Pokkah Boeng: An Emerging Disease of Sugarcane

Abstract

Sugarcane is one of the most important crops for the sugar production in India and Uttar Pradesh (UP) is the top on sugarcane while second in sugar production. Many biotic and abiotic stresses affected the sugarcane production among the reported diseases of sugarcane; Pokkah boeng is now playing a very important role due to its economic threats in UP. Recent survey during 2007-13 showed increasing trend of disease incidence and most of the commercial cultivars affected by the disease ranged from 1%-90%. Although Pokkah boeng comes under minor concern but these days it is going to be major on basis of their rapid epidemiology during last few years. Nowadays, the incidence and severity of Pokkah boeng disease has been reported from major sugarcane growing states like Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, Haryana, Assam, Tamil Nadu and Bihar in India and other sugarcane growing
countries. Keeping in view the seriousness of the problem, the present review summarise the distribution, establish a suitable genetic base and disease management practices through various approaches.

Full text

Review Article Open Access
Plant Pathology & Microbiology
Vishwakarma et al., J Plant Pathol Microb 2013, 4:3
http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2157-7471.1000170
Volume 4 • Issue 3 • 1000170
J Plant Pathol Microb
ISSN:2157-7471 JPPM, an open access journal
Keywords: Fusarium moniliforme; Malformed; Epidemiology;
Symptomology; Management
Introduction
Sugarcane is a cash crop and cultivated in most of the states of India
with total area coverage 4.2 M ha [1]. India is the largest consumer
of sugar in the world with annual consumption of about 19 million
MT (Metric Tons) and the second largest producer of sugar next to
Brazil, with production in the sugar year 2009-10 crossing 28 million
Mt in India. Uttar Pradesh occupies as premier position of sugarcane
cultivation accounting for 42.2 million hectare and 30% of the area and
production respectively. Average cane yield of UP (58.2 MT/ha) is very
lower than the national average (66.9 MT/ha). Similar to yield, sugar
recovery in UP is also lower (9.51%) than national average (10.27%),
respectively due to the several diseases.
Pokkah boeng of sugarcane caused by Fusarium moniliformae
and the pathogen was rst described by Sheldon [2] and the perfect
stage of pathogen is Gibberella fujikuroi (Sawada). Fusarium is now
conrmed by several workers as a causal agent of Pokkah Boeng in
sugarcane in Asia as well established pathogen by many workers [3-
5]. Pokkah Boeng is the most serious and devastating disease not only
in central Uttar Pradesh but also in the whole of the Southern and
Northern sugarcane growing zone of India. Pokkah Boeng is a Javanese
term denoting a malformation or distorted top was originally in Ja1va
but in that time no causal agent was established and its incidence was
recorded by Padwick [6]. Pokkah Boeng disease recorded in all over
the countries where sugarcane grown and pathogen spreads in wind-
blown rain, infected cane cuttings, pupae and adults of sugarcane stem
borers [7-9]. is disease was well-known in sugarcane for long time
but severity of disease reported in two commercial varieties Co7219
and Co C671 in Maharashtra 1983-1984 [10]. Fusarium moniliforme
var. subglutinans reduce the quality of the harvested crop mainly among
varieties with high sugar yields the sugar production depending upon
the variety up to 40.8-64.5% [11].
Symptomology
e characteristics symptoms of Pokkah Boeng disease are the
appearance of chlorotic patches towards the base of the young leaves,
in acute cases disease shows distortion of stalk with external and
internal cut like lesions and rotting of apical part of stalk. Under eld
conditions, the disease may develop many variations from the general
symptoms, but the nal result is usually a malformed or damaged top
and stalk. e base of aected leaves is oen narrower as compared
to normal leaves. Knife cut symptoms of the disease were reported in
varieties CoS767, CoC671, CoC8014, Co1158, CoS8315 and CoS 8436
[12]. Development of disease symptom in four phases was observed
namely chlorotic phases I and II, top rot and knife cut phase (Figure
1). e apical leaves may also show pronounced wrinkling and twisting
depending upon the susceptibility of varieties and existing climatic
conditions also malformed or damaged top and stalk due to this disease
[13]. e symptoms of Pokkah boeng disease were mainly two types
i.e., chlorotic phase and acute phase of top rot [10] and knife cut (fourth
phase) of this disease in Maharashtra [12]. Similar ndings of about the
disease symptom were also reported by workers [14-16].
