Australasian Plant Pathology

, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp 68–72 | Cite as

Evaluation of fungicides and biocontrol agents against Phomopsis canker of tea under field conditions

  • P. PonmuruganEmail author
  • U. I. Baby


An experiment was conducted to study the efficacy of contact and systemic fungicides and biocontrol agents in controlling Phomopsis canker disease of tea under field conditions. Among the various treatments, soil application and wound dressing of biocontrol agents was found to be superior to fungicides in controlling Phomopsis canker. Dressing wounds with contact fungicides such as copper oxychloride and mancozeb was found ineffective whereas drenching soil with systemic fungicides such as carbendazim and contaf was moderately effective. Various treatments healed wounds to varying degrees and improved plant health. The bud break, tipping weight and green leaf yield were also increased to some extent in plants after treatments. Among the biocontrol agents tested, Gliocladium virens was better than Trichoderma harzianum in terms of curing cankers and increasing yield potential. The initial carbohydrate level of 9.38% increased with various treatments and was increased to 15.18% in cut-across pruned plants treated by soil application and wound dressing using G. virens. Similarly, the initial carbohydrate level of 9.15% increased to 11.89% when rejuvenated plants (pruned to healthy tissue) were treated with G. virens. In the case of the untreated control, the canker size increased from 6.37 by 2.24 cm to 8.57 by 3.17 cm and the plants appeared unhealthy with yellowing of the leaves and stunted growth associated with heavy flowering.

