Leifsonia xyli subsp. xyli (sugarcane ratoon stunting disease)
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Distribution Table
- Risk of Introduction
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
- Growth Stages
- List of Symptoms/Signs
- Biology and Ecology
- Seedborne Aspects
- Pathway Vectors
- Plant Trade
- Detection and Inspection
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.Generate report
PicturesTop of page
IdentityTop of page
Preferred Scientific Name
- Leifsonia xyli subsp. xyli (Davis et al. 1984) Evtushenko et al. 2000
Preferred Common Name
- sugarcane ratoon stunting disease
Other Scientific Names
- Clavibacter xyli Davis et al. 1984
- Clavibacter xyli subsp. xyli Davis et al. 1984
International Common Names
- English: ratoon stunting of sugarcane
- Spanish: enfermedad del raquitismo de las socas; rachitismo de la caña de azucar
- French: rabougrissement de la canne à sucre
Local Common Names
- Brazil: raquitismo da soquerira
- CLABXY (Clavibacter xyli)
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Bacteria
- Phylum: Actinobacteria [phylum]
- Class: Actinobacteria
- Subclass: Actinobacteridae
- Order: Actinomycetales
- Suborder: Micrococcineae
- Family: Microbacteriaceae
- Genus: Leifsonia
- Species: Leifsonia xyli subsp. xyli
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page Ratoon stunting disease was originally thought to be caused by a virus (Steindl, 1961). The association of a bacterium with the disease was first reported in 1973 (Gillaspie et al., 1973; Maramorosch et al., 1973; Teakle et al., 1973); however, it was not until 1980 that the bacterium was isolated in axenic culture and its causal role in the disease verified (Davis et al., 1980). The pathogen was taxonomically classified in 1984 (Davis et al., 1984) as Clavibacter xyli subsp. xyli. The subspecies designation distinguishes the ratoon stunting disease pathogen from the closely related pathogen, Clavibacter xyli subsp. cynodontis, which causes stunting disease of Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon). These pathogens were reclassified in the genus Leifsonia by Evtushenko et al. (2000).
DescriptionTop of page Colonies of L. xyli subsp. xyli on semi-solid media are circular with entire margins, convex, non-pigmented, and approximately 0.1-0.3 mm in diameter after 2-3 weeks' growth. Cells are non-motile pleomorphic rods measuring 0.25-0.50 µm in width and 1-4 µm in length, but longer lengths are not uncommon. The cells apparently divide by septation; 'V' forms, which are characteristic of coryneform bacteria undergoing bending or snapping division, are frequently observed in wet mounts by phase-contrast or dark-field microscopy. Ultrastructurally, the cells have a Gram-positive type cell wall and frequently contain mesosomes.
See also Bradbury (1991).
DistributionTop of page Much of the early information describing the geographic distribution of this disease was based on internal stalk discoloration (not a reliable symptom) and may be inaccurate. However, it is the best information available until the presence of the pathogen is confirmed. Because of difficulties associated with diagnosis, the distribution of this disease is probably much wider than currently known.
