Abstract
The impact of age of sugarcane on SCMV infection was assessed in two sugarcane cultivars viz., CoC 671 and Co 740. The sugarcane plants of one, two, three, four, five and six months aged were inoculated with sugarcane mosaic virus (SCMV) and infection progress was assessed at 15, 30 and 60 days after inoculation. The infection progress was assessed by external symptoms and also by direct antigen coating (DAC)-ELISA with polyclonal antiserum raised against SCMV. The one and two months aged sugarcane plants were highly susceptible and infection progress was very fast whereas five and six months aged plants showed very slow infection progress. All the plants of one and two months aged were assayed positive after 30days. Whereas five and six months aged plants recorded only 22 and 1 per cent infection, respectively even after 60 days of inoculation. Among the two cultivars the progress of infection is relatively lesser in Co 740.The results revealed that age of the plants does have a definite impact on SCMV infection and the progress of infection declined with ageing. It varied with cultivars also.
Article PDF
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bain, D.C. (1944). The use of abrasive for inoculating sugarcane seedlings with the mosaic virus.Phytopathology,34: 844–845.
Balamuralikrishnan, M., Sabitha Doraisamy, Ganapathy, T. and Viswanathan, R. (2002). Serological specificity and titre of sugarcane mosaic virus polyclonal antisera raised under varying immunization procedures and bleeding time.Journal of Plant Dis. and Protec.,109(6): 646–654.
Bhargava, K.S., Joshi, R.D., Rizvi, S.M.A., Srivastava, G.P., Shukla, K.C., Rishi, N., Lal, K.M. and Singh, A.K. (1971). Investigations on virus diseases of sugarcane in relation to sugar industry, p.202. In: Final Technical Report, University of Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Costa, A.S. and Muller, G.W. (1982). General evaluation of the impacts of virus diseases of economic crops on the development of Latin American Countries. In:Proc. Conf. Impact Virus Diseases Dev. Latin American Caribbean Countries, Rio De Janeiro.
Edwardson, J.R. and Christie, R.C. (1991).The Potyvirus Group. Volumes I- IV. Florida, USA: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station: Monograph no.16.
FAO. (1999). Quarterly Bulletin of Statistics, Food and Agricultural Organisation, Rome,12: 109.
Matz, J. (1953). Artificial transmission of sugarcane mosaic.J. Agric. Res.,46: 821–839.
Mowat, W.P. and Dawson, S. (1987). Detection and identification of plant viruses by ELISA using crude sap extracts and unfractionated antisera.J. Virol. Meth.,15: 233–247.
Rangel, Y., Garrido, M.J. and Monteverde, E.(1996). Effect of maize dwarf virus Venezuelan strain on some biometrics characteristics associated to yield of three sorghum cultivars.Fitopatol. Venez.,9(2): 36–41.
Rott, P., Bailey, R.A., Comstock, J.C., Craft, B.J. and Saumtally, A.S. (2000).A Guide to Sugarcane Diseases, CIRAD Publication services, Montepellier, France, p.339.
Shukla, D.D., Ward, C.W. and Brunt, A.A. (1994). The sugarcane mosaic virus subgroup. In:The potyviridae. CAB Internatiobnal, Wallingford, United Kingdom, pp 360–371.
Singh, S.P., Rao, G.P., Singh, J. and Singh, S.B. (1997). Effect of sugarcane mosaic poty virus infection on metabolic activity, yield and juice quality.Sugar Cane,5:19–23.
Smith, G.R., Ford, F., Frenkel, M.J., Shukla, D.D. and Dale, J.L. (1992). Transient expression of the coat protein of sugarcane mosaic virus in sugarcane protoplasts and expression inEscherichia coli.Arch Virol.,125: 19–23.
Viswanathan, R. and Mohanraj, D. (2001). Detection of sugarcane viral diseases by serological, techniques. p.195–208. In: Rao, G.P., Ford, R.E., Tosic, M.S., D.S. Teakle (eds).Sugarcane Pathology, vol. II. Virus and Phytoplasma Diseases. Science Publishers, Enfield (NH), USA.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Balamuralikrishnan, M., Doraisamy, S., Ganapathy, T. et al. Sugarcane mosaic virus infection progress in relation to age of sugarcane. Sugar Tech 5, 21–24 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02943759
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02943759