Printer Friendly

Screening of germplasms against cotton leaf curl disease under natural epiphytotic environment.

Cotton is one of the most important fibre crops in India. It plays a very significant role in Indian economy. Cotton leaf curl disease (CLCuD) earlier known as African leaf curl of cotton is very crucial factor responsible for decreased productivity of cotton. First time CLCuD was reported from Nigeria on Gossypium peruvianim and G. vitifolia in 1912 by Faquharson, who reported that CLCuD is a viral disease and caused by Gossypiium virus-1. In 1924, the disease was reported in Sudan and Tanzania (6,7,8) and thereafter it spread to all the African Countries situated north of equator except Egypt, Maghreb, Benin, Chad, Togo and Barkina Faso (14). It severely started affecting cotton (G hirsutum) in Pakistan since 19674 bringing down the cotton production. In the year 1989, it was observed in the kitchen gardens in Bangalore, Karnataka (10). Later it observed on G hirsutum Sriganganagar, Rajasthan in 1993 (1), and 1994 in Haryana (13). High susceptibility of presently grown cultivars to CLCuD responsible for severe appearance of CLCuD. The only way to overcome this problem will be to 'stack' multiple resistances, based upon distinct mechanisms of action (5). Resistant source may obtained by evaluating germplasms against CLCuD. Commonly used methods for screening of resistant germplasm include, the exploitation of virus spreader line (S-12) and white fly as a source of transmission vector (11). Another method that was used for screening is the sowing time difference i.e. normal and late sowing along with disease nursery (12).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty four genotypes of G. hirsutum were sown during kharif 2014 under unprotected natural epiphytotic field conditions at two locations i.e. CCS HAU Cotton Research Station Sirsa and Cotton Section CCS HAU Hisar. Each genotype was sown in two replications with spacing of 67.5x30 cm. in single row of 6.0 meter length. Susceptible check variety HS-6 was sown after every fourth row and also as border around the experiment to ensure enough inoculum. All conventional agronomic practices were followed to keep the crop in good condition. However, no pesticides were sprayed to allow maximum whitefly population i.e. vector of Cotton leaf curl virus (CLCuV).

Observations recorded

PDI of CLCuD was recorded in the month of August and September according to scale described below
Symptoms                               Disease    Per cent
                                       Severity   Disease
                                       (grade)    intensity

Complete absence of symptoms           0          0

Thickening of few small scattered      1          0.1-10
veins on one or few leaves of a
plant observed after careful
observation

Thickening of small group of veins,    2          10.1-20
no leaf curling, no reduction in
leaf size and boll setting

Thickening of all veins, minor         3          20.1-30
leaf curling, leaf enations,
deformity of internodes with
minor reduction in leaf size
but no reduction in boll setting.

Severe vein thickening, moderate       4          30.1-40
leaf curling, leafy enations,
minor deformity of internodes
and minor reduction in leaf
size and boll setting.

Severe vein thickening, moderate       5          40.1-50
leaf curling, leaf enations and
deformity of internodes with
moderate reduction in leaf size
and boll setting followed
by moderate stunting.

Severe vein thickening,                6          > 50
leaf curling, reduction in leaf
size, leafy enations, deformed
internodes and severe stunting of
plant with no or few boll setting

Symptoms                               Disease reaction

Complete absence of symptoms           Immune /disease free

Thickening of few small scattered      Highly Resistant
veins on one or few leaves of a
plant observed after careful
observation

Thickening of small group of veins,    Resistant
no leaf curling, no reduction in
leaf size and boll setting

Thickening of all veins, minor         Moderately Resistant
leaf curling, leaf enations,
deformity of internodes with
minor reduction in leaf size
but no reduction in boll setting.

Severe vein thickening, moderate       Moderately Susceptible
leaf curling, leafy enations,
minor deformity of internodes
and minor reduction in leaf
size and boll setting.

Severe vein thickening, moderate       Susceptible
leaf curling, leaf enations and
deformity of internodes with
moderate reduction in leaf size
and boll setting followed
by moderate stunting.

