BIO-CONTROL POTENTIAL OF NATIVE STRAINS OF Trichoderma AGAINST Rhizoctonia bataticola CAUSING DRY ROOT ROT OF CHICKPEA

JAGDISH KUMAR PATIDAR¹*, VIVEK KASHYAP², PRASHANT KUMAR SINGH³, REETI SINGH⁴, R.K. SINGH^5
1Department of Plant Pathology, College of Agriculture, Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh 474002
²Department of Plant Pathology, College of Agriculture, Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh 474002
³Department of Plant Pathology, College of Agriculture, Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh 474002
⁴Department of Plant Pathology, College of Agriculture, Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh 474002
⁵Department of Plant Pathology, College of Agriculture, Indore, Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh 474002
* Corresponding Author : jdsplantpathology@gmail.com

Received : 17-02-2017     Accepted : 26-01-2018     Published : 30-01-2018
Volume : 10     Issue : 2       Pages : 5066 - 5068
Int J Agr Sci 10.2 (2018):5066-5068

Keywords : Trichoderma, Rhizoctonia bataticola, mycelium growth, Inhibition percentage
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : The authors are highly acknowledged to Director Research Services, Director Instruction and Head, Department of Plant Pathology, Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, for help in conducting the trial successfully, continuous guidance and technical support during field investigation
Author Contribution : All author equally contributed

Seven Trichoderma strains were isolated from chickpea rhizosphere and root endophytic region by using serial dilution technique and purified by single hyphal tip method. Isolated Trichoderma strains were evaluated by using dual culture method. Out of the ten isolates tested against Rhizoctonia bataticola, T-6 showed highest inhibition percentage (67.32 %) followed by T7 (63.61%), T-3 (59.72 %) and T-5 (57.50 %), while the least inhibition was shown by T-1 (45.56%).

1. Anonymous (2013-14) Ministry of Agriculture http://agricoop.nic.in
2. Pande S. and Sharma M. (2010) In: 5th Internat. Food Legumes Res. Conf. (IFLRC V) and 7th European Conf. on Grain Legumes (AEP VII).
3. Pal Mahendra (1998) J. Mycol. Pl. Pathol., 28(2), 114-122.
4. Harman G.E. (2000) Pl. Dis., 84, 377–393.
5. Harman G.E., Howell C.R., Viterbo A., Chet I. and Lorito M. (2004) Nat. Rev. Microbiol., 2(1), 43-56.
6. Lorito M., Woo S.L. and Scala F. (2004) Agroindustria, 3, 181–195.
7. Baruah H. K. and Dutta B.K. (1978) Proc. Nat.Acad. Sci., India. 48, 173-185.
8. Elad Y., Chet I. and Henis Y. (1982) Canadium J. Microbiol., 28, 719-725.
9. Broadbent P., Baker K. F. and Water-worth Y. (1971) Australian J. Biol. Sci., 24, 925-944.
10. Sivakumar D., Wilsonwijeratnam R.S., Wijesundera R.L.C., Marikar F.M.T. and Abeyesekere M. (2000) Phytoparasitica, 28(3), 240-247.
11. Kader A.J., Omar O. and Looshufeng, V. (1999) Asian Review of Biodiversity and Environmental Conservation (ARBEC).http:// www. arbec.com.my/pdf.
12. Thakur A.K. and Norris R.V. (1928) J. Indain Inst. Sci., XI A, 12, 141–160.
13. Veena G.A., Reddy N.P.E., Reddy B.V.B. and Prasanthi L. (2014) Int. J. Pl. Ani. Environ. Sci., 4, 78-81.
14. Bandyopadhyay S., Sharma N.D. and Dutta S. (2003) Ann. Pl. Protec. Sci., 11, 163-165.
15. Paul Y.S., Devi M. and Kapoor A.S. (2008) J. Mycol. Pl. Pathol., 38 (3), 571-576.
16. Kaushal R.P. (2008) J. Food Legume, 21 (3), 178-181.
17. Pan S. (2009) J. Mycol. Pl. Pathol., 37 (3), 491-494.
18. Choudhary S., Pareek S. and Saxena J. (2010) J. Mycol. Pl. Patho., 40(1), 141-144.