| Literature DB >> 30794679 |
Nami Minato1, Sophearith Sok1, Songbi Chen2, Erik Delaquis1, Iv Phirun3, Vi Xuan Le4, Dharani D Burra5, Jonathan C Newby1, Kris A G Wyckhuys6, Stef de Haan1.
Abstract
Cassava mosaic disease, one of the ten most economically important crop viral diseases in the world, was first reported in Southeast Asia from a single plantation in Cambodia in 2015. To determine the presence and incidence of Sri Lankan cassava mosaic virus (SLCMV) one year after first detection, a total of 6,480 samples from 419 fields were systematically collected from cassava production areas across Cambodia (3,840 samples; 240 fields) and Vietnam (2,640samples; 179 fields) in the 2016 cropping season. Using PCR-based diagnostics, we identified 49 SLCMV-infected plants from nine fields, representing 2% of the total number of fields sampled. Infected fields were geographically restricted to two provinces of Eastern Cambodia, while no infection was detected from any of the other sampled sites in either country. Symptom expression patterns in infected plants suggested that SLCMV may have been transmitted both through infected planting materials, and by Bemisia tabaci, the known whitefly vector of SLCMV. In addition, 14% of virus infected plants did not express typical symptoms of cassava mosaic disease on their leaves, highlighting that molecular-based validation is needed to confirm the presence of SLCMV in the field. None of the owners of the SLCMV-infected fields indicated acquired planting materials from the plantation in Ratanakiri where SLCMV was first reported. The surveillance baseline data generated for both countries is discussed in light of future options to control and manage cassava mosaic disease.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30794679 PMCID: PMC6386488 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212780
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Sampling locations in Vietnam and Cambodia.
| Country | ID | Province | District |
|---|---|---|---|
| Son La | Thuan Chau | ||
| Yen Bai | Van Yen | ||
| Gia Lai | Chu Prong | ||
| Dak Lak | Mad Lak | ||
| Dak Lak | Eaker | ||
| Dak Nong | Dak Glong | ||
| Kon Tum | Sa Thay | ||
| Gia Lai | Krong Pa | ||
| Phu Yen | Song Hinh | ||
| Binh Thuan | Bac Binh | ||
| Binh Thuan | Ham Tan | ||
| Tay Ninh | Tan Bien | ||
| Tay Ninh | Tan Chau | ||
| Binh Thuan | Ham Thuan Nam | ||
| Dong Nai | Long Thanh | ||
| Oddar Meancheay | Anlong Veaeng | ||
| Banteay Meanchey | Malai | ||
| Pailin | Sala Krau | ||
| Pailin | Pailin | ||
| Battambang | Kamrieng | ||
| Battambang | Phnum Proek | ||
| Battambang | Rattanak mondul | ||
| Pursat | Kravanh | ||
| Ratanakiri | Koun Mom | ||
| Steung Treng | Steung Treng | ||
| Kratie | Snoul | ||
| Tbong Khmun | Dambae | ||
| Tbong Khmun | Memot | ||
| Svay rieng | Romeas Haek | ||
| Kampong Thom | Sandan | ||
| Kampong Thom | Baray |
Number of Sri Lankan cassava mosaic virus (SLCMV)-infected plants and infection rate in each field of Ratanakiri and Stung Treng provinces.
| Field code | Number of SLCMV infected plants / total | Infection rate (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Koun Mom district, Ratanakiri province | |||
| K9F1 | 0/16 | 0 | |
| K9F2 | 6/16 | 37.5 | |
| K9F3 | 4/16 | 25.0 | |
| K9F4 | 0/16 | 0 | |
| K9F5 | 0/16 | 0 | |
| K9F6 | 0/16 | 0 | |
| K9F7 | 0/16 | 0 | |
| K9F8 | 0/16 | 0 | |
| K9F9 | 0/16 | 0 | |
| K9F10 | 0/16 | 0 | |
| K9F11 | 0/16 | 0 | |
| K9F12 | 0/16 | 0 | |
| K9F13 | 0/16 | 0 | |
| K9F14 | 0/16 | 0 | |
| K9F15 | 0/16 | 0 | |
| Stueng Traeng district, Stung Treng province | |||
| K10F1 | 4/16 | 25.0 | |
| K10F2 | 7/16 | 43.8 | |
| K10F3 | 0/16 | 0 | |
| K10F4 | 0/16 | 0 | |
| K10F5 | 1/16 | 6.3 | |
| K10F6 | 4/16 | 25.0 | |
| K10F7 | 0/16 | 0 | |
| K10F8 | 0/16 | 0 | |
| K10F9 | 0/16 | 0 | |
| K10F10 | 0/16 | 0 | |
| K10F11 | 0/16 | 0 | |
| K10F12 | 0/16 | 0 | |
| K10F13 | 7/16 | 43.8 | |
| K10F14 | 7/16 | 43.8 | |
| K10F15 | 9/16 | 56.3 | |
Symptom development in SLCMV-infected plants.
| Characteristics | All infected plants | Infected plants |
|---|---|---|
| (N = 49) | (N = 34) | |
| 0 | 0 | |
| 3 (6.1%) | 1 (2.9%) | |
| 36 (73.5%) | 27 (79.4%) | |
| 23 (46.9%) | 16 (47.0%) | |
| 39 (79.6%) | 28 (82.4%) | |
| 15 (30.6%) | 11 (32.4%) | |
| 23 (46.9%) | 14 (41.2%) | |
| 7 (14.3%) | 4 (11.8%) | |
| - | 23 (67.6%) | |
| - | 7 (20.6%) |
*1: Infected plants that were planted after May 2016.
*2: Plants whose leaves did not show any of typical CMD symptoms, namely mosaic, curl, and deformation.
*3: Plants that showed CMD symptoms on lowest, older leaves.
*4: Plants that showed CMD symptoms only on the young, upper leaves.
Origin of planting materials in fields testing positive for SLCMV.
| Field Code | Infection rate (%) | Source of stems | Stems from | Surveyed field size (ha) | Month planted | Pest/Disease recognition | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| K9F2 | 37.5 | own stock from 2015 | The same village | 2 | May 2016 | Yes | |
| K9F3 | 25.0 | own stock from 2015 | The same field | 1 | May 2016 | No | |
| K10F1 | 25.0 | own stock from 2015 | The same village | 0.1 | May 2016 | Yes | |
| K10F2 | 43.8 | own stock from 2015 and trader | The same village and Kampong Cham province | 0.4 | Sep 2015 | Yes | |
| K10F5 | 6.3 | own stock from 2015 | The same field | 1 | Oct 2015 | No | |
| K10F6 | 25.0 | own stock from 2015 | The same field | 0.5 | Jul 2016 | No | |
| K10F13 | 43.8 | own stock from 2015 | The same village | 0.5 | Apr 2016 | Yes | |
| K10F14 | 43.8 | Friend / neighbour / relative within the community | The same village | 0.5 | Mar 2016 | Yes | |
| K10F15 | 56.3 | own stock from 2015 | The same village | 0.1 | Jun 2016 | Yes | |
*1: Infection rate (%) of SLCMV was determined by PCR-based analysis.
*2: The origin of the stakes that were grown in farmers’ field during 2016 cropping season.
*3: Farmer’s recognition of general pests and/or diseases problems in their own field.