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. Manjunatha1,*, M. Saifulla2
1Department of Plant Pathology, College of Agriculture, Karekere, Hassan, UAS, Bangalore-560 065, Karnataka, India.
2Department of Plant Pathology, University of Agricultural Sciences, Gandhi Krishi Vignan Kendra, Bengaluru-560 065, Karnataka, India.
  • 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.
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is the oldest and third most important pulse crop after dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and dry peas (Pisum sativum L.). It is believed to be originated in south-eastern Turkey (Ladizinsky, 1975). The genus Cicer, includes nine annuals and 34 perennial herbs (Van Der Maesen, 1972). In India, chickpea ranks second in area and third in production, perhaps is the largest producer of chickpea in the world covering 80 per cent area and 85 per cent of total production with a productivity of 844 kg/ha (www.iipr.res.in).
       
Among several constrains that lead to  low  productivity of chickpea, biotic and abiotic factors are very important. The chickpea  is  suffering from  172 pathogens  including 67 fungi, 22 viruses, 3 bacteria, 80 nematodes and mycoplasma  from all over the world (Nene et al., 1996).  Among all the pathogens, only a few causes massive damage to the crop.  Some of the diseases in order of their  importance are wilt (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceri), wet root rot (Rhizoctonia solani), dry root rot (Macrophomina phaseolina), Ascochyta blight (Ascocthya  rabiei) and collar rot (Sclerotium  rolfsii). Among them, dry root rot caused by M. phaseolina is becoming serious threat to chickpea production, it causing 10-35 per cent loss in yields  in most of the chickpea growing regions of India (Mahendra Pal, 1998).
       
Macrophomina phaseolina is primarily seed and soil-borne fungal pathogen having wide host range. In chickpea, infected seeds and microsclerotia surviving in the soil are the major source of primary inoculum. For soil borne diseases, use of fungicides alone is not feasible due to environmental hazards involved. Hence integrated management of the disease by utilizing  host plant resistance, fungicides and bio-control agents is the best alternative (Ramarethinum et al., 2001). Investigations were made in the present study to identify resistant varieties, best fungicide and bioagent for management of dry root rot in chickpea.
Two hundred and twelve genotypes consisting of one hundred and ten desi, sixty one Kabuli types supplied by IIPR Kanpur, ten genotypes of local germplasm and advanced breeding material entries from AICRP on chickpea, GKVK, UAS, Bangalore and thirty one chickpea entries supplied by ICRISAT Patancheru, Hyderabad were  screened using blotter paper technique (Nene et al., 1981) for  identifying resistant genotypes for dry root rot.
 
Blotter paper technique
 
The mycelial discs of Macrophomina phaseolina culture KAMP-1 (seven days old) was inoculated to 500 ml conical flasks consisting  sterilized 250 ml of Potato Dextrose Broth (PDB) and incubated for seven days. The mycelial mat from the conical flasks was removed and macerated in a warring blender along with 100 ml of sterilized distilled water for a minute. The inoculum was later collected in a beaker. In the mean time, the chickpea seedlings were raised in plastic pots containing sterilized sand mixed soil. One week old seedlings were uprooted and the roots were immersed in sterile water in order to remove the adhered soil particles. The seedlings were then immersed completely in the inoculum in a beaker for a minute.  The seedlings particularly the root portion were then placed side by side on a blotter paper (45 cm x 25 cm with one fold) in such a way that only the cotyledons and roots are covered and the green tops of seedlings remained outside and then blotter paper was folded. The folded blotter papers as a heap of ten were then placed in trays and kept in an incubator at 35°C for eight days provided with 12- h artificial light, 80 per cent RH and the blotters were moistened with sterile water every day. One of these ten blotters had the seedlings of susceptible check (L-550).  At the end of the incubation period (8 days), the seedlings were examined for the extent of root damage, and scored for the disease on a 1-9 rating scale (Nene et al., 1981). Ten seedlings of each entry were considered as one replication, Based on the disease score the genotypes were grouped into different disease reaction categories as mentioned below.
 
Management of dry root rot by fungicides and bioagents
 
The experiment on the management of dry root rot in chickpea was conducted during the Kharif and Rabi of 2013-14 at ZARS, GKVK, UAS, Bengaluru, Karnataka using a susceptible variety JG-11 with a plot size 3 X 2 sq.m and  spacing of 30 x 10 cm in a RCBD design consisting 14 treatments including control and 3 replications. The treatments were -seed treatment with Trichoderma viride @ 5 g/ kg of seeds (T1), seed treatment with T. viride @ 10 g/ kg of seeds (T2), seed treatment with Pseudomonas florescence @ 5 g/ kg of seed (T3), seed treatment with P. florescence @ 10 g/ kg of seed (T4), soil application of T. viride @ 5 kg in 50 kg of FYM (T5), soil application of T. viride @10 kg in 50 kg of FYM (T6), seed treatment with carbendazim @ 2 g + thiram @ 1 g/kg of seed (T7), seed treatment with carbendazim @ 2 g + captan @ 1 g/kg of seeds (T8), seed treatment with carbendazim + mancozeb (Saff) @ 2 g/ kg of seed) (T9), seed treatment with tebuconazole (Raxil) @ 2 g/kg of seeds (T10), seed treatment with tebuconazole (Raxil) @ 2 g + carbendazim 1 g/ kg of seed (T11), seed treatment with carboxin 37.5% + thiram 37.5% (vitavax power) @ 2 g/ kg of seed (T12), seed treatment with carboxin 37.5% + thiram 37.5% (vitavax power) @ 2g + T. viride @ 5 g/ kg of seed (T13) and untreated control (T14). The observations on disease incidence and yield parameters were recorded at maturity for each treatment.
 