Epidemiology
Status of Pokkah Boeng disease
During the survey of dierent sugarcane areas of last few years
(2007-13), it has been observed that the incidence severity of Pokkah
Boeng disease increases and aects almost all the sugarcane cultivars
which is recommended for general cultivation for dierent agro climatic
regions. During this year (2012-13), 90% and 5%-30% infection was
observed in genotype S. 224/10 and promising variety CoSe 01434 at
Sugarcane Research Institute, Shahjahanpur. However, 15% infection
was noticed in variety CoS 07240 at Sugarcane Research Station, Gola
*Corresponding author: Pradeep Kumar, Department of Biotechnology
Engineering, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva-84105, Israel,
E-mail: pkbiotech@gmail.com/pradeepgkp17@yahoo.co.in
Received
January 30, 2013; Accepted March 21, 2013; Published March 26,
2013
Citation: Vishwakarma SK, Kumar P, Nigam A, Singh A, Kumar A (2013)
Pokkah Boeng: An Emerging Disease of Sugarcane. J Plant Pathol Microb 4: 170
doi:10.4172/2157-7471.1000170
Copyright: © 2013 Vishwakarma SK, et al. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original author and source are credited.
Abstract
Sugarcane is one of the most important crops for the sugar production in India and Uttar Pradesh (UP) is
the top on sugarcane while second in sugar production. Many biotic and abiotic stresses affected the sugarcane
production among the reported diseases of sugarcane; Pokkah boeng is now playing a very important role due to its
economic threats in UP. Recent survey during 2007-13 showed increasing trend of disease incidence and most of
the commercial cultivars affected by the disease ranged from 1%-90%. Although Pokkah boeng comes under minor
concern but these days it is going to be major on basis of their rapid epidemiology during last few years. Nowadays,
the incidence and severity of Pokkah boeng disease has been reported from major sugarcane growing states like
Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, Haryana, Assam, Tamil Nadu and Bihar in India and other sugarcane growing
countries. Keeping in view the seriousness of the problem, the present review summarise the distribution, establish
a suitable genetic base and disease management practices through various approaches.
Pokkah Boeng: An Emerging Disease of Sugarcane
Vishwakarma SK
1
, Kumar P
1,3
*, Nigam A
2
, Singh A
1
and Kumar A
1
1
UP Council of Sugarcane Research, Shahjhanpur-242001 (U.P.), India
2
Department of Life Sciences, IGNOU, New Delhi-110068, India
3
Department of Biotechnology Engineering, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva-84105, Israel

Citation: Vishwakarma SK, Kumar P, Nigam A, Singh A, Kumar A (2013) Pokkah Boeng: An Emerging Disease of Sugarcane. J Plant Pathol Microb
4: 170 doi:10.4172/2157-7471.1000170
Page 2 of 5
Volume 4 • Issue 3 • 1000170
J Plant Pathol Microb
ISSN:2157-7471 JPPM, an open access journal
(Lakhimpur Kheri). Beside this, it has also been reported from other
districts like Bareilly (Baheri), Sitapur and Pilibhit in many sugarcane
cultivars viz: CoS 8436, Co 0238, CoS 97264, CoS 8432, CoS 91269,
CoS 84212, CoSe 92423, CoS 98259, CoS 07250 and CoS 07240 in stray
to moderate level. Knife-cut stage of Pokkah Boeng was also observed
in CoS 07240, Colk 9709, CoS 09231, S. 4386/07 and S.3438 from
Gola, Baheri and Shahjahanpur respectively. In Western Uttar Pradesh
(Saharanpur, Muzzafarnagar, Bijnour, Khatauli, Mawana, Shimbhawali,
Titawi, Seohara districts), the disease were observed in varieties
CoS 8436, CoS88230, CoS94257, CoS767, CoS94270, CoSe95422,
CoSe98231 and CoJ64 with stray to moderate level and in Eastern
Uttar Pradesh (Gonda, Baharaich and Kushinagar districts), the disease
were noticed in varieties CoS91269, Co0238 and CoSe01434 in trace
to moderate level. Knife-cut stage was observed in varieties CoS91269
from Maizapur sugar factory zone of Bahraich district in traces (Table
1).
According to the disease scenario of dierent states of India viz.
