Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T10:58:54.160Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identification of promising resistance sources against sheath blight from the annual wild species of rice Oryza nivara (Sharma et Shastry)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2019

S. K. Aggarwal ,
K. Neelam Open the ORCID record for K. Neelam [Opens in a new window] ,
Jyoti Jain ,
Rupinder Kaur ,
P. P. S. Pannu ,
S. K. Lenka ,
J. S. Lore  and
Kuldeep Singh
S. K. Aggarwal
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana-141 004, India
K. Neelam*
Affiliation:
School of Agricultural Biotechnology, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana-141 004, India
Jyoti Jain
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana-141 004, India
Rupinder Kaur
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana-141 004, India
P. P. S. Pannu
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana-141 004, India
S. K. Lenka
Affiliation:
ICAR-National Rice Research Institute, Cuttack -753 006, India
J. S. Lore
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana-141 004, India
Kuldeep Singh
Affiliation:
ICAR-National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, New Delhi-110073, India
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: kneelam@pau.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sheath blight caused by soil borne necrotrophic fungus Rhizoctonia solani [teleomorph-Thanatephorus cucumeris (Frank) Donk.] is a major disease of rice. The disease is increasing over the year in India and cause up to 69% yield loss under favourable conditions. A total of 67 accessions of Oryza nivara were screened to identify resistance against sheath blight during 2015. Out of these, 16 accessions were found moderately resistant (MR) which were further evaluated during the year 2016 and 2017. After three years of screening, 12 of them were found to have a consistent moderate resistant reaction whereas four of the O. nivara accessions namely, IRGC81941, IRGC102463C, CR100097 and CR100110A have shown moderately susceptible to susceptible reaction against sheath blight. A correlation study revealed that different disease variables measured were significantly (P < 0.05) correlated. All the genotypes and genotype × environment interaction had a significant (P < 0.001) effect on all the disease variables. Cluster analysis showed that all the accessions were clustered into four groups which showed resistant, MR, moderately susceptible and susceptible reactions. Among all the O. nivara accessions IRGC81941A showed the maximum potential against sheath blight due to a least relative lesion height of 22.80%. None of the accession had complete resistance to the disease. The identified promising accessions such as IRGC81835, IRGC81941A, CR100008 and CR100111B can be utilized in a sheath blight resistance breeding program.

Keywords

disease variablesOryza nivaraRhizoctonia solanisheath blightwild species of rice
Type
Short Communication
Information
Plant Genetic Resources , Volume 17 , Issue 6 , December 2019 , pp. 554 - 558
Copyright
Copyright © NIAB 2019

Introduction

Rice sheath blight caused by soil borne necrotrophic fungus Rhizoctonia solani is one of the major rice (Oryza sativa L.) disease (Lee and Rush, Reference Lee and Rush1983; Rush and Lee, Reference Rush, Lee, Webster and Gunnell1992). The yield losses due to sheath blight are recorded up to 69% under the intensive crop management and favourable environmental conditions (Sivalingam et al., Reference Sivalingam, Vishwakarma and Singh2006). The pathogen has a wide host range and necrotrophic nature. Moreover, evaluation of sheath blight resistance in rice fields is very difficult because resistance is largely affected by morphological characteristics such as plant height (PH), plant type, tillering, heading date and ecological aspects such as water and N fertilization (Hashiba et al., Reference Hashiba, Uchiyamada and Kimura1981; Groth and Nowick Reference Groth and Nowick1992). As a consequence, no source of complete genetic resistance or immunity to sheath blight is known in O. sativa (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Zou, Xu, Tong, Tang, Wang, Jiang, Ning, Tang and Pan2000; Eizenga et al., Reference Eizenga, Lee and Rutger2002; Liu et al., Reference Liu, Chen, Ji and Liu2006; Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Chen, Lu, Yang and Yu2006). Thus, exploring different germplasm became an international effort for getting resistance to sheath blight (Xie et al., Reference Xie, Linscombe, Rush and Jodari-Karimi1992; Jia et al., Reference Jia, Correa-Victoria, McClung, Zhu, Liu, Wamishe, Xie, Marchetti, Pinson, Rutger and Correll2007; Zuo et al., Reference Zuo, Wang, Chen, Gu, Zhang, Chen, Pan and Pan2009). Wild species germplasm of rice constitute a valuable resource for the improvement of modern rice cultivars in terms of providing resistance/tolerance against biotic and abiotic stresses (Khush et al., Reference Khush, Balacangco and Ogawa1990; Rangel et al., Reference Rangel, Brondani, Rangel and Brondani2008; Zhang and Xie, Reference Zhang, Xie and Wengui2014; Arbelaez et al., Reference Arbelaez, Moreno and Singh2015; Eizenga et al., Reference Eizenga, Neves, Bryant, Agrama and Mackill2016; Ma et al., Reference Ma, Fu, Zhao, Jiang, Zhu, Gu, Xu, Su, Sun and Tan2016; Haritha et al., Reference Haritha, Swamy and Naik2018; Kishor et al., Reference Kishor, Sarao, Bhatia, Neelam, Kaur, Mangat, Brar and Singh2018; Quan et al., Reference Quan, Wang and Hui2018). An investigation was carried out to identify potential sources for resistance against sheath blight in Oryza nivara accessions at Punjab Agricultural University (PAU), Ludhiana during 2015, 2016 and 2017.

