417

J. Hortl. Sci.
Vol. 17(2) : 417-423, 2022

This is an open access article d istributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommer cial-ShareAl ike 4.0 International License,
which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, d istribution, and reproduction in any med ium, provide d the original author and source are credited.

Original Research Paper

INTRODUCTION
Capsicum (Capsicum annum var. grossum sendt) also
called as bell pepper is an important vegetable crop.
It is known for its nutritional aspects and also for
nation’s foreign exchange. India contributes one fourth
of the world production of capsicum with an average
annual production of 1.9 mt from an area of 1.82 mha
with the productivity of 1.28 t/ha. Karnataka stands
second in area with 89 thousand ha and production
of 158 thousand tons (Anon., 2015).

Among the various biotic constraints in the production
of bell pepper, viral diseases play a major role. Bell
pepper is highly susceptible to natural infection by a
large number of viruses in addition to being susceptible
to several other diseases. Out of 42 viruses so far
reported in bell pepper, 22 ar e found to occur
naturally, while the rest are known to infect on
artificial inoculation. Among these, potyviruses viz.,
potato virus Y (PVY), pepper veinal mottle virus
(PVMV), pepper vein banding virus (PVBV), chilli

veinal mottle virus (ChiVMV), pepper mottle virus
(PMV), tobacco etch virus (TEV) are more prevalent
(Caranta et al.,1996).

Among these, Chilli veinal mottle virus (ChiVMV) is
the major prevalent virus with the incidence of 50 per
cent that reduce yield by 50 per cent worldwide
(Hussain et al., 2008). Further, the ChiVMV is
transmitted mechanically and also through aphid
vector (Aphis gossypii) and found to infect several
plant species and induces characteristic systemic
mottling symptoms within 7 to 14 days of inoculation.

Sever a l a biotic a nd biotic str esses a ffect the
productivity of chilli pepper crop worldwide. More
than 45-65 viruses have been reported infecting the
crop worldwide (Green and Kim, 1994; Anon., 2001).
Among pathogenic diseases, viruses are the most
devastating agents of chilli pepper, causing serious
losses by reducing both fruit quality and quantity
(Kang et al., 1973; Villalon, 1975; Ong et al., 1980;
Yoon et al., 1989; Chew and Ong, 1990). Viruses

Epidemiology of ChiVMV and loss assessment in capsicum
(Capsicum annum var. grossum Sendt)

Praful M.V.1, Reddy B.A.2, Ramachandra R.K.2, Reddy M.K.3 and Anjanappa M.1
1 College of Horticulture, University of Horticultural Sciences, Bengaluru - 560 065, Karnataka, India
2 Horticulture Research and Extension Center, Hogalagere, Srinivasapura - 563138, Karnataka, India

3 ICAR- Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Bengaluru - 560 089, Karnataka India
*Corresponding author Email : arb_agri@yahoo.co.in, ajreddyb007@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
The survey was conducted during rabi season (2021) to determine the incidence of mosaic
disease of capsicum in major capsicum growing districts namely, Chikkaballapura, Kolar,
Bengaluru rural and Ramanagar. The per cent incidence of mosaic disease based on symptoms
in field was recorded, highest in Ramanagar (54.85%) and the least incidence of mosaic disease
was observed in Chikkaballapura (26.85%). Transmission and host range studies under
glasshouse conditions revealed that ChiVMV is transmitted mechanically.  Among 16 host
plants tested, 7 plant species (Nicotiana tabacum cv. Samsun, N. glutinosa, N. occidentalis,
Datura metel, Physalis floridana, S. nigrum, Capsicum annum) were infected with the Chilli
veinal mottle virus disease and the symptom could be seen in 20-25 days. The per cent
transmission of ChiVMV by aphid Aphis gossypii was studied. The results showed that
ChiVMV can be transmitted by A. gossypii. However, five aphids per plant showed highest
per cent transmission (100%). The effect of different dates of inoculation on different plant
growth parameters was also studied, the highest per cent disease transmission was observed
in T1: Inoculation 15 days after sowing (100.00%).