Assam, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Haryana,
Maharashtra, it was observed that the incidence of Pokkah Boeng
disease were found in trace to moderate level on most of commercial
varieties but the incidence severity is high in Uttar Pradesh and
Maharashtra rather than other states and these two are major sugarcane
growing states of India. Symptoms of the diseases have been observed
in many varieties of Andhra Pradesh (Co7805, CoA 99082, CoV94102,
98V95 & 2000V59) and Haryana (CoH151, CoJ85 & CoS8436).
Top rot symptom of the disease was noticed in Haryana (CoS8436,
CoH152, CoH133, Co89003 and CoH136) and Punjab (CoJ 854). In
Maharashtra, amongst the foliar diseases, Pokkah Boeng disease is
becoming a major threat to sugarcane and incidence were observed in
many varieties (CoV19805, Co 05002, CoM 08090, Co 8014, Co 94012,
VS 1434, CoC 671, Co 7527, Co 86032). In Bihar, trace to moderate
levels of Pokkah Boeng disease was observed in many varieties.
Disease were reported from dierent other country aer the rst
report of disease from java in 1896 by walker and went and studied
by several workers [13]. From Malaysia, the disease was recorded in
1973 and it concluded that the disease incidence occur when crops
are grown in a climate where hot and dry season persists followed by
a wet season that was helpful for the spread of Pokkah Boeng [17].
Disease started when plants aged 3-7 months older, then plant growing
very rapidly than the older crop [18]. Giatgong [19] from ailand
reported F. moniliforme Sheldon and G. fujikuroi (Saw) Wr. were the
causal agents of Pokkah Boeng. Several Fusarium species were isolated
from the Pokkah Boeng aected tissue of sugarcane in Indonesia i.e., F.
anguioides Sherb. F. bulbigenum Cke. and Mass. var. tracheiphilum (E.
Sm.) Wr., F. moniliforme Sheld., F. moniliforme Sheld. var. subglutinans
Wr. and Rkg. [Gibberella fujikuroi (Saw.) Ito ap. Ito and Kamura], F.
moniliforme Sheld. var. anthophilum (A. Br.) Wr., F. neoceras Wr. and
Rkg., F. orthoceras App. and Wr. var. longius Wr. and F. semitectum B.
and Rav [20]. Fusarium andiyazi and F. Sacchari play important role in
the development of pookah boeng disease and prove the association of
F. andiyazi with sugarcane pokkah boeng in vitro from South Africa [4].
Pokkah Boeng of sugarcane also reported from Iran by F. verticillioides.
Morphological characteristics, pathogenecity test on healthy sugarcane
and VCG’s for correctly identication of Fusarium species causing
Pokkah Boeng; and also reported the genetic diversity among the F.
verticillioides in sugarcane elds using the vegetative compatibility
group technique [5,21].
Characteristics of pathogen
Fusarium moniliforme showed dierent colour for its mycilium pale
white, pink and purple mycilium and for pigmentation of metabolites
also during the growth on articial medium and its conidial growth
is aected by glucose concentration (Figure 2) [22,23]. Morphological
study of Fusarium spp. by earlier worker on Potato Dextrose Agar
Chloroc Phase I Chloroc Phase II
Top Rot Phase Knife cut Phase
Figure 1: Different stages of pokkah boeng disease.
Figure 2: Morphological variability among isolates of Fusarium moniliforme
isolated from pokkah boeng disease samples.

Citation: Vishwakarma SK, Kumar P, Nigam A, Singh A, Kumar A (2013) Pokkah Boeng: An Emerging Disease of Sugarcane. J Plant Pathol Microb
4: 170 doi:10.4172/2157-7471.1000170
Page 3 of 5
Volume 4 • Issue 3 • 1000170
J Plant Pathol Microb
ISSN:2157-7471 JPPM, an open access journal
Major and minor (N, P, K, S. Zn, Fe, Cu and Mg) study of the
sugarcane plant aected by the Pokkah Boeng showed the decreasing
pattern in stalks and leaves of diseased plant as compared to healthy
ones and its incidence have been noticed on broad leaves varieties of
sugarcane during monsoon. is may lead to the reduction in weight
of cane, length of internodes, juice percent, girth, pol percent and total
sugars in juice in infected canes of varieties CoS 8436 and CoS 88230
[3].
