4.2 Article

Impact of yellow leaf virus on sugarcane commercial fields

期刊

TROPICAL PLANT PATHOLOGY
卷 46, 期 1, 页码 37-43

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s40858-019-00322-y

关键词

TBIA; Prevalence; Sugar content losses; SCYLV; BRA-PER; CUB and REU genotypes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A survey conducted in northern Argentina in 2015 and 2016 using TBIA showed plant infection rates of 2.2-86.7% in sugarcane commercial fields. The most infected cultivar was NA 05-860. Genotypic diversity analysis revealed the presence of genotypes BRA-PER, REU, and CUB in positive samples. Incidence of SCYLV was high, with significant sugar yield reduction in infected plants under dryland conditions. Management strategies should focus on using healthy planting materials and SCYLV-tolerant cultivars.
A survey of Sugarcane yellow leaf virus (SCYLV) was conducted in northern Argentina in 2015 and 2016 using tissue blot immunoassay (TBIA). Results showed plant infection rates of 2.2-86.7% in sugarcane commercial fields from different growing areas. Percentage of infected leaves varied among cultivars and areas. NA 05-860 was the most infected cultivar (86.7% incidence). Virus genotypic diversity of SCYLV positive samples was analysed by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). The virus genotype BRA-PER was found in all samples, followed by genotypes REU and CUB (36% and 8% of positive samples, respectively). The following co-infection patterns were found: BRA-PER + REU (34%); BRA-PER + CUB (6%); and the three genotypes, BRA-PER + REU + CUB (2%). Sugar content loss in cultivar LCP 85-384 infected with SCYLV was evaluated. Sugar yield reduction in SCYLV positive plants was statistically significant in dryland conditions (p < 0.0001). Our results indicate the high prevalence of SCYLV, the first detection of genotypes CUB and REU, and reduction in sucrose content related to SCYLV in Argentina. Disease management in the crop region should include the use of healthy planting material and SCYLV-tolerant cultivars.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据