Sugarcane mosaic virus (mosaic of abaca)
- 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
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Seedborne Aspects
- Vectors and Intermediate Hosts
- 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
- Sugarcane mosaic virus
Preferred Common Name
- mosaic of abaca
Other Scientific Names
- abaca mosaic potyvirus
- Abaca mosaic virus
- European maize dwarf virus
- grass mosaic virus
- maize dwarf mosaic potyvirus strain B
- maize dwarf mosaic virus strain B
- sorghum concentric ringspot potyvirus
- sorghum red stripe virus
- sugarcane mosaic potyvirus
Local Common Names
- Germany: Zuckerrohr Mosaikvirus
- SCMV00 (Sugarcane mosaic potyvirus)
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Virus
- Unknown: "Positive sense ssRNA viruses"
- Unknown: "RNA viruses"
- Family: Potyviridae
- Genus: Potyvirus
- Species: Sugarcane mosaic virus
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page This virus was described from sugarcane by Brandes (1919). Strains naturally infecting certain other hosts are also known as abaca mosaic potyvirus (Eloja and Tinsley, 1963) and as maize dwarf mosaic potyvirus strain B (Mackenzie et al., 1966; Louie and Knoke, 1975).
Until recently, most aphid-borne potyviruses infecting sugarcane and other members of the Poaceae were assumed to be either sugarcane mosaic virus or maize dwarf mosaic virus. However, new criteria for speciation of these members of the Potyviridae have been proposed (Shukla et al., 1989; Shukla et al., 1992; Shukla and Ward, 1994): the amino-acid sequence homology of their coat proteins, and serological relationships with antisera derived from epitopes in the amino terminus rather than the core region of the coat protein. Using these criteria, virus isolates previously included as strains of sugarcane mosaic virus or maize dwarf mosaic virus have been placed in four distinct viruses: sugarcane mosaic virus itself (USA strains A, B, D and E, Australian strains SC, BC and Sabi, and USA maize dwarf mosaic strain B); Johnsongrass mosaic virus (Australian sugarcane mosaic virus strain JG, USA maize dwarf mosaic strains O and Kansas 1; Shukla and Teakle, 1989; McKern et al., 1990; note that Johnsongrass is Sorghum halepense); maize dwarf mosaic virus (USA strains A, D, E and F; Ford et al., 1989); and sorghum mosaic virus (USA sugarcane mosaic virus strains H, I and M; Shukla et al., 1989).
For further information, see Taxonomy section of data sheet on maize dwarf mosaic potyvirus.
DescriptionTop of page Particles are flexuous filaments of about 750 x 13 nm (Teakle et al., 1989). The coat protein comprises a single polypeptide species of Mr 35,000 and 328 amino-acid residues (Frenkel et al., 1991). Partial amino-acid sequences for coat protein of the sugarcane, Queensland blue couch grass and Sabi grass strains are given by Shukla et al. (1987).
The nucleic acid is a single ssRNA species of ca Mr 3,400,000, which comprises ca 5% of the weight of the particle (Berger et al., 1988; Frenkel et al., 1991).
DistributionTop of page SCMV is present in most of the major sugarcane-producing countries of the world. Exceptions are Mozambique and Guyana (Koike and Gillaspie, 1989), Mauritius (Ricaud, 1980) and possibly Madeira (ISSCT, 1989).
Since the recent realization that sorghum mosaic virus (previously called sugarcane mosaic virus strains H, I and M) as well as SCMV can cause mosaic of sugarcane, the identity of potyviruses in sugarcane has been in doubt in some countries. On the basis of the current taxonomic criteria, all isolates of potyviruses infecting sugarcane in Australia have been found to be sugarcane mosaic virus. However, in Louisiana, USA, most recent isolates are sorghum mosaic virus (previously sugarcane mosaic virus strains H, I and M; Grisham, 1994). Sorghum mosaic virus (SCMV-H) is also known to occur in Japan (Gillaspie and Mock, 1979) and India (Kondaiah and Nayudu, 1984). The viruses infecting sugarcane in many other countries is unclear.
In some countries, some potyviruses that were previously called SCMV and that infect grasses are now classed as sorghum mosaic, Johnsongrass mosaic or maize dwarf mosaic viruses. For example, SCMV-johnsongrass strain in Australia is now called Johnsongrass mosaic virus (Shukla and Teakle, 1989). In Japan, a SCMV resembling the A strain occurs in Paspalum conjugatum and can infect some sugarcane varieties on inoculation (Ohtsu and Gomi, 1985).
In Australia, SCMV is localized in Queensland and unrecorded in other states; it has not been seen for several years in New South Wales, but could still be present there (DS Teakle, University of Queensland, Australia, personal communication, 1996).
