ANNUAL REPORT ON COWPEA PATHOLOGY - 988 Bf ...
ANNUAL REPORT
ON COWPEA PATHOLOGY -
988
Bf
B"G. 2AIKWAD.
RESEARCH - BAMBEr'
***+*************
Res is tance screening was t.he
air. i tcrn o f ’ research during ‘ch<: year
1988. This included v i r u s and bacteria hlight screening in the field as ~11
as in the screen house ~xcler artif‘ici a
inoculation. Resistance
screeni nk.: for
other diseases such as veh blight, ash
stem blight , ccrcosporiosct
a131 cl;oar.e-
itiiura
_’
~OS rot. was done under fi 01 d con
tions only in the disease nurseq’ rIlot..
V i r u s transmi.ssion s t c d i e s through sec
znd by insects were c o n t i n c e d durirg
t:his year also. Simi.larly a s t a t i s t i c a
y laid O;it experiri1er.t for estirnatior.
of yield loss due to virus was conduct
to confirm the results of’ last: ;:ear 1’:
filler triai. A new experiment on chem
31 control of ashy stem bl.ight: wns
icitiated. The results of all these ex
riments are discussed in the fnllowing
pages.
I. RESISTANCE SCREENING FOR : TOR DISEASES.
1 .l. Screening for virus res
;ance :
5
2
ent.ries comprising 3f !l8 ?eding I.ir:es f’rom advanced genor;:t ior::
acd 4 -Jarieties w e r e screcned f o r t h e i
Tir<s resi s t,ar.ce under field col:clit io1.s
at Djibelor. These entries were dividel
into 4 sets each with 11. I~r*ceil. i.r.g 1 i nt. s
3 varie tes and 5 p;:~:: r;.: n<.; brecding li
j which are likely t,o go into minikit
trials . ln the f irst set one breeding
?e w a s replaced hy Ndiambour. :‘:l:;s C17” t1
set had 19 entries >:ith 4 replications
fhey were planted i n a randomised block
design. Each entry h a d 4 POWS o f 5rn l e
th spaced al. 50 cm. The spncir:): :~i thir:
t h e pl.anLs was kept a t 50cm.
C>rie row of a local susceptible variety
1s som
ir? between 2 replications of
each experiment. This served as spreadl
row . ‘l’he spreader rows were inocul at4
with the sap from the virus infected l( res which helped to t;:j..*C:t;ti Lhc: i~fect:ior.
to the test entries. ‘The inoculum was
?pared by blending virus infected leaves
in the phosphate buffer. C~“;.~‘~o;-‘rr.d~r;l,
pt
ler was added to the inoculum to act
as an abrasive. The inoculation was do:
by rc~~t)<r;~ the fully grown wel 1 cxpar-:ied
primary leaves with a forefinger wettel
fi th the inoculum. The sowing was done
on 6/C18 while the inoculation was done
I 31/08. The infection on the spreadér
rows was quite satisfactory. The obser,
tions on test entries were recorded twice.
The summary o f observatioiis
:i p r e s e n t
in table
‘i’nb:te 1 : Virüs ir,cider.ce ir. the f ir 1 ;tt IJjibelor or: the entries $:)f
advaRccd y i e l d triais.
I
’
Yield tria1 1
1
l -
58-57 x IT 81~ 1137
’ 253 N
47-17
mild symptoms
2
-If-
/ 275 N 1
2-27
mild symptoms
3
-"_
j 279 N 1
33-53
4
- "_
1 283 N
1
4-65
5
- '1 -
/ 299 i‘!
1
4-12
6
IMougce ~!y 82D 713
1 360 u
(
0.00
7
I
-"_
/ 398 N
1
0.58
8
I
-"_
/ 399 N
1
0.57
1 mild symptoms
9
158-57 x Tvx 3236
j 400 N
1
3.98
10
I
-"_,
j 401 N
1
0.00
I
11
1
-""_
1 402 N
1
4.00
I
12
I
- I' -
i 403 !l
1
2.47
I
13
1
-"_
4.60
l
14
1
-"_
f>.OO
I
15
I
-“_
0.57
1 mild symptoms
16
1
-“_
0.00
I
1’7
I
-“_
36.47
I
18
I
- ‘1 _
1
Tvx3236/
0.00
19
/
I “_
1
Ndiamtow
8.52
-7. -----
I
I
1 -ield tria1 JK
I
1
1
113
y’, :: )!
50-65
mil d symptr iris
/
2
z75 N
3-41
mild symptoms
/
3
- ‘1 -
,17c' N
11-04
4
I
- “_
1 283 N
/
ii.00
mild symptcms
5
1
-“_
1 299 N
l
1.17
6
[ Mc1::gr.e x IT ti2D 7
1 360 N
/
1.72
7
-"_
1 363 N
I
0.57
(mild symptoms
8
/ 56-57 x Tvx ‘!i36
407 N
I
0.00
I
9
I
- " -
408 N
0.00
l
10
I
- "_
409 N
Q.57
I
11
I
- " -
1
'110 N
l
0.57
Imild symptoms
12
I
-"-
1
'il1 fi
I
0.00
I
13
I
- "W
'il2 Ii
l
1.14
1
mild :,ymptoms
14
- " -
413 K
I
0.57
15
- '1 -
414 N
0.00
16
I
- 1' -
I
415 N
0.00
17
I
I 13 21
I
0.00
18
I
I 58-57
23.57
19
I
ITVX 3236
0 . 00
,~_--. -
-
i
I
L
-~--- ---T---
I
1 Yield
III tria1
l
I
I
I
1
s t';'81v 1
’
253 N
38.33
' mild S)Tlll>i,ofD:
- 1, -
1
275 N
1 7.39
1 mi 1-d symptomr
- '1 _
1 279 N
I 43.35
l
- ‘1 -
1
283 N
1 6.3Lk
lnild symptom:
B”_
/ 299 N
1 3.68
I
6
1
Dlor;gne x .I?’ 82 D
1 356 N
l
0.57
Imild symptom:
7
l
t 368 N
I
0.00
I
v
( 5,1-57 x ‘i’vx 3236
1 416 N
I
0.00
I
9
I
- ” -
( 417 N
I
5.70
1
10
I
- ‘1 -
1
418 N
I
0.00
I
1 1
l
-“_
1 420 N
1.70
1 mild symptorx
1 2
I
_“_
)
421 N
0.00
I
13
l
- ” -
1 422 N
I
0.00
I
1 4
-“V
1 423 N
I
0.57
jmil$ symptomz
15
- ‘1 -
1 424 N
0.57
lzq.! .1 sgimptoms
16
,t
- -
1 425 N
0.00
f
17
1 B21
I
0.00
I
1 f:
) 50-57
1 32.92
1
1’)
jTvx 3236
I
0.00
l
l
- -L--L-
-Y--
1 ‘.:
T -i.cld tria1 IV
I
~-
I
I
1 ->&I>‘I x J.T C<~E) 113’
1 253 N
158-02
/I:i7 l d symptoms
i
- ” -.
l
1
275 N
1 1.14
(ni ld symptoms
- ” -.
I
1 279 N
117.81
1
,‘i
-“_
I
( 283 N
( 3.75
Irni Ld synptoms
rj
- ‘1 -
I
1 299 N
1 0.00
I
cr
0.00
l -‘“’
:lu\\:gre x I?' 32D 1713
1 365 N
‘;1
I
- " -
1 371 N
0.00
8
) 58-57 x TV x 3236
1 426 N
0.00
I
?
1
- "_
1 427 N
I 2.00
I
10
I
I "V
1 428 N
( 2.00
I
11
I
- " -
1 429 N
0.00
12
- '1 -
1 430 N
0.00
I
1.3
-"_
1 431 N
0.00
l
14
I
- '1 -
1 432 N
0.00
I
15
I
- " -
1 433 N
I 0.00
I
1 b
(5:'-57 x ZT81 D 1032
1 437 N
l 0.59
17
1 B 21
0.00
I
18
1 58-57
49.01 1
19
~TVX 3236
0.00
I
f >
tlll the entrirs f’rom the cross 58-57 x I’I’ 31 1, 113i’, which were tested in
ail i iie triais developeti v i r u s infectior ;n various dei-:rees except one viz., 299 N
;I~ic’r: was free from virus in tria1 N’4p,r ,r.o;st thesc (r.1 :“ ?:: 27 5 N, 283 N and 299 N had
comp;::~a’ ivcly I.ess vir::s i.r?fectior,. i\\Ior~ ovcr mild t.ypn of symptorns were observcd
I)l: z’,‘:j :L ad 283 N .
!kt: o f
1~3 breeding lines r~ory,v
-!d from t h c c r o s s e s Qiougne .x TT 82 D713,
‘58-5: x Tvs 3236 ar,d 58-57 x 1~81~ 1032,
22 were frt:e f’rom virus infection while ;?l
lvere s u s c e p t i b l e . Highest number o f virr ; free lines ( Ii?) were obtained from the
C~OS:: 5ti-5’7 x TVX 3236~ :,io.;gne x IT82D 7 1 i and 58-57 x 1’1’ 81D 1137 yielded 4 and 1
‘iiT?CS free li.nes respec tively .
Amongst the varieties 521 and ‘vx 3236 were f’ree from virus infection
!$ililc* 58-57 and Ndiambocr were susceptit .e .
.A11 these entries togetherwith some more r>~c~!dinp l.ines from the cross
. .
58-5’j x IT 81 D 1032 and few more variet !es were sc ioened in the screen house by
artif’icial inoculation. Five seeds of ea ih entry were sown in separate pots on
~1.4.9.88. The virus inoculation was done
21.9.88. The sap from the virus infected
n.caves was used for inoculation. The ino 1 lum vas p;aepnred by blending the infected
leaves in a phosphate buffer. Carborundun powder was atided t.o t h e inoculum t o a c t
i*s a abrasive. The inoculation was done ’ y rubbing the Tülly grown well expanded
primary leaves with a forefinger wetted ti th the inoculum.
The virus symptoms started appe ring by the end of September. The obser-
\\,aticns were recorded on 13 ~0.88. The se ond observation, however could not be
recorded as the plants were seriously att cked by aphids. Virus reactions noted in
t.he first observation are given in table
Table 2 : Virus reac tion
of some of the advanced breeding lines
and parents.
C;l? .N’
I
Cross
I
Entry
( Reaction
-.-
1
I
2
- - -
1
1 58-57 x IT 81~ 1137
I
253 N
..
2
I
- ‘1 -
I
275 N
R : S
3
1
- 1’ -
I
279 N
S
4
/
*
-II-
I
283 N
R : S
5
I
- ” -
I
299 N
R
6
(
Mougne x 11’ 82D 71
I
356 N
R
7
l
- " -
1.
360 N
R
8
1
-“-
1
363 N
NG
- -~
--
S!..Na
l
Cross
I
I
Entry
I
l
I
Reaction
1
I
2
..-~
-...---. _
9
) Yocgne x I'i‘ 82~ 713
1
365 E:
R
. .
10
l
- " -
l
368 N
R
11
I
-I'-
I
369 N
R
12
1
- " -
371 N
R
13
1 IT 81D 1137 x 58-57
384 N
S
14
) Mocgne x IT 811, 1137
395 N
R
15
1 58-57 x Tvx 3236
398 N
S
16 I
- ” -
l
399 N
R
17
I
-“_
I
400 N
S
18
I
OI’_
I
401 N
S
19
1
-“_
402 N
S
20
I
WI’-
403 N
I
R
21
I
-“_
I
404 N
I
S
22
I
-“V
I
405 N
I
R
23
t
-“W
I
406 N
I
R
24
I
-“_
I
407 N
I
S
25
1
- “_
I
408 N
I
R
26
I
-“_
I
409 N
I
S
27
1
- “-
I
410 N
I
R
28
1
- “W
I
411 N
R
29
1
v” -
I
412 N
R
30
I
m”_
413 N
S
31
I
-“_
414 N
R
32
1
-‘le
l
415 N
I
R
33
I
-“V
I
416 N
I
R
34
l
-‘le
I
417 N
I
R
I
35
I
-“_
418 N
S
36
1
-“W
419 N
S
37
I
- ” -
420 N
R
38
1
- ” -
421 N
R
39
1
-“_
422 N
I
R
40 I
-“_
I
423 N
I R
--
I
sr . N”
I
Cross
Entry
Reactior:
I
I
----T
.-
- ---
1
2
3
-l--
11
--
l
.-
l
I
-.-T--J---
-. -l---
- -
f
58-5.; x --
.vx 3236
I
I
R
42
1
_"<_
I
424 Q
425 NL
l
s
4 3
1
-“_
426 N
I
S
44
I
- “_
427 N
l
R
455
I
- 1, -
428 N
I
R
46
l
- “_
R
- -
429 id
47
I
I!
I
430 N
R
48
I
- ,, -
I
431 N
l
S
49
I
-“_
I
432 N
l
R
50
1
- l’-
I
433 ?J
l
S
51
1
58-57 x rl’ 8x1 1032
437 N
I
R
5%
1
_“_
438 N
I
R
53
1
-“_
I
444 N
I
R
5:+
1
-“M
I
445 N
I
R
55
1
- l’ -
I
447 N
I
R
56
- ” -
I
449 N
I
R
57
I
- “-
I
454 N
s
513
1
-“B
I
455 N
I
R
5’3
1
1
- I’-
B 21
1
R
60
- “_
l
58-57
S
6:r
I
- “_
Mougne
S
61
1
_“_
Ndiambour
S
63
1
_‘1-
Ci35
R
64
I
- ” -
1 TVx 3236
R
@,
)
- “-
) IT 84S2246-4
I
R
Notes :
R- Resistant
S-Susceptible
NC - Not germinated
R:E; - DIixtXrc of resistar.t anC
usceptible.
0i
Out o f
58 brcadir:g lires. ‘i : : ‘, .,,’ .n<: :; j st;T ‘-
‘C?:I~ tior.
:iile 18 were susceptitllc. l’wo C~:I:; ;c
viz, 2’(5N acd 2:. 3 ?,i showecl he t.tt~r !ge~e~j::~:
rcactior:. Al1 t h e er.tries frorn the cr ;s No::gne:: IT 82 1: 713 showed rcsist xi:
!‘F:acï ior:. Similariy as ir: the f iclii t r t > i 1” t,11i. G test ~-11.~0 l a r g e I:~II~E:~ of
ertrics w e r e observed t.o be r*esist::;:t .r: TF-57 x Tvx32’h c r o s s . Amnc;:st t hc
varieties,
B 21, TYX 3236, I?’ 84s 2”iic
I anri CBr; were f’: :~-~j t o b e resist:ir:t while
$?-5.; . j%:rgr.e xd Kdiantbnur were s;;:;c )tib:c . ‘iliis >ea;. CR5 w a s als0 i‘(j~:l:c< t-ri !E
virils free in the breeder’s triais as le11 as minikit triais.
