ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Evaluation of different measures to control wilt causing pathogens in chickpea
1
Division of Plant Pathology
Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Jammu
Chatha, Jammu-180009, India
Corresponding author
Muneeb Andrabi
Division of Plant Pathology Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Jammu Chatha, Jammu-180009, India
Division of Plant Pathology Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Jammu Chatha, Jammu-180009, India
Journal of Plant Protection Research 2011;51(1):55-59
KEYWORDS
Cicer arietinumwilt complexFusarium oxysporumf. spciceriFusarium solaniRhizoctonia solanicontrolTrichodermafungicides
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Fusarium oxysporum
f. sp.
ciceri
,
F. solani
and
Rhizoctonia solani
were isolated from the wilted chickpea (
Cicer arietinum
) plants. To
manage the wilt complex cultural practices, use of biocontrol agents and fungicides were tried under
in vitro
and
in vivo
conditions. Sowing of chickpea at different dates revealed that early sowing (10th Oct.) resulted in maximum disease incidence (32.20%), whereas, late
sowing (24th Nov.) the minimum (13.35%). Twenty and 50 cm row to row spacing resulted in maximum (29.17%) and minimum (17.35%)
disease incidence respectively.
In vitro
evaluation of biological control agents revealed the superiority of
Trichoderma viride
.
Trichoderma
over
Trichoderma
virens
in controlling the pathogens. Carbendazim at 100, 200, 500 ppm caused
maximum per cent inhibition of the
pathogens under
in
vitro
conditions. Fungicides applied as seed treatment reduced disease incidence significantly. Seed treatment with
carbendazim increased seed germination (71.24%), though it was at par with carbendazim + mancozeb (62.21%) and mancozeb (61.46%).
Seed coating with
T. viride
resulted in minimum disease incidence (9.24%), however, it was at par with
T. virens
(9.72%). Maximum yield
(10.10 q/ha) was recorded with the application of carbendazim, followed by carbendazim + mancozeb (9.77 q/ha) and
T. viride
(8.10 q/ha)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors have declared that no conflict of interests exist.
REFERENCES (17)
1.
Cother E.J. 1977. Identification and control of root rot fungi in Cicer arietinum (Chickpea). Plant Dis. Rep. 61:736–740.
2.
Dhingra O.D., Sinclair J.B. 1995. Basic Plant Pathology Methods. CRS Press, Inc. Boca Raton, Florida, 335 pp.
3.
Gupta S.B., Thakur M.P., Tedia K., Singh A., Bachkaiya K.K., Kapil S. 2003. Studies on local isolates of T. viride and their relationship with wilt/root rot causing fungi of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). p. 182–188. In: “Chickpea Res. for Mellenium”. Proc. Int. Chickpea Conf. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India, 20–22 January 2003, 449 pp.
4.
Haware M.P., Nene Y.L., Natrajan M. 1986. The survival of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceri in the soil in the absence of chickpea. Phytopathol. Mediterrian 35: 9–12.
5.
Haware M.P., Nene Y.L., Rajeshwari R. 1978. Eradication of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. Ciceri transmitted in chickpea seed. Phytopathology 68: 1364–1367.
6.
Landa B.B., Juan A.N.C., Rafael M.J.D. 2004. Integrated Management of Fusarium wilt of chickpea with sowing date, host resistance, and biological control. Phytopathology 94: 946–960.
7.
Nene Y.L. 1985. Opportunities for research on disease of pulse crops. Indian Phytopathol. 38: 1–10.
8.
Nene Y.L., Reddy M.V. 1987. Chickpea disease and their control. p. 233–270. In: “The Chickpea” (M.C. Saxena, K.B. Singh, eds.). Common Wealth Agricultural Bureau Int, Oxon, Eng.Poddar R.K., Singh D.V., Dubey S.C. 2004. Management of chich pea wilt through combination of fungicides and bioagents. Indian Phytopathol. 57: 39–43.
9.
Prajapati R.K., Gangwar R.K., Srivastava S.S.L., Rashmi H.J. 2002. Biological control of wilt and root rot of chickpea under field conditions. Ann. Plant Protect. Sci. 10: 72–75.
10.
Prasad R.D., Rangeshwaran R., Anuroop C.P., Rashmi H.J. 2002. Biological control of wilt and root rot of chickpea under field conditions. Ann. Plant Protect. Sci. 10: 72–75.
11.
Sinclair J.B., Dhingra O.D. 1995. Basic Plant Pathology Method. CRS Press, Inc. Boca Raton, Florida, 355 pp.
12.
Singh R., Sindhan G. 1998. Effect of fungicides on the incidence of dry root rot and biochemical status by chickpea plants. Plant Dis. Res. 13: 35–37.
13.
Singh R., Sindhan G.S., Parashar R.D., Hooda I. 1998. Application of antagonist in relation to dry root rot and biochemical status of chickpea plants. Plant Dis. Rep. 13: 35–37.
14.
Singh U.P., Singh R.B. 1984. Effect of date of sowing on the incidence of Sclerotinia stem rot and wilt of gram (Cicer arietinum). J. Phytopathol. 109: 254–260.
15.
Sonawane S.S., Pawar N.B. 2001. Studies on biological management of chickpea wilt. Maharashtra Agric. Univ. 26: 215–216.
16.
Sugha S.K., Kapoor S.K., Singh B.M. 1995. Management of chich pea wilt with fungicides. Indian Phytopathol. 48: 27–31.
17.
Tewari A.K., Mukhopadhyay A.N. 2001. Testing of different for mulations of Trichoderma virens against chickpea wilt complex. Indian Phytopathol.54: 37–71.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 1899-007X |
| ISSN: | 1427-4345 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
