Banner
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive

volume 22 issue 1 (march 2002) : 14 - 17

ANTAGONISTIC EFFECT OF SOIL FUNGI TO FUSARIUM SOLANIAPPEL AND WLLENWEHER

V
V. Ainbikapathy
A
A. Panneerselvam
R
R. Saravanamuthu·
1P.G. Department of Botany and Microbiology, A.VVM. Sri Pushpam College (Autonomous), Poondi - 613 503, Thanjavur District, India

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Ainbikapathy V., Panneerselvam A., Saravanamuthu· R. (2025). ANTAGONISTIC EFFECT OF SOIL FUNGI TO FUSARIUM SOLANIAPPEL AND WLLENWEHER. Agricultural Science Digest. 22(1): 14 - 17. doi: .

ABSTRACT

Antagonistic interactions of some soil fungi namely Aspergillus candidus, A. niger, A. sydowi, A. sulphureus, Gliocladium sp., Penicillium citrinum, Trichoderma harzianum, T. viride against Fusarium solani was tested in dual culture experiments. The effect of cell free culture filtrates of these organisms on the growth of the pathogen was also studied.

KEYWORDS

    REFERENCES

    1. Baker, R. (1990). In: Biological control of soil borne plant pathogens (Hornby, D. 'ed), CAB. International, Wallingford, pp.375-388. Vol. 22, No.1, 2002 17
    2. Dickinson, C.H. and Broadman, F. (1971). Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc., 55: 293-305.
    3. Dwivedi, RS. and Dubey, RC. (1987).lnt. J. Trap. PI. Diseases 5: 147-152.
    4. Fravel, D.R (1988). Ann. Rev. Phytopath. 26:75-91.
    5. Gottlieb, D. (1976). J. Anbitiotics, 24: 987-1000.
    6. Jackson, R.M. (1965). In: Ecology and soil borne plant pathogens, (Backer, KF. and Synder, W.C. ed.), Vni. California Press, Berkely, 363-369.
    7. Khara, H.S. and Hadwan, HA (1990). PI. Diseases Res. 2:144-147.
    8. Naik, NK and Sen, B. (1992). In: Recent Development in Biocontrol of Plant Diseases, (Mikerji, KG. et al. ed.),
    9. Aditya Books, New Delhi, pp.37-51.
    10. Panneerselvam, A. and Saravanamuthu, R (1994). J. Indian Bot. Soc. '13: 265-267.
    11. Panneerselvam, A. and Saravanamuthu, R (1996). Indian J. Agric. Res. 30: 59-64.
    12. Panneerselvam, A. and Saravanamuthu, R (1999).lnt. J. Geobios 26: 123-126.
    13. Porter, C.L. (1924). Am. J. Bot. 11: 166-188.
    14. Robinson, P.M. (1969). New Phytol. 68: 351-357.
    15. Skidmore, A.M. and Dickinson, C.M. (1976), Trans. Br. Mycol. $oc. 66: 57-64.
    16. Tu, J.C. (1992). In: Recent Developments in Biocontrol of Plant Diseases (Mukerji, KG. et al., OOs), Aditya Books, New Delhi, pp.24-32.
    17. Vpadhyay, RK and Arora, DK (1980). Experientia, 36: 185-186.
    Published In
    Agricultural Science Digest
    Article Metrics
    Metrics Icon
    0
    Views
    0
    Citations
    Reviewed By
    Share Article
    Download Article
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us

      volume 22 issue 1 (march 2002) : 14 - 17

      ANTAGONISTIC EFFECT OF SOIL FUNGI TO FUSARIUM SOLANIAPPEL AND WLLENWEHER

      V
      V. Ainbikapathy
      A
      A. Panneerselvam
      R
      R. Saravanamuthu·
      1P.G. Department of Botany and Microbiology, A.VVM. Sri Pushpam College (Autonomous), Poondi - 613 503, Thanjavur District, India

      • Submitted|

      • First Online |

      • doi

      Cite article:- Ainbikapathy V., Panneerselvam A., Saravanamuthu· R. (2025). ANTAGONISTIC EFFECT OF SOIL FUNGI TO FUSARIUM SOLANIAPPEL AND WLLENWEHER. Agricultural Science Digest. 22(1): 14 - 17. doi: .

      ABSTRACT

      Antagonistic interactions of some soil fungi namely Aspergillus candidus, A. niger, A. sydowi, A. sulphureus, Gliocladium sp., Penicillium citrinum, Trichoderma harzianum, T. viride against Fusarium solani was tested in dual culture experiments. The effect of cell free culture filtrates of these organisms on the growth of the pathogen was also studied.

      KEYWORDS

        REFERENCES

        1. Baker, R. (1990). In: Biological control of soil borne plant pathogens (Hornby, D. 'ed), CAB. International, Wallingford, pp.375-388. Vol. 22, No.1, 2002 17
        2. Dickinson, C.H. and Broadman, F. (1971). Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc., 55: 293-305.
        3. Dwivedi, RS. and Dubey, RC. (1987).lnt. J. Trap. PI. Diseases 5: 147-152.
        4. Fravel, D.R (1988). Ann. Rev. Phytopath. 26:75-91.
        5. Gottlieb, D. (1976). J. Anbitiotics, 24: 987-1000.
        6. Jackson, R.M. (1965). In: Ecology and soil borne plant pathogens, (Backer, KF. and Synder, W.C. ed.), Vni. California Press, Berkely, 363-369.
        7. Khara, H.S. and Hadwan, HA (1990). PI. Diseases Res. 2:144-147.
        8. Naik, NK and Sen, B. (1992). In: Recent Development in Biocontrol of Plant Diseases, (Mikerji, KG. et al. ed.),
        9. Aditya Books, New Delhi, pp.37-51.
        10. Panneerselvam, A. and Saravanamuthu, R (1994). J. Indian Bot. Soc. '13: 265-267.
        11. Panneerselvam, A. and Saravanamuthu, R (1996). Indian J. Agric. Res. 30: 59-64.
        12. Panneerselvam, A. and Saravanamuthu, R (1999).lnt. J. Geobios 26: 123-126.
        13. Porter, C.L. (1924). Am. J. Bot. 11: 166-188.
        14. Robinson, P.M. (1969). New Phytol. 68: 351-357.
        15. Skidmore, A.M. and Dickinson, C.M. (1976), Trans. Br. Mycol. $oc. 66: 57-64.
        16. Tu, J.C. (1992). In: Recent Developments in Biocontrol of Plant Diseases (Mukerji, KG. et al., OOs), Aditya Books, New Delhi, pp.24-32.
        17. Vpadhyay, RK and Arora, DK (1980). Experientia, 36: 185-186.
        In this Article
          Contact us
          Follow us
          Published In
          Agricultural Science Digest

          Editorial Board

          View all (0)