Advertisement

Planta

, Volume 250, Issue 5, pp 1387–1407 | Cite as

Sheath blight of rice: a review and identification of priorities for future research

  • Pooja SinghEmail author
  • Purabi Mazumdar
  • Jennifer Ann Harikrishna
  • Subramanian Babu
Review
  • 632 Downloads

Abstract

Main conclusion

Rice sheath blight research should prioritise optimising biological control approaches, identification of resistance gene mechanisms and application in genetic improvement and smart farming for early disease detection.

Abstract

Rice sheath blight, caused by Rhizoctonia solani AG1-1A, is one of the most devasting diseases of the crop. To move forward with effective crop protection against sheath blight, it is important to review the published information related to pathogenicity and disease management and to determine areas of research that require deeper study. While progress has been made in the identification of pathogenesis-related genes both in rice and in the pathogen, the mechanisms remain unclear. Research related to disease management practices has addressed the use of agronomic practices, chemical control, biological control and genetic improvement: Optimising nitrogen fertiliser use in conjunction with plant spacing can reduce spread of infection while smart agriculture technologies such as crop monitoring with Unmanned Aerial Systems assist in early detection and management of sheath blight disease. Replacing older fungicides with natural fungicides and use of biological agents can provide effective sheath blight control, also minimising environmental impact. Genetic approaches that show promise for the control of sheath blight include treatment with exogenous dsRNA to silence pathogen gene expression, genome editing to develop rice lines with lower susceptibility to sheath blight and development of transgenic rice lines overexpressing or silencing pathogenesis related genes. The main challenges that were identified for effective crop protection against sheath blight are the adaptive flexibility of the pathogen, lack of resistant rice varieties, abscence of single resistance genes for use in breeding and low access of farmers to awareness programmes for optimal management practices.

Keywords

Biological control Fungicide Genome editing Integrated disease management Smart farming Transcription factor 

Introduction

As the world population is expected to reach over 9 billion by 2050, it has been predicted that total food production will only be sufficient for 60% of the population (FAO 2018). Rice (Oryza sativa L.), the world’s most widely consumed cereal crop, is especially important to the rapidly growing populations in South Asian countries (Pareja et al. 2011) and provides 20% of the dietary protein in the developing countries where rice is the staple to the diet (FAO 2004). Around 40,000 different varieties of rice (Oryza sativa L.) exist in the world (http://www.riceassociation.org.uk/content/1/18/types-of-rice.html). China produces largest amount of rice (142.3 million tonnes) followed by India (110.4 million tonnes) (According to FAO: Rice Market Monitor 2018). Rice productivity is affected by several pathogens that often place major constraints on production,. among which, Rhizoctonia solani, the causative agent of sheath blight (ShB), is responsible for yield loss up to 45% (Margani and Widadi 2018). The pathogen Rhizoctonia solani Kunh AG1-IA (anamorph), Thanatephorus cucumeris (Frank) Donk (teleomorph) is a soil-dwelling saprotroph and facultative parasite. The pathogen causes lesions on the sheath affecting grain filling and yield in rice (Wu et al. 2012).

ShB in rice was first reported in Japan in 1910. ShB in rice subsequently spread across the region, particularly where rice was grown under intense cultivation (Srinivasachary Willocquet and Savary 2011). As the disease spread to other Asian countries it was referred to by different names such as ‘Oriental leaf and sheath blight’, ‘Sheath blight’, ‘Pellicularia sheath blight, ‘Sclerotial blight’ and ‘Banded blight of rice’ (Srinivasachary Willocquet and Savary 2011). The ShB pathogen, R. solani Kühn, survives in the soil and water as sclerotia that remain viable for up to 3 years and form mycelia when coming into contact with plants (Kumar et al. 2009). The disease emerges around the late tillering to joint elongation stages in rice and achieves an aggressive state at the time of panicle differentiation. The early disease symptoms are the formation of lesions on the sheath leading to softness and lodging of the sheath and inhibition of grain filling (Wu et al. 2012). The fungus spreads rapidly via contact between plant parts such as tillers and leaves, and also via sclerotia (densely packed hyphal masses) present in surface water (Tsiboe et al. 2017). The severity of the disease depends upon cultivation practices, growth stages of the plant at the time of infection, usage of nitrogen fertilisers (Norman et al. 2003) and rice variety susceptibility (Tang et al. 2007).

ShB in rice is difficult to control because of the wide host range of the pathogen and persistence of sclerotia on exposure to adverse environmental conditions. Most insidiously, the pathogen evolves with time, allowing the sclerotia to overcome the resistance that may have been the hard-won achievement of the farmers and breeders. In order to combat the spread of ShB, it is necessary to use information compiled from studies of the biology of the pathogen, of the infection process and to determine how this information can be applied and supported with ShB management practices. Here we provide a review of the current information on identification criteria, modes of infection, hosts range and molecular basis of pathogenicity along with current management practices.

Biology of the sheath blight pathogen

Taxonomy and host range of the pathogen

Rhizoctonia solani Kunh is a collective species belonging to the order basidiomycetes but rarely producing basidiospores (Parmeter and Whitney 1970). Julius Kuhn first observed this fungus on diseased potato tubers in 1858 and named it R. solani (Almasia et al. 2008). Rhizoctonia solani infects over 27 families of plants, causing root, crown, hypocotyl, pod and belly rot, sheath and leaf blight, banded leaf, brown patch and canker (Sneh and Ichielevich-Auster 1998; Fenille et al. 2002) (Table 1). The species is subdivided into anastomosis groups (AG) based on their compatibility for hyphal fusion with known tester isolates. Anastomosis between genetically similar isolates that are compatible, form a fused hyphal network involving fusion of cell wall, cytoplasm and nuclei, whereas genetically distant isolates may form anastamoses but show no changes in the hyphal organisation (Kuninaga et al. 2002). A total of 14 different anastomosis groups (AG1 to AG13 and AGBI), which exhibit high variation in colony morphology, host range, aggressiveness and nutritional requirement, have been reported in R. solani (Guillemaut et al. 2003; Ahvenniemi et al. 2009; Ajayi-Oyetunde and Bradley 2018). Based on sequence homology and on size and shape of sclerotia, R. solani AG1 isolates are subdivided into three subgroups, IA, IB and IC (Sneh et al. 1991), all of which cause ShB, with the AG1-IA most commonly reported as the causal agent (Bernardes-De-Assis et al. 2009; Gonzalez-Vera et al. 2010).
Table 1

Summary of hosts and the diseases caused by different anastomosis groups of Rhizoctonia solani

Family

Plant

Disease

Part of the plant infected

Disease symptoms

Anastomosis group/Subset

References

Poaceae

Rice

Sheath blight

Leaf sheath

Immergence of lesions on sheaths of lower leaves near the water line

AG1-IA

Miyake (1910)

Barley

Barley stunt disorder

Roots

Patches of chlorosis on leaves stunted plants

AG3

Roberts and Sivasithamparam (1986)

Maize

Sheath blight

Leaves, sheaths, stalks and ears

Stalk lesions (rind spotting), stalk breakage, clumping and caking of styles (silk fibres)

AG2-2

Ahuja and Payak (1982)

Wheat

Root rot

Stem

Lesions with dark brown borders and pale, straw-coloured - centrrs on the lower portions of wheat stems (culm) near the base of the plant

AG8

Paulitz et al. (2002), Barnett et al. (2017)

Sorghum

Sheath blight

Stem (ground side of sheath)

Lesions which are cloud-shaped, ash brown to ash white with reddish brown border on stem

AG-1 IA

Pascual and Raymundo (1988), Kasuga and Inoue (2000)

Solanaceae

Potato

Black scurf

Tubers

Raised black patches

AG3 

Beagle-Ristaino and Papavizas (1985)

Stem canker

Stem and colon

Sunken, brown lesions on the sprouts before they emerge from the soil

 

Tobacco

Leaf spot and root rot

Stem

Damping off and stem rot in young transplants, sore shin in older field plants and a foliar disease named ‘target spot’

AG-2-2 and AG-3

Lucas (1975), Gonzalez et al. (2011)

Amaranthaceae

Sugar beet

Root and crown rot

Root

Wilting of the leaves, scattered brown to black lesions on the root surface, blackening of petioles at the crown position

AG 2-2 IV and AG 2-2 IIIB

Pannecoucque et al. (2008)

Cucurbitaceae

Cucumber

Belly rot

Fruit

Lesions which grow as sunken, cratered, irregular in shape on fruits

AG4

Flentje et al. (1963), Lewis and Papavizas (1980), Hassan et al. (2015)

Peanut

Pod rot

Seedlings

Seed decay, dark, sunken lesions just below the soil line on stem

AG4

Thiessen and Woodward (2012)

Soya bean

Seedling blight, root and hypocotyl rot

Seedlings

Red-brown sunken lesions on hypocotyl, shrunken, reddish brown lesion or canker developing at or near the soil line

AG2-2IIIB, AG4 and AG5

Yang (2015), Ajayi-Oyetunde and Bradley (2018)

Chickpea

Root rot/wet rot

Root

Root rotting, yellowing and wilting of leaves, rotted and discoloured tissues become wet

AG2 and AG3

Harveson (2011)

Rubiaceae

Coffee

Necrotic leaf spot

Leaves

Small and large necrotic spots on leaves

AG1-ID

Priyatmojo et al. (2001)

Brassicaceae

Oilseed rape and canola

Seedling damping-off, seedling root rot and basal stem or foot rot (brown girdling root rot) of adult plants.

Seedling hypocotyls and roots

Light brown lesions on the roots which becomes sunken, dark, enlarge enough to girdle the taproot

AG2-1 and AG4

Kataria and Verma (1992)

 

Cauliflower

Damping off

Seedlings

Damping-off kills seedlings, rot beneath soil, Lesion near the tender stem causing the seedling to collapse or the seedling may continue to grow even though the lesion girdles the stem. The lesion is quite sunken, and the stem resembles a wire, hence the name wirestem. The girdled seedling eventually dies

AG2-1

Pscheidt and Ocamb (2008)

Malvaceae

Cotton

Root rot

Root

Damping–off, which included seed rot, lesions on the hypocotyls and root rot

AG4 and AG7

Rani et al. (2013)

Asteraceae

Lettuce

Bottom rot disease

Leaf midribs and leaf parts in contact with soil

Small rust-coloured necrotic spots on leaf midribs and leaf parts, lesions expand into a rot

AG 1-IB AG 1-IC and AG 2-1

Grosch et al. (2004)

Rice sheath blight infection and disease cycle

Typical R. solani infections result from sclerotia from a previous cropping season (Kumar et al. 2009). Initially, hyphae from sclerotia in the soil form a network and roots of newly planted seedling are penetrated at or near the water line (Ou 1985). Infection is favoured by warm temperatures (~ 28–32 °C), high humidity (~ 95%) and high levels of nitrogen fertiliser (Savary et al. 1995). The disease progresses in classical phases of early to late necrosis, with the cycle completed by the infection of soil by sclerotia from the infected rice plants (Fig. 1). After entering plant tissues, R. solani produces RS toxin, a mixture that includes N-acetyl glucosamine, N-acetyl galactosamine, glucose and mannose (Vidhyasekaran et al. 1997) along with pathogen effectors (such as glycosyltransferase, cytochrome C oxidase CtaG/cox11 and peptidase inhibitor I9), which co-relate with the virulence of the pathogen (Zheng et al. 2013). The fungus spreads in infected plant with the hyphae penetrating the stomata, producing lobate appressoria or infection cushions (Groth and Nowick 1992; Singh and Subramanian 2017). The formation of appressoria triggers enzymatic degradation, causing necrosis of the host plant and assisting colonisation by the fungal pathogen (Groth and Nowick 1992). The green or grey ellipsoid lesions (0.5–3 cm) formed on the sheath of leaves in acropetal succession (reviewed in Srinivas et al. 2013) give the classical sheath blight symptoms. As plant colonisation by the pathogen extends from leaf sheath to leaf blades, panicles and tillers, the necrotic lesions enlarge to 2–3 cm length and 1 cm width, with beached centres and borders turning purple-brown (reviewed in Srinivas et al. 2013). Finally, lesions on the upper part of leaves coalesce, covering entire stem and sheath of the plant leading to stem lodging. Stem lodging blocks the water transport, which disturbs canopy architecture and reduces photosynthetic capacity. As a result, grain filling is reduced and ultimately the infection leads to plant death (Bahuguna et al. 2012).
Fig. 1

Disease cycle of Rhizoctonia solani showing different phases of sclerotia development and disease symptom on rice

After rice harvest, R. solani sclerotia from infected plants persist in the soil for periods of up to 3 years and act as a source of infection for subsequent crop cycles (Savary et al. 1995). Individual sclerotia typically range from 5 mm in diameter to much bigger masses formed by fusion of multiple sclerotia (Keijer et al. 1996). Sclerotia are white initially and gradually turn brown after maturation as a result of melanin formation in the cell walls. The resilience of sclerotia can be related to the mature form, which has impermeable cell walls and high nutrient content: Melanin is an oxidised phenolic with hydrophobic properties (Willetts and Bullock 1992) reducing cell wall permeability and protecting cells from biological degradation (Sneh et al. 1991). Sclerotia have a rich nutrient reserve of proteins, polyphosphate, glycogen and lipids in the cytoplasm (Willetts and Bullock 1992), which serves as an energy source during extreme environmental conditions and also supports reinfection process (Keijer et al. 1996). The sclerotia are generally transported to the surrounding field from infected crops via irrigation of infested soil. At the time of re-infection, sclerotia undergo myceliogenic germination (Webster 1980) and hyphae spread horizontally (average is recorded to be 20 cm/day) on the plants hence making the disease to spread very fast (Savary et al. 1995). ShB development is also accelerated by high seedling rate, dense canopy of plants in the fields and growing of high-yielding improved varieties (which requires nitrogen fertilisers) (Savary et al. 1995).

