Volume 13, number 4
 Views: (Visited 326 times, 1 visits today)    PDF Downloads: 1389

Singh J, Singh V, Kumar R, Chand R. Screening of Different Genotypes of Pigeonpea(Cajanus Cajan L. Millsp.) Against Phytophthora Drechsleri F. Sp. Cajani Under Natural Epiphytotic Environment. Biosci Biotech Res Asia 2016;13(4).
Manuscript received on : 24 November 2016
Manuscript accepted on : 30 November 2016
Published online on:  --

Plagiarism Check: Yes

How to Cite    |   Publication History    |   PlumX Article Matrix

Screening of Different Genotypes of Pigeonpea(Cajanus Cajan L. Millsp.) Against Phytophthora Drechsleri F. Sp. Cajani Under Natural Epiphytotic Environment

Jagjeet Singh, Vineeta Singh, Rajesh Kumar and Ramesh Chand

Department of Mycology and Plant Pathology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221005, India.

Corresponding Author E-mail: jagjeetsingh2511@gmail.com

DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.13005/bbra/2389

ABSTRACT: Pigeonpea is one of the major legumes and it is one of the most important among edible legumes of the world. Diseases are major constraints affecting both production and yield stability of pigeonpea(Kannaiyan and Nene, 1984).In IndiaFusarium wilt, sterility mosaic, Phytophthora blight and Phoma stem canker are considered most important diseases of pigeonpea causing extensive damage to the crop. Our study were based on screening resistant genotypes against Phytophthora blight of pigeonpea caused by Phytophthora drechsleri f. sp. cajani(Pdc).Seventy three genotypes were planted with susceptible check (ICP-7119). All genotypes were inoculated with Phytophthora drechsleri f. sp. cajani by knife cut method and data of lesion size were taken at two different time intervals.Out of 73 genotypes only five of them viz.WRG-220, GT-101, GAUT-001, BSMR-853, ICP-2376 were found fully resistant against infection of Phytophthora drechsleri f. sp. cajani(Pdc).

KEYWORDS: Cajanas cajan; Pdc; Genotypes; Phytophthora drechsleri

Download this article as: 
Copy the following to cite this article:

Singh J, Singh V, Kumar R, Chand R. Screening of Different Genotypes of Pigeonpea(Cajanus Cajan L. Millsp.) Against Phytophthora Drechsleri F. Sp. Cajani Under Natural Epiphytotic Environment. Biosci Biotech Res Asia 2016;13(4).

Copy the following to cite this URL:

Singh J, Singh V, Kumar R, Chand R. Screening of Different Genotypes of Pigeonpea(Cajanus Cajan L. Millsp.) Against Phytophthora Drechsleri F. Sp. Cajani Under Natural Epiphytotic Environment. Biosci Biotech Res Asia 2016;13(4). Available from: https://www.biotech-asia.org/?p=16781

Introduction

Pigeonpea is one of the important pulse crops in India. It plays a very significant role in Indian economy. Phytophthorablight disease of pigeonpea is very crucial factor responsible for decreased productivity of pigeonpea. The first suspected occurrence of PB on pigeonpea in India was reported in 1966 by Williams et al. (1968). Since then the disease has spread to most pigeonpea growing areas in Asia (Pal et al., 1970; Williams et al., 1975), Africa, America (Kannaiyan et al., 1984), Australia (Wearing and Birch, 1988), Dominican Republic, Kenya, Panama and Puerto Rico (Nene et al., 1996). High susceptibility of presently grown cultivars to Phytophthora drechsleri f. sp. cajaniis responsible for severe appearance of Phytophthora blight disease of pigeonpea. The only way to overcome this problem will be to ‘stack’ multiple resistances, based upon distinct mechanisms of action. Resistant source may be obtained by evaluating germplasms against Phytophthora drechsleri f. sp. cajani. Commonly used methods for screening of resistant germplasms include knife cut method.

Materials and Methods

Seventy three genotypes were planted in field of Institute of Agricultural Sciences, BHU, Varanasi, India in the month of July. One row of susceptible check (ICP-7119) was sown after every ten test rows to ensure enough inoculum. The seeds were sown at 10 cm distance in 3 meter rows. The row to row distance was 30 cm. All conventional agronomic practices were followed to keep the crop in good condition. When plant become 5 month old then 10 replications of eachgenotypes were inoculated with 15 mm mycelial disc of 12 days old culture (Knife cut method, Nene et al., 1981) of Phytophthora drechsleri f. sp. cajani. The infected plants were counted after 5-10 days of inoculation.

