Next Article in Journal
Effect of the Push-Pull Cropping System on Maize Yield, Stem Borer Infestation and Farmers’ Perception
Previous Article in Journal
Morphological and Physiological Responses Induced by Protein Hydrolysate-Based Biostimulant and Nitrogen Rates in Greenhouse Spinach

Agronomy 2019, 9(8), 451;

Rice Blast: A Disease with Implications for Global Food Security
College of Agronomy, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730020, Gansu, China
Gansu Provincial Key Laboratory of Aridland Crop Science, Lanzhou 730070, China
Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 1 July 2019 / Accepted: 6 August 2019 / Published: 15 August 2019


Rice blast is a serious fungal disease of rice (Oryza sativa L.) that is threatening global food security. It has been extensively studied due to the importance of rice production and consumption, and because of its vast distribution and destructiveness across the world. Rice blast, caused by Pyricularia oryzae Cavara 1892 (A), can infect aboveground tissues of rice plants at any growth stage and cause total crop failure. The pathogen produces lesions on leaves (leaf blast), leaf collars (collar blast), culms, culm nodes, panicle neck nodes (neck rot), and panicles (panicle blast), which vary in color and shape depending on varietal resistance, environmental conditions, and age. Understanding how rice blast is affected by environmental conditions at the cellular and genetic level will provide critical insight into incidence of the disease in future climates for effective decision-making and management. Integrative strategies are required for successful control of rice blast, including chemical use, biocontrol, selection of advanced breeding lines and cultivars with resistance genes, investigating genetic diversity and virulence of the pathogen, forecasting and mapping distribution of the disease and pathogen races, and examining the role of wild rice and weeds in rice blast epidemics. These tactics should be integrated with agronomic practices including the removal of crop residues to decrease pathogen survival, crop and land rotations, avoiding broadcast planting and double cropping, water management, and removal of yield-limiting factors for rice production. Such an approach, where chemical use is based on crop injury and estimated yield and economic losses, is fundamental for the sustainable control of rice blast to improve rice production for global food security.
rice blast; rice; food security; fungal disease; climate change

1. Impact of Population Growth on Land and Water Resources

Climate change is increasing air temperature and the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events [1]. Meanwhile, the global human population is rapidly increasing and the availability of land and water resources for crop production continues to decline, escalating the challenge of global food security. The world’s human population is anticipated to reach 9 billion by 2050 [2]. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization [3], food security is “when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life”. For food insecurity to recede, agricultural production on currently cultivated land will need to increase by 70% globally and 100% in the developing countries by 2050, relative to 2009 levels [4]. This is challenged by a shrinking amount of prime land for rice (Oryza sativa L.) production, which is expected to decline by 18% to 51% in the tropics during the next century due to global warming [5]. Water scarcity, salinization, and pollution of water bodies is also increasing [6], intensifying the challenge of global food security.

2. Rice Production in Food Security

Rice production is the main source of income and employment for more than 200 million households across the world [7,8]. Rice is the primary food for 2.5 to 3.5 billion people who are largely located in rapidly growing low-income countries [9,10,11,12,13]. In 2002, rice provided more than 500 calories person−1 d−1 for over three billion people, and a substantial amount of protein for 520 million people [13,14]. It is one of the most important cereals produced for food security and income by subsistence farmers [15,16,17]. In 2008, 480 to 685 million tons of rice were produced on 160 million ha [18]. At the present rate of human population growth, the requirement for global rice production in 2020 is estimated at 140 million tons, representing a 50% increase compared to 2009 [19,20].
Although rice production has improved substantially over time, it is inadequate to cope with the increasing global demand [21]. Since 2000, global rice production has been less than rice consumption and the deficit has been addressed by drawing on bumper stocks [18]. The annual shortage of rice is estimated to increase from 400,000 tons in 2016 to 800,000 tons by 2030 [22].

3. Impact of Climate Change on Rice Production

On 16 December 2002, the UN General Assembly declared the year 2004 as the International Year of Rice [23]. Decreasing hunger and poverty are key goals of the United Nations [18]; however, the rate of improvement in rice yield has diminished over time [24]. Rice yield growth has declined from 2.3% per year during the 1970s and 1980s to 1.5% during the 1990s, and to <1.0% during the first decade of the present century [24].
Rice is produced across a wide range of agro-climatic environments around the world and its productivity is affected by biotic stresses [25]. Biotic stresses resulting from climate change can impair varietal resistance to rice blast [26,27]. Climate change may change pathogen distribution and development rates, and alter the resistance, growth, and metabolism of rice [28]. Each stage of the rice blast disease cycle, from the germination of spores to the development of lesions, is significantly influenced by climatic factors such as temperature, precipitation, and dew, and are likely to affect pathogen distribution due to altered effectiveness of preventive approaches [28,29]. Consequently, management approaches that exploit host resistance will be greatly impacted by climate change [30]. Quantitative analyses of the effects of climate change on pathogens are lacking in field and laboratory research and in modeling-based assessments [31]. Therefore, mitigating the impact of biotic stresses on rice is key to increasing and stabilizing rice yield. Fungal diseases alone are estimated to reduce annual rice production by 14% globally [32]. Increased frequency and magnitude of extreme weather events combined with increased air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration due to climate change are projected to spread rice diseases to new areas [33,34].
There has been limited research on rice diseases under field conditions that realistically mimic climate change, which has severely restricted the development of options for improved rice adaptation and disease control in future growing conditions [35]. There has also been limited success in identifying traits in rice for enhanced tolerance to drought and monsoon conditions [36].
A crucial challenge to rice production is rice blast, caused by the fungus Pyricularia oryzae Cavara 1892. Rice blast is one of the most serious and recurrent difficulties affecting lowland and upland rice production around the world [37,38,39,40,41,42]. Rice blast is responsible for yield losses of about 10% to 30% annually [43,44,45]. In favorable conditions, this disease can devastate entire rice plants within 15 to 20 d and cause yield losses of up to 100% [46].
Rice blast has become more difficult to control because of the pathogen’s ability to survive and multiply in harsh environmental conditions and easily spread to new fields [47,48]. Varietal resistances have declined due to the appearance of new and more virulent strains of the pathogen, making management and control more challenging [49]. Additionally, fungicides and plant breeding have failed to provide long-lasting control of rice blast because they are too static to deal with the dynamic interactions between the pathogen and rice, which are influenced by the surrounding environment [50]. Understanding the effects of the rice blast pathogen, the efficacy of rice defense mechanisms, and the impact of climate change on rice blast are crucial for enhancing global food security [31].
Strategies to mitigate the negative effects of climate change are key to increasing rice production [51]. Understanding the effects of changing air temperature, rainfall, and sea level due to climate change would enable modifications in crop management for improved rice production [18]. Changes in duration, intensity, and frequency of rainfall would greatly impact the effectiveness of chemical control measures [30]. Rainfall following application of fungicide may increase its coverage on foliage [52], but a high amount or high intensity of rainfall can reduce fungicide coverage on foliage [53]. With long periods of rainy and cloudy conditions, both growth of rice and its resistance to rice blast are weakened [54]. Rice blast epidemics are favored by extended periods of rain, lack of sunshine, and dew, which induce the release of conidia [54]. The effect of rainfall on the dispersion of conidia is most prominent at the start of a rainy season and during heavy rains [55,56].
Sea level rise is an important concern for rice production since it could result in flooding of low-lying areas and intensify soil salinity [57,58]. Since rice blast can be spread by water, conidia in infected fields could spread to new fields with flooding [59]. Additionally, increased soil salinity due to flooding can restrict rice growth and grain formation [57,60], which could reduce resistance to rice blast [61].
The effects of atmospheric CO2 concentration on rice blast are not well understood [28]. In a meta-analysis summarizing the response of rice yield to increased atmospheric CO2 and O3 concentrations, Ainsworth (2008) found that high CO2 concentrations are anticipated to increase yield, while increased O3 concentrations and elevated air temperature are anticipated to reduce yield. Other researchers have reported that elevated CO2 concentrations are likely to increase the spread of rice blast [62,63,64,65]. Published results from simulation modeling research to predict the impact of climate change on rice blast are scarce; therefore, most assumptions are based on the epidemiology of the disease at specific temperature, humidity, and CO2 levels [28].
In China, it has been predicted that climate change will reduce rice yield by up to 37% during the next 20 to 80 years [66]. Global warming may result in the need for greater resource investment to achieve equivalent or lesser rice production [67,68]. Increased salinity of water used in rice production resulting from a 0.3-m rise in sea level due to climate change is expected to reduce rice production by 0.5 million tons annually [69]. Since 40% of the world’s total rice area is rainfed, changes in rainfall due to climate change will affect rice production [11]. Drought stress can severely damage or even kill rice plants when it occurs during the reproductive stages, and variation in the start of the rainy season leads to variation in the start of planting, which influences rice growth and development [18]. Global climate change, rising scarcity of water resources, and drought stress will severely influence future rice production [70].