Keywords: Aphis gossypii, Capsicum, ChiVMV, mosaic



418

Praful et al

J. Hortl. Sci.
Vol. 17(2) : 417-423, 2022

produce various types of disease syndrome like
mosaic, mottling,  leaf distortion,  vein etching,
yellowing, stunting and narrowing of leaves (Green,
1991; Hameed et al., 1995; Anon., 2001). Chilli
veinal mottle virus (ChiVMV) is the major virus
infecting chilli pepper reducing yield losses up to 50%
(Joshi and Dubey, 1973; Ong et al., 1980).

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Survey

A roving survey was conducted during rabis season
to determine the incidence of mosaic disease in
major  ca psicum gr owing districts of Souther n
Kar nataka  (Chikkaba llapur a, Kolar, Bengaluru
rural and Ramnagar). Plants were observed for the
t yp ic a l s ymp t oms  v i z . ,  yellowin g,  mos a ic
symptoms, mottling etc. During the survey, type of
symptoms was recorded a t different fields a nd
samples were collected. For each one acre of field
five sites were randomly selected (10m  10m) and
the average disease incidence was calculated using
the following formula.

Per cent disease incidence (PDI) =

    Number of infected plants     ×  100
Total number of plants observed

Serological survey

The samples brought from the field were subjected to
serological assay using CMV and ChiVMV antiserum
adopting the DAC-ELISA procedure (Hobes et al.,
1987).

Host range

To identify the natur al reservoirs of the virus
different hosts viz., tomato, brinjal, chilli, potato,
N i c o t i a n a  t a b a c u m  c v.  S a m s u n ,  N i c o t i a n a
g l ut i n os a ,  N i c ot i a na  o cc i d en t a li s ,  S o l an u m
nigrum, and other s like Chenopodium quinoa,
Datura metel, D. stromanium, Physalis minima,
Physalis floridana and Gomphrena globosa and
also the other weed hosts were sown in polythene
bags of 3 X 6" size and seedlings were raised with
standard agronomic practices and seedlings of 25-
30 days old were used for sap inoculation. The host
plants were inoculated by following the procedure
described by (Noordam, 1973) and the inoculated
plants were observed for symptom expression under
insect proof cages for upto 30 days.

Vector transmission

The experiment was carried out to know the aphid
transmissibility of ChiVMV using Aphis gossypii, as
per the procedure explained by Damiri et al. (2013).
The healthy aphid (A. gossypii) colony was first raised
on the cotton host plant under greenhouse conditions
(25-27OC). The vector aphids were carefully collected
in plastic Petri plates and starved for 60 min. in Petri
plates lined with black paper on both sides. Later
allowed for 5 min. acquisition feeding on ChiVMV
infected capsicum leaves, followed by brief inoculation
feeding period of 1-3 min. on healthy capsicum plants.
After that aphids were killed by spraying with systemic
insecticide and the plants were then placed in insect
proof conditions in greenhouse at 25-27°C and
observed for symptom expression upto 30 days and a
set of uninoculated plants were maintained as control.

Loss estimation

To know the impa ct of ChiVMV on per  cent
transmission, plant growth and yield. The experiment
on loss estima tion wa s ca r r ied out using the
susceptible capsicum var. Indra. The experiment was
conducted in green house conditions using CRD design
with nine treatments and three replications with
standard agronomic practices using the pots of 9 x 12"
cement pots. The artificial sap inoculation was done
at fifteen days intervals viz., T1:  Inoculation 15 days
after sowing, T 2: Inoculation immediately after
planting, T3: Inoculation 15 days after planting, T4:
Inoculation 30 days after planting, T5: Inoculation 45
days after planting, T6: Inoculation 60 days after
planting, T7: Inoculation 75 days after planting, T8:
Inoculation 90 days after planting, T9: Control. The
observations on per cent transmission growth and yield
par ameter s viz. , pla nt height (cm), number  of
branches, number of fruits, fruit weight and per cent
disease transmission were recorded at the time of
harvest, the data was analyzed statistically.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Survey

In random survey carried out in south Karnataka, in
Kolar district of 32.99 average per cent disease
incidence was recorded, and it ranged from 14.85 to
47.42 per cent. In Chikkaballapura district the average
per cent disease incidence was 20.25 and it ranged
from 7.99 to 26.85 per cent and in Ramanagar district
the average per cent disease incidence was 27.42 and



