Paper · 2013 · Plant Disease

First Report of Bacterial Panicle Blight of Rice Caused by Burkholderia glumae in South Africa

X. G. Zhou

7
claims
12
verbatim quotes
32
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

In April 2013, upright, straw-colored panicles were observed in rice (Oryza sativa L.) fields with center pivot sprinkler irrigation at Ukulima farm in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Affected panicles contained florets that initially exhibited discoloration ranging from light green to light brown on the basal portion of the glumes and later developed a reddish-brown margin separating this area from the rest of the glume that became straw-colored. The stems of infected florets remained green. Affected grains were partially filled or aborted, causing panicles to remain upright. These symptoms appeared on approximately 25% of the rice plants of the varieties Presidio and WAB56-104. A gram-negative, rod-shaped bacterium was isolated consistently from symptomatic panicles. These strains produced circular, smooth-margined, convex colonies on King's B medium (KB) with a yellowish-green, diffusible non-fluorescent pigment. Four strains, two from each of the two varieties, were selected for physiological, molecular, and pathogenicity assays. These strains grew on nutrient-broth yeast (NBY) agar at 40°C and in NBY amended with 3% NaCl. They utilized acetate, adonitol, and citrate, and were positive for gelatin hydrolysis, but negative for oxidase and arginine dihydrolase. These morphological and physiological data indicate that the characteristics of these strains were similar to those of Burkholderia glumae. The strains were further verified using B. glumae-specific PCR method (2). In a greenhouse, 12 panicles each of Presidio and WAB56-104 were spray-inoculated at the flowering stage with a bacterial suspension (10 8 CFU/ml) of each strain generated from cultures grown on KB at 30°C for 24 h. Twelve panicles of each variety treated in the same way with sterile water served as controls. After inoculation, treated panicles were covered with transparent polyethylene bags and maintained in the greenhouse with temperatures ranging from 24 to 35°C. After 2 days, the polyethylene bags were removed. Symptoms similar to those observed in the field developed on all the panicles inoculated with each strain by 10 days of inoculation. No symptoms were observed on the control panicles. Bacteria with the same morphological and cultural characteristics of B. glumae were consistently re-isolated from diseased panicles. All eight randomly selected, re-isolated strains were confirmed to be B. glumae based on the B. glumae-specific PCR and physiological assays described above. This pathogenicity experiment was repeated once with similar results. This is the first report of bacterial panicle blight of rice caused by B. glumae in South Africa. Overhead sprinkler irrigation appeared to promote the development and spread of the disease. Since the bacterium is seedborne (3) and there are no acceptable levels of resistance available in commercial varieties, bacterial panicle blight poses a threat to rice production. This bacterium was first described in Japan as the causing agent of grain rot and seedling rot on rice grown under flood irrigation conditions (1). Bacterial panicle blight caused by B. glumae has since been reported in China, Korea, Latin America, the Philippines, and the United States (2). References: (1) K. Goto and K. Ohata. Ann. Phytopathol. Soc. Jpn. 21:46, 1956. (2) R. Nandakumar et al. Plant Dis. 93:896, 2009. (3) R. J. Sayler et al. Plant Dis. 90:603, 2006.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 7

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

About 25% of Presidio and WAB56-104 rice plants showed symptoms.

Material
Presidio and WAB56-104e0
Outcome
symptomse0
Value
approximately 25%e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“These symptoms appeared on approximately 25% of the rice plants of the varieties Presidio and WAB56-104”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 584–687 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Inoculated rice panicles developed field-like symptoms within 10 days.

Organ / stage
paniclese0
Treatment
inoculated with each straine0
Interactor
Burkholderia glumaeBurkholderia glumaet0pathogen
Outcome
Symptoms similar to those observed in the fielde0
Qualifier
by 10 days of inoculatione0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Burkholderia glumae
Burkholderia glumae · InteractorFelipeveraruiz · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Symptoms similar to those observed in the field developed on all the panicles inoculated with each strain by 10 days of inoculation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2020–2151 · show in text ↑
t0

“Bacterial Panicle Blight of Rice Caused by Burkholderia glumae”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 16–78 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sterile-water control rice panicles showed no symptoms.

Organ / stage
paniclese0
Outcome
No symptomse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“No symptoms were observed on the control panicles”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2153–2202 · show in text ↑
t0

“Rice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 44–48 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

B. glumae was consistently re-isolated from diseased rice panicles.

Organ / stage
paniclese0
Interactor
B. glumaeBurkholderia glumaee0pathogen
Outcome
B. glumae were consistently re-isolatede0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Burkholderia glumae
Burkholderia glumae · InteractorFelipeveraruiz · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Bacteria with the same morphological and cultural characteristics of B. glumae were consistently re-isolated from diseased panicles”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2204–2335 · show in text ↑
t0

“Rice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 44–48 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All eight selected re-isolates were confirmed as B. glumae.

Interactor
B. glumaeBurkholderia glumaee0pathogen
Outcome
confirmed to be B. glumaee0
Value
eighte0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Burkholderia glumae
Burkholderia glumae · InteractorFelipeveraruiz · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“All eight randomly selected, re-isolated strains were confirmed to be B. glumae based on the B. glumae-specific PCR and physiological assays”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2337–2477 · show in text ↑
t0

“Rice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 44–48 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

This was the first reported rice bacterial panicle blight caused by B. glumae in South Africa.

Interactor
B. glumaeBurkholderia glumaee0pathogen
Outcome
first report of bacterial panicle blighte0
Setting
South Africae0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Burkholderia glumae
Burkholderia glumae · InteractorFelipeveraruiz · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“This is the first report of bacterial panicle blight of rice caused by B. glumae in South Africa”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2565–2661 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Overhead sprinkler irrigation appeared to promote rice disease development and spread.

Treatment
Overhead sprinkler irrigatione0
Interactor
Burkholderia glumaeBurkholderia glumaet0pathogen
Outcome
development and spread of the diseasee0
Direction
promotee0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Burkholderia glumae
Burkholderia glumae · InteractorFelipeveraruiz · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Overhead sprinkler irrigation appeared to promote the development and spread of the disease”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2663–2754 · show in text ↑
t0

“Bacterial Panicle Blight of Rice Caused by Burkholderia glumae”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 16–78 · show in text ↑

inoculation · Burkholderia glumae · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

9 papers: 4 positive, 5 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.