The fol1owir.g 15 breedir,;: 1 les b:ere observeci to be free of’ vi rüs :i.r:
the screechouse test as well. as ir. th
fie1.d t e s t .
365 N, 368 N, 369 N, 371 N,
105 N, 4!.;;\\ N, 4iî N, 414 N, 415 N, 416 N,
421 N > 422 N, 429 N, 430 N and !+32
N.
1.2. Screenir.g for bacteria
b l i g h t resistance :
A set of 65 entrïes c0mpri.s ig o f 5 8 breedirq! lires from adval:ced ger:c-
rati0r.s ar.d
-/ varieties were scraeesr:e
aga:lnst bacterizl b l i g h t i.r. t h e screer
ilcusc ,l.‘p;-> seeds o f ‘ earst-; !;ic:‘c: .: JL;; i r !ach p o t separatcly or, 14.9.88. ‘l’i:e iEi!CG-
latior! was dorme on 24.9.88 by stem st ) method. The stems were stabbed with .’
arrow-head needle throcgh a bac ter i a1 ;mear placed o n the stem one cer.tixetcia
below the primary leaves. F’resh ~I?~CI. lrn m u l t i p l i e d or: nxtrient dext,:~ci:;~~ aga~
mediüm was used for inoc;:latior.. ‘l’he
xervations were recorded for diseuse
reaction thrice OD, 6.10.88, 13.10.88
Id 22.10.88 and are given in tabl F: 1.
Table 3 : Bacterial hligilt
and parents.
Bacterj
1 t,l.‘ght r e a c t i o n
--I
-
-
-
Entry
1st ObL ~a- 2 n d Observa-
3rd Observat ior.
1 t i o r :
I tion
I
-I_
58-57 x IT 81 D 1137
253 N
2 s
2 s
2 s
275 N
4 R
3RlS
3R 1S
279 .N
2 R
s
2R2S
2 R 2 \\ ‘;
283 N
1 R
s
1RLS
1 Ii 2 s
299 N
2 s
2 s
2 s
10
Ph.t:re x 1’1’ 82 D 71.
6
356 N
il R
7
360 N
Il R
8
363 N
N (1
?
365 N
2 K
10
368 N
3 R
1 1
369 N
3 H
12
371 N
1 R
IT 81 D 1137 x 50-51
13
384 N
2 R
s
lR2S
lR2S
b1ocgr.e x IT 81 D 1137
.
-
-
-
14
395 N
3 R
3 R
3 R
58 - 57 x TV x 3236
15
398 N
li R
‘i K
4 R
16
399 N
3 R
3 R
3 s
17
400 N
3 R
3 R
3R
18
401 N
2 R
2 R
2 R
19
402 N
4 R
4 R
4 R
2 0
403 N
1R
1 R
1 R
21
404 N
2R
3 R
1RlS
22
405 N
3R
3 R
3 R
23
406 N
4 R
4 Ii
4 R
24
407 N
2 R
2 R
2 R
25
408 N
2 R
2 R
2 R
26
409 N
4 R
4 R
4 R
27
410 N
2 R
i R
2 R
28
411 N
2 R
2 R
2 R
29
412 N
4 R
1-l R
3 R 1 PI s
30
413 N
2 R
2 R
2 R
31
414 N
3R
3 K
3 R
32
415 N
/J R
4 R
4 R
33
416 N
4R
I+ R
‘1 R
34
417 N
3 13
3H
3 R
jr.,
418 N
3R
3R
30
419 N
2 R
2 R
3;"
420 N
2 R
2 R
pi
421 N
3R
3R'.S
3”
422 N
2 R
2 R
4C.j
423 N
2 R
1H 1s
4s
424 N
3R
3 H
42
425 N
4R
11 R
45;
426 N
4 R
4 R
44
427 N
3R
jR
45,
428 N
4R
l+ R
46
429 N
1 R
1R
47
430 N
2 R
2 R
48
431 N
3R
3R
49:
432 N
4 R
4 R
50
433 N
3R
3R
58-57 x IT 81 D 10132
51
437 N
4 R
4 R
4 Ii
52
438 N
2 R
2 R
2 R
551
444 N
43
4 fi
;! R 1 ;V;S 1. 5
54
445 N
3R
13 H ï S
2HZS
55
447 N
4
'+ P
h R
56’
449 N
2 R
2 k
2 K
57
454 N
2 R
2 h
2 s
(Symptoms or! the leaves!
58
455 N
3R
3R
3R
Varieties
59
TVX 3236
1+ K
4 ri
4 R
60
IT 84s 2246-4
4R
4 K
4 R
61
;Iwgr.e
4R
4 ri
4R
'
62
58-5'7
3R
3R
1R 2MS
63
Ndiambour
2 R
2 R 2 s
1 R '3 s
6'1
B 21
4 s
4 s
4 s
65
CB5
2 s
2S
2 s
Note : R - f3esistar.t MS - Mc rately.susceptible
!; - Susceptible NC; -
It germir.ated
It is rcvcii i eci f’rorri t ho f’i
ok~servntion ttl:rt 42 breeding 1 i r.es wore
resistant to bacterial bli.ght while
er’e susceptible. Eleven breeding lines
showed h e terogeneous ;Bc;içt;i.ot::; . Or:<:
.ry developed symptoms o n
the leaves through
systemic infection. llowr:rer, sgrnptoms
: the stem were of resistant type.
Amor.gst I.hf? ;’ i.‘il’;c-; ies
!‘loü41:,
I
Tvx 32 -r; and i'i' 84 S 2 2 4 6 - 4 were r e s i s t a n
iqhile R 2 1 and CH3 xere s;;scepti i,le-’ .i“ ard Ktl iamt-lo;;i showed he terogt>neous
ji
reaction. Bacteri.a.1 blight i s
seen f’l the first time or 58- 57 . This ycar it was
observed in t h e fiel.<! 21s~) under r:at: .1 i.nfect. i ,?t:.
Out o f 15 entries which/fEi
to be virus free in both field as well as
SCIICBT! house t e s t s . j” !:>ert’ a l s o founc
o be resistant to bacterial
b l i g h t . They
are as under : 364 id, 368 N, 369 N, 1
N, 408 N, 411 N, l+14 N, 415 N, 416 N, 422 N,
429 N, 430 N and 432 N.
I.t is suggested to do sing:
plant selections in the breeding lines
showing heterogeneous reactions.
Single plant selec t i.ons mac
in some of the promising breeding Lines were
screened in the scre~,r: housc !~y stem
ai) method. The sowing of 15 single plant
sczlectior,s from 2751”; V~S doce on 28.’
88 and the inoculation on 9.11 .88. Twenty
single plant selections from 283 N WC
sown OR 1 1.11.88 and inoculated on
23.11.88.
Out o f 15 si.ngle p l a n t self
ions from 275 N 9 were found resistant to
bacterial blight whil c1 2 singl e plan1
e lec tiens from 283 N were resistant to
backrial blight . ‘IXe s e e d o f these :
ections has been given to the breeder for
fürther use.
1.3. Disease Nursery .
A disease nursery was init
ed in the year 1986 with a view to screen
t!ie ~;~rom.i.sing materi.al agairxt t h e p :
.ciple cowpea di.seases.This
year in alZ 120
entries comprising of ‘79 varieties ai
41 elite breeding lines were tested against
virus, bacterial bligh-t , macrophomin;
llight and cercospora leof spot. No entry
W:IS inoculated directly . However, va:
tics used in the spreader rows viz, ,58-57
and K 21 were ir.ocu? ated witti virus ;
, bacterial blight respectively . Macropho-
mina blight pathogen is soi1 borne. ’
t
tiisease nursery is conducted in the same
field every year. This bas helped to
iild up this pathogen in the disease nurserg
plot. which was evident l'rom thc heav,
nfection of this disease on the spreader
rows as well. as the test. entries. Ho’
‘er,it is not yet uniformly distributed ir,
tiie .nursery plot.
‘I’hc rIi.sease r.;:rserh- .‘I r:sis
i n d i c a t o r FOWS ancl t..he
test crtries
_ .
. ‘ho -k.arie tics k;‘:‘t, ;:Se
for spreader and indicator rows vi.z, 58-57
(vir;:s s;;sceptiblc) and 13 21
: i..:t,t:r a1 Illigtit s u s c e p t i b l e ) . llalf line was zown
t o TH--rï a n d tt1e rY2mai.r;: ha1.f +: I;i 2 . Tho spreader ro\\i was repreated everg after
3 test er:tries.
‘I’ili- sprC!adeI* ” i ': we e soiir on 28.07 .!;8 while ttic t e s t er.tries we:e
:iow on 10.08.88. ike linc o f ’ Y! Ilca or IYXS was sown on the same day alclng\\~ i t h
ihe t,est entries <:verJ’ nf’l-er
t>st
O~S. Each e n t r y h n d one row o f cjm i C?~C::.!
‘l’he spacing used ~9s s‘;O Cil! tv’ ::. .:r. t e rows and 50 cc1 wfthin
the p l a n t s . ‘I’hiis
there were 10 pockets in each :*‘. G of which “j were sown to 58-57 and 5 tg B 21.
in case of spreader and ir:dic;i+ ‘.B:’ ro S . i-:ach te-;t entry was repeated two times. A
border of 4-6 lines of 13 21. an11 ‘j8-5
was sown a11 around the experimental plot.
A11 the plants of 58-5;’ ir: thc sprea er rows were inoculated with virus on ‘31.08.38.
‘fhe inoculum was :Jrepared b y h1 c~ndin thc infected leaves in a buffer sol.ùtion of
sodium and potassium phosphate:;. Bac erial blight inoculation of B 21 plants in
t h e sprender rows :~as done on i.i,9.8
by infiltration technique. Inoculnm was
prepnred hy makin;~ ,a ~;iter s;::~:‘ensio
of freshly multiplied bacterial cL:l.t:re on
nutrient dextrose agar medium .
Virus development o:: : h e s eader rows was highly satisfactory. lts
spread t o t h e t e s t entries wa
Some of the test entries were very
severely infected. Oüt. o f 7 9 varietie tested, 46 were found to be virus resistant
whil!: 20 were suscepti bj-e . Sevrr:
duced heterogeneolus reaction. Amongst
1.he .)reeding I.ines 11 were observed t
be virus free while 14 were susceptible.
‘T h i :* 1,* e e II i reeding I..ines had a mix
tant and susceptible plants. There
~~3s ;I mix türe 0 1’ ;esista.nt and 2~1:
nts in 275 N, a promising 3reeci i.r:g
line which is l.ikely t 0 go in the
Individcal virus resistant plants
of 2’75 N were selected and handed ove
to the breeder for further use.
Bacteriai blight deve Lopmen
on R 21 plants in the spreader rows w,:s
Ij,Ài tt: satisfactory . Houever,
c h t o t e s t entries. Only 7 (zntries
d,:ve topeci scsceptib:Le reaction. Most
f t hese entries developed stem tanker :;ymp-
t13ms. Rlight symptoms on the
This may be due to heavy in-
fection of macrophomi.na blight which
igh t have suppressed bacterial bl ight :nfec-
tion.
blacrophomia b l i g h t ir.fectio was the first to appear in the nursery.
‘!‘ht irlfection was seen !,ot h
s on the stems . In fac t C!e
infc5:tion f i r s t S’arted 3ITi tllc
extended to the stcms . I?. many
C:as<‘:; alï t h c leaT;es OI: the p1ar.t. w e r
dropped down due to ;.:-c:>::+?‘io:.: i ;: I Y!‘CC i OI:
f’inntly resGlting in complete tieat h o
1 'I
.1r somc areas t .! i n f e c t ior: was very s E:verc kil-ling a1 1 thF. p lan ts in ni 1 t, hc
)r rc:iis. In t h e w~iolc ncrsery only 1L) eI;tries
wert: varieties and ‘j w e r e brecding linês..
s ITCC(IS t:o b e conf’irmed. Probabiy tfrey ;:~igj~~
ha;e 15scnped i: “1 c t j or. beca.23e of‘ lack o f inoculum i n some area o f the n.ursery.
i:erci ::: ora leaf spots i n f e c t ion was developed late. It was quite severe
or: some of’ the ,%r:tries, Twenty s e v e n e stries were rated as susceptible. Only :3
entries \\i*e tre o! ::SI rl.,etl to b<. a l m o s t fie ? from cercospora leaf spots. Al1 other en-
tri.es shol~ed Ir:I ,,rrnediate reaction.
:t of them were rated as moderately resistant.
there
‘I’his ;> !\\a~-/ L.;as no incidence 0 ’ chonnephora pod rot. Similarly web blIght
infection was aIso rot seen which migh ; be due to heavy infection of macrophomina
blight.
IR C;:::C o f
8 entries, a11th ? plants were killed due to macrophominu
bl ight in bath Le rcplications. As su :h their performance against other diseascs
coüld r.01. be s~‘~-,r. In o t h e r 47 entries , a11 the plants were killed due to macro-
phomir.a bl.ight in one r e p l i c a t i o n . The performance of these entries against other
dineases -i s based on one replication 0 ?ly. These entries are marked by asterisk.
The resul t s o f a11 t h e entri s for a11 the four diseases are summarised
i n ta-b1e 9.
T'aIile !I : React i.or,s of‘ ixrirci
y
ijj:. ,.fIcic~:‘ on s~,rne promising
varieties and elite
xedi ~:g 1 i::es ir. the diseasc
rursery .
-- ..--
-.-
. .