419

Epidemiology of ChiVMV and loss assessment in capsicum

it ranged from 26.28 to 54. 85 per cent and in
Bengaluru rural district the average per cent disease
incidence was 29.24 and it ranged from 27.42 to 36.56
(Table 1). This difference may be attributed to different
climatic factors, vectors activity, different cultivars and
different cultivation practices followed. It may also be
due to variation in plant protection practices followed
by the farmers, low quality seeds (Hameed et al.,
1995), and similar work carried Laxminarayana
Reddy (2006), conducted survey and reported the
ChiVMV incidence ranged from 5.3 to 81.5 per cent
in Karnataka, 7.6 to 31.7 per cent in Andhra Pradesh,
5.7 to 47.6 per cent in Tamil Nadu, 5.9 to 25.3 per
cent in Kerala and 7.5 to 37.8 per cent in Maharashtra.
Therefore, the natural incidence of Chilli veinal mottle
virus disease would vary from field to field in the
surveyed area.

Host range

To identify the natural reservoirs and those susceptible
to virus, the host range study of the virus was
conducted. Out of sixteen different plant species used
in the study (Table 2). Seven plant species viz.,
Nicotiana tabacum cv. Samsun, Nicotiana glutinosa,
Nicotiana occidentalis, Daturametel, Physalis
floridana, Solanum nigrum, Capsicum annum were
infected with the ChiVMV and the symptoms could
be seen in 20-25 days (Table 2). The infection was
confir med by DAC-ELISA. Simila r  work wa s
conducted by Siriwong et al. (1995) reported that host
range of ChiVMV is restricted to Solanaceae family.
The present results are in accordance to those reported
by Moury et al. (2005) i.e., three isolates of ChiVMV
induced systemic mosaic symptoms on N. occidentalis,
N. glutinosa but none infected Solanum melongena.
Brunt et al. (1996) reported that N. glutinosa is
diagnostically not a susceptible host but our findings
show that this host species was susceptible and
developed mosaic symptoms and was found positive

in DAC-ELISA. Similar results have also been
reported by Ong et al. (1979). Brunt (1996) reported
that Gomphrena globosa and Nicotiana glutinosa is
diagnostically not a susceptible host but in our case
Nicotiana glutinosa became susceptible and developed
mosaic symptoms and was DAC-ELISA positive.

Vector transmission

To find out the vector transmissibility and per cent
transmission of ChiVMV by aphid A. gossypii was
used for the transmission of Chilli veinal mottle
virus using susceptible capsicum cultivar Indra.
T he r es u lt s  s howed t ha t  C hiVM V c ou ld b e
transmitted by A. gossypii.  Further, five aphids per
plant showed highest per cent transmission (100 %)
followed by four aphids per plant (80 %), three and
two aphids per plant (60 %) and one aphid per plant
(40 %) (Table 3). The chilli veinal mottle virus was
readily transmitted by sap inoculation and also by
aphid vector namely A. gossypii, which resembled
potyvirus, reported by Mariyappan et al. (1973)
and Bida ri (1982). Jeyarajan and Ramkrishnan
(1969) reported A. gossypiias the sole vector of
potyvirus on bell pepper and chilli. This virus, on
young leaves of capsicum produced green vein-
banding, leaves are smaller and distorted, stunted
and have dark-green streaks on their stems and
bra nches. The symptoms were similar to those
produced by potyvirus on chilli and bell pepper as
reported by earlier workers (Prasad Rao, 1979;
Bidari, 1982 and Pandurangegowda, 1989). The
C hiVM V wa s  r ea dily t r a ns mit t ed b y s a p
inoculation to chilli and other herbaceous hosts. The
virus wa s also tr ansmitted in a non persistent
manner by the aphids na mely, A. gossypii , A.
cr ac ci vo ra  a nd My zu s per si ca e a nd no s eed
tra nsmission wa s obser ved (Sa tya pr aka sh and
Singh, 2006).

