KEPUKLIC OF 3tNEC;AL ---.----- -- ______ .i i...
KEPUKLIC OF 3tNEC;AL
---.----- -- ______
.i i
ii/ 1 ;, 1s i i{) OF RURAL vEVELOI":f:t. '
--____-----____-
SENC!..i!LESE INSlITlJTE \\Ji
AtiKiCIJLTURAL RESEARCH
UEPARTMENT :jF RESEARCH
ON CROP PRODUCTION
- - - - - -. - - -
ANNUAL REPI ZT
ON GKOtr!~DNU-l- PAPHOL &Y - 1988
BY
\\
NATIONAL CENTRE OF AGRONOMICF
RESEARCH, BAMBEY
he :*esearch acti .ties wt-,‘e rest,I*l~zted t o mortly f’.>l.i;:”
le:;f
‘; ! .-1 I-‘h~:cm~ ,9r iopsi s pe:%sonata.
.-~-
During -
.‘: a:-(?,; :[u, t.0 soi.1 :Lr;lj sèed borner p,t,
c >; ! :-. +,:: Il;3 C.‘ screeni ng 2nd chemica Ii ;:on
j -: i;- cl:: c.; $2 r: l,:lused by soi L fungi espec ia
;~ha:;eolin~~, Aspergilïus flavus :tnd F
-
-
.X.1 I-hese experiments were conducted
t Niort which is a hot spot for l.eaf
s;,ot :.!i;e;;ses. Thi; y e a r a l s o there k 3 henq tJ3i seasc pressure particuLal*Z:,
03” early leaf spot, (Cercospors
arack
-
- licola) i n bott i*esistance screellini;
:ilid
chem’ ,:a1 control exper iments. Th
result:: of a11 these experiments :I.I’I
:iLscussed in the following pages.
: - RFSISTANCE SCREENING AGAINST Ll3Al! ;POT DIS%ES :
?..1 - Screening germplasm entrie
:
!?Ut of 252 germplasm entrie tésted against leaf spot :lisea::82c
urider natllral i n f e c t i o n at Nioro, .LOC ?ntries ha.d shows l o w inf’ection. C!’
t, he s c ) 94 entries were reteated durin
1988 season 8lO:igwith somc knoi43
susceptible checks and 2 new ent:ries
zceived from ICKSAT.
TkUS
+,otaZ 100 entriez: -tiere soxn on 3 -07-88 i n a single row r)f rj m :Ltangt,h
?‘he spacirg followed fias 60 cm betwee
rows a:id l5 cm wi?hin plaIit’,s.
C)];e ::eed ‘;:ls sown a!. each porket,, Al1 -nt,ries were sown in 3 ~~epl.icat i :r’i’.
Jarly leaf’ spot symptcms r,t +ed apylearing -in t h e thirr? week 0; .,I~:Iu:;~ ,
In the begining the symptomi; were sec
on few highly susceptible varietie:. bu%
soon they were spread to a11 the entr es. Heavy rainfal.1 in August helped ‘fc)
:;j:jre: d t,hc- dicease rapidly. Heavy d i s ISC, pl’e:;sure was developed <Lt t,he t-, IW
0 i’ niatur j !;y.
Observations were recorded
Jice 1.16.09 and Lb. .LO .88) on the :Le:; i’
5r)ot ini’ef:t,ion. A scal.e of 3- LCJ propc rd b y ICRISAT. wne.re 0 r;tandc for-. rlr’: ,
iilfectio:l and 10 denotes
100 5: lesf rea affected b y leaf s p o t i.nfer::t,i(#r! :;a:,
u:;ed for recording the observations.
ean d i s e a s e s c o r e f o r each entry i::
furni shed in table 1.
i,,nt ry
i eari Score
-
-
T
’
1 “-’ abs on 16/09
-~
+--
t
r’
-i-
3
- --.-
-~~ T
56-‘11
l
53-66
/
/. A
53-86
48-111
55-333
‘)
48-38
48-44
48-154
59-1113
42-44
55-l3.L
57-67
59-238
28-224
48-38 A
48--io:1
56-222
56-233
56-295
56-370
56-375
56-379
jb-423
j8-l-9
58-52
58-351
59-1.05
59-1.23
59-243
‘(y)- j,(>li
5t.Fu3
58--L+ 53
58-650
PIA
/
59-25(1
t
fJ-.$)
L!b 1.s:.
)tB-1.o:i
/
I
56-176
!
56.m242
/
56-2/3
l
/
5 8 - 6 8
l
59-145
l
59-390
/
!
68-112
/
!
53-300
5 9 - 1 5 5
/
J II.
I
/
59-266
I
4 8 - 5 5
/
i
GH l.l$+:'O
50-36
52-2
53-68
55-214
55~46ur
56-286
56-326
5 6 - 3 8 3
56-447
58-45
5i3-‘j 3
5 8 - 1 3 8
58-160
gv-167
5 8 - 3 9 9
5&-40t:
y3-68
59-l lli
59-12’:
p:t 4t:
SP151
S(;i ->o:,
;a
i
-... ..----.-
iJl-$,
3. ‘1
7.1-33
7.3-j;.
3:
75-7::
7 ï-8;
f-t
‘
pl'i 6ib ii
3 . i,
Eénégal. Or i i:nta.l
2 . L
v-773
Y.:
V-~~tjl.
3
59-p+!
3
55-51.1.
2._ . L)
57-loi?
4
57-31.ji
!,
58-147
4
58-157
1
59-147
i
59-2;:L
5
2 i+-l+'f-'(
4.;
28-210 A
:? .>
4&-6r
3
56-188
58-18
58-31
5b'- 511
gp4l&
59-92
59-130
55-437
Note :
NA - Result not ai
il;Lble
Grade
No of cntrir::;
Grade
4
1
5
L, . :)
G
6
.Y
0 . C)
5
7
F.f . C)
7
i!
Y
3
Five V;I.:’ ietie:. have ;hown
ow 1e:d.i spot inl’~zct.ion whi ch c:an be
rateci as moderately resistant OI’ tale ant . AI 1 these varieties have been
5 :r*eeried c:ontinuously f o r last. i year u~ci -t,he .i havc consi stant1.y shown
1.1w Lea.;’ s p o t , inferti cn. It is. ‘.heref r f.“ , s-lggested to use these var i et ies
i II t. he j~:*r>sslng -r*ogrkni for ‘j !:i'::j'J.je:,r:> i.t:;; tnc fielci i*c.-::jst,:-21ice to kaf spot,
, .
which arc hishly suscepl ible.
?‘he performance of these var
in:;t .Leaf’ spot Ji.selzses dur ing last
3 ye.ws was as under.
Entry
ni case
“ '\\J i
r 0
Pio!- j
,! i
i Bambey )
48-154
4
2
56-311
3.5
1
w-44
4
2
56-295
4 .5
1
56-326
5
1
II - CHEMICAL CONTROL OF' LJWF SPOT DI
..~ EASES
-
-
The experimen? on iSh<:lii 1c:i.l.
orlt,rtA of 1ea.i’ s p o t , discases was initiated
In 1.986 at Bambey on ‘73-33 varj cty wi h 14 c.hemiS:.:a.ls ‘ in 1907, the experiment
W”1 L :;hifted to Nioro a
s
4-t is : bot. ot; fn ‘* Leaf’ :;pot ci ise:tses of’ grountlmt,
wher!: it, was conducte? 611 3 v:i.ri ~:Lies JI;I, ‘i3-33 arici 7.F:30. During I?I88 seascin
t:he experiment wac; con-l;inued iLt Niciro di.!-.h :tddition %II‘ one m o r e Chemica.11 VIZ.