Pathogenesis
e pathogen enters into the host tissues through any injury by
insects/borers or natural growth cracks, etc. Aer the entry of pathogen,
the infection thread develops normal hypha which grows within the
medium (PDA) and the growth of conidia range from 9.3-29.7 µM in
length and 2.7-6.0 µM in width; mycelium width of ranged in between
1.75-7.00 µM [24]. Mycelium of F. moniliforme was generally dense in
delicately occose to felted with powdery appearance due to formation
of macro conidia (Figure 3). Many workers reported that F. sacchari
as causal agent for Pokkah Boeng in sorghum and also cause the same
in sugarcane belongs to the Section Liseola [8,25,26]. In India, F.
sacchari from sugarcane was rst described as Cephalosporium sacchari
by Butler and Khan [27]. Later F. moniliforme and C. sacchari are
separate as distinct organism based on their enzymes and pathogencity
characteristics [12,28]. Dierent media had profound inuence on
the cultural growth characters while the modied Czapeks dox agar
was selective medium for F. moniliforme and malt extract medium is
suitable for the growth [29-31]. On PDA, virulent strains F. moniliforme
grew faster than the non-virulent strains and growth is inuenced by
the nitrogen sources magnesium nitrite followed by sodium nitrate,
iron also enhanced the growth and sporulation [32-34]. However Patil
and Hapase [10] reported that starch, xylose, fructose, sucrose, glucose
and maltose as good carbon source and urea for nitrogen.
Year Area surveyed Varieties affected
No. of affected varieties/
genotypes
Incidence %
range
2012-13 Shahjahanpur, Baheri, Gola, Ajbapur,
Seorahi, Gonda, Baharaich,
Kushinagar, Pilibhit
CoS07250, Co0238, CoS 97261, CoS98231, CoS8436, CoS97264,
CoS88230, CoS98259, CoS05125, CoS 91269, Co0238, CoS 01434,
Co0239
13 1-15
CoSe01434 (SRI, Shahjahanpur Farm) 01 25
S. 224 (SRI, Shahjahanpur) 01 90
2011-12 Shahjahanpur, Balrampur,Ghazipur,
Gola,Sultanpur
CoSe01224, CoS05452, CoS06455, CoS06456, CoS05434,
CoSe92423, CoSe01235, CoSe96436, CoS8436, CoS07250,
CoS96275, CoS8432, CoS99259,
13 Stray
2010-11 Seohara,Neoli, Tilhar,Gola,Baheri,
Hargaon, Pallia, Rudrabilaspur
CoS8436, CoS767, CoS8432, CoS88230, CoS97261, CoS98259,
CoSe95422, CoSe01424, CoSe92423
09 Stray to 5%
2009-10 Shahjahanpur, Bareilly, Hardoi, Sitapur,
Lakhimpur.
CoJ84, CoS8436, CoS88230, CoSe98231. 04 Traces
2008-09 Shahjahanpur, Hardoi, Muzzafarnagar. CoS8436, CoS88230, CoS8432 03 5-25
2007-08 Sharanpur,Bijnour, Sitapur,Sultanpur,
Lakhimpur.
CoS8436, CoS88230, CoS8432, CoS97261, CoSe95422, CoSe98231. 06 Traces
2006-07 Neoli,Semikhera Gola CoS8436, CoS8432, CoS88230, CoS97261 04 1.0-3.0
2005-06 Roza,Rupapur,Pallia, Seohara CoJ64, CoS8436, CoS8432, CoS88230, CoSe95422 05 1.0-8.0
2004-05 Neoli,Tilhar,Biswan CoS8432, CoS94257, CoS94270, CoSe92423, CoLk8102 09 0.5-3.0
2003-04 Khatauli,Mawana, Shahjahanpur,
Shimbhawli, Titawi,Gola
CoS88230, CoS8432 CoJ64, CoS767 04 2-10
Table 1: Incidence status of Pokkah Boeng disease during last ten years in Uttar Pradesh (Source: Annual reports of UPCSR, Shahjahanpur).
