I - --ii

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Proceedings ofthe Workshop on Ascochyta Blight and Winter Sowing ofChickpeas (Saxena.M.C. and Singh, K.B.. eds.), ICARDA. 4-7 May 1981, Aleppo. Syria A Review of Research Studies on Chickpea Blight Fungus in Pakistan M. ASLAM University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) occupies an important position amongst the food crops in Pakistan and is perhaps the only crop that can be successfully grown during winter in the vast barani (rainfed) tract of the country. However, the crop isprone to attack by two very destructive diseases, namely, ascochyta blight and wilt. Blight caused by Ascochyta rabiei is particularly serious in areas receiving more than 150 mm rainfall during the chickpea growing season (Sattar 1933). On the other hand, wilt caused by Fusariumlateritium f. ciceri is generally serious in areas receiving less than 87.5 mm rainfall during the growing peiod. There are areas such as Thai in the Punjab (Pakistan) where these diseases co-exist (Luthra et al. 1943). There is no recorded evidence on when blight was first reported in Pakistan but it seems that the disease is as old as the chickpea crop in the barani areas of the Punjab and the North West Frontier Provinces. Systematic investigations were commenced in 1929. Butler (1918) had described the fungus as Mycosphaerella pinodes (Berk and Blox). It was identified by Luthra (1929) as Mycosphaerella pinodes which Joues (1927) had also recommended. The earlier studies differentiated the blight fungus from Ascochyta pisi at least in possessing unicellular pycnospores, in culture characters of the fungus on oatmeal agar and a slower rate of growth than Ascochyta pisi. Sattar and Hafiz (1952) arrived at the following conclusions from their studies. 1. The fungus causing blight of chickpea in Pakistan is identical with Phyllostictarabiei(Pass) Trotter, but should be called Ascochyta rabiei(Pass) Lab. 2. Ascochyta pinodellaJones and Ascochyta pinodes Jones (Mycosphaerella pinodes) (Berk and Blox) are confirmed as separate species distinct from Ascochyta pisi Lab. and Ascochtya rabiei (Pass) Lab. 3. Each fungus with the exception of Mycosphaerellapinodes and Ascochyta pinodella is specialized largely to its own host plant. 237 P. ~~S -r_'.
238 4. Mycosphaerella pinodes and Ascochyta pinodella cause severe foot rot while the others cause leaf, stem and pod blight. A fungus isolated from peas in Pakistan in association with Ascochyta pisi Lab. is considered to be a weak parasitic race of' Ascochyta pinodella Jones. Growth Requirements of the Fungus A comparative study of nutritional requirements, germination of conidia, pathogenicity of Ascochyta rabieiand Ascochyta pisi did not indicate a high degree of specialization of parasitism in the two fungi in infecting chickpea and pea plants. Of the factors studied, any degree of specialization of parasitism that may be shown by these two fungi could only be explained on the basis of the presence of malic acid on the leaves of chickpea plants which was detrimental to the conidia of Ascochyta pisi (Ahmad 1959). Sattar and Hafiz (1952) outlined optimum, maximum and minimum temperatures for growth of the fungus as 25°C, 32.5°C and below 10'C, respectively. The fungus made maximum growth at about the neutral point and grew fairly well over a ranee ef pH 4.0-8.8. The germination of spores is very meager, slow and uncertain in pure water. Their germination is improved by the presence of N/50 and N/25 malic acid or acidified carbon food. Very few spores germinate and cause infection during December and January due to very low temperature. The spores, however, remain viable during freezing temperature and cause infection in February-March when the temperature varies between 20-27 0 C (Sattar and Hafiz 1952). Transmission of Disease Luthra and Bedi (1932) supported the view that the disease is seed-borne and suggested the use of seed grown in disease-free localities for the control of the disease. The importance of secondary infection