Advertisement

Evaluation of biocontrol agents for the management of root-rot of mung bean caused by Macrophomina phaseolina

  • Shumaila ShahidEmail author
  • Mujeebur Rahman Khan
Research Article

Abstract

Present study was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of various biocontrol agents through seed treatment against root-rot of mung bean caused by Macrophomina phaseolina under pot condition. Maximum control of the disease was observed on treatment with T. viride (46.7%) and P. aeruginosa (44.4%) which improved the yield parameters by 28.6 and 25.9%; and functional nodules by 51.9–57.0% with 22.4–22.9% greater leghemoglobin content in the nodules (P < 0.05). Their treatment also improved the leaf chlorophylls (30.2–35.8%) and carotenoids (31.3–32.0%). Soil population of M. phaseolina in the pots treated with antagonists was 40.8–67.3% lesser, being greatest with T. viride and P. aeruginosa.

Article Highlights

  • The root-rot disease caused by Macrophomina phaseolina significantly reduced the grain yield of mung bean by 36%.

  • The biocontrol agents checked the root-rot severity by 31–47%.

  • Trichoderma viride was the most effective with 47% disease decline and 29% yield increase.

  • Pseudomonas aeruginosa checked the disease (44%) and improved the yield (26%) of mungbean.

  • Soil population of the biocontrol agents increased considerably, but of pathogens declined.

Keywords

Management Macrophomina phaseolina Pseudomonas aeruginosa Root-rot disease Trichoderma spp. 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The financial support provided by the Department of Science and Technology (DST), New Delhi during the present study is greatly acknowledged.

