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 (2023)

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
Legume Research, volume 44 issue 1 (january 2021) : 115-119

Management of Dry Root Rot in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Caused By Macrophomina phaseolina by Utilizing Host Plant Resistance, Fungicides and Bioagents

H. Manjunatha, M. Saifulla
  • Submitted23-12-2016|

  • Accepted13-07-2020|

  • First Online 09-11-2020|

  • doi

Cite article:- Manjunatha H., Saifulla M. (2020). Management of Dry Root Rot in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Caused By Macrophomina phaseolina by Utilizing Host Plant Resistance, Fungicides and Bioagents. Legume Research. 44(1): 115-119. doi: undefined.
Background: For the management of soil borne disease like dry root rot of chickpea caused by Macrophomina phaseolina, by using fungicides alone is not feasible  due to  environmental and health hazards. Hence integrated management of the disease by using resistant varieties, fungicides and bio-control agents is the best alternative. So the present study was aimed to identify resistant varieties, best fungicide and bioagent for management of dry root rot in chickpea.
Methods: Two hundred and twelve genotypes were screened using blotter paper technique for  identifying resistant genotypes for dry root rot. The experiment on management of dry root rot was conducted during Kharif and Rabi of 2013-14 using a susceptible chickpea variety JG-11 with 14 treatments including control with 3 replications.
Result: Of two hundred and twelve chickpea genotypes screened for host plant resistance against Macrophomina phaseolina by blotter paper technique only one genotype ie. PBG-5 showed moderately resistant reaction. Among fourteen treatments including fungicides and bioagents imposed for the management of dry root rot, seed treatment with tebuconazole @ 2 g/kg recorded lowest per cent disease incidence of 9.43, with a highest yield of 722.81 kg/ha compared to untreated control which recorded the  highest per cent disease incidence (40.10) with a lowest mean yield of 362.02 kg/ha.
  1. Brenneman, T. B., Murphy, A. P. and Csinos, A. S. (1991). Activity of tebuconazole on Sclerotium rolfsii and Rhizoctonia solani, two soil borne pathogens of peanut. Plant Disease. 75: 744-747.
  2. Buchenauer, H. (1987) . Mechanism of action of triazolyl fungicides and related compounds. In: Lyr H. (Ed.). Modern Selective Fungicides, Longmon and Wiley, New York, USA, pp. 205-231.
  3. Hewitt, H. G. (1998). Fungicides in Plant Protection. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, p.150.
  4. Kanwal, A., Anjum, F., Qudsia, H., Javaid, A. and Mahmood, R. (2012). Evaluation of tebuconazole and thiophanate-methyl against some problematic soil-borne plant pathogens. Mycopathology. 10(1): 17-20.
  5. Ladizinsky, G. (1975). A new Cicer from Turkey. The Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh. 34: 201-202.
  6. Mahendra Pal, (1998). Diseases of pulse crops, their relative importance and management. Journal of Mycology and Plant Pathology. 28(2): 114-122.
  7. Munoz-Leoz, B., Ruiz-Romera, E., Antiguedad, I. and Garbisu, C. (2011). Tebuconazole application decreases soil microbial biomass and activity. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 43: 2176-2183.
  8. Nagamma, G., Muhammad Saifulla, Jabbar Sab and Pavitra, S. (2015). Screening of chickpea genotypes against dry root rot caused by Macrophomina phaseolina (Tassi) Goid. The Bioscan. 10(4): 1795-1800.
  9. Nene, Y.L., Haware, M.P. and Reddy, M.V. (1981). Resistance Screening Techniques in Chickpea Disease. Inform. Bull. No. 10. ICRISAT, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India, p. 50.
  10. Nene, Y.L., Sheila, V.K. and Sharma, B.S. (1996). A world list of chickpea and pigeonpea pathogens, 5th Ed., International Crops Research Institute for the semi-Arid Tropics, Patencheru, Andhra Pradesh, India, pp.1-27.
  11. Om G., Rathi M. and Mishra M. (2012). Screening for resistance against Rhizoctonia bataticola causing dry root rot in chickpea. Journal of Food Legumes. 25(2): 139-141. 
  12. Pande, S., Kumar, K. K. and Rao, J. N. (2004). Evaluation of chickpea lines for resistance to dry root rot caused by Rhizoctonia bataticola. International Chickpea Pigeonpea News letter. 11: 37-38.
  13. Ramarethinam, S., Morugesan, N. and Marimuthu, S. (2001). Compatibility Studies of fungicides with Trichoderma viride used in the Commercial formulation- Bio- CURF. Pestology. 25: 2-6. 
  14. Scheinpflug, H.P. and Kuck, K.H. (1987). Sterol biosynthesis inhibiting piperazine, pyridine, pyrimidine and azole fungicides. In: Modern Selective Fungicides, [Lyr H. (edn.)]. Longman and Wiley, New York, USA, pp. 205-231.
  15. Spolti, P., De Jorge, B.C. and Ponte, E.M.D. (2012). Sensitivity of Fusarium graminearum causing head blight of wheat in Brazil to tebuconazole and metconazole fungicides. Tropical Plant Pathology. 37: 419-423.
  16. Van der Maesen, L. J. G. (1972). A monograph of the genus with special reference to the chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), its ecology and cultivation. Communication Agriculture. 208-216. 
  17. Walter, P. F. (1997). Experimental design theory and application, 3rd Ed., New York, p. 55. 

Editorial Board

View all (0)