Mycopathologia et mycologia applicata

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 213–224 | Cite as

The nutrition of colletotrichum gloeosporioides penz

  • R. N. Tandon
  • Sudhir Chandra
Article

Summary

Colletotrichum gloeosporioides could grow and sporulate on a wide range of pH (viz., from 3.0 to 8.5). The best growth was obtained at pH 6.0. Mannitol proved to be the best carbon source. Good growth and sporulation were also observed on maltose, glucose, galactose and sucrose. Nitrates supported better growth than ammonium compounds. Glutamic acid was found to be the best amino acid. Nitrites inhibited the growth completely at acid pH values but they supported growth at alkaline pH. Mannitol-glutamic acid was most suitable carbon-nitrogen combination for growth. Magnesium sulphate was the only sulphur source which was good both for growth and sporulation. The organism could not grow on media lacking carbon, nitrogen or sulphur.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Burger, O. F., 1924: Cited from:Rev. appl. Mycol. 3: 380–381, 1924.Google Scholar
  2. Cantino, E. C., 1949:Amer. J. Bot. 36: 95–112.Google Scholar
  3. Chaturvedi, C., 1961: D. Phil. Thesis, University of Allahabad.Google Scholar
  4. Chaudhuri, H. &G. Singh, 1930:Proc. 17th Indian Sci. Congr.: 280.Google Scholar
  5. Chowdhury, S., 1947:Curr. Sci. 16: 152–153.Google Scholar
  6. Cochrane, V. W., &J. E. Conn, 1950:Bull. Torrey bot. Club. 77: 10–18.Google Scholar
  7. Cochrane, V. W., 1958: Physiology of fungi. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York.Google Scholar
  8. Fawcett, H. S., 1936: Citrus diseases and their control. McGraw Hill Publications in the Agricultural Science, New York & London.Google Scholar
  9. Foster, F. W., 1949: Chemical Activities of Fungi. Academic Press, New York, 648 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Gottlieb, O. &D. Cifferri, 1956:Mycologia 48: 253–263.Google Scholar
  11. Hawkins, L. A., 1915:Amer. J. Bot. 2: 375–389.Google Scholar
  12. Jennison, M. W., M. D. Newcomb &R. Henderson, 1955:Mycologia 47; 3: 275–304.Google Scholar
  13. LaFuze, H. H., 1937:Plant Physiol. 12: 625–646.Google Scholar
  14. Leonian, L. H. &V. G. Lilly, 1938:Phytopathology,28: 531–548.Google Scholar
  15. Lilly, V.G. &H. L. Barnett, 1951: Physiology of the fungi. McGraw Hill Publications, New York, 464 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Mallik, P. C. &Hasan, S. M., 1959:Sci. & Cult. 25: 321–322.Google Scholar
  17. Mitter, J. H. &R. N. Tandon, 1930:J. Indian bot. Soc. 9: 190–198.Google Scholar
  18. Nord, F. F. &R. P. Mull, 1945:Advances in Enzymol. 5: 165–205.Google Scholar
  19. Pelletier, R. L. &G. W. Keitt, 1954:Amer. J. Bot. 41: 362–371.Google Scholar
  20. Prasad, N. &R. D. Singh, 1960:Curr. Sci. 29, 2: 66–67.Google Scholar
  21. Ramsey, G. B. 1943:U.S. Dept. Agric. Plant. Dis. Rept. 27: 255.Google Scholar
  22. Sattar, A. &S. Malik, 1939:Indian J. agric Sci. 9: 511–521.Google Scholar
  23. Semeniuk, G., 1942:Iowa State Coll. J. Sci. 16: 337–348 (Cited fromCochrane, 1958, p. 248).Google Scholar
  24. Steinberg, R. A., 1942:J. agric. Res. 64: 455–475.Google Scholar
  25. Tandon, R. N. &K. S. Bilgrami, 1957:Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. (India)27B 2: 98–105.Google Scholar
  26. Tandon, R. N. &K. S. Bilgrami, 1959:Proc. Nat. Inst. Sci. (India)25: 138–142.Google Scholar
  27. Tandon, R. N. &S. Chandra, 1962a:Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. (India)32B: 391–398.Google Scholar
  28. Tandon, R. N. &S. Chandra, 1962b:Flora (In press).Google Scholar
  29. Thind, K. S. &L. Duggal, 1957:Curr. Sci. 26: 393.Google Scholar
  30. Varma, A., 1961: M. Sc. Thesis, University of Allahabad.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr. W. Junk 1962

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. N. Tandon
    • 1
  • Sudhir Chandra
    • 1
  1. 1.Botany DepartmentUniversity of AllahabadAllahabad

Personalised recommendations