Management of jute yellow mosaic virus disease ...

This article was downloaded by: [180.211.162.22] On: 29 September 2014, At: 04:31 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Archives Of Phytopathology And Plant Protection Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gapp20

Management of jute yellow mosaic virus disease through cultural practices a

b

c

A.U. Mahmud , A.K.M.A. Hoque , Md. Rejwan Bhuiyan , c

c

d

Mohammad Ashik Iqbal Khan , M.E. Kabir , Asif Mahmud , Md. e

e

Ashrafuzzaman & Md. Ayub Ali a

Department of Agricultural Extension, Upazilla Agriculture Office, Lohojong, Munshiganj, Bangladesh b

Department of Agricultural Extension, Central Extension Resources Development Institute, Gazipur, Bangladesh c

Plant Pathology Division, Bangladesh Rice Research Institute, Gazipur, Bangladesh d

Department of Soil Science, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, Bangladesh e

Department of Plant Pathology, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, Bangladesh Published online: 20 Jan 2014.

To cite this article: A.U. Mahmud, A.K.M.A. Hoque, Md. Rejwan Bhuiyan, Mohammad Ashik Iqbal Khan, M.E. Kabir, Asif Mahmud, Md. Ashrafuzzaman & Md. Ayub Ali (2014) Management of jute yellow mosaic virus disease through cultural practices, Archives Of Phytopathology And Plant Protection, 47:19, 2295-2304, DOI: 10.1080/03235408.2013.875689 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03235408.2013.875689

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or

howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

Downloaded by [180.211.162.22] at 04:32 29 September 2014

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection, 2014 Vol. 47, No. 19, 2295–2304, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03235408.2013.875689

Management of jute yellow mosaic virus disease through cultural practices


A.U. Mahmuda, A.K.M.A. Hoqueb, Md. Rejwan Bhuiyanc, Mohammad Ashik Iqbal Khanc*, M.E. Kabirc, Asif Mahmudd, Md. Ashrafuzzamane and Md. Ayub Alie a Department of Agricultural Extension, Upazilla Agriculture Office, Lohojong, Munshiganj, Bangladesh; bDepartment of Agricultural Extension, Central Extension Resources Development Institute, Gazipur, Bangladesh; cPlant Pathology Division, Bangladesh Rice Research Institute, Gazipur, Bangladesh; dDepartment of Soil Science, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, Bangladesh; eDepartment of Plant Pathology, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, Bangladesh

(Received 10 December 2013; accepted 12 December 2013) A field experiment was conducted to investigate the effect of some management practices to minimise jute yellow mosaic virus disease. The management practices were employed at natural condition and placed randomly with four replications. The treatments were spraying malathion 57 EC, rouging and field sanitation, top dressing of nitrogenous fertiliser, mulching with straw and untreated control. The highest percentage of mosaic incidence was recorded in control and the lowest incidence was recorded in top dressing of nitrogenous fertiliser. Among the treatments, top dressing of nitrogenous fertiliser showed the best performance in terms of increasing yield (3.05 t/ha). The second highest was obtained in rouging and field sanitation which was statistically similar to spraying malathion 57 EC. The best gross margin ($379.02/ha) and increase of gross margin (63.00%) compared to control were achieved in top dressing of nitrogenous fertiliser with the highest benefit-cost ratio (4.84). However, the treatments were found significantly profitable compared to the control indicating the usefulness of the cultural practices in integrated disease management programme for healthy and profitable jute cultivation. Keywords: jute; cultural practices; yellow mosaic virus

Introduction Jute (Corchorus capsularis L. and Corchorus olitorius L.) plays a vital role in the national economy of Bangladesh. It is still the third important commodity for export and earning foreign currency. Jute, also called golden fibre is used for making fabrics, gunny bags, carpets, ropes and household products. Jute sticks are used in producing partex board. The young green leaves are consumed as palatable vegetable and the defoliated leaves are turned into inorganic matter. In addition, the green plants are used in producing high-grade paper pulps. Thus, it still has a great potential. Leaf mosaic is one of the most important viral diseases of jute. This disease causes loss of yield and affects quality of fibre. The infected plants gave 16.8–65.9% loss in fibre yield (Biswas et al. 1989). Infected seedlings may face early death and often the plants escaping such death act as sources of inoculum for secondary spread of the causal agent through *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] © 2014 Taylor & Francis