.\\J t’:Lr:: i.:.e!i t)y C,i!Xi t,oN
:ic :: i :‘:. .y ef’L’ecCive a.[- L:i:;t
used Il -two d o s e s ‘V’lT’.
iet;ai ii were as under.
‘Ir*e:it,ments
200
: (j ‘JIZ. ,
g .ti/ha
-
-
enlüte ,’
100 g :Li/ha.
ncozeb( ~‘:~,ncoza:: B:Lue) 1 500 g c-tilha
pper +
ineb( r::ilimix)
lioo g QC/100 1.
neb
160 g ai/ux~ 1..
nicona::*;le (Sulni 8)
50 g ai/ha
i 8)
100 g :ti/ha
Replications
2
P:lot size
m
0 $5 s .,
‘.5 X 3.9 m*
net
Spac ing
: 50 x 15 cn
Fer-tili zers
r.&te of’ i.50 kg,/‘ha as basa1 dose.
Date of’ sowing
bate of’ harves
The fungic.iàai treatment,
e stsrted after the appearsncc of the
1.eal s p o t s . Thc lesf Lapas h3.d sta
a.ppear: :lg in the second week o-f August.
In a11 4 fungicidal sprays were gi
n 17.W, 5 . 0 9 , 1 6 . 0 9 a n d 28.09.88.
observations on leaf spot score we
r orded *Lt the time of each fungicidal
::pray. 17 inal observations were rec
on thc I.eaf spot severity based on the
LeaI’ area damaged . The ~ummii.?-g of
2 s f’or t he final di.seasa score recor:ded
on 28.CFj.88 i:; preSerltf?c: .irl tabk
ILo t,ha.: o f t h e disease severity a n d yie1.d
!iaW, a r e presented i n t-,xbies 3 nnti
r,per:t.ivel,y. ‘l’he results f o r 1~0th the
~list3se severi ty and fht: y i e-Lt1 X-C’
: ter! 15 : ~iultnneously in a graph on page 1.0.
r
i
3. C>c
‘3 . 3 7 5
!l. yj
4.125
4.75
4.500
5.75
5.250
5.25
4.875
ii.00
4.253
3.75
3.750
>.75
5 . 075
Mean
1.344
4 . 656
:oeff’;cient, If’ v a r i a t i o n ( 2 ’ ) : 22.223
SD f’r.lr f’ung i cide
Results of Duncan’ :; Multi.ple Range
.
-
-
-~-
B~JIOIS;;~
200 g ‘1, i jt:i.
E
Benomyl
100 g :.i Ijhri.
CI
Mawozet
1.500 g ~1. i//h:J
B(
Calimix
400 g pc/lOii 1.
Al
1Maneb
160 g ai/lOij 1
Al :
Surni FI
50 g a.:i!ll;!
HC IE
Sumi i!
1oc; p 2:i /h:1.
DI
co;1tr*;>1
A
‘i”re:itme:,lj:; id i t.b the ::anie Lt ;t,ers io ric~i, rii f’t’er signi ficant.ly.
corif roi of' Il.eaf' symts
3f r~xx.lts of disease wverity
in the brackets denote arcsin value:;:
73-X
MCUI
,16’
63 .72o
06: !
i 53. 055
*9v:
75.375
73.385
.25~ :
(60.730)
(59.404)
JOC.
84 -350
80 -525
,265)
(67.453)
(64.359)
.O9 i.1
93 -165
93 -IL30
,023 j
(76.475)
(76 -251 )
541.1
88A40
87 .$QO
.783 !
(70.255)
(70 919)
.77d
84 n320
82 -54:
pc )
(66.785)
( 65 +o:z )
47L!
71.555
72 ???????
83ij)
(57.807)
(58.322)
;19(i
94.605
94 -89'i
,988)
(77.300)
( '?Ï ~644)
F.Ieiir!
81.441
(66.233)
:oe f’f ic ent of variat.ion ( 2 ) :
16 . j 3 ;
( 15 . 22 5 !
Pi,: !I:I t i II ty for f‘urigi ci.de
:
. 001
SD for fungi.cide
: 7.1'5 ,:.t, îln.
)t, ili.l’i’er significantly
control of' lei~f' spl,s
:hmmary
If results of yicld data
(Figures in kg/llna)
1
6
3
1
-8
1
;4
.lt.)?g
)
: 21.08 %
Coeff icient of v a :,iation ( 2) : 3;. .ci> P.
*
. .000
LSD for funglcide
-
i ; , ,‘.
at Lia.
i’esults of’ Du:.can’s Multiple Range Test
-.
-
5 %
i3erx:nty 1
i 00
g ai. /ha
A
l:enomyl
.i 00
g
a.i/ha
A
Banc-)zeb
1500
g ai/ha
B
Cali :~I;X
4 00
g pc/100 1.
BC
Plane b
160
g ai/l.OO 1
B C
kmi a
SO
g ai/ha
B
sümi 8
100
g
ai/ha
B
Conti01
C
3eatmc-nt s with the sa.me letter s
o net d iffer signi f cantly .
r 73
1
2
3.4-
TM%tIl
L-
nts
Benomyl
200 g ai
2 - .BE!llOnT;J1..
100
g ai/ha
-;, -
4 - Calimix
400 g pc/l.!~O 1
; - Maneb
Mancozetl
1500 160 g g ai ai
0 1
6 - Sumi
50
g ai/ha
mf - Sumi 8
100 ai
g
8 - Control
(No trecttment)
'0 Xi.?'iC:tie: s.! <.!'f'et.cvl sipi 1'; Y!,tit~l~~, '(3-30
1987 season t h c ù.i.f’ference bcltween !,he
wa.s non significa.[A. The in!,, ~rxtion
;
was obselved to be non sigrli i’i.carnt as
,hat, the fungic i-des had the s::me effect on
‘I’he resul-,s in table 3 revea
td that the dif’ferences in mean diseaje
;ev-r i:;i o?’ various treatmerrts were hi 11y signiïiuant. Al.1 the fungi eides wci’2
F severi ty czxce;:1% :a1 1mix 3x 3:: r:ei~. ih2~x~1r1yl
tatrnent f’ollowed by Sumi 8 3: ~1.00 cg :;)s..i.
!y1 at 100 g dose.
The disease severity of two rieties did not diff’er signi!‘i.cantly. ‘She
f’i.n:A 3isease score recorded at the ti: : o f l a s t fungicidal treütment ie, ,3:. 2;3-09-88
showed that 73-30 h,id signif5ç:i.ntl.y mn0 : disectse s c o r e thun ‘(j-33. Iiowevei*, the
li:;!zase level of the two varieties did lot differ signi fi c:ai:tiy in ‘.hc di :~e::~sf:
s,evszri.y,y observat,i.ons which were rec::jrl Id XE month I:rt.ttr. .i’kis obtc;rvatic)n ‘q;;:‘epc;
_
yith the result obkLined during 1987 s son and coni’irm” that both 5he varie-t,it:s are
equsl1.v susceptible to leaf spot disea !s. T h i s also (zonfirrns the enrlier ObSei‘vatiCm
r-lot,& in 1:186 that the early vririeties ,hok: more irifeczt2011 in the be6;in.i ne :X~L
sub:;equently the lat,e varieties also d relop ;imi.lar Irn’ec t.i on.
