Agricultural Science Digest

  • Chief EditorArvind kumar

  • Print ISSN 0253-150X

  • Online ISSN 0976-0547

  • NAAS Rating 5.52

  • SJR 0.156

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) : 209-211

FIELD EVALUATION OF FUNGICIDES AND BOTANICALS AGAINST POWDERY MILDEW OF MUNGBEAN

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

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Suryawanshi A.P., Wadje A.G., Gawade D.B., Kadam T.S., Pawar A.K. (2024). FIELD EVALUATION OF FUNGICIDES AND BOTANICALS AGAINST POWDERY MILDEW OF MUNGBEAN. Agricultural Science Digest. 29(3): 209-211. doi: .

ABSTRACT

All the treatments significantly reduced powdery mildew intensity and increased the test
weight and seed yield of mungbean over unsprayed control. Karathane 48 EC (@ 0.1%) was
most effective, recording least mean powdery mildew intensity (15.14%) and highest grain yield
(1425 kg/ha) and test weight (58.00 g). The second and third best effective fungicides were
Contaf (@ 0.1%) and Calixin (@ 0.1%), which recorded mean disease intensity of 18.43 and
18.99 per cent, respectively and were at par. Botanical NSKE and plain water also recorded
comparatively minimum disease intensity of 33.47 and 32.51 per cent, respectively over unsprayed
control (54.65%). Cost benefit ratio showed that all the treatments were economical although
Sulfex was most economical with C : B ratio of 1:21.11 followed by botanical NSKE (1:12.76),
Contaf (1:7.83), plain water (1:7.61) and Calixin (1:7.28).

REFERENCES

  1. Banyal, D.K. and Rana, S.K. (2003). J. Mycol. Pl. Pathol. 33(2):302-304.
  2. Das, S.R. and Narain, A. (1990). Indian Phytopath. 43(1):100-101.
  3. Gupta, S.K. and Sharma, H.R. (2004). Pl. Dis. Res. 19(2):190-191.
  4. Kappor, A.S. and Thakur, B.R. (1997). Indian Phytopath. 50(1):115-118.
  5. Kunti, J.P. et al. (2002). J. Mycol. Pl. Pathol. 32(1):103-105.
  6. Mayee, C.D. and Datar, V.V. (1986). Bull. I. MAU, Parbhani PP:74.
  7. McKineey (1923). J. agric. Res. 26:195-218.
  8. Sharma, I.M. (1991). Indian Phytopath. 44:133-134.
  9. Shetty, T.A.S. et. al. (1996). Curr. Res. 25(1):14-15.
  10. Shrivastava, L.S. (1996). J. Hill. Res. 9(2):296-298.
  11. Singh, A. et. al. (2002). J. Mycol. Pl. Pathol. 32(2):286.
  12. Singh, A. and Sirohi, A. (2003). Pl. Dis. Res. 18(1):63-64.
  13. Singh, V.P. and Prithiviraj,B. (1997). Physiol. and mol. Pl. Pathol. 51(3):181-194.
  14. Sone, S.K. et. al. (1999). Indian Phytopath. 52(2):138-141.
  15. Vijaya, M. (2004). J. Mycol. Pl. Pathol. 34(2):604-605.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)