2296

A.U. Mahmud et al.

its vector in the field. Thus, jute mosaic virus spread through infected vector Bemisia tabaci in an epidemic form causes substantial loss in a cropping season. Whitefly transmission of the disease has been reported by Verma et al. (1966). Indirectly, the whitefly causes reduction in yield by transmitting viral pathogens, sucking of sap, secretion of wax and honeydew, and expressing mosaic symptoms which reduce the green area of the plant (Alam 1998). Transmission of the causal agent from infected to healthy plants by the insect vector B. tabaci has been reported by Ahmed (1978) and Verma et al. (1966). They reported that the mosaic symptom on leaves of healthy plants appeared after 23 days of feeding by B. tabaci. Jute yellow mosaic is one of the most important disease resulting yield loss and quality of fibre. Limited research work on prevalence and control of yellow mosaic of jute has been published in Bangladesh. Islam (1993) investigated into the severity and source of jute leaf mosaic virus on white jute. He worked with white jute cultivars D-154, CVE-3, CVL-1 and CC-45 collected from four different sources such as Bangladesh Jute Research Institute (BJRI), BADC, local market and jute farmers, respectively. They observed that the mosaic or chlorotic symptom of white jute resulted in fibre loss. The seeds collected from local market and farmers were more infected as they have observed due to their carefulness during seed production. The present study has been designed to find out an effective and economic management of jute yellow mosaic virus disease. The specific objectives were to find out the best and economic management practices in terms of jute yellow mosaic disease control and a benefit-cost ratio (BCR). Materials and methods The experiment was conducted in the field laboratory, Department of Plant Pathology, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, Bangladesh. The experimental area was under subtropical climate characterised by heavy rainfall during April–September. The experimental field was situated at a medium high land with sandy loam soil having pH of 6.5. The experimental site was under the AEZ of upper Brahmaputra flood plain. Seeds of D-154 (C. capsularis) were collected from Plant Breeding Division, BJRI, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Manures and fertilisers were applied to the experimental field as per recommended rate (Cowdung:Urea:TSP:MP at 5000:110:25:40 kg/ha). Cow dung was applied two weeks ahead of seed sowing process, and one half of urea, full dose of TSP and MP were applied at the time of final land preparation. Rest of the urea was applied as side dressing after 45 days of sowing. The experiment was laid out in a randomised complete block design (RCBD). The plot size was 3 m × 3 m. Seeds were sown in line at 8 kg/ha maintaining 20 × 10 cm spacing. Weeding and other cultural practices were done as per treatments. In order to manage jute mosaic disease successfully, following treatments were applied: spraying of malathion 57 EC (T1); rouging and field sanitation (T2); top dressing of nitrogenous fertiliser (T3), mulching with straw (T4) and control (T5). Spraying of malathion was done at 1.1 L/ha. Rouging and field sanitation was done on the symptom-bearing seedlings at 15-day interval based on the scheduled treatment for 15, 30, 45 and 60 days after seedling emergence (DAE). Top dressing of nitrogenous fertiliser (urea) was applied at 15-day interval viz. 15, 30, 45 and 60 DAE at 50.6 kg/ha only to assigned plots. Mulching with straw was done in such way that no soil was left uncovered. The control plots were left in natural conditions without applying any treatment. Jute plants were cut at maturity stage. Leaves and green sticks were weighted and left in the field for three days for defoliation. Then, bundles of sticks were retted in water for 22 days. After adequate retting, the

Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection

2297

fibres were extracted, dried and weighted, and sticks were also weighted. After germination, the emerged seedlings were observed according to the schedule and the number of infected and healthy seedlings was recorded. The process continued till harvest of the crop. Following observations were also recorded from the field. Assessment of leaf mosaic incidence The incidence of jute yellow mosaic diseases was calculated as follows:


% Diseased plants ¼

Number of infected plants in each plot 100 Total number of plants in each plot

Percentage yellow mosaic incidence of jute was recorded in different stages viz. 30, 45 and 60 DAE. The number of white flies was recorded per plant at 15-day intervals before the application of insecticides and rouging operation. Collection of white fly was done with the help of a plastic Beljar. A contact insecticide was applied as aerosol in the Beljar for killing the vector. When the crop becomes mature, data of 10 healthy and 10 diseased plants were selected at random from each unit plot to estimate yield. Cost–benefit analysis The cost–benefit analysis was done from gross returns and cost of each treatment was compared with other treatments. The gross return, gross margin and margin over control under each treatment was calculated as follows: Gross return ð$=haÞ ¼ Jute fibre yield ðkg=haÞ Price ð$=kgÞ þ Stick yield ðkg=haÞ Price ð$=kgÞ: Gross margin ð$=haÞ ¼ Gross return ð$=haÞ Cost of the treatment ð$=haÞ: Gross margin over control ð$=haÞ ¼ Gross return under each treatment ð$=haÞ Gross return under control ð$=haÞ: The BCR was calculated by Hossain et al. (2001) is shown below: BCR ¼

Yield of treated plot Yield of control plot Price of product Cost of treatment

Data were organised and analysed statistically following factorial experiment in RCBD to determine the effect of management practices on the incidence of vector population and effect of disease occurrence on the growth and yield component of jute. The mean values of the individual treatments were compared with Duncan’s multiple range test. Results The investigation was carried out to find out the performance of some selected management practices against jute yellow mosaic disease. The management practices were employed to increase yield, yield components and quality of fibre. Effect of management practices on jute yellow mosaic disease The disease incidence was influenced significantly by different treatments (Table 1). At 30 DAE, lowest disease incidence (0.78%) was obtained in T2 which was statistically

2298

A.U. Mahmud et al.

Table 1.

Effect of management practices on disease incidence. Disease incidence

Treatments T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

30 DAE

45 DAE

60 DAE

1.18ab 0.78b 0.97b 0.98b 1.44a

1.29b 0.67c 0.99c 1.11b 1.55a

1.41b 0.65c 0.99bc 1.23b 2.18a


Notes: Values in the column followed by different letters indicate significant differences among treatments at p = 0.05. DAE stands for days after seedling emergence.

similar with T3, T4 and T1. On the other hand, control plot produced highest disease incidence (1.44%). Again at 45 DAE, lowest disease (0.67%) was observed in T2 which was statistically similar with T3 and highest incidence (1.55%) was observed in T5. At 60 DAE, lowest incidence (0.65%) was observed in T2 which was statistically close with T3 and highest disease incidence (2.18%) was recorded in T5. Effect of management practices on white fly (B. tabaci) population White fly population per plant at different DAE was significantly influenced by the treatments (Table 2). At 30 DAE, the highest whitefly population per plant (3.83) was observed in T5 and lowest in T2 (2.39) which was statistically similar to T3 and T4. At 45 DAE, highest population (3.13) was found in T5 followed by T1 and lowest population (1.86) was counted in T2. The number of whitefly population per plant recorded in T3 and T4 treatments was 1.94 and 2.34, respectively. At 60 DAE, the highest (2.48) population per plant was recorded in T5 and lowest in T2 (0.94). Effect of management practices on growth and yield of jute The growth and yield components were significantly influenced by the treatments compared to control (Table 3). The average growth and yield components were measured after harvest. It has been apparent from the results that growth and yield components were positively administered by top dressing of nitrogenous fertiliser followed by roughing and field sanitation. The highest plant height (323.2 cm) was obtained in T3 followed by T2 which were significantly different from the lowest Table 2.