Table 1: Rating scale (1-9) for disease rating of Phytophthora blight of pigeonpea (Reddy et al., 1991)

Rating Reaction category Phytophthora blight
Plant mortality (%) Stem lesion type
1 Resistant 6-10 Lesion size 0.6-1 cm2 ,smooth lesion
3 Moderately resistant 21-30 Lesion size more than 1 cm2 , smooth lesions girdling the stem
5 Moderately susceptible 31-50 Lesion size 2 to 3 cm2  ,smooth lesion with stem cracking
7 Susceptible 51-57 Lesion size 3 to 4 cm2 , large lesions with cracking and girdling of the stem
9 Highly susceptible Plant killed Lesion size more than 4 cm2 and plants killed

Results and Discussion

Mean of lesion size of each genotype at different time interval is described inTable 2 and Table3. The data of Table 4 revealed that among seventy three genotypes, none was found immune or disease free against Phytophthora drechsleri f. sp. cajani. Five genotypes  namely WRG-220, GT-101, GAUT-001, BSMR-853, ICP-2376 showed resistant reaction against Phytophthora drechsleri f. sp. cajani; thirteen genotypes i.e. BSMR-528, PA-409, RVKT-260, RVKT-261, ICPL-87119, ICPL-87091, RVSA-07-24, RVSA-07-10, ICP-8863, BRG-11-1, BRG-2, BRG-3, BDN-2observed moderately resistant reaction; twenty seven genotypes namely WRG-222, WRG-197, PT-04-307, BSMR-2, JKM-189, NTL-900, IPAC-4, IPAC-8, PALAE-1, IPAC-68, MAL-13, IPA-8F, RVSA-07-31, KPL-43, RVSA-07-29, RVSA-07-22, WRP-1, GRG-811, GRG-333, BRG-1, CORG-9701, BRG-4, WRG-232, WRG-196, WRG-224, BSMR-579, BWR-133 expressed moderately susceptible reaction while, twenty eight genotypes i.e. AKTE-11-1, MA-6, ICP-7119, PA-406, IPA-204, BAHAR, KPL-44, IPA-15F, GRG-2009, ST-3R, BRG-11-1, BSMR-736, UPA S-120showed susceptible reaction against Phytophthora drechsleri f. sp. cajani.

Table 2: Screening of genotypes by artificial inoculation (Knife cut method) under field conditions recorded 5 days after inoculation with P. drechsleri f. sp. cajani (KJ412453)

S. No. Genotypes Mean of lesion sizes(cm2) Disease reaction S. No. Genotypes Mean of lesion sizes (cm2) Disease

Reaction

1 WRG-222 2.9 MS 38 BSMR-2 2.3 MS
2 WRG-197 2.2 MS 39 ICP-7119 4.6 S
3 PT-04-307 2.4 MS 40 BSMR-528 1.9 MR
4 PA-409 1.8 MR 41 JKM-189 2 MS
5 ICP-7119 4.8 S 42 RVKT-260 1.8 MR
6 AKTE-11-1 4.3 S 43 RVKT-261 1.9 MR
7 NTL-900 2.7 MS 44 ICP-7119 4.3 S
8 MA-6 3.8 S 45 ICP-2376 0.6 R
9 ICP-7119 4.4 S 46 ICP-7119 4.6 S
10 PA-406 3.2 S 47 ICPL-87119 1.7 MR
11 IPAC-4 2 MS 48 ICP-7119 4.8 S
12 IPAC-8 2.6 MS 49 ICPL-87091 1.9 MR
13 IPA-204 3.3 S 50 PALAE-1 2.4 MS
14 ICP-7119 4.5 S 51 IPAC-68 2.5 MS
15 BAHAR 3.3 S 52 MAL-13 2 MS
16 KPL-44 2.7 MS 53 ICP-7119 4.4 S
17 IPA-8F 2.1 MS 54 RVSA-07-24 1.8 MR
18 IPA-15F 3.2 S 55 RVSA-07-31 2 MS
19 ICP-7119 4.7 S 56 RVSA-07-10 1.9 MR
20 KPL-43 2.8 MS 57 RVSA-07-29 2 MS
21 ICP-8863 1.8 MR 58 ICP-7119 4.5 S
22 BRG-11-1 1.9 MR 59 RVSA-07-22 2 MS
23 BRG-1 2.2 MS 60 WRP-1 2 MS
24 ICP-7119 4.7 S 61 GRG-811 2.4 MS
25 BRG-2 1.9 MR 62 GRG-333 2 MS
26 BRG-3 1.9 MR 63 ICP-7119 4.6 S
27 WRG-220 0.6 R 64 GRG-2009 3.1 S
28 CORG-9701 2.2 MS 65 ST-3R 3.8 S
29 ICP-7119 4.6 S 66 BRG-4 2.2 MS
30 GT-101 0.6 R 67 BRG-11-1 3.6 S
31 GAUT-001 0.5 R 68 ICP-7119 4.7 S
32 BSMR-736 2.9 MS 69 UPAS-120 3.1 S
33 BSMR-853 0.6 R 70 WRG-232 2.2 MS
34 ICP-7119 4.4 S 71 WRG-196 2.7 MS
35 BDN-2 1.8 MR 72 WRG-224 2.7 MS
36 BSMR-579 2.2 MS 73 ICP-7119 4.8 S
37 BWR-133 2 MS  