in widespread attacks of the disease was recognized as early as 1930. It was pointed out by Sattar (1933) that the rainfall in summer and in the early growth phase resulted in luxuriant growth of chickpea and such a crop was most prone to attack. He pointed out that the parts of Punjab where blight was serious received on average more than 150 mm rainfall during the chickpea growing season and that blight appeared sporadically in parts with rainfall less than 87 mm during that period. Further studies pointed out that blighted plant debris lying in the field on the surface of soil or threshing floor was a very important source of perpetuating the disease from year to year as the blight fungus could remain viable in chickpea plant debris for 2-3 years. Studies on dissemination of the fungus indicated that
Page 1 and 2:
A14 ""..."W~e S~wn ofCh all il NM I
Page 3 and 4:
WORLD CROPS: PRODUCTION, UTILIZATIO
Page 5 and 6:
Copyright (c) 1984 by ICARDA All ri
Page 7 and 8:
VI THIRD SESSION: WINTER SOWING Agr
Page 9 and 10:
Foreword The advancing of sowing da
Page 11 and 12:
Editors' Note The idea to hold this
Page 13 and 14:
Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, Ope
Page 15 and 16:
4 including stunt virus (pea leaf r
Page 17 and 18:
6 in with Iarmers'plans and proposa
Page 19 and 20:
8 about 130 to over 200 days, where
Page 21 and 22:
10 Table I Mean yield and range of
Page 23 and 24:
12 International Yield Trials A 10-
Page 25 and 26:
14 small plots on farmers' fields i
Page 27 and 28:
16 HANOUNIK, S.B. 1979. Diseases of
Page 29 and 30:
18 diospores (Khune and Kapoor 1980
Page 31 and 32:
20 2. Reproduction Asexual. The ase
Page 33 and 34:
22 surface. However, the fungus los
Page 35 and 36:
24 observed small reddish brown spo
Page 37 and 38:
26 Reddy and Nene (1979) developed
Page 39 and 40:
28 suggested the application of pot
Page 41 and 42:
30 ASKEROV, I.B. 1968. Ascochytosis
Page 43 and 44:
32 NEMLIENKO, F.E. and LUKASHEVICH,
Page 45 and 46:
Proceedings ofthe Workshop on Ascoc
Page 47 and 48:
100/ ILC 1929 90 -80./ 8o0 / ILC
Page 49 and 50:
30 24 18 12 6 Temperature (°C) t6
Page 51 and 52:
I I -I - --ii ' Disase Ic I ii I'll
Page 53 and 54:
infected seed is a much more potent
Page 55 and 56:
Proceedingsof the Workshop on Ascoc
Page 57 and 58:
early February were found to give e
Page 59 and 60:
pot assembly consists of a stem tha
Page 61 and 62:
Table I A quantitative 9-point rati
Page 63 and 64:
inoculating the plants by uniformly
Page 65 and 66:
Proceedings ofthe Workshopon Ascoch
Page 67 and 68:
Table I Cultural characteristics of
Page 69 and 70:
Line/ Table 2 Disease grades produc
Page 71 and 72:
India and Iran were highly sporulat
Page 73 and 74:
LUTHRA, J.C. and BEDI K.S. 1932. So
Page 75 and 76:
J.S. Grewal There are more chances
Page 77 and 78:
68 Table I Summary of results of sc
Page 79 and 80:
70 Table 3 Summary of results of sc
Page 81 and 82:
72 ery originated from the USSR, Sp
Page 83 and 84:
Table 7. Contd. Rating on 1-9 Scale
Page 85 and 86:
Table 8 Contd. Rating on 1-9 Scale
Page 87 and 88:
Table 9. Contd. Entry Origin Rating
Page 89 and 90:
Table 10 Differential reaction of s
Page 91 and 92:
82 1069, 1467, 1591 were found resi
Page 93 and 94:
84 ing of the remaining collections
Page 95 and 96:
86 AUJLA, S.S. 1964. Study of eleve
Page 97 and 98:
Proceedings ofthe Workshop on Ascac
Page 99 and 100:
Parents diallel cross F1 diallel cr
Page 101 and 102:
R.Pieters Malic acid is known to ha
Page 103 and 104:
96 (Hawtin and Singh 1983). Asv.-,h
Page 105 and 106:
98 3. Identification of as many sou
Page 107 and 108:
100 Germ. Evaluation Disease Res. M
Page 109 and 110:
102 Robinson (1976) has further dev
Page 111 and 112:
104 and by the time a multilinc cul
Page 113 and 114:
106 lines will then be made availab
Page 115 and 116:
108 GILL, K.S., NANDA, G.S., SINGH,
Page 117 and 118:
110 the program for the development
Page 119 and 120:
112 where they are not present. See
Page 121 and 122:
114 cides have been found to be eff
Page 123 and 124:
116 indicates that this propagate i
