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
Submit

Research Article

Legume Research, volume 43 issue 5 (october 2020) : 678-682

Measuring and assessing the yield loss and yield loss model of green gram due to Anthracnose of green gram (Vigna radiata)

Tanya Marak, Trina Sandham, Sunita Mahapatra, Srikanta Das
1Department of Plant Pathology, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswa Vidyalaya, Mohanpur-741 252, West Bengal, India.

  • Submitted25-04-2018|

  • Accepted28-12-2018|

  • First Online 13-03-2019|

  • doi 10.18805/LR-4030

Cite article:- Marak Tanya, Sandham Trina, Mahapatra Sunita, Das Srikanta (2019). Measuring and assessing the yield loss and yield loss model of green gram due to Anthracnose of green gram (Vigna radiata). Legume Research. 43(5): 678-682. doi: 10.18805/LR-4030.

ABSTRACT

Anthracnose of green gram caused by Colletotrichum truncatum (Schwein.) Andrus & W.D. Moore occurs severely in Indo- gangetic plains every year. Experiment was conducted for two consecutive years (2013 and 2014) to assess yield losses to develop yield loss models. The linear regression models were developed by two parameters i. e. percent yield loss and avoidable yield loss as dependant variable and area under disease progress curve (AUDPC) as independent variable. The two years pooled mean revealed that a drop of 0.3 to 0.33 qha-1 in pod yield and a drop of 0.16 to 0.20% in avoidable yield loss of pod yield due to every 1% increase in AUDPC. Three sprays of Propiconazole 25 EC (0.1%) at 10 days interval beginning from 20 days after sowing resulted in lowest anthracnose under moderate disease pressure and four sprays for high disease pressure resulted in highest pod yield of 5.17q/ha and 5.08q/ha respectively. Highest avoidable losses of pod yield and percent yield loss over potential yield due to anthracnose were 48.82% and 3.55% for three sprays and 49.74% and 1.77% for four sprays respectively. The result also showed that three sprays of fungicide (Propiconazole 25 EC @ 0.1%) resulted in minimizing the disease and maximizing the profit by high benefit cost ratio (B:C) ratio.

REFERENCES

  1. Anonymous. (2012). Project Co- ordinator’s report AICRP on MULLaRP crops, IIPR, Kanpur.
  2. Benagi V.I. (1995). Epidemiology and management of late leaf spot of groundnut caused by Phaeoisariopsis pesonata (Berk and Curt.) V. Arx. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka, India.
  3. Bharadwaj C.L. and Thakur D.R. (1991). Efficacy and economics of fungicide spray schedules for control of leaf spots and pod blights in urdbean. Indian Phytopathology, 44(2): 470-475.
  4. Deeksha J. and Tripathi H.S. (2002). Cutural, biological and chemical control of anthracnose of urdbean. Journal of Mycology and Plant Pathology, 32(1): 52-55.
  5. Kulkarni S.A. (2009). Epidemiology and integrated management of anthracnose of greengram. Ph.D. (Agri.) Thesis, University of Agricultual Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka, India.
  6. Lal M, Sharma S, Ahmad I, Singh BP and Yadav S (2014).Development of yield loss assessment model for potato late blight disease in indo-gangetic plains. Potato J. 41 (2):130-136.
  7. Laxman R. (2006). Studies on leaf spot of greengram caused by Colletotrichum truncatum (Schw.) Andrus and Moore. M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka, India. 
  8. Madhusudhan B.S. (2002). Studies on soybean anthracnose caused by Colletotrichum truncatum (Schw.) Andrus and Moore. M.Sc. Thesis (Agri.), University of Agricultural Science, Dharwad, Karnataka, India.
  9. Mahapatra S. and Das S. (2013). Evaluation of Fungicides and Botanicals against Leaf blight of Mustard. Indian Journal of Plant Protection. 41(1):61-65.
  10. Mahapatra S. and Das S. (2016). Linear regression model for assessing the yield of mustard due to Alternaria leaf blight disease. Indian Phytopathology 69(1): 57-60.
  11. Mahapatra S. and Das S. (2017). Assessment of yield loss of mustard due to alternaria leaf blight in Gangetic plains of West Bengal. Indian Phytopathology. 70(3): 322-325.
  12. Mayee C.D. and Dattar V.V. (1986). “Phytopathomatry”. Technical Bulletin-I, Marathawad Agricultural University, Parbhani, India, p. 146.
  13. Saha P. and Das S. (2013). Assessment of loss due to early blight (Alternaria solani) and influence of weather factors on disease development on Tomato. Journal of Agrometeorology.15 (1): 82-85.
  14. Shtienberg, D. (1990). Evaluation of the single tillers method for yield loss assessment in wheat under Israeli conditions. Journal of Phytopathology, 130(4): 331-341. 
  15. Sharma H.C., Khare M.N., Joshi L.K. and Kumar S.M. (1971). Efficacy of fungicides in the control of diseases of kharif pulses mung and urid. All India Workshop on Kharif Pulses. p. 2
  16. Shukla V., Baghel S., Maravi K. and Singh S.K. (2014). Yield loss assessment in mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek] caused by anthracnose [Colletotrichum truncatum (Schw.) Andrus and Moore]. The Bioscan, 9(3): 1233-1235.
  17. Vanderplank J.E. (1963). Plant Diseases: Epidemics and Control. Academic Press, New York. 349 pp.
  18. Walker PT (1983). Crop losses: The need to quantity the effects of pests, diseases and weeds on Agricultural production. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 9:119-158.
  19. Wheeler B. E. (1969). An Introduction to Plant Diseases. John Wiley and Sons Ltd,London, UK.
  20. Wilcoxson R. D., Skovmand B. and Atif A. H. (1975). Evaluation of wheat cultivars for their ability to retard development of stem rust. Annals of Applied Biology 80: 275 – 281
  21. Zadoks J. C., Chang T. T. and Konjak C. F. (1974). A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Research, 14: 415–421.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)