I
o I
t,,c trv
I
I
I
(
I
-. ..---L--
- -
2
. .L - L
II.-
1 I
58-57
I
S
R
S
M S
2 1
58-39 *
l
R
R
S
M R
31
78-45 *
R
R
S
PIR
4 1
58-185*
s
R
S
S
5 I
78-7*
I
R
R
S
M R
6 I
66-68"
l
M S
R
S
MR
7 I
58-25
j
N A
N A
S
N A
8 I
58-184"
1
R
R
S
MR
9 I
66-86
I
Nil
N A
S
N A
10 I
58-79 DL1 A;
I
R
R
S
D'IR
11
78-21*
I
R
R
S
MR
12
82-2 WL*
l
R
R
S
PIR
13 I
66-37
f
N A
N A
S
N A
14 I
58-43"
l
R
R
S
M R
15 I
63-33
S
R
S
MR
16 I
66-149
R
R
S
M R
l7 I
36-64
s
R
Ml3
M R
18
78-29
R
R
S
MR
66-64"
I
R
S
S
P!R
7-6 E 27
I
R
R
S
MR
66-73"
/
R
M S
S
IYR
58-95"
l
R
R
S
M R
23
82-6
R:S
R
S
S
24
60-6
R
R
S
RR
25
AS 6 *
R
R
S
s
26
AS 9
R
R
S
S
27
85 F 962-4"
l
R
R
s
MR
78-23"
I
R
R
S
PIR
58-74 DlC2
I
R
R
S
MR
58-58
I
s
R
M R
L>
78-46
I
H
I
R
I
S3
l
s
63-8”
I
R
I
R
I
s
I
?IR
66-56
l
R : YS
R
I
-
I
blR
59-21
I
R : YS
iYR
MR
l
>lR
58-221
l
M!i
I
R
MR
I
YR
jij-7gT
/
l
R : ;J(:
NS
I
R
I
:lR
58-64
I
MS
R
I
DlR
I
S
58-60
l
S
I
R
I
R
l
s
78-36
1
R
I
R
I
R I
R
63-05
I
MS
I
R
I
MR
I
YIR
59-20
I
R
R
I
R
I
P!R
78-37
S
R
l
R I
?‘lR
67-32
R
R
I
s I
!j
66-~4
S
I
R
I Fi I
MR
78-10
MS
l
R
I
R
I
MR
66-17
R : s
l
R
I
s I
S
1s B 26
1
s
I
R
I R
I
S
Ndiarnboxr
i
S
\\
R
I
R
1
s
1
:,
89-10 FIL*
I
R
I
R
I
i-2
I
1:
IT 81 D 1137 1
NA
I
NA
I
NA
I
NA
66-76
I
R : S
l
S
I
MR
I
IYR
59-9 Dl*
I
R
I
R
I
s
l
R
68-226
I
R
I
R
I
MR
l
S
78-26
I
R
l
R
I
MR
l
i3
l
17 B 28*
l
R
R
I
s l
;ZjR
i2% Vita 5
I
R
l
R
l
MR
l
ti
58-20”
I
R
I
R
l
s l
MR
78-33
1
R
l
R
I
s I
R
58-34
1
R : MS
l
R
I
R I
S
66-40
l
R
R
I
MR
I
S
103-6
I
S
R
I
R I
S
62 1
58-75
(
R
R
l
s
I
R *
63 1
83~ 328-4
I
R
I
3
I
HR
I
R
64 1
78-6
I
S
I
R
I R I
MR
65 1
TVx 3236*
I
R
R
l
s
l
ii
66 1
78-32
I
R
R
I
s I
AR
67 1
78-19
I
NA
I
NA
I
s
I
N A
68 )
84 D 371”
l
R
l
R
I
s
I
MR
69 1
58-95 D2
I
MS
I
R
I
s l
MR
‘(&20”
K
R
S
Mi
83-122*
R
!i
S
HR
Il 0 ü g II e
I
:T,
I
R
S
i\\I ri
78-j”
I
R
I
R
S
>IR
58-44”
R
i
R
I S
I
?lR
I
‘78-5
R
ii
l
s
Nli
fQ-‘j*
R
I
FIS
I
S
?lR
dar, Fïa~:~ssa
I
s
I
R
S
FIK
11‘ 81 D 1032 /
NA
I
NA
S
NA
II' 84 S-2246-4 1
R
I
R
S
MR
2 N
R : S
/
R
I
S
MR
36 *
MS
I
R
I
S
MR
48~ *
K : s
R
I
S
FIR
63~ *
R :
R
S
MR
76N *
R
I
R
S
MR
93N *
R
R
I
S
S
114N
NA
NA
S
NA
1 2 1 N *
s
I
R
S
MR
140N +
I
S
R
I
S
MR
168N 3+
I
R
R
I
S
MR
1.7ON
I
NA
I
i’,
I
S
NA
174N
r
NA
NA
I
S
NA
185N
l
S
R
I
S
S
3.91h *
PIS
I
Fi
I
S
MR
21' N *
MS
I
R
I
S
I
MR
218 N +
MS
R
l
S
S
219 N *
MS
DIS
S
S
224 N *
s
R
S
I
S
235 N
I
K
R
MR
l
FlR
23: N
I
R
l
R
I
S
I
MR
2351 N *
R
R
S
I
MR
241 N
S
Fi
S
I
MR
245 N *
R : S
R
S
I
MR
24-f N *
I
vs
::
MS
104 /
248 N *
l
s
MR
I
MR
105 I
252 N *
I
R
S
I
MR
106 j
253 N
I
ri : MS
MR
I
MR
Ii
I
I\\lR
/
K : s
R
I
R : s
S
I
f-i : s
I
MR
I
.‘;
I
MR
I
‘1s : s
I
R
1
i3 : s
I
R
I
K : PIS
I
R
l
R : S
I
M R
I
R : s
R
I
K
PIR
l
R
MS
I
s
K
I
MR : MS I
R
I
Noi;es :
‘i - Re~istmt NH - Noderatel
resistant
>Ii;- Monerately s u s c e p t i b l e S
usceptible
!?:S-DIixture of resistar,t and
usceptible
Xii- ResLllts r.ot a v a i l a b l e .
* Observations for virus, ba
cer’cc’spora leaf’ spdtc base
i : . irüs ‘I’rar.smi::sior: st,udies :
-
-
The stctiies o r . vir:s trarsmi:
or:
thro::gh s e e d a s well a s hy VCC tari: iv’~‘re
*:il ;nteti ir, 1 9 8 7 . Thc same werc c0r.t i1
d this :;ear .ir. or*der to confirm t.ht: I*c>sul ts
‘1: ta 1 r.ed ir. 1987. Howcver ,the tria1 wa:
lightly modif’ied. In a:lditior. to stat 1.01:
,.e(l fanneTs’ seed was a1 SO :;.cc; in thi
rial c:oi:dücted al Hanb::y l.~~hile a t ii,j i i,eioi>
~~,~:i,v l.he f’armers’ seed las :rsed ir,steat
f statim s e e d . ‘I’his ~511 help t o knor: the
!: ,.t.t j t. nf coRtamiratioC alreody exists
!Aie farmers ’ seed.
2.1. Transmission through set
The tria1 was cor.ducted at 2
cations v i z , flambey and D j i b e l o r . A t E,ambey
5?:-5’T rn;as used for this triaIL, There WC
3 treatments depending on the source of
si:ed. ‘The first treatment. consisted of
r OWI: seed which was harvested from t.he
1: ,rx:-; ir.fected p l o t (Infecteci s e e d j . Fc
the second treatment seed obtained from
scled production service (healthy seed )
S
,~cd while the third treatment compri-
s:sd ,f the farmers’ seed procured from
e market. The s0wir.g was àone on 28 .U/ .88
; “.
I
3 sepnrate plots with a spacing of’ c
x 50 cm2 . . One seed ~V;~S SO~T: ir. mach pocke t..
T!!e Zbservatiocs 0T: vires iEcider,ce we1
recordcc, :: i : . :$. The d a t a or n.arnbttib .,f
si:ed sown ar.d germinated and the nr;mbeI
f v i r u s i n f e c t e d plar,ts is f’ürr.ishej belon.
‘l’rea i mer, t
Nmber o f
eds
5
sown germ:
ted
ger *
_.-.- I_
-
-
-
I::fec: ted seed
480
33;
‘/0.2
1’;
t!i:al I hy seed
470
375
80.6
F;~rrn~~rs ’ seed
960
65C
67.7
16
From the germination percent2
i t .s seen tha t the quality of farmers ’ seed
a.5 w1:11 as infected seed was not satisf
tory while that of healthy seed was just ful-
fi 11 ;ng the minimum requirement. The o1
rvnt .ons recorded 14 days after sowing showed
5.34”, virus incidence iE the plot sown
th infected seed while i.t was 2.46% ir, the
f’:irmclrs ’ seed. Healthy seed also recors
2.06% virus incidence. The first appearance
3;‘ a;,hids was noticed op. 19.08 which mi
s !,he virus infection occured was thro:igh
soefl 11-3. 1987, 17.5 $ ir.fectior, w a s rec deti t h r o u g h s e e d . It was quite higb as com-
pnreti to t h i s y e a r probably because thc
eed used during 1987 was excl.usiveiy obtained
from the infec
Prom the harvest of aE infecied plot.
2 < +Cl”
ir:f‘i -:ti.or. ir. th<, f’;~rriicrs ’ seecl
t i a l ,,, cor: tamkated wi th virus
while
r~cvc:: 1s t!tat the seed of seed prodcct
emph::.+izes the r.eed of’ monitoripg nr.d
i r. 1; ’ ,c seed m*xltiplication
plots.
l’he tria]. cor:ducted at, Dji.b
1.0 c a
VRT I ety procxed from market. T
rer.t sites ir. t h e
same field. ‘The S O
spac ‘ng. 7’he observations on virus in
were observed i n t h e tria1 p l o t , till
each plot with number of seeds germin,
e d ar.d rxmber of plnnts infected wi th 3irus
furr. i shed below.
plot. No
NC o f
Seeds
SOWl?
germi-
gerni.
ir.fr:;ated ;,lants
di sease
nated
1
1520
1406
91.5
9-l
6 .‘!
II
392
371
9’4.6
23
6.2
III
4’32
458
93.1
2CJ
‘1 . 3-7
IV
400
375
93.7
11
2.93
Tot:i i
2804
2610
91.1
151
5.79
The average icfec tion (5. i 9
:h:‘!, rhe jnfectior. r.ot.iced a t BambeJ
. Qc;%!. ‘Il i s ci ows that the famers ’ sced i n
Casamance
is more coctaminated by vil s t,har. Hambey.
2.2. : Transmissi.on by ir,sec S.
- -
rhe tria1 f o r vires transmii -ior tilrc!:?gh s:,cd was f u r t h e r co~:t.irxcd t o s e e
whether there is virus transmission b: insects. The occurrence of aphids was :n1oticed
at, Ikimbey o n 19/08.
Aphids were allowed to deve tp ir: the tria1 ,HoWwer, they disappeared after
a heavy rain of 12’7mm on 28/08. There las considerable ircrease ir, t h e v i r u s
j.cc Itience ir, t h e f i r s t week. o f SepLem 8~’ :jtiich i ndicntes t.hat a p h i d s 11ad alra:ldy
t,r:~1,r;mi ttrd the virus t,o the healthy
ar: t. s . The observations
recorded or: 8.09 are
preser?tect below .
Al1 the plots have skown iccreas
ir. vires ir,cidence a f t e r the occxencé o f
aphids. This indicates that aphids were re
onsible for transrnitting the vir-2s ipfectior.
t.5 the healthy plants.
‘1 ‘i’ . 4 1 i 10s~ ir. yicld dze to virxs. Ttiis year a s: atist;-;.cnll.y Laid out triat was con-
.$,,ctecI :it Dambey t
o
t,‘inti ;)!:t t.::? ,qield l0SS due 0 Yir::s. l’itc: er:periment c.,it;;?s’;ed
:-:f’ twn treatments v i (:, i 1) plot.~ with minimal vi!..’A inf’ectior. through use of’ healthy
seed anri cor trol. of ~;ect,~r ar:d ! 7 ) pl.ot
rith mo:.imum vir*us i.nfecti.on thro,gh use
of infected seed and artificial inocula
)r. o f pants. The variety used for the
experiment was 58-57. The experirnent was SOtdE or. 28.07.88 in a randomised complete
i
block design. Each treatment was replicd ?d 1 2 times. ,r’J.ot size was 5 x 5m2 and the
spacing 50 x 5Ocm2. ‘[‘he protec ted plots
:re sprnyed periodically with thiodan .st
the rate o f 8OOg a.i/ha ,‘or arrtstingth
vectois nctiv i ty. Unprotected plants wi:re
inoc.dlated with the sarj collected from
le infected leaves. ‘I’he inoculation was
doce or 31.08.88 t)y rubbi.ng the Young le Tes tut:; a fore finger wetted with the
iroc:.;lum. Carborundum po:;Aer \\<;is added t
ttie inlicülum to ac t as an abrasive.
The 0hservntior.s :$ere recorded
‘or the -virus incidence and the yie!d. ‘i’he
:Iata was statisti.cally
arnlysetl. ‘I’he sum iry of results is presented in table 5.
Table 5 : Es timat don of Ioss in y
_.
?Id due to virus : summary of results .
‘l’reatmnnt
Vir%us i n
-I_ Ldence
Y ield
Ir.
arcsin
(Kgha 1
Pr*(.tected p l o t s
lb.cj9
23.53
1140
üi-,protecced p l o t s
24 . 37
29.32
897
cv %
27.74
14.14
7.72
Prob.
iJ .ooj
0.002
0.000
131)
‘7.09
4 . 74
1 0 0
Ir. c a s e o f bath the !iisease in Ldence and the yield data, the differ,en;es
lhetween t h e t w o treatments +~eri: :~~-;hly
;nificant . Tllere was sigr:if icantlÿ highei*
~rirus ir:cider:ce i.c t h e xpratected p l o t s ;har! protected plots which resulted in
si.gni.ficantly decreasing the y leld in un wtectetl p l o t s . ‘There w a s 30X (343 Kg/ha)
yi eld loss d!.:e to more vi rus :i ncidence i
tha xprotected p l o t s .
J.n the disease and yield carre Itior: analysis a negative but si.gnificant
correlat ion was observed ! 4.1. cjC,7 ) . .fhis
10~s that with the increase in the virus
; r:cidence there is sigpi fic;:nt red-action in Lhe yield.
HT.
- -
ci’opti0mir.a nhaseolina was a seri(‘..~: dj S~;IS~
1J i I :; ::een through o::t the (Zo\\Jpea ii :~!a ai: the
e I tic.., .Some o f t h c fields V,C;Y: ‘Ic!“, tx1ti.t)
S .
Sir.ce t h e ashy stem blight :)a t .,oger: i-2;
t !dZlS thn::qht,
to be more effect i..c for
xpcrirnent was conducted with somc cew sced
ch are ~.Vi$il~hlC and in use in Ser.egal. Yhe
d complete block design with 8 tr-atments
e experiment were a s follows :
2,~ /Kg
sead
‘3% ,/Kg ”
2:; /Kg ”
lg/Kg ”
&/Kg ”
4g/Kg ”
3g/Jk ”
8
Control (N-, Seec
reatment 1
Piot size :
6 x 5rn
Spncing
:
50 x 50 cm
va r i e t ,y
: 13 2 3
Fertiti ti.zens: 6 : 20 : 10 r:
thc: r a t e o f
50 Kg/ ha
Date of sowing : 28.07.88
Date of harest : 6. 10.88
One s e e d was sown a t mach F
ket:. Refore sowing furadan was applied in
each pocket to protect the seed from
mage due to other pests particular1.y mil.-
I.ipeds.
