Subscribe Now Subscribe Today
Research Article

Reaction of Some Hybrid Germplasms to Major Three Diseases of Rice

B.K. Mohanta, M.R. Alam , M.K. Anam , M.A. Habib and M.M. Alam
Facebook Twitter Digg Reddit Linkedin StumbleUpon E-mail

Twenty-eight bred restored lines and four standard checks were screening for resistance to bacterial leaf blight (caused by Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae), sheath rot (caused by Sarocladium oryzae), sheath blight (caused by Rhizoctonia solani), during the t. aman and boro season. The breakout and severity of percent leaf/sheath area diseased were recorded under natural infection. On the basis of disease intensity, one breeding line was found moderately resistant, 13 were moderately susceptible and 13 were susceptible and 5 were highly susceptible to BLB at t. aman season and at boro season, 5 were highly resistant, 5 were resistant, 12 were moderately resistant and 9 were moderately susceptible to BLB. In case of sheath rot, 6 were moderately resistant, 26 were moderately susceptible and 2 susceptible in t. aman season. One line was resistant, 14 moderately resistant and 17 were moderately susceptible to sheath rot in boro season. At t. aman season, 29 lines were resistant, 3 were moderately susceptible and at boro season, all cultivars including checks were resistant to sheath blight. Considering both seasons, the accession numbers 56, 57, 64, 66, 71 and 73 showed comparatively better performance against above mentioned three major rice diseases.

Related Articles in ASCI
Similar Articles in this Journal
Search in Google Scholar
View Citation
Report Citation

  How to cite this article:

B.K. Mohanta, M.R. Alam , M.K. Anam , M.A. Habib and M.M. Alam , 2002. Reaction of Some Hybrid Germplasms to Major Three Diseases of Rice. Plant Pathology Journal, 1: 36-39.

DOI: 10.3923/ppj.2002.36.39



Rice is the most important cereal crop and also staple food of the Bangladeshi population. The climate and geographical conditions of Bangladesh are favorable for year-round rice production during aus, aman and boro seasons. But the average yield of rice is very low in Bangladesh (2.47 t ha-1) compared to 6-8 t ha-1 in Australia, Korea, Japan and Spain (Anonymous, 1995). There are many causes of low yield of rice in Bangladesh. Diseases and pest are considered as major constrains for rice production (Fakir, 1982). Tropical and subtropical climate that favours rice production. These are also favourable for its disease development. Among the major diseases, bacterial leaf blight (BLB), sheath rot and sheath blight, cause substantial loss in quality and quantity of rice. Bacterial leaf blight attacks leaves and leaf sheaths of rice plants at tillering and booting stage (Ou, 1972a). BLB may enhance symptom development of sheath blight and stem rot (Horino, 1986). It may cause an average of 20-30% yield loss (Ou, 1985a). In Bangladesh blast affects boro and t. aman rice when the environment is favourable for its development (Shahjahan et al., 1986b). Sheath blight of rice affects filling of the grains and emergence of panicles. About 28-30% yield reduction was observed in susceptible cultivars (Shahjahan et al., 1986a). Sheath rot can cause 3-20% yield lose but it may be as high as 85% (Chen, 1957). The disease may weaken the seedling and older plants. The loss of grain may be 4.578-29.1% (Bedi and Gill, 1960), even there is report up 50-90% (Ghose et al., 1960). Considering the above facts, disease resistant varieties/lines are needed in Bangladesh. So, the experiment was undertaken to know the severity of different diseases and to find out the resistance varieties/lines of rice.