As in case of disease score,
;he int,erac-tien i n betwean the f’ungic: ides
:-3nd thc val’ieties ~:AS non significan-t i respect, (2:’ disea:;e sevcrity ~31.~0. ‘:‘hi:,
Czont‘ir:n:; t.he eorli.e!. results ot’ 1.987 s lson a
s
wel.1 a:; the >lisease ~COI*~ d;t<,a 0~’
Lhi ..: ,y:-::.r ‘s experiment th;2t thc f’ungici
zs bave the same el’fect o n bf3t.h t,he -vay’< eties,
or ’ r( ,<)ther words, bath the var ieti e:;
tve resporidetl s imilttr-aly agai!!:.t, al.1 t-,hcs
fungil: ides.
111 - F1ESIS'l'ANCE SCmENING AGAINST Sm
- -
Wl' AND SEEDLING DISEASES DUE TO SOIL FUNGI
- - -
3.1 - Resis ‘.ance screening against
~.
Ispergillus niger :
S e e d t’ t,s and seed.Ling disea: ; jncited b y soi1 fungi especially A:pergillus
j?ige!‘, Ma.crophon:i na phaseolina, Aspergj
_-
Lus Plavus 2nd Hhizopus sp. pause cc b,i.eliF
-
:r*educt,ion in plar?t stand. Incidence of
“own rot/collar rot caused due to A. Cger is
-
-
36-er;j of’ten encout.tered i n ::enegal throL I~L& t,he gro;xxl 11ut. basin. It, i.s pal’- icularly
Y ~rf wc~ in ::andy li ght soi Ls . Hence a-tt
npt-.s were made this yesr. tcj search f ‘I’ 3ources
c f’ : (35 i stance t,c crown rot/collar 3bot. t
txsti ng S(\\:I~~~ df’ the gë!*mpl:i soi f:cLlc ( c, i 0rls
.in t he field at ‘lioro.
In a11 100 entries were sown
1 ‘!O.C)‘7.80 in :i slngle row of 6 m lL;.qtb.
‘l’he spaxing followed was 60 cm between
‘ows and 15 cm within plants. One sec,d was
:TC)W~~ in each pocket. Furadan was applie
before sowinp t;o xvoid s e e d kmage .uc
‘TO r:ilipecles. Ali the entries were sowr
in 2 repliea:r,i oni, n Une replicat., ion -1.::::.
.i noculated with t,he crown rot pa,thogen
ni~h was rnultiJ>lied i n the l.abor:&oi , o!i
%.he groundnut shells. Inoculum w a s addc
tc: cxh pcket, dlorlgwith t.he s~(l ;: $i~c
t:,imc of sowing. 9bservations recorded : r the germination and the coll~.r rot inci-
[ien’e are gi ven .i n table 5.
Table 5
-..-- : Observations on germi
“ion anti collar rot incidenr:e
i n the rcsistant.~
crect!ii ng tria1
Reductim iri
~-- -~-
-_
~errniriatj on C?L~’
Ii !.
RI1
to inocul.at~ ior
IIlCCLL3,Leci
Jninocll i
t?tl
Ii l
ijl ï
2
._--
~-..-
-.
-.-.- _.._
-----~I-. _
3
4
5
i
ij
7
~_
- .----__ /
--.
l---
.((),(J(j -
-
92 . y
.- . Yj7
‘1 30
.
2% . jc,
5 0 . 0 0
7 2 . ‘jr)
0. U?
0.00
22 . 5c.i
70.00
92.50
I ) . 00
0.00
2 2 . j c
57 * 50
70. OC!
0 . 0 0
0.00
12.5C
02.50
97 . 5r.
C.j . 00
0.00
35.OC
35.00
62.5i,
0.00
0.00
2’7.5C
42.5c
60.00
5 . 8 8
8.33
17.50
7.50
5.56”
Ci.00
0.00
57.50
90. oc
ii.35
0.00
32.50
52.50
72.5(
i .u.l
:: . 00
C?C . 00
67.50
yo. oi.
i’.cJO
0.00
32. 5L,
67.50
‘77. 50
L.00
0.00
.LO . 06
75.00
92. 50
ci. OC)
c.00
17. fa
75.00
100.00
0 . 0 0
0.00
25.00
57.50
87.50
U.00
(2.00
33.9.!
‘lO.Oc,
72.5iJ
il . oc
0.00
3’ . 5c:
50.00
go. CJC
0. 00
0.00
40.00
35.00
47.5(.
0.60
Ci.00
1:’ . 5;:
35.00
37.w
0.00
0.00
2.50
67.50
y-7.50
i,.oo
0.00
10.00
42.50
o.oc.,
0 . 00
0.00
50.00
km.00
0 . 0 0
0.00
67.50
tj2.50
0 . OC
9.00
70.00
go.oc>
0 . 0 0
3.00
47 , 50
n7.5c
0 . 0 0
‘0.00
20.00
bC. 50
0 . 0 0
0.00
4’7 .y2
72.50
u.00
0.00
45.00
65. OC‘
0 . 0 0
3.00
45.00
85. oc;
0 . 0 0
0.00
‘1.50
SÏ.5c;
0 . 0 0
4.35
22.50
~0. dl
0 . 0 0
0.00
. . ./ . . .
2
i)
6
c-_
éc, , 00
85.0(
0.00
0.00
30. oc
.3 0 , 00
72.5(
0 . i)O
0.00
42.cjU
57.50
6'7 * 5<
L) . in
0.00
10 . 00
T’i . 50
77.5(
L! . 00
0.00
60.~1
‘(7. 50
95.oc
C’ * c.>o
0.00
17. >Cl
p * 5C!
87 . 5(
0.00
0.00
35.00
85.00
V7.5(
0. iii)
0.00
12.50
22.50
47.5(
0.00
0.00
25.00
47.50
72.5(
0.00
0.00
25.00
72.50
92.5(
0.00
2.70
20.00
70.00
72.Y
0.00
0.00
2.50
32.50
75.0<
0.00
0.00
42.50
45.00
85.0(
0.00
0.00
40.00
47.50
75.0(
0.00
0.00
27.50
25.00
70.0(
3.00
0.00
45.ov
<l
i
75.06
85.0(
3.33
0.00
1.0. oc
y?-266
45.oc
72.5(
0.00
0.00
2’i. $0
411-55
30.00
80.0(
0.00
0.00
50.00
GH 119-20
12.50
62.5~
0.00
0.00
5o.oc
50-36
2.50
18.U
0.00
0.00
15.68
5;>-2
67.50
100. oc
0.00
0.00
32.50
53-68
77.50
92.5(
0.00
0.00
15.00
y?-2LL
62.50
92.5<
0.00
0.00
30.00
55~461x7
67.50
72.5(
0.00
0.00
5. OC)
5rJr286
67.50
92.5(
0.00
0.00
25.oc
56-326
2.50
72.5(
1.00. oc
0.00
70. 00
56-383
67.50
100. oc
0.00
0.00
32.50
56-4b7
50.00
85.0(
0.00
0.00
35.00
s-45
35.00
92.5<
0.00
0.00
57.50
$h-53
67.50
135.0(
10 . 00
0.00
17.50
513-1’38
70.00
c37.Y
0 . 00
0.00
27.50
y!-.LhO
22.50
87.5(
22.22
0.00
u5.oc:
>+167
15.00
d5.0(
o.o!
