International Journal of Farming and Allied Sciences

Available online at www.ijfas.com

2013 IJFAS Journal-2013-2-S2/1369-1374
ISSN 2322-4134 2013 IJFAS

Silicon and phosphorus facts on blast disease

incidence of rice (Oryza sativa L.)
Mehrdad Ghasemi Lemraski
Department of Agronomy, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Corresponding author: Mehrdad Ghasemi Lemraski
ABSTRACT: In order to evaluate the effect of silicon and phosphorus rate on disease severity of rice
blast, a field experiment was carried out in factorial experiment as the complete randomized blocks
design with four replications at Sari, Mazandaran, Iran in 2009. The phosphorus was used in three levels
including: P0 (control), P50 and P100 kg ha-1 and silicon in three levels including: Si0 (control), Si500
and Si1000 kg ha-1. The results indicated that there was significant difference on grain yield and leaf
blast at 5% probability level. So, the highest grain yield was obtained by Si1000 with 3849.5 kg ha-1.
Also, the lowest leaf blast was obtained by Si1000, so that to reduction the leaf blast up to 10% in the
relation to control. Si1000 had decreased significantly the lesion diameter (10.48 mm) in the relation to
control. The phosphorus no affect significantly on the percentages of leaf, neck, nod, grain blast and also
on lesion diameter. The silicon rates no affect on the number of infected nod, neck and grain blast. The
interaction effect of P and Si indicated that Si1000P0 and Si0P0 lead to reduction significantly lesion
diameter. There was significant difference on leaf blast in P100Si1000 in comparison with P100Si0.
Finally, we found that in contrast to application Si only, using Si and P together can not affect
significantly in different traits of leaf blast.
Keywords: Leaf blast, Neck blast, Phosphorus, Rice, Silicon
INTRODUCTION
Rice blast caused by the fungus Magnaporthe grisea (Hebert) Barr, is one of the most destructive diseases of
rice and is a serious constraint to production in most of the worlds rice growing region (Seebold et al., 2004), the
disease occurs mainly as leaf blast or neck blast (Bonman, 1992). Although, neck blast is the most destructive in
terms of lost yield, leaf blast can cause severe damage before plants reach the reproductive phase of growth
(Seebold et al., 2004). In the upland ecosystem, rice blast is controlled primarily through the planting of resistant
cultivars and through cultural practices, such as the avoidance of excessive nitrogen fertilization and planting early
in the season (Seebold et al., 2000). So that, fungicides are also used for the control of rice blast, but it is also
neither practical nor environment-friendly. Environmental factors (may be mineral nutrition) contribute considerably
in increasing and or decreasing the plants resistance and/or tolerance against disease and stresses (Aziz et al.,
2002). Also, integrated nutrient management practices are gaining popularity nowadays and generally considered
by the agronomist for sustaining and increasing crop yields (Savant et al., 1997).
The farmers often transplant blast infected seedlings that might serve as sources of inoculums for further
outbreaks of leaf and neck blast disease in the field (Teng et al., 1991). Panicles infected near the base (neck) may
break and cause complete yield loss (Ou, 1985).
In general, the disease causes 10-20% yield reduction in susceptible varieties, but in severe cases the loss
may go up to 80% (Manandhar et al., 1992). Also, for 1% increase in the neck blast, a reduction in grain yield had
-1
been estimated between 21 to 51 kg ha in rice cultivars (Manandhar et al., 1985). More recently, a grain yield loss
-1
of 38.5 and 76.0 kg ha was reported in the rice cultivars due to one percent increase in neck blast (Chaudhary,