L’nfected s tems collected durj
1987 trop season was crushed int.0 powder
and used. as inoculum. l’his inoculum v
put in each pocket along with the seeli.
The observat i.ons were recox
,d for germination, disease incidence, disease
intensit y and t h e yieltl. Disease intc 5ty and incidence observations were re:orded
tliree t.i.mes. Al1 the d a t a w e r e statj .ically analysed. The summary of r*es,dlt,:; is
given in t.ablc 6 .i);.~nca;. ’ smul tiple Rar
test was applied to test the eff’icacy of
varj.oÿs seed dresser:; where the treat
nt cïfectswere observed to be signific;ir:t
i.e. in case of germination percenta and first observations on disease incidence
X(I ir:ter,z;ity rccorded or 26.08.88. 1
results are summarised in table ‘:.
‘; -; .:1i::i Lg,, K
g
’
' 5ij.11
1
5-1
'(49.5'?) ' *‘,/
l
311.>:1
(70*&J0.~I0)
100.00
-- 1
1
(63'25jl 1
7" 71
53 91
1 110
.(ii4'39)(? 1'j
(48.53)
I
(117.24)1
13.21
..--. --_ ---.---
L..---L-I-_I
1.1
-1
..--. --.-_--..---_
-
-
.-~-
.:I~:~;:ox: ?,g,jKg
1 40.14 /
72.71 1
98.13 1
..--. -.-.--,-_-,- ~
-
-
-
-
-
.'
.:._,
. .
1:
/Y
;</Kg
1
5’.6,
1
64.72
1 93.89
1 l 4:,. 96 )
j(53.581 1
(,G.o:i)
..- .-.. -..-.---
~-
. ..B .
.:...-t _ ;‘a I)g,‘Kg 1 53.00
( 61.39
! 90.00 11
10
1
55.07 1
82.71 1
98.47 1
1WL8-7) I(51.86)
/,! i’ni.!
‘i j’l:!.r3
I “;‘.y’
j 63.61
1
91.39 Il(o.00
1 60.14
1 82.23
1
99.17 1
1 i 4f,.44 )
/(52.94) I(73.8c-i) I((O.ClO! l(50.88) ((65.25) /(84.90) 1
l-26
/
::: !3 “, t r ( : 1.
1 48.06
/ 65.28
1 55.59
1 60.97
1 88.53
/
99.58 1
LI.67
lW.89) b53.89) l(77.86)
l(51.34) l(70.26) l(87.90) 1
8.16
12.65
6.12
16.05
6.86
1.17
116.03
:5.84)
(8.80) (7.34)
(10.64) (6.37)
(4.05) ,
. ooox*
.032*
-NS
034"
093NS. NS
, :s92NS
i .OOO)
(.037)
! .40.?)
(038)
C.087)
-
cj . 47
12.~5
14.62
(5.17)
(7.621
(8.64)
** - Sigpificant <it 1%
Ik - SigCificact nt 5%
NS -Non significant
ii.i zu. Q7x
BC:
I
_-.-_ ..-
RizoIex
3E:/---r-
-_
- - -
Gl?ar,>x
r
B
3cr I
!C----/-
I
B
j- .>
.---
-YlEiïrY
:r. !
c
A
A
‘- L,
--YEKr
1
BC
‘) CT
C;i?ar.:.,x
jf ,.
A------r
-,
-
-
--
Thirarn
C-I
A
---.-
?g
E
---_
Cc-,r.trwl
-1
( h’!,
i reatmer.t ) 1
C
A
I
A
--_~.~_
tters do not d iffer significantly,
differences in t!!e germination j)t:rcen
the treatment of differcnt seed
dr’CSSerE. The gelomination percer.rage
t.ainC,d in the seed treatment witi! grunox (bath
d o s e s - 2 p ar.d 4g/bLg seed) wns signif‘ic
tly T::OI~ than net only the cont,I’<, i (no seed
trentruent) b u t ni so ~hc o t h e r seed
‘i’he next best treatment obscrved lias
Ri.iO?!,X 3g dose. It h a s given signifi rit.11 mt re seed germination ove I’ ~:or.trol. a s
well 3s ‘i’hiram a::d Sumi 8 1.g d o s e .
t was 012 par with Rizolex i’i: dose and
S,<;mi ,? 2g dose. ‘,‘hese resÿl.ts i n d i c a t that seed treatment with granox lièfore sowing
gi ves the highes! seed germination fo
owed hy seed treatment with rizoi.ex a.t the
raCe :If’ 3g per t: I/l
seed.
‘I’he resul.ts of first observa cions recorded on disease incidence as wel.1 as
in!,er:kiity on 26.1'18.88 indicated that t iere was significant variation in the efficaccy
of vanious seed treatments used in thi 3 experiment. !!?-Y
also Granox a( both the
doses was found signi.ficantly scperior over control as well as thiram ar~l S2m-i 8 at:
lg dose. However, it was on par with 0 ;her seed treatments viz, R.izolex at bath 2g
anci ‘3~ doses and Sumi 8 at 2g dose.
‘The results of the
ence and intensity observati!~r:s secoyded
on 7.09.88 and on 23.09.88 ‘did not sho
significant variation. In the t,h ird observa-
tion recorded on 23.09.88 I a1
have shown 100% disease :nci.dence. The
dieease intensity also was very high i
a11 the treatments. Lt ranged in between
98 ..06 (Granox 4g dose ) and '99
ese results clearly show that
1. ‘C?C?C! “~?C?2tiZlfZtT
.:eed ~germirxit : :,r: cver :_ liougli
t,he sef?tl i.s wmtr r:lir:z.teti h.i.t1 Va
2. New seed dre
und Sumi 8 d o n o t g i v e satisfactory s e e d
germination if Macropho
:J. Granox holds its efficacy
somc: extent in the early c:rop growth stage
againat Dlacrophomina infection. But s
equcntly i t al.so looses it.s hold a n d the trop
succumbs to the Macrophomina infectio
4. If the disease pressure is
seed treatment alone
evenwith
Cranox. cannot save the trop. For cent
ling t h e Macl*ophomina i n f e c t i o n o n the
?eaves, fungicidal sprays with some n
systemic fungicides rnay be worth t.rying .
These seed dressers were also
sted in vitro by r olled towel me thod. Same
i;rcatrnent;s were ..lsed in this test ais
e, Rizolex Zg/‘Kg, Kizolex 3g/Kg, Granox Lg/<g
C;~m i t. lg/Kg, Sumi 8 2giKg, G r a n o x 4.g
and Thiram 3g/Kg. One set of üntreatctc? seed
servec as control.
Sccds were treatcd icith respective se
dressers md t,!ier. were put on sets of’ 3
bl.otter sheets previocsly moistcned w
h wat- er . ‘I’he sheets were rolled and keljt at
tv ) 83rn tempcratüre , ‘l‘!:ey were mois t ened
egul arly . ‘l’he sheets were opened after 10 days
nr.rl the observations werc recorded fo
seed rot. and root 1 s<-)erl’ ‘7~: + ::l’ec.tion .l’he
c~i~::oi’lcra associatcd with seed rot a mot
ro .‘seefl- ‘-.,Y infection was examined
xdcr the microscoi-!. . Thc resul. ts are Iresenteti i i : ta!lle h.
i’ablt-: ti : !:?:n!n<cal control. o f ashy s !ril bl ight .
Results ,)f laboratory test
-
-
Seed treatment 1 ‘-’Acted
Healthy
:oot rot
03-tgC2niS51S
associated with see:i
rot
) seed. ger
iedling
rot, I-00;
,ot/seedling infec tior:
1 (ungerni Iminated I 1 i ‘ection %
1 nated) 1
I
1 x
-
-
Rizolex 2g//Kg
15
67
1 Macrophomina phaseolina
seed
1 Aspergillus SC Rhizopus SF.
) Erwinia sp.
Ri zolex 3g/Kg
15
‘71
( Macrophomina phaseolina
- .-
seed
Bsgergillus sp. Rhizopus SP.
Erwinia sp.
Cranox 2glKg
6
90
Macrophomina pfiaseolina
seed
Erwinia sp.
Sumi 8 Ig/kg
22
62
Dlacrophomina p h a s e o l i n a
seed
Aspergillus sp. Rhizopus SE~.
Erwinia sp.
Sümi 8
Zg/Kg
10
64
Macrophanina phaseolina
seed
Rhizopus sp. Erwinia sp.
Granox 4g/Kg
2
97
Erwinia sp.
seed
l’htram 3g/Kg
5
79
Macrophomina phaseolina
seed
Aspergillus SC. Erwinia sp
Control
38
-8
Macrophomina phaseolirrr
Aspergillus sp. Rhizopus SEJ.
(‘JC veed !
Aspergillus sp. Rhizopus sp.
(treatment)
Erwinia sp.
-.--
As was seen in case of fiel
experiment,
granox at 4g dose was the !L>est i-n
thi;; stcdy a l s o . Cr:ir:ox ai. 2g dose was
he next best treatment followed by thi?arn
3g /Kg seed . Placrophomina phaseolina w
the most common organism encountered iilmost
in a1 1. the treatnerts except granox a
4g dose.
I‘lie disease situa
enson was s e r i o u s i n rc::pect o f
mosciic dii;eirSeS L$tl i 1 e i t WûS
tiSfaCtOI?y ir, case Of c ifl~:x' t{,jse::-
was observed througout the {*r)wpi!rt arr’: .
.t ‘!ûIT,! s:;:
v i r u s ir-i’ectior: w
econd week after sowinrr :,;:; * ,.!-
.;‘2er: t1y -; 2 h’as spread vcrg c -t;,?.r-17 ‘i.
of’ t.he 58-57 plots showed a very hi;:;, :;~XE:
:i cc: der:ce i :~roürrl 8C% ) witti
. This y e a r t h e r e was a uerq car;)’
Amongst the other
ght was important particularly or
3 21. Sor-~ of the ii 21 fields,
minikits werc bad :y
affecte& 58-57, which was h
cterial blight so tar, showeti SOT::~
!~.cterial biight infection
f i e l d s sown w i t h CI35 and
B 21 at. Keur Boumi were bad
Nacrophomi.na b l i g
1.987 season wns most~.y
,. (‘\\cf’- r. ,-, Ii
.I . .
to pathology field at Bambey. Lt was very serious in the rhemi(.al controt
experiment and the disease
other fields in Bambey and Crther :;t.nt ion:
:~lso h:id a ceglegible incidence .
macrophomina b l i g h t .
a s compared t o last yeatS, jimi-
larly choanephora pod rot w
.Cercospora leaf s p o t s incitlencc tias
slightly more than 1987 season.
on the yie1.d. Brown blotch
cterial pustule was seen
i11 some (;f t h e minikit tri.a
Q-P, B 23. and a!: 2 Locations
(Sagatta and ndatt f’all) on 58-5’~ also
Stationwise report of variou
diseases encountered in the exper*imental
plots at the research stations
furished in table 9.
T a b l e 9 :
Cowpea diseases f
Crop season :
Bambey :
~-
, choanephora pod rot
58-57 - v i r u s >Cercosporios
i:ij ibelor :
~.--
58-57 - virL;s + cercosporiose
.~
Local - v i r u s , cercospori.os
B 21 - web blight;
‘l’hi lma.kha :
B 21 - Bacterial b l i g h t , we
bl .gh ,ashy szem b l i g h t
5 8 - 5 7 - vixs 9 ccrcosporios
CB5 - choanephora pod rot
Mougne - vir3.s
Some of the breeding lir,es
i:lp<i t1a.c terial blight infec tior.. (virus
LoLga :
B 21 - Racterial blight
CRC> - Wcteri,al bl.ight, !:t:i
t,3 i gh > Cercosporiose,choar:èn~orn po,l lot,
bzzCtei’i:Zl ~US~U~C
Ndiambour - Virus
5 8 - 5 7 - ViKYlS :'~?COSpO~iOSe lac teria.1 blight
( 1: > >
the f i r s t tin 58-5, h n s shol:/n b a c t e r i a l b l i g h ir:f’t:Ct ~CI: 1
Some of the breedin
lir.es (191 N ,
279 N,283 N)showed virüs
i.nfectio:?.
Pli r:iki ts :
--L-Lb..-
Sapatta :
_-!--
B 21 - bacterial blight, ce :osporiose
CB 5 - bacterial blight, ba terial pustule, ashy
stem bligh t , cercoq: iiose
5 8 - 5 7 - virn:; :bactérial. pus il<? > cercosporiose
Ndiambour - bacterial pustIz 3, virus , cercosporiose
:;jnc Dicr.p :
----.-----.-d
58-57 - virws, cercospor
B 21 - Cercosporjoso
.‘Y?
pus tiile
CB 5 - cercosporiose ,,ba
stem b l i g h t
N>?i* :.~,oÜL .. Bacteria.1 p Ist\\:lc > cercosporiose ,
choanephora pod rr>:. 1.’ i .‘x:;
Cocki :
-
-
58-57 - virus ,cr?rcospor iose
Ndiambour - b a c t e r i a l I: x3 tule
B 21
- Bacterial bligh t, ccrcS9sporiose
CB 5
- Ashy stem bligh t, cerrosporiose
Sakal :
-
-
B - 21 - Racterial b1i.g lt ,!nshy stem blight. ,
cercosporiose
CB5
- Sacterial blig
ccrcosporiose
Ndiambour - Virus, web
58-57
- ~Ji-p~s
. , cercosy
Ndatt Fall
f:B _ 5’- fie.cterial
b l i g
ashy stem b l i g
B21
- ßacterial hl.ig
ial
pusixlc ,YC:) bl
Ndiambour - bacterial p
hl.ight
53-57
- Virus, cercospo Tiose. bacterial pxstu1.e
Keur galo :
-
-
58-57 - Virus, cercospor iose
Mougne - v i r u s , cercoqxiose
B 21
- Cercosporiose, vJ :b blight
Tvx 3236 - No disease
Keur Boumi :
-
-
CB-5
- Bncter-ial. pusU. 1.e ,cercosporiose, hacteri a1 blight.
B 21
- Hacterial bl.iglr t ,ba::t,er.inl.
(:i:r’!“,~r:!-!or~i):;c
~>USt.ilcl,
Ndiambour - Bacterial I ustuil c , c:ri*cosporiose
58-57 .. !rlrüs, cerc9spoi i ose
l,ocaL - .:ercosporiosc
3 1
ON COWPEA PATHOLOGY -
988
Bf
B"G. 2AIKWAD.
