Table 6.
Detection of viruses for red pepper from fields
| Infection type | Virus speciesa | No. of samplesb from | No. of total samples (%)d | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GGc | CN | CB | JN | GW | JB | GB | GN | |||
| Single | BB2 | 7 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 21 | 44(21.5) |
|
| ||||||||||
| Double | BB2+CMV | 19 | 13 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 7 | 58(28.3) |
| BB2+PMM | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4(1.9) | |
| BB2+Pep | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 11(5.4) | |
| BB2+PVY | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6(2.9) | |
|
| ||||||||||
| Triple | BB2+CMV+Pep | 4 | 13 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 19 | 12 | 60(29.3) |
| BB2+CMV+PMM | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3(1.5) | |
| BB2+CMV+PVY | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6(2.9) | |
| BB2+Pep+PVY | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1(0.5) | |
|
| ||||||||||
| Quadruple | BB2+CMV+Pep+PMM | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 5(2.4) |
| BB2+CMV+Pep+PVY | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3(1.5) | |
|
| ||||||||||
| Quintuple | BB2+CMV+Pep+PMM+PVY | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4(1.9) |
|
| ||||||||||
| Total | 30 | 35 | 34 | 6 | 4 | 19 | 30 | 47 | 205(100) | |
a
BB2: Broad bean wilt virus 2, CMV: Cucumber mosaic virus, Pep: Pepper mottle virus, PVY : Potato virus Y, PMM: Pepper mild mottle virus.
b
Virus infection was judged by DAS-ELISA, RT-PCR and electron microscopy.
c
The abbreviation represented as follows; GG: Gyeonggi-do, CN: Chungcheongnam-do, CB: Chungcheongbuk-do, JB: Jeollabuk-do, JN: Jeollanam-do, GW: Gangwon-do, GB: Gyeongsangbuk-do and GN: Gyeongsangnam-do
d
% in total