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||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Cambodia||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|China||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|-Jiangxi||Present||Jiang et al., 2008|
|-Nei Menggu||Present||EPPO, 2014|
|-Shandong||Present||EPPO, 2014; Tang et al., 2016|
|-Yunnan||Present||Wang et al., 2010|
|-Andaman and Nicobar Islands||Present||EPPO, 2014|
|-Andhra Pradesh||Present||Gopal et al., 1991|
|-Bihar||Present||Rao et al., 2004|
|-Gujarat||Present||Rao et al., 2004|
|-Haryana||Present||Rao et al., 2003|
|-Karnataka||Present||Srinivasachary, et al., 2002|
|-Maharashtra||Present||Rao et al., 2003|
|-Tamil Nadu||Present||Singh, 1976|
|-Uttar Pradesh||Present||Rao et al., 2004|
|-Uttarakhand||Present||Singh et al., 2002|
|-Irian Jaya||Present||EPPO, 2014|
|-Sulawesi||Present||Wakman et al., 2001|
|Iran||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Japan||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|-Peninsular Malaysia||Present||EPPO, 2014|
|Myanmar||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Nepal||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Pakistan||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Philippines||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Sri Lanka||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Taiwan||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Thailand||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Turkey||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Angola||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Cameroon||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Cape Verde||Present||ISSCT, 1989|
|Congo Democratic Republic||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Côte d'Ivoire||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Egypt||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Ethiopia||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Ghana||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Kenya||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Madagascar||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Malawi||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Morocco||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Nigeria||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Réunion||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Sierra Leone||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|South Africa||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Tanzania||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Uganda||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Zambia||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Zimbabwe||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Mexico||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|USA||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|-Florida||Present||Comstock et al., 2000; Baker et al., 2010; Harmon et al., 2015|
|-Florida||Present||Comstock et al., 2000; Baker et al., 2010; Harmon et al., 2015|
Central America and Caribbean
|Antigua and Barbuda||Present||EPPO, 2014|
|Barbados||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Belize||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Costa Rica||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Cuba||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Dominican Republic||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|El Salvador||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Guadeloupe||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Guatemala||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Haiti||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Honduras||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Jamaica||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Martinique||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Nicaragua||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Panama||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Puerto Rico||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Saint Kitts and Nevis||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Saint Vincent and the Grenadines||Present||EPPO, 2014|
|Trinidad and Tobago||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|United States Virgin Islands||Present||EPPO, 2014|
|Argentina||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Bolivia||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Brazil||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|-Parana||Present||Barboza et al., 2007|
|-Sao Paulo||Present||Gonçalves et al., 2007|
|Colombia||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|French Guiana||Present||CPPC; EPPO, 2014|
|Paraguay||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Peru||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Suriname||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Venezuela||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Bulgaria||Absent, unreliable record||EPPO, 2014|
|Czech Republic||Present||Pokorny and Porubova, 2000; EPPO, 2014|
|Czechoslovakia (former)||Present||EPPO, 2014|
|Germany||Present||Fuchs et al., 1990; Huth, 1994|
|Greece||Present||Panagiotou and Panayotou, 1981|
|Hungary||Present||Kovacs et al., 1994; EPPO, 2014|
|Portugal||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|Spain||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Australia||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014|
|-New South Wales||Present||EPPO, 2014|
|Fiji||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
|Papua New Guinea||Present||ISSCT, 1989; EPPO, 2014|
Risk of IntroductionTop of page PHYTOSANITARY RISK
Risk Criteria Category
Economic Importance Moderate
Seedborne Incidence Low
Seed Transmitted Yes
Seed Treatment None
Overall Risk Low
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page Cross-inoculation tests show that SCMV usually infects only various members of the Poaceae, although the Sabi strain can cause a latent infection of Phaseolus vulgaris (Teakle and Grylls, 1973). Useful test plants include some lines of Sorghum bicolor and Zea mays. However, some plants shown to be susceptible in glasshouse tests are rarely, if ever, infected in nature.
In Queensland, Australia, Brachiaria piligera is the only known natural host of the sugarcane-infecting strain SC, apart from sugarcane itself (Srisink et al., 1993). In contrast, the Sabi grass strain (which doesn't infect sugarcane) commonly infects Sabi grass (Urochloa mosambicensis) and sometimes wild sorghum (Sorghum verticilliflorum) (Srisink et al., 1993), pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) (Karan et al., 1992), Dinebra retroflexa and Eragrostis cilianensis (Persley and Greber, 1977). Similarly, the Queensland blue couch grass strain (which also doesn't infect sugarcane, but does infect maize) has a number of natural grass hosts apart from the perennial host Digitaria didactyla after which it is named (Teakle and Grylls, 1973; Persley and Greber, 1977). The SCMV strain formerly known as maize dwarf mosaic strain B infects maize and may infect other wild Poaceae.
Thus, in Australia and possibly other countries, sugarcane is the primary host of most sugarcane-infecting strains. Other crop and wild species of the Poaceae are known or suspected secondary hosts.
Host Plants and Other Plants AffectedTop of page
|Digitaria didactyla||Poaceae||Wild host|
|Eleusine coracana (finger millet)||Poaceae||Wild host|
|Maranta leuconeura (Banded arrowroot)||Marantaceae||Wild host|
|Paspalum conjugatum (sour paspalum)||Poaceae||Wild host|
|Poaceae (grasses)||Poaceae||Wild host|
|Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)||Poaceae||Main|
|Sorghum bicolor (sorghum)||Poaceae||Other|
|Sorghum halepense (Johnson grass)||Poaceae||Wild host|
|Stenotaphrum secundatum (buffalo grass)||Poaceae||Other|
|Urochloa mosambicensis||Wild host|
|Zea mays (maize)||Poaceae||Main|
|Zea mays subsp. mays (sweetcorn)||Poaceae||Main|
Growth StagesTop of page Seedling stage, Vegetative growing stage
SymptomsTop of page SCMV causes systemic infection of the sugarcane plant: the whole plant, including roots, contains virus. However, the symptoms (mosaic and/or necrosis) are observed on the leaves and sometimes the stems. Sometimes the whole plant is stunted.