Meteorological observations during the year 2012
Months Rainfall
(mm)
Relative humidity (%) Temperature (°C)
8.30 A.M. 5.30 P.M. Ave. Max. Min. Ave.
January 36.8 87.0 64.0 76 17.5 6.2 11.8
February Nil 80.0 45.0 63 23.1 9.4 16.2
March Nil 70.0 35.0 52 30.4 13.7 22.0
April 6.2 58.2 29.2 43.7 36.6 19.9 28.2
May Nil 41.0 23.0 32.0 40.0 24.4 32.2
June 3.4 47.0 31.0 55.0 41.1 28.1 34.6
July 332.3 83.0 75.0 79.0 33.7 26.5 30.1
August 479.0 89.0 82.0 85.5 32.4 26.0 29.2
September 249.6 89.0 71.0 80.0 33.4 25.2 29.3
October Nil 82.0 50.0 66.0 32.0 17.6 24.8
November Nil 82.0 62.0 72.0 27.5 11.9 19.7
December 2.6 89.0 67.0 78.0 23.1 8.9 16.0
Source : Division of Plant Physiology, Sugarcane Research Institute, Shahjahanpur,
U.P.
Table 2: Metrological observations during the year 2012.
Figure 3: Mycelium and spores of Fusarium moniliforme isolated from
pokkah boeng.

Citation: Vishwakarma SK, Kumar P, Nigam A, Singh A, Kumar A (2013) Pokkah Boeng: An Emerging Disease of Sugarcane. J Plant Pathol Microb
4: 170 doi:10.4172/2157-7471.1000170
Page 4 of 5
Volume 4 • Issue 3 • 1000170
J Plant Pathol Microb
ISSN:2157-7471 JPPM, an open access journal
host tissues for some time and then emerges out through the cells to the
outer surface and develops acervuli. Rains and heavy dews usually wash
the acervuli developed on nodes and internodes and the spores get
lodged around the nodes behind the leaf sheath. e spores germinate
and the mycelium gets established in bud scales, root primordial or leaf
scars and later within the plant tissues. Electron microscopic of infected
leaves revealed that aer lodging of conidia and incubation of minimum
one month at the time of germination, the thin walled bulliform cells of
the epidermis are attacked and soon collapse then the older cells of the
epidermis are attacked [12]. From the epidermal cells, the hyphae enter
the underlying tissues. Changes in the structure of stomata were also
observed in the infected leaves but there was no evidence found for the
entry of pathogen through stomata.
Host range
Fusarium moniliforme associated with a wide range of hosts such
as banana [35], corn [12], cotton [31], mango [36], sugarcane and
other important crops [37]. e F. moniliforme causes the disease in
maize, sorghum, rice and sugarcane, and produce dierent mycotoxins
(fumonisins, moniliformin and beauvericin). It was reported from
Gramineae family along with 31 other families of plants [38]. e
Pokkah Boeng pathogen also attacks sorghum and had been reported
that the disease was caused by F. moniliforme (Gibberella fujikuroi) [5].
Fungus infects a wide range of species including monocotyledons and
dicotyledons causing various diseases such as seedling blight, scorch,
stalk and root rot, abnormal stunting or hypertrophy. Pokkah Boeng
disease of sugarcane has associated with several diseases of sugarcane
such as sett rot, root rot [39], wilt [40,41] and knife cut [42,43].
Transmission and viability of pathogen
Basically it is an air-borne disease and primarily transmitted
through the air-circulation and secondary infection takes place
through the infected setts, irrigation water, splashed rains and soil.
e pathogen (F. Moniliforme) can survive for 12 months in the plant
debris under natural conditions and can remain viable for more than 10
months under laboratory conditions (http://www.vsisugar.com/india/
agriculture_divisions/plantpathology/pokkaboengdisease-sugarcane.