0.00
70.00
‘j?-3!29
112-50
t52.y
0.w
0.00
0.00
5+408
go.00
100. oc
0.00
0.00
10.00
w-68
40.00
40.0(
0 . (iç
0.00
0.00
>y-118
65.00
92.5(
0.00
0.00
27.50
>“1-125
,
22.50
60.0<
0 . il0
0.00
3'7. SC?
i
P‘
i
-- --~--
’ j
_~_.----
1_----..-_-
y,- j ::ij!
il. :iil
) <j
5;‘. Sri
sy- 1.51
SO. :?O
JO
. oc:
3 2 . 5 0
59-502
25 . 00
JO
.oo
:tj. 00
61-w
57. 50
)O
.OO
3 5 . 0 0
73-33
85.00
)O
.OO
7. 50
73-30
57-x
?O
t.35
1 5 , 00
7 5-72
4r . 5c
10
.OO
40 * 00
7 y-84
ji2 .5c
10
. 00
4 2 . 5 0
PR64B
27.50
)O
. 00
42.50
;éncgal Orienta
5.00
SO
.OO
52 ,I 50
v - 7 7 3
20.00
)O
.oo
50..00
‘ J - 7 8 1
10.00
)O
.oo
3 5 . 0 0
5 9 - 2 9 8
67750
10
.oo
22,,50
55-511
7 2 . 5 0
)O
.OO
0. !)@
57-102
5 2 . 5 0
)O
.oo
1 7 . 5 0
5 7 - 3 1 9
60.00
10
.oo
2 2 . 5 0
55-147
72. j0
:10
.OO
2-j. 50
5$-157
7-i. 50
. 00
7.50
513-147
2 0 . 0 0
I . 50
5 5 . 0 0
59-260
6 7 . 5 0
.oo
2 2 . 5 0
U4-47-7
82.SO
.30
o.r$3
28-210 A
3 2 . 5 0
55.c 1
.oo
2 2 . 5 0
4.8-62
32.50
7S.C 1
. 00
4 2 . 5 0
5 6 - 1 8 8
52.50
85.1 1
.oo
32.50
58-:iô
40. ix-l
‘72. L 1
.oo
'32. yo
5 8 - 3 1
22.50
6 5 . 1 1
.oo
4 2 . 5 0
5 8 - 5 4
4 5 . 0 0
9 5 . c 1
‘,.OO
5 0 . 0 0
5 8 - 6 8 2
52.50
-fO.C 1
(
. o o
1’1. 50
5 9 - 9 2
7
. ‘50
3 0 . i 1
( .oo
22.50
59-130
‘/G.CJO
9 7 . L >
. .si
27 . jo
5 5 - 4 3 7
3 7 . 5 0
80.C 1
i’; .67
42.50
+- -
- - - - - -
- ~-
- - - - -
Note :
* F'ew seec s vere s-mn ti e to sho!,!,nge.
The collar rot, incidence was
:,eplicz:io3s. In the inoculat& rep1.i (’
xh-i l e i.-t was seen only i n k entries UI
48-44 and 55-437 bave shown collar rot
.nc :dr xe ; n b!:.th the inoculated and
unir:oculated treaments while the ?,wo 1 IISA’i’ ~XI~*I &iek VIZ
., U 4-47-7 and J
did not show any collar rot incidence
Ter1 ur.der Inocl..lation.
1.v -
CoN’YlK)1> OE’ SKI# KOTS AND SFXDLI NG 1) I !:i.’XF:: ; ‘1’HIh NGIf :iEE:I) ‘I’RE:A’I’NP~N’L’S :
--.---.~ -_-.- - - - -.---. - - - .---...
.--._ - - - - ~. ---_.-. -_ -_-_
/
..ed
Seed
? g/kg :-eed
3 g/kg seed
2 g/kg seed
4 g l k g seed
3 g/kg s e e d
1 g/kg Feed
2 g/kg :;eed
No treat!r:en% )
Replications
.
.
4
Plc.t!
size
.
. 4.8 x ..j
1~‘ ’
Spacing
: 60
x .51 cm
Fe?,tilizers
: fj:ilo:l!I ,i!, f :le 1‘:; te of’ 1 cj<:1 kg/ha,
Dilt.f? Of’ sowing
:
30.07.:it:
Da’,t: o f Iia.rveFt,
: %i{ 10
. . ,(
.#3
‘TABLE 6 :
contro1 of’ seed rot,:; 1
.-_
2 Q
tj3.12>
tb.334
(65.775)
(70.536)
3 g
iIO.935
85. ‘j;?r:
(64.155)
(67.93’7)
* g
84.792
88.751
(67.128)
(70.818)
4 65
80.208
86.530
(63.672)
169.087)
3 &
8:. 458
86.355
(64.527)
(68.709)
Ii!3
8:i .875
86.3$
(64.8321
(6ti.447)
2g
78.020
&S . 323
(62.033)
(67.187)
‘77 .813
80.939
(61.977)
(64.316)
Mean
8.1.028
(64.262)
.:oeffici.ent, OI’ variat
iation (2) :
2 r 34 %
(3.12 %)
1 f’, 31” fungicide : 2.27s at, 1.7;
b?o’babili ty for seed type
:
. OCK‘
8$.3yyj
(70.574)
30.32'1
(63.710)
92.^Y’j
84.735
‘71 :xl5)
(67 .08’! ‘,
92.020
79.590
86.205
74.488)
(63.242)
(68.865)
91.245
80.640
85.943
72.880)
(63.907)
(68.394)
91.245
81.375
86.310
72.900)
(64.‘@5)
(68.697)
96.825
77.070
83.947
'12.568)
(61.405)
(66.986)
77.070
80.430
(61.45~)
(63.918)
Mean
90.746
80.496
72.552)
(63.884)
beff icient of var iat ion (2) : 2.78 P
(2.66 4;;
Results of Duneans’ Multiple Range Test :
- -
5 %
A
AB
A
AB
Al3
AR
B
c
‘:‘reatment,:. w i t h the :;MIE ILet,%<
i dk net di ffer s.i~:r:.if’iiû.ntljr .
$30
fficient o f varirttion (2) :
lj. 10
-or fungi cide :
N.S.
c :
N.S.. - Ron significant
10 %
AB
AR
A
AU
A13
HC
HC
tcrs do net d i ffer s ikwi f’icant Iv .
‘1’:iblc 0 :
Contr; 11 of’ :xmi rots an secd 1 i ng d i :;misc:i
J~esu.lts 0 f' seed rot and ollar rot in<: idence
Seetl
Se cd
7
,~ !. t’ Cl ..I ‘2
~j.00
Mp, An, ii
-:
:! .67
0.e
2 . y2
3
g
i .%>
0.00
0.83
Mp, Af, i-:
2
g
:I. 83
a.92
C! . 00
0.42
MP, B
4
2.92
g
9.00
0.00
0.00
Mp, FS, H
3
g
cl.00
2.50
0.42
0.42
Mp, Af
1
Q
0.42
2.50
0.42
0.03
MP, Af, B
2
g
0.42
2.92
0.42
0.00
Mp, Af‘, B
1.6’7
3.33
2.08
1.67
MP, Af, H
Note :
Yp - Macrophomina
-
jhaseolina
A n - Aspergillus
-
ger
A f - Aspergillus
.avus
FS
- Fusarium sp.
7;
LJ
- 8acteri.a
V .- SURREY OF GROUNDNUT DISEASES
-
~---
t.ime f’ew rust. pu:‘t.