Molecular basis of pathogenicity

The publication of whole genome sequence assemblies of R. solani AG1-1A (Zheng et al. 2013; Nadarajah et al. 2017), as well as genome sequences for rice (Eckardt 2000), provide useful resources for determining key mechanisms underlying R. solani infection and disease. Initial stages of ShB infection involve recognition between the rice host and the fungal pathogen. While rice roots produce exudates, comprised of carbohydrates and protein molecules that act as a chemoattractant for soil-borne bacteria (Bacilio-Jiménez et al. 2003) and influence fungal diversity (Van Der Wal et al. 2013; Hugoni et al. 2018), there are no reports of any specific fungal pathogen attracting molecules and a molecular mechanism explaining the role of root exudates in attracting R. solani is unknown. Genome sequence studies predict an array of secreted proteins, enzymes of primary and secondary metabolism, carbohydrate-active enzymes and transporters (such as ATP binding cassette) associated with the necrotic phase of infection (Zheng et al. 2013). Following that, transcriptome analysis of R. solani=infected rice sheath also showed involvement of various plant genes such as extracellular protease, ABC transporter and transcription factors during establishment and sugar transporters, cellular metabolism and protein degradation-related genes during the necrotrophic phase of infection (Ghosh et al. 2018). Following attachment of the fungal hyphae to rice roots, enzymic degradation of the plant primary and secondary cell walls occurs. The breakdown of complex macromolecules of cell walls such as cellulose, hemicellulose and pectin into simple sugars via cell wall degrading enzymes (pectinase, laccase and xylanase) secreted by R. solani facilitates host cell penetration (Talbot 2010; King et al. 2011). In the later stages of the disease, the pathogen activates sugar membrane transporters to enable the transport of simple sugar molecules to the fungal cells (Zheng et al. 2013; Quistgaard et al. 2016; Ghosh et al. 2018).

Signal transduction mechanism in R. solani infection is not yet well understood, though it likely involves G protein-mediated signalling through second messengers including cAMP and a number of downstream pathogenesis effector molecules: The G protein (Rga1) homologue to Ga subunits reported in other fungi was identified in R. solani (Charoensopharat et al. 2008). The disruption of Rga1 resulted in slow growth and reduction in pathogenicity, changes in colony structure and inability to form sclerotia. G proteins are the largest group of cell wall receptors in fungi, well-known for their function in promoting survival, propagation and virulence (Brown et al. 2018). A loss in pathogenicity because of disruption in G protein function has been reported for other pathogenic fungi including Magnaporthe grisea (Fang and Dean 2000) and Fusarium oxysporum (Jain et al. 2002). Changes in cAMP levels upon disruption of G proteins during infection have been reported for other pathogenic fungi but are yet to be explored in R. solani. A few studies have identified R. solani secreted proteins that are upregulated during infection and may be downstream effector molecules involved in enhancing plant infection and/or suppressing plant defense responses (Zheng et al. 2013; Ghosh et al. 2018). Studies of effector molecules identified in different R. solani strains show high diversity in gene sequences which indicates its adaptative flexibility (via gene duplication, deletion and point mutation) to escape host recognition and optimise virulence function (Oliver and Solomon 2010; De Wit et al. 2012; Ghosh et al. 2018). This could be one of the possible factors underlying the broad host range of R. solani strains.

Management of sheath blight disease in rice

Field disease history, weather conditions and prior information on cultivar susceptibility are major checkpoints to minimise disease occurrence. Current management practices and research to improve crop protection are discussed below and can be considered as related to agronomic practices, to chemical and biological control and crop improvement (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2

Disease management approaches for sheath blight of rice

Agronomic practices

Rice cultivars have considerable variation in terms of morphological traits including plant height, days to heading (date of sowing to panicle emergence), plant compactness, tiller angle, flag leaf length and width and stem thickness, which each have been reported to be associated with susceptibility to sheath blight (Zou et al. 2000; Pinson et al. 2005; Willocquet et al. 2012; Dey et al. 2016). To increase the grain yield, rice varieties with short height and abundant tillers are generally used in the field. Such varieties are also commonly cultivated with a high use of nitrogen fertilisers (Norman et al. 2001), which together create a denser canopy than taller varieties and provides a microclimate that enhances R. solani infection (Tang et al. 2007). Hence a systematic study on variety selection and correlation of nitrogen fertiliser with the seedling stage as well as the frequency of ShB infection may provide better information for optimising the use of nitrogen fertiliser while minimizing infection.

Regular monitoring, early detection of inocula and removal of weed-hosts are important points to be considered for ShB management. ShB infection in rice is also associated with the spacing in the plantation: Field studies in China showed a wider space plantation method such as square (Yang et al. 2008) and sparse plantation (Sugiyama et al. 2007) to improve the canopy architecture, produce a higher leaf area index, increase the grain yield and reduce disease occurrence. Clearance of plant debris and tubers from rice fields and postharvest drying was found to be effective in minimising sclerotia movement (Ritchie et al. 2009). Following drainage, complete sanitation using fungicides and destroying host-weeds from field boundaries (Anand et al. 2014) and crop rotation with the non-host plant (Wright et al. 2017) should be practiced to reduce inoculum density for next cropping season.

Rice farmers are on the front line in responding to crop diseases in the field. It is, therefore, important for the farmer to understand the available options to mitigate crop damage and the possible control methods that can be applied in the field (Nelson et al. 2001). Farmers in many developing countries rely only on fungicides because of lack of information on alternative disease management techniques. Hence awareness programmes are needed for implementing more effective disease management systems (Khoury and Makkouk 2010). In the early 90s, a farmer field schools (FFS) programme was conducted by the FAO’s Intercountry Programme on Rice Integrated Pest Management in South and Southeast Asia (Van de Fliert 1993; Matteson 1996) and farmers were trained with integrated disease management systems. In the programme, farmers were involved in observing and performing experiments such as rice genotype mixing to produce disease resistant cultivars; optimum use of nitrogen fertiliser for increasing yield and avoiding disease development; optimal plant density to avoid fungal infections and suitable concentrations of fungicides to grow susceptible varieties (Nelson et al. 2001). Likewise, more training programmes should be conducted to educate the farmers on good agricultural practices, marketing strategies and financial management, modern technologies such as remote sensing with Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS, commonly known as drones) for early detection of ShB in the field. UAS provides high-spatial resolution to perform plant phenotyping and disease diagnosis (Mulla 2013). UAS equipped with multiple types of sensors are used to measure plant phenotypic traits, physiological status and water stress (reviewed in Yang et al. 2017). During ShB infection, the infected leaf tissue usually changes its colour from green (healthy tissue) to brown-to-yellow (diseased tissue) with the development of the disease. UAS equipped with digital and multispectral camera and green Seeker handheld crop sensor showed efficient detection of the colour changes during ShB infection in rice compared to manual disease scoring (Zhang et al. 2018). UAS can be further used to quantify the phenotypic parameter such as plant height, leaf texture and canopy architecture and physiological parameters such as chlorophyll content, photosynthetic activity and biomass and pigment content associated with ShB symptoms. By providing quick and accurate data on disease development, at a low cost, deployment of UAS can alert farmers to effectively take necessary measures on time and minimise the risk of spread and re-occurrence. Compared to manual methods for disease detection, the application of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle technology has helped to reduce the use of chemical fungicide as well as reduce soil and water pollution (Mulla 2013). The adoption of this technology can contribute to cost-effective and eco-friendly rice farm management by facilitating site-specific fungicide and/or fertiliser application, soil health scanning, planning irrigation schedules and yield rate estimation. A strong effective networking system connecting scientific research, management practices and farmer awareness programmes are highly recommended (Shaw and Pautasso 2014). Such improvements will enhance the livelihoods of vulnerable farmers and contribute to food security (FAO 2018) (Table 2).
Table 2

Resistant rice cultivars generated using overexpression of defense-related genes

Gene

Type

Function

Method

Transformation system

References

OsCHI11

Chitinase gene

Antifungal activity by hydrolysis of internal β-1,4-linkages of chitin (a fungal cell wall component)

Overexpression

Polyethylene Glycol-mediated protoplast transformation of calli derived from mature rice seeds

Lin et al. (1995)

OsCHI11

Chitinase gene

Overexpression

Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of embryogenic derived rice calli

Datta et al. (2000)

OsRC7

Chitinase gene

Overexpression

1. Biolistic method for transformation of rice immature embryos

2. Polyethylene Glycol-mediated protoplast transformation of rice

Datta et al. (2001)

OsCHI11

Chitinase gene

 

Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of mature rice seeds

 

Os11g47510

Chitinase gene

Overexpression

Biolistic method for transformation of mature seed

Richa et al. (2017)

PR-5

Thaumatin-like protein

Antifungal activity by hydrolysis of β-1,3-glucan (a fungal cell wall component)

Overexpression

Biolistic method for transformation of immature rice embryo

Datta et al. (1999)

RCH10 and AGLU1

Chitinase and Alfalfa β-1,3-glucanase gene

Hydrolysis of fungal cell wall components chitin and β-1,3-glucan

Overexpression

Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of mature embryos callus

Mao et al. (2014)

chi11, tlp and Xa21

Rice chitinase, thaumatin-like protein and serine-threonine kinase

Cell surface recognition of a pathogen ligand and hydrolysis of fungal cell wall components chitin and β-1,3-glucan

Overexpression

Biolistic method for transformation of immature rice embryos

Maruthasalam et al. (2007)

Dm-AMP1

Antifungal plant defensin

Antimicrobial peptides which damage cell wall and increase membrane permeability

Overexpression

Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of scutellum derived rice calli

Jha et al. (2009)

OsACS2

Ethylene biosynthetic gene

Ethylene regulate the defense-related pathways during fungal pathogenesis

Overexpression

Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of mature rice seeds

Helliwell et al. (2013)

OsOXO4

Oxalate oxidase 4

Oxalate oxidase breakdowns to produce H2O2 (antioxidant) which triggers plant’s defense response

Overexpression

Biolistic method for embryo transformation

Molla et al. (2013)

OsOXO4 and OsCHI11

oxalate oxidase 4 and chitinase gene

Oxalate oxidase breakdowns to produce H2O2 (antioxidant) which triggers plant’s defense response and chitinase hydrolyzes the fungal cell wall component chitin

Overexpression

Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of embryo raised callus

Karmakar et al. (2016)

BjNPR1

Brassica juncea Non-expressor of pathogenesis-related genes 1

NPR1 regulate salicylic acid mediated systemic acquired resistance for defense response

Overexpression

Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of rice calli

Sadumpati et al. (2013)

AtNPR1

Arabidopsis thaliana Non-expressor of pathogenesis-related genes 1

Overexpression

Biolistic method for mature rice embryo transformation

Molla et al. (2016)

OsPGIP1

Polygalacturonase inhibiting proteins

PGIP inhibit polygalacturonase secreted by pathogen to degrade the plant cell wall

Overexpression

Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of the following:

1. Shoot apices, roots and calli derived from roots

2. Scutella, calli derived from scutella, and suspension cultures

3. Immature embryos

Wang et al. (2015b)

OsPGIP1

Overexpression

Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of rice callus

Chen et al. (2016)

chi11 and ap24

Rice chitinase and Tobacco osmotin

Chitinase hydrolyses fungal cell wall components chitin and osmotin diffuses across the fungal cell wall causing leakage of the cellular contents