RESEARCH - BAMBEr'
***+*************
Res is tance screening was t.he
air. i tcrn o f ’ research during ‘ch<: year
1988. This included v i r u s and bacteria hlight screening in the field as ~11
as in the screen house ~xcler artif‘ici a
inoculation. Resistance
screeni nk.: for
other diseases such as veh blight, ash
stem blight , ccrcosporiosct
a131 cl;oar.e-
itiiura
_’
~OS rot. was done under fi 01 d con
tions only in the disease nurseq’ rIlot..
V i r u s transmi.ssion s t c d i e s through sec
znd by insects were c o n t i n c e d durirg
t:his year also. Simi.larly a s t a t i s t i c a
y laid O;it experiri1er.t for estirnatior.
of yield loss due to virus was conduct
to confirm the results of’ last: ;:ear 1’:
filler triai. A new experiment on chem
31 control of ashy stem bl.ight: wns
icitiated. The results of all these ex
riments are discussed in the fnllowing
pages.
I. RESISTANCE SCREENING FOR : TOR DISEASES.
1 .l. Screening for virus res
;ance :
5
2
ent.ries comprising 3f !l8 ?eding I.ir:es f’rom advanced genor;:t ior::
acd 4 -Jarieties w e r e screcned f o r t h e i
Tir<s resi s t,ar.ce under field col:clit io1.s
at Djibelor. These entries were dividel
into 4 sets each with 11. I~r*ceil. i.r.g 1 i nt. s
3 varie tes and 5 p;:~:: r;.: n<.; brecding li
j which are likely t,o go into minikit
trials . ln the f irst set one breeding
?e w a s replaced hy Ndiambour. :‘:l:;s C17” t1
set had 19 entries >:ith 4 replications
fhey were planted i n a randomised block
design. Each entry h a d 4 POWS o f 5rn l e
th spaced al. 50 cm. The spncir:): :~i thir:
t h e pl.anLs was kept a t 50cm.
C>rie row of a local susceptible variety
1s som
ir? between 2 replications of
each experiment. This served as spreadl
row . ‘l’he spreader rows were inocul at4
with the sap from the virus infected l( res which helped to t;:j..*C:t;ti Lhc: i~fect:ior.
to the test entries. ‘The inoculum was
?pared by blending virus infected leaves
in the phosphate buffer. C~“;.~‘~o;-‘rr.d~r;l,
pt
ler was added to the inoculum to act
as an abrasive. The inoculation was do:
by rc~~t)<r;~ the fully grown wel 1 cxpar-:ied
primary leaves with a forefinger wettel
fi th the inoculum. The sowing was done
on 6/C18 while the inoculation was done
I 31/08. The infection on the spreadér
rows was quite satisfactory. The obser,
tions on test entries were recorded twice.
The summary o f observatioiis
:i p r e s e n t
in table
‘i’nb:te 1 : Virüs ir,cider.ce ir. the f ir 1 ;tt IJjibelor or: the entries $:)f
advaRccd y i e l d triais.
I
’
Yield tria1 1
1
l -
58-57 x IT 81~ 1137
’ 253 N
47-17
mild symptoms
2
-If-
/ 275 N 1
2-27
mild symptoms
3
-"_
j 279 N 1
33-53
4
- "_
1 283 N
1
4-65
5
- '1 -
/ 299 i‘!
1
4-12
6
IMougce ~!y 82D 713
1 360 u
(
0.00
7
I
-"_
/ 398 N
1
0.58
8
I
-"_
/ 399 N
1
0.57
1 mild symptoms
9
158-57 x Tvx 3236
j 400 N
1
3.98
10
I
-"_,
j 401 N
1
0.00
I
11
1
-""_
1 402 N
1
4.00
I
12
I
- I' -
i 403 !l
1
2.47
I
13
1
-"_
4.60
l
14
1
-"_
f>.OO
I
15
I
-“_
0.57
1 mild symptoms
16
1
-“_
0.00
I
1’7
I
-“_
36.47
I
18
I
- ‘1 _
1
Tvx3236/
0.00
19
/
I “_
1
Ndiamtow
8.52
-7. -----
I
I
1 -ield tria1 JK
I
1
1
113
y’, :: )!
50-65
mil d symptr iris
/
2
z75 N
3-41
mild symptoms
/
3
- ‘1 -
,17c' N
11-04
4
I
- “_
1 283 N
/
ii.00
mild symptcms
5
1
-“_
1 299 N
l
1.17
6
[ Mc1::gr.e x IT ti2D 7
1 360 N
/
1.72
7
-"_
1 363 N
I
0.57
(mild symptoms
8
/ 56-57 x Tvx ‘!i36
407 N
I
0.00
I
9
I
- " -
408 N
0.00
l
10
I
- "_
409 N
Q.57
I
11
I
- " -
1
'110 N
l
0.57
Imild symptoms
12
I
-"-
1
'il1 fi
I
0.00
I
13
I
- "W
'il2 Ii
l
1.14
1
mild :,ymptoms
14
- " -
413 K
I
0.57
15
- '1 -
414 N
0.00
16
I
- 1' -
I
415 N
0.00
17
I
I 13 21
I
0.00
18
I
I 58-57
23.57
19
I
ITVX 3236
0 . 00
,~_--. -
-
i
I
L
-~--- ---T---
I
1 Yield
III tria1
l
I
I
I
1
s t';'81v 1
’
253 N
38.33
' mild S)Tlll>i,ofD:
- 1, -
1
275 N
1 7.39
1 mi 1-d symptomr
- '1 _
1 279 N
I 43.35
l
- ‘1 -
1
283 N
1 6.3Lk
lnild symptom:
B”_
/ 299 N
1 3.68
I
6
1
Dlor;gne x .I?’ 82 D
1 356 N
l
0.57
Imild symptom:
7
l
t 368 N
I
0.00
I
v
( 5,1-57 x ‘i’vx 3236
1 416 N
I
0.00
I
9
I
- ” -
( 417 N
I
5.70
1
10
I
- ‘1 -
1
418 N
I
0.00
I
1 1
l
-“_
1 420 N
1.70
1 mild symptorx
1 2
I
_“_
)
421 N
0.00
I
13
l
- ” -
1 422 N
I
0.00
I
1 4
-“V
1 423 N
I
0.57
jmil$ symptomz
15
- ‘1 -
1 424 N
0.57
lzq.! .1 sgimptoms
16
,t
- -
1 425 N
0.00
f
17
1 B21
I
0.00
I
1 f:
) 50-57
1 32.92
1
1’)
jTvx 3236
I
0.00
l
l
- -L--L-
-Y--
1 ‘.:
T -i.cld tria1 IV
I
~-
I
I
1 ->&I>‘I x J.T C<~E) 113’
1 253 N
158-02
/I:i7 l d symptoms
i
- ” -.
l
1
275 N
1 1.14
(ni ld symptoms
- ” -.
I
1 279 N
117.81
1
,‘i
-“_
I
( 283 N
( 3.75
Irni Ld synptoms
rj
- ‘1 -
I
1 299 N
1 0.00
I
cr
0.00
l -‘“’
:lu\\:gre x I?' 32D 1713
1 365 N
‘;1
I
- " -
1 371 N
0.00
8
) 58-57 x TV x 3236
1 426 N
0.00
I
?
1
- "_
1 427 N
I 2.00
I
10
I
I "V
1 428 N
( 2.00
I
11
I
- " -
1 429 N
0.00
12
- '1 -
1 430 N
0.00
I
1.3
-"_
1 431 N
0.00
l
14
I
- '1 -
1 432 N
0.00
I
15
I
- " -
1 433 N
I 0.00
I
1 b
(5:'-57 x ZT81 D 1032
1 437 N
l 0.59
17
1 B 21
0.00
I
18
1 58-57
49.01 1
19
~TVX 3236
0.00
I
f >
tlll the entrirs f’rom the cross 58-57 x I’I’ 31 1, 113i’, which were tested in
ail i iie triais developeti v i r u s infectior ;n various dei-:rees except one viz., 299 N
;I~ic’r: was free from virus in tria1 N’4p,r ,r.o;st thesc (r.1 :“ ?:: 27 5 N, 283 N and 299 N had
comp;::~a’ ivcly I.ess vir::s i.r?fectior,. i\\Ior~ ovcr mild t.ypn of symptorns were observcd
I)l: z’,‘:j :L ad 283 N .
!kt: o f
1~3 breeding lines r~ory,v
-!d from t h c c r o s s e s Qiougne .x TT 82 D713,
‘58-5: x Tvs 3236 ar,d 58-57 x 1~81~ 1032,
22 were frt:e f’rom virus infection while ;?l
lvere s u s c e p t i b l e . Highest number o f virr ; free lines ( Ii?) were obtained from the
C~OS:: 5ti-5’7 x TVX 3236~ :,io.;gne x IT82D 7 1 i and 58-57 x 1’1’ 81D 1137 yielded 4 and 1
‘iiT?CS free li.nes respec tively .
Amongst the varieties 521 and ‘vx 3236 were f’ree from virus infection
!$ililc* 58-57 and Ndiambocr were susceptit .e .
.A11 these entries togetherwith some more r>~c~!dinp l.ines from the cross
. .
58-5’j x IT 81 D 1032 and few more variet !es were sc ioened in the screen house by
artif’icial inoculation. Five seeds of ea ih entry were sown in separate pots on
~1.4.9.88. The virus inoculation was done
21.9.88. The sap from the virus infected
n.caves was used for inoculation. The ino 1 lum vas p;aepnred by blending the infected
leaves in a phosphate buffer. Carborundun powder was atided t.o t h e inoculum t o a c t
i*s a abrasive. The inoculation was done ’ y rubbing the Tülly grown well expanded
primary leaves with a forefinger wetted ti th the inoculum.
The virus symptoms started appe ring by the end of September. The obser-
\\,aticns were recorded on 13 ~0.88. The se ond observation, however could not be
recorded as the plants were seriously att cked by aphids. Virus reactions noted in
t.he first observation are given in table
Table 2 : Virus reac tion
of some of the advanced breeding lines
and parents.
C;l? .N’
I
Cross
I
Entry
( Reaction
-.-
1
I
2
- - -
1
1 58-57 x IT 81~ 1137
I
253 N
..
2
I
- ‘1 -
I
275 N
R : S
3
1
- 1’ -
I
279 N
S
4
/
*
-II-
I
283 N
R : S
5
I
- ” -
I
299 N
R
6
(
Mougne x 11’ 82D 71
I
356 N
R
7
l
- " -
1.
360 N
R
8
1
-“-
1
363 N
NG
- -~
--
S!..Na
l
Cross
I
I
Entry
I
l
I
Reaction
1
I
2
..-~
-...---. _
9
) Yocgne x I'i‘ 82~ 713
1
365 E:
R
. .
10
l
- " -
l
368 N
R
11
I
-I'-
I
369 N
R
12
1
- " -
371 N
R
13
1 IT 81D 1137 x 58-57
384 N
S
14
) Mocgne x IT 811, 1137
395 N
R
15
1 58-57 x Tvx 3236
398 N
S
16 I
- ” -
l
399 N
R
17
I
-“_
I
400 N
S
18
I
OI’_
I
401 N
S
19
1
-“_
402 N
S
20
I
WI’-
403 N
I
R
21
I
-“_
I
404 N
I
S
22
I
-“V
I
405 N
I
R
23
t
-“W
I
406 N
I
R
24
I
-“_
I
407 N
I
S
25
1
- “_
I
408 N
I
R
26
I
-“_
I
409 N
I
S
27
1
- “-
I
410 N
I
R
28
1
- “W
I
411 N
R
29
1
v” -
I
412 N
R
30
I
m”_
413 N
S
31
I
-“_
414 N
R
32
1
-‘le
l
415 N
I
R
33
I
-“V
I
416 N
I
R
34
l
-‘le
I
417 N
I
R
I
35
I
-“_
418 N
S
36
1
-“W
419 N
S
37
I
- ” -
420 N
R
38
1
- ” -
421 N
R
39
1
-“_
422 N
I
R
40 I
-“_
I
423 N
I R
--
I
sr . N”
I
Cross
Entry
Reactior:
I
I
----T
.-
- ---
1
2
3
-l--
11
--
l
.-
l
I
-.-T--J---
-. -l---
- -
f
58-5.; x --
.vx 3236
I
I
R
42
1
_"<_
I
424 Q
425 NL
l
s
4 3
1
-“_
426 N
I
S
44
I
- “_
427 N
l
R
455
I
- 1, -
428 N
I
R
46
l
- “_
R
- -
429 id
47
I
I!
I
430 N
R
48
I
- ,, -
I
431 N
l
S
49
I
-“_
I
432 N
l
R
50
1
- l’-
I
433 ?J
l
S
51
1
58-57 x rl’ 8x1 1032
437 N
I
R
5%
1
_“_
438 N
I
R
53
1
-“_
I
444 N
I
R
5:+
1
-“M
I
445 N
I
R
55
1
- l’ -
I
447 N
I
R
56
- ” -
I
449 N
I
R
57
I
- “-
I
454 N
s
513
1
-“B
I
455 N
I
R
5’3
1
1
- I’-
B 21
1
R
60
- “_
l
58-57
S
6:r
I
- “_
Mougne
S
61
1
_“_
Ndiambour
S
63
1
_‘1-
Ci35
R
64
I
- ” -
1 TVx 3236
R
@,
)
- “-
) IT 84S2246-4
I
R
Notes :
R- Resistant
S-Susceptible
NC - Not germinated
R:E; - DIixtXrc of resistar.t anC
usceptible.
0i
Out o f
58 brcadir:g lires. ‘i : : ‘, .,,’ .n<: :; j st;T ‘-
‘C?:I~ tior.
:iile 18 were susceptitllc. l’wo C~:I:; ;c
viz, 2’(5N acd 2:. 3 ?,i showecl he t.tt~r !ge~e~j::~:
rcactior:. Al1 t h e er.tries frorn the cr ;s No::gne:: IT 82 1: 713 showed rcsist xi:
!‘F:acï ior:. Similariy as ir: the f iclii t r t > i 1” t,11i. G test ~-11.~0 l a r g e I:~II~E:~ of
ertrics w e r e observed t.o be r*esist::;:t .r: TF-57 x Tvx32’h c r o s s . Amnc;:st t hc
varieties,
B 21, TYX 3236, I?’ 84s 2”iic
I anri CBr; were f’: :~-~j t o b e resist:ir:t while
$?-5.; . j%:rgr.e xd Kdiantbnur were s;;:;c )tib:c . ‘iliis >ea;. CR5 w a s als0 i‘(j~:l:c< t-ri !E
virils free in the breeder’s triais as le11 as minikit triais.