Intl J Farm & Alli Sci. Vol., 2 (S2): 1369-1374, 2013

1999). Increased silicon content in rice tissue has been associated with resistance to blast. Further addition
disease severity or incidence tends to be reduced with increasing tissue content of Si in rice (Datnoff et al., 1990,
91). When Si applied, yield increased of 10% are common in rice and 30% when the leaf blast severe (Yoshida,
1981).
Silicon has been beneficial in the control of the diseases and second most abundant element in soils, the
mineral substrate for most of the worlds plant life (Epstein, 1994). Although silicon has not been considered an
essential element for the growth of higher plants; however soluble Si has enhanced the growth, development and
yield of several plant species including rice, sugarcane and most other cereals (Elawad and Green, 1979). Silicon
nutrition has several beneficial effects on plant growth largely due to its unique physiological role (Takahashi et al.,
1990). The yield responses are great enough that silicon fertilization in the rice and sugarcane is a common particle
in USA, Brazil and Japan (Datnoff and Rodrigues., 2005; Savant et al., 1999). Savant et al., 1999) reported that
several levels of yield increases due to Si application in rice and sugarcane. In a nutrient culture experiment, the
application of Si decreased the uptake of N, K, Fe, and Mn in transplanted rice and increased in uptake of P, Ca,
Mg and the formation of carbohydrate (Islam and Saha, 1969). Silicon is also known to reduce the severity of
important diseases of rice such as blast; sheath blight, stem rot and leaf scald (Seebold et al., 2004). Kim, et al.
(2002) investigated some of the cytological features of silicon mediated resistance to blast so that the epidermal
cell wall thickness was not significantly affected by silicon. Seebold et al. (2001) quantified the effects of the silicon
on several components of resistance to blast.
In Iran, low yield of rice is common because imbalanced nutrition is one of the most important causes. So,
Ghanbari-Malidarreh et al., (2009) indicated that silicon affected nitrogen uptake especially in leaf and steam
(straw). Despite silicons potential as a management tool for rice blast, little is known about the feasibility of
combining Si and P to control rice blast.
Phosphorus is a major macronutrient required for plant growth and development. It plays not only an essential
role in energy transfer and metabolic regulation, but it is also an important structural constituent of many molecules,
such as nucleotids, phospholipids and sugar phosphate (Lime et al., 2003). Phosphorus fertilizer application has
been observed to reduce rice blast disease and delays the onset and lessens the severity of take-all disease
incidence in many cases probably by increasing phenolic synthesis (Tiwari, 2002) and it is in contrast with other
authors like Chau, et al. (2003) because they belief that phosphorus fertilizer did not affect to development of insect
pest and disease and to outbreak of those. They also said that application of more phosphorus fertilizer did not
increased P content in leaf and it could decrease the grain yield. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate
blast disease and yield responses of rice to silicon and phosphorus rates and measure leaf and neck blast, node
and grain blast under irrigated condition.
MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experiment was carried out in the field of Sari (3632 N 530 E), Mazandaran, Iran in 2009. The soil texture
was clay with a pH of 7.43. Characteristics of soil exist in Table 1.
Table 1. Characteristics of Soil in experimental site, Sari, 2009.
Parameter
rate
Organic matter (%)
2.46
Carbon (%)
1.43
Phosphorus (ppm)
14
Potassium(ppm)
161
pH
7.43
Ec (ds/m)
1.98

The experiment was loud out as factorial experiment (with two factors) based on randomized complete block
-1
design with four replications. The factors included phosphorus rates (0, 50, 100 kg ha as P2O5) and silicon rates
-1
(0, 500, 1000 kg ha as Ca SiO2). The rice cultivar was Tarom. The methods for field preparation were common
-1
method in local. Seedling was transplanted after 30 days. The fertilizers was used as 200 kg ha of nitrogen as 70
-1
-1
kg ha of nitrogen and 100 kg ha potassium sulfate were applied before transplanting by hand broadcasting and
-1
-1
second 70 kg ha of nitrogen was applied when rice was at the tillering stage and the third 60 kg ha in prior to
heading stage.
We randomly selected 6 hills per plot, 5 plants per hill, 4 leaf per plant (the leaves under flag leaf) with
movement of the length, width and diameter of each plot and evaluate the number of lesion diameter (10 lesion of