Table 3: Screening of genotypes by artificial inoculation (knife cut method) under field
conditions 10 days after inoculation with P. drechsleri f. sp. cajani (
KJ412453)

S. No. Genotypes Mean lesions sizes(cm2) Disease reaction S. No. Genotypes Mean lesions sizes(cm2) Disease

reaction

1 WRG-222 2.6 MS 38 BSMR-2 2.3 MS
2 WRG-197 2.5 MS 39 ICP-7119 4.8 S
3 PT-04-307 2.4 MS 40 BSMR-528 1.9 MR
4 PA-409 1.8 MR 41 JKM-189 2 MS
5 ICP-7119 5 S 42 RVKT-260 1.8 MR
6 AKTE-11-1 4.6 S 43 RVKT-261 1.9 MR
7 NTL-900 2.8 MS 44 ICP-7119 5 S
8 MA-6 3.9 S 45 ICP-2376 0.6 R
9 ICP-7119 4.7 S 46 ICP-7119 4.9 S
10 PA-406 3.2 S 47 ICPL-87119 1.9 MR
11 IPAC-4 2 MS 48 ICP-7119 4.9 S
12 IPAC-8 2.6 MS 49 ICPL-87091 1.9 MR
13 IPA-204 3.2 S 50 PALAE-1 2.4 MS
14 ICP-7119 5.1 S 51 IPAC-68 2.5 MS
15 BAHAR 3.5 S 52 MAL-13 2 MS
16 KPL-44 4 S 53 ICP-7119 5.2 S
17 IPA-8F 2.1 MS 54 RVSA-07-24 1.8 MR
18 IPA-15F 3.2 S 55 RVSA-07-31 2 MS
19 ICP-7119 5.1 S 56 RVSA-07-10 1.9 MR
20 KPL-43 2.8 MS 57 RVSA-07-29 2 MS
21 ICP-8863 1.8 MR 58 ICP-7119 5 S
22 BRG-11-1 1.9 MR 59 RVSA-07-22 2 MS
23 BRG-1 2.9 MS 60 WRP-1 2 MS
24 ICP-7119 4.9 S 61 GRG-811 2.4 MS
25 BRG-2 1.9 MR 62 GRG-333 2 MS
26 BRG-3 1.9 MR 63 ICP-7119 5.1 S
27 WRG-220 0.6 R 64 GRG-2009 3.1 S
28 CORG-9701 2.2 MS 65 ST-3R 4 S
29 ICP-7119 4.8 S 66 BRG-4 2.2 MS
30 GT-101 0.6 R 67 BRG-11-1 4 S
31 GAUT-001 0.5 R 68 ICP-7119 4.9 S
32 BSMR-736 4 S 69 UPAS-120 3.3 S
33 BSMR-853 0.6 R 70 WRG-232 2.2 MS
34 ICP-7119 4.9 S 71 WRG-196 2.7 MS
35 BDN-2 1.8 MR 72 WRG-224 2.7 MS
36 BSMR-579 2.2 MS 73 ICP-7119 5 S
37 BWR-133 2 MS  

