Incidence, Distribution and Characteristics of Major Tomato Leaf ...
Incidence, Distribution and Characteristics of Major Tomato Leaf ... Incidence, Distribution and Characteristics of Major Tomato Leaf ...
Incidence, distribution and characteristics of major tomato leaf curl and mosaic virus diseases are able to grow tomatoes throughout the year. Such a situation enhances conditions for vector population build up and virus spread to new fields. Rotation with non-susceptible alternative crops, especially during periods of poor returns from the tomato crop and in the absence of susceptible weeds, breaks the epidemiological cycle (Wisler et al., 1997). Therefore, rotation is recommended in such situations. This study led to identification of ten tomato viruses by employing serological and molecular tests to identify causal agents of mosaic, mottling, veinal mottle and leaf curl symptoms on Ugandan tomato, which is grown in farming conditions such as those mentioned in the first two paragraphs above. These ten viruses included potyviruses ToMV, PVMV, ChiVMV and PVY, potexvirus PVX, alfalfamovirus AMV, cucumovirus CMV, tospovirus TSWV, begomovirus TYLCV-UG (TYLCV-Is strain), plus a begomovirus tentatively named ToLCV-UG, and were not very different from what is reported to occur elsewhere in East Africa. Indeed, TSWV was identified in East Africa as early as 1969 (CMI, 1969); ToMV was reported to be seed-borne and occurs worldwide (Brunt et al., 1990); Nono-Womdim et al. (1996) reported ToMV to be widely present in East Africa; finally PVMV was reported to infect pepper in Kenya (Brunt et al., 1990), but Nono-Womdim et al. (1996) did not detect it in Tanzania. However, Nono-Womdim et al. (1993) and Ladipo et al. (1979) reported PVMV to infect pepper in West Africa, while Reccah, (1986) reported PVMV to be (Myzus persicae) aphidtransmitted in a non-persistent manner. AMV was reported to occur in Europe and America where mottling, interveinal yellowing, yellow-whitish mosaic and fruit distortion were observed (Brunt et al., 1990; Jones et al., 1991). Where AMV individually infected tomato in Uganda, symptoms observed were also typically mottling, whitish yellow mosaic and fruit distortion. In our experiments virus incidence was ToMV (31%), AMV (1%), PVMV (13%), CMV (6%), TSWV (1%), and PVY (0.3%), respectively. This was the first research record on tomato viruses in Uganda. It was also the first identification of AMV on tomato in Uganda. PVX was also reported on tomato in Uganda for the first time. The limitation of 92
Incidence, distribution and characteristics of major tomato leaf curl and mosaic virus diseases PVX’s host range to members of family Solanaceae (Green, 1991) may be responsible for its observed low incidence in Uganda. In contrast, the high incidence of ToMV in Uganda, could have been due to its being seed-borne (Brunt et al., 1990), and due to the fact that some farmers, especially in Rakai district, extract their own seed for subsequent cropping cycles (Annex 3). The survey showed that in Iganga district, where farmers only used certified seed, ToMV did not occur. ToMV was observed to cause severe mosaic symptoms, which were earlier on reported by Defrancq (1989) and Hansen (1990). The wide distribution and high incidence of ToMV were considered a big threat to tomato growers, and chances of spreading the disease farther are very high in a situation where farmers collect and preserve their own seeds. Broadbent (1965, 1976) reported that ToMV was easily spread with seed, running water and wind. Consequently, it is recommended to identify ToMV strains existing in Uganda in order to compare them with strains present elsewhere in the region. Furthermore, Tomato spotted wilt virus was detected in only three of the eight districts surveyed despite high thrips populations at the time (Annex 3). It could have been possible that some of these thrips were feeding on tomatoes, and were not carrying any TSWV inoculum. Literature revealed that TSWV was identified in East Africa as early as 1969 (CMI, 1969). Therefore, the need to study the vector Frankliniella spp., and to identify TSWV strains, using procedures reported by Verkleij and Peters (1983), Gonslaves et al. (1989), and Wijkamp et al. (1995), is recommended for future research activities. Likewise, Brunt et al. (1990) reported Pepper veinal mottle virus in Kenya. Even though Kenya is a neighbour of Tanzania, Nono-Womdim et al. (1996) did not detect it on tomato in Tanzania. However, during our study, PVMV was also identified in Ugandan tomato. During the survey, PVMV incidence was only 8%. Most times PVMV was occurring in combination with ToMV. This was the most frequent mixed tomato virus infection, as shown in table 3.8. PVMV symptoms were observed to be mild everytime it was singly infecting a tomato plant, but showed severe green mosaic or mottling 93
- Page 66 and 67: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 68 and 69: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 70 and 71: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 72 and 73: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 74 and 75: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 76 and 77: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 78 and 79: A B Incidence, distribution and cha
- Page 80 and 81: A B Incidence, distribution and cha
- Page 82 and 83: A Incidence, distribution and chara