htm). Fungus could not grow at 50°C but it remained viable for at least
six months. It is also reported that the survival of a F. moniliforme can
observed for 12 months, although incidence is noticed low aer nine
months. Under natural conditions, maximum survival occurred more
than 11 months at 30 cm in soil. Cool and dry conditions favoured the
survival of a fungus in plant debris [43]. Disease may also spread from
seeds contaminated with the fungus [11]. Pokkah Boeng pathogen is
transmitted by spore movement from one locality to another by air
currents and will colonised on leaves, owers and stems of the plants
[44]. Dispersal of spores depends on the environmental condition
(windy day, rainy day or dry day) that require dierent strategies to
disperse. Two mechanisms describe by Deacon [45] for the dispersal
of the fungal spores: i) Fungus that disperse by rainsplace are based on
the “pu” and “tap” mechanism that will cause the dry spore become
airborne and usually the spores are curved like Fusarium species. ii)
Fungi that grow on leaf surfaces and produces chains of spore can
be removed by wind, by mist-laden air or by hygroscopic (drying)
movements that cause spore to buckle. Hot and dry weather will lead
to the opening of leaves between partially unfolded leaves that provide
an opportunity for airborne conidia to settle on the leaves [45]. When
the rains start, the conidia are washed down to the susceptible parts of
the spindles along the margin of a partially unfolded leaves where they
germinate. e conidia germinate and the mycelium can pass through
the so cuticle of young leaves to the inner tissues because the epidermis
tissues are still fragile and not protected by the plant system [46]. e
mycelium spreads to vascular bundles of the immature stem and blocks
the vessels that eventually leads to growth distortions and rupture
and the development shows the ladder-like lesions [47]. Bourne [48]
reported that the pupae and adults of sugarcane stem borers also can
spread the fungus. e top borer known as Chilo spp. oen results in a
distortion and shortening of the leaves which is similar to that caused
by Pokkah Boeng disease [46].
Eect of environmental factors
Temperature is an important natural factor governing the
distribution of a pathogen and it grows and sporulates luxuriantly in
a temperature range of 20-30°C in both in-vitro and in-vivo condition.
Minimum, optimum and maximum temperature for growth of
pathogen are 10-15°C, 30°C and 35-40°C, respectively. e severe
incidence of the disease occurred in the range of temperature between
20°C-32°C with high humidity up to 70-80% and cloudy weather in
rainy season from July to September. We also found the incidence of
the disease in month of July to September when humidity range from
79.0-85.5, temperature ranging 29.0-30ºC and rain fall is high (Table
2). Temperature ranging from 20-30°C and humidity ranging from 75-
85% is the best suitable for the growth of Fusarium pathogen [36].
Control management
Spraying of dierent fungicides like Bavistin (1 gm/lit. of water)
or Blitox (0.2%) or Copper oxychloride or 0.3% Dithane M-45 (3 gm/L
of water) are the eective for reducing the Pokkah Boeng disease [43].
Two to three sprayings with an interval of 15 days interval reduces the
multiplication of a pathogen and losses in yield and quality of cane
and therefore, paired row or wider spacing planting of sugarcane is
necessary to facilitate the plant protection operations. Canes showing
‘top rot’ or ‘knife cut’ should be rouged out from the elds as they are
shown. Planting of healthy seed material/use of resistant verities and
follow of Integrated Disease Management practices are the best way
to prevent disease incidence [49]. F. moniliforme can be disseminated
horizontally by airborne spores or crop debris and vertically through
the seed pieces. So it is important to uses of resistant varieties and
fungicide applications. Both the processes for controlling, is limited and
there is increasing need for novel and environmentally sound strategies
to control this and other diseases of sugarcane. Burkholderia isolates
from sugarcane plants is a crucial step toward further development
of these isolates for biological control of Pokkah Boeng and other
sugarcane diseases. e endophytic bacteria community associated
with sugarcane harbours multiple genera with potential for plant
growth promotion and disease control [50].
Acknowledgement
First author is grateful to Dr. G.P. Rao, Principal Scientist, Division of Plant
Pathology, IARI, New Delhi for their valuable suggestions and Dr. Ram Ji Lal,
Principal Scientist, Crop Protection Division, IISR, Lucknow for providing literature
to compile manuscript.
References
1. FAOSTAT (2010) FAO statistical data bases.
2. Sheldon JL (1904) A corn mold (Fusarium moniliforme sp). New Agr Exp Sta
Ann Report 17: 23-32.
3. Singh A, Chauhan SS, Singh A, Singh SB (2006) Deterioration in sugarcane
due to pokkah boeng disease. Sugar Tech 8: 187-190.
4. Govender P, McFarlane SA, Rutherford RS (2010) Fusarium species causing
pokkah boeng and their effect on Eldana saccharina walker (lepidoptera:
pyralidae). Proc S Afr Sug Technol Ass 83: 267-270.

Citation: Vishwakarma SK, Kumar P, Nigam A, Singh A, Kumar A (2013) Pokkah Boeng: An Emerging Disease of Sugarcane. J Plant Pathol Microb
4: 170 doi:10.4172/2157-7471.1000170
Page 5 of 5
Volume 4 • Issue 3 • 1000170
J Plant Pathol Microb
ISSN:2157-7471 JPPM, an open access journal
5. Mohammadi A, Nejad RF, Mofrad NN (2012) Fusarium verticillioides from
sugarcane, vegetative compatibility groups and pathogenicity. Plant Protect Sci
48: 80-84.
