7/30/2019 18577-40918-1-SM

1/4

Indian Phytopath. 65 (2) : 147-150 (2012)

Sugarcane (Saccharumsp., complex hybrid) is an important

crop for production of commercial cane sugar (sucrose),

molasses (jaggery) or khandseri in India. It is a long duration

crop (early = 300 days, mid-late = 360 days), usually one or

more ratoon crops are maintained for additional return and

its tall dense canopy attracts large number of insect pests

and diseases throughout the year and its vegetative

propagation allows transmission of most of the diseases

for generations. Wilt is a major disease in sugarcane and

one of its causal organisms is parasitic angiosperms (Martin

et al., 1960). Important parasitic angiosperms of sugarcane

are Striga spp. and Centranthera nepalensis D. Don inscrophulariaceae family (obligate root hemiparasite),

Aeginetia indica L., A. pedunculata (Roxb.) Wall., A.

saccharicolaBakh., Christisonia wightiiElmer and Alectra

fluminensis(Vell.) Stearn in Orobanchaceae family (obligate

root holoparasite) and Thesium australeR.Br. and Thesium

residoidesA.W. Hill. in Santalaceae family (facultative root

hemiparasite). Strigaangustifolia(D.Don) C.J. Saldanha, S.

aspera Benth., S. forbesii Benth., S. hermonthica (Del.)

Benth., S. latericea Vatke, S. pubiflora Klotzsch infect

sugarcane in many countries in sub-Saharan Africa (Atera

et al., 2011), S. asiatica (L.) Kuntze infects sugarcane in

peninsular India (Chinnusamy et al., 2009) and S. densiflora

Benth. infects sugarcane in Bangladesh (Matin et al., 1989),Alectra fluminensis is a minor pest of sugarcane in South

America (Parker and Riches, 1993) and Aeginetiaspp. affect

sugarcane in tropical and sub-tropical Asia. Incidence of A.

pedunculata was reported on sugarcane in Myanmar

(Subramaniam, 1936) and Bangladesh (Hedayetullah and

Saha, 1942). A. pedunculata infected sugarcane in

Indonesia (Coert, 1928). Since then Aeginetiaspp. were

never reported on sugarcane or any other crop. Of late, first

major epidemic of A. pedunculata on sugarcane was

reported in India in and around a sugar factory zone in

West Bengal (Ray and Dasgupta, 2003). It has raised serious

threat of further spread and apprehended development of

more virulent races. The crop loss in sugarcane due to

infection of the parasite was estimated to 38% in cane yield,

52% in juice brix, 58% in sucrose and 1.89 t/ha in

commercial cane sugar (Ray and Dasgupta, 2006). The

parasite thrived naturally on a few species of grasses

(Poaceae) viz.Cynodon dactylon, Saccharum spontaneum,

Sorghum bicolorand Vetiveria zizanoides, adjacent to the

infected sugarcane field, they might play a role as collateral

hosts in survival and dissemination of the parasite (Ray

and Dasgupta, 2009).

To control the parasite, the options are: (i) manual

weeding soon after appearance (local farmers practice);(ii) 2,4-D Na at 2 kg ai/ha (sugar factory farm managers

practice; short-lived success); (iii) resistant varieties

(suggestions made; most viable). Large scale replacement

of sugarcane varieties with field resistant cv. NCo 310

proved successful in eradicating A. indica in Taiwan (Lo,

1955). Variability of susceptibility to Striga hermonthica

(Del.) Benth. was observed in Kenya where among 18

sugarcane clones KEN 83-1228, KEN 83-538 and Co 617

were found relatively tolerant to Striga(Mbogo and Osoro,

1992). Erianthus arundinaceous(Retz.) Jeswiet, which is a

source of resistant gene in sugarcane was found susceptible

to A. pedunculata(Ray and Dasgupta, 2010).

