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 37 issue 1 (february 2014) : 110-114

TECHNIQUES FOR SCREENING OF CHICKPEA GENOTYPES AGAINST COLLAR ROT, ITS MANAGEMENT THROUGH HOST PLANT RESISTANCE AND FUNGICIDES

Ramesh Amule, Om Gupta*, Madhuri Mishra
1Department of Plant Pathology Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur, 482 004, India
Cite article:- Amule Ramesh, Gupta* Om, Mishra Madhuri (2024). TECHNIQUES FOR SCREENING OF CHICKPEA GENOTYPES AGAINST COLLAR ROT, ITS MANAGEMENT THROUGH HOST PLANT RESISTANCE AND FUNGICIDES. Legume Research. 37(1): 110-114. doi: 10.5958/j.0976-0571.37.1.017.

ABSTRACT

The experiments were conducted during 2009 and 2010 to find out the most effective screening techniques for identifying host plant resistance against chickpea collar rot caused by Sclerotim rolfsii in pot house. Out of four techniques employed, chickpea ‘grain inoculation techniques’ was found best. The minimum post emergence mortality (6.7%) occurred at 4.0 percent concentration of Pyraclostrobin which is significantly relatively less in comparison to control (26.8%) during the two consecutive year of testing.  Among 88 chickpea desi genotype GNG 1958 was found resistant to disease whereas , 13 entries viz., NDG 9-21, PG 97030, BG 3004, JG 14-11, H 04-68, PG 054, BGD 1058, GJG 0724, RSG 931, JG1307, GJG 0504, JG 14-110, H05-24 were moderately resistant. Among Kabuli types, two entries i.e GNG 1969, BG 2086 were resistant and 9 as moderately resistant (IPCK 2005-23, Phule G 0027, JGK 2003-304, IPCK 02, BG 3001, MNK 1, BG 3000,Vihar, HK 06-168).

REFERENCES

  1. Abida, A., Iqbal, M., Rauf, A. and Aleem, R. (2008). Detection of resistant sources for collar rot disease in chickpea germplasm. Pak. J. Bot. 40 (5): 2211- 2215.
  2. Gupta, Om (2001). Occurrence of sources of resistance in desi and kabuli chickpea genotypes against Collar rot and yield attributing character, presented in International Chickpea Conference held at IGKVV, Raipur (Abst). p. 64.
  3. Gupta, Om and Babbar, A. (2006). Identification of desi and kabuli chickpea genotypes for multiple disease resistance against soil borne disease. Indian J. Pulses Res. 19 (1): 129-130.
  4. Gupta,Om and Mishra, M. (2009). Screening of chickpea germplasm accessions for resistance to Collar rot. J.Food Legumes. 22(2):140-141.
  5. Hussain, A., Iqblal, S. M., Ayub, N. and Zahid, M. A. (2005). Screening of chickpea germplasm for resistance to collar rot disease. Pak. J. Agric., Agric. Engi., Vet. Sci. 21 (1): 32 – 34.
  6. Islam, M.N., Raihan, M. G. and Rafia, Z. A. (2005). In Vitro evaluation of Trichoderma, fungicides and plant extracts against Rhizoctonia solani and Sclerotium rolfsii of peanut. Inter. J. of Sustainable Agric. Technol. 1 (1):14 -23.
  7. Ravinder, Kumar, Mishra, P., Singh, G. and Yadav, R. S. (2008). Integration of bioagents and fungicides for management of collar rot of chickpea. Journal of Biological Control. 22 (2). 487-489.
  8. Rondon, A., Flores, Y., Soto, E. and Mujica, Y. (1995). Chemical control in vitro and in the greenhouse of fungus causing white rot. Revista de la Faculated de Agronomia, Universidad del Zulia 12 : 1 – 13.
  9. Tewari, A. K. and Mukhopadhyay, A. N. (2003). Management of chickpea root rot and collar rot by integration of biological and chemical seed treatment. Abstracts. Indian Phytopathology .56: 1, 39-42..
  10. Toorray, N. K., Verma, K. P. and Sinha, A. K. (2007). Evaluation of fungicide and bioagents against Sclerotium rolfsii sacc. causing collar rot disease of chickpea in laboratory and field condition. Adv. Plant Sciences. 20 (2): 439 – 442.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)