Table 1 : Average per cent disease incidence of capsicum mosaic disease in different districts in
Southern Karnataka

District
Per cent disease incidence

Average Range
Kolar 32.99 14.85-47.42

Chikkaballapura 20.25 7.99-26.85
Ramanagar 27.42 26.28-54.85

Bengaluru rural 29.24 27.42-36.56

J. Hortl. Sci.
Vol. 17(2) : 417-423, 2022



420

Table 2 : Host range of mosaic disease caused by ChiVMV under laboratory conditions

Host No of Symptoms ELISA ELISA
plants Absorbance reaction

inoculated (+/-)
Nicotiana tobacum cv. Samsun 5 Necrotic lesion 3.08 +
Nicotiana glutinosa 5 Severe  Mosaic 3.40 +
Nicotiana occidentalis 5 Mild Mosaic & 2.87 +

vein banding

Datura metel 5 Severe Mottling & 3.51 +
rat tail

Physalis floridana 5 Sever Mottling 3.02 +
Solanum nigrum 5 Mild Mosaic 2.45 +
Capsicum annum 5 Mild mosaic 2.32 +
Solanum melongina 5 Nil 0.42 -
Solanum tuberosum 5 Nil 0.38 -
Solanum lycopercicum 5 Nil 0.23 -
Chenopodium quinoa 5 Nil 0.25 -
Datura stromonium 5 Nil 0.52 -
Physalis minima 5 Nil 0.34 -
Gomphrena globosa 5 Nil 0.65 -
Stachy terpeta 5 Nil 0.42 -
Passiflora foetida 5 Nil 0.53 -
ChiVMV - - 1.53 -
(Positive
check)

Healthy - - 0.56 -

Table 3 : Vector transmission of ChiVMV by using the aphid- Aphis gossypii
No. of No. of No. of Per Days required
aphids plants plants cent for symptom

per plant inoculated infected transmission expression
1 10 4 40 20-21

2 10 6 60 19-20
3 10 6 60 19-20

4 10 8 80 19-20

5 10 10 100 19-20

Control
(uninoculated) 10 0 0 0

Loss estimation
To know the impact of stage of inoculation on per cent
transmission and on plant growth and yield, the plants
were inoculated artificially as explained in the material
and methods. It revealed that the dates of inoculation

on plant growth parameters such as plant height and
number of branches and per cent transmission differed
significantly over different dates of inoculation
(Table 4). The maximum reduction of plant height was
observed in T1 (22.06 cm) and maximum height was

Praful et al

J. Hortl. Sci.
Vol. 17(2) : 417-423, 2022



421

found in T9 (55.22). Similarly, maximum reduction in
number of branches found in T1 (0.66) maximum
number of branches was found in T9 (4.23) (Table 4
and Fig.1).

There was significant difference with respect to
number of fruits per plant observed among the
treatments (Table 4). Maximum reduction of fruits per
plant were noticed in T1 (0.00) and maximum number
of fruits per plant was found in T9 (8.04) (Table 4 and
Fig.1). Data pertaining to average fruit weight differed
significantly over different dates of inoculation and
similar trend was observed in T9 (133.13) (Table 4
and Fig.1).

Fig. 1 : Effect of different dates of inoculation on
growth and other characters

Per cent transmission

Highest per cent disease transmission was observed
in T1 (100.00 per cent) followed by T2 and T3 (99 per
cent each), T4 (98.66 per cent), T5 (91.33 per cent),
T6 (72 per cent), T7 (71.33 per cent) and T8 (44.66
per cent) and the rate of transmission and the impact
was decreased with the increase in age of the plant
and they differ significantly (Fig.1).

The infection occurs at later stages, the extent of
reduction in yield and plant height was less. Sastry
and Singh (1976) reported that ToLCV infected plants
produced very few fruits when infected within 20 days
after planting and resulting up to 92.30 per cent yield
loss. While plants infected at 35 and 50 days after
transplanting resulted in 82.9 and 74.0 per cent yield
loss, respectively. Similar results were reported by
Reddy et al. (2010).

CONCLUSION
It is concluded that since the infected plants cannot
be cured and the early infection leads to severe
reduction both in yield and quality, early-stage
protection of the crop both in nursery and in the main
field is important in order to reap the better yields.

REFERENCES
Reddy, B.A. , Patil,  M. S. and Ra ja sekara m, T.