The objectives of the present investigation were: (1) to

evaluate the relative tolerance / resistance of elite sugarcane

genotypes / varieties to A. pedunculataand (2) to undertake

a breeding programme involving NCo 310, a sugarcane

variety known to be resistant to A. indica in Taiwan, with

other good Indian varieties and to evaluate the existence

and inheritance of resistance against A. pedunculataamong

progenies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Screening of sugarcane genotypes for their resistance

to A. pedunculata: Single node stalk cuttings of 28

sugarcane varieties/elite genotypes (Table 1) were

germinated in polythene packets filled with sugarcane farm

Sugarcane genetic resistance against holoparasitic angiosperm

Aeginetia pedunculata(Orobanchaceae)

BIKASH RANJAN RAY1* and MRINAL KANTI DASGUPTA21Sugarcane Research Station, Bethuadahari 741126, Nadia2Department of Plant Protection, Institute of Agriculture, Visva-Bharati, Sriniketan 731 236, Birbhum

ABSTRACT: Twenty eight sugarcane genotypes were screened against the total root parasitic angiosperm Aeginetia pedunculata(Orobanchaceae) by root inoculation with parasite seed. All the entries tested showed parasitization and wilt but variations

were observed in respect of first flowering, growing degree days (GDD), area under Aeginetia progress curve (AUAPC) of theparasite and wilting of cane. Breeding of sugarcane by making crosses involving NCo 310 (resistant to A. indica) as either male

or female parent resulted in development of genotypes susceptible to A. pedunculata.

Key words: Aeginetia pedunculata, resistance breeding, sugarcane

RESEARCH ARTICLE

*Corresponding author: brray2@yahoo.co.in

7/30/2019 18577-40918-1-SM

2/4

148 Indian Phytopathology 65 (2) : 147-150 (2012)

soil and mixed with 5 mg fresh seeds of A. pedunculata.

NCo 310 and BO 91 (highly susceptible to A. pedunculata

at Plassey, West Bengal, India) were taken as standard

check varieties. After sprouting of sugarcane, intact

polypacks sets (to avoid underground spread) were planted

in an experimental plot at Sugarcane Research station,

Bethuadahari, West Bengal, India, with inter-row and inter-

plant spacing of 90cm and 60cm, respectively.

Recommended fertilizer dose 200:100:100 (N:P:K) kg/ha,

irrigation and intercultural operations were followed and

no weeding was done. The experiment was conducted

during 2005 and 2006 as plant and ratoon crops, and the

varieties were replicated thrice. Data recorded on number

of A. pedunculataflowers per sugarcane clump, both in plant

and ratoon crops, at approximately weekly intervals starting

from anthesis. Date of first flowering was recorded and

growing degree days (GDD) for plant and ratoon crop was

calculated by cumulating the temperature of each day

starting from inoculation to first flowering in respective crop.

Area under Aeginetiaprogress curve (AUAPC) was

calculated on the basis of number of A. pedunculataflowers

in a clump daily with the help of a MS Excel based AUDPC

Calculator Programme. As Aeginetiaspp. does not develop

any external symptom on sugarcane prior to wilting, a

disease rating system was adopted to assess wilt severity

according to variety using 1-9 scale similar to Strigarating

(Berner et al., 1997) detailed in Table 2.

Breeding of sugarcane for resistance to A. pedunculata:

A breeding programme was undertaken under National

Hybridization Programme of All India Coordinated Research

Project on Sugarcane, with the objective of developing A.

pedunculata resistant varieties by crossing sugarcane cv.

NCo 310 with other sugarcane varieties having records of

higher yield, juice quality, agronomic characters and

combining ability. The crossing programme was carried out

at the National Hybridization Garden of Sugarcane

Breeding Institute, Coimbatore during November 2003 and

2004. The treatments were T1

Co 87272 NCo 310, T2

NCo

310 CoJ 46, T3

CoLk 91238 NCo 310, T4

CoLk 8002

NCo 310, T5 CoLk 8102 NCo 310, T6 Co 1158 NCo 310,T

7BO 91 (Susceptible check) and T

8NCo 310 (Resistant

check). The fluff (crossed seed) was received during

February and the seeds were sown immediately in soil beds

at Sugarcane Research Station, Bethuadahari, West Bengal,

India to raise seedlings. Seedlings were transplanted during

June to obtain full grown sugarcane plants through

vegetative propagation in the following years. A.