Effect of management practices on white fly (B. tabaci) population. White fly population/plant

Treatments T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

30 DAE

45 DAE

60 DAE

3.04a 2.39b 2.87b 2.98b 3.83a

2.98a 1.86b 1.94b 2.34b 3.13a

1.77b 0.94b 1.17b 1.50b 2.48a

Notes: Values in the column followed by different letters indicate significant differences among treatments at p = 0.05. DAE stands for days after seedling emergence.

276.0c 312.7b 323.2a 273.3c 224.7d

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

205b 245a 253a 204b 169c

Diseased

19c 22b 24a 19c 19c

Healthy 14.1d 16.4b 19.5a 15.3c 12.3e

Diseased

Base diameter (mm/ plant)

24.7c 24.9b 26.3a 26.1b 22.1d

Healthy 15.8c 22.0b 23.9a 16.3c 14.1d

Diseased

Leaf weight (g/plant)

169c 204a 209a 180b 143d

Healthy 99b 127a 129a 102b 92c

Diseased

Green weight (g/plant)

Note: Values in the column followed by different letters indicate significant differences among treatments at p = 0.05.

Healthy

Treatments

Plant height (cm/plant)

14bc 17ab 20.9a 16.0b 11.4c

Healthy

9.0c 12ab 13.8a 10bc 7.3c

Diseased

Fibre weight (g/plant)

29.3c 33.1b 40.9a 29.5c 23.3d

Healthy

16.3b 20.3a 20.1a 17.2b 16.4b

Diseased

Stick weight (g/plant)

Table 3. Effect of treatments on plant height, base diameter, leaf weight, green weight, fibre weight and stick weight of jute exposed to yellow mosaic infection.


Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection 2299


2300

A.U. Mahmud et al.

obtained in T5. Again, in case of infected plant, T3 treatment gave highest plant height while lowest in T5 (169 cm). The highest base diameter (24 mm) was found in T3 and lowest (19.00 mm) was found in T5 and T4, respectively. These results were similar with the results of infected plant. The highest (26.3 g) leaf weight was found in T3 significantly different from T5 (22.1 g). The highest leaf weight in infected plant was recorded in T3 followed by T2, T1 and T4 and lowest was observed in T5. Highest (209 g) green weight was measured in T3 which was statistically similar to T2 and lowest in T5. In case of infected plant, highest (129 g) green weight was observed in T3 and lowest in T5 (92 g). The results of leaf weight (g/plant) and green weight (g/plant) of sticks also revealed that the growth components were also significantly influenced by the treatments. The symptom-bearing plants though produced significantly higher leaf weight and green weight (g/plant) compared to control but has failed to do so in T1, T2 and T4 except T3 treatments. Though rouging and field sanitation resulted significantly for higher leaf weight (g/plant) in diseased plants as these plots were infected at very late stage of their growth. In case of healthy plant, highest fibre weight was measured in T3 (20.9 g) followed by T2 and T4, respectively, which was closely related to T1 while lowest fibre weight was observed in T5 (11.4 g). Again, highest fibre weight in infected plant was recorded in T3 (13.8 g) followed by T2 and lowest in T5 (7.3 g). Highest stick weight of healthy plants was found as 40.9 g in T3 followed by T2 and lowest in T5. In case of infected plant, highest stick weight (20.3 g) measured in T2 was statistically similar to T3 and lowest in T5. The maximum fibre weight and stick weight were obtained in top dressing of nitrogenous fertiliser. This was similar to rouging and field sanitation. Performance of cultural management on seed production in case of jute yellow mosaic infection Number of capsules/plant Treatments showed significant effect on number of capsules/plant, bulk weight of dried capsules and 1000 grain weight (Table 4). Here, T3 and T2 yielded highest number of capsules/plant, highest bulk weight of dried capsules, and highest seed weight in healthy as well as in infected plants. Seed production in healthy plants under malathion spray and mulching with straw also showed significant difference compared to control plot. In case of infected plants, seed yield was similar to those of corresponding control plots except under top dressing of nitrogenous fertiliser. This indicated that better vegetative

Table 4.

