Legume Research

  • Chief EditorJ. S. Sandhu

  • Print ISSN 0250-5371

  • Online ISSN 0976-0571

  • NAAS Rating 6.80

  • SJR 0.391

  • Impact Factor 0.8 (2024)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November 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

Legume Research, volume 31 issue 1 (march 2008) : 75 - 76

SCREENING OF BIOAGENTS AGAINST ROOT ROT OF MUNG BEAN CAUSED BY RHIZOCTONIA SOLANI

Surender Singh, Hari Chand, P. Kishore Varma
1Department of Plant Pathology, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar -125 004, India

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Singh Surender, Chand Hari, Varma Kishore P. (2024). SCREENING OF BIOAGENTS AGAINST ROOT ROT OF MUNG BEAN CAUSED BY RHIZOCTONIA SOLANI. Legume Research. 31(1): 75 - 76. doi: .

ABSTRACT

A laboratory and green house experiment was carried out on the comparative antagonistic performance of four different bioagents (Aspergillus sp. Gliocladium virens, Trichoderma harzianum and T. viride) isolated from soil against Rhizoctonia solani. Under laboratory conditions, T. harzianum exhibited maximum (75.55%) mycelial growth inhibition of R. solani followed by T. viride (65.93%). Gliocladium virens was also found to be effective antagonist, which exhibited 57.77 per cent mycelial growth inhibition. While Aspergillus sp exhibited minimum growth inhibition (45.74%) in comparison to other bioagents. Under green house conditions, T. harzianum gave maximum control of the disease (72.72%) followed by T. viride (54.54%). However, G. virens and Aspergillus sp were found least effective in controlling root rot of mungbean

KEYWORDS

    REFERENCES

    1. Dennis, L. and Webster, J. (1971). Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc., 57: 363-369.
    2. Elad, Y. et al. (1980). Pl. Soil, 66: 276-281.
    3. Hooda, I. and Grover, R. K. (1983). Indian J. Pl. Pathol., 1: 75-82.
    4. Indra, N. and Thiribuvanamala, G. (2002). Pl. Dis. Res., 17: 142-144.
    5. Mathew, K. A. and Gupta, S. K. (1998). J. Mycol. Pl. Pathol., 28: 202-205.
    6. Mathur, R. L. and Singh, R. R (1973). Sci. & Cult. 39: 221-222.
    7. Mukhopadhyay, A. N. (1987). Indian J. Mycol. Pl. Pathol. 17: 1-9.
    8. Sivan, A. et al. (1984). Phytopathology, 74: 498-501.
    9. Tu, J. C. (1981). Phytopathology, 71: 267 (Abst.).
    10. Wells, H. D. et al. (1972). Phytopathology, 62: 442-447.
    11. Yadav, J. P. S. et al. (2000). J. Cotton Res. Dev., 14: 61-64.
    Reviewed By

    Download Article
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)