volume 24 issue 4 (december 2004) : 260 - 263

IN VITRO AND IN VIVO EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT FUNGICIDES AGAINST ALTERNARIA LEAF AND FLOWER BUGHT OF MARIGOLD UNDER TERAI ZONE OF WEST BENGAL

S
Subhendu Jash
S
Subrata Dutta
S
Sankar Kumar Laha
1Department of Plant Pathology Uttar Banga Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Pundibari, Cooch Behar - 736165, West Bengal
  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Jash Subhendu, Dutta Subrata, Laha Kumar Sankar (2025). IN VITRO AND IN VIVO EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT FUNGICIDES AGAINST ALTERNARIA LEAF AND FLOWER BUGHT OF MARIGOLD UNDER TERAI ZONE OF WEST BENGAL. Agricultural Science Digest. 24(4): 260 - 263. doi: .
Leaf and flower blight of marigold incited by Alternaria zinniae Pape is one of the most important diseases of marigold under terai agro-climatic zone of West Bengal. Mancozeb 75%WP (Indofil M-45), Metalaxyl 8% + Mancozeb 64%WP (Tata master) and Carbendazim 12% + Mancozeb 63%WP (Companion) @ 200 ppmeach totally inhibited the mycelial growth of the pathogen in in vitro condition over untreated control whereas, Bordeaux mixture (Copper sulphate and Lime), Carbendazim 5O%WP (Bavistin) and Copper Oxychloride 50%WP (Blitox) at 500ppm each exhibited 54.10,55.73 and 63.93% mycelial groWth inhibition of the pathogn respectively. Mancozeb 75%WP (Indofil M-45) @ 0.25%, Carbendazim 12% + Maneozeb 63%WP(Companion) @ 0.10% and Metalaxyl 8% + Mancozeb 64%WP (Tata master) @ 0.10% reduced the disease incidence by 87.52, 85.18 and 84.60% respectively under in vivo condition.
    1. Chacko. C.I. and Raghavendra Rao, N.N. (1982). Annual Report, IJHR, Bangalore.
    2. Edward, J.e. (1957). Sci. Cult., 22: 683.
    3. Karlatti, R.S and Hiremath, P.C. (1989). Mysore J. Agric. Sci., 23: 487-89.
    4. Mazumdar, N. (2000). Plant Dis. Res., 15(1): 28-33.
    5. McKinney (1923). J. Agrlc. Res., 26: 195-217.
    6. Narayanappa, M. and Jagadish Chandra, K. (1984). Indian J. Agric. Sci., 55: 691-92.
    7. Prione, P.P., Dodge. 8;0. and RIcJcett, H.w. (1960). Disease aIdPest ofOrnamental Plants. Ronakl Press, N.Y., PP 265.
    8. Saksena, H.K. andSingh, B.B. (1959). Plant Dis. Reptr., 43: 670-73.
    9. Schemttz, H. (1930).lndust. Engin. Chern. Analyst., PP 361.
    10. Verma, It-S. and Kumar, S. (1992). Indian Phytopath., 54(4): 466'168.
    11. Vincent, J.M. (1927). Nature, 159: 850.
    volume 24 issue 4 (december 2004) : 260 - 263

    IN VITRO AND IN VIVO EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT FUNGICIDES AGAINST ALTERNARIA LEAF AND FLOWER BUGHT OF MARIGOLD UNDER TERAI ZONE OF WEST BENGAL

    S
    Subhendu Jash
    S
    Subrata Dutta
    S
    Sankar Kumar Laha
    1Department of Plant Pathology Uttar Banga Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Pundibari, Cooch Behar - 736165, West Bengal
    • Submitted|

    • First Online |

    • doi

    Cite article:- Jash Subhendu, Dutta Subrata, Laha Kumar Sankar (2025). IN VITRO AND IN VIVO EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT FUNGICIDES AGAINST ALTERNARIA LEAF AND FLOWER BUGHT OF MARIGOLD UNDER TERAI ZONE OF WEST BENGAL. Agricultural Science Digest. 24(4): 260 - 263. doi: .
    Leaf and flower blight of marigold incited by Alternaria zinniae Pape is one of the most important diseases of marigold under terai agro-climatic zone of West Bengal. Mancozeb 75%WP (Indofil M-45), Metalaxyl 8% + Mancozeb 64%WP (Tata master) and Carbendazim 12% + Mancozeb 63%WP (Companion) @ 200 ppmeach totally inhibited the mycelial growth of the pathogen in in vitro condition over untreated control whereas, Bordeaux mixture (Copper sulphate and Lime), Carbendazim 5O%WP (Bavistin) and Copper Oxychloride 50%WP (Blitox) at 500ppm each exhibited 54.10,55.73 and 63.93% mycelial groWth inhibition of the pathogn respectively. Mancozeb 75%WP (Indofil M-45) @ 0.25%, Carbendazim 12% + Maneozeb 63%WP(Companion) @ 0.10% and Metalaxyl 8% + Mancozeb 64%WP (Tata master) @ 0.10% reduced the disease incidence by 87.52, 85.18 and 84.60% respectively under in vivo condition.
      1. Chacko. C.I. and Raghavendra Rao, N.N. (1982). Annual Report, IJHR, Bangalore.
      2. Edward, J.e. (1957). Sci. Cult., 22: 683.
      3. Karlatti, R.S and Hiremath, P.C. (1989). Mysore J. Agric. Sci., 23: 487-89.
      4. Mazumdar, N. (2000). Plant Dis. Res., 15(1): 28-33.
      5. McKinney (1923). J. Agrlc. Res., 26: 195-217.
      6. Narayanappa, M. and Jagadish Chandra, K. (1984). Indian J. Agric. Sci., 55: 691-92.
      7. Prione, P.P., Dodge. 8;0. and RIcJcett, H.w. (1960). Disease aIdPest ofOrnamental Plants. Ronakl Press, N.Y., PP 265.
      8. Saksena, H.K. andSingh, B.B. (1959). Plant Dis. Reptr., 43: 670-73.
      9. Schemttz, H. (1930).lndust. Engin. Chern. Analyst., PP 361.
      10. Verma, It-S. and Kumar, S. (1992). Indian Phytopath., 54(4): 466'168.
      11. Vincent, J.M. (1927). Nature, 159: 850.
      In this Article
      Published In
      Agricultural Science Digest

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)