2010.Effect of tomato leaf curl virus infection

Epidemiology of ChiVMV and loss assessment in capsicum

Table 4 : Loss estimation in capsicum due to ChiVMV under polyhouse conditions

Plant No. of No. of Average Per cent
Treatment height branches/ fruits/ fruit  weight disease

(cm) plants plants (g) incidence
T1-  15DAS 22.06 0.66 0.00 0.00 100.00

T2-  30DAS 25.83 1.73 1.66 7.93 99.00
T3- 15 DAT 33.56 2.60 1.86 22.93 99.00

T4- 30 DAT 51.10 3.46 2.37 45.83 98.66

T5- 45 DAT 49.87 3.60 2.60 61.63 91.33

T6- 60 DAT 50.37 3.40 4.13 79.67 72.00
T7- 75 DAT 52.64 3.53 4.27 100.43 71.33

T8- 90 DAT 54.06 4.13 6.06 101.26 44.66

T9- Uninoculated 55.22 4.23 8.04 133.13 0
(Control)

S.Em ± 0.74 0.08 0.16 0.62 1.05
CD @ 5% 2.21 0.26 0.48 1.86 3.14

Note: DAS- Days after sowing, DAT- Days after transplanting

J. Hortl. Sci.
Vol. 17(2) : 417-423, 2022



422

on plant growth and yield in tomato. K. J.
Agric. Sci., 23(5): 806

Anonymous.2001. Proceedings of the South Asia
Vegetable Research Network (SAVERNET-
II) Final Workshop 3-8 June 2001, Bangkok,
T ha ila nd.  Asia n Vegetable Resea r ch and
D evelop ment  Cent er,  Sha nhua ,  Ta ina n,
Taiwan.

Bidari, V. B. 1982. Distribution and epidemiology
of chilli viruses in Karnataka. Ph. D. Thesis,
Uni. Agric. Sci., Bangalore.

Brunt, A. A., Crabtree, K., Gibbs, M. J., Watson
L. and Zurcher, E. J. 1996. Plant Viruses
online: Description and lists from VIDE.
http://biology.anu.edu. Au/Group/MES/vide.

Caranta, C. and Palloix, A. 1996. Both common
and specific genetic factors are involved in
phylogenic resistance of pepper to several
potyviruses. Theor. Appl. Genet., 92: 15-20.

Chew, B.H. and Ong, C.A., 1990. Genetics and
B re e d i n g  f o r  c h i l l i  v e i n a l  m o t t l e  a n d
cucumber mosaic virus resistances in hot
pepper. Malaysian Plant Protection Society.

Damiri, B. V., Al-Shahwan, I. M., Al-Saleh, M. A.,
Abdalla,  O.  A.  a nd Amer,  M. A.  2013.
Identification and characterization of cowpea
aphid-borne mosaic virus isolates in Saudi
Arabia. J. Pl. Pathol., 95(1): 79-85.

Green, S.K. 1991. Guidelines for diagnostic work
in Plant virology. Asian Vegetable Research
and Development Center. Tech. Bulletin, No.
15, Second Edition.

Green, S.K. and Kim.J.S.1994. Source of resistance
t o vir u s es of p epp er  ( C a ps i c um  s p p. ) :
Acatalog. AVRDC Tech. Bulletin, p. 20-64.

Hameed, S., Shah, H., Ali, H., and Khalid, S. 1995.
Prevalence of chilli viruses in Pakistan. Fifth
National Congress of Pl. Sci., 28-30 March,
NARC, Islamabad.

Hussain, S., Tahira, Y.Fahim, M.,  Shahid, H., and
Haque, M.I. 2008. Transmission and host
range studies of Pakistani isolate of Chilli
veinal mottle virus. Pak.  J. Bot. , 40(6):
2669-2681.

Jeyarajan, R. and Ramakrishnan, K.1969. Potato
virus Y on chilli (Capsicum annuum L.) in
Tamil Nadu.  Madras Agric. J., 56: 761-766.

Joshi, R.D. and Dubey, L.N. 1973. Assessment of
losses due to CMV on chilli. Sci. Cult., 39:
521-522.