Performance of cultural management on seed production of jute yellow mosaic disease. Number of capsules (No/plant)

Bulk weight of capsules (g/plant)

1000 seed weight (g/plant)

Treatments

Healthy

Diseased

Healthy

Diseased

Healthy

Diseased

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

75.75d 102.15b 112.07a 85.03c 51.39e

32.00b 32.45b 44.00a 32.25b 27.75c

13.49b 20.85a 21.76a 15.27b 10.79c

11.87ab 13.52ab 13.78a 11.29b 5.02c

4.59bc 5.29a 5.45a 4.75b 4.43c

3.20b 3.54b 4.59a 3.19b 3.62b

Note: Values in the column followed by different letters indicate significant differences among treatments at p = 0.05.


2301

growth influence positively the seed production. The highest number of capsules per healthy plant (112.07) was found in T3 followed by T2 and lowest (51.39) in T5. In case of diseased plant, highest number of capsules (44.00) was obtained in T3 and lowest in T5 (27.75). T1, T2 and T4 produced 32.00, 32.45 and 32.25 capsules/plant, respectively which were statistically similar to T3 treatment.


Bulk weight of dried capsules (g/plant) The highest bulk weight of dried capsules in healthy plant (21.76 g/plant) was recorded in T3 which was statistically similar to T2 and lowest in T5. In case of infected plant, highest bulk weight of dried capsules (13.78 g) was found in T3 and lowest in T5. The bulk weight of capsules 11.87 g, 13.52 g and 11.29 g was obtained in T1, T2 and T4, respectively, from infected plants. These were statistically similar to infected plants under top dressing of nitrogenous fertiliser. 1000 seed weight (g/plant) The highest 1000 seed weight in healthy plants was recorded as 5.45 g/plant in T3 and this was statistically similar to T2 and lowest was obtained in T5 (4.43). The weight of 1000 seed per healthy plant in T1 and T4 were 4.59 and 4.75 g, respectively. These were statistically similar to T5 treatment. The highest 1000 seed weight of per infected plant 4.59 g was recorded in T3 while lowest was obtained in T4 (3.19 g). Cost–benefit analysis The results from the cost–benefit analysis revealed that the maximum ($379.03/ha) gross margin was obtained in T3 which gave 63% increase over control. After that $317.93/ha gross margin was achieved in T2 and it gave 36.73% increase over control. Again, gross margin of $249.55/ha was obtained in T1 which was 7.32% higher over control followed by T4 when a gross margin of $240.74/ha was achieved where increase of gross margin over control was 3.53%. Thus all treatments showed positive influence on gross margin compared to control. The highest BCR (4.84) was achieved in top dressing of nitrogenous fertiliser and second highest (4.30) in roughing and field sanitation. T1 Table 5. Cost-benefit analysis of different treatments of jute yellow mosaic disease on the basis of present market price against control. Sell proceeds from production

Treatments

Fibre yield (kg/ha)

Stick yield (kg/ha)

Gross return ($/ha)

Total cost of treatment ($/ha)

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

1997.15 2468.63 3050.64 2015.76 1640.05

3969.56 4901.58 5699.96 4069.50 3499.25

277.61 343.05 417.15 281.39 232.52

28.06 25.13 38.13 40.66 0.00

Gross margin ($/ha) 249.55 317.93 379.03 240.74 232.52

Increase of gross margin over control (%) 7.32 36.73 63.00 3.53 0000

BCR 1.50 4.30 4.84 1.21 0000

Notes: Price: raw jute = $010/kg, jute stick = $002/kg, malathion = $7.59/L, labour = $0.89/labourer/day, polythene = $0.055/m, bamboo stick = $0.51/piece, urea = $0.09/kg.