Distribution TableTop of page
The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Reference||Notes|
|Bangladesh||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|China||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|-Guangdong||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|India||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|-Indian Punjab||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|-Karnataka||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|-Madhya Pradesh||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|-Tamil Nadu||Present||Duttamajumder, 2001|
|-Uttar Pradesh||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Indonesia||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|-Java||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Japan||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|-Kyushu||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|-Ryukyu Archipelago||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Malaysia||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|-Peninsular Malaysia||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Myanmar||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Pakistan||Present||Gul et al., 1992; CABI/EPPO, 2000; Hussnain et al., 2011; EPPO, 2014|
|Philippines||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Sri Lanka||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Taiwan||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Thailand||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Burkina Faso||Present||Rott et al., 1989; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Cameroon||Present||Rott et al., 1989; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Comoros||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Congo||Present||Bradbury, 1986; Rott et al., 1989; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Congo Democratic Republic||Present||Rott et al., 1989; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Côte d'Ivoire||Eradicated||Rott et al., 1989; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Djibouti||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Egypt||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Ethiopia||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Kenya||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Madagascar||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Malawi||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Mali||Present||Bradbury, 1986; Rott et al., 1989; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Mauritius||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Mozambique||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Nigeria||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Réunion||Present||Bradbury, 1986; Rott et al., 1989; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Seychelles||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Somalia||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|South Africa||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Sudan||Present||Rott et al., 1989; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Swaziland||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Tanzania||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Uganda||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Zimbabwe||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Mexico||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|USA||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|-Florida||Present||Davis and Dean, 1984; Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|-Hawaii||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|-Louisiana||Present||Steib et al., 1956; Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
Central America and Caribbean
|Antigua and Barbuda||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Barbados||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Belize||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Cuba||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Dominican Republic||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|El Salvador||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Guadeloupe||Present||Toribio and Beramis, 1989; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Jamaica||Restricted distribution||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; IPPC, 2006; EPPO, 2014|
|Nicaragua||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Panama||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Puerto Rico||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Saint Kitts and Nevis||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Trinidad and Tobago||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Argentina||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Bolivia||Present||Pruett and Waller, 1989; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Brazil||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|-Parana||Present||Marcuz et al., 2009|
|-Rio de Janeiro||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Colombia||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|French Guiana||Present||Feldman et al., 1997|
|Guyana||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Peru||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Uruguay||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Venezuela||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Spain||Present||CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Australia||Restricted distribution||CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|-New South Wales||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|-Queensland||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Fiji||Present||Bradbury, 1986; CABI/EPPO, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
Risk of IntroductionTop of page Risk Criteria Category
Economic Importance High
Seedbrone Incidence Not recorded
Seed Transmitted Not recorded
Seed Treatment None
Overall Risk Low
Notes on Phytosanitary Risk
Quarantine restrictions on the disease exist in most sugarcane production areas throughout the world. However, there are no known races or other pathogenic variants of the bacterium that might increase the risk of introduction in regions where the disease already occurs, although the possibility of such variants cannot be ignored. Quarantine procedures that combine heat treatment of seed cane to eliminate the pathogen and appropriate diagnostic techniques can greatly reduce the risk of introduction. The widespread distribution of the disease can be largely attributed to international shipment of infected cuttings (Steindl, 1961; Dean, 1974).
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page Although sugarcane is the only known natural host of the pathogen (Saccharum spp. and Saccharum interspecific hybrids), numerous grasses have been determined to be hosts after experimental inoculation (Gillaspie and Teakle, 1989). The experimental hosts include Zea mays, Sorghum spp., Brachiaria mutica, Brachiaria miliiformis, Chloris gayana, Cynodon dactylon, Echinochloa colonum, Imperata cylindrica, Panicum maximum, Pennisetum purpureum and Rhynchelytrum repens.
Host Plants and Other Plants AffectedTop of page
Growth StagesTop of page Vegetative growing stage
SymptomsTop of page There are no reliable diagnostic symptoms. Stunting is the only overt symptom but can also be caused by a number of other maladies. The degree of stunting resulting from the disease may vary considerably. Yields can be adversely affected even when stunting is not obvious. Disease expression can be enhanced by stress, especially moisture stress. Yield reduction is caused by slower growth of diseased crops with the accompanying production of thinner and shorter stalks and sometimes a reduction in the number of stalks when the disease is severe. In stubble or ratoon crops, diseased plants are slower to initiate growth, and death of individual plants of extremely susceptible cultivars may occur. Some highly susceptible cultivars may show wilting under moisture stress and even necrosis of leaves at the tips and margins.
Diseased stalks of some cultivars may exhibit internal discoloration, but these symptoms are often ephemeral. In mature stalks, vascular bundles at the nodes may become discoloured. The intensity of discoloration may vary among cultivars from one time to another, ranging from yellow, orange, pink, and red to reddish-brown. This may be viewed by slicing longitudinally through a node with a knife and examining the fresh cut for discoloured vascular bundles in the shape of dots, commas, or short lines. Discoloration does not extend into the internode. Similar nodal symptoms may be caused by insects or other pathogens, but usually extend throughout nodes, instead of being confined to the lower portion of nodes, or extend into the internodes. Juvenile stalk symptoms may be observed in some cultivars by longitudinally slicing through 1- to 2-month-old stalks. The symptoms appear as pinkish discoloration just below the apical meristematic area and may extended downward as much as a centimetre.