Wambey .
---.----- -- ______
.i i
ii/ 1 ;, 1s i i{) OF RURAL vEVELOI":f:t. '
--____-----____-
SENC!..i!LESE INSlITlJTE \\Ji
AtiKiCIJLTURAL RESEARCH
UEPARTMENT :jF RESEARCH
ON CROP PRODUCTION
- - - - - -. - - -
ANNUAL REPI ZT
ON GKOtr!~DNU-l- PAPHOL &Y - 1988
BY
\\
NATIONAL CENTRE OF AGRONOMICF
RESEARCH, BAMBEY
he :*esearch acti .ties wt-,‘e rest,I*l~zted t o mortly f’.>l.i;:”
le:;f
‘; ! .-1 I-‘h~:cm~ ,9r iopsi s pe:%sonata.
.-~-
During -
.‘: a:-(?,; :[u, t.0 soi.1 :Lr;lj sèed borner p,t,
c >; ! :-. +,:: Il;3 C.‘ screeni ng 2nd chemica Ii ;:on
j -: i;- cl:: c.; $2 r: l,:lused by soi L fungi espec ia
;~ha:;eolin~~, Aspergilïus flavus :tnd F
-
-
.X.1 I-hese experiments were conducted
t Niort which is a hot spot for l.eaf
s;,ot :.!i;e;;ses. Thi; y e a r a l s o there k 3 henq tJ3i seasc pressure particuLal*Z:,
03” early leaf spot, (Cercospors
arack
-
- licola) i n bott i*esistance screellini;
:ilid
chem’ ,:a1 control exper iments. Th
result:: of a11 these experiments :I.I’I
:iLscussed in the following pages.
: - RFSISTANCE SCREENING AGAINST Ll3Al! ;POT DIS%ES :
?..1 - Screening germplasm entrie
:
!?Ut of 252 germplasm entrie tésted against leaf spot :lisea::82c
urider natllral i n f e c t i o n at Nioro, .LOC ?ntries ha.d shows l o w inf’ection. C!’
t, he s c ) 94 entries were reteated durin
1988 season 8lO:igwith somc knoi43
susceptible checks and 2 new ent:ries
zceived from ICKSAT.
TkUS
+,otaZ 100 entriez: -tiere soxn on 3 -07-88 i n a single row r)f rj m :Ltangt,h
?‘he spacirg followed fias 60 cm betwee
rows a:id l5 cm wi?hin plaIit’,s.
C)];e ::eed ‘;:ls sown a!. each porket,, Al1 -nt,ries were sown in 3 ~~epl.icat i :r’i’.
Jarly leaf’ spot symptcms r,t +ed apylearing -in t h e thirr? week 0; .,I~:Iu:;~ ,
In the begining the symptomi; were sec
on few highly susceptible varietie:. bu%
soon they were spread to a11 the entr es. Heavy rainfal.1 in August helped ‘fc)
:;j:jre: d t,hc- dicease rapidly. Heavy d i s ISC, pl’e:;sure was developed <Lt t,he t-, IW
0 i’ niatur j !;y.
Observations were recorded
Jice 1.16.09 and Lb. .LO .88) on the :Le:; i’
5r)ot ini’ef:t,ion. A scal.e of 3- LCJ propc rd b y ICRISAT. wne.re 0 r;tandc for-. rlr’: ,
iilfectio:l and 10 denotes
100 5: lesf rea affected b y leaf s p o t i.nfer::t,i(#r! :;a:,
u:;ed for recording the observations.
ean d i s e a s e s c o r e f o r each entry i::
furni shed in table 1.
i,,nt ry
i eari Score
-
-
T
’
1 “-’ abs on 16/09
-~
+--
t
r’
-i-
3
- --.-
-~~ T
56-‘11
l
53-66
/
/. A
53-86
48-111
55-333
‘)
48-38
48-44
48-154
59-1113
42-44
55-l3.L
57-67
59-238
28-224
48-38 A
48--io:1
56-222
56-233
56-295
56-370
56-375
56-379
jb-423
j8-l-9
58-52
58-351
59-1.05
59-1.23
59-243
‘(y)- j,(>li
5t.Fu3
58--L+ 53
58-650
PIA
/
59-25(1
t
fJ-.$)
L!b 1.s:.
)tB-1.o:i
/
I
56-176
!
56.m242
/
56-2/3
l
/
5 8 - 6 8
l
59-145
l
59-390
/
!
68-112
/
!
53-300
5 9 - 1 5 5
/
J II.
I
/
59-266
I
4 8 - 5 5
/
i
GH l.l$+:'O
50-36
52-2
53-68
55-214
55~46ur
56-286
56-326
5 6 - 3 8 3
56-447
58-45
5i3-‘j 3
5 8 - 1 3 8
58-160
gv-167
5 8 - 3 9 9
5&-40t:
y3-68
59-l lli
59-12’:
p:t 4t:
SP151
S(;i ->o:,
;a
i
-... ..----.-
iJl-$,
3. ‘1
7.1-33
7.3-j;.
3:
75-7::
7 ï-8;
f-t
‘
pl'i 6ib ii
3 . i,
Eénégal. Or i i:nta.l
2 . L
v-773
Y.:
V-~~tjl.
3
59-p+!
3
55-51.1.
2._ . L)
57-loi?
4
57-31.ji
!,
58-147
4
58-157
1
59-147
i
59-2;:L
5
2 i+-l+'f-'(
4.;
28-210 A
:? .>
4&-6r
3
56-188
58-18
58-31
5b'- 511
gp4l&
59-92
59-130
55-437
Note :
NA - Result not ai
il;Lble
Grade
No of cntrir::;
Grade
4
1
5
L, . :)
G
6
.Y
0 . C)
5
7
F.f . C)
7
i!
Y
3
Five V;I.:’ ietie:. have ;hown
ow 1e:d.i spot inl’~zct.ion whi ch c:an be
rateci as moderately resistant OI’ tale ant . AI 1 these varieties have been
5 :r*eeried c:ontinuously f o r last. i year u~ci -t,he .i havc consi stant1.y shown
1.1w Lea.;’ s p o t , inferti cn. It is. ‘.heref r f.“ , s-lggested to use these var i et ies
i II t. he j~:*r>sslng -r*ogrkni for ‘j !:i'::j'J.je:,r:> i.t:;; tnc fielci i*c.-::jst,:-21ice to kaf spot,
, .
which arc hishly suscepl ible.
?‘he performance of these var
in:;t .Leaf’ spot Ji.selzses dur ing last
3 ye.ws was as under.
Entry
ni case
“ '\\J i
r 0
Pio!- j
,! i
i Bambey )
48-154
4
2
56-311
3.5
1
w-44
4
2
56-295
4 .5
1
56-326
5
1
II - CHEMICAL CONTROL OF' LJWF SPOT DI
..~ EASES
-
-
The experimen? on iSh<:lii 1c:i.l.
orlt,rtA of 1ea.i’ s p o t , discases was initiated
In 1.986 at Bambey on ‘73-33 varj cty wi h 14 c.hemiS:.:a.ls ‘ in 1907, the experiment
W”1 L :;hifted to Nioro a
s
4-t is : bot. ot; fn ‘* Leaf’ :;pot ci ise:tses of’ grountlmt,
wher!: it, was conducte? 611 3 v:i.ri ~:Lies JI;I, ‘i3-33 arici 7.F:30. During I?I88 seascin
t:he experiment wac; con-l;inued iLt Niciro di.!-.h :tddition %II‘ one m o r e Chemica.11 VIZ.