Table 4: Screening results of different genotypes under field conditions

Reaction Number of genotypes Lesion sizes (cm) Genotypes
Disease Free/Immune 0 No any lesion found on stem _
Resistant 5 Lesion size 0.6-1 cm2 ,smooth lesion WRG-220, GT-101, GAUT-001, BSMR-853, ICP-2376
Moderately resistant 13 Lesion size more than 1 cm2 , smooth lesions girdling the stem BSMR-528, PA-409, RVKT-260, RVKT-261, ICPL-87119, ICPL-87091, RVSA-07-24, RVSA-07-10, ICP-8863, BRG-11-1, BRG-2, BRG-3, BDN-2
Moderately susceptible 27 Lesion size 2 to 3 cm2, smooth lesion with stem cracking WRG-222, WRG-197, PT-04-307, BSMR-2, JKM-189, NTL-900, IPAC-4, IPAC-8, PALAE-1, IPAC-68, MAL-13, IPA-8F, RVSA-07-31, KPL-43, RVSA-07-29, RVSA-07-22, WRP-1, GRG-811, GRG-333, BRG-1, CORG-9701, BRG-4, WRG-232, WRG-196, WRG-224, BSMR-579,
BWR-133
Susceptible 28 Lesion size more than 3 cm2 , large lesions with cracking and girdling of the stem AKTE-11-1, MA-6, ICP-7119, PA-406, IPA-204, BAHAR, KPL-44, IPA-15F, GRG-2009, ST-3R, BRG-11-1, BSMR-736, UPA S-120

This statement is in harmony with the experiment conducted by Kannaiyan et. al. (1981) in which a simple pot culture technique was used to screen 2,835 pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) accessions and cultivars and seven Atylosia spp. for resistance to Phytophthora drechsleri f. sp. cajani. Seventy seven germplasm accessions, three cultivars, and two species of Atylosia were found to be resistant. The resistance of 75 of the accessions and cultivars was confirmed under field conditions. Similarly, Pande et.al. (2006) observed 122 lines (33 lines in wilt and sterility mosaic sick plot and 89 lines including wild Cajanus spp. in other fields), 33 were resistant and 61 moderately resistant, 21 moderately susceptible and 7 susceptible to Phytophthora blight of pigeonpea. Of the three wild Cajanus species, Cajanus sericeus was found resistant, C. scarabaeoidesmoderately resistant andC. cajanifolius susceptible to Phytophthora blight of pigeonpea.

Summary and Conclusion

Genotypes screening is done in field for checking the resistance of pigeonpea against Phytophthora drechsleri f.sp. cajani causing Phytophthora blight of pigeonpea. Seventy three genotypes were used for screening and inoculation was done by knife cut method on pigeonpea plants. The result shows that eighteen genotypes are either resistant or moderately resistant not showing any symptoms or very restricted symptoms of Phytophthora blight and could be used for developing resistant varieties against Phytophthora blight of pigeonpea.

References

  1. Kannaiyan, J., Nene, Y.L., Raju, T.N., Shiela, V.K., 1981. Screening for resistance to Phytophthora blight of pigeon pea. Plant Dis. 65:61-62.
    CrossRef
  2. Kannaiyan, J., Nene, Y.L., Reddy, M.V., Ryan, J.G., Raju, T.N., 1984. Prevalence of pigeonpea diseases and associated crop losses in Asia, Africa and the Americas.
  3. Nene, Y.L, Kannaiyan, J., Reddy, M.V., 1981. Pigeon pea disease resistance screening techniques. Inf. Bull. No 9, ICRISAT, pp. 5-14.
  4. Nene, Y.L., Sheila, V.K., Sharma, S.B., 1996. A World List of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L. Millsp.) pathogens, 5th ed. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India.
  5. Pal, M., Grewal, J.S., Sarbhoy, A.K., 1970. A new stem rot of arhar caused by Phytophthora. Indian Phytopathol. 23:583-587.
  6. Pande, S., Pathak, M., Sharma, M., Rao, N.J., Tomar, O.S., 2006. Resistance to Phytophthora blight in the improved pigeonpea lines at ICRISAT, Patancheru, India. Int. Chickpea Pigeonpea Newslett. 13:42-44.
  7. Reddy, M.V., Nene, Y.L., Raju, T.N., 1991. Predisposing factors for Phytophthora blight of pigeonpea. Indian Phytopathol. 268-270.
  8. Singh, V.B., Pandey, B.P., Rathi, Y.P.S., 1985. Field screening of pigeonpea lines for resistance to Phytophthora blight at Pantnagar, India, Pigeonpea Newsletter 4:34-35.
  9. Wearing, A.H., Birch, J., 1988. Root rot of Pigeonpea. Int. Pigeonpea Newslett. 8, 13.
  10. Williams, F.J., Amin, K.S., Baldev, B., 1975. Phytophthora stem blight of Cajanus cajan. Phytopathology 65:1029-1030.
    CrossRef
  11. Williams, F.J., Grewal, J.S., Amin, K.S., 1968. Serious and new diseases of pulse crops in India in 1966. Plant Dis. Reptr. 52:300-304.
(Visited 326 times, 1 visits today)

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.