6. Padwick CW (1940) Soc Rept Ind Agril Res Inst, New Delhi 198-39: 103-115.
7. Martin JP, Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association (1938) Sugarcane diseases in
Hawaii. Advertiser Publishing Company.
8. Leslie JF, Summerell BA (2006) The Fusarium Laboratory Manual. Blackwell
Publishing, USA.
9. Whittle PJL, Irawan (2000) Pokkah boeng: A Guide to Sugarcane Diseases.
Rott P, Bailey RA, Comstock JC, Croft BJ, Saumtally AS, (eds.). CIRAD/ISSCT,
Montpellier 136-140.
10. Patil AS, Hapase DG (1987) Studies on Pokkah boeng disease in Maharashtra.
Ind Phytopath 40: 290.
11. Duttamajumder SK (2004) bacterial diseases of sugarcane in india: a bird′s eye
view. In: Sugarcane pathology: bacterial and nematodes diseases, Rao GP,
Saumtally AS, Rott P, (eds). Science Publishers 15-50.
12. Patil AS (1995) Studies on Pokkah boeng and pine apple disease of sugarcane
in Maharashtra with their economic losses in yield and quality of sugarcane.
Final Project Report, ICAR, VSI, Pune.
13. Martin JP, Hong HL, Wismar CA (1961) Pokkah boeng. Pages 247-257 in
Sugar-cane diseases of the world. Vol. 1, Elsevier Publ. Co. New York 542.
14. Han Lioe H (1956) Fusarium-Pokkah boeng resistance trial. Proc Int Soc Sugar
Cane Techno 9: 1023-1029.
15. Eira AFDA, Carvalto PCT, Sangiono DE (1974) Studies on aggressiveness of
Fusarium moniiforme sheld. causal agent of Pokkah boeng in sugarcane.
Proceeding ISSCT 15: 374-383.
16. Higgy AH, Abd-Elrazic EA, Rushdi MH (1977) Occurrence of Pokkah boeng
disease in Egypt. Proceeding of ISSCT 16: 473-481.
17. Siti Nordahliawate MS, Nur Ain Izzati MZ, Azmi AR, Salleh B (2008) Distribution,
morphological characterization and pathogenicity of Fusarium sacchari
associated with pokkah boeng disease of sugarcane in Peninsula Malaysia.
Pertanika Journal of Tropical Agricultural Science 31: 279-286.
18. Raid RN, Lentini RS (2002) Sugarcane Red-rot Disease. Sugarcane Handbook.
UF/IFAS Publication SS-AGR-206, Florida.
19. Giatgong P (1980) Host index of plant diseases in Thailand. (2ndedn), Dept. of
Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Bangkok, Thailand.
20. Semangun H (1992) Host index of plant diseases in Indonesia. Yogyakarta:
Gadjah Mada University Press.
21. Taherkhani K, Alizadeh A, Farokhinejad R, Sharitehrani A (1998) Identication
of causal agents of sugarcane Fusarium diseases in Khuzestan Province. In:
Proceedings of 13
th
Iranian Plant Protection Congress, Karaj, Iran.
22. Bourne BA (1953) Studies on the dissemination of sugarcane disease. The
Sugar Journal 16: 19.
23. Khanna KL, Rafay SA (1953) Annual report of the scheme for the investigation
and control of wilt disease of sugarcane for year ending 31
st
1953. Cent.
Sugarcane Research, Pusa, 1-12.
24. Chatopadhyay BB, Gupta PK (1967) Studies on wilt diseases of pulses. I.
Variation in Taxonomy of Fusarium Spp. associated with disease of pulses. Ind
J Mycol Res 5: 45-47.
25. Egan BT, Magarey RC, Croft BJ (1997) Sugarcane. In: Soilborne Diseases of
Tropical Crops, Hillocks R, Walker JM, (eds.). CAB International, Wallingford
277-302.
26. Nirenberg HI, O’Donnell K (1998) New Fusarium species and combinations
within the Gibberella fujikuroi species complex. Mycologia 90: 434-458.
27. Butler EJ, Khan AH (1913) Some new sugarcane diseases. In: Mem Dept Agr
India Bot Ser 6: 181-208.