4. Impact of Elevated Carbon Dioxide on Rice

Increased atmospheric CO2 concentration enhances rice biomass production, but it can have a negative effect on grain yield if it is associated with increased air temperature, as projected with climate change [71,72,73,74,75]. Each 75-ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is expected to increase rice yield by 0.5 tons ha−1, while each 1 °C increase in average air temperature during the growing season is projected to decrease rice yield by 0.6 tons ha−1 [75]. This is because rice is a C3 crop, thereby having reduced photosynthetic efficiency due to photorespiration in hot conditions [75]. Greater CO2 levels can also reduce transpirational cooling and increase maintenance respiration when night air temperature exceeds 21 °C [73,76]. Responses of rice to elevated CO2 concentrations depend on nitrogen supply; greater CO2 levels with limited nitrogen and the absence of sinks for excess carbon can limit photosynthetic capacity and growth [72]. Increases in crop canopy and biomass with elevated CO2 concentrations increases host size for a pathogen population [77,78,79,80]. A larger amount of crop residues can also increase pathogen survival and increase inoculum for subsequent crops and neighboring fields [29]. The impact of greater atmospheric CO2 concentration on plant diseases is in part due to changes in host physiology and anatomy, such as reduced nutrient concentration and increased carbohydrate concentration in leaves, plant fiber content, leaf wax, layers of epidermal cells, and mesophyll cells [81,82,83]. Increased leaf blast and sheath blight severity has been associated with reduced silicon content in susceptible rice varieties under elevated CO2 levels [64]. Additionally, increased leaf wax and epidermal thickness in rice can result in greater physical susceptibility to pathogens, along with enhanced pathogen fecundity and changes in pathogen virulence, activity, abundance, and distribution [29,82,83].
In high humidity environments, rice blast lesions produce spores in abundance, which are dispersed by wind and serve as inoculum for a new cycle of infection [84]. In comparison, a lack of humidity or rainfall can reduce disease severity [28]. Strong winds that blow soil particles can injure rice plants, creating wounds for easy penetration by pathogens [85]. Wind also stimulates transpiration of the host and promotes silicification of leaf tissue [86] and strengthens the resistance reaction of the host [54].

5. Impact of Warmer Air Temperature on Rice

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [87], the average annual global air temperature from 1990 to 2100 could increase by 1.8 to 5.8 °C, which would greatly threaten rice productivity and global food security. Optimal maximum daily air temperature during the growing season for rice grain yield is 23 to 26 °C [88]. Air temperature above 33 °C negatively affects anther dehiscence, pollen viability, spikelet fertility, and dry matter accumulation in grain [89,90,91]. A 2 °C increase in average air temperature during grain filling can decrease rice yield by 15% to 17% [92,93]. Increased air temperature due to climate change is also expected to enhance growth and sporulation of the rice blast pathogen [94].
The temperature under which rice is cultivated affects its susceptibility to the blast disease [95]. In cold subtropical zones, an increase in air temperature is expected to cause an increase in the severity of rice blast due to increased risk of infection [84,96]. Long periods of leaf dampness, high relative humidity, and temperatures of 17 to 28 °C favor rice blast growth [97]. Low humidity or dew favors the infection of rice blast [98]. When night air temperature rises above 20 °C there is less spore liberation and infection is absent, but rapid growth of lesions is favored by alternating daily minimum and maximum air temperatures of 25/32 °C to 20/32 °C [28,99]. Mild air temperature of 16 to 24 °C may sustain the sporulation capacity of lesions [28]. However, greater air temperatures that are predicted to occur as a result of climate change may reduce the incidence of rice blast in most rice growing zones [28]. More detailed modeling research and climate monitoring that take into consideration other factors affecting rice blast would be beneficial for disease management [28].