.\\J t’:Lr:: i.:.e!i t)y C,i!Xi t,oN
:ic :: i :‘:. .y ef’L’ecCive a.[- L:i:;t
used Il -two d o s e s ‘V’lT’.
iet;ai ii were as under.
‘Ir*e:it,ments
200
: (j ‘JIZ. ,
g .ti/ha
-
-
enlüte ,’
100 g :Li/ha.
ncozeb( ~‘:~,ncoza:: B:Lue) 1 500 g c-tilha
pper +
ineb( r::ilimix)
lioo g QC/100 1.
neb
160 g ai/ux~ 1..
nicona::*;le (Sulni 8)
50 g ai/ha
i 8)
100 g :ti/ha
Replications
2
P:lot size
m
0 $5 s .,
‘.5 X 3.9 m*
net
Spac ing
: 50 x 15 cn
Fer-tili zers
r.&te of’ i.50 kg,/‘ha as basa1 dose.
Date of’ sowing
bate of’ harves
The fungic.iàai treatment,
e stsrted after the appearsncc of the
1.eal s p o t s . Thc lesf Lapas h3.d sta
a.ppear: :lg in the second week o-f August.
In a11 4 fungicidal sprays were gi
n 17.W, 5 . 0 9 , 1 6 . 0 9 a n d 28.09.88.
observations on leaf spot score we
r orded *Lt the time of each fungicidal
::pray. 17 inal observations were rec
on thc I.eaf spot severity based on the
LeaI’ area damaged . The ~ummii.?-g of
2 s f’or t he final di.seasa score recor:ded
on 28.CFj.88 i:; preSerltf?c: .irl tabk
ILo t,ha.: o f t h e disease severity a n d yie1.d
!iaW, a r e presented i n t-,xbies 3 nnti
r,per:t.ivel,y. ‘l’he results f o r 1~0th the
~list3se severi ty and fht: y i e-Lt1 X-C’
: ter! 15 : ~iultnneously in a graph on page 1.0.
r
i
3. C>c
‘3 . 3 7 5
!l. yj
4.125
4.75
4.500
5.75
5.250
5.25
4.875
ii.00
4.253
3.75
3.750
>.75
5 . 075
Mean
1.344
4 . 656
:oeff’;cient, If’ v a r i a t i o n ( 2 ’ ) : 22.223
SD f’r.lr f’ung i cide
Results of Duncan’ :; Multi.ple Range
.
-
-
-~-
B~JIOIS;;~
200 g ‘1, i jt:i.
E
Benomyl
100 g :.i Ijhri.
CI
Mawozet
1.500 g ~1. i//h:J
B(
Calimix
400 g pc/lOii 1.
Al
1Maneb
160 g ai/lOij 1
Al :
Surni FI
50 g a.:i!ll;!
HC IE
Sumi i!
1oc; p 2:i /h:1.
DI
co;1tr*;>1
A
‘i”re:itme:,lj:; id i t.b the ::anie Lt ;t,ers io ric~i, rii f’t’er signi ficant.ly.
corif roi of' Il.eaf' symts
3f r~xx.lts of disease wverity
in the brackets denote arcsin value:;:
73-X
MCUI
,16’
63 .72o
06: !
i 53. 055
*9v:
75.375
73.385
.25~ :
(60.730)
(59.404)
JOC.
84 -350
80 -525
,265)
(67.453)
(64.359)
.O9 i.1
93 -165
93 -IL30
,023 j
(76.475)
(76 -251 )
541.1
88A40
87 .$QO
.783 !
(70.255)
(70 919)
.77d
84 n320
82 -54:
pc )
(66.785)
( 65 +o:z )
47L!
71.555
72 ???????
83ij)
(57.807)
(58.322)
;19(i
94.605
94 -89'i
,988)
(77.300)
( '?Ï ~644)
F.Ieiir!
81.441
(66.233)
:oe f’f ic ent of variat.ion ( 2 ) :
16 . j 3 ;
( 15 . 22 5 !
Pi,: !I:I t i II ty for f‘urigi ci.de
:
. 001
SD for fungi.cide
: 7.1'5 ,:.t, îln.
)t, ili.l’i’er significantly
control of' lei~f' spl,s
:hmmary
If results of yicld data
(Figures in kg/llna)
1
6
3
1
-8
1
;4
.lt.)?g
)
: 21.08 %
Coeff icient of v a :,iation ( 2) : 3;. .ci> P.
*
. .000
LSD for funglcide
-
i ; , ,‘.
at Lia.
i’esults of’ Du:.can’s Multiple Range Test
-.
-
5 %
i3erx:nty 1
i 00
g ai. /ha
A
l:enomyl
.i 00
g
a.i/ha
A
Banc-)zeb
1500
g ai/ha
B
Cali :~I;X
4 00
g pc/100 1.
BC
Plane b
160
g ai/l.OO 1
B C
kmi a
SO
g ai/ha
B
sümi 8
100
g
ai/ha
B
Conti01
C
3eatmc-nt s with the sa.me letter s
o net d iffer signi f cantly .
r 73
1
2
3.4-
TM%tIl
L-
nts
Benomyl
200 g ai
2 - .BE!llOnT;J1..
100
g ai/ha
-;, -
4 - Calimix
400 g pc/l.!~O 1
; - Maneb
Mancozetl
1500 160 g g ai ai
0 1
6 - Sumi
50
g ai/ha
mf - Sumi 8
100 ai
g
8 - Control
(No trecttment)
'0 Xi.?'iC:tie: s.! <.!'f'et.cvl sipi 1'; Y!,tit~l~~, '(3-30
1987 season t h c ù.i.f’ference bcltween !,he
wa.s non significa.[A. The in!,, ~rxtion
;
was obselved to be non sigrli i’i.carnt as
,hat, the fungic i-des had the s::me effect on
‘I’he resul-,s in table 3 revea
td that the dif’ferences in mean diseaje
;ev-r i:;i o?’ various treatmerrts were hi 11y signiïiuant. Al.1 the fungi eides wci’2
F severi ty czxce;:1% :a1 1mix 3x 3:: r:ei~. ih2~x~1r1yl
tatrnent f’ollowed by Sumi 8 3: ~1.00 cg :;)s..i.
!y1 at 100 g dose.
The disease severity of two rieties did not diff’er signi!‘i.cantly. ‘She
f’i.n:A 3isease score recorded at the ti: : o f l a s t fungicidal treütment ie, ,3:. 2;3-09-88
showed that 73-30 h,id signif5ç:i.ntl.y mn0 : disectse s c o r e thun ‘(j-33. Iiowevei*, the
li:;!zase level of the two varieties did lot differ signi fi c:ai:tiy in ‘.hc di :~e::~sf:
s,evszri.y,y observat,i.ons which were rec::jrl Id XE month I:rt.ttr. .i’kis obtc;rvatic)n ‘q;;:‘epc;
_
yith the result obkLined during 1987 s son and coni’irm” that both 5he varie-t,it:s are
equsl1.v susceptible to leaf spot disea !s. T h i s also (zonfirrns the enrlier ObSei‘vatiCm
r-lot,& in 1:186 that the early vririeties ,hok: more irifeczt2011 in the be6;in.i ne :X~L
sub:;equently the lat,e varieties also d relop ;imi.lar Irn’ec t.i on.
