MANAGEMENT OF SOYBEAN ROOT ROT CAUSED BY Rhizoctonia solani

SARVJEET KAUR¹*, AMIT TRIVEDI², P. RAWAL^3
1Department of Plant Pathology, Rajasthan College of Agriculture, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur, 313001, Rajasthan, India
²Department of Plant Pathology, Rajasthan College of Agriculture, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur, 313001, Rajasthan, India
³Department of Plant Pathology, Rajasthan College of Agriculture, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur, 313001, Rajasthan, India
* Corresponding Author : sarvjeetkaurdeiya@gmail.com

Received : 26-04-2018     Accepted : 10-05-2018     Published : 15-05-2018
Volume : 10     Issue : 9       Pages : 5953 - 5955
Int J Agr Sci 10.9 (2018):5953-5955

Keywords : Soybean, Root rot, Rhizoctonia solani, Trichoderma viride
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Author thankful to Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur, 313001, Rajasthan, India
Author Contribution : All author equally contributed

Soybean root rot caused by Rhizoctonia solani occurred in the severe forms in fields of Southern Rajasthan during 2014-15. The pathogen R. solani were recovered from root rot infected soybean varieties. The effective BCA (T. viride) in vitro, and farm yard manure (FYM) a most suitable substrate in supporting the sporulation were further evaluated alone and in combination for suppression of soybean root-rot in pot experiment with pathogen inoculated soil. The individual application of T. viride as soil treatment i.e., soil application of T. viride incubated on FYM @ 2.5 percent was found to be significantly superior with 28.98 per cent root rot over its seed treatment @ 8 g kg-1 seed that resulted in 48.75 per cent root rot. However, combined application of seed treatment with T. viride @ 8 g kg-1 seed + soil application of T. viride FYM @ 2.5 per cent resulted minimum per cent root rot (22.11%) with percent root rot control (74.68)over their individual applications as well as over the untreated control.

1. Mordue J.E.M. (1988) Mycological Institute, 69, 102-116.
2. Warcup J.H. (1955) Tr. Br. Mycol. Soc., 38, 298-301.
3. Johnson LF, Curl EA, Bond JH and Fribourg HA. (1959) 66, 111-119.
4. Haque S.E., Ghaffar A. and Zaki M.J. (1990) Pakistan Journal of Botany, 22, 121-124.
5. Mousa E.S.M. and Mousa E.S.M. (1994) Proceeding of the Second Afro Asian Nematology Symposium held at Menoufiya, Egypt,18-22December, 1994.60-69.
6. Mousa E.S.M. (1996) Shebin Ei Kom Egypt, Menoufiya University, 60-69.
7. Hassanein A.M., Barougy E. Elgarhy A.M. Parikka P. and Sharkawy T.A. (2000) Egyptian Journal of Agricultural Research, 78, 63-71.
8. Sen B. (2000) Indian Phytopathology, 53, 243-249.
9. Chet I. (1989) Innovative approaches to plant disease control. John Willey and Sons Inc. 250 pp.
10. Fravel D.R., Marois J.J., Mumsden R.D. and Connick W.J. (1985) Phytopathology, 75, 774-777.
11. Chang Y.C., Baker R., Kleifield O. and Chet I. (1986) Plant Diseases, 70, 145-148.
12. De R.K. and Mukhopadhyay A.N. (1990) Proc. Int. Conf. Seed Sci. Technol.New Delhi. 120 pp.
13. Vyas R.K. (2001) Ph.D. Thesis, MPUAT, Udaipur (Raj.). 216pp.
14. Xue AG, Cozber E, Morrison M.J., Voldeng H.D. and Ma BL. (2007) Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 87, 167-173.
15. Mahdy M.E, Shennawy R.Z. and Khalifa E.Z. (2006) Journal of Agriculture Sciences, 14, 411-423.