Overexpression

Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of scutellum derived rice calli

Sripriya et al. (2017)

RPMK1-1 and RPMK1-2

Pathogenicity Map Kinases

PMK helps formation of appressorium for infection and overall viability inside host plant

Silencing

Biolistic method for mature seed derived calli transformation

Tiwari et al. (2017)

Chemical control

The most widely applied method for control of ShB is through the application of fungicides (Kandhari et al. 2003). Fungicides are toxic substances, often chemical compounds (natural or synthetic) with unique modes of action, used to kill or inhibit fungi (reviewed in Gullino et al. 2000). Selection of fungicide depends upon the intensity of the disease and also the tolerance level of the rice cultivar (Biswas 2004). The most popular fungicide application methods practiced for ShB control are foliar spray (McGrath 2004) and seed treatment (Kabir et al. 2006). Fungicides restrict the disease development on rice sheaths, acting on R. solani and its sclerotia by various means such as damaging the fungal cell membrane (Roberts et al. 1998), acting as enzyme inhibitors (Kumar et al. 2018), interfering in key processes including respiration or energy production (Ichiba et al. 2000; Lal et al. 2017) or by interfering with metabolic pathways associated with sterol and chitin biosynthesis for cell wall formation (Morton and Staub 2008). The best time to apply fungicides in a field is from 7 days after panicle differentiation until heading reaches 50–75% (Uppala and Zhou 2018). For susceptible rice varieties, application of fungicide is needed early in the crop cycle, at the booting stage of rice, when the leaf stem bulges to initiate panicle emergence (Yeshi et al. 2013). Some of the commercially available fungicides that are used against ShB in rice, their active ingredients and their modes of action are shown in Table 3. Apart from chemical fungicides, a few natural fungicides such as strobilurins (also known as β-methoxyacrylates) or QoI (Quinone outside Inhibitors) derived from the wild mushroom Strobilurus tenacellus have been tested for ShB management (Bag et al. 2016). Among analogues of strobilurins, Azoxystrobin (Methyl(E)-2-2-[6-(2-cyanophenoxy) yrimidin-4 yloxy] phenyl-3- methoxyacrylate) (commercial name Quadris 2.08 SC, Syngenta, Raleigh, NC, USA) was reported to be effective in reducing ShB and increasing grain yield (Bag et al. 2016). The above-mentioned fungicides arrest fungal growth via disrupting the electron transport chain, preventing ATP synthesis and restricting respiration in fungi (Ichiba et al. 2000). A recent comparison of the effect of Azoxystrobin and of the chemical fungicides thifluzamide, pencycuron, validamycin and hexaconazole showed the chemical fungicides to completely inhibit sclerotia formation while the natural fungicide, Azoxystrobin, also reduced sclerotia formation and resulted in better grain yield (Kumar et al. 2018).
Table 3

Chemical control of sheath blight of rice

Trade name

Active ingredient

Formulation

Mode of action

Gram active ingredient/hectare

References

Azoxystrobin

Strobilurin 23% SC

Suspension concentrate

Targets cytochrome bc1 (ubiquinol oxidase) at Qo-site which blocks the electron transport chain in fungi and prevent ATP formation

125

FRAC (2017), Bag et al. (2016)

Bavistin

Carbendazim 50% WP

Wettable powder

Disrupts β-tubulin assembly in mitosis of fungi and inhibits development of the germ tubes, formation of appressoria, and the growth of mycelia

250

Xiuguo et al. (2009)

Contaf

Hexaconazole 5% EC

Emulsifiable concentrate

Targets C14-demethylase in sterol biosynthesis (erg11/cyp51) and inhibits spore germination, mycelium development, and sporulation in fungi

50

FRAC (2017), Kumar et al. (2013)

Cursor 40 EC

Flusilazole 40% EC

Emulsifiable concentrate

120

FRAC (2017)

Kitazin 48 EC

Eprobenfos 48%EC

Emulsifiable concentrate

Prevents phospholipid biosynthesis and methyltransferase activity disrupting chitin layer of the fungi, inhibits spore germination and their penetration

240

Kumar et al. (2013)

Score 25EC

Difenconazole 25% EC

Emulsifiable concentrate (EC)

Inhibits sterol demethylation, prevents the development of the fungus by inhibiting cell membrane ergosterol biosynthesis.

62.5–125

Kumar et al. (2018)

Eurofil-NT 35% SC

Mancozeb 35 SC

Suspension concentrate

Multisite contact activity, chelates metal cations, interferes with the vital thiol compounds in the fungal cell wall

875

Morton and Staub (2008)

Monceren 25 SC

Pencycuron 22.9% SC

Suspension concentrate

Inhibits fungal cell division and spindle microtubules assembly

187.5

Mian et al. (2004), Pal et al. (2005)

Tilt 25 EC

Propiconazole 25% EC

Emulsifiable concentrate

Prevents development of fungi by interfering with the biosynthesis of sterols in cell membranes

125

FRAC (2017), Kumar et al. (2013)

Folicure 25EC

Tebuconazole 25.9% EC

Emulsifiable concentrate

Demethylation inhibitor (DMI) of fungal sterol biosynthesis.

187.5

Roberts et al. (1998)

Spencer

Thifluzamide 24% SC

Suspension concentrate

Targets succinate dehydrogenase complex II in respiratory chain and affect the fungal respiration

375

FRAC (2017), Kumar et al. (2012)

Sheathmar 3L

Validamycin 3% L

Inhibits trehalase an important carbohydrate energy source in fungi

60

FRAC (2017), Kumar et al. (2012)

The use of fungicides has been highly effective for controlling fungal diseases of crops. However, this is not without important considerations over the choice of fungicide and application practices: The prolonged use of a single fungicide increases the risk of fungicide resistance (Uppala and Zhou 2018). Fungal genomes may mutate resulting in altered target sites of fungicide binding, increased production of the target protein, or reduced uptake or increased metabolic breakdown of the fungicide (reviewed in Gullino et al. 2000). The above processes result in varying levels of resistance described as quantitative fungicide resistance (Deising et al. 2008). Therefore, the composition of fungicides is frequently modified to enhance the specificity to recognise and attack target fungus (reviewed in Gullino et al. 2000). However, the process of screening and selection for more specific and durable fungicides creates a cost burden to developers that may end up being passed on to the farmers in terms of higher prices who may then continue to use less effective but lower-cost earlier generation fungicides. Another concern over fungicide use is associated with hazard to human health (reviewed in Kim et al. 2017) and to natural ecosystems (Mahmood et al. 2016) requiring appropriate risk management strategies for their safe use. Many fungicides are persistent in soil and in above and below ground water bodies, ultimately entering and affecting the food chain (Rodrigues et al. 2018). Application of fungicides in agriculture also has a negative impact on aquatic organisms since the active ingredients of the fungicide often become concentrated in lakes and ponds through spray drift or agricultural runoff during heavy rainfall (Schulz 2004). The lethal effect of fungicides on detrivores also slows down leaf decomposition and thus impacts nutrient recycling (Hanazato 2001; Chang et al. 2005). The detrimental effect derived from fungicide treatment prompted policy actions that impose stringent regulation in several countries (Neha et al. 2017). Beside policy development, research and development efforts have been deployed to explore alternatives to the use of chemical fungicides such as use of biological agents to control ShB.

Biological control

Biocontrol is the use of parasites, predators or microorganisms (biocontrol agents) to reduce the population of a pest or pathogenic organism and is often considered to be a safe and reliable option for plant disease management (reviewed in Etesami and Maheshwari 2018). Microorganisms such as plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) can provide protection to rice cultivation via reducing R. solani infection (reviewed in Prasad et al. 2019). PGPR are free-living bacteria from the rhizosphere, which have been reported to actively participate in the biosynthesis of phytohormones (indole acetic acid, gibberellic acid, abscisic acid), increase N uptake, cause phosphate solubilization and interfere with pathogen toxin production (reviewed in Prasad et al. 2019). PGPR strains that are effective at controlling ShB infection in rice include Pseudomonas fluorescens and various Bacillus spp. (reviewed in Kumar et al. 2009; Karnwal and Mannan 2018). Pseudomonas fluorescens has been reported to inhibit R. solani by producing the antimicrobial compound hydrogen cyanide; the extracellular lytic enzymes β 1,3-glucanase and chitinase (Radjacommare et al. 2004) and by inducing systemic resistance in plants (Bakker et al. 2007). Bacillus spp. secrete phenylalanine ammonia lyase, peroxidase and other pathogenicity-related proteins to inhibit R. solani growth (He et al. 2002). Foliar spray of B. subtilis and B. megaterium was found to be highly effective in inhibiting the formation of sclerotia (40–60%) and mycelial growth (Li et al. 2003; Chen and Kang 2006). Pseudomonas fluorescens was also reported to be highly effective in preventing mycelial growth and sclerotia development (45%) when applied as a foliar spray or soil amendment (Kazempour 2004). Application of another strain of Pseudomonas, GRP3, as a coating on rice seed, followed by root dipping of germinated seedlings showed inhibition of the R. solani sclerotia up to 46%. (Pathak et al. 2004).

Eukaryotic microbes, mainly fungi from the genera Trichoderma and Gliocladium, have also been used as antagonists for ShB management. Trichoderma spp. and Gliocladium spp. inhibit R. solani by competition for nutrients and by mycoparasitism involving antifungal secondary metabolites (Qualhato et al. 2013). The major antifungal secondary metabolites reported are volatile antibiotics (e.g. 6-pentyl-α-pyrone and isocyanide derivates), hydrophilic compounds (e.g. heptelidic acid or koningic acid) and amphipathic polypeptides (e.g. peptaibiotics and peptaibols) (reviewed in Lorito et al. 2010, Bailey and Lumsden 2014). Fungal antagonists in the form of conidial biomass are used in the preparation of talc formulations for application as fungicides (Singh and Nautiyal 2012). The formulations applied to soil, seeds, root dip and foliar spray have shown inhibition of sclerotia formation up to 59% (Nagaraju et al. 2002; reviewed in Kumar et al. 2009).

Integrated, or combination approaches have also shown effectiveness for ShB control. As an example, applying a combination of a PGPR with an antibiotic was found to be very effective in suppression of ShB infection in rice: B. subtilis NJ-18 strain with jinggangmycin (a glucosaminidase glycoside antibiotic produced by Streptomyces var. jinggangensis) showed suppression of R. solani infection in rice under greenhouse conditions (Peng et al. 2014). A combined application of PGPR and fungus also showed promising results in controlling R. solani infection. T. viride and P. fluorescens reduced the disease by 47.3% (measured based on percentage disease scoring) compared with the individual application of either P. fluorescens (42%) or T. viride (45.7%) (Mathivanan et al. 2005). Combined application of T. viride and P. fluorescens demonstrated escalation in phytoalexin production, callose deposition, lignification of the plant cell wall, antimicrobial secondary metabolite production and upregulation of pathogenesis-related (PR) proteins (Nanda et al. 2010; Singh et al. 2016). Despite the promising results with biocontrol agents, the introduction of new biocontrol agents involves various considerations such as the tedious work of selection and screening, optimization of mode of application to achieve best results (reviewed in Tabassum et al. 2017), shelf life of the organism, efficacy in the field trials, environmental safety, and registration to be used as a PGPR (reviewed in Etesami and Maheshwari 2018).

