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 24 issue 4 (december 2004) : 252 - 2!?5,

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

M.D. Maji*, Pratheesh Kumar, P.M.S. Chattopadhyayand B. Sararatchandra**
1Central Sericultural Research and Training Institute, Berhampore - 742 101. India

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Maji* M.D., Kumar Pratheesh, Sararatchandra** B. Chattopadhyayand P.M.S. (2024). EVALUATION OF MULBERRY PHYLLOPLANE BACTERIA FOR BIOCONTROL OF MYROTHECIUMLEAF SPOT OF MULBERRY CAUSED BY MYROTHECIUM RORIDUM. Agricultural Science Digest. 24(4): 252 - 2!?5,. doi: .

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
    Reviewed By

    Download Article
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)