Statistical analysis
 
The experimental data collected were analyzed statistically for its significant or non-significant difference by the normal statistical procedure adopted for completely randomized design and randomized block design and interpretation of data was carried out in accordance with Walter (1997). The level of significance used in ‘F’ and ‘T’ test was P=0.05 and P=0.01. Critical differences were calculated wherever ‘F’ test was significant. The value of per cent disease incidence was subjected to arcsine transformation.

Table 1: Categorization of chickpea genotypes into different disease ratings on 1-9 scale.

Among two hundred and twelve entries screened in blotter paper method only one entry ie. PBG 5 was found to be moderately resistant, twenty nine entries found moderately susceptible, one hundred and nine entries were found susceptible and seventy three entries were found highly susceptible (Table 2). Earlier workers have also screened chickpea genotypes against dry root rot. Nagamma et al., (2015) screened hundred and sixty five chickpea entries and reported none of them to be resistant or moderately resistant. Whereas, Pande et al., (2004) screened forty seven chickpea germplasm lines and found three of them to be resistant, 22 moderately resistant, 19 susceptible and three highly susceptible under blotter paper technique. Om et al., (2012) screened 170 genotypes for dry root rot  during the year 2007-10 under blotter paper method, 68 genotypes exhibited resistant reaction (<10% mortality).
 

Table 2: Disease reaction of chickpea entries for dry root rot under blotter paper method.


       
Among the fourteen treatments imposed for the management of dry root rot in chickpea in both kharif  and rabi season of 2013-14. The seed treatment with tebuconazole @ 2 g/kg (T10) recorded the lowest  (11.77 and 7.08%) dry root rot incidence with a yield of 666.57 kg/ha and 779.04 kg/ha, respectively in kharif and rabi and is at par with T11 [ST with tebuconazole (2 g/kg) + carbendazim (1 g/kg)] which recorded 15.09  and 15.05  per cent disease incidence with a yield of 564.43 kg/ha and 629.04 respectively  in kharif and rabi.  These treatments were found significantly superior over control which recorded highest dry root rot incidence as 41.87  and 38.33 with a lowest yield of 310.55 kg/ha and 413.49kg/ha respectively, in kharif and rabi (Table 3).
 

Table 3: Management of dry root rot in chickpea by utilizing synthetics and bioagents during the year 2013-14.


       
In both the seasons the treatment T10: ST with tebuconazole @ 2 g/kg recorded lowest per cent disease incidence of  9.43, with a highest yield of 722.81 kg/ha, which is at par with T11: ST with  tebuconazole 2 g + carbendazim 1 g/kg which recorded 15.07 per cent disease incidence with a yield of 596.74 kg/ha followed by T8: ST with carbendazim 2 g + captan 1 g/kg of seed which recorded 15.21 per cent disease incidence with a  mean yield of 519.92 kg/ha. These treatments are significantly superior to control which recorded 40.10 per cent disease incidence with a lowest mean yield of 362.02 kg/ha (Table 3).
       
It has been shown that tebuconazole ((RS)-1-(4-chlorophenyl)-4,4-dimethyl-3-(1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-ylmethyl)-pentan-3-alcohol) was highly effective against Fusarium graminearum (Spolti et al., 2012). It is a systemic fungicide of the triazole group, and the primary mode of action is the inhibition of ergosterol biosynthesis in fungi (Hewitt, 1998). Even though different triazole fungicides have a similar mechanism of action, they may show marked differences in their activity against different fungal pathogens (Buchenauer, 1987; Scheinpflug and Kuck, 1987). This broad-spectrum, relatively new triazole fungicide is being used for its effectiveness against soil-borne and foliar fungal diseases in nut, fruit, cereal and vegetable crops worldwide (Munoz-Leoz et al., 2011).
       
Results of the present study are in agreement with Brenneman et al., (1991) who reported the antifungal activity of tebuconazole against Sclerotium rolfsii and Rhizoctonia  solani  in vitro. Kanwal et al., (2012) evaluated different concentrations viz. 35, 70, 105 and 140 ppm of tebuconazole against three problematic soil-borne fungal phytopathogens namely M. phaseolina, F. oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici and S. rolfsii using food poisoning technique, all the concentrations of tebuconazole completely arrested the growth of all the three fungal species.
Authors want to express the acknowledgement to Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, for providing financial support for carrying out Ph.D. research under the INSPIRE Fellowship programme and AICRP on chickpea, GKVK, UAS, Bangalore, Karnataka.

  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)