Molecular biocontrol agents, such as antibiotics and the cell derivative trehalose have also been used against ShB. Trehalose (α-d-glucopyranosyl-(1 → 1)-α-d-glucopyranoside) is a carbohydrate energy source (Jin et al. 2015) present in all organisms except mammals (Benaroudj et al. 2001). In fungi, it is reported to be an important component of energy conservation and is also used as a scavenger of ROS (reactive oxygen species) under stress conditions (Perfect et al. 2017). Although generation of ROS is related with stress, ROS production has been reported to be crucial for the formation of R. solani sclerotia (Wang et al. 2018). ROS production is accelerated at the hyphal branches during the initial stage of sclerotia formation (Georgiou et al. 2000). During the mycelial growth, fungal cells remain stable and the amount of intracellular oxygen remains low, but in the transition period between mycelial growth to differentiation, fungal cells produce free radicals [ROS: hydroxyl radicals (·OH), superoxide anion (O 2 · ), singlet oxygen (1O2), and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), etc.], which stabilise the antioxidant level in the cells (Georgiou et al. 2006). The whole process leads to excessive accumulation of intracellular ROS, initiating the formation of sclerotia (Wang et al. 2018). The application of exogenous trehalose showed a prominent increase in the ROS-related enzyme activities and induced oxidative burst as well as the decline in R. solani sclerotial dry weight (Wang et al. 2018). In addition, application of other antioxidants such as β-carotene (Zervoudakis et al. 2003) and ascorbic acid (Georgiou et al. 2003) also showed inhibition of sclerotial biogenesis. Hence, application of antioxidant or mimetics (chemicals which can act as antioxidant) can be utilised to restrict the sclerotia biogenesis (Papapostolou and Georgiou 2010) (Table 4).
Table 4

Summary of putative genes/proteins involved in Rhizoctonia solani-rice interaction

Phase of infection

Genes/proteins

Role in infectiona

Establishment phase

Polygalacturonase

Polygalacturonase secreted by R. solani degrades enzyme pectin which is a major plant cell wall component

Extracellular metalloprotease, Mpr1

Fungalysins (zinc metalloproteases) which protect the pathogen from the action of host chitinases

ABC3 (ATP-binding cassette) transporter

ABC3 helps to efflux of cytotoxic compounds such as phytoalexins produced by the host

CRaZy (calcineurin-responsive zinc finger) transcription factor

Transcription factors helps in regulating expression of pathogenicity-associated genes during host colonisation

GAS1

GAS1, encodes β-1,3-glucanosyltransferase which helps in formation of infection cushions

Necrotrophic phase

AOX1

AOX1 is involved in alternative oxidative pathway and provides resistance against oxidative stress during pathogenesis

SidH

SidH (Enoyl-CoA hydratase protein family) is involved in siderophore production, which in turn assists the pathogen to survive under iron starved oxidative stress conditions

DHOD

DHOD (dihydroorotate dehydrogenase) is involved in maintaining cellular redox homeostasis to survive in anaerobic host conditions

MoCDIP4

MoCDIP4 encodes effector proteins and cell wall degrading enzymes that induce cell death

aSource: Rao et al. 2019; Ghosh et al. 2019 and Ghosh et al. 2018

Genetic improvement of rice for sheath blight resistance

A long history of human selection, then traditional breeding in rice, are now supported by molecular information that can be used, often together with biotechnological approaches, to develop improved varieties, including ShB resistant cultivars. Below we discuss the different strategies which have been implemented in genetic improvement of rice against ShB infection:

Selection and breeding

ShB resistance is a quantitative trait which is controlled by multiple genes (Li et al. 1995; Zeng et al. 2011). Mapping of QTLs (quantitative trait loci) has revealed associations between gene loci and traits which have been used for marker-assisted selection in breeding (Mulualem and Bekeko 2016). Li et al. (1995) identified six QTLs associated with ShB resistance using restricted fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis. Following this, more than 50 QTLs were identified for ShB resistance (Lavale et al. 2018), using mapping of various populations such as double-haploid populations (Zeng et al. 2015), a backcross population (Li et al. 2009), recombinant inbred lines (Channamallikarjuna et al. 2010), an F2 population (Sharma et al. 2009), chromosomal segment substitution lines (Zuo et al. 2014) and near-isogenic introgression lines (Loan et al. 2004). Association mapping of simple sequence repeats in rice genomes including landraces, further identified several markers significantly associated with ShB resistance (Jia et al. 2012; Lavale et al. 2018). However, the reliability of those QTLs is variable, as most of the QTLs remain undetected in multiple environments and/or mapping populations (Zuo et al. 2014; Eizenga et al. 2015). A recent genome-wide association study predicted two reliable QTL in rice based on significant correlation of the identified loci with ShB resistance in 299 cultivars (Chen et al. 2019). However, to date no QTL for ShB resistance has been well characterised: Identification of ShB resistance genes in QTL loci, functional characterization and application in marker associated breeding will be useful for generating resistant cultivars.

Genetic modification through biotechnology: Defense-related proteins and peptides

Genetic modification to develop resistant lines is a potentially powerful strategy to combat ShB infection in rice. The first tissue culture regeneration of rice (Oryza sativa cv. ‘Nipponbare’) was reported in 1985, using protoplasts derived from rice seed scutellum (Fujimura et al. 1985). The first genetically modified rice, (Oryza sativa L.v Taipei 309), containing an antibiotic resistance gene neomycin phosphotransferase II (NPTII), was reported in 1988 (Zhang et al. 1988). Following this, several genetically modified lines were developed expressing biotic and abiotic stress-resistant genes (reviewed in Ansari et al. 2015). More recently, the use of RNA interference (Tiwari et al. 2017) and gene editing (Gao et al. 2018) has demonstrated the possibilities to precisely manipulate expression of target genes to generate resistance rice varieties. Plant defense mechanisms are induced upon perception of a pathogen attack and include a hypersensitive response, generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS), accumulation of secondary metabolites such as phytoalexins, phenolics and tannins, and production and accumulation of pathogenesis-related (PR) proteins (Helliwell et al. 2013; Jain and Khurana 2018). Among the defense-related metabolites, expression of PR proteins has demonstrated potential to reduce ShB infection in rice (Table 2). Examples include rice plants overexpressing PR genes, such as Oryza sativa chitinase 11 (PR3 family) to inhibit R. solani via hydrolysis of β-1,4 linkages of the N-acetylglucosamine polymer of fungal chitin and degradation of the cell wall (Datta et al. 2001). The use of multiple disease resistance genes is likely to provide more enduring resistance than use of single resistance genes. Plants expressing three PR genes; chitinase-11 (PR3 family), thaumatin-like protein (PR5 family) and Xa21 (receptor like kinase) together showed fewer lesions compared to plants expressing each individual gene (Maruthasalam et al. 2007), while Karmakar et al. (2017) showed plants expressing OsCHI11 and AtNPR1 together displayed fewer sheath blight symptoms than plants expressing either single gene.

Expression of small antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) (45–54 amino acids), such as defensins in rice, have also been demonstrated to inhibit R. solani infection (Jha et al. 2009). Plant defensins bind to the fungal hyphae damaging the cell wall and plasma membrane thereby inhibiting fungal growth (Van Der Weerden et al. 2008). Expressing Dahlia merckii derived defensin, Dm-AMP1 in the apoplast of rice, suppressed the growth of R. solani by destabilising the plasma membrane. Dm-AMP1 also reduced the hyphal proliferation inside the plant tissue creating a disease resistance cascade (Jha et al. 2009). Although the role of AMPs has been widely studied and well characterised against biotic stresses there is a concern on the stability and innate toxicity of AMP. Much research is needed to develop less toxic and more stable AMPs for plant protection against ShB (Tang et al. 2018).

The recent addition of gene editing technology to plant biotechnology has expanded the possibilities for gene targets for the inhibition of pathogenesis. CRISPR/Cas9 editing has been used to restrict the growth of the R. solani in rice (Gao et al. 2018): R. solani activates the OsSWEET11 sugar transporter in infected plant cells, to efflux the sugar molecules for nutrition. Pathogen infection experiments showed that CRISPR-Cas9-based OsSWEET11 knock-out mutants were less susceptible to ShB, compared to OsSWEET11 overexpressing and wild-type plants (Gao et al. 2018). The precision of gene editing methods makes them attractive for crop improvement, particularly for loss of function mutations.

Genetic modification through biotechnology: Transcriptional and post-transcriptional regulation of gene expression

Strategies for manipulating gene expression at the transcriptional and post-transcriptional level have shown promise for improving rice ShB resistance. The rice genome encodes around 63 families of transcription factors (Gao et al. 2006), proteins that are master regulators of gene expression. Overexpression of members of the WRKY family of transcription factors, including OsWRKY30 (Peng et al. 2012), OsWRKY4 (Wang et al. 2015a) and OsWRKY80-OsWRKY4 (Peng et al. 2016) in rice each showed a reduction in the level of infection by R. solani. The reduction in the level of infection was found to be associated with WRKY-mediated elevated expression of defense-related PR genes of jasmonic acid and ethylene-responsive pathways (Peng et al. 2012; Wang et al. 2015a). Other than WRKY, transient expression of a rice transcription factor from the MYB family, Osmyb4 in rice leaf also demonstrated to elevate the expression of disease-resistant genes (aminotransferase, ankyrin and WRKY 12) (Singh et al. 2015) associated with the R. solani resistance (Zhang et al. 2010).

Other than the manipulation of gene expression via transcription factors, post-transcriptional regulation via RNA silencing is an effective biotechnological approach that has been applied in various crop. RNA silencing exploits the innate mechanism of double-stranded RNA-mediated suppression of gene expression via targeted destruction of mRNAs (Guo et al. 2016). With recent advancements in dsRNA delivery methods such as topical application of crude bacterial extract of exogenous dsRNA (Tenllado et al. 2003; Lau et al. 2014) and clay nanosheets loaded with dsRNA (Mitter et al. 2017) RNA silencing has already shown effect in disease management, especially for crop viruses. Information for the application of RNA silencing-based control to manage fungal pathogens is expanding, and this method offers an additional tool against fungi for which existing fungicides have been ineffective (Mcloughlin et al. 2018). An RNA silencing approach was able to reduce infection and delay symptoms of ShB by expressing a hairpin construct designed from the coding sequence of the PATHOGENICITY MAP KINASE (PMK), PMK1 and PMK2 genes of R. solani in rice (Tiwari et al. 2017). PMK is required in the fungal developmental pathway including the formation of appressorium infection structures, penetration of plant cuticle and overall viability inside host plant (Mey et al. 2002; Jenczmionka et al. 2003).

Conclusion and future prospects

ShB in rice is favoured by warm climatic conditions and high humidity. The key factors behind ShB outbreaks are broad host range and absence of single resistance gene and lack of awareness and access to best management practices among farmers. The most common practice in the field is still the application of fungicide, which if not used with care and good management, has negative environmental consequences and harmful effects on human health. The persistent use of fungicides leads to accumulation in agricultural soil and to ground-water contamination. The prolonged use of a fungicide also induces pathogen resistance. A more sustainable approach for ShB management in rice, with less reliance on synthetic fungicides, is to make greater use of natural fungicides such as strobilurins and biological agents such as P. fluorescens, Bacillus spp., Trichoderma spp., Gliocladium spp. and trehalose to restrict ShB occurrence. Further, testing of combinations of natural fungicides with biological agents and/or antibiotics to inhibit R. solani infection will likely lead to improved strategies for ShB management and can be used to determine more cost-effective approaches for farmers in various different settings. As ShB spreads more quickly with a poor spacing between plants and with over use of nitrogen fertilisers, adopting a square method of spacing and sparse plantation to avoid plant to plant contact and a combination of management practices such as postharvest drying and clearing of the field, crop rotation with the non-host plant will aid in restricting the fresh infection or re-occurrence. Furthermore, early disease detection of phenotypic and physiological parameters using Unmanned Aerial Systems can minimise the disease spread.

Use of tolerant and ideally resistant varieties is another sustainable approach. While QTL analysis has identified some potential ShB resistance loci and transcriptomic studies have identified candidate resistance genes, the underlying mechanisms for pathogenicity and resistance are not well understood and should be a priority for further studies. Also, genes associated with different phases of R. solani pathogenesis have been identified and further validation of such genes will serve as a reference for developing ShB tolerant varieties. Biotechnological approaches have shown promise: Transgenic lines overexpressing pathogenesis-related genes PR3, PR5, OsCHI11 and AtNPR1 (Table 2) and TF family WRKY (Peng et al. 2012; Wang et al. 2015a; Peng et al. 2016) showed inhibition against R. solani infection. It will be important to demonstrate protection against disease in field testing of the transgenic lines including under-warm and humid climates (optimal condition for R. solani infection) to further screen and select elite resistant varieties. Also, it will be interesting to study the productivity of transgenic lines in a field setting, especially at ShB hotspot locations. Host-derived dsRNA mediated silencing of pathogen-related kinase (PATHOGENICITY MAP KINASE 1) also demonstrated promising inhibition of R. solani infection. Exploration of pathogen- related genes through the exploitation of recent alternative approaches such as topical application of dsRNA as crude bacterial extract (Tenllado et al. 2003; Lau et al. 2014) or RNA clay (Mitter et al. 2017) and CRISPR mediated knock-out are additional approaches that should be included to achieve efficient and cost-effective disease management.

With climate change, ShB, along with other important crop diseases will require strong and concerted efforts in many areas of research from fundamentals though to applications. Strengthening linkages between researchers, media, non-governmental and community-based organisations in publicising information on ShB disease and its management will further aid in raising awareness to improve adoption of current available technologies to minimise ShB infection.