1370

Intl J Farm & Alli Sci. Vol., 2 (S2): 1369-1374, 2013

per leaf) by ruler then obtained the percentage of leaf blast by the following formula at 33 days after transplanting
(Seebold et al., 2001).
Percentage of leaf blast = number of infected leaves/total number of leaves 100 (1)
We randomly selected 50 panicles per each plot movement of the length, width and diameter of each plot and
evaluate the amount of neck blast according to the last node toward the panicle and then obtained percentage of
neck blast by the following formula 70 days after transplanting (Datnoff and Rodrigues, 2005).
Percentage of neck blast = number of infected panicles/total number of panicles 100 (2)
We randomly selected 50 panicles per each plot with movement of the length, width and diameter of each plot and
estimate the amount of node blast by ruler according to the last node of neck blast through the stem and then
measured the percentage of node blast by the following formula (Skudiene and Nekrosiene, 2009).
Percentage of node blast = number of infected node/total number of node 100 (3)
We randomly selected 50 panicles of per plot and estimate the number of infected grain based on recognition the
lesion caused by blast and microscopic observation of spore in the location of lesion then obtain the percentage of
grain blast according the following formula (Wang and Liang, 2001).
Percentage of infected grain =number of infected grain in 50 panicles /total grain in 50 panicles 100 (4)
2
Grain was harvested by hand a 22 m section was marked within each subplot using a wire frame, and only those
2
tillers within the frame were cut. Rice yield were estimated from grain harvested in the 4 m portion of each plot and
were adjusted to reflect moisture content of 12% (Seebold et al., 2004).
The data were analyzed using with SAS (version 6.12) and the procedures were described by SAS. The
measurements of treatments were compared and grouped using Duncan's multiple range tests at the 0.05
significance level.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Grain yield
Results show that there was significant difference on grain yield (p<0.05) (Table 2). The highest and lowest
-1
-1
grain yield were Si1000 (with 3849.5 kg ha ) and Si500 (with 3513.9 kg ha ), respectively (Table 3). But, levels of
phosphorus had not significant difference on grain yield. On the other hand, it means that increasing Si could
increase but increasing P due to decrease the grain yield. So, we found that the application of Si 1000P0 leading to
-1
the maximum grain yield. Prabha et al. (2001) reported that with 200 kg ha of silicon, the grain yield was
increased about 20%. Also, silicon had increased the grain yield about 19-24% (Seebold et al., 2001). The grain
yield of rice were increased by the application of Si and Si alone significantly increased grain yields by 53 and 51%
compared with the nonamended control (Seebold et al., 2004). Grain yield was increased by as much as 42%
-1
depending on the cultivar, by Si application at 1000 kg.ha (Seebold et al., 2002). Also, Savant et al. (1999)
reported that several levels of grain yield increase due to silicon application in rice and sugarcane. The increase of
grain yield with silicon is similar to increase the number of panicle result increase in the number of spikelet and
filled spikelet and weight of spikelet (Mauad et al., 2003). When we evaluate the interaction effect, we can
-1
-1
understand that application of Si1000P0 with 4101.63 kg ha and Si500P100 with 3335.47 kg ha had the maximum
-1
and minimum grain yield, respectively. The difference of grain yield was 766.15 kg ha and it was equal to 18.67%
increase in grain yield. Grain yield had negative correlation (r=-0.35**) with grain blast and increase of grain blast,
decreased the grain yield.
Disease incidence
Leaf blast showed that there was significant difference silicon rate, at 5% probability level (Table 2). The
highest of leaf blast was in Si0 (92.55%) and lowest (82.91%) in Si1000, the results showed that silicon application
could reduce leaf blast. Whereas, the lowest leaf blast by Si 1000 leaded to reduction the disease intensity up to 10%
in comparison with the control. This result show that the percentage of leaf blast had decreased with increasing of
Si. This result confirm by Rabindra et al., (1981) who reported that silicon reduce leaf blast. The according to
Seebold et al., (2000) show that Si500 and Si1000 significantly reduce intensity of leaf blast as compared to without
Si. Hayasaka et al. (2008) also reported that the intensity of leaf blast evaluated by the number of lesion in leaf is
decrease with using of the silicon. Application of Si made in 1995 reduce the intensity of leaf blast in 1996 (Seebold
et al., 2004). Disease intensity of leaf blast was reduced significantly in silicon treated rice plants of both cultivars
(Kim, 2000). No significant difference in leaf blast was found in application of phosphorus. However, leaf blast was
-1
increased with application of phosphorus at 50 and 100 kg.ha without silicon (94.16%) and without phosphorus
-1
and silicon at 500 kg.ha (79.99%) was the maximum and minimum, respectively.