Materials and Methods

The experiments were conducted at the Field Laboratory of Genetics and Plant Breeding of Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, during t. aman and boro season. Twenty-eight different genotypes/advanced breeding lines and four HYVs (BR29, BR28, BR14, BINA-6) were selected for this study. Seeds were collected from Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh. The accession No./variety No. along with their sources are given below:

Seeds of genotype was presoaked separately in tap water for 24 h and then excess water was drained out and the seeds were incubated for 48 h for sprouting. Seedbed was prepared in a medium low land of Field Laboratory of the Genetics and Plant Breeding Department. The soil was puddled with the country plough. The previously sprouted seeds were sown on individual stripes in the seedbed on 1st July 1999. Irrigation was applied to the growing seedbed as and when required until the day before transplanting. Soil of the main land was opened by tractor. The land was ploughed and cross-ploughed several times until the soil was brought to a good tilth. All the weeds and stubble were removed from the field. Soil was kept exposed to natural weathering for 15 days before the land was finally prepared for transplanting. Fertilizer urea, TSP (triple super phosphate), MP (muriate of potash), gypsum and zinc sulphate were applied as per recommendation of BRRI (Anonymous, 1999). The following doses of fertilizers were applied to the plots. Urea (N2) 180 kg ha-1, TSP (P2O5) 100 kg ha-1, MP (K2O) 70 kg ha-1, gypsum (S) 60 kg ha-1 and zinc sulphate (Zn) 10 kg ha-1. The experiment was concluded in a randomized completely block design (RCBD). Thirty-days-seedlings were transplanted. Gap filling was done within 10 days of transplanting. Weeding was done before application of urea fertilizer. The field was irrigated to maintain 5-6 cm depth of water in each plot throughout growing season. No fungicide and bactericide were applied to the growing crops to encourage development of bacterial leaf blight, sheath blight and sheath rot disease under natural condition. Leaf/sheath area diseased (LAD) were recorded at panicle initiation stage, milk stage. Ten infected plants in each plot were selected randomly for recording the percent leaf area diseased and the selected plants were tagged. Leaf area diseased of three diseases viz., bacterial leaf blight, sheath rot and sheath blight in the t. aman season and five diseases viz., blast, brown spot, bacterial leaf blight, sheath rot and sheath blight were recorded in boro season following IRRI recommended grading scale (Anonymous, 1980). The severity of the symptoms of different diseases developed on genotypes/plants under natural condition. The data collected on the severities or leaf area diseased of different diseases were subjected to the appropriate statistical analysis to determine the level of significance. The differences of the % leaf area diseased among the rice genotypes/accessions were tested using LSD and DMRT test. The mean values of each genotype/accession were used for interpretation and discussion.

Results and Discussion

The % leaf area diseased (LAD) and sheath area diseased (SAD) due to fungi were measured using the standard evaluation system for rice. During aman season the minimum LAD (9-10%) was recorded in two germplasms. The maximum LAD was 77.67% recorded in 72R accession. There was no infection in this accession during boro season. These results indicate that accession No. 72 is susceptible to BLB particularly at aman season (Table 1). The cause (s) of having no infection during boro need to be investigate.

Table 1: Variation in % leaf area diseased (LAD) caused by BLB pathogen in different genotypes of F5 generation and checks of 2 seasons
Means followed by the same letter in a column are not significantly different at the 1% level for t. aman and 5% level for Boro season by DMRT

Table 2: Variation in % sheath area diseased (SAD) caused by sheath rot pathogen in different genotypes of F5 generation and checks
Means followed by the same letter in a column are not significantly different at the 1% level for t. aman and 5% level for boro season by DMRT

Accession No. 64 and 66 had lowest infection during aman season and no infection during boro season. This germplasms may be promising in accessing the sources in resistance to BLB pathogen. The reaction of accession No. 48 was very much similar and that of accession No. 54, 56, 59 and 66 had similar reaction to BLB. These germplasms had more than LAD during aman season but no infection during boro season. Most of germplasms had 15-25% LAD during aman season and 0-5% LAD during boro season. Maximum LAD was 29.30% recorded in accession No. 75 during boro season followed by 16.67 in BRRI dhan 28. There was 16-19% LAD during aman season and 1-16% during boro season recorded in the released HYVs used in this study as yield check. The results showed that disease pressure was low in boro season and high during aman season. In t. aman season, 1 accession showed resistant (R), 1 showed moderately resistant (MR), 13 showed moderately susceptible (MS) reaction, 13 accessions showed susceptible (S) and 5 showed highly susceptible reaction to BLB (Table 4). In this season, 5 entries showed better performance. On the other hand, in boro season, the accession Nos. 48, 54, 56, 64 and 72 showed highly resistant reaction (HR) and no BLB disease incidence was found (Table 4).