In Saccharum spp., Sorghum bicolor, Zea mays and various grasses, systemic mosaic symptoms may be produced. The classical symptoms are contrasting shades of green on a background of paler green to yellow chlorotic areas. Sometimes yellow stripes and/or necrosis occur. The particular symptoms depend on the virus strain, the host cultivar and the environmental conditions, particularly temperature.
List of Symptoms/SignsTop of page
|Leaves / abnormal colours|
|Leaves / abnormal forms|
|Leaves / abnormal patterns|
|Leaves / necrotic areas|
|Stems / discoloration of bark|
|Stems / stunting or rosetting|
|Whole plant / dwarfing|
Biology and EcologyTop of page
SCMV is transmitted by aphid vectors in the non-persistent manner. Aphid species involved in natural spread in Australia may be Rhopalosiphum maidis, Aphis gossypii and Myzus persicae (Noone et al., 1994); R. maidis and Hysteroneura setariae are involved in Louisiana, USA (Abbott, 1961); and R. maidis and R. padi are involved in South Africa (Anon., 1986). In Australia, Melanaphis sacchari, the sugarcane aphid, and H. setariae, a grass aphid, were non-vectors, whereas A. gossypii and M. persicae, which have dicotyledonous hosts, were able to transmit SCMV. Sugarcane is more susceptible to infection if in an early stage of growth (Srisink et al., 1994).
Numbers of each aphid species vary according to the season: in Louisiana, SCMV is spread by R. maidis in winter and early spring, but in all seasons by H. setariae (Abbott, 1961). In South Africa, SCMV is transmitted to young crops in summer by R. maidis and R. padi (Anon., 1986). In Japan, seasonal SCMV infection peaks were related to the peak vector populations (Setokuchi and Muta, 1993).
The rate of mosaic spread in a field of sugarcane depends on many factors (Abbott, 1961), including: the resistance of the sugarcane variety to the disease; the strain of the virus present; the number and distribution of infection foci; numbers, kinds and activity of aphid vectors present; and weather and other environmental conditions influencing the susceptibility of the plants or activity of the aphid vectors.
Transmission of SCMV in vegetative planting material is an additional important method of spreading the virus. Mature sugarcane plants with mild symptoms may be used as planting material, and thus the virus may be distributed widely (Srisink et al., 1993).
Tolerant cultivars of sugarcane sometimes lose mosaic symptoms as the plants mature; the virus may be carried latently or may even be lost completely. When breeding for resistance in Brazil, recovery from symptoms in seedlings was 27% for plant cane and 39% for the first ratoon (Matsuoka et al., 1985). In Puerto Rico, canes supposedly recovering from infection with either SCMV-A or B were often able to be reinfected by the same virus strain (Liu, 1972).
With maize, crops are grown from seed. Since there is little seed transmission of SCMV, seedlings emerge healthy. Aphids introduce SCMV or other potyviruses from older infected crops of maize or other hosts. Often perennial grass hosts of SCMV maintain the virus over periods of cold or drought. Grass hosts thought to overwinter the virus include Tripsacum dactyloides for SCMV-MB in the USA (Seifers et al., 1993) and Digitaria didactyla for SCMV-BC in Australia (Teakle and Grylls, 1973).
Means of Movement and DispersalTop of page
SCMV is transmitted by aphid vectors in the non-persistent manner. Aphids introduce SCMV or other potyviruses from older infected crops of maize or other hosts.
Seedborne AspectsTop of page
SCMV has not been reported in sugarcane seed or to be transported by sugarcane seed. However, seed cane (stalk pieces or setts), used to propagate sugarcane vegetatively, commonly transmits SCMV and other viruses from one crop to the next.
With maize, SCMV-MB (Maize dwarf mosaic virus strain B) has been detected in the pericarp, but rarely in the endosperm or embryo of seeds at 21 days after pollination. In mature seeds, it was occasionally detected in the pericarp and endosperm, but not in the embryo (Mikel et al., 1984).
The pattern of SCMV prevalence in maize in France in 2007 led Marie-Jeanne et al. (2011) to suggest that SCMV may be seedborne in maize. Li et al. (2007) report that SCMV can enter maize seeds through infected pollen as well as from an infected female plant.
Effect on Seed Quality
In Pakistan, sugarcane seed cane (stalk pieces or setts) free from infection with an SCMV-like virus gave 5-11% more germination and 1.34 more tillers per plant than infected setts (Ahmad et al., 1991).