1371

Intl J Farm & Alli Sci. Vol., 2 (S2): 1369-1374, 2013

There was not significant effect with application silicon and phosphorus in neck blast (Table 2). The highest
neck blast was in P50 (41.83%) and lowest in P100 (38.66). P100 showed decrease in neck blast and neck blast about
-1
3.18%. Si500 reduced intensity of neck blast when the application of Si increase (500 to 1000 kg.ha ) neck blast
increased about 3.67%. Si had increased resistance to leaf and neck blast in rice (Datnoff and Rodrigues, 2005).
Similarly, Dantoff and Snyder )1994), found that Si alone reduce the intensity of neck blast by over 50% when
compared with an untreated control. At the interaction effect we conclusion that application of Si 500P0 could
decrease neck blast. The results showed that node blast was not significant but the highest node blast (60.85%)
was in P50 and lowest (51.16%) with silicon application. Node blast had decreased from 59% to 54.58 % under
application of Si500. This reduce was about 5% in node blast.
In this experiment, grain blast was not significant but the highest was obtained with P 50 (0.94%) and lowest by
-1
P0 (0.86%). The results show that when we application 50 kg.ha P in compared with an untreated control, we
have increasing about 8% in grain blast also Si1000 due to the minimum grain blast. These results imply that
increasing the application of P and Si alone due to increase and decrease of grain blast, respectively. So,
application Si lonely could play the positive role in decreasing the grain blast. In interaction effects we found that
the lowest grain blast was obtained in application Si1000P50 and it represent the reduction in grain blast with
increasing the level of Si. In silicon rate, the highest grain blast was obtained by Si 500 (0.94%) and the lowest was
by Si1000. So, application silicon without P was beneficial to reduce grain blast.
Results show that there was significant difference in the lesion diameter at p<0.05 (Table 2). The maximum
lesion diameter (24.21 mm) was by Si500 and minimum (16.89 mm) was by Si1000 (Table 3). It means that
-1
application of 1000 kg ha Si significantly decrease the average of lesion diameter (10.48 mm) when compared
with control. In field experiment at Florida, Seebold et al .(2001) reported that the number of lesions, lesion size,
and rate of lesion expansive reduced with increasing rate of silicon application and also Volk et al. (1958)
demonstrated that increased levels of Si in leaf tissue of rice decreased the number of sporulating blast lesion per
leaf, indicating that Si affects the infection efficiency of the blast pathogen and hypothesized that lesion size was
reduced by organosilicon compounds in the walls of epidermal cells. Although in this experiment, application of
phosphorus was not significant but it had decrease in lesion diameter (table 3). Interaction effect showed that Si 1000
due to decrease in lesion diameter. This decrease was from 27.14 to 14.49 % under Si1000.
Table 2. Analysis of variance effect of silicon and phosphorus application on blast severity of rice.
S.O.V.

DF

Replication
Phosphorus (P)
Silicon (Si)
SiP
Error
C. V. (%)

3
2
2
4
24
35

Grain
yield
143581.83ns
180124.86ns
385684.03*
127693.66ns
9544.36
8.31

Leaf
blast
253.87**
87.72ns
183.69*
23.38ns
45.30
7.80

Neck blast

Node blast

353.92ns
30.77ns
176.44ns
122.27ns
188.75
34.25

85.28**
288.36ns
62.19ns
67.77ns
129.28
20.13

Grain
blast
0.24ns
0.01ns
0.23ns
0.12ns
0.18
47.66

Lesion
diameter
579.00**
11.37ns
171.21*
41.61ns
32.10
26.75

Number of
lesion
2. 43**
0.70ns
0.81ns
0.12ns
0.27
13.53

*, ** and ns: Significant at the 5 and 1 % probability and non significant, respectively
Table 3. Mean comparison of effect of silicon and phosphorus application on blast severity of rice.
Traits