6. Disease Cycle of Rice Blast

Rice blast is caused by a filamentous ascomycete fungus and is a polycyclic disease spread by asexual spores (conidia) that infect aboveground tissues of rice plants [40,43,100,101,102,103]. The infection route requires an infection cell, called an appressorium, which uses a pressure-driven mechanism to break the tough cuticle of the rice plant and stick firmly by means of an adhesive carried in the spore apex, generating turgor pressure of up to 8.0 MPa that ruptures the cuticle of the affected rice [104,105,106,107]. Once inside the tissue, the fungus produces invasive hyphae that quickly colonize living host cells, secreting effector molecules to overpower host immunity and aid infection [108]. The effectors are transported into host cytoplasm by the aid of a biotrophic interfacial complex, a plant-derived membrane-rich structure in which effectors amass during transit to the host [108,109,110,111]. The pathogen can replicate quickly and successively by mitosis, nuclear migration, and death of conidia from which the infection originated, and produce appressoria capable of infecting aerial structures and hyphae capable of infecting roots of young and old rice plants [43,107,112,113]. Autophagic cell death of conidia is connected to cell cycle control and produces conidiophores that are dispersed to other tissues and plants by wind and water splash to reinitiate the infection cycle by attachment of a spore that germinates and forms an appressorium [32,34,43,106,114]. This allows the pathogen to infect epidermal cells with bulbous invasive hyphae that proliferate and grow from cell to cell, often through pit fields which invade neighboring cells through plasmodesmata that requires mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling and manipulation of jasmonate signaling [45,115,116,117]. Appressorium penetration is a septin-dependent process and is linked to a burst of reactive oxygen species in the infected cell [107,118]. Rice blast conidia can spread within 230 m from their source; dispersal is favored in darkness and with high relative humidity and winds greater than 3.5 m s−1 [119]. The primary source of inoculum is infected residue and seeds of rice, and in the tropics, airborne conidia are present throughout the year, enabling stable epidemics to occur year-round [100,120,121]. Initial symptoms of rice blast are oval-shaped lesions that are 0.3 to 0.5 cm wide and 1.0 to 1.5 cm long, ranging from white to gray and surrounded by darker borders, and older lesions are typically larger and may coalesce to kill entire leaves [122,123].
Environmental conditions favoring sporulation and lesion development include extended periods of leaf dampness, 92% to 96% relative humidity, and 25 to 28 °C air temperature [32,116,124]. Peak spore production occurs during the night when relative humidity is 100% and air temperature is near 22 °C [28,43]. Fungal growth within rice cells causes death of the infected tissues and necrotic lesions within 3 to 5 d [43]. The pathogen survives in the residue of host plants’ tissues and the cycle repeats [100,119]. Under favorable conditions, there can be one cycle per week, with a single lesion producing hundreds of spores each night for more than 20 d [38]. Drought stress and excess nitrogen application increases susceptibility of rice to the rice blast pathogen. Though rice blast may tend to develop under dry conditions, its response is variable [125,126,127].

7. Strategies to Circumvent Rice Blast for Food Security

Crop diseases including rice blast are increasingly worrisome to rice farmers around the world and threaten global food security [128]. Since rice is an essential source of calories for much of the world’s population, decreased rice yield due to rice blast is a serious threat to global food security. The basis for integrated management of rice blast is knowledge of the pathogen and monitoring for its appearance to implement control practices before yield loss exceeds control cost. A mechanistic understanding of the complex interactions among the pathogen, host, and environment will lead to accurate forecasts of pathogen distribution and greatly advance management of rice blast for global food security in the presence of climate change.
Food security is influenced by a complex set of sociopolitical and trade issues that are often more important than production and processing [38]. These challenges could be partially addressed by clearly communicated policies and research agendas, such as the ‘New Rice for Africa’ program by African Rice Center, which is focused on developing rice varieties with enhanced tolerance to harsh growing conditions with limited fertilizer and pesticide use [129].
Sustainable increases in rice production for global food security will require efforts to enhance the capacity of rice production systems to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Mitigation could involve strategies focused on increasing rice yield in the presence of rice blast and climate change [48,92], and reducing greenhouse gas emissions [18], while adaptation includes adjustments to decrease rice vulnerability to rice blast. Policies on rice research and development should include provisions for technology transfer to farmers and agricultural professionals to ensure that new varieties and production practices are adopted [18].
Crop simulation modeling is a useful tool for studying the impact of climate change on crop growth and yield in diverse agro-climatic conditions, with several models for rice available, including CERES-Rice [130] and ORYZA [131]. Models for estimating crop yield loss from rice blast should be integrated with crop growth models [132,133,134,135]. Disease tolerance, an area not commonly addressed in yield-loss assessment, should also be taken into account with projected climatic conditions [136].
Rice blast could be effectively managed through integrated use of cultural practices, chemicals, resistant varieties, and biocontrol agents. Segregation of affected grains reduces the spread of rice blast [137]. Additionally, broadcast sowing should be avoided because it can produce clusters of high plant densities due to non-uniform seed distribution, creating a favorable microclimate for the development of rice blast [119,138]. Transfer of agricultural technologies to farmers is more effective when the state, non-governmental, and private sectors work in partnership [139,140,141]. Local leaders, agricultural professionals, and government or non-profit educators will be key for technology transfer and adoption of best practices for controlling rice blast to improve food security [141,142]. Coordination among researchers from a variety of disciplines to map vulnerability and create early warning systems could enable the development of successful and sustainable adaptation strategies to reduce losses from rice blast [28].
Retrospective analysis of long-term data and herbarium specimens will add knowledge on the biology, distribution, and adaptive responses of plant pathogens and their vectors to climate change [135,143]. Increased collection of quantitative data on rice diseases and their pathogens will increase the ability to counteract new risks posed by climate change for endemic pathogens and circumvent new introductions [144]. A challenge will be linking this data to host–pathogen interactions on a spatial scale to determine future management options and comprehensive knowledge of the hosts, pathogen, and disease epidemiology in a cropping system, since parasitic and saprotrophic fitness should be considered [50].
Natural products for controlling rice blast that are safe for the environment, humans, and other organisms, such as microbial antagonists [145], are gaining interest as alternatives to chemical fungicides [146,147]. Examples include Streptomyces bacteria [148] and the biocontrol agent P. fluorescens Pf7-14, which produces antifungal phenazine-1-carboxylic acid [149]. Fungicides are an option for controlling rice blast, but care should be taken to avoid overuse of similar active ingredients and the development of pathogen resistance [137,150,151,152].
Crop breeding is a critical component of global food security, especially for rice [153,154]. Long-lasting and durable resistance to rice blast from a single gene is feasible but not often available, since the pathogen can rapidly mutate and attack resistant cultivars [47]. Many genes resistant to rice blast have been identified and are widely used as resistant donors in breeding programs including Piz, Piz-t, Pit, Pik, Pik-m, Pik-p, Pita, Pita-2, and Pib [155]. Pi21 appears to slow the plant’s defense responses, which may support optimization of defense mechanisms [156]. Ptr is a new class broad-spectrum resistant gene that is also required for classical nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat against rice blast [157]. The Pigm locus contains a cluster of genes encoding nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat receptors that confer durable resistance to the fungus [128]. Gumei 4 (GM4)-derived varieties or near-isogenic lines with the Pigm resistance locus (NIL-Pigm) display high resistance and durability to rice blast and could be used to improve resistance against the blast disease [128,158]. The durability of resistance can be improved by crossing rice varieties with complementary genes to achieve multigenic resistance against a wide spectrum of pathogen races, thereby reducing selection pressure on a single blast isolate [159]. It is also important to consider pathogen evolution and the effectiveness of resistant plant varieties for accurate assessment of rice blast in the future [31]. Transgenic solutions should receive serious consideration in integrated disease management strategies to improve food security [25]. Transgenic rice lines harboring rice blast resistance gene Pi-d2 transformed from vectors of pCB6.3kb, pCB5.3kb, and pZH01-2.72kb, displayed various levels of resistance (up to 92%) against 39 strains of rice blast [155].
Empirical investigations assessing the impacts of climate change on physical, chemical, and biological control of rice blast are critical to develop new tools and tactics for disease control; however, climate is only one driver of change when assessing future impacts of plant diseases [31]. Research to improve the adaptive capacity of rice by increasing its resilience to rice blast may not involve a completely new approach, although managing this disease may have an added advantage of mitigating rising CO2 concentrations [160]. All crop protection practices for future research should be part of an integrated approach and should focus on developing adaptation and mitigation strategies for the control of rice blast in future climate conditions. Integrated solutions and international coordination in their implementation will be essential for effective control of this devastating disease to improve global food security [35].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.E.A.; methodology, A.E.A.; software formatting/writing style, J.A.C.; validation, Q.C. and J.A.C.; formal analysis, J.A.C.; investigation, A.E.A.; resources, Q.C.; data curation/information, A.E.A.; writing, A.E.A.; editing, J.A.C.; supervision, Q.C. and J.A.C.; project administration, Q.C. and J.A.C.; All the above people have contributed immensely to the work reported.