The fol1owir.g 15 breedir,;: 1 les b:ere observeci to be free of’ vi rüs :i.r:
the screechouse test as well. as ir. th
fie1.d t e s t .
365 N, 368 N, 369 N, 371 N,
105 N, 4!.;;\\ N, 4iî N, 414 N, 415 N, 416 N,
421 N > 422 N, 429 N, 430 N and !+32
N.
1.2. Screenir.g for bacteria
b l i g h t resistance :
A set of 65 entrïes c0mpri.s ig o f 5 8 breedirq! lires from adval:ced ger:c-
rati0r.s ar.d
-/ varieties were scraeesr:e
aga:lnst bacterizl b l i g h t i.r. t h e screer
ilcusc ,l.‘p;-> seeds o f ‘ earst-; !;ic:‘c: .: JL;; i r !ach p o t separatcly or, 14.9.88. ‘l’i:e iEi!CG-
latior! was dorme on 24.9.88 by stem st ) method. The stems were stabbed with .’
arrow-head needle throcgh a bac ter i a1 ;mear placed o n the stem one cer.tixetcia
below the primary leaves. F’resh ~I?~CI. lrn m u l t i p l i e d or: nxtrient dext,:~ci:;~~ aga~
mediüm was used for inoc;:latior.. ‘l’he
xervations were recorded for diseuse
reaction thrice OD, 6.10.88, 13.10.88
Id 22.10.88 and are given in tabl F: 1.
Table 3 : Bacterial hligilt
and parents.
Bacterj
1 t,l.‘ght r e a c t i o n
--I
-
-
-
Entry
1st ObL ~a- 2 n d Observa-
3rd Observat ior.
1 t i o r :
I tion
I
-I_
58-57 x IT 81 D 1137
253 N
2 s
2 s
2 s
275 N
4 R
3RlS
3R 1S
279 .N
2 R
s
2R2S
2 R 2 \\ ‘;
283 N
1 R
s
1RLS
1 Ii 2 s
299 N
2 s
2 s
2 s
10
Ph.t:re x 1’1’ 82 D 71.
6
356 N
il R
7
360 N
Il R
8
363 N
N (1
?
365 N
2 K
10
368 N
3 R
1 1
369 N
3 H
12
371 N
1 R
IT 81 D 1137 x 50-51
13
384 N
2 R
s
lR2S
lR2S
b1ocgr.e x IT 81 D 1137
.
-
-
-
14
395 N
3 R
3 R
3 R
58 - 57 x TV x 3236
15
398 N
li R
‘i K
4 R
16
399 N
3 R
3 R
3 s
17
400 N
3 R
3 R
3R
18
401 N
2 R
2 R
2 R
19
402 N
4 R
4 R
4 R
2 0
403 N
1R
1 R
1 R
21
404 N
2R
3 R
1RlS
22
405 N
3R
3 R
3 R
23
406 N
4 R
4 Ii
4 R
24
407 N
2 R
2 R
2 R
25
408 N
2 R
2 R
2 R
26
409 N
4 R
4 R
4 R
27
410 N
2 R
i R
2 R
28
411 N
2 R
2 R
2 R
29
412 N
4 R
1-l R
3 R 1 PI s
30
413 N
2 R
2 R
2 R
31
414 N
3R
3 K
3 R
32
415 N
/J R
4 R
4 R
33
416 N
4R
I+ R
‘1 R
34
417 N
3 13
3H
3 R
jr.,
418 N
3R
3R
30
419 N
2 R
2 R
3;"
420 N
2 R
2 R
pi
421 N
3R
3R'.S
3”
422 N
2 R
2 R
4C.j
423 N
2 R
1H 1s
4s
424 N
3R
3 H
42
425 N
4R
11 R
45;
426 N
4 R
4 R
44
427 N
3R
jR
45,
428 N
4R
l+ R
46
429 N
1 R
1R
47
430 N
2 R
2 R
48
431 N
3R
3R
49:
432 N
4 R
4 R
50
433 N
3R
3R
58-57 x IT 81 D 10132
51
437 N
4 R
4 R
4 Ii
52
438 N
2 R
2 R
2 R
551
444 N
43
4 fi
;! R 1 ;V;S 1. 5
54
445 N
3R
13 H ï S
2HZS
55
447 N
4
'+ P
h R
56’
449 N
2 R
2 k
2 K
57
454 N
2 R
2 h
2 s
(Symptoms or! the leaves!
58
455 N
3R
3R
3R
Varieties
59
TVX 3236
1+ K
4 ri
4 R
60
IT 84s 2246-4
4R
4 K
4 R
61
;Iwgr.e
4R
4 ri
4R
'
62
58-5'7
3R
3R
1R 2MS
63
Ndiambour
2 R
2 R 2 s
1 R '3 s
6'1
B 21
4 s
4 s
4 s
65
CB5
2 s
2S
2 s
Note : R - f3esistar.t MS - Mc rately.susceptible
!; - Susceptible NC; -
It germir.ated
It is rcvcii i eci f’rorri t ho f’i
ok~servntion ttl:rt 42 breeding 1 i r.es wore
resistant to bacterial bli.ght while
er’e susceptible. Eleven breeding lines
showed h e terogeneous ;Bc;içt;i.ot::; . Or:<:
.ry developed symptoms o n
the leaves through
systemic infection. llowr:rer, sgrnptoms
: the stem were of resistant type.
Amor.gst I.hf? ;’ i.‘il’;c-; ies
!‘loü41:,
I
Tvx 32 -r; and i'i' 84 S 2 2 4 6 - 4 were r e s i s t a n
iqhile R 2 1 and CH3 xere s;;scepti i,le-’ .i“ ard Ktl iamt-lo;;i showed he terogt>neous
ji
reaction. Bacteri.a.1 blight i s
seen f’l the first time or 58- 57 . This ycar it was
observed in t h e fiel.<! 21s~) under r:at: .1 i.nfect. i ,?t:.
Out o f 15 entries which/fEi
to be virus free in both field as well as
SCIICBT! house t e s t s . j” !:>ert’ a l s o founc
o be resistant to bacterial
b l i g h t . They
are as under : 364 id, 368 N, 369 N, 1
N, 408 N, 411 N, l+14 N, 415 N, 416 N, 422 N,
429 N, 430 N and 432 N.
I.t is suggested to do sing:
plant selections in the breeding lines
showing heterogeneous reactions.
Single plant selec t i.ons mac
in some of the promising breeding Lines were
screened in the scre~,r: housc !~y stem
ai) method. The sowing of 15 single plant
sczlectior,s from 2751”; V~S doce on 28.’
88 and the inoculation on 9.11 .88. Twenty
single plant selections from 283 N WC
sown OR 1 1.11.88 and inoculated on
23.11.88.
Out o f 15 si.ngle p l a n t self
ions from 275 N 9 were found resistant to
bacterial blight whil c1 2 singl e plan1
e lec tiens from 283 N were resistant to
backrial blight . ‘IXe s e e d o f these :
ections has been given to the breeder for
fürther use.
1.3. Disease Nursery .
A disease nursery was init
ed in the year 1986 with a view to screen
t!ie ~;~rom.i.sing materi.al agairxt t h e p :
.ciple cowpea di.seases.This
year in alZ 120
entries comprising of ‘79 varieties ai
41 elite breeding lines were tested against
virus, bacterial bligh-t , macrophomin;
llight and cercospora leof spot. No entry
W:IS inoculated directly . However, va:
tics used in the spreader rows viz, ,58-57
and K 21 were ir.ocu? ated witti virus ;
, bacterial blight respectively . Macropho-
mina blight pathogen is soi1 borne. ’
t
tiisease nursery is conducted in the same
field every year. This bas helped to
iild up this pathogen in the disease nurserg
plot. which was evident l'rom thc heav,
nfection of this disease on the spreader
rows as well. as the test. entries. Ho’
‘er,it is not yet uniformly distributed ir,
tiie .nursery plot.
‘I’hc rIi.sease r.;:rserh- .‘I r:sis
i n d i c a t o r FOWS ancl t..he
test crtries
_ .
. ‘ho -k.arie tics k;‘:‘t, ;:Se
for spreader and indicator rows vi.z, 58-57
(vir;:s s;;sceptiblc) and 13 21
: i..:t,t:r a1 Illigtit s u s c e p t i b l e ) . llalf line was zown
t o TH--rï a n d tt1e rY2mai.r;: ha1.f +: I;i 2 . Tho spreader ro\\i was repreated everg after
3 test er:tries.
‘I’ili- sprC!adeI* ” i ': we e soiir on 28.07 .!;8 while ttic t e s t er.tries we:e
:iow on 10.08.88. ike linc o f ’ Y! Ilca or IYXS was sown on the same day alclng\\~ i t h
ihe t,est entries <:verJ’ nf’l-er
t>st
O~S. Each e n t r y h n d one row o f cjm i C?~C::.!
‘l’he spacing used ~9s s‘;O Cil! tv’ ::. .:r. t e rows and 50 cc1 wfthin
the p l a n t s . ‘I’hiis
there were 10 pockets in each :*‘. G of which “j were sown to 58-57 and 5 tg B 21.
in case of spreader and ir:dic;i+ ‘.B:’ ro S . i-:ach te-;t entry was repeated two times. A
border of 4-6 lines of 13 21. an11 ‘j8-5
was sown a11 around the experimental plot.
A11 the plants of 58-5;’ ir: thc sprea er rows were inoculated with virus on ‘31.08.38.
‘fhe inoculum was :Jrepared b y h1 c~ndin thc infected leaves in a buffer sol.ùtion of
sodium and potassium phosphate:;. Bac erial blight inoculation of B 21 plants in
t h e sprender rows :~as done on i.i,9.8
by infiltration technique. Inoculnm was
prepnred hy makin;~ ,a ~;iter s;::~:‘ensio
of freshly multiplied bacterial cL:l.t:re on
nutrient dextrose agar medium .
Virus development o:: : h e s eader rows was highly satisfactory. lts
spread t o t h e t e s t entries wa
Some of the test entries were very
severely infected. Oüt. o f 7 9 varietie tested, 46 were found to be virus resistant
whil!: 20 were suscepti bj-e . Sevrr:
duced heterogeneolus reaction. Amongst
1.he .)reeding I.ines 11 were observed t
be virus free while 14 were susceptible.
‘T h i :* 1,* e e II i reeding I..ines had a mix
tant and susceptible plants. There
~~3s ;I mix türe 0 1’ ;esista.nt and 2~1:
nts in 275 N, a promising 3reeci i.r:g
line which is l.ikely t 0 go in the
Individcal virus resistant plants
of 2’75 N were selected and handed ove
to the breeder for further use.
Bacteriai blight deve Lopmen
on R 21 plants in the spreader rows w,:s
Ij,Ài tt: satisfactory . Houever,
c h t o t e s t entries. Only 7 (zntries
d,:ve topeci scsceptib:Le reaction. Most
f t hese entries developed stem tanker :;ymp-
t13ms. Rlight symptoms on the
This may be due to heavy in-
fection of macrophomi.na blight which
igh t have suppressed bacterial bl ight :nfec-
tion.
blacrophomia b l i g h t ir.fectio was the first to appear in the nursery.
‘!‘ht irlfection was seen !,ot h
s on the stems . In fac t C!e
infc5:tion f i r s t S’arted 3ITi tllc
extended to the stcms . I?. many
C:as<‘:; alï t h c leaT;es OI: the p1ar.t. w e r
dropped down due to ;.:-c:>::+?‘io:.: i ;: I Y!‘CC i OI:
f’inntly resGlting in complete tieat h o
1 'I
.1r somc areas t .! i n f e c t ior: was very s E:verc kil-ling a1 1 thF. p lan ts in ni 1 t, hc
)r rc:iis. In t h e w~iolc ncrsery only 1L) eI;tries
wert: varieties and ‘j w e r e brecding linês..
s ITCC(IS t:o b e conf’irmed. Probabiy tfrey ;:~igj~~
ha;e 15scnped i: “1 c t j or. beca.23e of‘ lack o f inoculum i n some area o f the n.ursery.
i:erci ::: ora leaf spots i n f e c t ion was developed late. It was quite severe
or: some of’ the ,%r:tries, Twenty s e v e n e stries were rated as susceptible. Only :3
entries \\i*e tre o! ::SI rl.,etl to b<. a l m o s t fie ? from cercospora leaf spots. Al1 other en-
tri.es shol~ed Ir:I ,,rrnediate reaction.
:t of them were rated as moderately resistant.
there
‘I’his ;> !\\a~-/ L.;as no incidence 0 ’ chonnephora pod rot. Similarly web blIght
infection was aIso rot seen which migh ; be due to heavy infection of macrophomina
blight.
IR C;:::C o f
8 entries, a11th ? plants were killed due to macrophominu
bl ight in bath Le rcplications. As su :h their performance against other diseascs
coüld r.01. be s~‘~-,r. In o t h e r 47 entries , a11 the plants were killed due to macro-
phomir.a bl.ight in one r e p l i c a t i o n . The performance of these entries against other
dineases -i s based on one replication 0 ?ly. These entries are marked by asterisk.
The resul t s o f a11 t h e entri s for a11 the four diseases are summarised
i n ta-b1e 9.
T'aIile !I : React i.or,s of‘ ixrirci
y
ijj:. ,.fIcic~:‘ on s~,rne promising
varieties and elite
xedi ~:g 1 i::es ir. the diseasc
rursery .
-- ..--
-.-
. .
I
o I
t,,c trv
I
I
I
(
I
-. ..---L--
- -
2
. .L - L
II.-
1 I
58-57
I
S
R
S
M S
2 1
58-39 *
l
R
R
S
M R
31
78-45 *
R
R
S
PIR
4 1
58-185*
s
R
S
S
5 I
78-7*
I
R
R
S
M R
6 I
66-68"
l
M S
R
S
MR
7 I
58-25
j
N A
N A
S
N A
8 I
58-184"
1
R
R
S
MR
9 I
66-86
I
Nil
N A
S
N A
10 I
58-79 DL1 A;
I
R
R
S
D'IR
11
78-21*
I
R
R
S
MR
12
82-2 WL*
l
R
R
S
PIR
13 I
66-37
f
N A
N A
S
N A
14 I
58-43"
l
R
R
S
M R
15 I
63-33
S
R
S
MR
16 I
66-149
R
R
S
M R
l7 I
36-64
s
R
Ml3
M R
18
78-29
R
R
S
MR
66-64"
I
R
S
S
P!R
7-6 E 27
I
R
R
S
MR
66-73"
/
R
M S
S
IYR
58-95"
l
R
R
S
M R
23
82-6
R:S
R
S
S
24
60-6
R
R
S
RR
25
AS 6 *
R
R
S
s
26
AS 9
R
R
S
S
27
85 F 962-4"
l
R
R
s
MR
78-23"
I
R
R
S
PIR
58-74 DlC2
I
R
R
S
MR
58-58
I
s
R
M R
L>
78-46
I
H
I
R
I
S3
l
s
63-8”
I
R
I
R
I
s
I
?IR
66-56
l
R : YS
R
I
-
I
blR
59-21
I
R : YS
iYR
MR
l
>lR
58-221
l
M!i
I
R
MR
I
YR
jij-7gT
/
l
R : ;J(:
NS
I
R
I
:lR
58-64
I
MS
R
I
DlR
I
S
58-60
l
S
I
R
I
R
l
s
78-36
1
R
I
R
I
R I
R
63-05
I
MS
I
R
I
MR
I
YIR
59-20
I
R
R
I
R
I
P!R
78-37
S
R
l
R I
?‘lR
67-32
R
R
I
s I
!j
66-~4
S
I
R
I Fi I
MR
78-10
MS
l
R
I
R
I
MR
66-17
R : s
l
R
I
s I
S
1s B 26
1
s
I
R
I R
I
S
Ndiarnboxr
i
S
\\
R
I
R
1
s
1
:,
89-10 FIL*
I
R
I
R
I
i-2
I
1:
IT 81 D 1137 1
NA
I
NA
I
NA
I
NA
66-76
I
R : S
l
S
I
MR
I
IYR
59-9 Dl*
I
R
I
R
I
s
l
R
68-226
I
R
I
R
I
MR
l
S
78-26
I
R
l
R
I
MR
l
i3
l
17 B 28*
l
R
R
I
s l
;ZjR
i2% Vita 5
I
R
l
R
l
MR
l
ti
58-20”
I
R
I
R
l
s l
MR
78-33
1
R
l
R
I
s I
R
58-34
1
R : MS
l
R
I
R I
S
66-40
l
R
R
I
MR
I
S
103-6
I
S
R
I
R I
S
62 1
58-75
(
R
R
l
s
I
R *
63 1
83~ 328-4
I
R
I
3
I
HR
I
R
64 1
78-6
I
S
I
R
I R I
MR
65 1
TVx 3236*
I
R
R
l
s
l
ii
66 1
78-32
I
R
R
I
s I
AR
67 1
78-19
I
NA
I
NA
I
s
I
N A
68 )
84 D 371”
l
R
l
R
I
s
I
MR
69 1
58-95 D2
I
MS
I
R
I
s l
MR
‘(&20”
K
R
S
Mi
83-122*
R
!i
S
HR
Il 0 ü g II e
I
:T,
I
R
S
i\\I ri
78-j”
I
R
I
R
S
>IR
58-44”
R
i
R
I S
I
?lR
I
‘78-5
R
ii
l
s
Nli
fQ-‘j*
R
I
FIS
I
S
?lR
dar, Fïa~:~ssa
I
s
I
R
S
FIK
11‘ 81 D 1032 /
NA
I
NA
S
NA
II' 84 S-2246-4 1
R
I
R
S
MR
2 N
R : S
/
R
I
S
MR
36 *
MS
I
R
I
S
MR
48~ *
K : s
R
I
S
FIR
63~ *
R :
R
S
MR
76N *
R
I
R
S
MR
93N *
R
R
I
S
S
114N
NA
NA
S
NA
1 2 1 N *
s
I
R
S
MR
140N +
I
S
R
I
S
MR
168N 3+
I
R
R
I
S
MR
1.7ON
I
NA
I
i’,
I
S
NA
174N
r
NA
NA
I
S
NA
185N
l
S
R
I
S
S
3.91h *
PIS
I
Fi
I
S
MR
21' N *
MS
I
R
I
S
I
MR
218 N +
MS
R
l
S
S
219 N *
MS
DIS
S
S
224 N *
s
R
S
I
S
235 N
I
K
R
MR
l
FlR
23: N
I
R
l
R
I
S
I
MR
2351 N *
R
R
S
I
MR
241 N
S
Fi
S
I
MR
245 N *
R : S
R
S
I
MR
24-f N *
I
vs
::
MS
104 /
248 N *
l
s
MR
I
MR
105 I
252 N *
I
R
S
I
MR
106 j
253 N
I
ri : MS
MR
I
MR
Ii
I
I\\lR
/
K : s
R
I
R : s
S
I
f-i : s
I
MR
I
.‘;
I
MR
I
‘1s : s
I
R
1
i3 : s
I
R
I
K : PIS
I
R
l
R : S
I
M R
I
R : s
R
I
K
PIR
l
R
MS
I
s
K
I
MR : MS I
R
I
Noi;es :
‘i - Re~istmt NH - Noderatel
resistant
>Ii;- Monerately s u s c e p t i b l e S
usceptible
!?:S-DIixture of resistar,t and
usceptible
Xii- ResLllts r.ot a v a i l a b l e .
* Observations for virus, ba
cer’cc’spora leaf’ spdtc base
i : . irüs ‘I’rar.smi::sior: st,udies :
-
-
The stctiies o r . vir:s trarsmi:
or:
thro::gh s e e d a s well a s hy VCC tari: iv’~‘re
*:il ;nteti ir, 1 9 8 7 . Thc same werc c0r.t i1
d this :;ear .ir. or*der to confirm t.ht: I*c>sul ts
‘1: ta 1 r.ed ir. 1987. Howcver ,the tria1 wa:
lightly modif’ied. In a:lditior. to stat 1.01:
,.e(l fanneTs’ seed was a1 SO :;.cc; in thi
rial c:oi:dücted al Hanb::y l.~~hile a t ii,j i i,eioi>
~~,~:i,v l.he f’armers’ seed las :rsed ir,steat
f statim s e e d . ‘I’his ~511 help t o knor: the
!: ,.t.t j t. nf coRtamiratioC alreody exists
!Aie farmers ’ seed.
2.1. Transmission through set
The tria1 was cor.ducted at 2
cations v i z , flambey and D j i b e l o r . A t E,ambey
5?:-5’T rn;as used for this triaIL, There WC
3 treatments depending on the source of
si:ed. ‘The first treatment. consisted of
r OWI: seed which was harvested from t.he
1: ,rx:-; ir.fected p l o t (Infecteci s e e d j . Fc
the second treatment seed obtained from
scled production service (healthy seed )
S
,~cd while the third treatment compri-
s:sd ,f the farmers’ seed procured from
e market. The s0wir.g was àone on 28 .U/ .88
; “.
I
3 sepnrate plots with a spacing of’ c
x 50 cm2 . . One seed ~V;~S SO~T: ir. mach pocke t..
T!!e Zbservatiocs 0T: vires iEcider,ce we1
recordcc, :: i : . :$. The d a t a or n.arnbttib .,f
si:ed sown ar.d germinated and the nr;mbeI
f v i r u s i n f e c t e d plar,ts is f’ürr.ishej belon.
‘l’rea i mer, t
Nmber o f
eds
5
sown germ:
ted
ger *
_.-.- I_
-
-
-
I::fec: ted seed
480
33;
‘/0.2
1’;
t!i:al I hy seed
470
375
80.6
F;~rrn~~rs ’ seed
960
65C
67.7
16
From the germination percent2
i t .s seen tha t the quality of farmers ’ seed
a.5 w1:11 as infected seed was not satisf
tory while that of healthy seed was just ful-
fi 11 ;ng the minimum requirement. The o1
rvnt .ons recorded 14 days after sowing showed
5.34”, virus incidence iE the plot sown
th infected seed while i.t was 2.46% ir, the
f’:irmclrs ’ seed. Healthy seed also recors
2.06% virus incidence. The first appearance
3;‘ a;,hids was noticed op. 19.08 which mi
s !,he virus infection occured was thro:igh
soefl 11-3. 1987, 17.5 $ ir.fectior, w a s rec deti t h r o u g h s e e d . It was quite higb as com-
pnreti to t h i s y e a r probably because thc
eed used during 1987 was excl.usiveiy obtained
from the infec
Prom the harvest of aE infecied plot.
2 < +Cl”
ir:f‘i -:ti.or. ir. th<, f’;~rriicrs ’ seecl
t i a l ,,, cor: tamkated wi th virus
while
r~cvc:: 1s t!tat the seed of seed prodcct
emph::.+izes the r.eed of’ monitoripg nr.d
i r. 1; ’ ,c seed m*xltiplication
plots.
l’he tria]. cor:ducted at, Dji.b
1.0 c a
VRT I ety procxed from market. T
rer.t sites ir. t h e
same field. ‘The S O
spac ‘ng. 7’he observations on virus in
were observed i n t h e tria1 p l o t , till
each plot with number of seeds germin,
e d ar.d rxmber of plnnts infected wi th 3irus
furr. i shed below.
plot. No
NC o f
Seeds
SOWl?
germi-
gerni.
ir.fr:;ated ;,lants
di sease
nated
1
1520
1406
91.5
9-l
6 .‘!
II
392
371
9’4.6
23
6.2
III
4’32
458
93.1
2CJ
‘1 . 3-7
IV
400
375
93.7
11
2.93
Tot:i i
2804
2610
91.1
151
5.79
The average icfec tion (5. i 9
:h:‘!, rhe jnfectior. r.ot.iced a t BambeJ
. Qc;%!. ‘Il i s ci ows that the famers ’ sced i n
Casamance
is more coctaminated by vil s t,har. Hambey.
2.2. : Transmissi.on by ir,sec S.
- -
rhe tria1 f o r vires transmii -ior tilrc!:?gh s:,cd was f u r t h e r co~:t.irxcd t o s e e
whether there is virus transmission b: insects. The occurrence of aphids was :n1oticed
at, Ikimbey o n 19/08.
Aphids were allowed to deve tp ir: the tria1 ,HoWwer, they disappeared after
a heavy rain of 12’7mm on 28/08. There las considerable ircrease ir, t h e v i r u s
j.cc Itience ir, t h e f i r s t week. o f SepLem 8~’ :jtiich i ndicntes t.hat a p h i d s 11ad alra:ldy
t,r:~1,r;mi ttrd the virus t,o the healthy
ar: t. s . The observations
recorded or: 8.09 are
preser?tect below .
Al1 the plots have skown iccreas
ir. vires ir,cidence a f t e r the occxencé o f
aphids. This indicates that aphids were re
onsible for transrnitting the vir-2s ipfectior.
t.5 the healthy plants.
‘1 ‘i’ . 4 1 i 10s~ ir. yicld dze to virxs. Ttiis year a s: atist;-;.cnll.y Laid out triat was con-
.$,,ctecI :it Dambey t
o
t,‘inti ;)!:t t.::? ,qield l0SS due 0 Yir::s. l’itc: er:periment c.,it;;?s’;ed
:-:f’ twn treatments v i (:, i 1) plot.~ with minimal vi!..’A inf’ectior. through use of’ healthy
seed anri cor trol. of ~;ect,~r ar:d ! 7 ) pl.ot
rith mo:.imum vir*us i.nfecti.on thro,gh use
of infected seed and artificial inocula
)r. o f pants. The variety used for the
experiment was 58-57. The experirnent was SOtdE or. 28.07.88 in a randomised complete
i
block design. Each treatment was replicd ?d 1 2 times. ,r’J.ot size was 5 x 5m2 and the
spacing 50 x 5Ocm2. ‘[‘he protec ted plots
:re sprnyed periodically with thiodan .st
the rate o f 8OOg a.i/ha ,‘or arrtstingth
vectois nctiv i ty. Unprotected plants wi:re
inoc.dlated with the sarj collected from
le infected leaves. ‘I’he inoculation was
doce or 31.08.88 t)y rubbi.ng the Young le Tes tut:; a fore finger wetted with the
iroc:.;lum. Carborundum po:;Aer \\<;is added t
ttie inlicülum to ac t as an abrasive.
The 0hservntior.s :$ere recorded
‘or the -virus incidence and the yie!d. ‘i’he
:Iata was statisti.cally
arnlysetl. ‘I’he sum iry of results is presented in table 5.
Table 5 : Es timat don of Ioss in y
_.
?Id due to virus : summary of results .
‘l’reatmnnt
Vir%us i n
-I_ Ldence
Y ield
Ir.
arcsin
(Kgha 1
Pr*(.tected p l o t s
lb.cj9
23.53
1140
üi-,protecced p l o t s
24 . 37
29.32
897
cv %
27.74
14.14
7.72
Prob.
iJ .ooj
0.002
0.000
131)
‘7.09
4 . 74
1 0 0
Ir. c a s e o f bath the !iisease in Ldence and the yield data, the differ,en;es
lhetween t h e t w o treatments +~eri: :~~-;hly
;nificant . Tllere was sigr:if icantlÿ highei*
~rirus ir:cider:ce i.c t h e xpratected p l o t s ;har! protected plots which resulted in
si.gni.ficantly decreasing the y leld in un wtectetl p l o t s . ‘There w a s 30X (343 Kg/ha)
yi eld loss d!.:e to more vi rus :i ncidence i
tha xprotected p l o t s .
J.n the disease and yield carre Itior: analysis a negative but si.gnificant
correlat ion was observed ! 4.1. cjC,7 ) . .fhis
10~s that with the increase in the virus
; r:cidence there is sigpi fic;:nt red-action in Lhe yield.
HT.
- -
ci’opti0mir.a nhaseolina was a seri(‘..~: dj S~;IS~
1J i I :; ::een through o::t the (Zo\\Jpea ii :~!a ai: the
e I tic.., .Some o f t h c fields V,C;Y: ‘Ic!“, tx1ti.t)
S .
Sir.ce t h e ashy stem blight :)a t .,oger: i-2;
t !dZlS thn::qht,
to be more effect i..c for
xpcrirnent was conducted with somc cew sced
ch are ~.Vi$il~hlC and in use in Ser.egal. Yhe
d complete block design with 8 tr-atments
e experiment were a s follows :
2,~ /Kg
sead
‘3% ,/Kg ”
2:; /Kg ”
lg/Kg ”
&/Kg ”
4g/Kg ”
3g/Jk ”
8
Control (N-, Seec
reatment 1
Piot size :
6 x 5rn
Spncing
:
50 x 50 cm
va r i e t ,y
: 13 2 3
Fertiti ti.zens: 6 : 20 : 10 r:
thc: r a t e o f
50 Kg/ ha
Date of sowing : 28.07.88
Date of harest : 6. 10.88
One s e e d was sown a t mach F
ket:. Refore sowing furadan was applied in
each pocket to protect the seed from
mage due to other pests particular1.y mil.-
I.ipeds.