List of Symptoms/SignsTop of page
|Leaves / necrotic areas|
|Leaves / wilting|
|Stems / internal discoloration|
|Stems / internal red necrosis|
|Stems / stunting or rosetting|
|Whole plant / dwarfing|
|Whole plant / plant dead; dieback|
Biology and EcologyTop of page The pathogen has been found only in sugarcane in nature and has no known insect vectors (Gillaspie and Davis, 1992). Infection takes place through wounds. The pathogen can be mechanically transmitted from sugarcane to sugarcane on the blades of equipment used to cultivate and harvest crops and can be spread by propagation with infected cuttings. No evidence exists for transmission in true seed. The pathogen can remain viable and infectious for several months apparently in either moribund plant debris or the soil itself, contributing to the persistence of ratoon stunting disease in areas where the disease is common (Bailey and Tough, 1992).
The pathogen systemically invades plants through the xylem. It has been detected in most vegetative parts of sugarcane where mature xylem exists. It was recovered readily from mature stalks and the leaf sheaths and lamina of the lower leaves of infected plants, but not from the midrib and lamina of upper leaves (Teakle et al., 1975). Large populations existed in mature stalks, and smaller populations were found in the growing point, leaf lamina, leaf midrib and leaf sheath (Bailey, 1977).
Seedborne AspectsTop of page L. xyli subsp. xyli is not carried on true seed. See Control section for information on the importance of planting healthy seed cane and treatments for seed cane.
Pathway VectorsTop of page
Plant TradeTop of page
|Plant parts liable to carry the pest in trade/transport||Pest stages||Borne internally||Borne externally||Visibility of pest or symptoms|
|Flowers/Inflorescences/Cones/Calyx||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually invisible|
|Leaves||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually invisible|
|Roots||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually invisible|
|Seedlings/Micropropagated plants||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually invisible|
|Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches||Yes||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye|
|Plant parts not known to carry the pest in trade/transport|
|Fruits (inc. pods)|
|Growing medium accompanying plants|
|True seeds (inc. grain)|
ImpactTop of page Ratoon stunting disease is widely regarded as causing greater economic loss to the cane sugar industries throughout the world than any other disease (Hughes, 1974); yet paradoxically, few other diseases of sugarcane are less conspicuous. Yield losses have frequently been estimated at 5 to 10% overall. Losses may be negligible in some years, but in other years they may be 30% or greater (Steib and Chilton, 1967; Early, 1973; Koike, 1974; Singh, 1974; Béchet, 1976; Liu et al., 1979). The importance of ratoon stunting disease is largely dependent on two factors: varietal susceptibility and disease incidence. In Florida, for example, yield loss from ratoon stunting disease was estimated at $36.8 million for the 1988-89 crop (Dean and Davis, 1990). This estimate was based on a relatively small average yield reduction of 5% applied to essentially the entire crop in Florida. In South Africa, losses in a normal season have been estimated at 3% of the annual crop (Bailey and Fox, 1984).
Assuming a high disease incidence and a susceptible sugarcane clone, several other factors are important in the severity of yield losses. Moisture stress can increase yield reduction from the disease in susceptible cultivars (Rossler, 1974); heavy losses can occur when sugarcane is grown under dryland conditions and growth is checked by prolonged dry weather (Egan, 1970). Yield reductions are sometimes greater in successive ratoon crops, possibly because of increased disease incidence (Steindl, 1961; Bailey and Béchet, 1986). The presence of other diseases, such as sugarcane mosaic potyvirus (Steib and Chilton, 1967; Koike, 1974), may increase reductions in germination and yield caused by ratoon stunting disease. Weak, diseased crops may invite weed infestation and, thus, be subject to further yield reduction as a result of competition with weeds.
DiagnosisTop of page The pathogen is a small, xylem-inhabiting, coryneform bacterium that often can be detected in sugarcane extracts using phase-contrast or dark-field microscopy (1000x). Its cell morphology is sufficiently distinct compared to the other natural micro-organisms associated with sugarcane to permit recognition. False-positive diagnoses based on microscopic observations are rare; however, false-negative results can be a problem, especially when pathogen concentrations are low (Davis and Dean, 1984). Concentrations are greatest in the basal portion of mature stalks during the later part of the growing season, improving the chance of detection at this time (Davis et al., 1988a). Some cultivars characteristically have lower pathogen populations than others (Gillaspie et al., 1976; Bailey, 1977; Koike et al., 1982) and can, therefore, present more of a problem for diagnosis.