Severe vein thickening,                Highly Susceptible
leaf curling, reduction in leaf
size, leafy enations, deformed
internodes and severe stunting of
plant with no or few boll setting


Calculation of PDI

Per cent disease Intensity (PDI) was calculated for each entry by using the following formula given below:

PDI = [Sum of all the numerical ratings of plants observed/Total no. of plants observed x Maximum grade] x 100

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Per cent disease intensity (PDI) of each genotype at every location and their mean is described in Table 1. The data of Table 2 revealed that among sixty four genotypes, none was found immune or disease free and highly resistant against CLCuD. Seven genotypes namely AUBURN, BLIGHT MASTER, B59-1678, PIL 8, PIL 8-5, PIL 104, PKV 0804 showed resistant reaction against CLCuD; nine genotypes i.e. 101-102-B2, 1695-175 J, 7203-14-104, DELCOT 377, H 1098i, PIL 8-7, PIL-9, PUSA 31, RS 810 observed moderately resistant reaction; twenty two genotypes namely 101-102B, B 56-181,BADNAWARI , C 100A ,COKER 413-68 , DELFOS, DELTAPINE SL, DUNN, G 67, GTSV 337, H 14,H 1117, H 1226, H 1300,H 655 C , IAN 1327 F, LUXMI, PAYMASTER, REBA B 50, RS 875, SHARDA ,TAMCOT CAMPE expressed moderately susceptible reaction while, eighteen genotypes i.e. B 57-876,BC 68-2, F 1378,F 1794, G COT 100,GS 10,H 1236, HS 182, L 147,NECTARILESS, PKV 081, R 40 (Frego upland),RS 2097, RS 2098, STONEVILLE 62, S 344,TCH 1599, TX ORSZ 78 showed susceptible reaction and eight genotypes viz. 105 F, 320 F, DELCOT 277, F 846, G COT 8 F, LOCKET 4785 CREAM, RST 9, PUSA 317 were observed highly susceptible reaction against CLCuD.

Similarly, Monga et al., (2008) screened a total of 1799 cotton germplasm lines during 1997-2006 under natural conditions. Field resistant lines were confirmed through grafting and whitefly inoculation. Twelve germplasm lines were found field resistant over the years and were subjected to graft inoculation and artificial transmission with whitefly. Only seven lines, namely, BP-52-16, MBLYHH, JBWR-21, CNH-2773, AKH-9620, B 59-16792, Super okra virescent and 59-CCD were recorded resistant to cotton leaf curl virus disease. CRSM-38 is a new variety exhibited an average of 77.9% higher degree of tolerance against cotton leaf curl virus (CLCuV) over respective checks, and attained an average of 46.52 % higher seed cotton yield than that of CIM-496 under various climatic conditions revealing its wider adaptability (2).

CONCLUSION

At present, no single variety of G. hirsutum is resistant to CLCuD. Resistant source may become a very effective tool to overcome the impact of CLCuD. Screening of germplasms will provide a resistance source toward cotton leaf curl since it contains valuable natural resource of plant diversity. Seven genotypes of G hirsutum namely AUBURN, BLIGHT MASTER, B59-1678, PIL 8, PIL 8-5, PIL 104, PKV 0804 showed resistant reaction against CLCuD and nine genotypes i.e. 101-102-B2, 1695-175 J, 7203-14-104, DELCOT 377, H 1098i, PIL 8-7, PIL-9, PUSA 31, RS 810 observed moderately resistant reaction against CLCuD. These genotypes may leads to development of resistant varieties that effectively avoid the CLCuD infection.

REFERENCES

(1.) Ajmera, B.D., Occurrence of leaf curl virus on American Cotton (G. hirsutum) in north Rajasthan. Paper presentation, National Seminar on Cotton Production Challenges in 21st Century, 1994; 18-20 Hisar. India.

(2.) Ahmad, S., Hussain, A., Hanif, M., Mahmood, K., Nazeer, N. W., Mahmood A., Noor-ul-Islam, Malik, W., Qayyum, A. and Hanif K., CRSM38, a new high yielding coupled with CLCuV tolerance cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) variety. African J. of Biotech., 2012; 11 (19): 4368-4677

(3.) Farquharson, C.O., A report of the mycologist. A report Agric. Deptt. Nigeria. In Siddique MA and Hungus LC (Eds) Cotton growth in Gezira environment. W Haffer and Sons Ltd. Cambridge England. 1912; 106.