This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Mirza, M.M.Q. Climate change and extreme weather events: Can developing countries adapt? Clim. Policy 2003, 3, 233–248. [Google Scholar]
  2. Godfray, H.C.J.; Beddington, J.R.; Crute, I.R.; Haddad, L.; Lawrence, D.; Muir, J.F.; Pretty, J.; Robinson, S.; Thomas, S.M.; Toulmin, C. Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 2010, 327, 812–818. [Google Scholar]
  3. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Legislation on Water Users’ Organization. A Comparative Analysis. Legislative Study 79. 2003. Available online: (accessed on 10 April 2019).
  4. FAO. The State of the World’s Land and Water Resources for Food and Agriculture (SOLAW) Managing Systems at Risk. 2011. Available online: (accessed on 10 April 2019).
  5. Darwin, R.; Tsigas, M.; Lewandrowski, J.; Raneses, A. World Agriculture and Climate Change: Economic Adaptations; Agricultural Economic Report No. 703, USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; p. 86. [Google Scholar]
  6. FAO. FAOSTAT Database. 2010. Available online: (accessed on 10 April 2019).
  7. Emodi, A.I.; Madukwe, M.C. Influence of consumers’ socio-economic characteristics on rice consumption in South East Nigeria. Libyan Agric. Res. Cent. J. Int. 2011, 2, 105–111. [Google Scholar]
  8. Darsono, N.; Yoon, D.H.; Raju, K. Effects of the sintering conditions on the structural phase evolution and T C of Bi1.6 Pb0.4 Sr2 Ca2 Cu3 O7 prepared using the citrate sol–gel method. J. Supercond. Nov. Magn. 2016, 29, 1491–1497. [Google Scholar]
  9. Smith, B.D. The Emergence of Agriculture; Scientific American Library: A Division of HPHLP; Diane Pub Co.: New York, NY, USA, 1998; ISBN 0-7167-6030-4. [Google Scholar]
  10. Byerlee, D.R.; Dawe, D.; Dobermann, A.; Mohanty, S.; Rozelle, S.; Hardy, B. Rice in the Global Economy. Strategic Research and Policy Issues for Food Security; No. 164488; International Rice Research Institute: Los Baños, Philippines, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  11. Maclean, J.; Hardy, B.; Hettel, G. Rice Almanac: Source Book for One of the Most Important Economic Activities on Earth; International Rice Research Institute: Los Baños, Philippines, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  12. Mohanty, S.; Wassmann, R.; Nelson, A.; Moya, P.; Jagadish, S.V.K. Rice and Climate Change: Significance for Food Security and Vulnerability; International Rice Research Institute: Los Baños, Philippines, 2013; p. 14. [Google Scholar]
  13. Muthayya, S.; Sugimoto, J.D.; Montgomery, S.; Maberly, G.F. An overview of global rice production, supply, trade, and consumption. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2014, 1324, 7–14. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  14. Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database (FAOSTAT). Statistical Database. Available online: (accessed on 10 April 2019).
  15. Lopez, S.J. TaqMan based real time PCR method for quantitative detection of basmati rice adulteration with non-basmati rice. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2008, 227, 619–622. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kari, S.; Korhonen-Kurki, K. Framing local outcomes of biodiversity conservation through ecosystem services: A case study from Ranomafana, Madagascar. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 3, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. McCouch, S.R.; Wright, M.H.; Tung, C.W.; Maron, L.G.; McNally, K.L.; Fitzgerald, M.; Singh, N.; DeClerck, G.; Agosto-Perez, F.; Korniliev, P.; et al. Open access resources for genome-wide association mapping in rice. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 10–532. [Google Scholar]
  18. Nguyen, N.V. Global Climate Changes and Rice Food Security; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  19. Indian Institute of Rice Research (IIRR). Annual Progress Report; IIRR: Hyderabad, India, 2005; Volume 3, pp. 133–135. [Google Scholar]
  20. Chauhan, B.S.; Jabran, K.; Mahajan, G. Rice Production Worldwide; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; Volume 247. [Google Scholar]
  21. Sasaki, T.; Burr, B. International rice genome sequencing project: The effort to completely sequence the rice genome. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2000, 3, 138–142. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  22. Thirze, H. Modelling Grain Surplus and Deficit in Cameroon for 2030. Master’s Thesis, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, 2016; p. 59. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gnanamanickam, S.S. Rice and its importance to human life. In Biological Control of Rice Diseases; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  24. Khush, G.S. Strategies for increasing the yield potential of cereals: The case of rice as an example. Plant Breed. 2013, 132, 433–436. [Google Scholar]
  25. Zhang, F.; Xie, J. Genes and QTLs Resistant to Biotic and Abiotic Stresses From Wild Rice and Their Applications in Cultivar Improvements, Rice-Germplasm, Genetics and Improvement; Yan, W., Bao, J., Eds.; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  26. Newton, A.C.; Young, I.M. Temporary partial breakdown of Mloresistance in spring barley by the sudden relief of soil water stress. Plant Pathol. 1996, 45, 973–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Goodman, B.A.; Newton, A.C. Effects of drought stress and its sudden relief on free radical processes in barley. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2005, 85, 47–53. [Google Scholar]
  28. Bevitori, R.; Ghini, R. Rice blast disease in climate change times. Embrapa Arroze Feijao-Artigo em periodico indexado (ALICE). 2014. Available online: (accessed on 8 August 2019).
  29. Coakley, S.M.; Scherm, H.; Chakraborty, S. Climate change and plant disease management. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1999, 37, 399–426. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  30. Chakraborty, S.; Tiedemann, A.V.; Teng, P.S. Climate change: Potential impact on plant diseases. Environ. Pollut. 2000, 108, 317–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Luck, J.; Spackman, M.; Freeman, A.; Piotr Tre˛ bicki, P.; Griffiths, W.; Finlay, K.; Chakraborty, S. Climate change and diseases of food crops. Plant Pathol. 2011, 60, 113–121. [Google Scholar]
  32. Agrios, G.N. Introduction to Plant Pathology, 5th ed.; Elsevier Academic Press Publication: San Diego, CA, USA, 2005; pp. 125–170. [Google Scholar]
  33. Anderson, P.K.; Cunningham, A.A.; Patel, N.G.; Morales, F.J.; Epstein, P.R.; Daszak, P. Emerging infectious diseases of plants. Pathogen pollution, climate change and agrotechnology drivers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2004, 19, 535–544. [Google Scholar]
  34. Rosenzweig, C.; Yang, X.B.; Anderson, P.; Epstein, P.; Vicarelli, M. Agriculture: Climate change, crop pests and diseases. In Climte Change Futures: Health Ecological Economic Dimensios; The Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2005; pp. 70–77. [Google Scholar]
  35. Chakraborty, S.; Newton, A.C. Climate change, plant diseases and food security. An overview. Plant Pathol. 2011, 60, 2–14. [Google Scholar]