Phosphorus

Silicon

Levels

Grain yield

Leaf blast

Neck blast

Node blast

Grain blast

0
50
100
0
500
1000

(Kg ha-1)
3858.7 a
3662.3 a
3633.6 a
3791.1 a
3513.9 b
3849.5 a

%
83.19 a
87.22 a
88.33 a
92.55 a
85.27 ab
82.91 b

%
39.83 a
41.83 a
38.66 a
44.00 a
36.33 a
40.00 a

%
51.16 a
60.83 a
57.41 a
59.00 a
54.58 a
55.83 a

%
0.86 a
0.94 a
0.88 a
0.90 a
0.94 a
0.88 a

Lesion
diameter
(mm)
22.28 a
20.80 a
20.44 a
27.37 a
24.21 a
16.89 b

Number of
lesion
(mm)
3.62 a
4.03 a
4.04 a
4.20 a
3.73 a
3.76 a

In each column, means with the same letters have no significant difference. ( = 5%)

1372

Intl J Farm & Alli Sci. Vol., 2 (S2): 1369-1374, 2013

Table 4. Mean comparison of interaction effect of silicon and phosphorus on severity of rice blast.

Silicon

Grain
yield
Kg ha-1

Leaf
blast
%

3703.18 abc

500
1000
0
500
1000
0
500
1000

3771.25 abc
4101.63 a
3791.55 abc
3435.08 bc
3760.23 abc
3878.70 ab
3335.48 c
3686.60 abc

Treatments
Phosphorus

50

100

Grain
blast
%

Lesion
diameter
mm

51.00 a

54.50 a

1.01 a

27.14 a

32.50 a
36.00 a
43.00 a
39.00 a
43.50 a
38.00 a
37.50 a
40.50 a

48.00 a
51.00 a
67.00 a
59.00 a
56.00 a
55.00 a
56.00 a
60.00 a

0.98 a
0.60 a
1.03 a
1.07 a
0.71 a
0.68 a
1.02 a
0.93 a

25.20 a
14.49 b
19.33 ab
24.16 a
18.47 ab
20.63 ab
22.82 ab
17.87 ab

Neck blast

Nodal blast

87.49 ab
79.99 b
82.08 b
90.00 ab
87.49 ab
84.16 ab
94.16 a
88.33 ab
82.49 b

Number of
lesion
Mm
3.82 ab
3.48 b
3.55 b
4.53 a
3.89 ab
3.69 ab
4.25 ab
3.84 ab
4.04 ab

In each column, means with the same letters have no significant difference.
The results showed that application of silicon and phosphorus rate were not significant (Table 2). However, the
maximum was by P100 (4.04 mm) and without application phosphorus (3.62 mm) was minimum of lesion number
(Table 4). Phosphorus due to increase and application of silicon caused decrease in the number of lesion. The
difference between these two traits showed that with increasing the application of P the number of lesion increased
about 0.42 mm. Si0 with 4.20 and Si500 with 3.76 mm had the highest and lowest number of lesion, respectively.
The difference between these two traits indicate that the application of Si result in decrease the number of lesion
with 0.47 mm. As a result, we found that increasing the application of P increase and increasing the application of
Si decreased the number of lesion. Number of lesion had positive correlation with leaf blast (r=0.53**) and negative
correlation (r= -0.62**) with lesion diameter. Lesion diameter had negative significantly correlation with leaf blast
(r=-0.38*) and positive correlation with the grain blast (r=0.43**).
Table 5. Correlation between traits in this experiment.
Traits
1. Leaf blast
2. Neck blast
3. Node blast
4. Grain blast
5. Lesion diameter
6. Number of lesion
7. Grain yield

1
1
0.24
0.21
-0.19
-0.38*
0.53**
-0.17

1
0.28
-0.06
-0.27
0.28
-0.03

1
0.25
-0.14
0.27
-0.17

1
0.43**
0.02
-0.35**

1
-0.62**
-0.21

1
0.06

* and, ** Significant at the 5 and 1 % probability levels, respectively.

CONCLUSION
As we know, application of mineral elements in adequate concentration could directly or indirectly reduce
disease incidence and severity of crops. However, these results confirmed the similar conclusion, which are soil
fertility management, could have several effects on plant quality, which in turn, can affect disease damage like rice
blast and finally increased the grain yield. In where plant-available Si is known to be deficient, supplying an
adequate level of Si, as shown in this study, could increase yield and control of rice blast to help rice growers meet
the demand for greater production of rice. The results of the present study are evidence that Si acts on several
factors of resistance that seems to limit the production of conidia on rice leaves infected by M. greasea, so, it can
be conclude that silicon was an important component in the mechanism of resistant to blast and it was effective
regardless of the original level of resistance for the cultivar used. This could make Si a useful element for managing
rice disease, possibly in conjunction with reduced rates of fungicides or specific times of application and may
provide alternatives to rice growers.
REFERENCES
Aziz T, Gill MA, Rahmatullah M. 2002. Silicon nutrition and crop production: A review. Pak. Journal Agriculture 39 (3): 181-187.