(4.) Hussain, T. And Ali, M., A review of cotton diseases in Pakistan. Pak Cottons, 1975; 19: 71-86.

(5.) Ilyas, M., Amin, I., Mansoor, S., Briddon, R. W. and Saeed, M., Challenges for transgenic resistance against geminiviruses. In Emerging Geminiviral Diseases and their Management, 2011; 1-35.

(6.) Jones, G. H. and Mason, T.G., Studies on two obscure diseases of cotton. Ann. Bot., 1926; 1(16): 759-772.

(7.) Kirkpatrick, T.W., Leaf curl in cotton. Nature, 1930; 125: 672.

(8.) Kirkpatrick, T.W., Further studies of leaf-curl of cotton in the Sudan. Bull Ent Res., 1931; 12: 323-363.

(9.) Monga, D., Kumar, M., Chander, S., Singh, N.P., Meena, R.A., Identification of cotton leaf curl virus disease (CLCuD) resistant lines J. Cotton. Res. Dev, 2008; 22 (2): 234-237.

(10.) Nateshan, H.M. and Muniyappa, V, Leaf curl disease of cotton, a whitefly transmitted geminivirus from Southern India. Indian Phytopathology., 1992; 45: 164.

(11.) Perveen, R., and Sultan, K.M., Screening of cotton germplasm against cotton leaf curl begomovirus (CLCuV). Pak. J. Phyto., 2005; 17(1): 56-60.

(12.) Perveen, R., Fan, I., Islam, N.U., Haider, S., Chohan, S. and Rehman, A.U., Correlation of biweekly environmental conditions on CLCuV disease growth in Pakistan. Eur JSci. 2010; 4: 224-227.

(13.) Rishi, N. and Chauhan, M.S., Appearance of leaf curl disease of cotton in Northen India. J. Cotton Res. Develop., 1994; 8: 179-180.

(14.) Tarr, Saj. Leaf curl disease of cotton. Common W Mycol Internat, Kew, Surrey. 1951; 20-28.

Anupam Maharshi [1,3] *, N.K. Yadav [2], J. Beniwal [3] and Priyanka Swami [3]

[1] Department of Mycology and Plant Pathology, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi - 221 005, India.

[2] Cotton Research Station, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Sirsa -125 055, India.

[3] Cotton Section, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar -125 001, India.

(Received: 10 October 2015; accepted: 20 December 2015)

* To whom all correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: anupammaharshi@gmail.com
Table 1. Evaluation of different genotypes against
CLCuD under natural epiphytotic condition

                                       PDI               Mean
S.    Name of Genetic
No    Collection            CRS Sirsa      Cotton
                                        Section Hisar