The pathogen is extremely fastidious in its nutritional requirements and can only be grown in axenic culture on special media such as the SC medium (Davis et al., 1980). The following procedure can be used for primary isolation of the pathogen in culture:
- select and excise a portion of stalk containing an internode that is free of damage due to insects, cracks, etc. and thoroughly wash it with soap and running water to remove grime
- surface disinfest the internode by submersion in 70% ethanol for 1-2 min, then dipping into 95% ethanol, and finally flaming
- aseptically excise a 2-3 cm section of the internode, place it into a 50-mL, conical centrifuge tube, and centrifuge it at 1000-4000 x g for 1-5 min to extract sap
- use the sap to inoculate SC medium, and incubate the inoculated medium aerobically at 29°C for 2-3 weeks.
The bacterium is aerobic, non-motile, Gram-positive, non-spore-forming, non-acid fast, catalase-positive, and oxidase-negative.
Pathogenicity tests for routine identification are rarely conducted because of the long incubation period (usually at least 3-6 months or longer) required for symptom development or detection of the pathogen in the host plant. However, in some situations it may be desirable to inoculate sugarcane with the pathogen. Crude juice from infected plants can be used as inoculum and is often a more convenient source of inoculum than pure cultures of the pathogen. However, the quality of crude juice inoculum is difficult to control and the use of such inoculum involves the risk of spreading other pathogens. Sugarcane can be inoculated by dipping freshly cut ends of single node cuttings into a suspension of the pathogen. Cuttings are then planted and developing plants are examined for internal symptoms or the presence of the pathogen after an appropriate incubation period.
Serological methods have been developed to detect L. xyli subsp. xyli (Gillaspie, 1978; Harrison and Davis, 1990; Wu et al., 1990). Considerable sensitivity has been obtained by using fluorescent-antibody staining to detect bacterial cells with epifluorescence microscopy. Staining of the bacterium in dried extracts on glass slides was at least tenfold more sensitive than phase-contrast microscopy for detection (Harris and Gillaspie, 1978). At least another tenfold increase in sensitivity was obtained when the bacterium was first stained while still suspended in sap extracts and then concentrated on membrane filters by filtration before observation (Davis and Dean, 1984). The latter method can also be used to estimate the pathogen population size and was named the fluorescent-antibody direct-count on filters (FADCF) technique (Davis, 1985).
Although not as sensitive, more rapid serological assays have been developed. An ELISA was investigated for detection of L. xyli subsp. xyli; however, problems with non-specific reactions were encountered (Gillaspie and Harris, 1979). A modified ELISA procedure, referred to as the evaporative binding enzyme immunoassay (EB-EIA), was developed (Croft et al., 1994). A tissue-blot enzyme immunoassay (EIA) was developed to enumerate vascular bundles in cross-sections of sugarcane stalks which have been colonized by the pathogen; this technique can also be used for diagnosis (Harrison and Davis, 1988). A dot-blot EIA was also developed to detect the pathogen in sap extracts. Both the dot-blot and tissue-blot EIA involve the deposition of pathogen cells either from extracts or directly from plant tissue, respectively, onto nitrocellulose membrane filters before serological detection with an indirect EIA.
Cloned DNA probes have been developed for the pathogen (Chung et al., 1994). The sensitivities of detection reported for the DNA probes was approximately equal to that reported for the FADCF technique but less than those reported for the various EIAs. A tissue-blot DNA hybridization technique (Pan et al., 1998a) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) procedures have been reported for the sensitive and specific detection of the pathogen in sugarcane (Pan et al., 1998b; Fegan et al., 1998).
Detection and InspectionTop of page Disease symptoms are rarely adequate for diagnosis in the field and laboratory tests are almost always required for accurate diagnosis (see Diagnostic Methods).
