Banner

Agricultural Science Digest

  • Chief EditorArvind kumar

  • Print ISSN 0253-150X

  • Online ISSN 0976-0547

  • NAAS Rating 5.52

  • SJR 0.176, CiteScore: 0.357

Frequency :
Bi-monthly (February, April, June, August, October and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Agricultural Science Digest, volume 29 issue 3 (september 2009) :

FIELD EVALUATION OF FUNGICIDES, BOTANICALS AND BIOAGENTS AGAINST ANTHRACNOSE OF SOYBEAN

D.B. Gawade, A.P. Suryawanshi, A.K. Pawar, K.T. Apet, S.S. Devgire
1Department of Plant Pathology, College of Agriculture, Latur-413 512, India.

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Gawade D.B., Suryawanshi A.P., Pawar A.K., Apet K.T., Devgire S.S. (2025). FIELD EVALUATION OF FUNGICIDES, BOTANICALS AND BIOAGENTS AGAINST ANTHRACNOSE OF SOYBEAN. Agricultural Science Digest. 29(3): . doi: .

ABSTRACT

Anthracnose/pod blight (Colletotrichum truncatum Schw) is one of the major diseases of
soybean (Glycine max L.) during Kharif season. Present study conducted in the Marathwada
region of the State of Maharashtra during Kharif, 2006 aimed to find out the efficacy of fungicides,
bioagents and botanicals in the management of anthracnose / pod blight of soybean. Results
indicated that all five fungicides, two botanicals and two bioagents evaluated significantly reduced
the disease intensity and thereby enhanced the seed yield over unsprayed control. However,
fungicide Carendazim (@ 0.1%) was found most effective and economical in controlling the
disease, which recorded least mean foliage anthracnose (19.43%), mean defoliation (11.85%),
mean pod blight (9.64%) with highest seed yield (2605 kg/ha) and most economical C:B ratio
(1:13.55). This was followed by the fungicides Hexaconazole and Propiconazole. Both botanicals
and bioagents tested were also found effective against the disease.

REFERENCES

  1. Backman, P.A. et al. (1982). Pl. Dis. 66:1032-1034.
  2. Bairwa, I.B. et al. (2002). J. Mycol. Pl. Pathol. 32(2), PP: 295.
  3. Barrows, S.T. et al. (1995). Bulletin Mycologia. 10(1/2):5-11.
  4. Chandrasekaran, A. and Rajappan, K. (2002). J. Mycol. Pl. Patho., 32(1):25-27.
  5. Chandrasekaran, A. et al. (2000). Ann. Pl. Prot. Sci., 8(2):103-105.
  6. Chaudhary, N. (1977). Thesis M.Sc. (Agri.) G.B. Pant. Univ. Agric. & Tech. Patnagar.
  7. Devis, D. et al. (2003). J. Mycol. Pl. Pathol. 33(3):474.
  8. Ghawde, R.S. et al. (1996). J. Soils and Crops. 6(1):97-99.
  9. Gorawar, M.M. et al. (2006). J. Pl. Dis. Sci., 1(2):156-158.
  10. Gupta, S. et al. (2005) J. Mycol. Pl. Pathol. 35(3):432-436.
  11. Ingle, Y.V. et al. (2002). Pl. Dis. Res. 17(1):217.
  12. Joshi, D. and Tripathi, H.S. (2002). J. Mycol. Pl. Path. 32(1):52-55.
  13. Kaur, M. et al. (2006). Indian Phytopath. 59(2):243-245.
  14. Table 2. Economics of fungicides, botanicals and bioagents for the management of anthracnose in soybean. Vol. 29, No. 3, 2009 177
  15. Lenne, J.M. (1992). Colletotrichum : Biology, Pathology and Control (Bailey J. and Jeger M.J. eds.), Red Wood Press
  16. Ltd. Melksham,U.K.PP: 134-136.
  17. Mayee, C.D. and Datar, V.V. (1986). Phytopathometry., Tech. Bull. I, M. A. U., Parbhani. PP: 66.
  18. Shulka, A.K. and Singh, D.P. (1993). Legume Res., 16(1-2):75-76.
  19. Singh, S.N. et al. (1981). Indian Phytopath. 34:107.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)