Author contribution statement

PS and PM designed the outline of the article, composed the manuscript and figure. JAH and SB provided scientific feedback and critical comments to revise the content. All the authors read and approved the manuscript.

Notes

Acknowledgement

Author Pooja Singh acknowledges Jimmy John Lilly, School of Bio Sciences and Technology, VIT University for providing sheath blight infection images. (PS, PM and JAH are partially supported by CEBAR Research University grant (RU006–2018).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest in the publication.

References

  1. Ahuja SC, Payak MM (1982) Symptoms and signs of banded leaf and sheath blight of maize. Phytoparasitica 10(1):41–49.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02981891 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahvenniemi P, Wolf M, Lehtonen MJ, Wilson P, German-Kinnari M, Valkonen JPT (2009) Evolutionary diversification indicated by compensatory base changes in ITS2 secondary structures in a complex fungal species, Rhizoctonia solani. J Mol Evol 69:150–163.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00239-009-9260-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajayi-Oyetunde OO, Bradley CA (2018) Rhizoctonia solani: taxonomy, population biology, and management of rhizoctonia seedling disease of soybean. Plant Pathol 67(1):3–17.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ppa.12733 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Almasia NI, Bazzini AA, Hopp HE, Vazquez-Rovere C (2008) Overexpression of snakin-1 gene enhances resistance to Rhizoctonia solani and Erwinia carotovora in transgenic potato plants. Mol Plant Pathol 9:329–338.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1364-3703.2008.00469.x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Almoneafy AA, Kakar KU, Nawaz Z, Li B, Chun-lan Y, Xie G-L (2014) Tomato plant growth promotion and antibacterial related-mechanisms of four rhizobacterial Bacillus strains against Ralstonia solanacearum. Symbiosis 63:59–70.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13199-014-0288-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anand P, Bentur JS, Prasad MS, Tanwar RK, Sharma OP, Bhagat S, Sehgal M, Singh SP, Singh M, Chattopadhyay C, Sushil SN, Sinha AK, Asre R, Kapoor KS, Satyagopal K, Jeyakumar P (2014) Integrated pest management for rice. p 43Google Scholar
  7. Ansari MUR, Shaheen T, Bukhari S, Husnain T (2015) Genetic improvement of rice for biotic and abiotic stress tolerance. Turk J Botany 39(6):911–919.  https://doi.org/10.3906/bot-1503-47 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bacilio-Jiménez M, Aguilar-Flores S, Ventura-Zapata E, Pérez-Campos E, Bouquelet S, Zenteno E (2003) Chemical characterization of root exudates from rice (Oryza sativa) and their effects on the chemotactic response of endophytic bacteria. Plant Soil 249(2):271–277.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022888900465 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bag MK, Yadav M, Mukherjee AK (2016) Bioefficacy of strobilurin based fungicides against rice sheath blight disease. Transcriptomics 4(128):2.  https://doi.org/10.4172/2329-8936.1000128 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bahuguna RN, Joshi R, Shukla A, Pandey M, Kumar J (2012) Thiamine primed defense provides reliable alternative to systemic fungicide carbendazim against sheath blight disease in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Plant Physiol Biochem 57:159–167.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2012.05.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bailey BA, Lumsden RD (2014) Gliocladium on plant growth and resistance to pathogens. Trichoderma Gliocladium, Vol 2: Enzymes, Biol Control Commer Appl 2:185Google Scholar
  12. Bakker PA, Pieterse CM, Van Loon LC (2007) Induced systemic resistance by fluorescent Pseudomonas spp. Phytopathology 97(2):239–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Barnett S, Zhao S, Ballard R, Franco C (2017) Selection of microbes for control of Rhizoctonia root rot on wheat using a high throughput pathosystem. Biol Control 113:45–57.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2017.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Beagle-Ristaino JE, Papavizas GC (1985) Biological control of Rhizoctonia stem canker and black scurf of potato. J Phytopathol 75:560–564.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jph.12423 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Benaroudj N, Lee DH, Goldberg AL (2001) Trehalose accumulation during cellular stress protects cells and cellular proteins from damage by oxygen radicals. J Biol Chem 276:24261–24267.  https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M101487200 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Bernardes-de-Assis J, Storari M, Zala M, Wang W, Jiang D, ShiDong L, Jin M, McDonald BA, Ceresini PC (2009) Genetic structure of populations of the rice-infecting pathogen Rhizoctonia solani AG-1 IA from China. Phytopathology 99:1090–1099.  https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-99-9-1090 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Biswas A (2004) Evaluation of new fungicides for rice sheath blight control. J Mycopathol Res 42:163–165Google Scholar
  18. Brown NA, Schrevens S, Dijck P, Goldman GH (2018) Fungal G-protein-coupled receptors: mediators of pathogenesis and targets for disease control. Nat Microbiol 3(4):402.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-018-0127-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Chang KH, Sakamoto M, Hanazato T (2005) Impact of pesticide application on zooplankton communities with different densities of invertebrate predators: an experimental analysis using small-scale mesocosms. Aquat Toxicol 72(4):373–382.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2005.02.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Channamallikarjuna V, Sonah H, Prasad M, Rao GJN, Chand S, Upreti HC, Singh NK, Sharma TR (2010) Identification of major quantitative trait loci qSBR11-1 for sheath blight resistance in rice. Mol Breed 25(1):155–166.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-009-9316-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Charoensopharat K, Aukkanit N, Thanonkeo S, Saksirirat W, Thanonkeo P, Akiyama K (2008) Targeted disruption of a G protein alpha subunit gene results in reduced growth and pathogenicity in Rhizoctonia solani. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 24:345–351.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-007-9476-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chen M, Kang XH (2006) The research exploration to the effect of controlling rice sheath blight with Bacillus spp. Drt-11, Southwest China. J Agricult Sci 19:53–57Google Scholar
  23. Chen XJ, Chen Y, Zhang LN, Xu B, Zhang JH, Chen ZX, Tong YH, Zuo SM, Xu JY (2016) Overexpression of OsPGIP1 enhances rice resistance to sheath blight. Plant Dis 100:388–395.  https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-03-15-0305-RE CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Chen X, Lili L, Zhang Y, Zhang J, Ouyang S, Zhang Q, Tong Y, Xu J, Zuo S (2017) Functional analysis of polygalacturonase gene RsPG2 from Rhizoctonia solani, the pathogen of rice sheath blight. Eur J Plant Pathol 149:491–502.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10658-017-1198-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chen Z, Feng Z, Kang H, Zhao J, Chen T, Li Q, Gong H, Zhang Y, Chen X, Pan X, Liu W (2019) Identification of new resistance loci against sheath blight disease in rice through genome-wide association study. Rice Sci 26(1):21–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsci.2018.12.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Das A, Pramanik K, Sharma R, Gantait S, Banerjee J (2019) In-silico study of biotic and abiotic stress-related transcription factor binding sites in the promoter regions of rice germin-like protein genes. PLoS One 14(2):e0211887.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211887 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Datta K, Velazhahan R, Oliva N, Ona I, Mew T, Khush GS, Muthukrishnan S, Datta SK (1999) Over-expression of the cloned rice thaumatin-like protein (PR-5) gene in transgenic rice plants enhances environmental friendly resistance to Rhizoctonia solani causing sheath blight disease. Theor Appl Genet 98:1138–1145.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s001220051178 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Datta K, Koukolikova-Nicola Z, Baisakh N, Oliva N, Datta SK (2000) Agrobacterium-mediated engineering for sheath blight resistance of indica rice cultivars from different ecosystems. Theor Appl Genet 100:832–839.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s001220051359 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Datta K, Tu J, Oliva N, Ona I, Velazhahan R, Mew TW, Muthukrishnan S, Datta SK (2001) Enhanced resistance to sheath blight by constitutive expression of infection-related rice chitinase in transgenic elite indica rice cultivars. Plant Sci 160:405–414.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9452(00)00413-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. De Wit PJ, Van Der Burgt A, Ökmen B, Stergiopoulos I, Abd-Elsalam KA, Aerts AL, Bahkali AH, Beenen HG, Chettri P, Cox MP, Datema E (2012) The genomes of the fungal plant pathogens Cladosporium fulvum and Dothistroma septosporum reveal adaptation to different hosts and lifestyles but also signatures of common ancestry. PLoS Genet 8(11):e1003088.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003088 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Deising HB, Reimann S, Pascholati SF (2008) Mechanisms and significance of fungicide resistance. Braz J Microbiol 39(2):286–295.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-838220080002000017 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Dey S, Badri J, Prakasam V, Bhadana VP, Eswari KB, Laha GS, Priyanka C, Rajkumar A, Ram T (2016) Identification and agro-morphological characterization of rice genotypes resistant to sheath blight. Australas Plant Pathol 45:145–153.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13313-016-0404-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Duan CG, Chun-Han W, Hui-Shan G (2012) Application of RNA silencing to plant disease resistance. Science 3:5.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1758-907X-3-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Eckardt NA (2000) Sequencing the rice genome. Plant Cell 12:2011–2017.  https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.12.11.2011 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Eizenga GC, Jia MH, Pinson SR, Gasore ER, Prasad B (2015) Exploring sheath blight quantitative trait loci in a Lemont/O. meridionalis advanced backcross population. Mol Breed 35(6):140.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-015-0332-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Etesami H, Maheshwari DK (2018) Use of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPRs) with multiple plant growth promoting traits in stress agriculture: action mechanisms and future prospects. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 156:225–246.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.03.013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Fang EGC, Dean RA (2000) Site-directed mutagenesis of the MagB gene affects growth and development in Magnaporthe grisea. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 13:1214–1227.  https://doi.org/10.1094/MPMI.2000.13.11.1214 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. FAO (Food Agriculture Organization) (2004) Rice is Life. FAO, Italy. http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/focus/200436887/index.html
  39. FAO (Food Agriculture Organization) (2018) Rice market monitor. http://www.fao.org/economic/est/publications/rice-publications/rice-market-monitor-rmm/en/
  40. Fenille RC, de Souza NL, Kuramae EE (2002) Characterization of Rhizoctonia solani associated with soybean in Brazil. Eur J Plant Pathol 108:783–792.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020811019189 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Flentje NT, Dodman RL, Kerr A (1963) The mechanism of host penetration by Thanatephorus cucumeris. Aust J Biol Sci 16:784–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Fujimura T, Sakurai M, Akagi H, Negishi T, Hirose A (1985) Regeneration of rice plants from protoplasts. Plant Tissue Cult Lett 2(2):74–75.  https://doi.org/10.5511/plantbiotechnology1984.2.74 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gao G, Zhong Y, Guo A, Zhu Q, Tang W, Zheng W, Gu X, Wei L, Luo J (2006) DRTF: a database of rice transcription factors. Bioinforma Appl Note 22:1286–1287.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btl107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gao Y, Zhang C, Han X, Wang ZY, Ma L, Yuan DP, Wu JN, Zhu XF, Liu JM, Li DP, Hu YB (2018) Inhibition of OsSWEET11 function in mesophyll cells improves resistance of rice to sheath blight disease. Mol Plant Pathol 19:2149–2161.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mpp.12689 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Georgiou CD, Tairis N, Sotiropoulou A (2000) Hydroxyl radical scavengers inhibit sclerotial differentiation and growth in Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and Rhizoctonia solani. Mycol Res 104(10):1191–1196.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0953756200002707 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Georgiou CD, Zervoudakis G, Petropoulou KP (2003) Ascorbic acid might play a role in the sclerotial differentiation of Sclerotium rolfsii. Mycologia 95(2):308–316.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3762041 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Georgiou CD, Patsoukis N, Papapostolou I, Zervoudakis G (2006) Sclerotial metamorphosis in filamentous fungi is induced by oxidative stress. Integr Comp Biol 46:691–712.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icj034 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Ghosh S, Kanwar P, Jha G (2018) Identification of candidate pathogenicity determinants of Rhizoctonia solani AG1-IA, which causes sheath blight disease in rice. Curr Genet 64:729–740.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00294-017-0791-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Ghosh S, Mirza N, Kanwar P, Tyagi K, Jha G (2019) Genome analysis provides insight about pathogenesis of Indian strains of Rhizoctonia solani in rice. Funct Integr Genomics 1:2.