screening methods – Inoculation at boot split and heading – Bacterial concentration critical ~1x108 CFU/ml – Too high all susceptible – Too low all are resistant – Isolate must produce toxin
    • Inoculation timing - 2 times
    • Rating scale (0-9) (0- 0 no damage (Immune) 3 20-30% damage (moderately resistance) 20- 6 50-60% damage (susceptible) 50- 9 100% sterility ( t ilit (very susceptible) tibl ) 2 vs 8
    • Disease resistance cont. Host resistance – High levels of resistance found (1-3 ratings) (1- Nipponbare, LM-1, Jupiter, TeQing, AB647, others LM- – Crosses made and populations being evaluated – Evaluating 6000-8000 inoculated rows/year 6000- – Evaluate whenever natural disease develops p – Screen F3 to F8
    • Panicle Blight Reactions Very Moderately Moderately Susceptible Susceptible Susceptible Resistant CL131 CL161 Catahoula Jupiter Bengal g Cheniere Hybrids y Trenasse Cocodrie Neptune CL151 Wells CL171
    • 10 BPB resistant lines, including source varieties, germplasm, and breeding lines, are available by request LM-1 NPB/CCDR Nipponbare LM‐1/CCDR Jup te Jupiter LR2065/CCDR / LM‐1/CCDR CCDR/LR2065 NBP(MCR00‐2190 C93‐137  NBP(MCR00 2190 C93 137 LR2065/CCDR KATY/CPRS/JA85)
    • Summary Cultural management ineffective Chemical control unlikely Disease resistance main area of effort Some progress towards developing diseases resistance including four sources Request seed from: Don Groth Rice Research Station 1373 Caffey Road Rayne, Rayne LA 70578 USA dgroth@agcenter.lsu.edu