Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE
Samples -- Whole leaves with characteristic symptoms of SCMV -- from the top
of the plants
7 Very severe symptoms, severe stunting, obvious and significant amount of necrosis.
Where,
0 = - = Resistant (R)
1-2 = + = Moderately Resistant (MR)
3-4 = ++ = Moderately Susceptible (MS)
5-7 = +++ = Susceptible (S)
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Disease Incidence (percent) of SCMV in different districts of Punjab on
the basis of symptom observation
2. Sargodha 70.46
4. Jhang 32.74
5. Faisalabad 15.95
6. Okara 75.53
7. Bahawalpur 35.87
9. Muzaffargarh 34.34
1. Peshawar 43.16
2. Mardan 53.03
3. Dargai 52.71
4. Charsadda 52.13
Relative occurrence (%) of random and non-randomly collected samples from Punjab
60
50
40
30
20
10
n
din
rh
r
ha
ad
g
h
ara
ha
l pu
an
i ng
yy a
ga
od
l ab
ud
rK
Ok
Jh
wa
kS
f ar
rg
La
ha
isa
Ya
ha
Sa
z af
Te
Ba
Fa
Ba
him
Mu
ba
di
To
n
Ra
Ma
Relative occurrence (%) of random and non-randomly collected samples from NWFP
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
da
r
an
i
rga
wa
sad
rd
sha
Da
Ma
ar
Pe
Ch
Response of different cultivars to SCMV in different districts of Punjab
S. No. Name of District Locations Name of Variety Location vise D. I. (%)
0 = - = Resistant (R)
1-2 = + = Moderately Resistant (MR)
3-4 = ++ = Moderately Susceptible (MS)
5-7 = +++ = Susceptible (S)
Resistance potential of sugarcane germplasm lines against SCMV
Moderately Susceptible (15) CPF-150, AEC-81-89, CP-76-331, CPF-222, GT-11, CO-285, TCP-83-
3211, COJ-79, CP-90-951, COJ-78, TCP-83-3210, HOSG-104, HS-4, S-
98-SP-729 and CP-85-1382
Susceptible (13) CP-73-1030, CPTH-16, CPTH-3, TCP-86-3368, TCP-81-10, CPM-76-611,
MEX-57-473, SPSG-93, HOCP-91-552, HOCP-91-559, CP-89-2376, CP-
85-1491 and CP-89-1945
0 = - = Resistant (R)
1-2 = + = Moderately Resistant (MR)
3-4 = ++ = Moderately Susceptible (MS)
5-7 = +++ = Susceptible (S)
CONCLUSION
• The sugarcane fields of major cane growing districts of Punjab and NWFP
were found overwhelmingly infected with SCMV.
• Eight weed species were recognized as natural hosts of SCMV and were
among the dominant weed flora of both provinces.
• Common maize and millet cultivars may also harbor SCMV in natural
conditions.
• Ten sugarcane advance lines were found moderately resistant, fifteen lines
were found moderately susceptible and only thirteen lines were found
susceptible to SCMV.
• Week crop stand due to unavailability of required inputs well on time, poor
phytosanitary measures and meager check on insect pests worsen the
situation collectively favor the virus to establish and become inhabitant in
potential areas as poor crop stand, higher weed infestation and large vector
population play a role that is more favorable for SCMV to become so
widespread in nature.
REFERENCES
• Abbott, E. V. 1960. Studies on the mosaic problem in Louisiana.
Sugar Bull. 39(2): 23-27.
• Anonymous. 2008. Economic Survey of Pakistan. Government of
Pakistan. P. 21-22.
• Bailey, R. A. and P. H. Fox. 1987. A preliminary report of the effect of
sugarcane mosaic virus on the yield of sugarcane varieties NC0376
and N12. Proc. S. Afr. Sugar Technol. Assoc. 61:1-4.
• Balamuralikrishnan, M., S. Doraisamy, T. Ganapathy and R.
Viswanathan. 2003. Sugarcane mosaic virus infection progress in
relation to age of sugarcane. Sugar-Tech. 5(1/2): 21-24.
• Clark, M. F. and A. N. Adams. 1977. Characteristics of microplate
method for enzyme linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of
plant viruses.J. Gen. Virol., 34: 475-482.
• Koike, H. 1977. Diseases as a factor influencing sugarcane yields in
Louisiana during the last decade. Proc. Am. Soc. Sugar Cane
Technol., 6:178-181.
• Koike, H. and A. G. Gillaspie Jr. 1989. Mosaic. In: Diseases of
Sugarcane- Major Diseases. Elsevier, Amsterdam. pp. 301-322.
• Koike, H and S. Yang. 1971. Influence of sugarcane mosaic virus strain H
and Pythium graminicola on growth of sugarcane. Phytopathology. 61:1090-
1092.
• Noordam, D. 1973. Dilution end-point determination in "Identification of plant
viruses: Methods and experiments" published by PUDOC, Center of
Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen, Netherlands.
• Pokorny, R. and M. Porubova. 2006. Movement of Sugarcane mosaic virus
in plants of resistant and susceptible maize lines. Cereal Research
Communications. 34(2/3): 1109-1116.
• Putra, L. K., H. J. Ogle, A. P. James and P. J. L. Whittle. 2003. Distribution
of Sugarcane mosaic virus in sugarcane plants. Australasian Plant
Pathology. 32(2): 305-307.
• Rao, G. P., M. Chatenet, J. G. Girard and P. Rott. 2006. Distribution of
sugarcane mosaic and sugarcane streak mosaic virus in India. Sugar-Tech.
8(1): 79-81.
• Steib, R. J. and S. J. P. Chilton. 1967. Inter-relationship studies of mosaic
and ratoon stunting diseases in sugarcane in Louisiana. Proc. Int. Soc.
Sugar Cane Technol. 12:1061-1070.
• Singh, V., O. K. Sinha and R. Kumar. 2003. Progressive decline in yield and
quality of sugarcane due to sugarcane mosaic virus. Indian Phytopathology.
56(4): 500-502.
• Viswanathan, R. and M. Balamuralikrishnan. 2005. Impact of mosaic
infection on growth and yield of sugarcane. Sugar-Tech. 7(1): 61-65.
• Viswanathan, R. and D. Mohanraj. 2001. Detection of sugarcane viral
diseases by serological techniques. Sugarcane Pathology. 2: 195-208