References

  1. Abawi GS, Pastor-Corrales MA (1990) Root rots of beans in Latin America and Africa: diagnosis, research methodologies, and 129 management strategies. CIAT, Cali, p 114Google Scholar
  2. Akhtar MS, Siddiqui ZA (2009) Effect of phosphate solubilizing microorganism and rhizobium on the growth, nodulation, yield and root rot disease complex of chickpea under field conditions. Afr J Biotechnol 8:3489–3496Google Scholar
  3. Ali NI, Siddiqui IA, Shaukat SS, Zaki MJ (2001) Survival of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in various carriers for the inhibition of root rot-root knot disease complex of mung bean. Phytopathol Medit 40:108–112Google Scholar
  4. Arnon DI (1949) Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts.Polyphenoloxidase in Beta vulgaris. Plant Physiol 24:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandopadhyay A, Bandopadhyay AK, Samajpati N (2008) In vitro antifungal activity of some biocontrol fungi against jute pathogen Macrophomina phaseolina. Indian Phytopathol 61(2):204–211Google Scholar
  6. Dhingra OB, Sinclair JB (1978) Biology and pathology of Macrophomina phaseolina. Universidade Federal de Viscosa, Brazil, p 166Google Scholar
  7. Dospehov BA (1984) Field experimentation: statistical procedures. Mir Publishers, Moscow, p 352Google Scholar
  8. Dubey SC, Bhavani R, Singh B (2009) Development of Pusa 5SD for seed dressing and Pusa Biopellet 10G for soil application formulations of Trichoderma harzianum and their evaluation for integrated management of dry root rot of mung bean (Vigna radiata). Biol Control 50:231–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guizzardi M, Caccioni DRL, Pratella GC (1995) Resistance monitoring of Monilinia laxa (Aderh. et Ruhl.) honey to benzimidazoles and dicarboximides in postharvest stage. J Plant Dis Protect 102:86–90Google Scholar
  10. Hendry GAF, Price AH (1993) Stress indicators: chlorophylls and carotenoids. In: Hendry GAF, Grime JP (eds) Methods in comparative plant ecology. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 148–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Howell CR, Hanson LE, Stipanovic RD, Puckhaber LS (2000) Induction of terpenoid synthesis in cotton roots and control of Rhizoctonia solani by seed treatment with Trichoderma virens. Phytopathology 90:248–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ikram N, Dawar S (2014) Impact of biocontrol agents in combination with Prosopis juliflora (Swartz) DC. In controlling the root-infecting fungi of leguminous crops. Arch Phytopathol Plant Protect 47(8):930–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jeffries P, Young TWK (1994) Interfungal parasitic relationships. CAB International, Wallingford, p 296 (ISBN: 9780851986708) Google Scholar
  14. Kapoor AS (2008) Biocontrol potential of Trichoderma spp. against important soilborne diseases of vegetable crops. Indian Phytopathol 61(4):492–498Google Scholar
  15. Khan MR, Khan SM, Mohiddin FA (2004) Biological control of fusarial wilt of chickpea through seed treatment with the commercial formulations of Trichoderma harzianum and/or Pseudomonas fluorescens. Phytopathol Medit 43:20–25Google Scholar
  16. Khan MR, Shahid S, Anwer MA (2011) Management of grey mould of chickpea, Botrytis cinerea with bacterial and fungal biopesticides using different modes of inoculation and application. Biol Control 57:13–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Khan MR, Shahid S, Mohidin FA, Mustafa U (2017) Interaction of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. gladioli and Meloidogyne incognita on gladiolus cultivars and its management through corm treatment with biopesticides and pesticides. Biol Control 115:95–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Khatoon N, Shafique AS, Noreen R, Sultana V, Badar B, Ehteshamul-Haque S (2014) Role of endophytic and rhizospheric fluorescent Pseudomonas associated with mung bean in suppressing the root rotting fungi of mung bean. Int J Biol Res 2(2):115–123Google Scholar
  19. Khodke SW, Raut BT (2010) Management of root rot/collar rot of soybean. Indian Phytopathol 63(3):298–301Google Scholar
  20. Mackinney G (1941) Absorption of light by chlorophyll solution. J Biol Chem 140:315–322Google Scholar
  21. Pan S, Mukherji R, Bhagat S (2013) Evaluation of Trichoderma spp. against soil borne plant pathogens. Ann Plant Protect Sci 21:197–198Google Scholar
  22. R Development Core Team (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/
  23. Raguchander T, Samiappan R, Arjunan G (1993) Biocontrol of Macrophomina root rot of mung bean. Indian Phytopathol 46(4):379–382Google Scholar
  24. Sadasivam S, Manickam A (1992) Biochemical methods, 3rd edn. New Age International Publishers, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  25. Sankar P, Sharma RC (2001) Management of charcoal rot of maize with Trichoderma viride. Indian Phytopathol 54(3):390–391Google Scholar
  26. Saravanakumar D, Harish S, Loganathan M, Vivekananthan R, Ajendran L, Raguchander T, Samiyappan R (2007) Rhizobacterial bioformulation for the effective management of Macrophomina root rot in mung bean. Arch Phytopathol Plant Prot 40(5):323–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shahid S, Khan MR (2016a) Biological control of root-rot on mung bean plants incited by Macrophomina phaseolina through microbial antagonists. Plant Pathol J 15:27–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shahid S, Khan MR (2016b) Management of root-rot of mung bean caused by Macrophomina phaseolina through seed treatment with fungicides. Indian Phytopathol 69(2):128–136Google Scholar
  29. Sharma P, Sharma M, Raja M, Shanmugam V (2014) Status of Trichoderma research in India: a review. Indian Phytopathol 67(1):1–19Google Scholar
  30. Tandel DH, Sabalpara AN, Pandya JR (2010) Efficacy of phytoextracts on Macrophomina phaseolina (Tassi) Goid causing leaf blight of green gram. Int J Pharma Biol Sci 2:1–5Google Scholar
  31. Waksman SA (1922) A method for counting the number of fungi in the soil. J Bacteriol 7:339–341PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Weller DM, Raaijmakers JM, Gardener BBM, Thomashow LS (2002) Microbial populations responsible for specific soil suppressiveness to plant pathogens. Annu Rev Phytopathol 40:309–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wrather JA, Anderson TR, Arsyad DM, Tan Y, Ploper LD, Porta-Puglia A, Ram HH, Yorinori JT (2001) Soybean disease loss estimates for the top 10 soybean producing countries in 1998. Can J Plant Pathol 23:115–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Phytopathological Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Plant PathologyICAR-Indian Agricultural Research InstituteNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agricultural SciencesAligarh Muslim UniversityAligarhIndia

Personalised recommendations