biological control field study Phomopsis theae 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ahmad JS, Baker R (1987) Competitive saprophytic ability and cellulolytic activity of rhizosphere competent mutants of Trichoderma harzianum. Phytopathology 77, 358–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arunachalam K (1995) ‘A hand book on Indian tea.’ (Standard Literature Co. Pvt. Ltd: Calcutta, India)Google Scholar
  3. Baby UI (2001) Diseases of tea and their management. A review. In ‘Plant pathology’. (Ed. PC Trivedi) pp. 315–327. (Pointer Publication: Jaipur, India)Google Scholar
  4. Baby UI, Chandramouli B (1996) Biological antagonism of Trichoderma and Gliocladium spp. against certain primary root pathogens of tea. Journal of Plantation Crops 24, 249–255.Google Scholar
  5. Baby UI, Manibhushanrao K (1993) Control of rice sheath blight through the integration of fungal antagonists and organic amendments. Tropical Agriculture 70, 240–244.Google Scholar
  6. Baby UI, Ponmurugan P, Premkumar R, Radhakrishnan B, Udayabhanu KG, Cox S (2001) Incidence of Phomopsis canker in south Indian tea plantations. Planters Chronicle 97, 303–307.Google Scholar
  7. Barges HD (1981) ‘Microbial content of pest and plant diseases.’ (Academic Press: New York)Google Scholar
  8. Bore KAJ (1996) A review of problems of old tea fields. Tea 17, 27–33.Google Scholar
  9. Borthakur BK, Dutta PK (1992) Prospects of biocontrol of tea diseases in North East India. In ‘Proceedings of the 31st Tocklai Conference 1992’. (Eds BK Borthakur, PK Dutta) pp. 163–168. (Tocklai Tea Experimental Station: Jorhat, India)Google Scholar
  10. Campbell R (1989) ‘Biological control of microbial plant pathogens.’ (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chandramouli MR, Baby UI (2002) Control of thorny stem blight disease of tea with fungicides and biocontrol agents. In ‘Proceedings of plantation crops and development in the new millennium’. (Eds P Rethinum, HH Khan, VM Reddy, PK Mandal, K Suresh) pp. 531–534. (Coconut Development Board: Kochi, India)Google Scholar
  12. Cook RJ, Baker KF (1983) ‘The nature and practice of biological control of plant pathogens.’ (American Phytopathological Society: St. Paul, MN)Google Scholar
  13. Elad Y, Chet I (1983) Improved selective medium for isolation of Trichoderma or Fusarium spp. Phytoparasitica 11, 55–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elad Y, Chet I, Henis Y (1982) Degradation of plant pathogenic fungi by Trichoderma harzianum. Canadian Journal of Microbiology 28, 169–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gomez KA, Gomez AA (1984) ‘Statistical procedure for agricultural Research.’ 2nd edn. (International Rice Research Institute: Los Banos, The Phillippines)Google Scholar
  16. Hajra GN (2001) ‘Tea cultivation, a comprehensive treatise.’ (International Book Distributing Company: Lucknow, India)Google Scholar
  17. Hegde YR, Anahosur KH (2000) Effect of false smut of rice as yield compounds and growth parameters. Indian Phytopathology 53, 181–184.Google Scholar
  18. McCready RM, Guggolz J, Silviera V, Owens HS (1950) Determination of starch and amylose in vegetables. Analytical Chemistry 22, 1156–1158. doi: 10.1021/ac60045a016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marimuthu S, Manivel L, Rajkumar R (1996) Carbohydrate reserves in tea roots. Planters Chronicle 91, 43–45.Google Scholar
  20. Onsando JM (1990) Report of the Plant Pathologist. Kenyan Tea Annual Report for 1990. pp. 160–172.Google Scholar
  21. Papavizas GC (1985) Trichoderma and Gliocladium, biology, ecology and potential for biocontrol. Annual Kevia Physiology 23, 23–54.Google Scholar
  22. Ponmurugan P (2001) Studies on Phomopsis theae Petch infecting tea (Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze) in south India. Division of Plant Pathology, UPASI TRF-TRI, Valparai Affiliated to Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India.Google Scholar
  23. Ponmurugan P, Baby UI (2003) In vitro interaction of fungal antagonists with Phomopsis theae, the causal agent of collar canker disease in tea. Indian Journal of Microbiology 43, 41–44.Google Scholar
  24. Ponmurugan P, Baby UI (2006a) Management of Phomopsis canker of tea with fungicides and biocontrol agents. Journal of Plantation Crops 33, 175–178.Google Scholar
  25. Ponmurugan P, Baby UI (2006b) Effect of biocontrol agents on morphological, physiological and biochemical response of Phomopsis canker affected tea plants. The Plant Pathology Journal 6, in press.Google Scholar
  26. Ponmurugan P, Baby UI, Premkumar R, Radhakrishnan B (2002) Integrated control of Phomopsis canker disease of tea. In ‘Proceedings of the 15th plantation crops symposium XV’. (Eds K Sreedharan, VM Reddy, PK Mandal) pp. 599–602. (Coconut Development Board: Mysore, India)Google Scholar
  27. Ponmurugan P, Baby UI, Gopi C (2006) Efficacy of certain fungicides against Phomopsis theae under in vitro. African Journal of Biotechnology 5, 434–436.Google Scholar
  28. Rattan PS (1986) Effect of drought and irrigation on the incidence of stem and branch canker caused by Phomopsis theae Petch. TRF Quarterly News Letter 83, 19–21.Google Scholar
  29. Shanmuganathan N (1965) Collar and branch canker in young tea caused by Phomopsis theae Petch. Tea Quarterly 36, 14–21.Google Scholar
  30. Siven A, Chet I (1989) Degradation of fungal cell walls by lytic enzymes of Trichoderma harzianum. Journal of General Microbiology 135, 675–682.Google Scholar
  31. Venkataram CS (1973) Influence of genetic factors and cultural practices on Phomopsis canker disease of tea. UPASI TRI Scientific Bulletin 30, 5–17.Google Scholar
  32. Vesseur V, Arigoni F, Anderson H, Defago G, Bompeix G, Seng JM (1990) Isolation and characterization of Aphanocladium album chitinase over producing mutants. Journal of General Microbiology 136, 2561–2567.Google Scholar
  33. Windham MI, Eland Y, Baker R (1986) A mechanism for increased plant growth induced by Trichoderma spp. Phytopathology 76, 518–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Australasian Plant Pathology Society 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of BiotechnologyK.S. Rangasamy College of TechnologyNamakkal DistrictIndia
  2. 2.Division of Plant Pathology, UPASI Tea Research FoundationTea Research InstituteIndia

Personalised recommendations