There have been no reports of seed transmission of SCMV in sugarcane and most other hosts. However, a low level of seed transmission of isolates resembling SCMV-A was reported in maize (Baudin, 1977; Fuchs et al., 1990). Larger maize seeds are more likely to transmit the virus than smaller seeds (Wang and Zhou, 2011). In addition, the majority of infected seedlings are derived from seeds from the middle or mid-base regions of ears. SCMV was also transmitted to seedlings grown in sterilized soil from infected seeds harvested from plants inoculated with MDMV strains A and B (Mikel et al., 1984).
The effects of sorghum hybrids and imidacloprid seed treatment on infestations by the vectors Rhopalosiphum maidis and Schizaphis graminum, and on the spread of MDMV-B [SCMV] have been evaluated in Kansas, USA. Imidacloprid controlled R. maidis for 3-4 weeks but not for 7 weeks after planting and reduced the spread of SCMV in a S. graminum-susceptible hybrid (Northrup King S9750) in one year but not in another. Differences among hybrids in the incidence of SCMV did not appear to be related to the hybrids' reaction to S. graminum. However, one S. graminum-resistant hybrid (Dekalb DK-39Y) appeared to be highly resistant to natural infection by SCMV, even though it was susceptible when inoculated mechanically (Harvey et al., 1996).
Treatment of Sorghum bicolor seeds with acibenzolar-S-methyl, salicylic acid or P. fluorescens all induced systemic resistance in S. bicolor against SCMV isolates from sugarcane (Balamuralikrishnan et al., 2005).
Seed Health Tests
ELISA successfully detected SCMV in seed parts (Mikel et al., 1984).
Vectors and Intermediate HostsTop of page
|Aphis gossypii||Noone et al., 1994.||Insect||Australia|
|Hysteroneura setariae||Kennedy et al., 1962.||Insect|
|Macrosiphum euphorbiae||Tahira et al., 2011.||Insect||Pakistan|
|Metopolophium dirhodum||Angeles et al., 2003.||Insect|
|Myzus persicae||Noone et al., 1994.||Insect||Australia|
|Rhopalosiphum maidis||Kennedy et al., 1962.||Insect|
|Rhopalosiphum padi||Anon, 1986.||Insect||South Africa|
|Schizaphis graminum||Kennedy et al., 1962.||Insect|
|Sitobion avenae||Tahira et al., 2011.||Insect||Pakistan|
|Uroleucon ambrosiae||Kennedy et al., 1962.||Insect|
ImpactTop of page Introduction
In the past, SCMV has caused alarming losses in various sugarcane-growing regions, including Hawaii, Egypt, Natal (South Africa), Argentina, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Australia and the USA (Koike and Gillaspie, 1989). Epidemics have been followed by replacement of susceptible noble-type canes by hybrid canes with tolerance or, better still, resistance. The evolution of new strains of SCMV has required a continuing breeding programme to prevent heavy losses.
Losses caused by SCMV are mainly (1) a reduced yield of the crop, (2) the need to include mosaic resistance when breeding new cultivars, and (3) the slowing of the interchange of cultivars between countries because of quarantine concerns over the introduction of new strains of SCMV.
Crop losses caused by SCMV depend on many factors, including the susceptibility of the cultivars to the prevailing strains of SCMV, the incidence of infection, the prevailing environmental conditions, the stage of growth when infection occurs, and interaction with other agents affecting the crop. Crop losses can vary from negligible to severe. Some recent instances of heavy losses in sugarcane crops due to mosaic outbreaks are as follows.
In the 1980s, losses on some farms in the Isis district of Queensland, Australia, were estimated to be about 50% (Jones, 1987). In some commercial plantings of cv. Q95 from an infected source, the infected plants had fewer tillers and were less vigorous than apparently healthy plants nearby (Ryan and Jones, 1986).
In Guatemala in 1974-1976, many stunted stools of mosaic-affected cv. Q83 were responsible for lack of uniformity in fields near Santa Lucia. The cane tonnage in these fields was seriously reduced (Fors, 1978).
Estimations of Potential Losses in Experiments
In Natal, South Africa, plots of sugarcane cv. NCo376 (highly susceptible) and N12 (moderately resistant) were established with either infected or healthy cane. The plots were harvested regularly and tested serologically for SCMV to the 6th ratoon. There was a decline in the number of shoots showing mosaic symptoms in both cultivars during the experiment. However, mean yield reductions were 22% for infected NCo376 and 16% for N12 compared with yields of initially healthy cane (Cronje et al., 1994).
In Brazil, plots in two locations were planted with 0, 25, 50 and 100% initial SCMV infection. Virus spread was noticeable for cv. CB46/47, but negligible for cv. IAC50/134. For CB46/47 yield losses between initially healthy and 25% infected plots were 27% and 19% in the two locations; with 100% infection, yield reduction was 71% in both areas. For IAC50/134 the only significant difference in yield was between 0 and 100% infection, an 18% reduction in diseased plots in both areas (Matsuoka and Costa, 1974).
In Java, Indonesia, field trials with 0 and 100% SCMV-infected seed cane gave sugar yield reductions of 9.3% for POJ3016 and 11.1% for POJ3067 associated with the disease (Kuntohartono and Legowo, 1970).