  36. Zeigler, R.S.; Puckridge, D.W. Improving sustainable productivity in rice-based rainfed lowland systems of South and Southeast Asia. GeoJournal 1995, 35, 307–324. [Google Scholar]
  37. Kuyek, D. Blast, Biotech and Big Business: Implications of Corporate Strategies on Rice Research in Asia; GRAIN: Barcelona, Spain, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  38. Kato, H. Rice blast disease. Pestic. Outlook 2001, 12, 23–25. [Google Scholar]
  39. Talbot, N.J. On the trail of a cereal killer: Exploring the biology of (Magnaporthe grisea). Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2003, 57, 177–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Dean, R.A.; Talbot, N.J.; Ebbole, D.J.; Farman, M.L.; Mitchell, T.K.; Orbach, M.J.; Read, N.D. The genome sequence of the rice blast fungus. Magnaporthe Grisea Nat. 2005, 434, 980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wang, Z.Y.; Jenkinson, J.M.; Holcombe, L.J.; Soanes, D.M.; Veneault-Fourrey, C.; Bhambra, G.K.; Talbot, N.J. The molecular biology of appressorium turgor generation by the rice blast fungus (Magnaporthe grisea). Biochem. Soc. Trans. 2005, 33, 384–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). Detection of Rice Blast Caused by (Magnaporthe grisea) in the Ord River Irrigation Area (ORIA) of Western Australia. Report AUS-2011, 46/1. Available online: (accessed on 6 March 2019).
  43. Wilson, R.A.; Talbot, N.J. Under pressure: Investigating the biology of plant infection by (Magnaporthe oryzae). Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2009, 7, 185. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  44. Ashkani, S.; Yusop, M.R.; Shabanimofrad, M.; Harun, A.R.; Sahebi, M.; Latif, M.A. Genetic analysis of resistance to rice blast. A study on the inheritance of resistance to the blast disease pathogen in an F3 population of rice. J. Phytopathol. 2015, 163, 300–309. [Google Scholar]
  45. Sakulkoo, W.; Osés-Ruiz, M.; Oliveira Garcia, E.; Soanes, D.M.; Littlejohn, G.R.; Hacker, C.; Correia, A.; Valent, B.; Talbot, N.J. A single fungal MAP kinase controls plant cell-to-cell invasion by the rice blast fungus. Science 2018, 359, 1399–1403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Musiime, O.; Tenywa, M.M.; Majaliwa, M.J.G.; Lufafa, A.; Nanfumba, D.; Wasige, J.E.; Woomer, P.L.; Kyondha, M. Constraints to rice production in Bugiri District. Afr. Crop Sci. Conf. Proc. 2005, 7, 1495–1499. [Google Scholar]
  47. Araujo, L.G.D.; Prabhu, A.S.; Freire, A.D.B. Development of blast resistant somaclones of the upland rice cultivar Araguaia. Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras. 2000, 35, 357–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Meybeck, A. Building resilience for adaptation to climate change in the agriculture sector. In Proceedings of the a Joint FAO/OECD workshop, Rome, Italy, 23–24 April 2012. [Google Scholar]
  49. Laha, G.S.; Singh, R.; Ladhalakshmi, D.; Sunder, S.; Prasad, M.S.; Dagar, C.S.; Babu, V.R. Importance and management of rice diseases: A global perspective. In Rice Production Worldwide; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 303–360. [Google Scholar]
  50. Briggs, S. Functional genomics and the development of new plants. Presented at the Agriculture Biotechnology International Conference, Toronto, ON, Canada, 8 June 2000; pp. 2308–2309. [Google Scholar]
  51. Rehmani, M.I.A.; Zhang, J.; Li, G.; Ata-Ul-Karim, S.T.; Wang, S.; Kimball, B.A.; Yan, C.; Liu, Z.; Ding, Y. Simulation of future global warming scenarios in rice paddies with an open-field warming facility. Plant Methods 2011, 7, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Shiba, Y.; Nagata, T. The mode of action of tricyclazole in controlling rice blast. Ann. Phytopath. Soc. Jpn. 1981, 47, 662–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Phong, T.K.; Nhung, D.T.T.; Yamazaki, K.; Takagi, K.; Watanabe, H. Behavior of sprayed tricyclazole in rice paddy lysimeters. Chemosphere 2009, 74, 1085–1089. [Google Scholar]
  54. Suzuki, H. Meteorological factors in the epidemiology of rice blast. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1975, 13, 239–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Yamanaka, I. Forecasting techniques in warm southern Japan based on weather conditions. Ann. Phytopathol. Soc. Jpn. 1965, 31, 278–282. [Google Scholar]
  56. Shahjahan, A.K.M. Practical Approaches to Rice Blast Management in Tropical Monsoon Ecosystems, with Special Reference. In Rice Blast Disease; International Rice Research Institute: Manila, Philippines; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1994; p. 465. [Google Scholar]
  57. Lassa, J.A.; Lai, A.Y.H.; Goh, T. Climate extremes: An observation and projection of its impacts on food production in ASEAN. Nat. Hazards 2016, 84, 19–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Dasgupta, S.; Laplante, B.; Murray, S.; Wheeler, D. Sea-Level Rise and Storm Surges: A Comparative Analysis of Impacts in Developing Countries; World Bank Policy Research Working Paper; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2009; p. 4901. [Google Scholar]
  59. Zou, L.L.; Wei, Y.M. Driving factors for social vulnerability to coastal hazards in Southeast Asia: Results from the meta-analysis. Nat. Hazards 2010, 54, 901–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Wassmann, R.; Jagadish, S.V.K.; Sumfleth, K.; Pathak, H.; Howell, G.; Ismail, A.; Serraj, R.; Redona, E.; Singh, R.K.; Heuer, S. Regional vulnerability of climate change impacts on Asian rice production and scope for adaptation. Adv. Agron. 2009, 102, 91–133. [Google Scholar]
  61. Luo, Y.; Teng, P.S.; Fabellar, N.G.; TeBeest, D.O. Risk analysis of yield losses caused by rice leaf blast associated with temperature changes above and below for five Asian countries. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1998, 68, 197–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ainsworth, E.A. Rice production in a changing climate: A meta-analysis of responses to elevated carbon dioxide and elevated ozone concentration. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2008, 14, 1642–1650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. McElrone, A.J.; Reid, C.D.; Hoye, K.A.; Hart, E.; Jackson, R.B. Elevated CO2 reduces disease incidence and severity of a red maple fungal pathogen via changes in host physiology and leaf chemistry. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2005, 11, 1828–1836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Kobayashi, T.; Ishiguro, K.; Nakajima, T.; Kim, H.Y.; Okada, M.; Kobayashi, K. Effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration on the infection of rice blast and sheath blight. Phytopathology 2006, 96, 425–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Gória, M.M.; Ghini, R.; Bettiol, W. Elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration increases rice blast severity. Trop. Plant Pathol. 2013, 38, 253–257. [Google Scholar]