1373

Intl J Farm & Alli Sci. Vol., 2 (S2): 1369-1374, 2013

Bonman JM. 1992. Blast. Pages 14-16 in: compendium of rice diseases. R.K. Webster and P.S. Gunnel. Eds. American Phytopsthological
society press. St. Paul, MN.
Chau LM, Cat HD, Ben PT, Phuong LT, Cheng J and Heong KL. 2003. Impacts of nutrition management on insect pests and disease of rice.
Omonrice 11: 93-102.
Chaudhary B. 1999. Effect of blast disease on rice yield. Nepal Agriculture Research Journal 3: 8-13.
Chaudhary B, Shrestha M, Sharma R. 2005. Resistance in Rice Breeding Lines to the Blast Fungus in Nepal1. Nepal Agriculture Research
Journal 6: 49-56.
Datnoff LE, Rodrigues FA. 2005. The role of silicon in suppressing rice diseases. American Phytopathological Society. 28 pp.
Datnoff LE, Snyder GH. 1994. Comparison of silicon and Benomyl alone and in combination for reducing blast incidence. Biol. Cult. Tests. 9: 37.
Datnoff LE, Snyder GH, Jones DB. 1990. Influence of silicon fertilizer grades on blast and brown spot development and on rice yields. Plant Dis.
76(10): 1011-1013.
Datnoff LE, Raid RN, Snyder GH and Jones DB. 1991. Effect of calcium silicate on blast and brown spot intensities and yield of rice. Plant Dis.
75: 729-732.
Elawad SH, Green VE ., Jr. 1979. Silicon and the rice plant environment: A review of recent research. 1\ Riso 28: 235-253.
Epstein E. 1994. The anomaly of silicon in plant biology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 91: 1117.
Hamer JE, Howard RJ, Chumely FG and Valent B. 1988. A mechanism for surface attachment in spores of plant pathogenic fungus. Scince
239: 288-290.
Hayasaka T, Fujii H, Ishiguro K. 2008. The role of silicon in preventing appressorial penetration by the rice blast fungus. Phytopatology 98:
1038-1044.
Howard RJ. 1994. Cell biology of pathogenesis. In: Ziegler, R.S., Leong, S.A. and Teng P.S. (ed), Rice Blast Disease, CAB international, IRR,
PP: 3-22.
Islam A, Saha R. 1969. Effects of silicon on the chemical composition of rice plants. Plant Soil 30: 446-458.
Jones LHP, Handreck KA. 1967. Silica in Soils, plant and animals. Adv. Agron. 19:107-149.
Jong JC, Cormack MC, Smirnoff BJ and Talbot NJ. 1997. Generation of enormous turgor by an accumulation of molar concentrations of glycerol
in a plant pathogenic fungus. Nature 389: 244-245.
Kim SG. 2000. Morphological mechanism of silicon-inducted resistance to rice leaf blast. A thesis for the degree of Master of Science. Seoul
national university, Seoul.
Lee YH, Dean RA. 1994. Hydrophobicity of content surface induces appressorium formation in Magnaporthe grisea. FEMS microbial Lett 115:
71-75.
Lime JH, Chung IM, Ryu S, Park MR and Yun SJ. 2003. Differential responses of rice acid phosphatase activities and isoforms to phosphorus
deprivation. Journal of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 36(6): 597-602.
Manandhar HK. 1984. Seed treatment against rice leaf blast. Nepalese Journal of Agriculture 15: 189.
Manandhar HK, Thapa BJ, Amatya P. 1985. Efficacy of various fungicides on the control of rice blast disease. Journal of Institute of Agriculture
and Animal Sciences (Nepal), 6: 21-29.
Manandhar HK, Shrestha K, Amatya P. 1992. Seed-borne diseases. In: Plant diseases, seed production and seed health testing in Nepal (SB
Mathur, P Amatya, K Shrestha and HK Manandhar, eds). Danish Government, Institute of Seed Pathology for Developing Countries,