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page Any malady that results in stunted growth of sugarcane and does not have characteristic symptoms might be confused with ratoon stunting disease. For example, aluminium toxicity, iron deficiency and nematode infestations may have been confused with this disease. If stunting is uniform throughout the crop, it is probably not caused by this disease. Uneven growth reduction where some plants are affected more than others is more characteristic; however, nematode infestations can also be uneven. Diagnosis of ratoon stunting disease should thus be confirmed by detection of the pathogen in the laboratory (see section on Diagnostic Methods).
Prevention and ControlTop of page Cultural Control and Sanitary Methods
Planting healthy cane can be used to control ratoon stunting disease. Sanitation is important in keeping healthy cane from becoming infected, because L. xyli subsp. xyli is easily transmitted mechanically.
Seed cane can be monitored for freedom from the disease using appropriate diagnostic techniques. In Australia and South Africa, phase-contrast microscopy has been used to screen thousands of samples annually for L. xyli subsp. xyli (Egan, 1980; Bailey and Fox, 1984). Continued vigilance in the selection of seed cane over several years has resulted in a reduction in the incidence of ratoon stunting disease in both plantings for seed cane production and commercial crops.
Seed cane can be heat treated to help prevent the spread of L. xyli subsp. xyli from one geographic area to another and to control ratoon stunting disease within areas where it occurs (Steindl, 1961). Hot-water, hot-air, moist-air, and aerated steam treatments have been used (Benda and Ricaud, 1978). Hot-water treatment at ca 50°C for 2-3 hours has been the most commonly used method (Steindl, 1961; Gul and Hassan, 1995). The application of streptomycin and hot-water treatment at 52°C for 30 minutes suppressed disease by 22.6% and increased yields of cane and white sugar by 35.54 and 4.55 t/ha, respectively (Gul and Hassan, 1995). Different cultivars vary in their tolerance to injury by heat. Seed cane from mature plants is usually less affected and generally germinates better after hot-water treatment than that from immature or over-mature plants. Pre-treatment of young, heat-sensitive seed cane to increase germination has been reported to reduce the deleterious effects of hot-water treatment (Benda, 1972, 1978). Seed cane was cut 1-5 days before treatment, pre-treated at 50°C for 10 minutes in hot water, and then treated the following day at 50°C for 2-3 hours. Hot-air treatment, with inlet air at 58°C for 8 hours or at 50°C for 24 hours, may be less harmful to immature seed cane than hot-water treatment and is used in some areas (Steindl, 1961). Dipping seed cane in water at ambient temperatures following hot-air treatment may protect germination. Moist-air treatment at 54°C for 7 hours in a sealed chamber was developed to overcome the moisture loss associated with hot-air treatment (Shukla et al., 1974). Aerated-steam treatment at 53°C for 4 hours uses steam-moistened hot air to reach the necessary internal stalk temperatures more quickly, approaching the treatment time used with hot water (Mayeux et al., 1979).
The two major problems limiting the effectiveness of heat treatment, other than expense, are reductions in germination and lack of complete control. Procedures that have been developed to protect germination in addition to those already discussed include treating seed cane with fungicides or other chemicals during and after heat treatment, careful selection of seed cane for treatment, and leaving leaf sheaths over buds during treatment. Proper functioning of the heating unit and temperature control system and proper loading of the heat chamber can favour both germination and control of ratoon stunting disease.
Under practical conditions, however, heat treatment is often not completely curative for ratoon stunting disease (Damann and Benda, 1983), and germination rates of treated seed cane may be reduced. Moreover, the expense involved in heat treatment is prohibitive. Consequently, heat treatment is often used to establish pathogen-free nurseries which are then used to supply planting material for commercial fields. Even so, the quantity of seed cane produced in such nurseries is usually inadequate, and additional sources of relatively pathogen-free seed cane are required. Seed cane from sources with a recent history of heat treatment can be used to fill the void, especially when adequate sanitary precautions have been taken to prevent spread of the pathogen and ensure that the level of the disease is minimal.