  66. Erda, L.; Wei, X.; Hui, J.; Yinlong, X.; Yue, L.; Liping, B.; Liyong, X. Climate change impacts on crop yield and quality with CO2 fertilization in China. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2005, 360, 2149–2154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Eastburn, D.M.; McElrone, A.J.; Bilgin, D.D. Influence of atmospheric and climatic change on plant–pathogen interactions. Plant Pathol. 2011, 60, 54–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ghini, R.; Bettiol, W.; Hamada, E. Diseases in tropical and plantation crops as affected by climate changes. Current knowledge and perspectives. Plant Pathol. 2011, 60, 60,122–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. World Bank. Bangladesh: Climate Change and Sustainable Development; Report No. 21104, BD; World Bank: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  70. Farooq, M.; Wahid, A.; Kobayashi, N.; Fujita, D.; Basra, S.M.A. Plant drought stress. Effects, mechanisms and management. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2009, 29, 185–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ziska, L.H.; Manalo, P.A.; Ordonez, R.A. Intraspecific variation in the response of rice (Oryza sativa L.) to increased CO2 and temperature: Growth and yield response of 17 cultivars. J. Exp. Bot. 1996, 47, 1353–1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ziska, L.H.; Weerakoon, W.; Namuco, O.S.; Pamplona, R. The influence of nitrogen on the elevated CO2 response in field-grown rice. Funct. Plant Biol. 1996, 23, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Matsui, T.; Namuco, O.S.; Ziska, L.H.; Horie, T. Effects of high temperature and CO2 concentration on spikelet sterility in indica rice. Field Crop. Res. 1997, 51, 213–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Moya, T.B.; Ziska, L.H.; Namuco, O.S.; Olszyk, D. Growth dynamics and genotypic variation in tropical, field-grown paddy rice (Oryza sativa L.) in response to increasing carbon dioxide and temperature. Glob. Chang. Biol. 1998, 4, 645–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Sheehy, J.; Elmido, A.; Centeno, G.; Pablico, P. Searching for new plants for climate change. J. Agric. Meteorol. 2005, 60, 463–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Baker, J.F.T.; Allen, L.H.A., Jr.; Boote, K.N.J.; Pickering, N.B. Direct effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration on whole canopy dark respiration of rice. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2000, 6, 275–6286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Manning, W.J.; Tiedemann, A.V. Climate change: Potential effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), ozone (O3), and ultraviolet-B (UV-B) radiation on plant diseases. Environ. Pollut. 1995, 88, 219–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Fuhrer, J. Agroecosystem responses to combinations of elevated CO2, ozone, and global climate change. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2003, 97, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Mitchell, C.E.; Reich, P.B.; Tilman, D.; Groth, J.V. Effects of elevated CO2, nitrogen deposition, and decreased species diversity on foliar fungal plant disease. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2003, 9, 438–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Pangga, I.B.; Chakraborty, S.; Yates, D. Canopy size and induced resistance in (Stylosanthes scabra) determine anthracnose severity at high CO2. Phytopathology 2004, 94, 221–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Chakraborty, S.; Murray, G.M.; Magarey, P.A.; Yonow, T.; O’Brien, R.G.; Croft, B.J.; Barbetti, M.J.; Sivasithamparam, K.; Old, K.M.; Dudzinski, M.J.; et al. Potential impact of climate change on plant diseases of economic significance to Australia. Australas. Plant Pathol. 1998, 27, 15–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Plessl, M.; Heller, W.; Payer, H.D.; Elstner, E.F.; Habermeyer, J.; Heiser, I. Growth parameters and resistance against (Drechslera teres) of spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L. cv. Scarlett) grown at elevated ozone and carbon dioxide concentrations. Plant Biol. 2005, 7, 694–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Matros, A.; Amme, S.; Kettig, B.; Buck Sorlin, G.H.; Sonnewald, U.W.E.; Mock, H.P. Growth at elevated CO2 concentrations leads to modified profiles of secondary metabolites in tobacco cv. SamsunNN and to increased resistance against infection with potato virus Y. Plant Cell Environ. 2006, 29, 126–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Prabhu, A.S.; Silva, C.S.; Filippi, M.C. Impacto Potencial das Mudanças Climáticas Sobre as Doenças de Arroz no Brasil. In Mudanças Climáticas: Impactos sobre doenças de plantas no Brasil; Ghini, R., Hamada, E., Eds.; Embrapa Informação Tecnológica: Brasília, DF, Brazil; Embrapa Meio Ambiente: Jaguariúna, Brazil, 2008; pp. 140–158. [Google Scholar]
  85. Sakamoto, M. On the facilitated infection of the rice blast fungus, Piricularia oryzae Cav. due to the wind. I. Ann. Phytopathol. Soc. Jpn. 1940, 10, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Kumagaya, S.; Goto, Y.; Hori, C.; Matsuoka, M.; Nakano, R. Annual change of silicate absorption and effect of calcium silicate in the rice plant. Rept. Tokushima Agric. Exp. Stn. 1957, 2, 13–14. [Google Scholar]
  87. Houghton, J.T.; Ding, Y.D.J.G.; Griggs, D.J.; Noguer, M.; van der Linden, P.J.; Dai, X.; Maskell, K.; Johnson, C.A. Climate Change: The Scientific Basis; The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge: Cambridge, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  88. Baker, J.T.; Boote, K.J.; Allen, L.H. Potential Climate Change Effects on Rice. Carbon Dioxide and Temperature, Climate Change and Agriculture; Analysis of Potential International Impacts; American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1995; pp. 31–47. [Google Scholar]
  89. Saini, H.S.; Aspinall, D. Abnormal sporogenesis in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) induced by short periods of high temperature. Ann. Bot. 1982, 49, 835–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Prasad, P.V.V.; Boote, K.J.; Allen, L.H., Jr.; Sheehy, J.E.; Thomas, J.M.G. Species, ecotype and cultivar differences in spikelet fertility and harvest index of rice in response to high temperature stress. Field Crop. Res. 2006, 95, 398–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Jagadish, S.V.K.; Craufurd, P.Q.; Wheeler, T.R. High temperature stress and spikelet fertility in rice (Oryza sativa L.). J. Exp. Bot. 2007, 58, 1627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Aggarwal, P.K.; Mall, R.K. Climate change and rice yields in diverse agro-environments of India. II. Effect of uncertainties in scenarios and crop models on impact assessment. Clim. Chang. 2002, 52, 331–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Shah, F.; Nie, L.; Cui, K.; Shah, T.; Wu, W.; Chen, C.; Zhu, L.; Ali, F.; Fahad, S.; Huang, J. Rice grain yield and component responses to near 200C of warming. Field Crop. Res. 2014, 157, 98–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Rajput, L.S.; Sharma, T.; Madhusudhan, P.; Sinha, P. Effect of temperature on growth and sporulation of rice leaf blast pathogen (Magnoporthe oryzae). Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2017, 6, 6394–6401. [Google Scholar]
  95. Asai, G.N.; Jones, M.W.; Rorie, F.G. Influence of Certain Environmental Factors in the Field on Infection of Rice by Piricularia oryzae; Army Biological Labs: Frederick, MD, USA, 1966. [Google Scholar]
