Mycopathologia et mycologia applicata

, Volume 27, Issue 3–4, pp 265–272 | Cite as

Nutritional studies on Colletotrichum gloeosporioides Penz

  • C. Chaturvedi


Colletotrichum gloeosporioides isolated from the diseased leaves ofPolyscias balfuriana could grow and sporulate on a wide range of pH (viz. from 3.0 to 9.0). Maximum growth was recorded at pH 5.5. Mannitol was the best carbon source for growth. Good growth as well as good or excellent sporulation was also recorded on glucose, fructose, maltose and starch. Organic acids (malic and tartaric) supported poor growth.

Present organism could utilize a number of nitrogen sources. Nitrates in general were comparatively better sources than ammonium compounds. Aspartic acid was found to be the best nitrogen source for growth. Nitrites were toxic at lower pH values though they supported growth at alkaline medium. Best growth of the organism was obtained on MgSO4, 7H2O. The urea supported poor growth. ZnSO4 inhibited the growth completely. The present organism was incapable of growing in media lacking carbon, nitrogen or sulphur.


Starch Nitrite Fructose Mannitol Nitrogen Source 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Burger, O. F. (1924). Rev. appl. Mycol.3: 380–381.Google Scholar
  2. Chaudhuri, H. &G. Singh (1930). Proc. 17th Sci. Cong. 280.Google Scholar
  3. Chowdhury, S. (1947). Curr. Sci.16: 152–153.Google Scholar
  4. Cochrane, V. W. &J. E. Conn (1950). Bull. Torrey Bot. Club77: 10–18.Google Scholar
  5. Fawcett, H. S. (1936). Citrus diseases and their control. McGraw Hill Publications in the Agricultural Science, New York & London.Google Scholar
  6. Foster, F. W. (1949). Chemical Activities of Fungi. Academic Press, New York, 648 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Gottlieb, O. &D. Ciferri (1956). Mycologia48: 253–263.Google Scholar
  8. Hawkins, L. A. (1915). Amer. J. Bot.2: 375–389.Google Scholar
  9. Khan, A. H. (1959). Mycopathol. et Mycol. Appl.19: 289–302.Google Scholar
  10. Leonian, L. H. &V. G. Lilly (1938). Phytopathology,28: 531–548.Google Scholar
  11. Lilly, V. G. &H. L. Barnett (1951). Physiology of the fungi. McGraw Hill Publications, New York, 464 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Mallik, P. C. &S. Hasan (1959). Sci. & Cult.25: 321–322.Google Scholar
  13. Mitter, J. H. &R. N. Tandon (1930). J. Indian bot. Soc.9: 190–198.Google Scholar
  14. Nord, F. F. &R. P. Mull (1945). Advances in Enzymol.5: 165–205.Google Scholar
  15. Prasad, N. &R. D. Singh (1960). Curr. Sci.29, 2: 66–67.Google Scholar
  16. Ramsey, G. B. (1943). U.S. Dept. Agric. Plant. Dis. Rept.27: 255.Google Scholar
  17. Sattar, A. &S. Malik (1939). Indian J. agric. Sci.9: 511–521.Google Scholar
  18. Steinberg, R. A. (1942). J. agric. Red.64: 455–475.Google Scholar
  19. Tandon, R. N. &A. Verma (1962). Phyton,19: 49.Google Scholar
  20. Tandon, R. N. &C. Chaturvedi (1963). Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. India, Sect. B33: 361–469.Google Scholar
  21. Tandon, R. N. &K. S. Bilgrami (1959). Proc. Nat. Inst. Sci. India,25: 138–142.Google Scholar
  22. Tandon, R. N. &S. Chandra (1962). Mycopathol. et Mycol. Appl.18: 213–224.Google Scholar
  23. Thind, K. S. &L. Duggal (1957). Curr. Sci.26: 393.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr. W. Junk 1965

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Chaturvedi
    • 1
  1. 1.U. P. Agricultural UniversityPant Nagar, NainitalIndia

Personalised recommendations