Experimental

The plant materials consisted of 67 accessions of O. nivara were originally procured from International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Manila, Philippines and National Rice Research Institute (NRRI), Cuttack, India. Isolation of Rhizoctonia solani was performed from the susceptible cultivar PR121 showing the sheath blight symptoms. The standard protocol for isolation was used. The maize meal-sand (1:3) medium method was used for inoculation (Lore et al., Reference Lore, Hunjan and Thind2012). Disease assessment was made 21 days after inoculation under field conditions. Three plants from each accession in two replications were screened every year. Relative lesion height (RLH) was calculated using the formula given by Sharma et al. (Reference Sharma, Teng and Olivares1990). Data were analysed using the general linear model procedure in the SAS system Cary, NC). The cluster is reported as unweighted pair group method using arithmetic means based on the Mahalanobis distance algorithm (PAST 3.0).

Results

A total of 67 accessions with susceptible check PR114 were screened during 2015. Out of these, 16 (23.88%) were moderately resistant (MR), 21 (31.34%) were moderately susceptible (MS) and 30 (44.77%) were susceptible (S) (online Supplementary Figure S1). The PH ranged from 44 to 171 cm, lesion height (LH) ranged from 21 to 99 cm, RLH ranged from 18.84 to 97.67% and DS (DS) ranged from 1 to 9 (online Supplementary Table S1). All the accessions were clustered into four groups (M1, M2, M3 and M4) by the Mahalanobis distance on the basis of RLH and DS. The group M2 with 16 accessions showed the MR reaction with the minimum values of LH, RLH and DS, i.e. 34.56 cm, 22.67% and 3 respectively. The group M4 had the maximum values of LH, RLH and DS, i.e. 70.48 cm, 74.84% and 8.2 respectively (online Supplementary Table S2). All the genotypes and genotype × environment interaction had a significant (P < 0.001) effect on all the disease variables. The environment interaction had a significant (P < 0.001) effect on all the disease variables except LH (P > 0.30) (online Supplementary Table S3).

Based on screening during the year 2015, 16 MR accessions were selected and further evaluated during the years 2016 and 2017 (Table 1). The PH ranged from 81 to 158 cm, the LH ranged from 12 to 72 cm, the RLH ranged from 8.33 to 67.28% and the DS ranged from 1 to 9 for both the years. The different disease variables measured were significantly (P < 0.05) correlated. RLH had a positive correlation with LH (0.86) and DS (0.93). The LH showed positive correlation with DS, with a correlation coefficient of 0.81. There was a negative correlation between PH and DS, with a correlation coefficient of −0.24 (online Supplementary Table S4). Sixteen accessions O. nivara were selected and clustered into three groups (M1, M2 and M3) on the basis of different disease variables (Fig. 1). The first group M1 with susceptible check PR114 showed the highest values of LH (63.33 cm), RLH (61.50%) and DS (7.0) (online Supplementary Figure S2).

Fig. 1. Cluster representation among O. nivara accessions during 2016 and 2017.