In t. aman season, 0.67-24% SAD was observed compared to 2.53-27.20% at boro season and the disease intensity were 1-5 and 0-5, respectively. During aman season, highest SAD was recorded in accession No. 73 while the lowest % SAD (mean) was found in the accession No. 68. Highest SAD was 30.27% during aman season in accession No. 75. This germplasm had also high infection (14.07% SAD) in boro season. Similar reaction was recorded in accession No. 48 and 49 however, accession No. 49 had 11.67 SAD in sheath rot disease of rice (Table 2). There was 5-10% SAD in most of the germplasms during aman and boro season.

Table 3: Variation in % sheath area diseased (SAD) caused by sheath blight pathogen in different genotypes of F5 generation and checks
Means followed by the same letter in a column are not significantly different at the 1% level for t. aman and 5% level for boro season by DMRT

It is evident from the results that sheath rot infection was identical in aman and boro season. The check varieties had 4-7% SAD during aman season and 2-11% SAD during boro season. In this season, 6 accessions showed moderately resistant (MR), 24 accessions were moderately susceptible (MS) and 2 were showed highly susceptible (HS) (Table 4). In t. aman season, 7 accessions showed better performance over checks BRI14, BRRI dhan 28 and BINA-6. In case of boro season, one accession showed resistant (R), 14 were found to be moderately resistant (MR) and 17 accessions were found moderately susceptible (MS) to sheath rot disease (Table 4).

In t. aman season % SAD ranged between 0.67-44.03%, whereas at boro season it was 0.00-23.20% (Table 3). In t. aman season highest % SAD was observed in the accession No. 74. In this season, out of 32 cultivars, 29 breeding lines were found to be resistant (R) and 3 lines were found moderately susceptible reaction (Table 4). In this season, 5 accessions showed better performance over all the checks. In boro season, out of 32 cultivars. All accessions were found resistant (R) to moderately resistant (MR) to sheath blight disease of rice (Table 4). The highest % SAD (mean) was observed in the accession No. 60 (23.20%) and the lowest % SAD was found in the accession No. 57 (0.00%). In this season, 16 accessions showed better performance over check BRRI dhan 28 but only 2 accessions showed better performance over all checks used in boro season. During aman season maximum DAS was 44.03% recorded in accession No. 74 and during boro season maximum SAD was 23.20% recorded in accession No. 60. During these seasons, there were some accessions had no infection that in aman season and the accession got infection of sheath blight.

Table 4: Reaction of different cultivars of rice against 3 rice diseases at t. aman and Boro season

Maximum number of accession had infection on having 2-1% SAD in both the seasons. Same accessions had comparatively high infection showing more than 10% SAD. The yield checks had minimum SAD. There was no infection in BRRI dhan 29 during season. It is revealed from the data that disease pressure less in boro season than that in aman season (Table 3). Some accessions like accession No. 58 had very low SAD during but had comparatively high SAD in boro season. On the other hand, some accessions like accession 65 had low infection during boro season but infection was high during aman season.