2302

A.U. Mahmud et al.

and T4 gave 1.50 and 1.21 BCR, respectively. Therefore, the figures indicate that an investment of $1.00 lead to a profit of $4.84 by serving top dressing of nitrogenous fertiliser, and an investment of $1.00 gave a profit of $4.30 on use of rouging and field sanitation. In the same way, T1 and T4 gave a profit of $1.50 and $1.21, respectively. The gross margin and BCR varied from treatment to treatment, and because of variation the treatment cost and yield of fibre and sticks had variations under different treatments (Table 5).


Discussion Investigations were carried out to find out the performance of some selected management practices against jute yellow mosaic disease. The management practices employed influenced to increase yield, yield components and quality of fibre. The disease incidence was also found significantly influenced by different treatments. At 30 DAE, treatment T2 showed highly significant performance in reducing the incidence. Removal of infected plants caused reduction of the disease as white fly vector cannot transmit virus. The second highly significant performance was observed in top dressing of nitrogenous fertiliser as application of nitrogen boosted vegetative growth of the infected plants. Mulching with straw showed more or less similar performance to that of T3 treatments as it had a repelling effect on vectors. Malathion spray gave a moderate response compared with other treatments while control showed high disease incidence. At 45 DAE, the lowest percent yellow mosaic incidence was found in T2 which was similar to T3 followed by mulching with straw and malathion spray. The disease incidence at this age was higher than 45 DAE in every treatment except T2 although the disease incidence influenced more or less significantly in all the different treatments. The results in the present work is in agreement with the report of Baskey (1983) who observed that transparent and light blue plastics mulches decreased the number of mosaic-infected plants by 70 and 77%, respectively. The disease management by rouging infected plants and replanting with healthy ones was useful. However, rouging only in the post-infectious category did not confer an advantage but at low contact rates, rouging only infected plants was sufficient to eradicate the disease. Mishra (1986) reported that cultural control such as water management, adjusting pH of soil, fertiliser use, weeding, thinning, rouging and removal of infected stubble reduced the mosaic disease incidence. The white fly population per plant was recorded at three growth periods (30, 45 and 60 DAE) of jute. Thinner population of white flies under T2 and T4 treatments is due to sanitation and mulching which repels insects. But the relationship between top dressing of nitrogenous fertiliser probably has a biochemical explanation. Less population of vector white fly was observed at 60 DAE than 30 DAE. The finding of the present study is an agreement with the findings of Nariani et al. (1975), who reported about the successful chemical control of plant virus vectors in Asia. They also opined that although various cultural practices are used in the Near East Asia to alleviate damage by B. tabaci at present, insecticides are the basis of control programmes in the region. Rami Horowitz (1986) found significant drop of white fly population level at heavy rain condition. Cohen and Berlinger (1986) discussed and reviewed the current knowledge of transmission and cultural control of viruses transmitted by B. tabaci with reference to the virus–vector relationship, use of physical barriers, yellow mulches, mixed cropping, resistant cultivars and trap crops reduced the vector population as well as disease incidence.