In Spain, when healthy sugarcane was planted between rows infected by SCMV, the cultivars CO62/175 and NA56/79 were sufficiently resistant for commercial production, but losses of 0.4-0.5 t/ha were found for every 1% infection between the 2nd and 4th cutting (Olalla-Mercade et al., 1984a).
In Pakistan, mosaic-free seed cane gave a significantly higher yield of cane (48.5 t/ha) than mosaic-infected seed cane (44.5 t/ha)(Ahmad et al., 1991).
In East Africa, 10 susceptible maize hybrids had yield losses of 18-46% when inoculated with SCMV in the seedling stage (Louie and Darrah, 1980).
In Germany, SCMV was more prevalent than MDMV, but had a similar effect on growth and yield of maize. Early infection reduced plant height by 25%, total weight by 38% and ear weight by 27% (Fuchs et al., 1990).
SCMV and related potyviruses may occur in disease complexes with other plant pathogens; either additive or synergistic effects may occur.
In Louisiana, USA, losses in sugarcane caused by sorghum mosaic virus (formerly called SCMV-H) and ratoon stunting disease (RSD, caused by the bacterium Clavibacter xyli) were additive in cv. CP67-412, but synergistic (greater than the sum of each disease separately) in CP65-357 (Koike, 1982). In Spain, RSD symptoms were associated with the presence of SCMV, and damage by RSD was greatest in fields with clear mosaic symptoms (Olalla-Mercade et al., 1984b).
In Thailand, inoculation of the downy mildew-susceptible maize cv. Guatemala with an SCMV-like virus increased susceptibility to Sclerospora sorghi only slightly, whereas with the resistant Suwan 1 maize cv., the virus increased susceptibility from 27-61% (Sutabutra et al., 1976).
DiagnosisTop of page
Sap or aphid inoculation to Saccharum spp., Sorghum bicolor cultivars Atlas and Rio and certain other lines, or Zea mays will result in mosaic or necrotic diseases. Electron microscope examination of sap extracts of infected plants will reveal typical potyvirus particles which will be decorated by SCMV-specific antisera.
Other serological tests which can be done with SCMV-specific antisera are precipitin tests which give flagellar-type reactions with intact concentrated virus preparations, immunodiffusion tests (Bond and Pirone, 1971), ELISA and electro-blot immunoassay. Monoclonal antibodies to the maize dwarf mosaic virus-B strain of SCMV have been produced (Hill et al., 1984).
The four potyviruses infecting the Poaceae can be distinguished by high-performance liquid chromatography of coat protein digests (Shukla et al., 1988).
The inclusion morphology of SCMV is distinctive, comprising pinwheels, scrolls and laminated aggregates (Subdivision III), whereas Johnsongrass mosaic, maize dwarf mosaic and sorghum mosaic viruses induce only pinwheels and scrolls (Subdivision I) (Lesemann et al., 1992).
A polymerase chain reaction (PCR) molecular diagnostic method is sensitive and specific (Smith and Van de Velde, 1994).
SCMV has been detected in maize seeds by ELISA, electron microscopy, biological assay and tissue culture (Li et al., 2004) . Several RT-PCR and IC-RT-PCR tests have been developed for the molecular diagnosis of SCMV (Rott et al., 2008).
Detection and InspectionTop of page The younger expanding leaves should be inspected for mosaic symptoms. Because symptoms may be mild, sap extracts of younger expanded leaves should be inoculated to diagnostic hosts and, concurrently, tested serologically or by RNA probes (see Diagnostic Methods). Diagnostic tests can be specific to either SCMV or the potyvirus genus.
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page SCMV generally resembles other potyviruses that infect the Poaceae (namely sorghum mosaic, Johnsongrass and maize dwarf mosaic viruses) in the symptoms induced, particle morphology and the presence in cells of cylindrical proteinaceous pinwheel inclusion bodies. However, these different viruses can be distinguished on the basis of symptoms in differential hosts, serological relationships and nucleic acid homology (Tosic et al., 1990; Shukla and Ward, 1994).
Prevention and ControlTop of page Control of SCMV
Attempts to eradicate SCMV by roguing infected plants have rarely been successful (Abbott, 1961; Koike and Gillaspie, 1989). Roguing by digging out or applying herbicides may be useful in maintaining mosaic-free seed plots of cane if the level of infection is lower than 5% (Koike and Gillaspie, 1989). The use of mosaic-free seed cane is an effective control measure where inoculum pressures are not intense. Thermotherapy of planting material can result in some plants that are free of SCMV (Mirza et al., 1986; Benda et al., 1989).
Mosaic in sugarcane has long been controlled by the development and use of resistant clones. Breeding programmes may be designed to produce resistant clones which can be tested against the prevalent virus strains (Koike and Gillaspie, 1989).
Control of Aphid Vectors
A close relationship exists between ants and aphid vectors of SCMV (Charpentier, 1963). Ants can carry the aphids from one sugarcane plant to another, from grass to cane and from cane to grass. Presumably, ants also decrease attacks on aphids by parasitoids and predators, which would otherwise exert better control.
