Chief EditorJ. S. Sandhu
Print ISSN 0250-5371
Online ISSN 0976-0571
NAAS Rating 6.67
Impact Factor 0.8 (2023)
Evaluation for the Resistance of Green Gram (Vigna radiata L.) Germplasm against Macrophomina phaseolina
Methods: M. phaseolina sand maize meal inoculum was applied to the field in sufficient amounts to maintain the sick plot before planting green gram germplasm, each germplasm was planted in three rows of 5 m in length, maintaining a distance between plants of 10 cm, the incidence of DRR was recorded using a disease rating scale. Based on disease reaction, green gram germplasm was grouped into different categories
Result: From 25 green gram germplasm, four germplasm showed a resistant reaction to dry root rot, namely IPM-02-03, G-2, MH-2-15, MUM-2, while this has been observed. Susceptibility of green gram germplasm to dry root rot such as RMG-26.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The experiment was conducted during the 2017 Kharif season at the experimental field, College of Agriculture, Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner.
The crop was properly observed to record the first appearance of the disease after germination and the observation was taken at the time of maturity of a crop by randomly selecting 20 plants from each germplasm according to the method described (Anonymous, 2004). The incidence of the disease was recorded at maturity and the PDI was calculated as follows:
Layout and sowing
In this experiment, 25 germplasm of green gram, namely Samrat, Ganga-1, Ganga-8, V-7240, PM-106, RMG-10, V-3890, RMG-4, RMG-40, RMG-5, RMG -8, RMG-26, PM-116, PM-111, PM-105, OUM-112, OUM-7, OUM-115, BPMR-1, HUM-9, V-3219, V-1082, MH-2-15, IPM-02-03 and Pusa Vishal were collected from ARS, Sri Ganganagar and germplasm were screened in Macrophomina phaseolina sick plot during Kharif-2017, Macrophomina phaseolina sand maize meal inoculum was applied to the field in sufficient amounts to maintain the sick plot before planting green gram germplasm, each germplasm was planted in three rows of 5 m in length, maintaining a distance between plants of 10 cm, the incidence was recorded on a scale from 0 to 9 (Nene et al., 1981). The package of practices recommended for increasing yields was followed.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Twenty-five green gram germplasm against Macrophomina phaseolina was selected under artificial inoculation in the field, the incidence of DRR was recorded using a rating scale from 0 to 9 (Nene et al., 1981). Based on disease reaction, green gram germplasm was grouped into different categories, namely, highly resistant (HR), Resistant (R), Moderately resistant (MR), Moderately Susceptible (MS), Susceptible (S) and highly susceptible. (HS) (Table 1). None of the germplasm was recorded as highly resistant, i.e. four germplasms, IPM-02-03, G-2, MH-2-15 and MUM-2 were classified as resistant. Fifteen other germplasm, namely RMG-4, RMG-5, RMG-8, RMG-10, PM-105, PM-106, PM-111, PM-116, V-1082, V-3219, V-3940, V-7240, G-8, Pusa Vishal and Samrat were moderately resistant, five germplasm were moderately susceptible, i.e. BPMR-1, RMG-14, OUM-7, OUM -112, OUM-115 and the remaining germplasm RMG-26 was susceptible (Table 2).
Twenty-five green gram germplasm was tested against M. phaseolina under artificial inoculation in the field. The reaction to the disease was recorded according to a standard rating scale. None of the germplasm was highly resistant (HR), while four germplasm, namely MUM-2, MH-2-15, G-2 and IPM-02-03 were classified as resistant (R). Another fifteen germplasm were classified as moderately resistant. (MR), five germplasm were moderately susceptible and one remaining germplasm of RMG-26 was susceptible (S) (Table 3).
Choudhary et al., (2011), tested twenty-five of green gram germplasm to determine the source of Macrophomina phaseolina resistance to DRR in the field. The three germplasm MSJ-118, KM 4-44 and KM 4-59 were resistant to dry root rot. Similarly, Haseeb et.al., (2013) tested twenty-seven green gram germplasm against M. phaseolina in the field under artificial inoculation, No one is immune from dry root rot, germplasm such as Azari 2006, NM 2006 and AUM 9 was found to be resistant.
Resistant germplasm can be used in a crop improvement program after further testing with a large number of virulent M. phaseolina strains. The IPM99-125 germplasm has higher plant survival can be beneficial in green gram breeding programs to create germplasm that is resistant to DRR, (Pandey et al., 2020).
Among 26 genotypes, 2 (MNUYT-317 and NM-2011) were highly resistant, 10 were moderately resistant (Mung-12004, MNUYT-317, Mung-12007, MNUYT-201, MNUYT-219, AZRI-2006, Mung - 12002, MNUYT -318, MNUYT-207 and MNUYT-107, (Akhtar and Shoaib, 2018). Thombre and Kohire (2018) found that BPMR-145 was resistant and two more germplasm JL-781 and Kopargaon were susceptible.
Most workers collected germplasm against Macrophomina phaseolina and at the time of selection found resistant or moderately resistant germplasm. We also found germplasm to be resistant and moderately resistant to Macrophomina phaseolina and these can be used for crop improvement programs after further testing and these results are confirmed by the previous findings.
- Akhtar, S., Khan, K. A., Shoaib, A. (2018). Response of Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek genotypes to charcoal rot disease. Mycopath. 14(1 and 2).
- Anonymous (2004). Annual Report. Indian Institute of Pulse Research, Kanpur.
- Charles, Y.Y. (1978). In: Mungbean Diseases and Control, the First International Mungbean Symposium. AVRDC, Taiwan.
- Choudhary, S., Choudhary, A.K., Sharma, O.P. (2011) Screening of green gram (Vigna radiata) germplasm to identify the source of resistance to dry root rot. Journal of Food Legumes. 24(2): 117-119.
- Haseeb, H.A., Sahi, S.T., Ali, S. and Fiaz, M. (2013). Response of different mung bean varieties against Macrophomina phaseolina (Tassi) goid and in vitro studies of plant extracts against the pathogen. Pakistan Journal of Phytopathology. 25(1): 78-83.
- Hoes, J.A. (1985). Macrophomina phaseolina causal agent of charcoal rots of sunflower and other crops. Agricultural Canada Research Statistics, Modern Manitoba.
- Iqbal U., Mukhtar T., Iqbal S. M., Ul-Haque I., Malik S.R. (2010). Host plant resistance in black gram against charcoal rot [Macrophomina phaseolina (Tassi) Goid]. Pakistan Journal of Phytopathology, 22(1): 126-129.
- Nene, Y.L., Haware, M.P., Reddy, M.V. (1981). Chickpea Diseases: Resistance-Screening Techniques. Information Bulletin No. 10, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, ICRISAT Patancheru P.O., Andhra Pradesh 502 324, India
- Pandey, A.K., Burlakoti, R.R., Kenyon, L. and Nair, R.M. (2018). Perspectives and challenges for sustainable management of fungal diseases of mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek var. radiata]: A Review. Frontiers in Environmental Science. 6: 53.
- Pandey, A.K., Burlakoti, R.R., Rathore, A., Nair, R.M (2020). Morphological and molecular characterization of Macrophomina phaseolina isolated from three legume crops and evaluation of green gram genotypes for resistance to dry root rot. Crop Protection. 127: 104962.
- Thombre, B.B., Kohire, O.D (2018). Integrated management of Macrophomina blight of green gram (Vigna radiata L.) caused by Macrophomina phaseolina (Tassi) Goid. Indian Phytopathology 71(3): 423-429.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.