EVALUATION OF MULBERRY PHYLLOPLANE BACTERIA FOR BIOCONTROL OF MYROTHECIUMLEAF SPOT OF MULBERRY CAUSED BY MYROTHECIUM RORIDUM

Article Id: ARCC4766 | Page : 252 - 2!?5,
Citation :- EVALUATION OF MULBERRY PHYLLOPLANE BACTERIA FOR BIOCONTROL OF MYROTHECIUMLEAF SPOT OF MULBERRY CAUSED BY MYROTHECIUM RORIDUM.Agricultural Science Digest.2004.(24):252 - 2!?5,
M.D. Maji*, Pratheesh Kumar, P.M.S. Chattopadhyayand B. Sararatchandra**
Address : Central Sericultural Research and Training Institute, Berhampore - 742 101. India

Abstract

In order to develop biological control of Myrothecium leaf spot (MLS) of mulberry caused by Myrotheciumroridum, mulberry phylloplane bacteria were isolated and screened in vitro against the pathogen. Out of six-phylloplane bacterial strains three phylloplane bacterial strains exhibited antibiosis against M. roridum in vitro. Field efficacies of six phylloplane bacterial strains were tested in potted mulberry plants against MLS under inoculated condition. Twenty four hour old bacterial suspension (10 8 CFU/ml) of two Bacillus spp, three Micrococcus spp. and one Serratia sp. was sprayed 24 hr prior to inoculation of M. roridum conidial suspension (10 6 CFU/ml). All six phylloplane bacterial strains reduced MLS disease severity more than 44.5% even 30 days after inoculation.

Keywords

References

  1. Baker, K.F. and Cook, R.J. (1982). Biological Control of Plant Pathogen. The American Phytopathological
  2. Society, St. Paul, MN, 433pp.
  3. Brian, PW. (1957). Microbiology and Ecology, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
  4. Broadbent, PK et al. (1971). Aust. J. BioI. Sci., 24: 925-944.
  5. Chang, J. and Kommedahl, T. (1968). Phytopathology, 58:1395-1401.
  6. Cook, J. R (1980). In: Plant Disease- An Advance Treaties. Vol. I (Horsfafl. J.w. and Cowling, E.B.Ed), Academic
  7. Press, New York, pp. 465.
  8. Deacon, JW. (1991). Biocontrol Sci. Technol., 1: 5-20.
  9. Fokkema, N.J. et al. (1975). Neth. J. Plant. Pathol., 81: 176-186.
  10. FA() (1967). Crop Losses Due to Diseases and Pests. FAO, Rome.
  11. Femfu'a et a/. (1991). Phytopathology, 81: 283-287. Vol. 24, No.4, 2004 255
  12. Fravel. DR and Spurr, HW. Jr. (1977). Phytopathology, 67: 930-932.
  13. Gregory, G.F. et aJ. (1984). Phytopathology, 74: 804-805.
  14. Hall, T.J. et al. (1986). Plant Dis., 70: 521-524.
  15. Kalita. P. et al. (1996). Indian Phytopath., 49: 234-237.
  16. Katz, E. and Domain, A.C. (1977). Bacterial. Rev., 41: 449-474.
  17. Kolper. JW. (1991). The Biological Control of Plant Disease (Bay - Peterson, J. Ed), Food and Fertilizer Technology
  18. Centre, Taiwan.
  19. Liu. L. et a/. (1995). Phytopathology, 85: 843-847.
  20. Maji, M.D. et a/. (1997). Curro Tech. Sem. on Silkworm Disease, Silkworm Rearing Tech. and Mulberry Pathology, Abstr. 18.
  21. Rothrock, C.S. and Gottlieb, D. (1984). Can. J. Microbiol., 30:1440-1447.
  22. Saikia, P. and Chowdhury, H.D. (1993). Indian Phytopath., 46: 218-223.
  23. Spurr, HW Jr. (1972). Phytopathology, 49: 7!?_5-756.
  24. 'verma, J. P. et al. (1983). Indian Phytopath., 36: 574-577.
  25. Wie, G. et a/. (1991). Phytopathology, 81: 1508-1512

Global Footprints