  96. Luo, Y.; TeBeest, D.O.; Teng, P.S.; Fabellar, N.G. Simulation studies on risk analysis of rice blast epidemics associated with global climate in several Asian countries. J. Biogeogr. 1995, 22, 673–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Greer, C.A.; Webster, R.K. Occurrence, distribution, epidemiology, cultivar reaction, and management of rice blast disease in California. Plant Dis. 2001, 85, 1096–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Castejón-Muñoz, M. The effect of temperature and relative humidity on the airborne concentration of Pyricularia oryzae spores and the development of rice blast in southern Spain. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2008, 6, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Espinoza, I.G.; Shohara, K. Investigación Relativa a la Ocurrencia de Piricularia en Trigo. (v.2); Centro Tecnológico Agropecuário en: Santa Cruz, Bolívia, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  100. Ou, S.H. Rice Diseases, 2nd ed.; Common Wealth Mycological Institute: Kew, UK, 1985; p. 380. [Google Scholar]
  101. Couch, B.C.; Fudal, I.; Lebrun, M.-H.; Tharreau, D.; Valent, B.; van Kim, P.; Notteghem, J.-L.; Kohn, L.M. Origins of host specific populations of the blast pathogen (Magnaporthe oryzae) in crop domestication with subsequent expansion of pandemic clones on rice and weeds of rice. Genetics 2005, 170, 613–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Ebbole, D.J. Magnaporthe as a model for understanding host pathogen interactions. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2007, 45, 437–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Pennisi, E. Armed and dangerous. Science 2010, 327, 804–805. [Google Scholar]
  104. Hamer, J.E.; Howard, R.J.; Chumley, F.G.; Valent, B. A mechanism for surface attachment in spores of a plant pathogenic fungus. Science 1988, 239, 288–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Bourett, T.M.; Howard, R.J. In vitro development of penetration structures in the rice blast fungus (Magnaporthe grisea). Can. J. Bot. 1990, 68, 329–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Veneault-Fourrey, C.; Barooah, M.; Egan, M.; Wakley, G.; Talbot, N.J. Autophagic fungal cell death is necessary for infection by the rice blast fungus. Science 2006, 312, 580–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Dagdas, Y.F.; Yoshino, K.; Dagdas, G.; Ryder, L.S.; Bielska, E.; Steinberg, G.; Talbot, N.J. Septin-mediated plant cell invasion by the rice blast fungus (Magnaporthe oryzae). Science 2012, 336, 1590–1595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Giraldo, M.C.; Dagdas, Y.F.; Gupta, Y.K.; Mentlak, T.A.; Yi, M.; Martinez-Rocha, A.L.; Valent, B. Two distinct secretion systems facilitate tissue invasion by the rice blast fungus (Magnaporthe oryzae). Nat. Commun. 2013, 4, 1996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Mosquera, G.; Giraldo, M.C.; Khang, C.H.; Coughlan, S.; Valent, B. Interaction transcriptome analysis identifies (Magnaporthe oryzae) BAS1–4 as biotrophy-associated secreted proteins in rice blast disease. Plant Cell 2009, 21, 1273–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Khang, C.H.; Berruyer, R.; Giraldo, M.C.; Kankanala, P.; Park, S.Y.; Czymmek, K.; Valent, B. Translocation of (Magnaporthe oryzae) effectors into rice cells and their subsequent cell-to-cell movement. Plant Cell. 2010, 22, 1388–1403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Mochizuki, S.; Minami, E.; Nishizawa, Y. Live-cell imaging of rice cytological changes reveals the importance of host vacuole maintenance for biotrophic invasion by blast fungus. Magnaporthe Oryzae Microbiol. Open 2015, 4, 952–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Sesma, A.; Osbourn, A.E. The rice leaf blast pathogen undergoes developmental processes typical of root-infecting fungi. Nature 2004, 431, 582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Fernandez, J.; Wilson, R.A. Why no feeding frenzy? Mechanisms of nutrient acquisition and utilization during infection by the rice blast fungus (Magnaporthe oryzae). Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2012, 25, 1286–1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Saunders, D.G.; Dagdas, Y.F.; Talbot, N.J. Spatial uncoupling of mitosis and cytokinesis during appressorium-mediated plant infection by the rice blast fungus (Magnaporthe oryzae). Plant Cell. 2010, 22, 2417–2428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. De Jong, J.C.; McCormack, B.J.; Smirnoff, N.; Talbot, N.J. Glycerol generates turgor in rice blast. Nature 1997, 389, 244–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Kankanala, P.; Czymmek, K.; Valent, B. Roles for rice membrane dynamics and plasmodesmata during biotrophic invasion by the blast fungus. Plant Cell 2007, 19, 706–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Patkar, R.N.; Benke, P.I.; Qu, Z.; Chen, Y.Y.C.; Yang, F.; Swarup, S.; Naqvi, N.I. A fungal monooxygenase-derived jasmonate attenuates host innate immunity. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2015, 11, 733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Ryder, L.S.; Dagdas, Y.F.; Mentlak, T.A.; Kershaw, M.J.; Thornton, C.R.; Schuster, M.; Talbot, N.J. NADPH oxidases regulate septin-mediated cytoskeletal remodeling during plant infection by the rice blast fungus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 3179–3184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Kingsolver, C.H.; Barkside, T.H.; Marchetti, M.A. Rice Blast Epidemiology: Bulletin of the Pennsylvania Agricultural Experiment Station; No.853; Pennsylvania State College, Agricultural Experiment Station: State College, PA, USA, 1984; pp. 29–40. [Google Scholar]
  120. Guerber, C.; TeBeest, D.O. Infection of rice seed grown in Arkansas by (Pyricularia grisea) and transmission to seedlings in the field. Plant Dis. 2006, 90, 170–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Raveloson, H.; Ratsimiala Ramonta, I.; Tharreau, D.; Sester, M. Long term survival of blast pathogen in infected rice residues as major source of primary inoculum in high altitude upland ecology. Plant Pathol. 2018, 67, 610–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Lamari, L. Assess: Image Analysis Software for Plant Disease Quantification; St Paul. V.2.0.; The American Phytophatological Society: St. Paul, MN, USA; APS Press: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  123. Ghatak, A.; Willocquet, L.; Savary, S.; Kumar, J. Variability in aggressiveness of rice blast (Magnaporthe oryzae) isolates originating from rice leaves and necks. A case of pathogen specialization. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e66180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Padmanabhan, S.Y. Studies on forecasting outbreaks of blast disease of rice. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci.-Sect. B 1965, 62, 117–129. [Google Scholar]
  125. Bonman, J.; Garrity, D. Effects of nitrogen timing and split application on blast disease in upland rice. Plant Dis. 1992, 76, 384–389. [Google Scholar]