pedunculataseeds were inoculated to the root zone of these

genotypes during May and data recorded on incidence of

the parasite and wilting of sugarcane after emergence of its

flowers in July. In a separate plot two rows of 3 m length

were planted with the same set of genotypes and inoculated

with mixed cultures of red rot pathogen ColletotrichumfalcatumWent pathotypes Cf 07 and Cf 08 in August by

plug method of inoculation (Butler and Khan, 1913) and

Table 1. Characteristics of sugarcane genotypes evaluatedagainst A. pedunculata

Sl. Sugarcane Maturity Resistance against major diseases

No. genotype duration Red rot Smut Wilt

1. BO 91 ML R R R

2. BO 128 ML MR R MR

3. BO 140 E R R MR

4. BO 143 E R R R

5. Co 62033 ML MR R R

6. Co 87268 E R R R

7. Co 0230 E R R MR

8. Co 0231 E MR R MR

9. Co 0234 ML R R R

10. Co 0236 ML MR R R

11. CoB 99161 E MR R MR

12. CoBln 90006 ML MS MR S

13. CoBln 94063 E MR MR MR

14. CoLk 92238 ML MR R R

15. CoLk 94184 E R R MR

16. CoS 767 ML R R R

17. CoSe 92423 ML MR R MR

18. CoSe 95436 E R R R

19. CoSe 96234 E MR R R

20. CoSe 96436 ML MR R MR

21. CoSe 98021 E R R R

22. CoSe 00235 E MS MR MS

23. CoSe 00421 E MR R MR

24. CoSe 01232 ML R R MR

25. CoSe 01434 ML MR R MR

26. CoSe 02235 E MR R R

27. UP 1108 ML R R MR

28. NCo 310 ML MR S MS(Check)

Source: Annual Report, All India Coordinated Research Project onSugarcane 2005-2006; 2006-2007, E = early (300 days), ML = mid-late (360 days), R = resistant, MR = moderately resistant, MS =moderately susceptible, S = susceptible

Table 2. Disease rating scale adopted for Aeginetia pedunculatawilt of sugarcane

Score A. pedunculatashoot / Score Wilted stalk / Cumulative Disease rating

sugarcane clump sugarcane clump (%) score

0 0 1 0 1 Highly resistant (HR)

1 1-5 2 1-25 2-3 Resistant (R)

2 6-10 3 26-50 4-5 Moderately resistant (MR)

3 11-20 4 51-75 6-7 Susceptible (S)4 > 20 5 76-100 8-9 Highly susceptible (HS)

7/30/2019 18577-40918-1-SM

3/4

Indian Phytopathology 65 (2) : 147-150 (2012) 149

Table 4. Breeding of sugarcane for development of A. pedunculataresistant cultivar

Treatment Cross (Male Female) No. of clone Brix (%) Red rot rating A. pedunculatawilt rating

T1 Co 87272 NCo 310 30 16.9 MS S

T2 NCo 310 CoJ 46 26 18.6 MS S

T3 CoLk 91238 NCo 310 4 17.9 S HS

T4 CoLk 8002 NCo 310 16 16.9 MS HS

T5 CoLk 8102 NCo 310 7 18.0 MR S

T6 Co 1158 NCo 310 25 17.8 MR S

T7 BO 91 (Susceptible check) 1 19.5 MR S

T8 NCo 310 (Resistant check) 1 16.7 MR S

Table 3. Genetic resistance in sugarcane genotypes against A. pedunculatawilt

Sl. Sugarcane Plant crop Ratoon crop

No. genotype First flower First flower AUAPC Disease First flower First flower AUAPC Disease

