Evaluation of Maize Covered Smut (Ustilago maydis) Management Options in Eastern Amhara, Ethiopia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29244/jtcs.12.02.388-397Keywords:
carboxin, cow urine, imidacloprid, seed treatment, thiramAbstract
Maize, one of the most important cereal crops in the world, faces severe production constraints in Ethiopia due to covered smut disease. Field experiments were conducted at Sirinka and Cheffa during the 2022-2023 cropping seasons to evaluate management practices against maize covered smut. Seven treatments consist of five fungicides, cow urine, hot water, and untreated control, arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replications. The study found notable variations in disease intensity, maize grain yield, and yield components among the treatments. The application of proceed plus fungicide and the use of cow urine treatments were effective in reducing maize covered smut disease and higher yields of maize compared to other treatments and control plots. The combined analysis indicated that the highest maize grain yield (3120 and 2806 kg.ha-1) was recorded from carboxin + thiram + imidacloprid, and triadimefon fungicide-treated plots, followed by cow urine seed treatment (2649 kg.ha-1), while the lowest (1601 kg.ha-1) was recorded from untreated control plot. The highest net benefit (125310 ETB) was obtained from carboxin + thiram + imidacloprid, followed by Triadimefon (112986.8 ETB) and cow urine (107084.5 ETB) treated plots. Therefore, based on the partial economic analysis result, carboxin + thiram + imidacloprid fungicide and cow urine as a seed treatment are recommended for maize producers.
References
Azanaw, A., Gelaye, M., and Kefale, Y. (2020). On-farm training and demonstration of covered smut (Sphacelotheca sorghi Clint) management technologies on sorghum. Asian Business Review 10, 7–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18034/abr.v10i1.456.
Sajjan, S.A., Patil, B.B., Jamadar, M.M., and Patil, B.S. (2011). Management of grain smut in seed production of rabi sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench.], a review. Agricultural Reviews 32, 202–208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4172/2168-9881.S1.007.
Chemeltorit, P., and Suresh, L. (2020). Maize head smut: pathogenesis, epidemiology, and management options. African Phytosanitary Journal 2, 63-71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52855/UXJT1330.
CIMMYT. (1988). “From Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendations: An Economics Training Manual”. Completely revised edition. 86 pp. CIMMYT, Mexico.
CIMMYT. (2004). “The CIMMYT Maize Program, Maize Diseases: A Guide for Field Identification.” 4th edition. CIMMYT, Mexico.
[CSA] Central Statistical Agency. (2021). “Agricultural Sample Survey 2020/2021 (2013E.C.). Volume I: Report on Area and Production for Major Crops (Private peasant holding, main season)”. Statistical Bulletin 590. [April 2021].
Erenstein, O., Jaleta, M., Sonder, K., Mottaleb, K., and Prasanna B.M. (2022). Global maize production, consumption and trade: trends and R&D implications. Food Security 14, 1295–1319 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-022-01288-7.
FAOSTAT. (2022). Agriculture/agricultural production/crops primary. http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx [December 4, 2024].
Guta, A., and Tilahun, U. (2021). Distribution and status of maize common smut (Ustilago maydis) at West and Kellam Wollega zones, Ethiopia. Journal of Plant Pathology & Microbiology 12, 570. DOI: https://doi.orgh/10.35248/2157-7471.21.12.570.
Kiritai, S., Kagai, K., Ngigi, B., and Mulaa, M. (2024). “Maize smut (Common Smut) Kenya”. Plantwise Plus Knowledge Bank, CABI International. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1079/pwkb.20157800301.
Martinez, C., Roux, C., Jauneau, A., and Dargent, R. (2002). The biological cycle of Sporisorium reilianum f. sp. zeae: an overview using microscopy. Mycologia 94, 505-514. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15572536.2003.11833215.
Woldemichael, M.D. (2019). Importance, biology, epidemiology, and management of loose smut (Ustilago nuda) of barley (Hordeum vulgare): a review. East African Journal of Sciences 13, 89-108.
Radocz, L., Szabo, A., Tamas, A., Illes, A., Bojtor, C., Ragan, P., Vad, A., Szeles, A., Harsanyi, E., and Radocz, L. (2023). Investigation of the detectability of corn smut fungus (Ustilago maydis DC. Corda) infection based on UAV multispectral technology. Agronomy 13, 1-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13061499.
Ramazanova, G.A., Abbasova, G.F., Nasibova K.I., and Engindeniz, S. (2024). The effects on maize yield loss of blister smut disease caused by Ustilago maydis: A case study from Azerbaijan. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture 40, 832-840. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.sja/2024/40.3.832.840.
Robert, G.D., and James, H.T. (1991). “A Biometrical Approach. Principles of statistics”. McGraw-Hill, 2nd edition. New York, USA.
Wright, P.J., Fullerton, R.A., and Koolaard, J.P. (2006). Fungicide control of head smut (Sporisorium reilianum) of sweet corn (Zea mays). New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 34, 23-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01140671.2006.9514383
Zillinsky, F.J. (1983). “Common Diseases of Small Grain Cereals: A Guide to Identification”. 142 pp. CIMMYT.
Zinabu, N., and Anteneh, A. (2020). Evaluation of insecticidal botanicals against sorghum-covered smut (Sphacelotheca sorghi) at Wag-Lasta areas, Ethiopia. Cogent Food and Agriculture 6, 1745132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2020.1745132.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
All publications by Journal of Tropical Crop Science is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
