Nội dung

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(10): 1080-1084 International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences ISSN: 2319-7706 Volume 6 Number 10 (2017) pp. 1080-1084 Journal homepage: http://www.ijcmas.com Original Research Article https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.610.131 Management of Meloidogyne incognita in Mungbean by Seed Soaking in Different Chemicals under Pot Condition Mayuri Patel* and A.D. Patel Department of Nematology, Anand Agricultural University, Anand-388 110, Gujarat, India *Corresponding author ABSTRACT Keywords Chemicals, Mungbean, M. incognita, Seed soaking. Article Info Accepted: 10 September 2017 Available Online: 10 October 2017 A pot experiment conducted to study the efficacy of different chemicals for the management of Meloidogyne incognita indicated that seed soaking treatment of Emamectin benzoate @ 1.0 g/lit and Carbosulfan @ 2.0 ml/lit for 6 hours proved to be effective in improving the plant growth parameters and reducing root-knot disease and final nematode population. Introduction Mungbean (Vigna radiata (L) R. Wilczek) belongs to family Leguminosae and sub family Papilionaceae. It is known by many common names viz., mung, moong, mungo, goldengram, chickasawpea, oreganpea etc. In India, the name green gram is more commonly used than mungbean (Chatterjee and Randhawa, 1952). Gupta and Verma (1990) estimated avoidable losses in mungbean under field conditions due to M. javanica ranged from 42.1 to 93.4%. The yield loss of 18 to 65 and 23 to 49% due to M. incognita and M. javanica respectively in mung bean has been reported by Sharma et al., (2000). Crop loss due to M. incognita in green gram has been reported as 8.90% (Khan et al., 2010). M. incognita, M. javanica, Heterodera cajani and Rotylenchulus reniformis are the nematodes attacking black gram and green gram inducing 8.90% yield loss with 162 million as a monitory loss (Jain et al., 2007). Materials and Methods Earthen pots of 15 cm diameter were washed with water and then disinfested with 4% formaldehyde (Formalin 40 EC solution). After drying, pots were filled with nematode infested soil having 1 J2/g soil (1.5 kg/pot). Thirteen treatments including one check (Table 2) were employed in Completely Randomized Design (CRD) with four repetitions. Seeds of mungbean variety Gujarat anand mung 5 were soaked in the solution of chemicals for 6 hours. Then seeds 1080 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(10): 1080-1084 were dried under shade and three seeds seeded in each pot. Upon germination, plants were thinned down to one/pot. Watering was done as and when required. Plant protection measures were adopted as per the recommendation in vogue. After 45 days of sowing, the experiment was discontinued by removing the plants from the pots and roots were washed gently under running tap water. Observations on plant height, fresh shoot and root weights were recorded. Roots were cut in to 2-3 cm length and 3 g roots were stained in 0.05% acid fuchsin in lactophenol. Then roots were washed with tap water to remove excess stain and kept overnight in lactophenol, then roots were examined for nematode population. Results and Discussion In order to assay the effect of chemicals for the management of Meloidogyne incognita in mungbean, seed were soaked in Acetamiprid @ 1.0 g/lit. (T1), Carbosulfan @ 2.0 ml/lit. (T2), Emamectin benzoate @ 1.0 g/lit. (T3), Fipronil @ 1.0 ml/lit. (T4), Imidaclopride @ 2.0 ml/lit. (T5), Spinosad @ 1.0 ml/lit. (T6), Thiamethxam @ 1.0 g/lit. (T7), Flonicamid @ 1.0 g/lit. (T8), Dimethoate @ 2.0 ml/lit. (T9), Chlorpyrifos @ 4.0 ml/lit. (T10), Methomyl 2.0 g/lit. (T11), Triazophos @ 4.0 ml/lit. (T12) with a control (T13) were tested in pot using nematode infested soil having 230 J2/100 cc soil. Data presented in Table 1 showed nonsignificant differences for germination count. It clearly indicates that there was no any adverse effect of chemical on seed germination. Plant height was significantly more in T9 and T3 followed by T1, T2, T5, T6, T7, T11 and T12. However, all were statistically at par with each other. Minimum plant height was recorded in control (T13) and showed non-significant difference with T4, T5, T8, T6, T10 and T11 (Table 1). Significantly more fresh shoot weight was noticed in Emamectin benzoate @ 1.0 g/lit. (T3) among all the treatments. Table.1 Effect of different chemicals on plant growth characters of mungbean Treatment T1 (ACET) T2 (CARB) T3 (EMAM) T4 (FIPR) T5 (IMID) T6 (SPIN) T7 (THIA) T8 (FLON) T9 (DIME) T10 (CHLO) T11 (METH) T12 (TRIA) T13 (CON) S.Em.± C.D. 0.05 C.V. % Germination count/ pot 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.75 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.75 3.00 3.00 0.09 NS 6.62 Plant growth parameters Fresh weight, g Plant height, cm Shoot Root 17.75ab 1.72bcd 0.31c ab bcd 18.38 1.78 0.38b a a 20.13 2.26 0.49a 16.13bc 1.27f 0.29c abc def 17.50 1.40 0.29c ab bcd 17.88 1.77 0.32c ab bc 18.50 1.81 0.41b bc f 16.00 1.15 0.21d 20.13a 1.92ab 0.41b bc ef 16.75 1.33 0.29c abc cdef 17.50 1.49 0.30c ab bcde 17.75 1.67 0.31c 14.50c 0.70g 0.17d 0.97 0.11 0.01 11.03 14.48 9.75 *0 = Free; 5 = Maximum disease intensity. Figures indicating common letters do not differ significantly from each other at 5% level of significance according to DNMRT. 