1.    101-102B                14.44         56.67       35.56
2.    101-102-B2              26.66         33.33       30.00
3.    1695-175 J              20.20         33.33       26.77
4.    105 F                   52.60         56.67       54.64
5.    320 F                   51.50         50.00       50.75
6.    7203-14-104             11.11         43.33       27.22
7.    AUBURN                  12.24         16.67       14.46
8.    B 56-181                28.88         50.00       39.44
9.    B 57-876                33.33         56.67       45.00
10.   B59-1678                10.66         10.00       10.33
11.   BADNAWARI               11.11         50.00       30.56
12.   BLIGHT MASTER           15.50         20.66       18.08
13.   BC 68-2                 28.88         56.67       42.78
14.   C 100A                  20.60         56.67       38.64
15.   COKER 413-68            35.50         28.30       31.90
16.   DELCOT 377              21.88         32.66       27.27
17.   DELCOT 277              46.46         56.67       51.57
18.   DELTAPINE SL            33.30         43.33       38.32
19.   DELFOS                  21.10         50.00       35.55
20.   DUNN                    28.88         38.33       33.61
21.   F 1378                  46.66         52.40       49.53
22.   F 846                   54.40         56.67       55.54
23.   F 1794                  32.40         50.00       41.20
24.   G COT 8 F               53.40         56.67       55.04
25.   G COT 100               40.00         50.66       45.33
26.   G 67                    20.30         55.00       37.65
27.   GS 10                   30.10         54.60       42.35
28.   GTSV 337                33.33         40.00       36.67
29.   H 655 C                 20.00         50.00       35.00
30.   H 1098i                 28.22         30.00       29.11
31.   H 1117                  11.11         56.67       33.89
32.   H 1226                  20.30         50.00       35.15
33.   H 1236                  33.33         50.00       41.67
34.   H 1300                  32.00         46.54       39.27
35.   H 14                    18.33         56.67       37.50
36.   HS 182                  33.33         56.67       45.00
37.   IAN 1327 F              29.10         33.33       31.22
38.   L 147                   33.33         53.46       43.40
39.   LOCKET 4785 CREAM       56.40         56.67       56.54
40.   LUXMI                   24.44         50.00       37.22
41.   NECTARILESS             28.88         56.67       42.78
42.   PAYMASTER               11.11         66.67       38.89
43.   PIL 104                 11.11         16.67       13.89
44.   PIL 8                   10.00         16.67       13.34
45.   PIL 8-5                 12.40         20.44       16.42
46.   PIL 8-7                 15.50         24.56       20.03
47.   PIL-9                   21.11         32.46       26.79
48.   PKV 0804                22.20         10.00       16.10
49.   PKV 081                 26.66         56.67       41.67
50.   PUSA 31                 20.20         28.33       24.27
51.   PUSA 317                51.50         56.67       54.09
52.   R 40 (Frego upland)     41.11         46.66       43.89
53.   REBA B 50               52.80         16.67       34.74
54.   RS 2097                 30.60         50.00       40.30
55.   RS 2098                 40.00         50.00       45.00
56.   RS 810                  21.11         36.44       28.78
57.   RS 875                  21.10         53.33       37.22
58.   RST 9                   44.44         50.00       47.22
59.   S 344                   28.80         56.67       42.74
60.   SHARDA                  16.66         56.67       36.67
61.   STONEVILLE 62           31.80         50.00       40.90
62.   TAMCOT CAMPE            18.88         56.67       37.78
63.   TCH 1599                25.50         56.67       41.09
64.   TX ORSZ 78              33.33         50.00       41.67

Table 2. Disease reaction of different genotypes against CLCuD

Reactions                   PDI     No. of germplasmin
                                      each category

Disease Free/Immune          0              0
Highly resistant          0.1-10            0
Resistant                 10.1-20           7

Moderately Resistant      20.1-30           9

Moderately susceptible    30.1-40          22

Susceptible               40.1-50          18

Highly susceptible         >50.0            8

Reactions                 Genotypes

Disease Free/Immune       -

Highly resistant          -

Resistant                 AUBURN, BLIGHT MASTER, B59-1678, PIL
                          8, PIL 8-5, PIL 104, PKV 0804.

Moderately Resistant      101-102-B2, 1695-175 J, 7203-14-104,
                          DELCOT 377, H 1098i, PIL 8-7, PIL-9,
                          PUSA 31, RS 810.

Moderately susceptible    101-102B, B 56-181 ,BADNAWARI , C 100A,
                          COKER 413-68 , DELFOS, DELTAPINE SL,
                          DUNN, G 67,GTSV 337, H 14,H 1117, H 1226,
                          H 1300, H 655 C , IAN 1327 F, LUXMI,
                          PAYMASTER ,REBA B 50, RS 875, SHARDA,
                          TAMCOT CAMPE.

Susceptible               B 57-876,BC 68-2, F 1378,F 1794,
                          G COT 100,GS 10,H 1236, HS 182,
                          L 147,NECTARILESS, PKV 081, R 40
                          (Frego upland),RS 2097, ,RS 2098,
                          STONEVILLE 62, S 344,TCH 1599, TX ORSZ
                          78.

Highly susceptible        105 F, 320 F, DELCOT 277, F 846,
                          G COT 8 F, LOCKET 4785 CREAM,
                          RST 9, PUSA 317.
COPYRIGHT 2016 Oriental Scientific Publishing Company
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2016 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

 
Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Maharshi, Anupam; Yadav, N.K.; Beniwal, J.; Swami, Priyanka
Publication:Journal of Pure and Applied Microbiology
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:9INDI
Date:Mar 1, 2016
Words:2397
Previous Article:Mycobiont mediated in vitro seed germination of an endangered 'fox-tail' orchid, Rhynchostylis retusa (L.) Blume.
Next Article:Isolation, screening and selection of efficient polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) synthesizing bacteria.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters