Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T16:55:26.797Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Loose kernel smut for biocontrol of Sorghum halepense in Saccharum sp. hybrids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Rex Millhollon
Rex Millhollon*
Affiliation:
Sugarcane Research Unit, Southern Regional Research Center, USDA-ARS, Houma, LA 70361; rmillhol@srrc.usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sporisorium cruentum teliospores and sporidia (cultured from teliospores with about 30-fold spore increase) caused about equal, although variable, levels of smut infection of individual Sorghum halepense plants when applied to the foliage. Teliospores were applied in a water–surfactant suspension (106 spores ml−1) at 935 L ha−1 and sporidia in a water-in-oil invert emulsion (about 107 spores ml−1) at 468 L ha−1. In crop interference studies, a single foliar application of teliospores to space-planted S. halepense plants in a first-year crop of Saccharum sp. hybrids caused about 55% infection (at least one smutted panicle per plant) but did not reduce the level of S. halepense infestation or substantially improve Saccharum yield compared to noninoculated plants. Smutted panicles usually appeared 30 to 60 d after the foliar treatment, but many culms on a plant produced only healthy panicles. Two applications of teliospores, either 7 d apart in one experiment or 1 yr apart in another, significantly increased (P = 0.05) smut infection over one application but generally did not improve Saccharum yield substantially over plots infested with noninoculated S. halepense. In contrast to foliar spray inoculation, S. halepense plants injected with teliospores in the seedling stage prior to transplanting to the field were 98% infected with smut and were much less competitive with the crop than noninoculated transplants. In host range studies using several S. bicolor genotypes injected with teliospores in the greenhouse, the ratios of resistant to susceptible were 17 to 2 for grain types and 16 to 5, with 2 intermediate, for forage types, showing that genotypes have a relatively high level of resistance to the disease. The result of these experiments indicate that loose kernel smut has potential as a biocontrol agent for S. halepense, but only if infection by foliar treatment can be improved to levels at least comparable to injection.

Keywords

Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. SORHA, johnsongrassSporisorium cruentum (Kuhn) K. Vanky, fungus-causing loose kernel smut of Sorghum sp.Saccharum sp. hybrids, sugarcaneSorghum bicolor (L.) Moench, sorghum genotypesBiological weed controlmycoherbicidespray formulationsorghum smut diseasesugarcane weed controlSORHAjohnsongrass
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 48 , Issue 5 , October 2000 , pp. 645 - 652
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Ashton, F. M. and Crafts, A. S. 1981. Mode of Action of Herbicides. New York: John Wiley, pp. 20–39.Google Scholar
Chona, B. L. and Munjal, R. J. 1951. A new smut of sugarcane. Curr. Sci. 20:301–302.Google Scholar
Connick, W. J. Jr., Daigle, D. J., and Quimby, P. C. Jr. 1991. An improved invert emulsion with high water retention for mycoherbicide delivery. Weed Technol. 5:442–444.Google Scholar
Dean, J. L. 1966. Local infection of sorghum by the johnson grass loose kernel smut fungus. Phytopathology 56:1342–1344.Google Scholar
Frowd, J. A. 1980. A world review of sorghum smuts. Pages 331–366 In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Sorghum Diseases. Patancheru, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.Google Scholar
Jackson, H. S. 1934. Ustilaginales. Pages 256–261 In Chardon, C. E. and Toro, R. A., eds. Mycological Explorations of Venezuela. Monog. of the University of Puerto Rico, Physical and Biological Sciences. (B). Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico: Univ. of Puerto Rico.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. A. and Baudoin, A.B.A.M. 1997. Mode of infection and factors affecting disease incidence of loose smut of crabgrass. Biol. Control 10:92–97.Google Scholar
Lee-Lovick, G. 1978. Smut of sugarcane—Ustilago scitaminea . Rev. Plant Pathol. 57:181–188.Google Scholar
Leukel, R. W. and Martin, J. H. 1950. Loose kernel smut of johnson grass. Phytopathology 40:1061–1070.Google Scholar
Luttrell, E. S., Craigmiles, J. P., and Harris, H. B. 1964. Effect of loose kernel smut on vegetative growth of johnson grass and sorghum. Phytopathology 54:612.Google Scholar
Massion, C. L. and Lindow, S. E. 1986. Effects of Sphacelotheca holci infection on morphology and competitiveness of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). Weed Sci. 34:883–888.Google Scholar
Millhollon, R. W. 1995. Growth and yield of sugarcane as affected by johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) interference. J. Am. Soc. Sugarcane Technol. 15:32–40.Google Scholar
Sinha, O. K., Singh, K., and Misra, S. R. 1982. Stain technique for detection of smut hyphae in nodal buds of sugarcane. Plant Dis. 66:932–933.Google Scholar
Vanky, K. 1985. Carpathian Ustilaginales. Acta Univ. Upsaliensis Symbolate Botanicae Upsalienses 24 (2). Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala University. 309 p.Google Scholar