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10142-019-00687-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Gonzalez M, Pujol M, Metraux JP, Gonzalez-Garcia V, Bolton MD, Borrás-Hidalgo O (2011) Tobacco leaf spot and root rot caused by Rhizoctonia solani Kühn. Mol Plant Pathol 12:209–216.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1364-3703.2010.00664.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Gonzalez-Vera AD, Bernardes-De-Assis J, Zala M, McDonald BA, Correa-Victoria F, Graterol-Matute EJ et al (2010) Divergence between sympatric rice and maize-infecting populations of Rhizoctonia solani AG-1 IA from Latin America. Phytopathology 100:172–182.  https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-100-2-0172 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Grosch R, Schneider JHM, Kofoet A (2004) Characterisation of Rhizoctonia solani anastomosis groups causing bottom rot in field-grown lettuce in Germany. Eur J Plant Pathol 110:53–62.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EJPP.0000010137.69498.10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Groth DE, Nowick EM (1992) Selection for resistance to rice sheath blight through number of infection cushions and lesion type. Plant Dis 76:721–723.  https://doi.org/10.1094/PD-76-0721 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Guillemaut C, Edel-Hermann V, Camporota P, Alabouvette C, Richard-Molard M, Steinberg C (2003) Typing of anastomosis groups of Rhizoctonia solani by restriction analysis of ribosomal DNA. Can J Microbiol 49:556–568.  https://doi.org/10.1139/w03-066 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Gullino ML, Leroux P, Smith CM (2000) Uses and challenges of novel compounds for plant disease control. Crop Prot 19:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-2194(99)00095-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Guo Q, Liu Q, Smith N, Liang G, Wang MB (2016) RNA silencing in plants: mechanisms, technologies and applications in horticultural crops. Curr Genomics 17(6):476–489.  https://doi.org/10.2174/1389202917666160520103117 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Hada A, Krishnan V, Mohamed Jaabir MS, Kumari A, Jolly M, Praveen S, Sachdev S (2018) Improved Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr] following optimization of culture conditions and mechanical techniques. Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 54:672.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11627-018-9944-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Hanazato T (2001) Pesticide effects on zooplankton: an ecological perspective. Environ Pollut 112:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269-7491(00)00110-X CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Harveson RM (2011) Soilborne root diseases of chickpeas in Nebraska. Lincoln Extension, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resource, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Neb guideGoogle Scholar
  60. Hassan N, Elsharkawy MM, Villajuan-Abgona R, Hyakumachi M (2015) A nonpathogenic species of binucleate Rhizoctonia inhibits the formation of infection structures caused by Rhizoctonia solani on cucumber. Acta Agr Scand B-S P 65:208–214.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09064710.2014.990502 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. He QF, Chen WL, Ma ZC (2002) Purification and properties of antagonistic peptide produced by Bacillus subtilis A30. Chin J Rice Sci 16(4):361–365Google Scholar
  62. Helliwell EE, Wang Q, Yang Y (2013) Transgenic rice with inducible ethylene production exhibits broad spectrum disease resistance to the fungal pathogens Magnaporthe oryzae and Rhizoctonia solani. Plant Biotechnol J 11:33–42.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12004 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Hugoni M, Luis P, Guyonnet J, el Zahar Haichar F (2018) Plant host habitat and root exudates shape fungal diversity. Mycorrhiza 28(5–6):451–463.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00572-018-0857-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Ichiba T, Kumano K, Kashino H, Nanba K, Mizutani A, Miki N (2000) Effect of metominostrobin on respiratory activity of Rhizoctonia solani and its efficacy for controlling rice sheath blight. J Pestic Sci 25:398–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Jain D, Khurana JP (2018) Role of pathogenesis-related (PR) proteins in plant defense mechanism. Molecular aspects of plant-pathogen interaction. Springer, Singapore, pp 265–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Jain S, Akiyama K, Mae K, Ohguchi T, Takata R (2002) Targeted disruption of a G protein a subunit gene results in reduced pathogenicity in Fusarium oxysporum. Curr Genet 41:407–413.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00294-002-0322-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Jenczmionka NJ, Maier FJ, Losch AP, Schafer W (2003) Mating, conidiation and pathogenicity of Fusarium graminearum, the main causal agent of the head-blight disease of wheat, are regulated by the MAP kinase GPMK1. Curr Genet 43:87–95.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00294-003-0379-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Jha S, Tank HG, Prasad BD, Chattoo BB (2009) Expression of Dm-AMP1 in rice confers resistance to Magnaporthe oryzae and Rhizoctonia solani. Transgenic Res 18:59–69.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-008-9196-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Jia L, Yan W, Zhu C, Agrama HA, Jackson A, Yeater K, Li X, Huang B, Hu B, McClung A, Wu D (2012) Allelic analysis of sheath blight resistance with association mapping in rice. PLoS One 7(3):e32703.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032703 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. Jin K, Peng G, Liu Y, Xia Y (2015) The acid trehalase, ATM1, contributes to the in vivo growth and virulence of the entomopathogenic fungus, Metarhizium acridum. Fungal Genet Biol 77:61–67.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fgb.2015.03.013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Jung YJ, Nogoy FM, Lee SK, Cho YG, Kang KK (2018) Application of ZFN for site directed mutagenesis of rice SSIVa gene. Biotechnol Bioprocess Eng 23(1):108–115.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12257-017-0420-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Kabir MH, Islam SM, Sultana N, Azad MA, Fakir GA (2006) Effect of seed cleaning, washing and treating with Vitavax on incidence and severity of Boro rice diseases. Int J Sustain Agric Technol 2:27–31Google Scholar
  73. Kandhari J, Gupta RL, Kandari J (2003) Efficacy of fungicides and resistance inducing chemicals against sheath blight of rice. J Mycol Res 41:67–69Google Scholar
  74. Karmakar S, Molla KA, Chanda PK, Sarkar SN, Datta SK, Datta K (2016) Green tissue-specific co-expression of chitinase and oxalate oxidase 4 genes in rice for enhanced resistance against sheath blight. Planta 243:115–130.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-015-2398-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Karmakar S, Molla KA, Das K, Sarkar SN, Datta SK, Datta K (2017) Dual gene expression cassette is superior than single gene cassette for enhancing sheath blight tolerance in transgenic rice. Sci Rep 7:7900.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-08180-x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. Karnwal A, Mannan M (2018) Application of Zea mays L. rhizospheric bacteria as promising biocontrol solution for rice sheath blight. Pertanika J Trop Agric Sci 41(4):1613–1626Google Scholar
  77. Kasuga S, Inoue N (2000) Varietal difference of resistance to sheath blight (Rhizoctonia solani Kuhn) in sorghum. Jpn J Grassl Sci 46:28–33.  https://doi.org/10.14941/grass.46.28_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Kataria HR, Verma PR (1992) Rhizoctonia solani damping-off and root rot in oilseed rape and canola. Crop Prot 11:8–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-2194(92)90072-D CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Kazempour MN (2004) Biological control of Rhizoctonia solani, the causal agent of rice sheath blight by antagonistics bacteria in greenhouse and field conditions. Plant Pathol J 3:88–96.  https://doi.org/10.3923/ppj.2004.88.96 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Keijer J, Houterman PM, Dullemans AM, Korsman MG (1996) Heterogeneity in electrophoretic karyotype within and between anastomosis groups of Rhizoctonia solani. Mycol Res 100:789–797.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0953-7562(96)80023-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Khoury WE, Makkouk K (2010) Integrated plant disease management in developing countries. J Plant Pathol S3:5–42Google Scholar
  82. Kim KH, Kabir E, Jahan SA (2017) Exposure to pesticides and the associated human health effects. Sci Total Environ 575:525–535.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. King BC, Waxman KD, Nenni NV, Walker LP, Bergstrom GC, Gibson DM (2011) Arsenal of plant cell wall degrading enzymes reflects host preference among plant pathogenic fungi. Biotechnol Biofuels 4:4.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-4-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  84. Kulmitra AK, Sahu N, Sahu MK, Kumar R, Kushram T, Sanath Kumar VB (2017) Growth of rice Blast fungus Pyricularia oryzae (Cav.) on different solid and liquid media. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci 6:1154–1160.  https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.606.133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Kumar KVK, Reddy MS, Kloepper JW, Lawrence KS, Groth DE, Miller ME (2009) Sheath blight disease of rice (Oryza sativa L.)—an overview. Biosci, Biotechnol Res Asia 6:465–480Google Scholar
  86. Kumar MP, Gowda DS, Gowda KP, Vishwanath K (2012) A new carboxynilide group fungicide against paddy sheath blight. Res J Agric Sci 3:500–505Google Scholar
  87. Kumar MP, Gowda DS, Moudgal R, Kumar NK, Gowda KP, Vishwanath K (2013) Impact of fungicides on rice production in India. Fungicides-showcases of integrated plant disease management from around the world. IntechOpen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  88. Kumar P, Ahlawat S, Chauhan R, Kumar A, Singh R, Kumar A (2018) In vitro and field efficacy of fungicides against sheath blight of rice and post-harvest fungicide residue in soil, husk, and brown rice using gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Environ Monit Assess 190:503.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-018-6897-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Kuninaga S, Godoy-Lutz G, Yokosawa R (2002) rDNA-ITS nucleotide sequences analysis of Thanatephorus cucumeris AG-1 associated with web blight on common beans in Central America and Caribbean. Ann Phytopathol Soc Jpn 68:187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Lal M, Sharma S, Chakrabarti SK, Kumar M (2017) Thifluzamide 24% SC: a new molecule for potato tubers treatment against black scurf disease of potato caused by Rhizoctonia solani. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci 6:370–375.  https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.606.043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Lau SE, Mazumdar P, Hee TW, Song AL, Othman RY, Harikrishna JA (2014) Crude extracts of bacterially-expressed dsRNA protect orchid plants against Cymbidium mosaic virus during transplantation from in vitro culture. J Hortic Sci Biotechnol 89:569–576.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14620316.2014.11513122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Lavale SA, Prashanthi SK, Fathy K (2018) Mapping association of molecular markers and sheath blight (Rhizoctonia solani) disease resistance and identification of novel resistance sources and loci in rice. Euphytica 214:78.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-018-2156-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Lewis JA, Papavizas GC (1980) Integrated control of Rhizoctonia fruit rot of cucumber. Phytopathology 2:85–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Li ZK, Pinson SRM, Marchetti MA, Stansel JW, Park WD (1995) Characterization of quantitative trait loci (QTL) in cultivated rice contributing to field resistance to sheath blight (Rhizoctonia solani). Theor Appl Genet 91:382–388.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00220903 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. Li XM, Hu BS, Xu ZG, Mew TW (2003) Threshold population sizes of Bacillus subtilis B5423-R to suppress the occurrence of rice sheath blight. Chin J Rice Sci 17:360–364Google Scholar
  96. Li F, Cheng L, Xu M, Zhou Z, Zhang F, Sun Y, Zhou Y, Zhu L, Xu J, Li Z (2009) QTL mining for sheath blight resistance using the backcross selected introgression lines for grain quality in rice. Acta Agronomica Sinica 35(9):1729–1737.  https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1006.2009.01729 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Li T, Liu B, Spalding MH, Weeks DP, Yang B (2012) High-efficiency TALEN-based gene editing produces disease-resistant rice. Nat Biotechnol 30(5):390.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2199 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. Lin W, Anuratha CS, Datta K, Potrykus I, Muthukrishnan S, Datta SK (1995) Genetic engineering of rice for resistance to sheath blight. Nat Biotechnol 13:686–691.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0795-686 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. FRAC Code List (2017) Fungicides sorted by mode of action (including FRAC Code numbering), 1–12. www.farc.info
  100. Loan LC, Du PV, Li Z (2004) Molecular dissection of quantitative resistance of sheath blight in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Omonrice 12:1–2Google Scholar
  101. Lorito M, Woo SL, Harman GE, Monte E (2010) Translational research on Trichoderma: from ‘omics to the field. Annu Rev Phytopathol 48:395–417.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-phyto-073009-114314 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. Lucas GB (1975) Diseases of tobacco, 3rd edn. Biological Consulting Associates, RaleighGoogle Scholar
  103. Mahmood I, Imadi SR, Shazadi K, Gul A, Hakeem KR (2016) Effects of pesticides on environment. Plant. Soil and microbes, Springer, pp 253–269Google Scholar
  104. Mao B, Liu X, Hu D, Li D (2014) Co-expression of RCH10 and AGLU1 confers rice resistance to fungal sheath blight Rhizoctonia solani and blast Magnorpathe oryzae and reveals impact on seed germination. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 30:1229–1238.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-013-1546-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. Margani R, Widadi S (2018) Utilizing Bacillus to inhibit the growth and infection by sheath blight pathogen, Rhizoctonia solani in rice. IOP conference series: earth and environmental science, Vol. 142, No. 1. IOP Publishing, BristolGoogle Scholar