Because L. xyli subsp. xyli is readily transmitted by mechanical means, sanitation is important in preventing its spread to healthy plants (Comstock et al., 1996). Precautions can be taken to avoid transmission of the bacterium from one field to another on contaminated agricultural equipment. Sugarcane fields that are believed to be free from, or with a lower incidence of, ratoon stunting disease can be harvested first each day. Implements which have been used in diseased sugarcane fields can be cleansed and decontaminated before entering another field. Hot water, steam, flaming, or chemicals can be used to disinfect implements (Gillaspie and Davis, 1992).
Although immunity to infection by L. xyli subsp. xyli is not known to occur in sugarcane, substantial resistance to injury has been found in some cultivars and appears to have a degree of genetic determination (Roach, 1992; Miller et al., 1995). Breeding for resistance to the disease was not a part of any breeding programme until recently, because no practical methods of screening large numbers of clones for resistance to the disease were available. Selection for disease resistance on the scale required in a sugarcane breeding programme is usually made on the basis of a visually assessed parameter of severity or incidence. No such visual parameters exist for ratoon stunting disease. Yield losses have been consistently detectable statistically only in replicated yield-loss trials combined over locations and years. Thus, yield-loss trials are grossly inadequate as a screening procedure on the scale required in a breeding programme.
The tissue-blot EIA and the EB-EIA techniques (see Diagnostic Methods) have been incorporated into sugarcane breeding programmes in Florida, USA (Davis et al., 1994) and in Australia (Croft et al., 1994), respectively, to permit large-scale screening for resistance to ratoon stunting disease. The number of colonized vascular bundles in stalks is measured by the tissue-blot EIA, and population size of the pathogen in sap extracts is measured by the EB-EIA. Both parameters are measures of the extent of colonization of sugarcane by the pathogen and were found to be highly correlated (Harrison and Davis, 1988). In addition to the extent of colonization, the frequency of infection of sugarcane clones can be determined by either method. These parameters are then used as estimates of disease incidence and severity as might be encountered in commercial sugarcane production. The validity of using the estimates of pathogen colonization as a measure of disease severity is based on their correlations with yield reduction due to ratoon stunting disease. The possible negative influence on this correlation of clonal tolerance to the disease has been discussed (Davis et al., 1988b; Roach and Jackson, 1992).
It was hypothesized that disease control might best be obtained by disregarding the effects of the disease on yields and concentrating on lowering the potential for epidemics by selection of clones that are less susceptible to infection and produce less inoculum when infected (Davis et al., 1994).
The application of ammonium sulfate to sugarcane crops resulted in 22.89% reduction in disease caused by L. xyli subsp. xyli and yield increases of 29.09 and 2.91 t/ha, in cane and white sugar, respectively (Gul and Hassan, 1995).
ReferencesTop of page
Bailey RA, 1977. The systemic distribution and relative occurrence of bacteria in sugarcane varieties affected by ratoon stunting disease. Proceedings of the Annual Congress - South African Sugar Technologists' Association, 51:55-56.
Bailey RA; Bechet GR, 1986. Effect of ratoon stunting disease on the yield and components of yield of sugarcane under rainfed conditions. Proceedings of the sixtieth annual congress of the South African Sugar Technologists' Association Mount Edgecombe, South Africa, 143-147
Bailey RA; Fox PH, 1984. A large-scale diagnostic service for ratoon stunting disease of sugarcane. Proceedings of the Annual Congress - South African Sugar Technologists' Association, 58:204-210.
Bailey RA; Tough SA, 1992. Ratoon stunting disease: survival of Clavibacter xyli subsp. xyli, in field soil and its spread to newly planted sugarcane. Proceedings of the Annual Congress - South African Sugar Technologists' Association, No. 66:75-77; 11 ref.
Benda GTA, 1972. Hot-water treatment for mosaic and ratoon stunting disease control. Sugar Journal, 34:32-39.
Benda GTA, 1978. Increased survival of young seedcane after hot-water treatment for RSD control. Sugar Bulletin, 56(19):7-8, 13-14.
Benda GTA; Ricaud C, 1978. The use of hot-water treatment for sugarcane disease control. Proceedings of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, 16:483-496.
Chung CH; Lin CP; Chen CT, 1994. Development and application of cloned DNA probes for Clavibacter xyli subsp. xyli, the causal agent of sugarcane ratoon stunting. Journal of Phytopathology, 141(3):293-301
Comstock JC; Shine JMJr; Davis MJ; Dean JL, 1996. Relationship between resistance to Clavibacter xyli subsp. xyli colonization in sugarcane and spread of ratoon stunting disease in the field. Plant Disease, 80(6):704-708; 23 ref.