L’nfected s tems collected durj
1987 trop season was crushed int.0 powder
and used. as inoculum. l’his inoculum v
put in each pocket along with the seeli.
The observat i.ons were recox
,d for germination, disease incidence, disease
intensit y and t h e yieltl. Disease intc 5ty and incidence observations were re:orded
tliree t.i.mes. Al1 the d a t a w e r e statj .ically analysed. The summary of r*es,dlt,:; is
given in t.ablc 6 .i);.~nca;. ’ smul tiple Rar
test was applied to test the eff’icacy of
varj.oÿs seed dresser:; where the treat
nt cïfectswere observed to be signific;ir:t
i.e. in case of germination percenta and first observations on disease incidence
X(I ir:ter,z;ity rccorded or 26.08.88. 1
results are summarised in table ‘:.
‘; -; .:1i::i Lg,, K
g
’
' 5ij.11
1
5-1
'(49.5'?) ' *‘,/
l
311.>:1
(70*&J0.~I0)
100.00
-- 1
1
(63'25jl 1
7" 71
53 91
1 110
.(ii4'39)(? 1'j
(48.53)
I
(117.24)1
13.21
..--. --_ ---.---
L..---L-I-_I
1.1
-1
..--. --.-_--..---_
-
-
.-~-
.:I~:~;:ox: ?,g,jKg
1 40.14 /
72.71 1
98.13 1
..--. -.-.--,-_-,- ~
-
-
-
-
-
.'
.:._,
. .
1:
/Y
;</Kg
1
5’.6,
1
64.72
1 93.89
1 l 4:,. 96 )
j(53.581 1
(,G.o:i)
..- .-.. -..-.---
~-
. ..B .
.:...-t _ ;‘a I)g,‘Kg 1 53.00
( 61.39
! 90.00 11
10
1
55.07 1
82.71 1
98.47 1
1WL8-7) I(51.86)
/,! i’ni.!
‘i j’l:!.r3
I “;‘.y’
j 63.61
1
91.39 Il(o.00
1 60.14
1 82.23
1
99.17 1
1 i 4f,.44 )
/(52.94) I(73.8c-i) I((O.ClO! l(50.88) ((65.25) /(84.90) 1
l-26
/
::: !3 “, t r ( : 1.
1 48.06
/ 65.28
1 55.59
1 60.97
1 88.53
/
99.58 1
LI.67
lW.89) b53.89) l(77.86)
l(51.34) l(70.26) l(87.90) 1
8.16
12.65
6.12
16.05
6.86
1.17
116.03
:5.84)
(8.80) (7.34)
(10.64) (6.37)
(4.05) ,
. ooox*
.032*
-NS
034"
093NS. NS
, :s92NS
i .OOO)
(.037)
! .40.?)
(038)
C.087)
-
cj . 47
12.~5
14.62
(5.17)
(7.621
(8.64)
** - Sigpificant <it 1%
Ik - SigCificact nt 5%
NS -Non significant
ii.i zu. Q7x
BC:
I
_-.-_ ..-
RizoIex
3E:/---r-
-_
- - -
Gl?ar,>x
r
B
3cr I
!C----/-
I
B
j- .>
.---
-YlEiïrY
:r. !
c
A
A
‘- L,
--YEKr
1
BC
‘) CT
C;i?ar.:.,x
jf ,.
A------r
-,
-
-
--
Thirarn
C-I
A
---.-
?g
E
---_
Cc-,r.trwl
-1
( h’!,
i reatmer.t ) 1
C
A
I
A
--_~.~_
tters do not d iffer significantly,
differences in t!!e germination j)t:rcen
the treatment of differcnt seed
dr’CSSerE. The gelomination percer.rage
t.ainC,d in the seed treatment witi! grunox (bath
d o s e s - 2 p ar.d 4g/bLg seed) wns signif‘ic
tly T::OI~ than net only the cont,I’<, i (no seed
trentruent) b u t ni so ~hc o t h e r seed
‘i’he next best treatment obscrved lias
Ri.iO?!,X 3g dose. It h a s given signifi rit.11 mt re seed germination ove I’ ~:or.trol. a s
well 3s ‘i’hiram a::d Sumi 8 1.g d o s e .
t was 012 par with Rizolex i’i: dose and
S,<;mi ,? 2g dose. ‘,‘hese resÿl.ts i n d i c a t that seed treatment with granox lièfore sowing
gi ves the highes! seed germination fo
owed hy seed treatment with rizoi.ex a.t the
raCe :If’ 3g per t: I/l
seed.
‘I’he resul.ts of first observa cions recorded on disease incidence as wel.1 as
in!,er:kiity on 26.1'18.88 indicated that t iere was significant variation in the efficaccy
of vanious seed treatments used in thi 3 experiment. !!?-Y
also Granox a( both the
doses was found signi.ficantly scperior over control as well as thiram ar~l S2m-i 8 at:
lg dose. However, it was on par with 0 ;her seed treatments viz, R.izolex at bath 2g
anci ‘3~ doses and Sumi 8 at 2g dose.
‘The results of the
ence and intensity observati!~r:s secoyded
on 7.09.88 and on 23.09.88 ‘did not sho
significant variation. In the t,h ird observa-
tion recorded on 23.09.88 I a1
have shown 100% disease :nci.dence. The
dieease intensity also was very high i
a11 the treatments. Lt ranged in between
98 ..06 (Granox 4g dose ) and '99
ese results clearly show that
1. ‘C?C?C! “~?C?2tiZlfZtT
.:eed ~germirxit : :,r: cver :_ liougli
t,he sef?tl i.s wmtr r:lir:z.teti h.i.t1 Va
2. New seed dre
und Sumi 8 d o n o t g i v e satisfactory s e e d
germination if Macropho
:J. Granox holds its efficacy
somc: extent in the early c:rop growth stage
againat Dlacrophomina infection. But s
equcntly i t al.so looses it.s hold a n d the trop
succumbs to the Macrophomina infectio
4. If the disease pressure is
seed treatment alone
evenwith
Cranox. cannot save the trop. For cent
ling t h e Macl*ophomina i n f e c t i o n o n the
?eaves, fungicidal sprays with some n
systemic fungicides rnay be worth t.rying .
These seed dressers were also
sted in vitro by r olled towel me thod. Same
i;rcatrnent;s were ..lsed in this test ais
e, Rizolex Zg/‘Kg, Kizolex 3g/Kg, Granox Lg/<g
C;~m i t. lg/Kg, Sumi 8 2giKg, G r a n o x 4.g
and Thiram 3g/Kg. One set of üntreatctc? seed
servec as control.
Sccds were treatcd icith respective se
dressers md t,!ier. were put on sets of’ 3
bl.otter sheets previocsly moistcned w
h wat- er . ‘I’he sheets were rolled and keljt at
tv ) 83rn tempcratüre , ‘l‘!:ey were mois t ened
egul arly . ‘l’he sheets were opened after 10 days
nr.rl the observations werc recorded fo
seed rot. and root 1 s<-)erl’ ‘7~: + ::l’ec.tion .l’he
c~i~::oi’lcra associatcd with seed rot a mot
ro .‘seefl- ‘-.,Y infection was examined
xdcr the microscoi-!. . Thc resul. ts are Iresenteti i i : ta!lle h.
i’ablt-: ti : !:?:n!n<cal control. o f ashy s !ril bl ight .
Results ,)f laboratory test
-
-
Seed treatment 1 ‘-’Acted
Healthy
:oot rot
03-tgC2niS51S
associated with see:i
rot
) seed. ger
iedling
rot, I-00;
,ot/seedling infec tior:
1 (ungerni Iminated I 1 i ‘ection %
1 nated) 1
I
1 x
-
-
Rizolex 2g//Kg
15
67
1 Macrophomina phaseolina
seed
1 Aspergillus SC Rhizopus SF.
) Erwinia sp.
Ri zolex 3g/Kg
15
‘71
( Macrophomina phaseolina
- .-
seed
Bsgergillus sp. Rhizopus SP.
Erwinia sp.
Cranox 2glKg
6
90
Macrophomina pfiaseolina
seed
Erwinia sp.
Sumi 8 Ig/kg
22
62
Dlacrophomina p h a s e o l i n a
seed
Aspergillus sp. Rhizopus SE~.
Erwinia sp.
Sümi 8
Zg/Kg
10
64
Macrophanina phaseolina
seed
Rhizopus sp. Erwinia sp.
Granox 4g/Kg
2
97
Erwinia sp.
seed
l’htram 3g/Kg
5
79
Macrophomina phaseolina
seed
Aspergillus SC. Erwinia sp
Control
38
-8
Macrophomina phaseolirrr
Aspergillus sp. Rhizopus SEJ.
(‘JC veed !
Aspergillus sp. Rhizopus sp.
(treatment)
Erwinia sp.
-.--
As was seen in case of fiel
experiment,
granox at 4g dose was the !L>est i-n
thi;; stcdy a l s o . Cr:ir:ox ai. 2g dose was
he next best treatment followed by thi?arn
3g /Kg seed . Placrophomina phaseolina w
the most common organism encountered iilmost
in a1 1. the treatnerts except granox a
4g dose.
I‘lie disease situa
enson was s e r i o u s i n rc::pect o f
mosciic dii;eirSeS L$tl i 1 e i t WûS
tiSfaCtOI?y ir, case Of c ifl~:x' t{,jse::-
was observed througout the {*r)wpi!rt arr’: .
.t ‘!ûIT,! s:;:
v i r u s ir-i’ectior: w
econd week after sowinrr :,;:; * ,.!-
.;‘2er: t1y -; 2 h’as spread vcrg c -t;,?.r-17 ‘i.
of’ t.he 58-57 plots showed a very hi;:;, :;~XE:
:i cc: der:ce i :~roürrl 8C% ) witti
. This y e a r t h e r e was a uerq car;)’
Amongst the other
ght was important particularly or
3 21. Sor-~ of the ii 21 fields,
minikits werc bad :y
affecte& 58-57, which was h
cterial blight so tar, showeti SOT::~
!~.cterial biight infection
f i e l d s sown w i t h CI35 and
B 21 at. Keur Boumi were bad
Nacrophomi.na b l i g
1.987 season wns most~.y
,. (‘\\cf’- r. ,-, Ii
.I . .
to pathology field at Bambey. Lt was very serious in the rhemi(.al controt
experiment and the disease
other fields in Bambey and Crther :;t.nt ion:
:~lso h:id a ceglegible incidence .
macrophomina b l i g h t .
a s compared t o last yeatS, jimi-
larly choanephora pod rot w
.Cercospora leaf s p o t s incitlencc tias
slightly more than 1987 season.
on the yie1.d. Brown blotch
cterial pustule was seen
i11 some (;f t h e minikit tri.a
Q-P, B 23. and a!: 2 Locations
(Sagatta and ndatt f’all) on 58-5’~ also
Stationwise report of variou
diseases encountered in the exper*imental
plots at the research stations
furished in table 9.
T a b l e 9 :
Cowpea diseases f
Crop season :
Bambey :
~-
, choanephora pod rot
58-57 - v i r u s >Cercosporios
i:ij ibelor :
~.--
58-57 - virL;s + cercosporiose
.~
Local - v i r u s , cercospori.os
B 21 - web blight;
‘l’hi lma.kha :
B 21 - Bacterial b l i g h t , we
bl .gh ,ashy szem b l i g h t
5 8 - 5 7 - vixs 9 ccrcosporios
CB5 - choanephora pod rot
Mougne - vir3.s
Some of the breeding lir,es
i:lp<i t1a.c terial blight infec tior.. (virus
LoLga :
B 21 - Racterial blight
CRC> - Wcteri,al bl.ight, !:t:i
t,3 i gh > Cercosporiose,choar:èn~orn po,l lot,
bzzCtei’i:Zl ~US~U~C
Ndiambour - Virus
5 8 - 5 7 - ViKYlS :'~?COSpO~iOSe lac teria.1 blight
( 1: > >
the f i r s t tin 58-5, h n s shol:/n b a c t e r i a l b l i g h ir:f’t:Ct ~CI: 1
Some of the breedin
lir.es (191 N ,
279 N,283 N)showed virüs
i.nfectio:?.
Pli r:iki ts :
--L-Lb..-
Sapatta :
_-!--
B 21 - bacterial blight, ce :osporiose
CB 5 - bacterial blight, ba terial pustule, ashy
stem bligh t , cercoq: iiose
5 8 - 5 7 - virn:; :bactérial. pus il<? > cercosporiose
Ndiambour - bacterial pustIz 3, virus , cercosporiose
:;jnc Dicr.p :
----.-----.-d
58-57 - virws, cercospor
B 21 - Cercosporjoso
.‘Y?
pus tiile
CB 5 - cercosporiose ,,ba
stem b l i g h t
N>?i* :.~,oÜL .. Bacteria.1 p Ist\\:lc > cercosporiose ,
choanephora pod rr>:. 1.’ i .‘x:;
Cocki :
-
-
58-57 - virus ,cr?rcospor iose
Ndiambour - b a c t e r i a l I: x3 tule
B 21
- Bacterial bligh t, ccrcS9sporiose
CB 5
- Ashy stem bligh t, cerrosporiose
Sakal :
-
-
B - 21 - Racterial b1i.g lt ,!nshy stem blight. ,
cercosporiose
CB5
- Sacterial blig
ccrcosporiose
Ndiambour - Virus, web
58-57
- ~Ji-p~s
. , cercosy
Ndatt Fall
f:B _ 5’- fie.cterial
b l i g
ashy stem b l i g
B21
- ßacterial hl.ig
ial
pusixlc ,YC:) bl
Ndiambour - bacterial p
hl.ight
53-57
- Virus, cercospo Tiose. bacterial pxstu1.e
Keur galo :
-
-
58-57 - Virus, cercospor iose
Mougne - v i r u s , cercoqxiose
B 21
- Cercosporiose, vJ :b blight
Tvx 3236 - No disease
Keur Boumi :
-
-
CB-5
- Bncter-ial. pusU. 1.e ,cercosporiose, hacteri a1 blight.
B 21
- Hacterial bl.iglr t ,ba::t,er.inl.
(:i:r’!“,~r:!-!or~i):;c
~>USt.ilcl,
Ndiambour - Bacterial I ustuil c , c:ri*cosporiose
58-57 .. !rlrüs, cerc9spoi i ose
l,ocaL - .:ercosporiosc
3 1