Indian Journal of Agricultural Research

  • Chief EditorV. Geethalakshmi

  • Print ISSN 0367-8245

  • Online ISSN 0976-058X

  • NAAS Rating 5.60

  • SJR 0.293

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, volume 42 issue 3 (september 2008) : 212 -215

BIOCONTROL EFFICACY OF BACTERIAL ANTAGONISTS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF SHEATH ROT DISEASE OF RICE

K. Manonmani, M. Jayasekhar, M. Muthusamy
1Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Pechiparai - 629 161, India

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Manonmani K., Jayasekhar M., Muthusamy M. (2025). BIOCONTROL EFFICACY OF BACTERIAL ANTAGONISTS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF SHEATH ROT DISEASE OF RICE. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 42(3): 212 -215. doi: .

ABSTRACT

Rice is affected by number of fungal, bacterial and viral diseases. Among the fungal diseases,
sheath rot caused by Sarocladium oryzae has been reported to cause considerable loss in yield.
Bacterial biocontrol agents viz., Pseudomonas fluorescens (Pf1) and Bacillus subtilis have been
formulated in different carriers viz., gypsum, peat soil and talc powder. Their longevity and biocontrol
efficacy against sheath rot incidence were assessed under artificially inoculated condition. The results
revealed that gypsum based formulation of two bioagents were effective in controlling the disease by
recording the disease incidence of 10.67 per cent and 12.00 per cent respectively. Under field condition
also, gypsum based formulation of these biocontrol agents were found to be more effective in controlling
sheath rot incidence than the talc and peat based formulations

KEYWORDS

    REFERENCES

    1. Krishnamurthy, K. and Gnanamanickam, S.S. (1998). Biol. Control., 13: 158-165.
    2. Muthusamy, M. (1999). In: Second Asia – Pacific Crop Protection Conference. February 18-20, 1999, pp. 185-193.
    3. Narasimmaraj (1991). M. Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, India, pp. 140.
    4. Narayanasamy, P. and Vishwanathan, R. (1990). Madras Agric. J., 77: 256-257.
    5. Pandiarajakumar, S. (1992). M. Sc. (Ag.)Thesis, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, India, pp. 67.
    6. Prabhakaran, J. et al. (1973). Annamalai Univ. Agric. Res. Ann., 5: 182-183.
    7. Radhika, N. (1994). M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, India, pp. 141.
    8. Sakthivel, N. and Gnanamanickam, S.S. (1987). Applied Environ. Microbiol., 53: 2056-2059.
    9. Sakthivel, N. et al. (1988). In: National Symposium on Phytobacteriology held at University of Madras, India. Today
    10. and Tomorrow’s Printers and Publishers, New Delhi, 213-220.
    11. Subramanian, K.S. (1998), Ph.D. Thesis, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, India, pp. 213.
    Reviewed By

    Download Article
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)