Croft BJ; Greet AD; Leaman TM; Teakle DS, 1994. RSD diagnosis and varietal resistance screening in sugarcane using the EB-EIA technique. Proceedings of the 1994 Conference of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists held at Townsville, Queensland, 26th April to 29th April 1994 [edited by Egan, B. T.] Brisbane, Australia; Watson Ferguson & Company, 143-151
Davis MJ; Dean JL; Harrison NA, 1988. Quantitative variability of Clavibacter xyli subsp. xyli populations in sugarcane cultivars differing in resistance to ratoon stunting disease. Phytopathology, 78(4):462-468
Davis MJ; Dean JL; Miller JD; Shine JMJr, 1994. A method to screen for resistance to ratoon stunting disease of sugarcane. Sugar Cane, No. 6:9-16; 22 ref.
Davis MJ; Gillaspie AGJr; Vidaver AK; Harris RW, 1984. Clavibacter: a new genus containing some phytopathogenic coryneform bacteria, including Clavibacter xyli subsp. xyli sp. nov., subsp. nov. and Clavibacter xyli subsp. cynodontis subsp. nov., pathogens that cause ratoon stunting disease of sugarcane and Bermudagrass stunting disease. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology, 34(2):107-117; [3 fig., 4 tab.]; 51 ref.
Dean JL, 1974. Ratoon stunting disease in relation to shipment of cuttings from Canal Point, Florida. Sugarcane Pathologists' Newsletter, 11/12:7.
Dean JL; Davis MJ, 1990. Losses caused by ratoon stunting disease of sugarcane in Florida. Journal of the American Society of Sugarcane Technologists, 10:66-72.
Egan BT, 1970. RSD in North Queensland. Proceedings of the Queensland Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, 37:221-224.
EPPO, 2014. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm
Evtushenko LI; Dorofeeva LV; Subbotin SA; Cole JR; Tiedje JM, 2000. Leifsonia poae gen. nov., sp. nov., isolated from nematode galls on Poa annua, and reclassification of 'Corynebacterium aquaticum' Leifson 1962 as Leifsonia aquatica (ex Leifson 1962) gen. nov., nom. rev., comb. nov. and Clavibacter xyli Davis et al. 1984 with two subspecies as Leifsonia xyli (Davis et al. 1984) gen. nov., comb. nov. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 50(1):371-380; 47 ref.
Fegan M; Croft BJ; Teakle DS; Hayward AC; Smith GR, 1998. Sensitive and specific detection of Clavibacter xyli subsp. xyli, causal agent of ratoon stunting disease of sugarcane, with a polymerase chain reaction-based assay. Plant Pathology, 47(4):495-504; 40 ref.
Gillaspie AG Jr; Davis MJ, 1992. Ratoon stunting of sugarcane. In: Mukhopadhyay AN, Kamar J, Chaube HS, Singh US, eds. Plant Diseases of International Importance. Diseases of Sugar, Forest, and Plantation Crops, Vol. 4. New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall, 41-61.
Gillaspie AG Jr; Davis RE; Worley JF, 1973. Diagnosis of ratoon stunting disease based on the presence of a specific microorganism. Plant Disease Reporter, 57:987-990.
Gillaspie AG Jr; Teakle DS, 1989. Ratoon stunting disease. In: Ricaud C, Egan BT, Gillaspie AG Jr, Hughes CG, eds. Diseases of Sugarcane - Major Diseases. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, 59-80.
Harrison NA; Davis MJ, 1988. Colonization of vascular tissues by Clavibacter xyli subsp. xyli in stalks of sugarcane cultivars differing in susceptibility to ratoon stunting disease. Phytopathology, 78(6):722-727
Hughes CG, 1974. The economic importance of ratoon stunting disease. In: Dick J, Collingwood DJ, ed. Proceedings of the XV Congress of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, 12-29 June, 1974, Durban, South Africa. Vol. 1. ISSCT. Durban South Africa, 213-217
Hussnain SZ; Afghan S; Haq MI; Mughal SM; Shahazad A; Hussain K; Nawaz K; Pan YB; Jackson P; Batool A; Irfan A, 2011. First report of ratoon stunt of sugarcane caused by Leifsonia xyli subsp. xyli in Pakistan. Plant Disease, 95(12):1581-1582. http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/loi/pdis
IPPC, 2006. IPP Report No. JM-2/1. Rome. Italy: FAO.