Because aphids which transmit SCMV come from outside as well as inside the sugarcane crop, care should be given to reduce the build up of the vector species in the vicinity. Crops of maize and sorghum are good hosts of vectors such as R. maidis, and should not be grown near infected sugarcane crops. Altering the times of planting and harvesting so that they do not coincide with high aphid vector populations can reduce losses (Bailey and Fox, 1980).
The use of insecticides failed to prevent aphid vectors from spreading SCMV (Charpentier, 1956).
ReferencesTop of page
Abbott EV, 1961. Mosaic. In: Martin JP, Abbott EV, Hughes CG, eds. Sugar-Cane Diseases of the World, Vol. 1. Amsterdam, Holland: Elsevier, 407-430.
Angeles Achón M; Sobrepere M; Minguell R, 2003. Molecular and biological properties of a Sugarcane mosaic potyvirus isolate from Spain. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenkrankheiten und Pflanzenschutz, 110(4):324-331.
Anon, 1986. Research on mosaic at the experiment station. South African Sugar Journal, 70:9-11.
Bailey RA; Fox PH, 1980. The susceptibility of varieties of mosaic and the effect of planting date on mosaic incidence in South Africa. Proceedings of the South African Sugar Technology Association, 54:161-167.
Baker CA; Wilber LJ; Jones L, 2010. A new host diagnosed with a strain of Sugarcane mosaic virus in Florida: red-veined prayer plant (Maranta leuconeura erythroneura). Plant Disease, 94(3):378-379. http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/loi/pdis
Balamuralikrishnan M; Sabitha Doraisamy; Ganapathy T; Viswanathan R, 2005. Effects of biotic and abiotic agents on Sugarcane mosaic virus titre, oxidative enzymes and phenolics in Sorghum bicolor. Acta Phytopathologica et Entomologica Hungarica, 40(1/2):9-22. HTTP://www.akkrt.hu/kerdesek/reszletes_hjour.jsp?id=038
Barboza AAL; Silva Júnior HM; Souto ER; Silva CM; Marcuz FS; Vieira RA, 2007. Detection of Sugarcane mosaic virus in Paraná state and virus elimination by tissue culture. (Detecção do Sugarcane mosaic virus no Paraná e limpeza somaclonal por cultura de tecidos.) Fitopatologia Brasileira, 32(4):345-348. http://www.scielo.br/pdf/fb/v32n4/10.pdf
Berger PH; Luciano CS; Thornbury DW; Brenner HI; Hill JH; Zeyen RJ, 1988. Properties and in vitro translation of maize dwarf mosaic virus RNA. Phytopathology, 78:1537.
Bond WP; Pirone TP, 1971. Purification and properties of sugarcane mosaic virus strains. Phytopathologische Zeitschrift, 71:56-65.
Brandes EW, 1919. The mosaic disease of sugarcane and other grasses. Technical Bulletin of the U.S. Department of Agriculture No. 829.
Charpentier LJ, 1956. Systemic insecticide studies for control of vectors and sugarcane mosaic in Louisiana. Journal of Economic Entomology, 49:413-414.
Charpentier LJ, 1963. Sugarcane mosaic-vector studies in Louisiana. Proceedings of the American Society of Sugar Cane Technology, 78:247-259.
Cheong EJ; Mock R; Li RH, 2012. Elimination of five viruses from sugarcane using in vitro culture of axillary buds and apical meristems. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture, 109(3):439-445. http://springerlink.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=journal&issn=0167-6857
CronjT CPR; BTchet GR; Bailey RA, 1994. Symptom expression of sugarcane mosaic virus (SCMV) and associated effects on sugarcane yield. Proceedings of the Annual Congress - South African Sugar Technologists' Association, No. 68:8-11; 10 ref.
Deng TC, 1987. Comparative studies on pathogenicity, serology and occurrence of maize dwarf mosaic virus B strain and sugarcane mosaic virus strains in Taiwan. Plant Protection Bulletin, Taiwan, 29(2):123-133
Eloja AL; Tinsley TW, 1963. Abaca mosaic virus and its relationship to sugar-cane mosaic. Annals of Applied Biology, 51:253-258.
EPPO, 2014. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm
Ford RE; Tosic M; Shukla DD, 1989. Maize dwarf mosaic virus. AAB Descriptions of Plant Viruses No. 341. Wellesbourne, UK: Association of Applied Biology, 5.
Frenkel MJ; Jilka JM; McKern NM; Strike PM; Clark JM Jr; Shukla DD; Ward CW, 1991. Unexpected sequence diversity in the amino-terminal ends of the coat proteins of strains of sugarcane mosaic virus. Journal of General Virology, 72(2):237-242
Gonçalves MC; Maia Ide G; Galleti SR; Fantin GM, 2007. Mixed infection by Sugarcane mosaic virus and Maize rayado fino virus causing breaking yields in maize in São Paulo state. (Infecção mista pelo Sugarcane mosaic virus e Maize rayado fino virus provoca danos na cultura do milho no estado de São Paulo.) Summa Phytopathologica, 33(4):348-352. http://www.scielo.br/pdf/sp/v33n4/a05v33n4.pdf
Harmon PF; Alcalá-Briseño RI; Polston JE, 2015. Severe symptoms of mosaic and necrosis in cv. Floratam St. Augustinegrass associated with Sugarcane mosaic virus in neighborhoods of St. Petersburg, FL. Plant Disease, 99(4):557. http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/loi/pdis
Harvey TL; Seifers DL; Kofoid KD, 1996. Effect of sorghum hybrid and imidacloprid seed treatment on infestations by corn leaf aphid and greenbug (Homoptera: Aphididae) and the spread of sugarcane mosaic virus strain MDMV-B. Journal of Agricultural Entomology, 13(1):9-15; 21 ref.