  106. Maruthasalam S, Kalpana K, Kumar KK, Loganathan M, Poovannan K, Raja JA, Kokiladevi E, Samiyappan R, Sudhakar D, Balasubramanian P (2007) Pyramiding transgenic resistance in elite indica rice cultivars against the sheath blight and bacterial blight. Plant Cell Rep 26:791–804.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-006-0292-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. Mathivanan N, Prabavathy VR, Vijayanandraj VR (2005) Application of talc formulations of Pseudomonas fluorescens Migula and Trichoderma viride Pers. ex SF gray decrease the sheath blight disease and enhance the plant growth and yield in rice. J Phytopathol 153(11–12):697–701.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0434.2005.01042.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Matteson PC (1996) Implementing IPM: policy and institutional revolution. J Agric Entomol 13:173–183Google Scholar
  109. McGrath MT (2004) What are fungicides. Plant Health Instr 5:2.  https://doi.org/10.1094/PHI-I-2004-0825-01 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Mcloughlin AG, Walker PL, Wytinck N, Sullivan DS, Whyard S, Belmonte MF (2018) Developing new RNA interference technologies to control fungal pathogens. Can J Plant Pathol 40(3):325–335.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07060661.2018.1495268 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Mey G, Oeser B, Lebrun MH, Tudzynski P (2002) The biotrophic, non-appressorium-forming grass pathogen Claviceps purpurea needs a Fus3/Pmk1 homologous mitogen-activated protein kinase for colonization of rye ovarian tissue. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 15:303–312.  https://doi.org/10.1094/MPMI.2002.15.4.303 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. Mian MS, Akter S, Ali MA, Mia MAT (2004) Evaluation of some chemicals against sheath blight of rice. Bangladesh J Plant Pathol 20:59–61Google Scholar
  113. Miao J, Guo D, Zhang J, Huang Q, Qin G, Zhang X, Wan J, Gu H, Qu LJ (2013) Targeted mutagenesis in rice using CRISPR-Cas system. Cell Res 10:1233.  https://doi.org/10.1038/cr.2013.123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Miao C, Xiao L, Hua K, Zou C, Zhao Y, Bressan RA, Zhu JK (2018) Mutations in a subfamily of abscisic acid receptor genes promote rice growth and productivity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 16:201804774.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804774115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Mitter N, Worrall EA, Robinson KE, Li P, Jain RG, Taochy C, Fletcher SJ, Carroll BJ, Lu GM, Xu ZP (2017) Clay nanosheets for topical delivery of RNAi for sustained protection against plant viruses. Nat Plants 3:16207.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2016.207 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. Miyake I (1910) Studien uber die Pilze der Reispflanze in Japan. J Coll Agric Imp Univ Tokyo 2:237–276Google Scholar
  117. Molla KA, Karmakar S, Chanda PK, Ghosh S, Sarkar SN, Datta SK, Datta K (2013) Rice oxalate oxidase gene driven by green tissue-specific promoter increases tolerance to sheath blight pathogen (Rhizoctonia solani) in transgenic rice. Mol Plant Pathol 14:910–922.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mpp.12055 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  118. Molla KA, Karmakar S, Chanda PK, Sarkar SN, Datta SK, Datta K (2016) Tissue-specific expression of Arabidopsis NPR1 gene in rice for sheath blight resistance without compromising phenotypic cost. Plant Sci 250:105–114.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2016.06.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. Morton V, Staub T (2008) A short history of fungicides. APSnet FeaturesGoogle Scholar
  120. Mulla DJ (2013) Twenty five years of remote sensing in precision agriculture: key advances and remaining knowledge gaps. Biosys Eng 114:358–371.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2012.08.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Mulualem T, Bekeko Z (2016) Advances in quantitative trait loci, mapping and importance of markers assisted selection in plant breeding research. Int J Plant Breed Genet 10:58–68.  https://doi.org/10.3923/ijpbg.2016.58.68 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Nadarajah K, Razali NM, Cheah BH, Sahruna NS, Ismail I, Tathode M, Bankar K (2017) Draft genome sequence of Rhizoctonia solani anastomosis group 1 subgroup 1a strain 1802/KB isolated from rice. Genome Announc 5(43):e01188-17.  https://doi.org/10.1128/genomeA.01188-17 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  123. Nagaraju P, Dronavalli N, Biradar DP (2002) Biological control of sheath blight (Rhizoctonia solani) in transplanted rice (Oryza sativa). Indian J Agr Sci 72(5):306–307Google Scholar
  124. Nanda AK, Andrio E, Marino D, Pauly N, Dunand C (2010) Reactive oxygen species during plant-microorganism early interactions. J Integr Plant Biol 52:195–204.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7909.2010.00933.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. Neha KV, Naveenkumar R, Balabaskar P, Manikandan P (2017) Evaluation of fungicides against sheath blight of rice caused by Rhizoctonia solani (Kuhn.). Oryza 54:470–476.  https://doi.org/10.5958/2249-5266.2017.00064.9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Nelson R, Orrego R, Ortiz O, Tenorio J, Mundt C, Fredrix M, Vien NV (2001) Working with resource-poor farmers to manage plant diseases. Plant Dis 85:684–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Norman RJ, Slaton NA, Moldenhauer KAK, Boothe DL (2001) Influence of Seeding Date on the Degree Day 50 Thermal Heat Unit Accumulations and Grain Yield of New Rice Cultivars. In: Norman RJ (ed) B.R Wells Rice Research Studies 2000, Res. Ser. 485. Arkansas Agric. Exp. Stn, Fayetteville, AR, USA, pp. 189–196Google Scholar
  128. Norman RJ, Wilson CE, Slaton NA (2003) Soil fertilization and mineral nutrition in US mechanized rice culture. In: Smith CW, Dilday RH (eds) Rice: origin, history, technology, and production. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 331–412Google Scholar
  129. Oliver RP, Solomon PS (2010) New developments in pathogenicity and virulence of necrotrophs. Curr Opin Plant Biol 13:415–419.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2010.05.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  130. Ou SH (1985) Rice diseases. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau, Great Britain (UK), p 380Google Scholar
  131. Pal R, Chakrabarti K, Chakraborty A, Chowdhury A (2005) Pencycuron application to soils: degradation and effect on microbiological parameters. Chemosphere 60(11):1513–1522.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.02.068 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. Pannecoucque J, Van Beneden S, Höfte M (2008) Characterization and pathogenicity of Rhizoctonia isolates associated with cauliflower in Belgium. Plant Pathol 57:737–746.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3059.2007.01823.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Papapostolou I, Georgiou CD (2010) Superoxide radical induces sclerotial differentiation in filamentous phytopathogenic fungi: a superoxide dismutase mimetics study. Microbiol 56:960–966.  https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.034579-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Pareja L, Fernández-Alba AR, Cesio V, Heinzen H (2011) Analytical methods for pesticide residues in rice. Trac Trend Anal Chem 30:270–291.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2010.12.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Parmeter JR, Whitney HS (1970) Taxonomy and nomenclature of the imperfect state. In: Parmeter JR (ed) Rhizoctonia solani, biology and pathology. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 7–19Google Scholar
  136. Pascual CB, Raymundo AD (1988) Evaluation of resistance and yield loss in sorghum due to Rhizoctonia sheath blight. Philippin J Crop Sci 13:37–42Google Scholar
  137. Pathak A, Sharma A, Johri BN, Sharma AK (2004) Pseudomonas strain GRP3 induces systemic resistance to sheath blight in rice. Int Rice Res Notes 29(1):35–36Google Scholar
  138. Paulitz TC, Smiley RW, Cook RJ (2002) Insights into the prevalence and management of soilborne cereal pathogens under direct seeding in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Can J Plant Patholo 24:416–428.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07060660209507029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Peng X, Hu Y, Tang X, Zhou P, Deng X, Wang H, Guo Z (2012) Constitutive expression of rice WRKY30 gene increases the endogenous jasmonic acid accumulation, PR gene expression and resistance to fungal pathogens in rice. Planta 236:1485–1498.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-012-1698-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  140. Peng D, Li S, Wang J, Chen C, Zhou M (2014) Integrated biological and chemical control of rice sheath blight by Bacillus subtilis NJ-18 and jinggangmycin. Pest Manag Sci 70:258–263.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.3551 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  141. Peng X, Wang H, Jang JC, Xiao T, He H, Jiang D, Tang X (2016) OsWRKY80-OsWRKY4 module as a positive regulatory circuit in rice resistance against Rhizoctonia solani. Rice 9:63.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12284-016-0137-y CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  142. Perfect JR, Tenor JL, Miao Y, Brennan RG (2017) Trehalose pathway as an antifungal target. Virulence 8(2):143–149.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21505594.2016.1195529 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  143. Pinson SR, Capdevielle FM, Oard JH (2005) Confrming QTLs and finding additional loci conditioning sheath blight resistance in rice using recombinant inbred lines. Crop Sci 45:503–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Prasad M, Srinivasan R, Chaudhary M, Choudhary M, Jat LK (2019) Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) for sustainable agriculture: perspectives and challenges. PGPR amelioration in sustainable agriculture. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, pp 129–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Priyatmojo A, Escopalao VE, Tangonan NG, Pascual CB, Suga H, Kageyama K, Hyakumachi M (2001) Characterization of a new subgroup of Rhizoctonia solani anastomosis group 1 (AG-1-ID), causal agent of a necrotic leaf spot on coffee. Phytopathol 91:1054–1061.  https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO.2001.91.11.1054 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Pscheidt JW, Ocamb CM (2008) Pacific northwest plant disease management handbook. Extension Services of Oregon State University, Washington State University, and the University of IdahoGoogle Scholar
  147. Qualhato TF, Lopes FAC, Steindorff AS, Brandao RS, Jesuino RSA, Ulhoa CJ (2013) Mycoparasitism studies of Trichoderma species against three phytopathogenic fungi: evaluation of antagonism and hydrolytic enzyme production. Biotechnol Lett 35(9):1461–1468.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10529-013-1225-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  148. Quistgaard EM, Löw C, Guettou F, Nordlund P (2016) Understanding transport by the major facilitator superfamily (MFS): structures pave the way. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 17:123.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm.2015.25 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  149. Radjacommare R, Kandan A, Nandakumar R, Samiyappan R (2004) Association of the hydrolytic enzyme chitinase against Rhizoctonia solani in rhizobacteria-treated rice plants. J Phytopathol 152:365–370.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0434.2004.00857.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Rani M, Rana JS, Dahiya KK, Beniwal V (2013) Molecular characterization of Rhizoctonia solani AG-7 causing root rot on cotton crop in India. Int J Pharma Bio Sci 4:703–712Google Scholar
  151. Rao TB, Chopperla R, Methre R, Punniakotti E, Venkatesh V, Sailaja B, Reddy MR, Yugander A, Laha GS, Madhav MS, Sundaram RM (2019) Pectin induced transcriptome of a Rhizoctonia solani strain causing sheath blight disease in rice reveals insights on key genes and RNAi machinery for development of pathogen derived resistance. Plant Mol Biol 100:59–71.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11103-019-00843-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  152. Ratanasut K, Rod-In W, Sujipuli K (2017) In planta Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of rice. Rice Sci 24(3):181–186.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsci.2016.11.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Richa K, Tiwari IM, Devanna BN, Botella JR, Sharma V, Sharma TR (2017) Novel chitinase gene LOC_Os11g47510 from indica rice Tetep provides enhanced resistance against sheath blight pathogen Rhizoctonia solani in rice. Front Plant Sci 8:596.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00596 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  154. Ritchie F, Bain RA, McQuilken MP (2009) Effects of nutrient status, temperature and pH on mycelial growth, sclerotial production and germination of Rhizoctonia solani from potato. J Plant Pathol 1:589–596Google Scholar
  155. Roberts FA, Sivasithamparam K (1986) Identity and pathogenicity of Rhizoctonia spp. associated with bare patch disease of cereals at a field site in Western Australia. Neth J Plant Pathol 92:185–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Roberts TR, Roberts TR, Hutson DH, Jewess PJ (1998) Metabolic pathways of agrochemicals: insecticides and fungicides. R Soc Chem, Great Britain, pp.1134–1137Google Scholar