28. Singh RK (1958) Comparative study of Fusarium moniliforme sheld and
Cephalosporium sacchari Butler. Science and Culture 24: 135-137
29. Shaikh MM (1974) Studies on wilt of gram caused by Fusarium oxyporum of
Cicero in Marathwada region. (M.Sc. Agriculture Thesis).
30. Agrawal VM, Singh CV (1974) Routine testing of crop seeds for Fusarium
moniliforme with a selective medium. Seed Research 21: 19-22.
31. Arshad M, Dogar MA, Khan MA, Sahi ST (1992) Physiological studies on
Fusarium moniliforme sheld, a boll rotting fungus on cotton. Pak J Phytopathol
2: 1-7.
32. Shahab AF, Fahim MM, Osman AR, Abad Ell-Kader MM (1987) In-vitro studies
of Fusarium oxysporum sps. Lupini Minuya. J Agri Res 7: 41-52.
33. Ali SS, Sonar ML (1984) Inuence of iron on the extra cellular amino acid by
Fusarium moniliforme Sheld. J Indian Botany 63: 148-150.
34. Agrawal DK, Sharabhoy AK (1978) Physiological studies on the species of
Fusarium pathogenic to Soybean. Ind Phytopathol 31: 24-31.
35. Wang BS, Liu CZ, Qi PK (1991) Study on the Fusarium crown rot banana. Acta
Phytopath Sinica 8: 133-137.
36. Kumar P, Misra AK, Srivastava AK, Modi DR (2011) Mapping of F. moniliforme
var. subglutinans from normal and malformed panicles and malformed
seedlings of mango by recovery method. Plant Archives 11: 567-569.
37. Rao GP, Singh M, Singh HN (1990) Alternative host of sugarcane diseases.
Sugarcane 8-26.
38. Booth C (1971) The Genus Fusarium. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau,
Bucks.
39. Verma KP, Singh MP, Upadhyay UC, Singh HN (1984) Knife cut, the rst report
of the incidence of this disease in India. Sugarcane 40: 817-820.
40. Saponaro A (1980) Observation of some cases of maize stalk and root rot due
to Fusarium. Annals of the Experimental Institute for Plant Pathology 6: 5-14.
41. Waraitch KS, Kumar B (1982) Pathogenic behaviour and varietal performance
of Fusarium causing sugarcane wilt. Indian Sugar 32: 317-320.
42. Zummo N (1970) Unusual bending of sugarcane stalks associated with knife-
cut. Sugarcane Pathology News Letter 5: 10-11.
43. Kamal, Singh RP (1979) Knife cut disease of sugarcane in India. Sugarcane
Pathologists’ News Letter 23: 34.
44. Burgess LW (1981) Gneral ecology of Fusaria. Nelson PE, Toussoun TA, Cook
RJ, (eds.). Fusarium, Diseases, Biology, and Taxonomy, Pennsylvania State
University Press, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA 276-286.
45. Deacon JW (2006) Fungal biology. (4thedn), Wiley.
46. Barnes AC (1974) The sugarcane. 2
nd
edition. Leonard Hill, Ltd., Londom.
47. Holliday P (1980) Fungus diseases of tropical crops. Courier Dover Publications.
48. Bourne BA (1961) Fusarium sett or stem rot. In: Sugarcane disease of the
world. Martin JP, Abbott EV, Hughes CG, (eds.). Elsevier, New York 186-202.
49. Patil AS, Singh H, Sharma SR, Rao GP (2007) Morphology and pathogenecity
of isolates of Fusarium moniliformae causing Pokkah boeng of sugarcane in
Maharastra, Ram RC, Singh A, (eds.). Microbial Diversity: Modern Trends,
Daya Publishers, New Delhi 234-263.
50. Mendes R, Pizziarani-Kleiner AA, Araujo WL, Raaijmakers JM (2007) Diversity
of cultivated endophytic bacteria from sugarcane: genetic and biochemical
characterization of Burkholderia cepacia complex isolates. Appl Environ
Microbiol 73: 7259–7267.
Citation: Vishwakarma SK, Kumar P, Nigam A, Singh A, Kumar A (2013) Pokkah Boeng:
An Emerging Disease of Sugarcane. J Plant Pathol Microb 4: 170 doi:10.4172/2157-
7471.1000170