Copenhagen, Denmark. Pp: 59-74.
Mauad M, Crusciol CAC, Grassi Filhoand H and Correa JC. 2003. Nitrogen and silicon fertilization of upland rice. Scientia Agricola. 60: 761-765.
Ou SH. 1985. Rice Diseases. 2nd edition, Common wealth Mycological Institute. Kew, Surrey, England. 380 pp.
Prabhu AS, Barbosa Filho MP, Filippi MC, Datnoff LE and Snyder GH. 2001. Silicon from rice disease control perspective in Brazil. Page 293311 in: Silicon in Agriculture.L.E. Datnoff, G.H. Snyder, and G.H. Korndorfer, eds. Studies in plant Science, Vol. 8. Elsevier Science B.
Amsterdam, The Netheerlands.
Rabindra B, Gowda SS, Rajappa HK. 1981. Blast disease as influenced by silicon in some rice varieties. Current Res. 10: 82-83.
Rodrigues FA, Benhamou N, Datnoff LE, Jones JB and Be'langer RR. 2003. Ultrastructural and cytochemical aspects of silicon-mediated rice
blast resistance. Phytopathology 93: 535546.
Rodrigues FA, Datnoff LE, Korndorfer GH, Seebold KW and Rush ME. 2001. Effect of silicon and host resistance on sheath blight development
in rice. Plant Disease 85(8): 827-832.
Savant NK, Korndorfer GH, Datnoff LE and Synder GH. 1999. Silicon nutrition and sugarcane production: a review. Plant Nutr. 22: 1853-1903.
Savant NK, Snyder GH, Datnoff LE. 1997. Silicon management and sustainable rice production. Advan. Agron. 58: 151-199.
Seebold KW, Datnoff LE, Correa-Victoria FJ, kucharek TA and Synder GH. 2000. Effect of silicon rate and host resistance on blast, acald, and
yield of upland rice. Plant Disease 84: 871-876.
Seebold KW, Kucharek TA, Datnoff LE, Correa-victoria FJ and Marchetti MA. 2001. The influence of silicon on components of resistance to
blast in susceptible, partially resistant, and resistant cultivars of rice. Phytopathology 91: 63-69.
Seebold KW, Kucharek TA, Datnoff LE, Correa-victoria FJ and Synder GH. 2004. Effect of silicon and fungicides on the control of leaf and neck
blast in upland rice. Plant disease 88: 253-258.
Skudiene R, Nekrosiene R. 2009. Effect of preceding crops on the winter cereal productivity and disease incident.Acta agriculturae slovenica.
93(2): 169-179
Takahashi E. 1996. Uptake mode and physiological functions of silica. In: Science of the rice plant Physiology. Food Agric. Policy Res Center,
Tokyo, Japan. 2: 420-433.
Takahashi E, Ma JF, Miyaki Y. 1990. Comments Agric. Food Chem 2: 99-122.
Teng PS, Klein-Gebbink HW, Pinnschmidt H. 1991. An analysis of the blast pathosystem to guide modelling and forecasting. In: Rice blast
modelling and forecasting. International Rice Research Institute, PO Box 933, 1099 Manila, Philippines. Pp.1-30.
Tiwari KN. 2002. Rice production and nutrient management in India. Better Crop International 16: 18-22.
Volk RJ, Kahn RP, Weintraub RL. 1958. Silicon content of the rice plant as a factor in influencing its resistance to infection by the rice blast.
Phytopathology 48: 179-184.
Wang H, Li C, Liang Y. 2001. Agricultural utilization of silicon in china. Pages 343-358 in: Silicon in Agriculture, Eds. L.E. Datnoff, G.H. Synder
and G.H. Korndorfer, Elseveir Science, The Netherlands.
Yoshida S. 1965. Chemical aspects of the role of silicon in physiology of the rice plant. Bull. Natl. Inst. Agri. Sci. Ser. 15: 1-58.
Yoshida S. 1981. Fundamentals of Rice Crop Science. The international rice research institute, los Banos, Laguna, Philippines.

1374