  157. Rodrigues ET, Alpendurada MF, Ramos F, Pardal MÂ (2018) Environmental and human health risk indicators for agricultural pesticides in estuaries. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 150:224–231.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.12.047 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  158. Rush MC, Lee F (1983) Rice sheath blight: a major rice disease. Plant Dis 67:829–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Sadumpati V, Kalambur M, Vudem DR, Kirti PB, Khareedu VR (2013) Transgenic indica rice lines, expressing Brassica juncea Non expressor of pathogenesis-related genes 1 (BjNPR1), exhibit enhanced resistance to major pathogens. J Biotechnol 166:114–121.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2013.04.016 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  160. Savary S, Castilla NP, Elazegui FA, McLaren CG, Ynalvez MA, Teng PS (1995) Direct and indirect effects of nitrogen supply and disease source structure on rice sheath blight spread. Phytopathol 85:959–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Savary S, Willocquet L, Teng PS (1997) Modelling sheath blight epidemics on rice tillers. Agric Syst 55:359–384.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-521X(97)00014-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Schulz R (2004) Field studies on exposure, effects, and risk mitigation of aquatic nonpoint-source insecticide pollution. J Environ Qual 33(2):419–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Sharma A, McClung AM, Pinson SR, Kepiro JL, Shank AR, Tabien RE, Fjellstrom R (2009) Genetic mapping of sheath blight resistance QTLs within tropical japonica rice cultivars. Crop Sci 49(1):256–264.  https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2008.03.0124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. Shaw MW, Pautasso M (2014) Networks and plant disease management: concepts and applications. Annu Rev Phytopathol 52:477–493.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-phyto-102313-050229 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  165. Singh PC, Nautiyal CS (2012) A novel method to prepare concentrated conidial biomass formulation of Trichoderma harzianum for seed application. J Appl Microbiol 113(6):1442–1450.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2012.05426.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  166. Singh P, Subramanian B (2017) Responses of rice to Rhizoctonia solani and its toxic metabolite in relation to expression of Osmyb4 transcription factor. Plant Protect Sci 53:208–215.  https://doi.org/10.17221/107/2015-PPS CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. Singh P, Kumari S, Mohanapriya A, Sudandiradoss C, Siva R, Gothandam KM, Babu S (2015) Homotypic clustering of OsMYB4 binding site motifs in promoters of the rice genome and cellular-level implications on sheath blight disease resistance. Gene 561:209–218.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gene.2015.02.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. Singh UB, Malviya D, Singh S, Pradhan JK, Singh BP, Roy M, Imram M, Pathak N, Baisyal BM, Rai JP, Sarma BK (2016) Bio-protective microbial agents from rhizosphere eco-systems trigger plant defense responses provide protection against sheath blight disease in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Microbiol Res 192:300–312.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2016.08.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  169. Sneh B, Ichielevich-Auster M (1998) Induced resistance of cucumber seedlings caused by some non-pathogenicRhizoctonia (npR) isolates. Phytoparasitica 26:27-3.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02981263 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. Sneh B, Burpee L, Ogoshi A (1991) Identification of Rhizoctonia species. APS press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  171. Srinivas P, Ratan V, Patel AP, Madhavi GB (2013) Review on banded leaf and sheath blight of rice caused by Rhizoctonia solani Kuhn. Int J Appl Biol Pharm Technol 61:80–97Google Scholar
  172. Srinivasachary Willocquet L, Savary S (2011) Resistance to rice sheath blight (Rhizoctonia solani Kuhn.) [(teleomorph: thanatophorus cucumeris (A.B. Frank) Donk.] disease: current status and perspectives. Euphytica 178:1–22.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-010-0296-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. Sripriya R, Parameswari C, Veluthambi K (2017) Enhancement of sheath blight tolerance in transgenic rice by combined expression of tobacco osmotin (ap24) and rice chitinase (chi11) genes. Vitro Cell Dev Biol-Plant. 53:12–21.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11627-017-9807-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. Sugiyama T, Doi M, Nishio K (2007) Sparse planting of rice cultivar ‘Hinohikari’ in Nara. Bull Nara Prefect Agric Exp Station Jpn 38:41–46Google Scholar
  175. Sun Y, Zhang X, Wu C, He Y, Ma Y, Hou H, Guo X, Du W, Zhao Y, Xia L (2016) Engineering herbicide-resistant rice plants through CRISPR/Cas9-mediated homologous recombination of acetolactate synthase. Mol Plant 9:628–631.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2016.01.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  176. Tabassum B, Khan A, Tariq M, Ramzan M, Khan MS, Shahid N, Aaliya K (2017) Bottlenecks in commercialisation and future prospects of PGPR. Appl Soil Ecol 121:102–117.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.09.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. Talbot NJ (2010) Living the sweet life: how does a plant pathogenic fungus acquire sugar from plants? PLoS Biol 8:1000308.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000308 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. Tang Q, Peng S, Buresh RJ, Zou Y, Castilla NP et al (2007) Rice varietal difference in sheath blight development and its association with yield loss at different levels of N fertilization. Field Crops Res 102:219–227.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2007.04.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. Tang SS, Prodhan ZH, Biswas SK, Le CF, Sekaran SD (2018) Antimicrobial peptides from different plant sources: isolation, characterisation, and purification. Phytochemistry 154:94–105.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2018.07.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  180. Tenllado F, Martínez-García B, Vargas M, Díaz-Ruíz JR (2003) Crude extracts of bacterially expressed dsRNA can be used to protect plants against virus infections. BMC Biotechnol 3:3.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6750-3-3 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  181. Thiessen LD, Woodward JE (2012) Diseases of peanut caused by soilborne pathogens in the Southwestern United States. ISRN Agron.  https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/517905 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. Tiwari IM, Jesuraj A, Kamboj R, Devanna BN, Botella JR, Sharma TR (2017) Host delivered RNAi, an efficient approach to increase rice resistance to sheath blight pathogen (Rhizoctonia solani). Sci Rep 7(1):7521.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-07749-w CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  183. Tsiboe F, Nalley LL, Durand A, Thoma G, Shew A (2017) The economic and environmental benefits of sheath blight resistance in rice. J Agric Resour 42:215–235Google Scholar
  184. Uppala S, Zhou X-G (2018) Rice sheath blight. Plant Health Instr.  https://doi.org/10.1094/PHI-I-2018-0403-01 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. Van de Fliert E (1993) Integrated pest management: farmer field schools generate sustainable practices. A case study in Central Java evaluating IPM training. Wageningen Agricultural University Papers 93-3. Wageningen, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  186. van der Wal A, Geydan TD, Kuyper TW, de Boer W (2013) A thready affair: linking fungal diversity and community dynamics to terrestrial decomposition processes. FEMS Microbiol Rev 37:477–494.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1574-6976.12001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  187. Van Der Weerden NL, Lay FT, Anderson MA (2008) The plant defensin, NaD1, enters the cytoplasm of Fusarium oxysporum hyphae. J of Biol Chem 283:14445–14452.  https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M709867200 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. Vidhyasekaran P, Ponmalar TR, Samiyappan R, Velazhahan R, Vimala R, Ramanathan A, Paranidharan V, Muthukrishnan S (1997) Host-specific toxin production by Rhizoctonia solani, the rice sheath blight pathogen. Phytopathology 87:1258–1263.  https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO.1997.87.12.1258 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  189. Wang H, Meng J, Peng X, Tang X, Zhou P, Xiang J, Deng X (2015a) Rice WRKY4 acts as a transcriptional activator mediating defense responses toward Rhizoctonia solani, the causing agent of rice sheath blight. Plant Mol Biol 89:157–171.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11103-015-0360-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  190. Wang R, Lu L, Pan X, Hu Z, Ling F, Yan Y, Liu Y, Lin Y (2015b) Functional analysis of OsPGIP1 in rice sheath blight resistance. Plant Mol Biol 87:181–191.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11103-014-0269-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  191. Wang C, Pi L, Jiang S, Yang M, Shu C, Zhou E (2018) ROS and trehalose regulate sclerotial development in Rhizoctonia solani AG-1 IA. Fungal Biol 122:322–332.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funbio.2018.02.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  192. Webster J (1980) Introduction to fungi. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  193. Willetts HJ, Bullock S (1992) Developmental biology of sclerotia. Mycol Res 6:801–816.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0953-7562(09)81027-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. Willocquet L, Noel M, Hamilton RS, Savary S (2012) Susceptibility of rice to sheath blight: an assessment of the diversity of rice germplasm according to genetic groups and morphological traits. Euphytica 183:227–241.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-011-0451-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  195. Wright PJ, Falloon RE, Hedderley D (2017) A long-term vegetable crop rotation study to determine effects on soil microbial communities and soilborne diseases of potato and onion. New Zealand J Crop Hortic Sci 45(1):29–54.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01140671.2016.1229345 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  196. Wu W, Huang J, Cui K, Nie L, Wang Q, Yang F, Shah F, Yao F, Peng S (2012) Sheath blight reduces stem breaking resistance and increases lodging susceptibility of rice plants. Field Crops Res. 128:101–108.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2012.01.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  197. Xiuguo WA, Min SO, Chunming GA, Bin DO, Zhang Q, Hua FA, Yunlong YU (2009) Carbendazim induces a temporary change in soil bacterial community structure. J Environ Sci (China) 1(12):1679–1683.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(08)62473-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  198. Yang XB (2015) Rhizoctonia damping-off and root rot. In: Hartman GL, Sinclair JB, Rupe JC (eds) Compendium of soybean diseases. APS Press, St Paul, pp 80–82Google Scholar
  199. Yang XT, Lin XQ, Wang XH, Luo SZ (2008) Effects of different transplanting patterns on grain yield and disease resistance of super hybrid rice. Acta Agri Zhejiangensis. 20:6–9Google Scholar
  200. Yang G, Liu J, Zhao C, Li Z, Huang Y, Yu H, Xu B, Yang X, Zhu D, Zhang X, Zhang R (2017) Unmanned aerial vehicle remote sensing for field-based crop phenotyping: current status and perspectives. Front Plant Sci 8:1111.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01111 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  201. Yeshi W, Rick C, Fleet L (2013) Management of rice diseases. In: Arkansas rice production handbook. Volume 192 of MP (University of Arkansas (System). Cooperative Extension Service, pp 123–137Google Scholar
  202. Zeng YX, Ji ZJ, Li XM, Yang CD (2011) Advances in mapping loci conferring resistance to rice sheath blight and mining Rhizoctonia solani resistant resources. Rice Sci 18:56–66.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1672-6308(11)60008-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  203. Zeng YX, Xia LZ, Wen ZH, Ji ZJ, Zeng DL, Qian QI, Yang CD (2015) Mapping resistant QTLs for rice sheath blight disease with a doubled haploid population. J Integr Agric 14(5):801–810.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60909-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  204. Zervoudakis G, Tairis N, Salahas G, Georgiou CD (2003) β-carotene production and sclerotial differentiation in Sclerotinia minor. Mycol Res 107(5):624–631.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0953756203007822 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  205. Zhang HM, Yang H, Rech EL, Golds TJ, Davis AS, Mulligan BJ, Cocking EC, Davey MR (1988) Transgenic rice plants produced by electroporation-mediated plasmid uptake into protoplasts. Plant Cell Rep 7(6):379–384.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00269517 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  206. Zhang X, Li D, Zhang H, Wang X, Zheng Z, Song F (2010) Molecular characterization of rice OsBIANK1, endoding a plasma membrane-anchored ankyrin repeat protein, and its inducible expression in defense responses. Mol Biol Rep 37:653–660.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-009-9507-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  207. Zhang D, Zhou X, Zhang J, Lan Y, Xu C, Liang D (2018) Detection of rice sheath blight using an unmanned aerial system with high-resolution color and multispectral imaging. PLoS One 13:0187470.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187470 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  208. Zheng A, Lin R, Zhang D, Qin P, Xu L, Ai P, Ding L, Wang Y, Chen Y, Liu Y, Sun Z (2013) The evolution and pathogenic mechanisms of the rice sheath blight pathogen. Nat Commun 4:1424.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2427 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  209. Zou JH, Pan XB, Chen ZX, Xu JY, Lu JF, Zhai WX, Zhu LH (2000) Mapping quantitative trait loci controlling sheath blight resistance in two rice cultivars (Oryza sativa L.). Theor Appl Genet 101:569–573.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s001220051517 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  210. Zuo S, Zhang Y, Yin Y, Li G, Zhang G, Wang H, Chen Z, Pan X (2014) Fine-mapping of qSB-9 TQ, a gene conferring major quantitative resistance to rice sheath blight. Mol Breed 34(4):2191–2203.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-014-0173-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Research in Biotechnology for AgricultureUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  2. 2.Faculty of Science, Institute of Biological SciencesUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  3. 3.VIT School of Agricultural Innovations and Advanced LearningVIT UniversityVelloreIndia

Personalised recommendations