As in case of disease score,
;he int,erac-tien i n betwean the f’ungic: ides
:-3nd thc val’ieties ~:AS non significan-t i respect, (2:’ disea:;e sevcrity ~31.~0. ‘:‘hi:,
Czont‘ir:n:; t.he eorli.e!. results ot’ 1.987 s lson a
s
wel.1 a:; the >lisease ~COI*~ d;t<,a 0~’
Lhi ..: ,y:-::.r ‘s experiment th;2t thc f’ungici
zs bave the same el’fect o n bf3t.h t,he -vay’< eties,
or ’ r( ,<)ther words, bath the var ieti e:;
tve resporidetl s imilttr-aly agai!!:.t, al.1 t-,hcs
fungil: ides.
111 - F1ESIS'l'ANCE SCmENING AGAINST Sm
- -
Wl' AND SEEDLING DISEASES DUE TO SOIL FUNGI
- - -
3.1 - Resis ‘.ance screening against
~.
Ispergillus niger :
S e e d t’ t,s and seed.Ling disea: ; jncited b y soi1 fungi especially A:pergillus
j?ige!‘, Ma.crophon:i na phaseolina, Aspergj
_-
Lus Plavus 2nd Hhizopus sp. pause cc b,i.eliF
-
:r*educt,ion in plar?t stand. Incidence of
“own rot/collar rot caused due to A. Cger is
-
-
36-er;j of’ten encout.tered i n ::enegal throL I~L& t,he gro;xxl 11ut. basin. It, i.s pal’- icularly
Y ~rf wc~ in ::andy li ght soi Ls . Hence a-tt
npt-.s were made this yesr. tcj search f ‘I’ 3ources
c f’ : (35 i stance t,c crown rot/collar 3bot. t
txsti ng S(\\:I~~~ df’ the gë!*mpl:i soi f:cLlc ( c, i 0rls
.in t he field at ‘lioro.
In a11 100 entries were sown
1 ‘!O.C)‘7.80 in :i slngle row of 6 m lL;.qtb.
‘l’he spaxing followed was 60 cm between
‘ows and 15 cm within plants. One sec,d was
:TC)W~~ in each pocket. Furadan was applie
before sowinp t;o xvoid s e e d kmage .uc
‘TO r:ilipecles. Ali the entries were sowr
in 2 repliea:r,i oni, n Une replicat., ion -1.::::.
.i noculated with t,he crown rot pa,thogen
ni~h was rnultiJ>lied i n the l.abor:&oi , o!i
%.he groundnut shells. Inoculum w a s addc
tc: cxh pcket, dlorlgwith t.he s~(l ;: $i~c
t:,imc of sowing. 9bservations recorded : r the germination and the coll~.r rot inci-
[ien’e are gi ven .i n table 5.
Table 5
-..-- : Observations on germi
“ion anti collar rot incidenr:e
i n the rcsistant.~
crect!ii ng tria1
Reductim iri
~-- -~-
-_
~errniriatj on C?L~’
Ii !.
RI1
to inocul.at~ ior
IIlCCLL3,Leci
Jninocll i
t?tl
Ii l
ijl ï
2
._--
~-..-
-.
-.-.- _.._
-----~I-. _
3
4
5
i
ij
7
~_
- .----__ /
--.
l---
.((),(J(j -
-
92 . y
.- . Yj7
‘1 30
.
2% . jc,
5 0 . 0 0
7 2 . ‘jr)
0. U?
0.00
22 . 5c.i
70.00
92.50
I ) . 00
0.00
2 2 . j c
57 * 50
70. OC!
0 . 0 0
0.00
12.5C
02.50
97 . 5r.
C.j . 00
0.00
35.OC
35.00
62.5i,
0.00
0.00
2’7.5C
42.5c
60.00
5 . 8 8
8.33
17.50
7.50
5.56”
Ci.00
0.00
57.50
90. oc
ii.35
0.00
32.50
52.50
72.5(
i .u.l
:: . 00
C?C . 00
67.50
yo. oi.
i’.cJO
0.00
32. 5L,
67.50
‘77. 50
L.00
0.00
.LO . 06
75.00
92. 50
ci. OC)
c.00
17. fa
75.00
100.00
0 . 0 0
0.00
25.00
57.50
87.50
U.00
(2.00
33.9.!
‘lO.Oc,
72.5iJ
il . oc
0.00
3’ . 5c:
50.00
go. CJC
0. 00
0.00
40.00
35.00
47.5(.
0.60
Ci.00
1:’ . 5;:
35.00
37.w
0.00
0.00
2.50
67.50
y-7.50
i,.oo
0.00
10.00
42.50
o.oc.,
0 . 00
0.00
50.00
km.00
0 . 0 0
0.00
67.50
tj2.50
0 . OC
9.00
70.00
go.oc>
0 . 0 0
3.00
47 , 50
n7.5c
0 . 0 0
‘0.00
20.00
bC. 50
0 . 0 0
0.00
4’7 .y2
72.50
u.00
0.00
45.00
65. OC‘
0 . 0 0
3.00
45.00
85. oc;
0 . 0 0
0.00
‘1.50
SÏ.5c;
0 . 0 0
4.35
22.50
~0. dl
0 . 0 0
0.00
. . ./ . . .
2
i)
6
c-_
éc, , 00
85.0(
0.00
0.00
30. oc
.3 0 , 00
72.5(
0 . i)O
0.00
42.cjU
57.50
6'7 * 5<
L) . in
0.00
10 . 00
T’i . 50
77.5(
L! . 00
0.00
60.~1
‘(7. 50
95.oc
C’ * c.>o
0.00
17. >Cl
p * 5C!
87 . 5(
0.00
0.00
35.00
85.00
V7.5(
0. iii)
0.00
12.50
22.50
47.5(
0.00
0.00
25.00
47.50
72.5(
0.00
0.00
25.00
72.50
92.5(
0.00
2.70
20.00
70.00
72.Y
0.00
0.00
2.50
32.50
75.0<
0.00
0.00
42.50
45.00
85.0(
0.00
0.00
40.00
47.50
75.0(
0.00
0.00
27.50
25.00
70.0(
3.00
0.00
45.ov
<l
i
75.06
85.0(
3.33
0.00
1.0. oc
y?-266
45.oc
72.5(
0.00
0.00
2’i. $0
411-55
30.00
80.0(
0.00
0.00
50.00
GH 119-20
12.50
62.5~
0.00
0.00
5o.oc
50-36
2.50
18.U
0.00
0.00
15.68
5;>-2
67.50
100. oc
0.00
0.00
32.50
53-68
77.50
92.5(
0.00
0.00
15.00
y?-2LL
62.50
92.5<
0.00
0.00
30.00
55~461x7
67.50
72.5(
0.00
0.00
5. OC)
5rJr286
67.50
92.5(
0.00
0.00
25.oc
56-326
2.50
72.5(
1.00. oc
0.00
70. 00
56-383
67.50
100. oc
0.00
0.00
32.50
56-4b7
50.00
85.0(
0.00
0.00
35.00
s-45
35.00
92.5<
0.00
0.00
57.50
$h-53
67.50
135.0(
10 . 00
0.00
17.50
513-1’38
70.00
c37.Y
0 . 00
0.00
27.50
y!-.LhO
22.50
87.5(
22.22
0.00
u5.oc:
>+167
15.00
d5.0(
o.o!