Table 1. Screening of promising accessions of Oryza nivara for sheath blight resistance during the years 2016 and 2017

Discussion

Several attempts were made to identify sources for sheath blight resistance in rice genotypes but only partial resistance was identified to date (Amante et al., Reference Amante, de la Pena, Sitch, Leung and Mew1990; Pan et al., Reference Pan, Rush, Sha, Linscombe, Stetina and Oard1999; Prasad and Eizenga, Reference Prasad and Eizenga2008; Ram et al., Reference Ram, Majumdar, Laha, Ansari, Kar and Mishra2008). We also observed partial resistance in the studied O. nivara accessions. The most probable explanation is the pathogen behaviour like necrotrophic nature, wide host range, soil borne and anastomosis. These characters make the pathogen to invade positively and lesion progression is higher than the resistant level. The other attributes includes significant effects of GXE interaction on disease variables which ultimately resulted in moderate resistance behaviour of studied germplasm. Zeng et al. (Reference Zeng, Shi, Ji, Wen, Liang and Yang2017) studied the environmental effect on disease progression among 169 genotypes and observed a highly significant (P < 0.0001) effect. A positive correlation between RLH and DS was observed. This is due to the fact that the LH is determining factor for the progression of disease and the RLH is directly proportional to LH. Similarly, a negative correlation was explicable between PH and RLH as the RLH is the ratio of LH and PH. Similar relationship among disease variables is also reported by other scientist (Hossain et al., Reference Hossain, Tze, Nadarajah, Jena, Bhuiyan and Ratnam2014; Wen et al., Reference Wen, Zeng, Ji and Yang2015). We identified O. nivara accessions with possible sheath blight resistance and were crossed with the elite cultivars to generate backcrossed derivatives for transferring the sheath blight resistance.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S1479262119000315.

Acknowledgements

The Authors are grateful to the ICAR for funding under the Project ‘Incentivizing research in agriculture project-IV-Molecular genetic analysis of resistance/tolerance to different stress (Rice)’ CS/F.No. 16-8/17-IA IV. We are also grateful to IRRI, Philippines and NRRI, Cuttack India for sharing wild species germplasm.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

