Advertisement

Sugar Tech

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 192–194 | Cite as

Possibilities of Development of Red Rot Resistance in Sugarcane Through Somaclonal Variation

  • Pankaj Kumar
  • A. Agarwal
  • A. K. Tiwari
  • M. Lal
  • M. R. A. Jabri
Short Communication

Abstract

Red rot behavior of 50 somaclones of sugarcane variety CoS 88230, was studied by plug and nodal methods of inoculation using a mixture of four isolates of Colletotrichum falcatum. The results revealed that most of the somaclones had red rot susceptibility to varying degrees except four somaclones viz. SC-15, 20, 22 and 30, which were found moderately resistant (MR) by plug method of inoculation. Two somaclones viz. SC-22 and 30 were found resistant by nodal method of inoculation. Using plug method of inoculation, the aforesaid four somaclones viz. SC-15, 20, 22 and 30 were also found moderately resistant against all the four strains if tested individually, according to 0–9 scale except against isolate R 8411. These somaclones were better in red rot resistance than the donor variety CoS 88230. The wide variations observed in a number of traits along with red rot behavior in the somaclonal population was possibly due to complex genetic nature and existence of chromosomal mosaicism in commercial hybrid varieties of sugarcane.

Keywords

Somaclonal variation Sugarcane Red rot resistance 

References

  1. Gill, R.S., Madhu Meeta, K.S. Thind, and Bipen Kumar. 2007. Identification of red rot resistant promising crosses. Sugar Tech 9: 321–324.Google Scholar
  2. Jalaja, N.C., T.V. Sreenivasan, S.M. Pawar, P.G. Bhoi, and R.M. Garker. 2006. Co 94012—a new sugarcane variety through somaclonal variation. Sugar Tech 8(2&3): 132–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Jambhale, N.D., S.C. Patil, and T. Pradeep. 1995. Tissue culture in sugarcane improvement—a review. Ann Conv DSTA, Pune 44: 10–20.Google Scholar
  4. Murashige, T., and F. Skoog. 1962. A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiologia Plantarum 15: 473–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ramanand, N.Kureel., N. Subhanand, M. Lal, and S.B. Singh. 2006. Plantlet regeneration through leaf callus culture in sugarcane. Sugar Tech 8(1): 85–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Singh, G., S.K. Sandhu, Madhu Meeta, K. Singh, R. Gill, and S.S. Gosal. 2008. In vitro induction and characterization of somaclonal variation for red rot and other agronomic traits. Euphytica 160(1): 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Sreenivasan, T.V., and N.C. Jalaja. 1995. Utility of tissue culture technology in sugarcane improvement. In: Application of Bio-technology for sustainable sugarcane production. Ann Conv DSTA, Pune 44: 1–9.Google Scholar
  8. Srinivasan, K.V., and N.R. Bhat. 1961. Red rot of sugarcane: Criteria for grading resistance. Journal of the Indian Botanical Society 11: 566–577.Google Scholar
  9. Tiwari, A.K., Y.P. Bharti, N. Mishra, S. Tripathi, M. Lal, P.K. Sharma, G.P. Rao, and M.L. Sharma. 2010. Biotechnological approaches for improving sugarcane crop with special reference to disease resistance. Acta Phytopathologica et Entomologica Hungrica 45: 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Sugar Research & Promotion 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pankaj Kumar
    • 1
  • A. Agarwal
    • 1
  • A. K. Tiwari
    • 2
  • M. Lal
    • 2
  • M. R. A. Jabri
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BotanyG.F. CollegeShahjahanpurIndia
  2. 2.U.P. Council of Sugarcane ResearchShahjahanpurIndia

Personalised recommendations