Control options rice_bacterial_panicle_blight


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Control options rice_bacterial_panicle_blight

  1. 1. 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 and2Department of Plant Pathology and Crop Physiology, Baton Rouge, Ro ge LA USA
  2. 2. Major Rice Diseases
  3. 3. Bacterial Panicle Blight
  4. 4. Areas of researchEtiologyEpidemiologyCulturalC lt l management tFoliar pesticidesSeed treatmentsDisease resistance
  5. 5. EtiologyIsolation by plant inoculationBacterial species as determined by BioLogBurkholderia glumae most prevalentOthers identified– B. B gladioli– B. cepacea– B. pyrrpcinia py pDevelopment of a real-time PCR to identify B. real-glumae and B. gladioli in green tissues
  6. 6. Isolation and identification
  7. 7. EpidemiologyB. gladioli found surviving in soil but not B.glumaeSpread of epiphytic populations limitedduring growing season38 and 40°C for optimum for bacteria 40°
  8. 8. Cultural managementNitrogen management– Higher N rate more diseasePlanting date– Late planted rice more disease Exposed to higher temperatures
  9. 9. Foliar ApplicationsAntibioticsCoppersOxolinic A idO li i AcidMicro nutrient mixturesGrowth regulators
  10. 10. Tested Products In-vitro In-
  11. 11. Foliar TrialsApplied between boot and headingVarious rates ex. Starner 0.35-0.50 lb ai/A 0.35- ai/AInoculated and uninoculated t i lI l t d d i l t d trialsCoppers tend to be toxicAntibiotics were not very effectiveOxolinic acid (Starner 20WP) best
  12. 12. Difficulties with foliar applicationsNo prediction or scouting methodsErratic occurrenceRegulatory problemsR l t blCost of preventative spraysToxicity of coppersIncreased yields and milling erraticNo h i lN chemical control i th near f t t l in the future
  13. 13. Scouting and Determining NeedDamage is most severe during periods ofunusually hot weather or unusually hot nights. No y y gscouting methods are available and no chemicalcontrol agents are labeled to control bacterialpanicle blight.
  14. 14. Seed treatmentsMaterials tested– Coppers fungicides– Antibiotics– Oxolinic acidDevelopment of ELISA and PCR t t fD l t f d tests foridentifying infected seed-lots seed-Seed treatments erratic
  15. 15. Disease resistanceScreening 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
  16. 16. Inoculation timing - 2 times
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. 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
  19. 19. Panicle Blight ReactionsVery Moderately ModeratelySusceptible Susceptible Susceptible ResistantCL131 CL161 Catahoula JupiterBengal g Cheniere Hybrids yTrenasse CocodrieNeptune CL151Wells CL171
  20. 20. 10 BPB resistant lines, including source varieties, germplasm, and breeding lines, are available by requestLM-1 NPB/CCDRNipponbare LM‐1/CCDRJup teJupiter LR2065/CCDR /LM‐1/CCDR CCDR/LR2065NBP(MCR00‐2190 C93‐137 NBP(MCR00 2190 C93 137 LR2065/CCDRKATY/CPRS/JA85)
  21. 21. SummaryCultural management ineffectiveChemical control unlikelyDisease resistance main area of effortSome progress towards developingdiseases resistance including four sourcesRequest seed from: Don Groth Rice Research Station 1373 Caffey Road Rayne, Rayne LA 70578 USA