Indian Journal of Agricultural Research

  • Chief EditorV. Geethalakshmi

  • Print ISSN 0367-8245

  • Online ISSN 0976-058X

  • NAAS Rating 5.60

  • SJR 0.293

Frequency :
Bi-monthly (February, April, June, August, October and 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 36 issue 3 (september 2002) : 14.9 - 155

EFFECT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ON POWDERY MILDEW SEVERITY IN FIELD PEA UNDER IRRIGATED AND RAINFED CONDITIONS

A. Bhattacharya, P. Shukla1
1Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur - 208 024, India

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Bhattacharya A., Shukla1 P. (2024). EFFECT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ON POWDERY MILDEW SEVERITY IN FIELD PEA UNDER IRRIGATED AND RAINFED CONDITIONS. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 36(3): 14.9 - 155. doi: .

ABSTRACT

Per cent severity of Erysiphe pisi, DC on Pisum sativum var. Type 163 leaves was studied at three seedling dates under irrigated and rainfed conditons. Severity was higher under rainfed and significantly varying under seeding dates and crop growth stages. Path analysis and per cent association estimation showed that severity is affected by minimum environmental temperature and maximum relative humidity. Under irrigated condition, maximum severity was under 37.4°C, 19.4°C, 53.0%, 25.0% and 11.8h, while under rainfed condition. It was under 37.0°C. 23.8°C 51.4%,25.0% and 11.9h (for maximum temperature minimum temperature, maximum relative humidity, minimum relative humidity and sunshine duration, respectively). Multiple correlation for severity under irrigated and rainfed conditions were 0.943 and 0.882, respectively

KEYWORDS

    REFERENCES

    1. Baker, R. (1978). In: Plnat Diseases: An Advance Treatise. Vol. JI. (Horshfall. J.G. and Cowling, E.B. ed,) Academic
    2. Press, New York, pp. 137-158.
    3. Bashi, E. and Rotem, J. (1976). Physiol. PI. Pathol., 8:83-90.
    4. Cochen, Y. and Rotem, J. (1970). Phytopathology, 60:1600-1604.
    5. Calhoum, J. (1973). AnnualRev. Phytopathology, 11:343-364.
    6. Dewey, D.R. and Lu, KH. (1959). Agron. J. 51: 515-519.
    7. Drandarevski, c.A. (1969). Phytopath. 2., 65:124-154; 210-218.
    8. Penrra, KG. and Wheeler, B.E.J. (1975). Tran:Sr. Mycol. Soc., 64:313-319.
    9. 'rfotem, J. (1978). In: Plant Diseases: An Advance Treatise Vol. JI (Horshall J.G. and Cowling E.B. ed.) Academic
    10. Press, New York, pp. 137-158.
    11. Ruppel, E.G. et al. (1975). Plant Disease Rep. 59: 283-286.
    12. Singh, R.A. et al. (1944). In: The Powdery Mildew of Pea. Indi~n Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur, India.
    13. Snedecor, G.W and Cochran, WG. (1972). Statistical Methods Applied for Experiments in Agriculture and Biology.
    14. Iowa State University, Iowa, USA.
    15. Sprague, R. (1955). Bul! Wash. Agric. Exp. Stn. No. 560, pp. 36.
    16. Weatherly, P.E. (1951). New Phytol, 50: 36-51.
    17. Yarwood, C.E. (1957). Bot. Rev., 23: 235-301.
    Reviewed By

    Download Article
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)