  126. Long, D.H.; Lee, F.N.; TeBeest, D.O. Effect of nitrogen fertilization on disease progress of rice blast on susceptible and resistant cultivars. Plant Dis. 2000, 84, 403–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Fukai, S.; Cooper, M. Development of drought-resistant cultivars using physio-morphological traits in rice. Field Crop. Res. 1995, 40, 67–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Deng, Y.; Zhai, K.; Xie, Z.; Yang, D.; Zhu, X.; Liu, J.; Wang, X.; Qin, P.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, G.; et al. Epigenetic regulation of antagonistic receptors confers rice blast resistance with yield balance. Science 2017, 355, 962–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Somado, E.A.; Guei, R.G.; Keya, S.O. NERICA: The New Rice for Africa. A Compendium; Africa Rice Center (WARDA): Côte d’Ivoire, Abidjan, 2008; pp. 10–14. [Google Scholar]
  130. Singh, U.; Ritchie, J. Simulating the impact of climate change on crop growth and nutrient dynamics using the CERES-rice model. J. Agric. Meteorol. 1993, 48, 819–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Drenth, H.; Ten Berge, H.F.M.; Riethoven, J.J.M. ORYZA Simulation Modules for Potential and Nitrogen Limited Rice Production; SARP Research Proceedings; IRRI/AB-DLO: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  132. Evans, N.; Baierl, A.; Semenov, M.A.; Gladders, P.; Fitt, B.D. Range and severity of a plant disease increased by global warming. J. R. Soc. Interface 2007, 5, 525–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Gregory, P.J.; Johnson, S.N.; Newton, A.C.; Ingram, J.S. Integrating pests and pathogens into the climate change/food security debate. J. Exp. Bot. 2009, 60, 2827–2838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Butterworth, M.H.; Semenov, M.A.; Barnes, A.; Moran, D.; West, J.S.; Fitt, B.D. North–South divide. Contrasting impacts of climate change on crop yields in Scotland and England. J. R. Soc. Interface 2009, 7, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Fitt, B.D.L.; Fraaije, B.A.; Chandramohan, P.; Shaw, M.W. Impacts of changing air composition on severity of arable crop disease epidemics. Plant Pathol. 2011, 60, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Newton, A.C.; Gravouil, C.; Fountaine, J.M. Managing the ecology of foliar pathogens: Ecological tolerance in crops. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2010, 157, 343–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Kurahashi, Y.; Sakawa, S.; Kimboraund, T.; Kagabu, S. Biological activity of Carpropamid (KTU 3616). A New Fungic. Rice Blast Dis. 1997, 22, 108–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Kato, H.; Kozada, T. Effect of temperature on lesion enlargement and sporulation of (Pyricularia oryzae) in rice leaves. Phytopathology 1974, 64, 828–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Orford, A.; Beard, J. Making the state safe for the market: The World Bank’s World Development Report 1997. Melb. UL Rev. 1998, 22, 195. [Google Scholar]
  140. World Bank. Comprehensive Development Framework. 1999. Available online: (accessed on 8 April 2019).
  141. Ojha, G.P.; Morin, S.R. Partnership in agricultural extension: Lessons from Chitwan (Nepal). In Agricultural Research and Extension Network; Overseas Development Institute (ODI): London, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  142. FAO. Global Review of Good Agricultural Extension and Advisory Service Practices. 2008. Available online: (accessed on 10 April 2019).
  143. Jeger, M.J.; Pautasso, M. Plant disease and global change: The importance of long term data sets. New Phytol. 2008, 177, 8–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Pangga, I.B.; Hanan, J.; Chakraborty, S. Pathogen dynamics in a crop canopy and their evolution under changing climate. Plant Pathol. 2011, 60, 70–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Suprapta, D.N. Potential of microbial antagonists as biocontrol agents against plant fungal pathogens. J. ISSAAS 2012, 18, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  146. Martinez, J.A.; Dhanasekaran, D. Natural Fungicides Obtained From Plants, Fungicides for Plant and Animal Diseases. Fungicides for Plant Animal Diseases; InTech: Rijeka, Croatia; Available online: (accessed on 8 April 2019).
  147. Yoon, M.Y.; Cha, B.; Kim, J.C. Recent trends in studies on botanical fungicides in agriculture. Plant Pathol. J. 2013, 29, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Law, J.W.F.; Ser, H.L.; Khan, T.M.; Chuah, L.H.; Pusparajah, P.; Chan, K.G.; Goh, B.H.; Lee, L.H. The potential of Streptomyces as biocontrol agents against the rice blast fungus, (Magnaporthe oryzae) (Pyricularia oryzae). Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Valasubramanian, R. Biological Control of Rice Blast with (Pseudomonas fluorescens Migula): Role of Antifungal Antibiotic in Disease Suppression; Universidad de Madras: Chennai, India, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  150. Rossman, A.Y.; Howard, R.J.; Valent, B. (Pyricularia grisea): The correct name for the rice blast disease fungus. Mycology 1990, 82, 509–512. [Google Scholar]
  151. Baker, B.; Zambryski, P.; Staskawicz, B.; Dinesh-Kumar, S.P. Signaling in plant-microbe interactions. Science 1997, 276, 726–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Kunova, A.; Pizzatti, C.; Bonaldi, M.; Cortesi, P. Sensitivity of nonexposed and exposed populations of (Magnaporthe oryzae) from rice to tricyclazole and azoxystrobin. Plant Dis. 2014, 98, 512–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Khush, G.S. Breaking the yield frontier of rice. GeoJournal 1995, 35, 329–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Cassman, K.G. Ecological intensification of cereal production systems. Yield potential, soil quality, and precision agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1999, 96, 5952–5959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Chen, D.X.; Chen, X.W.; Wang, Y.P.; Zhu, L.H.; Li, S.G. Genetic transformation of rice with Pi-d2 gene enhances resistance to rice blast fungus Magnaporthe Oryzae. Rice Sci. 2010, 17, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Fukuoka, S.; Saka, N.; Koga, H.; Ono, K.; Shimizu, T.; Ebana, K.; Yano, M. Loss of function of a proline-containing protein confers durable disease resistance in rice. Science 2009, 325, 998–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Zhao, H.; Wang, X.; Jia, Y.; Minkenberg, B.; Wheatley, M.; Fan, J.; Valent, B. The rice blast resistance gene Ptr encodes an atypical protein required for broad-spectrum disease resistance. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 2039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. Deng, Y.; Zhu, X.; Shen, Y.; He, Z. Genetic characterization and fine mapping of the blast resistance locus Pigm (t) tightly linked to Pi2 and Pi9 in a broad-spectrum resistant Chinese variety. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2006, 113, 705–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Hittalmani, S.; Parco, A.; Mew, T.V.; Zeigler, R.S.; Huang, N. Fine mapping and DNA marker-assisted pyramiding of the three major genes for blast resistance in rice. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2000, 100, 1121–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Mahmuti, M.; West, J.S.; Watts, J.; Gladders, P.; Fitt, B.D. Controlling crop disease contributes to both food security and climate change mitigation. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2009, 7, 189–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (
Back to TopTop