2303

Traditional rouging without killing aphids was also most effective in small plots. Environmental condition may become unfavourable for vector population according to the findings of Salinas and Sumalde (1994). They observed that high temperature and rainfall appeared to have a disruptive effect on the population of the white fly. The growth and yield components were found to have been positively influenced by the treatments compared to control. It has been apparent from the results that treatment T3 positively influenced the growth and yield parameters of the jute plants. Among the treatments T3 and T2 yielded highest plant height and base diameter in healthy plants. However, other treatments like spraying of malathion 57 EC and mulching with straw shown significant increase in height and based diameter compared to control treatment when yield components in healthy plants were considered. But situation was different in symptom bearing (diseased) plants. The results of leaf weight (g/plant) and green weight (g/plant) of sticks also revealed that these growth components were significantly influenced by the treatments if the plants were healthy. The symptom bearing plants though produced significantly higher leaf weight and green weight (g/plant) compared to control but failed to do so in T1, T2 and T4 except T3 treatments. Though rouging and field sanitation resulted in significantly higher leaf weight (g/plant) in diseased plants as these plots were infected at very late stage of their growth. The maximum fibre and stick weight (g/plant) were obtained in T3 which was similar to rouging and field sanitation. The fibre and stick weight (g/plant) in control plots were minimum compared to those of under treatments. It was clearly apparent that infection reduced fibre and stick production. However, top dressing of nitrogenous fertiliser treatment could induce increase in stick yield rather than corresponding fibre yield. Under this treatment, the increment in stick weight was more than double in healthy plants and almost double in symptom bearing disease plants compared to control treatment. From Table 4, it is observed that production under top dressing of nitrogenous fertiliser (T3) has positively favoured the different vegetative growth. Seed production in healthy plants under malathion spray and mulching with straw also have significant difference compared to control. In case of infected plants, seed yield was similar to those of corresponding control plots except under top dressing of nitrogenous fertiliser. This indicated that better vegetative growth influence seed production positively. The highest BCR was found in top dressing of nitrogenous fertiliser. The second highest was in T2 treatment. The highest treatment cost was in T4 and the lowest was in T2. The gross margin and BCR varied from treatment to treatment because of variation of treatment cost and yield of fibre and sticks had variations under different treatments. In this piece of work different management practices like spraying malathion 57 EC, rouging and field sanitation, top dressing of nitrogenous fertiliser, mulching with straw and untreated control were employed to observe their comparative effect against jute yellow mosaic disease with an aim to select components for an integrated disease management technology for profitable jute cultivation. So that jute can gain the market again. In this respect, the objectives of this research work have been fulfilled. All the treatments show significant influence in reducing disease incidence and severity, at the same time contributed positively on the yield contributing factors and yield in terms of fibre, stick and seed significantly. Moreover, among the treatments, top dressing of nitrogenous fertiliser and rouging and field sanitation contributed to a good profit at a good BCR.

2304

A.U. Mahmud et al.

Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to the Department of Plant Pathology, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, Bangladesh for all types of logistic support from beginning to the end of the research work.


References Ahmed M. 1978. A white fly vector yellow mosaic of jute. FAO Plant Prot Bull. 26:169–1971. Alam M. 1998. Effectiveness of three insecticides for the control of the spiraling white fly, Aleurodicus disperusus, (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) of guava. Bangladesh J Entomol. 8:53–58. Baskey Z. 1983. The effect of reflective mulches on virus infection in seed cucumber. Zoldsegfer mesztesi–Kutoto-Intezet–Bull. 16:23–31. Biswas AC, Asaduzzaman M, Sultana K, Taher MA. 1989. Effect of leaf mosaic disease on loss of yield and quality of jute fibre. Bangladesh J Jute Fibre Res. 14:43–46. Cohen S, Berlinger MJ. 1986. Transmission and cultural control of whitefly-borne viruses. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 17:89–97. Hossain I, Rahman MH, Aminuzzaman FM, Ahmed F. 2001. Efficacy of fungicides and botanicals in controlling leaf blight of wheat and its cost-benefit analysis. Pak J Biol Sci. 4:178–180. Islam KMM. 1993. Severity and sources of jute mosaic virus on white jute. Jute Fabr Bangladesh. 19:1–12. Mishra CBP. 1986. Strategies for control of jute and allied fibre diseases. Pesticides. 20:19–21. Nariani TK, Ghosh SK, Kumar D, Raychaudhuri SP, Viswanath SM. 1975. Detection and possibilities of therapeutic control of the greening disease of citrus caused by mycoplasma. Proc Indian Nat Sci Acad. 41:334–339. Rami Horowitz A. 1986. Population dynamics of Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius): with special emphasis on cotton fields. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 17:37–47. Salinas MD, Sumalde AC. 1994. Life history, seasonal abundance and host range of the wooly whitefly, Aleurothrixus floccosus (Maskell) (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). Pest Management Council of the Philippines, Increased, College, Laguna (Philippines). Integrated pest management: learning from experience, College, Laguna (Philippines), PMCP; p. 29. Verma PM, Rao GG, Capoor SP. 1966. Yellow mosaic of Corchorus trilocalaris. Sci Cult. 32:466.