(days) (GDD) rating (days) (GDD) rating

1. BO 91 127 2391 63 S 0 0 0 -

2. BO 128 146 2696 269 HS 402 6151 51 S3. BO 140 0 0 0 - 421 6515 83 S

4. BO 143 137 2566 468 HS 407 6664 74 S

5. Co 62033 137 2566 300 HS 0 0 3 -

6. Co 87268 174 3068 77 S 0 0 0 -

7. Co 0230 0 0 0 - 358 5862 1061 HS

8. Co 0231 0 0 0 - 377 6226 100 S

9. Co 0234 122 2297 249 S 358 6151 253 HS

10. Co 0236 0 0 0 - 402 6151 96 S

11. CoB 99161 127 2391 770 HS 407 6644 102 HS

12. CoBln 90006 0 0 0 - 413 6922 189 MR

13. CoBln 94063 0 0 0 - 402 6151 110 HS

14. CoLk 92238 179 3162 14 MR 426 7028 57 MR

15. CoLk 94184 132 2472 241 S 421 6515 74 MR

16. CoS 767 0 0 0 - 407 6664 688 HS

17. CoSe 92423 0 0 0 - 462 7724 30 S

18. CoSe 95436 0 0 0 - 407 6664 93 S

19. CoSe 96234 0 0 0 - 407 6664 380 HS

20. CoSe 96436 0 0 0 - 421 6515 6 S

21. CoSe 98021 0 0 0 - 402 6151 144 S

22. CoSe 00235 138 2360 21 MR 358 5862 9 MR

23. CoSe 00421 0 0 0 - 433 6625 112 S

24. CoSe 01232 0 0 0 - 383 6336 90 S

25. CoSe 01434 0 0 0 - 524 8778 44 S

26. CoSe 02235 0 0 0 - 433 6625 89 S

27. UP 1108 0 0 0 - 480 8061 56 MR

28. NCo 310 137 2566 0 - 433 6625 139 S(Check)

data recorded after 60 days in 0-9 scale by splitting open

the cane longitudinally along the point of inoculation.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

First flowers of A. pedunculataappeared in the root zones

of sugarcane variety BO 91, BO 128, BO 143, Co 62033, Co87268, Co 0234, CoB 99161, CoLk 91238, CoSe 94184

and CoSe 00235 during July to September in both the years,

approximately 3-5 months after inoculation and one month

after a heavy downpour but in case of other varieties,

flowering occurred in the following year. The morphological

features of the flowers resembled with that usually occur in

the sugar factory area. Infected sugarcane clumps

invariably wilted and dried after completion of flowering of

A. pedunculata. During first year, total wilting of clumps were

7/30/2019 18577-40918-1-SM

4/4

150 Indian Phytopathology 65 (2) : 147-150 (2012)

observed in BO 91 and Co 87268 and partial wilting was

observed in BO 128, BO 143, Co 62033, CoB 99161, CoSe

94184 and CoSe 00235, whereas, in rest of the varieties

wilting occurred in the second year. Only one or two new

sugarcane shoots came out in the third year but no flower

of A. pedunculatawas observed. Though, all the sugarcane

genotypes were resistant or moderately resistant to major

fungal diseases such as red rot, wilt and smut, none of theentries showed resistance to A. pedunculata, even cv. NCo

310, which was widely used as resistant variety to eradicate

A. indica in Taiwan and used as check variety in this

experiment turned out to be highly susceptible to A.

pedunculata(Table 3). The screening procedure was simple

and reasonably effective in the field. By nature, the parasite

does not spread beyond the experimental area and caused

no threat to the farm cultivation. The sugarcane entries

showed significant variability among themselves in respect

of first flowering, duration of flowering and flower (Table 1).

The AUAPC data represented the number of flower and

duration of flowering in A. pedunculata, which varied widely

according to host (Table 3). The susceptibility of NCo 310 toA. pedunculatafurther confirmed our earlier claim that these

two species of Aeginetiaare distinct in respect of their host

range and that A. pedunculatais more virulent than A. indica.

In fine, no sugarcane genotype was identified as tolerant or

resistant to A. pedunculataand therefore, no variety could

be included in IPM.

Although, there is no A. pedunculataresistant cultivar

in the genetic stock the variation in susceptibility and

selective host range of A. pedunculata among Poaceae

indicate that occurring of genetic resistance is possible.

Primary objective of the resistant breeding programme was

to incorporate resistant gene into the established sugarcane

cultivars because genetic resistance is the most viable and

eco-friendly option for management of parasitic

angiosperms. The only known gene source for resistance

against A. indicawas NCo 310 and considering A. indica

and A. pedunculataare closely related species, 110 clonal

lines were developed through the crosses between NCo

310 and any one of the following varieties as male or female

parent Co 87272, CoJ 46, CoLk 91238, CoLk 8002, CoLk

8102 and Co 1158. Though, these genotypes were good

yielder of sucrose (16.9%-18.6%) and moderately resistant

to red rot disease, they were susceptible to A. pedunculata

(Table 4). The result was expected because in a later

experiment NCo 310 was proved to be susceptible to A.

pedunculata. This differential susceptibility between A.

indicaand A. pedunculata to NCo 310 might be due to

genetic variance between the parasites or might be due to

clonal variance of host or its environment.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Authors are grateful to Dr. Kunal Mondal, Plant Pathologist,

National Research Centre for Medicinal & Aromatic Plants,

Boriavi, Anand, Gujarat, India, for providing MS Excel based

AUDPC Calculator which he had designed. They are also

grateful to the Director, Sugarcane Breeding Institute,

Coimbatore for supply of sugarcane variety NCo 310 and

for undertaking crossing programme comprising NCo 310.

REFERENCES

Atera, E.A., Itoh, K. and Onyango, J.C. (2011). Evaluation of

ecologies and severity of Strigaweed on rice in sub-Saharan

Africa. Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America2(5):752-760.

Berner D.K., Winslow, M.D., Awad, A.E., Cardwell, K.F., Mohan

Raj, D.R. and Kim, S.K. (1997). StrigaResearch Methods

A Mannual. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan,

Nigeria pp. 59-60.

Butler, E.J. and Khan, H.A. (1913). Red rot of sugarcane. Memoirs

of Department of Agriculture, India. Botanical Series6: 151-178.

Chinnusamy, C., Prabhakaran, N.K. and Rathika, S.. (2009).

Ecobiological quantification and integrated management of

parasitic weed Striga asiatica in sugarcane (Saccharumofficinarum) planted in alfasol of southern peninsular India.

Poster, 10th World Congress on Parasitic Plants, Kusadasi,

Turkey, June 8-12, 2009.

Coert, J.H. (1928). Aeginetiaspecies, a root parasite of sugarcane.

Sugar News9: 367-375.

Hedayetullah, S. and Saha, J.C. (1942). A new phanerogamic

parasite of sugarcane in Bengal. Curr. Sci.11(3): 109-110.

Kusano, S. (1908). Further studies on Aeginetia indica. Bulletin of

the College of Agriculture, Tokyo Imperial University, Japan.

8: 59-76.

Lo, T.T. (1950). A report on sugarcane diseases in Taiwan.

Proceedings of ISSCT Congress7: 452-456.

Lo, T.T. (1955). N:Co 310, highly resistant to the root parasite

bunga (Aeginetia indica). Taiwan Sugar2(4): 18-20.

Lopez, M.E. and Barile, R.L. (1964). The effect of differentherbicides in the control of Aeginetia indicaRoxb. Philippine

Sugar Institute Quarterly10(1): 19-31.

Martin, J.P., Abbott, E.V. andHughes, C.G. (1960). Sugarcane

Diseases of the World, Vol. I. Elsevier, Amsterdam. pp 485-

490.

Matin, M.A., Islam, N., Gaffer, M.A. and Rahman, A.B.M.M.(1989). Association of Striga densiflora with sugarcane.

Bangladesh Journal of Sugarcane11: 52-63.

Mbogo, J.O. and Osoro, M.O. (1992). The effect of Striga

hermonthicaon sugarcane, 1. Reacton of sugarcane clones

to Striga hermonthicainfection in Kenya. Proceedings of theAnnual Congress (66 th) South African Sugar Technologists

Association,pp. 114-115.

Parker, C. and Riches, C.R. (1993). Parasitic Weeds of the World:

Biology and Control. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. p. 332.

Ray, B.R.and Dasgupta, M.K. (2003). First report of Aeginetiapedunculatacausing sugarcane wilt in India. Haustorium44:

2-3.

Ray, B.R. and Dasgupta, M.K. (2006). Sugarcane crop loss due

to wilt caused by parasitic angiosperm Aeginetia pedunculata(Roxb.) Wall. (Orobanchaceae). J. Mycol. Plant Pathol. 36(1):31-34.

Ray, B.R.and Dasgupta, M.K. (2009). Three newly recorded

natural hosts of Aeginetia pedunculata (Roxb.) Wall.

(Orobanchaceae). J. Mycol. Plant Pathol. 39(1):163-165.

Ray, B.R. and Dasgupta, M.K. (2010). Erianthus arundinaceus: anew host of Aeginetia pedunculata. J. Mycol. Plant Pathol.

40(2): 283-286.

Subramaniam, L.S. (1936). Diseases of Sugarcane and Methods

for their Control. Imperial Council of Agricultural Research,

Miscellaneous Bulletin No. 10. pp. 25-26.

Received for publication: September 18, 2011

Accepted for publication: April 16, 2012