Agricultural Reviews

  • Chief EditorPradeep K. Sharma

  • Print ISSN 0253-1496

  • Online ISSN 0976-0741

  • NAAS Rating 4.84

Frequency :
Quarterly (March, June, September & December)
Indexing Services :
AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Agricultural Reviews, volume 21 issue 2 (june 2000) : 129-132

EPIDEMIOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES OF CONTROL OF MANGO MALFORMATION - A REVIEW

D.K. Chakrabarti, R. Kumar
1Department of Horticulture, N. D. University of Agriculture and Technology, Faizabad-224 229, India

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Chakrabarti D.K., Kumar R. (2024). EPIDEMIOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES OF CONTROL OF MANGO MALFORMATION - A REVIEW. Agricultural Reviews. 21(2): 129-132. doi: .

ABSTRACT

An epidemiological descriptor of mango malformation has been proposed and accordingly a control strategy has been envisaged. The disease is polycyclic, the pathogen, Fusarium maniliforme Sheld, is polyetic and host specific. Maximum fungal population was recorded during February–March while the highest disease incidence in July–November. Latent period extended from late November to early February. New crop of conidia (propagules) on host surface was formed during July–September. The disease was transmitted by vector (mites) and infected scions. The gradient of spread was steep. The plant to plant infection was slow. Logarithmic phase started at 1.34–5.01% disease incidence. Mean maximum disease incidence in regular and alternate bearers were 40–48 and 72–73%, respectively. Pattern of epidemic in former one was sigmoid while in the latter it was bimodal. Duration of the epidemic was year round. Thus, rate of plant to plant spread was slow, propagules for dissemination were available for short period. But tissues remained infectious for long and small amount of initial inoculum could start the epidemic. Therefore, rate of increase of the disease could be minimised through sanitation (pruning of infected plant parts, killing of the propagules with fungicides, using cultivars with vertical resistance and growing plants in dry weather condition).

KEYWORDS

    REFERENCES

    1. Chakrabartl, DK (1996). In: Disease Scenario In Crop Plants, (Agnihotri, V.P. et a1. ed.) Vol. 1, International Books
    2. Periodical Supply Services, pp. 49-59.
    3. Chakrabartl, DK and Kumar, R. (1997). Acta Hortic., No. 455 : 609-611.
    4. Chakrabarti, DK and Kumar, R. (1997a). Proc. Indian Phytopath. Soc. Golden Jubilee Int.Cof. New Delhi,
    5. pp.320.
    6. Chakrabartl, DK and Kumar, R. (1998). Agric. Rev., 19: 126-136.
    7. Chakrabartl, DK and Kumar, R. (1998a). Epidemiology of mango malformation. Proc. National Symp. of Mango
    8. Production and Export, Lucknow, India, p.71.
    9. 132 AGRICULTURAL REVIEWS
    10. Chakrabartl, DK and Kumar, R. (1999). Sei. Cult., 64 : 383-384.
    11. Chakrabartl, DK and Kumar, R. (2000a). In : (Srivastava, R.P. ed.) Recent Advances in Mango Research, India.
    12. Chakrabartl, DK et al. (1997). Indian J. PI. Prot. 25 : 146-148.
    13. Chakrabarti, DK et al. (1997a). Trop. Agric., 74 : 317-320.
    14. Chakrabarti, DK and Ghosal, S. (1982). Proc. Sixty-ninth Indian Sci. Congo Pt. III (Ag. Scl.), Hyderabad, pp.
    15. 70-71 (Young Sci. Award lecture). .
    16. Chakrabartl, DK and Ghosal, S. (1989). Phytopath. Z., 125 : 238-246.
    17. Ibrahim, AN.; et al. (1975). CurT. Sci., 44 : 443-444.
    18. Kumar, J.; et al. (1993). Ann. RelJ. Phytopathol., 31 : 217-232.
    19. Kumar, R. and Chakrabartl, DK (1992). Indian J. Exptl. Bioi., 30 : 448-450.
    20. Kumar, R. and Chakrabarti, D. K. (1992a). Proc. Fourth Int. Mango Symp., Florida, p.15.
    21. Kumar, Rand Chakrabartl, D.K. (1995). Proc. National Symp on Sustainable Agri. in Sub-humid Zone, Srlnlketan,
    22. India, pp. 348-352. -
    23. Kumar, R. and Chakrabarti, DK (1997). Acta Hortic. No. 455 : 600-608.
    24. Kumar,. R. and Chakrabarti, DK (1997a). Indian J. Agric. Sci., 67 : 130-131.
    25. Kumar, R. and Chakrabartl, DK (1992a). Proc. Fourth Int. Mango Symp., Florida, p.15.
    26. Kumar, Rand Chakrabarti, DK (1995). Proc. National Symp on Sustainable Agri. in Sub·humid Zone, Srinlketan,
    27. pp. 348-352.
    28. Kumar, R. and Chakrabartl, D.K. (1997). Acta Hortlc. No. 455 : 600-608.
    29. Kumar, R. and Chakrabartl, DK (1997a). Indian J. Agric. SeL, 67 : 130-131.
    30. Kumar, R. and Chakrabartl, DK (1997b). Proc. Indian Phytopath. Soc. Golden Jubflee Int. Con/., New Delhi,
    31. India, p. 413.
    32. Kranz, J. (1998). In : Experimental Techniques In Plant Disease Epidemics, (Kranz, J. and Rotem, J. ed.,)
    33. Springer-Verlag pp. 279-289.
    34. Nlrvan, R.S. (1953).. Sci. Cult., 18: 335-336.
    35. Noriega-Cantu, D.H., et al. (1998). Plant Dis., 83: 223-228.
    36. Ploetz, R.C. and Prsakash, O. (1997). In: The Mango, (Utz, R.E. ed.) CAB International, Slough, p. 235-297.
    37. Summanwar, AS. (1967). Indian Hart., 11 : 12-16.
    38. Summanwar, AS. et al. (1966). Indian Phytopath., 19: 227-228.
    39. Van der Plank, J.E. (1975). Principles of Plant Infections, Academic Press, London, p. 216,
    40. Van der Plank, J.E. (1963). Plant Diseases: Epidemic and Control, Academic Press, London, p.247.
    41. Varma, A et '51. (1971). Proc. Indian Natn. Sci. Acad. B. 37: 291-300
    Reviewed By

    Download Article
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)