- Page 84 and 85: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 86 and 87: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 88 and 89: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 90 and 91: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 92 and 93: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 94 and 95: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 96 and 97: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 98 and 99: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 100 and 101: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 102 and 103: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 104 and 105: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 106 and 107: Isolate IG1 Incidence, distribution
- Page 108 and 109: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 110 and 111: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 112 and 113: 1600 500 700 200 Incidence, distrib
- Page 114 and 115: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 118 and 119: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 120 and 121: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 122 and 123: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 124 and 125: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 126 and 127: 1200 1200 (A) IG1 (ToLCV-UG) PAL1v
- Page 128 and 129: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 130 and 131: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 132 and 133: 78 Incidence, distribution and char
- Page 134 and 135: 87 87 Incidence, distribution and c
- Page 136 and 137: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 138 and 139: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 140 and 141: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 142 and 143: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 144 and 145: A A C D Incidence, distribution and
- Page 146 and 147: Opaque and not smeared Translucent
- Page 148 and 149: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 150 and 151: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 152 and 153: Rainfall (cm) Temp. Cº Mean Whitef
- Page 154 and 155: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 156 and 157: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 158 and 159: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 160 and 161: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 162 and 163: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 164 and 165: Incidence, distribution and charact
<strong>Incidence</strong>, distribution <strong>and</strong> characteristics <strong>of</strong> major tomato leaf curl <strong>and</strong> mosaic virus diseases<br />
PVX’s host range to members <strong>of</strong> family Solanaceae (Green, 1991) may be responsible<br />
for its observed low incidence in Ug<strong>and</strong>a. In contrast, the high incidence <strong>of</strong> ToMV in<br />
Ug<strong>and</strong>a, could have been due to its being seed-borne (Brunt et al., 1990), <strong>and</strong> due to the<br />
fact that some farmers, especially in Rakai district, extract their own seed for subsequent<br />
cropping cycles (Annex 3). The survey showed that in Iganga district, where farmers only<br />
used certified seed, ToMV did not occur. ToMV was observed to cause severe mosaic<br />
symptoms, which were earlier on reported by Defrancq (1989) <strong>and</strong> Hansen (1990). The<br />
wide distribution <strong>and</strong> high incidence <strong>of</strong> ToMV were considered a big threat to tomato<br />
growers, <strong>and</strong> chances <strong>of</strong> spreading the disease farther are very high in a situation where<br />
farmers collect <strong>and</strong> preserve their own seeds. Broadbent (1965, 1976) reported that<br />
ToMV was easily spread with seed, running water <strong>and</strong> wind. Consequently, it is<br />
recommended to identify ToMV strains existing in Ug<strong>and</strong>a in order to compare them<br />
with strains present elsewhere in the region.<br />
Furthermore, <strong>Tomato</strong> spotted wilt virus was detected in only three <strong>of</strong> the eight districts<br />
surveyed despite high thrips populations at the time (Annex 3). It could have been<br />
possible that some <strong>of</strong> these thrips were feeding on tomatoes, <strong>and</strong> were not carrying any<br />
TSWV inoculum. Literature revealed that TSWV was identified in East Africa as early as<br />
1969 (CMI, 1969). Therefore, the need to study the vector Frankliniella spp., <strong>and</strong> to<br />
identify TSWV strains, using procedures reported by Verkleij <strong>and</strong> Peters (1983),<br />
Gonslaves et al. (1989), <strong>and</strong> Wijkamp et al. (1995), is recommended for future research<br />
activities.<br />
Likewise, Brunt et al. (1990) reported Pepper veinal mottle virus in Kenya. Even though<br />
Kenya is a neighbour <strong>of</strong> Tanzania, Nono-Womdim et al. (1996) did not detect it on<br />
tomato in Tanzania. However, during our study, PVMV was also identified in Ug<strong>and</strong>an<br />
tomato. During the survey, PVMV incidence was only 8%. Most times PVMV was<br />
occurring in combination with ToMV. This was the most frequent mixed tomato virus<br />
infection, as shown in table 3.8. PVMV symptoms were observed to be mild everytime it<br />
was singly infecting a tomato plant, but showed severe green mosaic or mottling<br />
93