Amante, AD, de la Pena, R, Sitch, LA, Leung, H and Mew, TW (1990) Sheath blight (ShB) resistance in wild rice. International Rice Research Newsletter 15: 5.Google Scholar
Arbelaez, JD, Moreno, LT and Singh, N (2015) Development and GBS-genotyping of introgression lines (BILs) using two wild species of rice, O. meridionalis and O. rufipogon, in a common recurrent parent, O. sativa cv. Curinga. Molecular Breeding 35: 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, ZX, Zou, JH, Xu, JY, Tong, YH, Tang, SZ, Wang, ZB, Jiang, RM, Ning, B, Tang, J and Pan, XB (2000) Preliminary study on resources of resistance to rice sheath blight. Chinese Journal of Rice Science 14: 15–18.Google Scholar
Eizenga, GC, Lee, FN and Rutger, JN (2002) Screening of Oryza species plants for rice sheath blight. Plant Disease 68: 808–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eizenga, GC, Neves, PCF, Bryant, RJ, Agrama, HA and Mackill, DJ (2016) Evaluation of a M-202 × Oryza nivara advanced backcross mapping population for seedling vigor, yield components and quality. Euphytica 208: 157–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groth, DE and Nowick, EM (1992) Selection for resistance to sheath blight through the number of infection cushions and lesion type. Plant Disease 76: 721–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haritha, G, Swamy, BPM and Naik, ML (2018) Yield traits and associated marker segregation in elite introgression lines derived from O. sativa × O. nivara. Rice Science 25: 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hashiba, T, Uchiyamada, H and Kimura, K (1981) A method to estimate the disease incidence based on the height of the infected parts in rice sheath blight disease. Annual Phytopathological Society of Japan 47: 194–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hossain, MdK, Tze, OS, Nadarajah, K, Jena, K, Bhuiyan, MdAR and Ratnam, W (2014) Identification and validation of sheath blight resistance in rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivars against Rhizoctonia solani. Can J Plant Pathol 36: 482–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jia, Y, Correa-Victoria, F, McClung, A, Zhu, L, Liu, G, Wamishe, Y, Xie, J, Marchetti, MA, Pinson, SRM, Rutger, JN and Correll, JC (2007) Rapid determination of rice cultivar responses to the sheath blight pathogen Rhizoctonia solani using a micro-chamber screening method. Plant Disease 91: 485–489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khush, GS, Balacangco, E and Ogawa, T (1990) A new gene for resistance to bacterial blight from Oryza longistaminata. Rice Genetics Newsletter 7: 121–122.Google Scholar
Kishor, K, Sarao, PS, Bhatia, D, Neelam, K, Kaur, A, Mangat, GS, Brar, DS and Singh, K (2018) High-resolution genetic mapping of a novel brown planthopper resistance locus, Bph34 in Oryza sativa L. X Oryza nivara (Sharma & Shastry) derived interspecific F2 population. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 131: 1163–1171.Google Scholar
Lee, FN and Rush, MC (1983) Rice sheath blight: a major rice disease. Plant Disease 67: 829–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, YF, Chen, ZY, Ji, JA and Liu, YZ (2006) Analysis of resistance to sheath blight on the commercial cultivars and new potential breeding lines of Jiangsu Province. (in Chinese.). Jiangsu Journal of Agricultural Science 1: 27–28.Google Scholar
Lore, JS, Hunjan, MS and Thind, TS (2012) Standardization of inoculum amount for sheath blight development in rice under field conditions. Plant Disease Research 27: 99–101.Google Scholar
Ma, X, Fu, Y, Zhao, X, Jiang, L, Zhu, Z, Gu, P, Xu, W, Su, Z, Sun, C and Tan, L (2016) Genomic structure analysis of a set of Oryza nivara introgression lines and identification of yield-associated QTLs using whole-genome resequencing. Scientific Report 6: 27425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pan, XB, Rush, MC, Sha, XY, Linscombe, SD, Stetina, SR and Oard, J (1999) Major gene, non-allelic sheath blight resistance from the rice varieties Jasmine 85 and TeQing. Crop Science 39: 338–346.Google Scholar
Prasad, B and Eizenga, GC (2008) Rice sheath blight disease resistance identified in Oryza spp. accessions. Plant Disease 92: 1503–1509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quan, R, Wang, J and Hui, J (2018) Improvement of salt tolerance using wild rice genes. Frontiers in Plant Science 8: 2269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ram, T, Majumdar, ND, Laha, GS, Ansari, MM, Kar, CS and Mishra, B (2008) Identification of donors for sheath blight resistance in wild rice. Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding 68: 317–319.Google Scholar
Rangel, PN, Brondani, RPV, Rangel, PHN and Brondani, C (2008) Agronomic and molecular characterization of introgression lines from the interspecific cross Oryza sativa (BG90-2) × Oryza glumaepatula (RS-16). Genetics and Molecular Research 7: 184–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rush, MC and Lee, FN (1992) Sheath blight. In: Webster, RK and Gunnell, PS (eds) Compendium of Rice Diseases. St. Paul, MN: American Phytopathological Society, pp. 22–23.Google Scholar
Sharma, NR, Teng, PS and Olivares, PM (1990) Comparison of assessment methods for rice sheath blight disease. Philippines Phytopathology 26: 20–24.Google Scholar
Sivalingam, PN, Vishwakarma, SN and Singh, US (2006) Role of seed-borne inoculum of Rhizoctonia solani in sheath blight of rice. Indian Phytopathology 59: 445–452.Google Scholar
Wen, ZH, Zeng, YX, Ji, ZJ and Yang, CD (2015) Mapping quantitative trait loci for sheath blight disease resistance in Yangdao 4 rice. Genetics and Molecular Research 14: 1636–1649.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xie, QJ, Linscombe, SD, Rush, MC and Jodari-Karimi, F (1992) Registration of LSBR-33 and LSBR-5, sheath blight-resistant germplasm lines of rice. Crop Science 32: 507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeng, YX, Shi, JS, Ji, ZJ, Wen, ZH, Liang, Y and Yang, CD (2017) Genotype by environment interaction: the greatest obstacle in precise determination of rice sheath blight resistance in the field. Plant Disease 101: 1795–1801.Google ScholarPubMed
Zhang, F and Xie, J (2014) Genes and QTLs resistant to biotic and abiotic stresses from wild rice and their applications in cultivar improvements. In: Wengui, Yan (eds), Rice - Germplasm, Genetics and Improvement. https://doi.org/10.5772/56825.Google Scholar
Zhang, S, Chen, QZ, Lu, L, Yang, XL and Yu, DZ (2006) Assessment of the variety resistance to Pyricularia grisea and Rhizoctonia solani induced under the natural condition in Hubei province. (In Chinese.). Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University 25: 236–240.Google Scholar
Zuo, SM, Wang, ZB, Chen, XJ, Gu, F, Zhang, YF, Chen, ZX, Pan, XB and Pan, CH (2009) Evaluation of resistance of a novel rice line YSBR1 to sheath blight. Acta Agronomica Sinica 35: 608–614.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Cluster representation among O. nivara accessions during 2016 and 2017.

Figure 1

Table 1. Screening of promising accessions of Oryza nivara for sheath blight resistance during the years 2016 and 2017

Supplementary material: File

Aggarwal et al. supplementary material

Aggarwal et al. supplementary material

Download Aggarwal et al. supplementary material(File)
File 152.6 KB