1081 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(10): 1080-1084 Table.2 Effect of different chemicals on multiplication of Meloidogyne incognita on mungbean in pots Nematode population/plant Treatment T1 (ACET) T2 (CARB) T3 (EMAM) T4 (FIPR) T5 (IMID) T6 (SPIN) T7 (THIA) T8 (FLON) T9 (DIME) T10 (CHLO) T11 (METH) T12 (TRIA) T13 (CON) S.Em.± C.V. % RKI (0-5)* (√x) 2.00abcd (4.00) 1.78e (3.25) 1.57f (2.50) 2.05ab (4.25) 2.00abcd (4.00) 1.79cde (3.25) 1.73ef (3.00) 2.05ab (4.25) 1.79cde (3.25) 2.05ab (4.25) 2.00abcd (4.00) 1.93bcde (3.75) 2.17a (4.75) 0.09 6.62 Root Females/3g (Log X) Eggs/3g (Log X) 1.27def (127.50) 1.24def (99.75) 0.99f (53.00) 1.65bc (181.50) 1.59bc (166.50) 1.26def (108.25) 1.22def (99.50) 1.78ab (210.75) 1.16ef (89.00) 1.62bc (168.25) 1.52bcd (160.00) 2.85def (711.00) 1.40cde (146.25) 2.01a (362.50) 0.09 12.71 2.73def (547.00) 2.30i (212.00) 3.20b (1679.50) 2.95cd (898.75) 2.80ef (637.25) 2.60gh (410.25) 3.38a (2451.75) 2.48h (311.25) 3.08bc (1267.50) 2.91de (815.50) 2.89de (792.00) 3.45a (2886.25) 0.04 2.93 Soil (200 cc) (Log X) 2.11de (127.50) 1.99f (99.75) 1.72g (53.00) 2.26bc (181.50) 2.21bc (166.50) 2.03ef (108.25) 1.99f (99.50) 2.32b (210.75) 1.94f (89.00) 2.22bc (168.25) 2.19cd (160.00) 2.16cd (146.25) 2.55a (362.50) 0.03 3.09 *0 = Free; 5 = Maximum disease intensity. Figures in parentheses are re-transformed values of √x and Log X. Figures indicating common letters do not differ significantly from each other at 5% level of significance according to DNMRT. 1082 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(10): 1080-1084 …………………………………………………………………….Results and Discussion Plate.1 Effect of seed soaking of chemicals on management of M. incognita (A) SHOOT (B) ROOT Plate 4: Effect of seed soaking of chemicals on management of M. Treatment of Dimethoate @ 2.0 ml/lit. (T9) incognita found next best treatment and remain statistically at par with Emamectin benzoate @ 1.0 g/lit. (T3). Control had significantly lowest fresh shoot weight. Rest of the treatment has mediocre effect for fresh shoot weight (Table 1, Plate 1). Maximum fresh root weight was recorded in Emamectin benzoate @ 1.0 g/lit. (T3) and it differ significantly from rest of the treatments. Treatments, T2, T7 and T9 were next best treatments and remain at par with each other and differ significantly with Emamectin benzoate @ 1.0 g/lit. (T3). Control (T13) has significantly low fresh root weight. It was statistically at par with Flonicamid @ 1.0 g/lit. (T8). Rest of the treatment has midiocare effect (Table 1, Plate 1). Root knot index was 1083 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(10): 1080-1084 significantly higher in the T13 (control). However, it was statistically at par with the treatment T1, T4, T5, T8, T10, T11 and T12. RKI was significantly less in the treatment of Emamectin benzoate @ 1.0 g/lit. (T3) as compared to rest of the treatments (Table 2). Treatment T3 found significantly superior over other treatment having least no. of females/plant, but it did not differ with the treatment of T1, T2, T6, T7 and T9. Maximum females were recorded in T13 which is statistically at par with T8. In cause of eggs, treatment T3 found most effective which has significantly less eggs over other treatments. Maximum no. of eggs was recorded in treatment T13 which is statistically at par with T8. Rest of the treatments has mediocre effect. In case of soil nematode population treatment T3 turn out significantly better which has lowest nematode population. Treatment T2, T6, T7 and T9 were statistically at par with each other and closely followed to T3. Significantly higher nematode population was rescored in T13 (Table 2). References Chatterjee, D., and Randhawa, G. S. 1952. Standardized Names of Cultivated Plants in India. Indian J. Horticulture. 9 (2): 24-36. Gupta, D. C., and Verma, K. K. 1990. Studies on avoidable losses in mung bean (Vigna radiata) due to root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne javanica and its control under field conditions. Indian J. Nematol. 20 (2): 148-151. Jain, R. K., Mathur, K. N. and Singh, R. V. 2007. Estimation of Losses due to Plant Parasitic Nematodes on different Crops in India. Indian J. Nematol. 37 (2): 219221. Khan, M. R., Jain, R. K., Singh, R. V. and Pramanik, A. 2010. Economically Important Plant Parasitic Nematodes Distribution Atlas. Directorate of Information and Publications of Agricuture, New Delhi. pp: 10. Sasser, J. N., and Freckman, D. W. 1987. A world prospective on nematology: the role of the society, In: Vistas on Nematology, Edited by J.A. Veech and D.W. Dickson. Society of Nematologists, Hyattsville, MD. Pp: 714 Sharma, S. B., Sharma, H. K. and Pankaj 2000. Nematodes problem in India In: Crop pest and Disease managementchallenges for the millennium (Edited by D. Prasad and S.N. Puri), Joyti Publishers, New Delhi: 267-275. How to cite this article: Mayuri Patel and Patel, A.D. 2017. Management of Meloidogyne incognita in Mungbean by Seed Soaking in Different Chemicals under Pot Condition. Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci. 6(10): 1080-1084. doi: https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.610.131 1084