Symptoms of bacterial leaf blight (BLB) of rice as observed in this study was in conformity to those described by Horino (1986); Ashrafuzzaman (1992); BRRI and IRRI (1985) and Reddy and Shukla (1986). During the period of the experiment (July- December 1999) i.e. t. aman season, it was observed that the natural incidence of BLB severity was fairly significant. The disease severity of BLB in terms of % LAD varied between 9.16-77-67% at t. aman season which in check BR14, % LAD was observed 15.67% (Table 1). In the same variety similar result was also found by Amin (1995) and that was 14.99%. He also found 9-60% LAD by BLB in different varieties. In boro season, 5 breeding lines were found to be resistant (R) to BLB. The result has similarity with Raj et al. (1987); Karaki (1989); Choi et al. (1985); Ram et al. (1995) and Kaushal et al. (1998). In t. aman season, 13 accessions were moderately susceptible (MS) to BLB and 5 accessions were resistant at bor season which have similarities with the findings of Cheema et al. (1998) that was also conducted under natural field condition.

The effect of Rhizoctonia solani Kuhn on the development of sheath blight disease in rice were also studied during the period of this investigation. The typical symptoms of sheath blight disease have been described by several works (Kozaka, 1975; Lee and Rush, 1983; Ou, 1985d). In this study, similar types of symptoms were also observed. A total of 29 and 32 accessions showed resistant reaction to sheath blight disease in t. aman and boro season, respectively. This finding supported by Raj et al. (1987). The severity of sheath area diseased (SAD) varied between 0.67-44.03 and 0.00-23.20% at t. aman and boro season, respectively. The severity of sheath blight occurred at a considerable amount in almost all breeding lines though disease incidence was less at boro season. The high severity was probably because under humid conditions the mycelia of this fungus did grow over the surface of the leaf sheath and could spread a considerable distance.

In t. aman season, six breeding lines were moderately resistant to sheath rot pathogen and in boro season, one accession was found resistant, 14 were moderately resistant and 17 were moderately susceptible (Table 4) to sheath rot. Similar type of result was also observed by Sahu and Parida (1997).

The average leaf area diseased (LAD) due to BLB varied between 9.16 to 77.67% in t. aman season and between 0 to 29.30% in boro season. One breeding line was found moderately resistant, 13 moderately susceptible, 13 susceptible and 5 highly susceptible to BLB in t. aman season whereas, 5 entries were found highly resistant, 5 resistant, 12 moderately resistant, 9 moderately susceptible and one was found to be susceptible in the boro season. In case of sheath rot in t. aman season, no breeding line showed high resistance. In this season, six lines were moderately resistant, 24 moderately susceptible and 2 susceptible. Whereas, boro season 1 line was resistant, 14 were moderately resistant and 17 were moderately susceptible. The severity of % sheath area diseased due to sheath blight varied between 0.67 to 44.03 and 0 to 23.20 in t. aman and boro seasons, respectively. Twenty nine were found to be resistant and 3 were moderately susceptible in t. aman season and all breeding lines including checks showed resistant reaction to sheath blight in boro season. Further works will proved the opportunities to find out the resistant/immune cultivars from the test lines. For screening the varieties and breeding lines against BLB, sheath rot and sheath blight, the test maturity should be inoculated with the respective pathogen after this natural screening under field condition at optimum stage of plant growth in order to select the test materials against respective diseases.

1:  Amin, M.R., 1995. Study of some epidemiological aspect of BLB of rice. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Plant Pathology, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, Bangladesh, pp: 52.

2:  Ashrafuzzaman, M.H., 1992. Shasyer Rough (Disease of Crops). 4th Edn., Bangla Academy, Bangladesh.

3:  BRRI, 1999. Adhunik Dhaner Chash (Modern Rice Cultivation). Bangladesh Rice Research Institute, Joydebpur, Dhaka, Bangladesh, pp: 26-28.

4:  FAO., 1995. Production Year Book. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

5:  IRRI, 1980. Standard Evaluation System for Rice. 2nd Edn., The International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos, Philippines, pp: 27.

6:  Bedi, K.S. and H.S. Gill, 1960. Losses caused by the brown leaf spot disease of rice in Punjab. Indian Phytopathol., 13: 161-164.