Kang, K.Y., Choi, J.I.  and La, Y.J. 1973. Isolation
and identification of viruses affecting pepper
(Capsicum annuum) in Korea. J. Kor. Soc.
Horti. Sci., 13: 35-43.

La xmina r a ya na  Reddy,  C. N. 2006.  Molecula r
characterization of Chilli veinal mottle virus
infecting chilli (Capsicum annum L.), Ph.
D.(Agri.) thesis, UAS, Bengaluru, p. 136.

M a r ia p p a n,  V. ,  G ovinda s wa my,   C . V.  a nd
Ramakrishnan, S. 1973. Studies on the role
of weed plants in spread virus diseases. II
Role of Solanum nigrum in spreading chilli
mosa ic vir us a  str a in of pota to virus-y.
Madras Agric. J., 60: 120-122.

Moury, B., Palloix, A., Caranta, C., Gagnalons, P.,
Souche, S., Gebre, S. K.  and Marchoux,
G.  2 0 0 5 .  S er ologic a l,  mole c u la r  a nd
pathotype diversity of Pepper veinal mottle
v i r u s  a nd C h i l l i  v e i n a l  m o t t l e  v i r u s .
Phytopathol., 95: 227-232.

Noordam, D.,1973. Dilution end-point determination
In: Identification of Plant viruses: Methods and
Experiments. Published by PUDOC, Center for
Agricultural Publishing and Documentation,
Wageningen, Netherlands.

Ong, C. A., Varghese, G. and Poh, T. W. 1979. An
etiological investigation on a veinal mottle virus
of chilli (Capsicum annuum L.), newly recorded
from Peninsular Malaysia. Malaysian Agric.
Res. Dev. Inst. (MARDI) Res. Bull., 7: 78-88.

Ong, C.A.,Varghese, G. and Poh, T.W.1980. The effect
of chilli veinal mottle virus on yield of chilli
(Capsicum annuum L.). MARDI Res. Bulletin,
8: 74-79.

Ong, C.A., Va rghese, G. and Tingwen, P. 1979.
Aetiological investigation on a veinal mottle
virus of chilli (Capsicum annuum L.) newly
recorded from peninsular Malaysia, MARDI
Res. Bulletin., 7: 278-288.

Praful et al

J. Hortl. Sci.
Vol. 17(2) : 417-423, 2022



423

Pandurangegowda, K. T. and Reddy, H. R. 1989.
Aphid transmitted viruses infesting chilli. Curr.
Res., 18: 71-72.

Prasad Rao, R. D. V. J. and Yaraguntaiah, R. C.
1979. A key for diagnosis of some chilli
mo saic  vi ruse s.  My sur u J .  A gri c.  Sci . ,
13: 442-445.

Sastry, K. M. S. and Singh, S. J. 1976. Assessment
of losses in tomato caused by Tomato leaf
curl virus. Indian J. Mycol. Pl. Pathol.,
3: 50-54.

Sa t ya  Pr a ka sh a nd S ingh,  S .  J.  20 06.  Insect
tr ansmitted viruses of peppers.  Veg. Sci.
33(2): 109-116.

Siriwong,  P.,  Kittipakam, K. and Lkega ru, M.
1995. Characterization of chilli vein banding
m o t t l e  v i r u s  is ola t ed f r om p ep p er  in
Thailand. Pl. Pathol., 49: 710-727.

Villalon, B.1975. Virus diseases of bell pepper in
South Texas. Pl. Dis. Rep., 59: 858-862.

Yoon, J.Y., Green, S.K., Tschanz, A. T., Tsou, S.C.S.
and Chang, L.C.1989. Pepper improvement for
the tr opics,  pr oblems a nd the AVRDC
approach. In: Tomato and pepper production
in the tropics. (Eds.) S.K. Green, T.D. Griggs
and B.T. Mclean, B.T.: Proceeding of the
inter na tiona l symposium on integr a ted
management practices 21-26 March 1998,
Tanian, Taiwan, pp. 86-98.

Epidemiology of ChiVMV and loss assessment in capsicum

J. Hortl. Sci.
Vol. 17(2) : 417-423, 2022

(Received : 04.11.2021; Revised : 27.11.2022; Accepted : 04.12.2022)