0.00
70.00
‘j?-3!29
112-50
t52.y
0.w
0.00
0.00
5+408
go.00
100. oc
0.00
0.00
10.00
w-68
40.00
40.0(
0 . (iç
0.00
0.00
>y-118
65.00
92.5(
0.00
0.00
27.50
>“1-125
,
22.50
60.0<
0 . il0
0.00
3'7. SC?
i
P‘
i
-- --~--
’ j
_~_.----
1_----..-_-
y,- j ::ij!
il. :iil
) <j
5;‘. Sri
sy- 1.51
SO. :?O
JO
. oc:
3 2 . 5 0
59-502
25 . 00
JO
.oo
:tj. 00
61-w
57. 50
)O
.OO
3 5 . 0 0
73-33
85.00
)O
.OO
7. 50
73-30
57-x
?O
t.35
1 5 , 00
7 5-72
4r . 5c
10
.OO
40 * 00
7 y-84
ji2 .5c
10
. 00
4 2 . 5 0
PR64B
27.50
)O
. 00
42.50
;éncgal Orienta
5.00
SO
.OO
52 ,I 50
v - 7 7 3
20.00
)O
.oo
50..00
‘ J - 7 8 1
10.00
)O
.oo
3 5 . 0 0
5 9 - 2 9 8
67750
10
.oo
22,,50
55-511
7 2 . 5 0
)O
.OO
0. !)@
57-102
5 2 . 5 0
)O
.oo
1 7 . 5 0
5 7 - 3 1 9
60.00
10
.oo
2 2 . 5 0
55-147
72. j0
:10
.OO
2-j. 50
5$-157
7-i. 50
. 00
7.50
513-147
2 0 . 0 0
I . 50
5 5 . 0 0
59-260
6 7 . 5 0
.oo
2 2 . 5 0
U4-47-7
82.SO
.30
o.r$3
28-210 A
3 2 . 5 0
55.c 1
.oo
2 2 . 5 0
4.8-62
32.50
7S.C 1
. 00
4 2 . 5 0
5 6 - 1 8 8
52.50
85.1 1
.oo
32.50
58-:iô
40. ix-l
‘72. L 1
.oo
'32. yo
5 8 - 3 1
22.50
6 5 . 1 1
.oo
4 2 . 5 0
5 8 - 5 4
4 5 . 0 0
9 5 . c 1
‘,.OO
5 0 . 0 0
5 8 - 6 8 2
52.50
-fO.C 1
(
. o o
1’1. 50
5 9 - 9 2
7
. ‘50
3 0 . i 1
( .oo
22.50
59-130
‘/G.CJO
9 7 . L >
. .si
27 . jo
5 5 - 4 3 7
3 7 . 5 0
80.C 1
i’; .67
42.50
+- -
- - - - - -
- ~-
- - - - -
Note :
* F'ew seec s vere s-mn ti e to sho!,!,nge.
The collar rot, incidence was
:,eplicz:io3s. In the inoculat& rep1.i (’
xh-i l e i.-t was seen only i n k entries UI
48-44 and 55-437 bave shown collar rot
.nc :dr xe ; n b!:.th the inoculated and
unir:oculated treaments while the ?,wo 1 IISA’i’ ~XI~*I &iek VIZ
., U 4-47-7 and J
did not show any collar rot incidence
Ter1 ur.der Inocl..lation.
1.v -
CoN’YlK)1> OE’ SKI# KOTS AND SFXDLI NG 1) I !:i.’XF:: ; ‘1’HIh NGIf :iEE:I) ‘I’RE:A’I’NP~N’L’S :
--.---.~ -_-.- - - - -.---. - - - .---...
.--._ - - - - ~. ---_.-. -_ -_-_
/
..ed
Seed
? g/kg :-eed
3 g/kg seed
2 g/kg seed
4 g l k g seed
3 g/kg s e e d
1 g/kg Feed
2 g/kg :;eed
No treat!r:en% )
Replications
.
.
4
Plc.t!
size
.
. 4.8 x ..j
1~‘ ’
Spacing
: 60
x .51 cm
Fe?,tilizers
: fj:ilo:l!I ,i!, f :le 1‘:; te of’ 1 cj<:1 kg/ha,
Dilt.f? Of’ sowing
:
30.07.:it:
Da’,t: o f Iia.rveFt,
: %i{ 10
. . ,(
.#3
‘TABLE 6 :
contro1 of’ seed rot,:; 1
.-_
2 Q
tj3.12>
tb.334
(65.775)
(70.536)
3 g
iIO.935
85. ‘j;?r:
(64.155)
(67.93’7)
* g
84.792
88.751
(67.128)
(70.818)
4 65
80.208
86.530
(63.672)
169.087)
3 &
8:. 458
86.355
(64.527)
(68.709)
Ii!3
8:i .875
86.3$
(64.8321
(6ti.447)
2g
78.020
&S . 323
(62.033)
(67.187)
‘77 .813
80.939
(61.977)
(64.316)
Mean
8.1.028
(64.262)
.:oeffici.ent, OI’ variat
iation (2) :
2 r 34 %
(3.12 %)
1 f’, 31” fungicide : 2.27s at, 1.7;
b?o’babili ty for seed type
:
. OCK‘
8$.3yyj
(70.574)
30.32'1
(63.710)
92.^Y’j
84.735
‘71 :xl5)
(67 .08’! ‘,
92.020
79.590
86.205
74.488)
(63.242)
(68.865)
91.245
80.640
85.943
72.880)
(63.907)
(68.394)
91.245
81.375
86.310
72.900)
(64.‘@5)
(68.697)
96.825
77.070
83.947
'12.568)
(61.405)
(66.986)
77.070
80.430
(61.45~)
(63.918)
Mean
90.746
80.496
72.552)
(63.884)
beff icient of var iat ion (2) : 2.78 P
(2.66 4;;
Results of Duneans’ Multiple Range Test :
- -
5 %
A
AB
A
AB
Al3
AR
B
c
‘:‘reatment,:. w i t h the :;MIE ILet,%<
i dk net di ffer s.i~:r:.if’iiû.ntljr .
$30
fficient o f varirttion (2) :
lj. 10
-or fungi cide :
N.S.
c :
N.S.. - Ron significant
10 %
AB
AR
A
AU
A13
HC
HC
tcrs do net d i ffer s ikwi f’icant Iv .
‘1’:iblc 0 :
Contr; 11 of’ :xmi rots an secd 1 i ng d i :;misc:i
J~esu.lts 0 f' seed rot and ollar rot in<: idence
Seetl
Se cd
7
,~ !. t’ Cl ..I ‘2
~j.00
Mp, An, ii
-:
:! .67
0.e
2 . y2
3
g
i .%>
0.00
0.83
Mp, Af, i-:
2
g
:I. 83
a.92
C! . 00
0.42
MP, B
4
2.92
g
9.00
0.00
0.00
Mp, FS, H
3
g
cl.00
2.50
0.42
0.42
Mp, Af
1
Q
0.42
2.50
0.42
0.03
MP, Af, B
2
g
0.42
2.92
0.42
0.00
Mp, Af‘, B
1.6’7
3.33
2.08
1.67
MP, Af, H
Note :
Yp - Macrophomina
-
jhaseolina
A n - Aspergillus
-
ger
A f - Aspergillus
.avus
FS
- Fusarium sp.
7;
LJ
- 8acteri.a
V .- SURREY OF GROUNDNUT DISEASES
-
~---
t.ime f’ew rust. pu:‘t.
Wambey .