7:  BRRI and IRRI, 1985. Dhan Chasher Shamasya (Problems in Rice Cultivation). 2nd End., Bangladesh Rice Research Institute, Joydebpur, Bangladesh, pp: 62-65.

8:  Chemma, A.A., M.A. Awan and Y. Ali, 1998. Screening of basmati rice mutants against prevalent disease in the punjab province. Pak. J. Phytopathol., 10: 39-41.

9:  Chen, M.J., 1957. Studies on sheath rot of rice plant. J. Agric. For. Taiwan, 6: 84-102.

10:  Choi, J.E., D.K. Lee, J.H. Seo and S.H. Bae, 1985. Improved method for screening rice cultivars with field resistance to bacterial leaf blight. Korean J. Plant Pathol., 1: 115-122.

11:  Fakir, G.A., 1982. An annotated list of seed borne diseases in Bangladesh. Agricultural Information Service, Dhaka, Bangladesh, pp: 15.

12:  Ghosh, R.L.M., M. Chatge and V. Subrahmanyan, 1960. Rice in India. Indian Council Agriculture Research, New Delhi, pp: 470.

13:  Karaki, P.B., 1989. Sources of multiple resistance to rice blast (BL) and bacterial blight (BB). Int. Rice Res. Newslett., 14: 10-11.

14:  Kaushal, P., Ravi and J.S. Shidhu, 1998. Screening of wild Oryza species against bacterial leaf blight (Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae) pathotypes of Punjab (India). Plant Breed., 117: 491-493.
Direct Link  |  

15:  Kozaka, T., 1975. Sheath blight in rice plant and it's control. Rev. Plant Prot. Res., 8: 69-79.

16:  Lee, F.N. and M.C. Rush, 1983. Rice sheath blight: A major rice disease. Plant Dis., 67: 824-832.

17:  Lee, K., 1975. Studies on the epidemiology and control of bacterial leaf blight of rice in Korea. Korean J. Plant Prothol., 14: 111-131.

18:  Ou, S.H., 1972. Rice Disease. Commonwealth Mycological Institute, Kew, Surrey, England, pp: 341-345.

19:  Ou, S.H., 1985. Rice Diseases Kew Surrey. Commonwealth Mycological Institute, UK., pp: 109-201.

20:  Ou, S.H., 1985. Rice Disease. 2nd Edn., Commonwealth Mycological Institute (CMI), Kew, Surrey, England, pp: 38.

21:  Raj, R.B., W. Tayaba, G.V. Rao, A.S. Rao, T.C.V. Reddy and T. Wahab, 1987. Evaluation of rice cultures against bacterial leaf blight and sheath blight diseases. Indian Phytopathol., 40: 397-399.

22:  Ram, S., D.S. Dodan and R. Singh, 1995. Reaction of rice genotypes to bacterial leaf blight, stem rot and sheath blight in Haryana. Indian J. Mycol. Plant Pathol., 25: 224-227.
Direct Link  |  

23:  Reddy, P.R. and S.N. Shukla, 1986. Bacterial blight syndrome in rice. Indian Phytopathol., 39: 190-193.

24:  Sahu, A.K. and S. Parida, 1997. Screening of new semi-deep water rice selections for reaction to sheath rot and bacterial leaf blight. J. Mycol. Plant Pathol., 27: 83-85.

25:  Shahjahan, A.K.M., H.U. Ahmed, M.A.T. Mia, M.A. Hossain, N.R. Sharma and N.S. Nahar, 1991. Out break of leaf and neck blast in boro crop in Bangladesh. Int. Rice Res. Newslett., 16: 21-22.

26:  Shahjahan, A.K.M., N. Fabeller and T.W. Mew, 1986. Prospects for integrated rice sheath blight management. Proceedings of the Saturday Seminar, Dec. 6, IRRI, pp: 30-30.

©  2020 Science Alert. All Rights Reserved