Koike H, 1974. Interaction between diseases on sugarcane: sugarcane mosaic and ratoon stunting disease. Proceedings XV Congress, International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, 1974. Durban. South Africa, Vol.1:258-265
Koike H; Gillaspie AG Jr; Benda GTA, 1982. Cane yield response to ratoon stunting disease. International Sugar Journal, 84:131-133.
Liu L-J; Ramirez-Oliveras G; Serapion JL; Gonzalez-Molina CL, 1979. Further developments in the study of the ratoon stunting disease of sugarcane in Puerto Rico. Journal of Agriculture of the University of Puerto Rico, 63(2):146-151
Marcuz FS; Souto ERde; Vieira RA; Marrafon MA; Barboza AAL; Daros E, 2009. Survey of Leifsonia xyli subsp. xyli incidence in sugarcane plantations of the northwest region of Paraná State. (Levantamento da incidência de Leifsonia xyli subsp. xyli em plantios de cana-de-açúcar do noroeste do Paraná.) Ciência e Agrotecnologia, 33(special issue):1935-1939. http://www.scielo.br/pdf/cagro/v33nspe/41.pdf
Mayeux MM; Cochran BJ; Steib JR, 1979. An aerated steam system for controlling ratoon stunting disease. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 22(3):653-656.
Pan YB; Grisham MP; Burner DM; Damann KEJr; Wei Q, 1998. A polymerase chain reaction protocol for the detection of Clavibacter xyli subsp. xyli, the causal bacterium of sugarcane ratoon stunting disease. Plant Disease, 82(3):285-290; 39 ref.
Rossler LA, 1974. The effects of ratoon stunting disease on three sugarcane varieties under different irrigation regimes. In: Dick J, Collingwood DJ, ed. Proceedings of the XV Congress of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, 12-29 June, 1974, Durban, South Africa. Vol. 1. ISSCT. Durban South Africa, 250-257
Shukla US; Ram RS; Tripathi RC, 1974. Effects of moist hot air treatments in controlling GSD and RSD. In: Annual Report of the Indian Institute for Sugarcane Research. Lucknow, India: Indian Institute for Sugarcane Research, 72-74.
Steib RJ; Chilton SJP, 1967. Interrelationship studies of mosaic and ratoon stunting disease in sugarcane in Louisiana. Proceedings of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, 12:1061-1071.
Steib RJ; Farrar LL; Forbes IL; Chilton SJP, 1956. Occurrence of the ratoon stunting disease in Louisiana and its control by use of hot air treatments. Sugar Bulletin, 34(20):302-306.
Steindl DRL, 1961. Ratoon stunting disease. In: Martin JP, Abbott EV, Hughes CG, eds. Sugarcane Diseases of the World, Vol. I. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, 433-459.
Teakle DS; Smith PM; Hayward AC; Steindl DRL, 1975. Diagnosis of r.s.d. by electron microscopy of sugar-cane tissue diffusates. Proceedings of the 42nd Conference, Queensland Society of Sugar Cane Technologists. Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations. Brisbane Australia, 115-116
Teakle DS; Smith PM; Steindl DRL, 1973. Association of a small coryneform bacterium with the ratoon stunting disease of sugarcane. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 24:869-874.
Wu MF; Lin CP; Chen CT, 1990. Isolation, cultivation and monoclonal antibody production of Clavibacter xyli subsp. xyli, the causal agent of sugarcane ratoon stunting disease. Plant Protection Bulletin (Taipei), 32(2):91-99
Distribution MapsTop of page
Unsupported Web Browser:
One or more of the features that are needed to show you the maps functionality are not available in the web browser that you are using.
Please consider upgrading your browser to the latest version or installing a new browser.
More information about modern web browsers can be found at http://browsehappy.com/