002 control options for rice bacterial panicle blight, don groth

Download 002   control options for rice bacterial panicle blight, don groth

Post on 12-Nov-2014




2 download

Embed Size (px)




  • 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 and 2Department of Plant Pathology and Crop Physiology, Baton Rouge, Ro ge LA USA
  • 2. Major Rice Diseases
  • 3. Bacterial Panicle Blight
  • 4. Areas of research Etiology Epidemiology Cultural C lt l management t Foliar pesticides Seed treatments Disease resistance
  • 5. 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
  • 6. Isolation and identification
  • 7. Epidemiology B. gladioli found surviving in soil but not B. glumae Spread of epiphytic populations limited during growing season 38 and 40C for optimum for bacteria 40
  • 8. Cultural management Nitrogen management Higher N rate more disease Planting date Late planted rice more disease Exposed to higher temperatures
  • 9. Foliar Applications Antibiotics Coppers Oxolinic A id O li i Acid Micro nutrient mixtures Growth regulators
  • 10. Tested Products In-vitro In-
  • 11. 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
  • 12. 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
  • 13. 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.
  • 14. 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
  • 15. 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
  • 16. Inoculation timing - 2 times
  • 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. 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. 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
  • 20. 10 BPB resistant lines, including source varieties, germplasm, and breeding lines, are available by request LM-1 NPB/CCDR Nipponbare LM1/CCDR Jup te Jupiter LR2065/CCDR / LM1/CCDR CCDR/LR2065 NBP(MCR002190C93137 NBP(MCR00 2190 C93 137 LR2065/CCDR KATY/CPRS/JA85)
  • 21. 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