ISSCT, 1989. Sugarcane diseases and their world distribution. In: Ricaud C, Egan BT, Gillaspie AG Jr, Hughes CG, eds. Diseases of Sugarcane. New York, USA: Elsevier, 341-376.
Jiang JunXi; Qian YaJuan; Xie Yan; Que HaiYong; Luo YouJiang; Xiang MiaoLian, 2008. Sequencing and analysis of coat protein gene of sugarcane mosaic virus-NCH isolate. Acta Agriculturae Universitatis Jiangxiensis, 30(3):464-467. http://xuebao.jxau.edu.cn
Jones C, 1987. Mosaic disease at Isis. BSES Bulletin, 20:15-16.
Karan M; Noone DF; Teakle DS; Hacker JB, 1992. Susceptibility of pearl millet accessions and cultivars to Johnsongrass mosaic and sugarcane mosaic viruses in Queensland. Australasian Plant Pathology, 21(3):128-130
Koike H; Gillaspie AG Jr, 1989. Mosaic. In: Ricaud C, Egan BT, Gillaspie AG Jr, Hughes CG, eds. Diseases of Sugarcane. New York, USA: Elsevier, 301-322.
Kovacs G; Gaborjanyi R; Duong HN; Vasdinyei R, 1994. Susceptibility of maize inbred lines and hybrids to potyviruses under greenhouse and field conditions. Cereal Research Communications, 22(4):347-351
Kuntohartono T; Legowo L, 1970. Economic importance of mosaic disease on cane sugar production in Indonesia. Madjalah Perusahaan Gula, 6:1-2.
Lesemann D-E; Shukla DD; Tosic M; Huth W, 1992. Differentiation of the four viruses of the sugarcane mosaic virus complex based on cytopathology. In: Barnett OW, ed. Potyvirus Taxonomy. Archives of Virology, Supplementum 5. Wien & New York: Springer, 353-361.
Li L; Wang XF; Zhou GH, 2011. Effects of seed quality on the proportion of seed transmission for Sugarcane mosaic virus in maize. Cereal Research Communications, 39(2):257-266. http://www.akademiai.com/content/6x4xu74438g864k7/fulltext.pdf
Mackenzie DR; Wernham CC; Ford RE, 1966. Differences in maize dwarf mosaic virus isolates of the northeast United States. Plant Disease Reporter, 50:814-818.
Matsuoka S; Costa AS, 1974. Losses caused by sugarcane mosaic virus in plots with different initial levels of infection in the plant material. 1. Losses in plant cane. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira, Agronomia, 9(10):89-92
Matsuoka S; Sordi RA; Dalpiccolo CR; Tokeshi H, 1985. The interference of the phenomenon of recovery in the screening of seedlings for resistance to sugarcane mosaic virus. Summa Phytopathologica, 11(3/4):152-163
McKern NM; Whittaker LA; Strike PM; Ford RE; Jensen SG; Shukla DD, 1990. Coat protein properties indicate that maize dwarf mosaic virus-KS1 is a strain of Johnsongrass mosaic virus. Phytopathology, 80(10):907-912
Noone DF; Srinsk S; Teakle DS; Allsopp PG; Taylor PWJ, 1994. Ability to transmit sugarcane mosaic virus and seasonal phenology of some aphid species (Hemiptera: Aphididae) in the Isis and Bundaberg districts of Queensland. Journal of the Australian Entomological Society, 33(1):27-30
Olalla Mercade L; Mira Belda A; Lopez Encina C, 1984. Introduction to the study of sugarcane ratoon stunting disease in the peninsular sugarcane growing region of Spain. Comunicaciones INIA, Proteccion Vegetal, No.21:23 pp.
Panagiotou PH; Panayotou PC, 1981. Sugarcane mosaic virus, a new virus disease of maize in Greece. Georgike Ereuna, 5:367-373.
Persley DM; Greber RS, 1977. Additional field hosts of sugarcane mosaic virus in Queensland. APPS Newsletter, 6(4):54
Pokorny R; Porubovß M, 2000. The occurrence of viral pathogens of the genus Potyvirus on maize (Zea mays L.) in the Czech Republic. Zeitschrift fu^umlaut~r Pflanzenkrankheiten und Pflanzenschutz, 107(3):329-336; 22 ref.
Rao GP; Maneesha Singh; Gaur RK; Jain RK, 2004. Antigenic and biological diversity among sugarcane mosaic isolates from different geographical regions in India. Indian Journal of Biotechnology, 3(4):538-541.
Rott P; Fernandez E; Girard JC, 2008. Mosaic diseases in sugarcane. In: Characterization, diagnosis & management of plant viruses. Volume 1: industrial crops [ed. by Rao, G. P.\Khurana, S. M. P.\Lenardon, S. L.]. Houston, USA: Studium Press LLC, 99-110.