Page 125 and 126:
118 Great care must be exercised in
Page 127 and 128:
120 nature. Ascochyta propagules on
Page 129 and 130:
122 ZACHOS, D.G., PANAGOPOULOS, C.G
Page 131 and 132:
124 0 40 g30 Max 30 20. .,,10 Min ,
Page 133 and 134:
126 ranged from November 22, 1978 t
Page 135 and 136:
128 Genotypes Table 2 Grain yield o
Page 137 and 138:
130 Response to Plant Population Th
Page 139 and 140:
132 ILC 1929 at Tel Hadya and ILC 4
Page 141 and 142:
134 Data in Tab. 5 emphasize the im
Page 143 and 144:
136 appears adequate, therefore no
Page 145 and 146:
138 Discussion F. EI-Sayed I am ass
Page 147 and 148:
Proceedings of the Workshop on Asco
Page 149 and 150:
Table I The timing of reproductive
Page 151 and 152:
Table 3 Accumulated water use by sp
Page 153 and 154:
Es x (1 - a) x Eo t where t is the
Page 155 and 156:
BRIDA cm Water /Depth Interva', 3 4
Page 157 and 158:
crops extended deeper than under wi
Page 159 and 160:
(as at Jindiress), the winter-sown
Page 161 and 162:
eduction in the size of the crop's
Page 163 and 164:
Discussion G.C. Hawtin You raised a
Page 165 and 166:
Table I Nodutation and total drymat
Page 167 and 168:
162 Inoculation with single strain
Page 169 and 170:
164 These results indicate that pho
Page 171 and 172:
166 T.S. Sandhu Is there any techni
Page 173 and 174:
168 April for Tal Abaid (36*42'N, 3
Page 175 and 176:
170 At the end of the severe cold p
Page 177 and 178:
172 Table 4 Origin of lines having
Page 179 and 180:
174 stage (Tab. 6). Of the five cul
Page 181 and 182:
176 HERZOG, H. 1978. Wachsturnsverh
Page 183 and 184:
Proeedings of the Workshop on Ascoc
Page 185 and 186: There is little information availab
Page 187 and 188: of the major and minor pests in thi
Page 189 and 190: attack any other important crop pla
Page 191 and 192: KAY, D.E. 1979. Food Legumes - Crop
Page 193 and 194: 190 On the other hand, two items th
Page 195 and 196: 192 M.V. Reddy It looks as if the c
Page 197 and 198: Country World ICARDA region Algeria
Page 199 and 200: 196 Table 2a Export of chickpeas by
Page 201 and 202: 198 India, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela
Page 203 and 204: Proceedings ofthe Workshop on Ascoc
Page 205 and 206: Chickpea Cultivation 203 In Syria m
Page 207 and 208: Table 2 Comparison of the growth, s
Page 209 and 210: Proceedings of the Workshop on Asco
Page 211 and 212: Excessive postharvest losses. Posth
Page 215 and 216: Seedbed preparation is very minimal
Page 217 and 218: carried out at the same time with w
Page 219 and 220: Table 4 Topographical classificatio
Page 223 and 224: were absorbed by the canning indust
Page 225 and 226: 223 The advantages of winter sowing
Page 227 and 228: 226 cultivars which could be plante
Page 231 and 232: Table 2 Area, production and yicld
Page 233 and 234: 233 Threshing is mostly done by bul
Page 235: 182, 192,'194,1069, 1772,3279,2380,
Page 239 and 240: 240 Kausar (1960) discussed the rea
Page 241 and 242: 242 Date Tale 2 Maximum temperature
Page 243 and 244: 244 Table 4 Maximum temperature and
Page 247 and 248: soil moisture and therefore it is a
Page 249 and 250: Table 2 Characteristics of chickpea
Page 251 and 252: 253 Table 5 Results of a trial on w
Page 255 and 256: Conclusion Chickpea in Tunisia has
Page 257 and 258: 260 however, remained almost static
Page 259 and 260: 262 Agricultural Universities and s
Page 261 and 262: 264 greatest at flowering and fruit
Page 263 and 264: 266 Basis of Resistance Kunzru and
Page 265 and 266: 268 Discussion M. Aslain What is yo
Page 267 and 268: 270 vars. It was assumed that the d
Page 269 and 270: Proceedings of the Workshop an Asco
Page 271 and 272: 0- 400 ha ® Em 401 -1000 ha 1001 -
Page 273 and 274: 277 Castille and even (1500 kg/ha)
Page 275 and 276: Table 3 'Rabia' attacks - environme
Page 277 and 278: would be pure extension. Diffusion
Page 279 and 280: 284 7. The role of crop debris as a
Page 281 and 282: 286 involving only a few treatments
Page 283: 288 MAKKOUK, Khalid, Faculty of Agr
show all

I - --ii

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?