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
Agricultural Science Digest, volume 23 issue 1 (march 2003) : 6 - 9


S.N. Hasabnis, M.B. Joi, V.K. Shinde, B.M. Ilhe
1Regional Wheat Rust Research Station, Mahabaleshwar 412806, India
  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Hasabnis S.N., Joi M.B., Shinde V.K., Ilhe B.M. (2024). ADULT PlANT RESPONSE OF WHEAT VARIETIES AGAINST LEAF . RUST (PUCCINIA RECONDITA F. SP. TRlTICI). Agricultural Science Digest. 23(1): 6 - 9. doi: .
Adult plant response of 55 wheat Varieties was ascertained against artificial leaf rusf epiphytotic during 1999–2000, Thirty-four wheat varieties expressed hypersensitive type of resistance against the pathogen. Twentyone varieties expressed ‘Susceptible’ (S) to ‘Moderately Susceptible’ (MS) type of rust reactions. Wheat varieties HD 2285 and Sonalika expressed terminal Average Co-efficient of Infection (ACl) as 80.00 and 70.71, respectively. Area Under Disease Progress Curve (AUDPC) was 1186.20, 821.00 and 712.60 in varieties Sonalika, UP 2425 anti HD 2285, respectively. Average rate of infection (units day −1) was highest in HUW 234 (0.35) and UP 2425 (0.35). Ten wheat varieties namely B. Yellow, C 306, GW 173, HD 2189, HD 2501, HD 2687, K 8962, PBW 396, Sujata and WH 542 had values of AUDPC in the range of 10.00 to 77.50 and rate of infection from 0.00 to 0.12 units day −1. Considering lower terminal disease score, smaller values of ‘AUDPC’ and slow rate of infection (units day −1) these ten wheat varieties are recommended for future wheat improvement programme as a good donors of desirable and durable leaf rust resistance.
    1. Anonymous, (2000). Progress Report (Crop Protection), Directorate of Wheat Research, I.CAR., Kamal, pp.155.
    2. Joshi, L.M. et al (1988). Manual of Wheat Diseases. Malhotra Publishing House, New Delhi, pp 75. .
    3. Na,garajan, S. and Joshi, L.M. (1975). Cereal Rusts and POIAIdery Mildew Bun., 3:29-33. ,
    4. Nagarajan. S. and Nayar, S.K. (1986). In: Problems and Progress of Wheat Pathology irlSouth ASa (JOshi, L.M. efaL, Ed.) Malhotra Publishing House, New Delhi,pp 306-319,
    5. Nayar, S.K. ef al (1997). Manual of .Current Techniques in Wheat Rusts, Res. Bun. No.2. Regional Station. DWR, Aowardale, Shimla,pp 32.
    6. Pllterson, R£ etal (1948). Om. J. Res., (C)26: 496·500.
    7. RubiaIes, D. and Niks, R.E. (1:995). Plant Dis.,79: 1208-1212.
    8. \1M der PIank,J.E.(l968l;Di-.eReststanceinPlant. A~emic Press, NeW York, pp 206.
    9. Wilcoxson, R.D. et.-l (1975). Ann.App. .8!ot.a0;275-281.

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)