Setokuchi O; Muta T, 1993. Ecology of aphids on sugarcane III. Relationship between alighting of aphid vectors of sugarcane mosaic virus and infecting in fields. Japanese Journal of Applied Entomology and Zoology, 37(1):11-16
Shepherd RJ; Holdeman QL, 1965. Seed transmission of the Johnsongrass strain of the sugarcane mosaic virus of corn. Plant Disease Reporter, 49:468-469.
Shukla DD; Frenkel MJ; McKern NM; Ward CW; Jilka J; Tosic M; Ford RE, 1992. Present status of the sugarcane mosaic subgroup of potyviruses. Archives of Virology Vienna, Austria; Springer-Verlag/Wien, Supplementum 5:363-373
Shukla DD; Gough KH; Ward CW, 1987. Coat protein of potyviruses. 3. Comparison of amino acid sequences of the coat proteins of four Australian strains of sugarcane mosaic virus. Archives of Virology, 96(1-2):59-74
Shukla DD; McKern NM; Gough KH; Tracy SL; Letho SG, 1988. Differentiation of potyviruses and their strains by high performance liquid chromatographic peptide profiling of coat proteins. Journal of General Virology, 69(3):493-502
Shukla DD; Teakle DS, 1989. Johnsongrass mosaic virus. AAB Descriptions of Plant Viruses No. 340. Wellesbourne, UK: Association of Applied Biology, 5.
Shukla DD; Tosic M; Jilka J; Ford RE; Toler RW; Langham MAC, 1989. Taxonomy of potyviruses infecting maize, sorghum, and sugarcane in Australia and the United States as determined by reactivities of polyclonal antibodies directed towards virus-specific N-termini of coat proteins. Phytopathology, 79(2):223-229
Shukla DD; Ward CW, 1994. Recent developments in the identification and classification of viruses comprising the sugarcane mosaic subgroup of potyviruses. In: Rao GP, Gillaspie AG Jr, Upadhyaya PP, Bergamin A, Agnihotri VP, Chen CT, eds. Current Trends in Sugarcane Pathology. Delhi, India: International Books and Periodicals Supply Service, 185-198.
Singh AP; Gaur RK; Singh AK, 2002. Distribution and identification of sugarcane mosaic and yellow leaf virus in Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal and Bihar states of India. Journal of Living World, 9(2):1-8.
Srisink S; Noone DF; Teakle DS; Ryan CC, 1993. Brachiaria piligera and Sorghum verticilliflorum are natural hosts of two different strains of sugarcane mosaic virus in Australia. Australasian Plant Pathology, 22(3):94-97
Sutabutra T; Kornkamhpng P; Sirithorn P; Kositratana W, 1976. A mosaic virus disease of maize in Thailand. In: Williams LE, Gordon DT, Nault LR, ed. Proceedings, International maize virus disease colloquium and workshop. Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center. Wooster USA, 78-82
Tahira Yasmin; Shomaila Iqbal; Asad Farooq; Muhammad Zubair; Abid Riaz, 2011. Prevalence, distribution and incidence of major sugarcane infecting viruses in NWFP and Punjab. Pakistan Journal of Phytopathology, 23(1):24-30.
Tang W; Xu XH; Sun HW; Li F; Gao R; Yang SK; Lu XB; Li XD, 2016. First report of Sugarcane mosaic virus infecting Canna spp. in China. Plant Disease, 100(12):2541. http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/loi/pdis
Teakle DS; Shukla DD; Ford RE, 1989. Sugarcane mosaic virus. AAB Descriptions of Plant Viruses No. 342. Wellesbourne, UK: Association of Applied Biology, 5.
Tosic M; Ford RE; Shukla DD; Jilka J, 1990. Differentiation of sugarcane, maize dwarf, Johnsongrass, and sorghum mosaic viruses based on reactions of oat and some sorghum cultivars. Plant Disease, 74(8):549-552
Wang JianGuang; Zheng HongYing; Chen HaiRu; Adams MJ; Chen JianPing, 2010. Molecular diversities of Sugarcane mosaic virus and Sorghum mosaic virus isolates from Yunnan Province, China. Journal of Phytopathology, 158(6):427-432. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/loi/jph
Yahaya A; Dangora DB; Khan AU; Zangoma MA, 2014. Detection of Sugarcane Mosaic Disease (SCMD) in crops and weeds associated with sugarcane fields in Makarfiand Sabon Gari Local Government Areas of Kaduna State, Nigeria. International Journal of Current Science, No.11:99-104. http://www.currentsciencejournal.info/issuespdf/weeds%20and%20pests%2014.pdf
Zhang MQ; Rao GP; Gaur RK; Ruan MH; Maneesha Singh; Sharma SR; Ashutosh Singh; Pratibha Singh, 2008. Sugarcane mosaic virus. In: Characterization, diagnosis & management of plant viruses. Volume 1: industrial crops [ed. by Rao, G. P.\Khurana, S. M. P.\Lenardon, S. L.]. Houston, USA: Studium Press LLC, 111-144.
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/