SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF TOMATO COLLAR ROT CAUSED BY Sclerotium rolfsii (Sacc.)

ASISH MAHATO¹*, MOHAN KUMAR BISWAS², SUMAN PATRA^3
1Department of Plant Protection, Palli Siksha Bhavana, Visva-Bharati, Sriniketan, 731236, West Bengal, India
²Department of Plant Protection, Palli Siksha Bhavana, Visva-Bharati, Sriniketan, 731236, West Bengal, India
³Department of Plant Protection, Palli Siksha Bhavana, Visva-Bharati, Sriniketan, 731236, West Bengal, India
* Corresponding Author : asishmahato1989@gmail.com

Received : 23-05-2018     Accepted : 28-05-2018     Published : 30-05-2018
Volume : 10     Issue : 10       Pages : 6160 - 6163
Int J Agr Sci 10.10 (2018):6160-6163

Keywords : Tomato, collar rot, Sclerotium rolfsii, Sustainable Management
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Author thankful to Visva-Bharati, Institute of Agriculture, Sriniketan, 731236, West Bengal, India
Author Contribution : All author equally contributed

The collar rot caused by fungal pathogen Sclerotium rolfsii (Sacc) is one of the serious diseases causing huge loss to tomato throughout the world. The pathogen being soil-borne, polyphagous in nature and longer persistence in soil, due to which its control with chemicals alone seems to be ineffective and uneconomical. Soil organic amendments are known to improve soil aeration, structure, drainage, moisture holding capacity, nutrient availability and microbial ecology. Hence, field experiments were conducted at agricultural farm of Palli-Siksha Bhavana, Visva-Bharati, Sriniketan, during the winter season of 2014-16 on Tomato with a view to manage the disease in a sustainable manner by using eco-friendly approaches with less hazards and safer chemicals. The soil was enriched through various organic materials i.e., Poultry manure, Goat Manure, Farm Yard Manure (FYM), Vermicompost, Spent Mushroom Substrate, Neem cake, Sesamum cake, Mustard cake and Groundnut cake and their effects were evaluated against collar rot disease of tomato. Application of neem cake in soil reduced 72.70 % and 69.05 % disease incidence followed by Sesamum cake 66.83 % and 65.09 % and lowest decrease in disease incidence was observed with Goat Manure treated plot with 27.61 % and 29.37 % in two year of experiments. In case of yield, neem cake also showed its supremacy and gave maximum increase in yield over control 14.13 % and 14.99% followed by sesamum cake (13.27 % and 14.46 %) and lowest increase in goat manure 7.94 % and 8.80 %. The maximum plant height (89.47 cm and 88.47cm) at 80 days after transplanting and number of primary branches per plant (6.77 and 6.80) was found Vermi-compost treated plot whereas minimum plant height (80.57 cm and 81.90 cm) and number of primary branches (5.20 and 5.37) was recorded in ground nut treated plots during 2014-15 and 2015-16.

1. Gogoi N.K., Phookan A.K. and Narzary B.D. (2002) Indian Phytopathology, 55(2), 238-240.
2. Khan R.U. and Kolte S.J. (1989) Indian Phytopathology, 55 (1), 102-103.
3. Madhavarao P. and Singh T.K.S. (1979) Indian Phytopathology, 32, 481-482.
4. Hari B.V.S.C., Chiranjeevi V., Sitaramaiah K. and Subramanyam K. (1991) Indian Journal of Mycology and Plant Pathology, 21, 27-33.
5. Mahato A. and Mondala B. (2014) J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. B, 4 (4), 3334-3344.
6. Punja Z.K. (1985) Annual Review of Phytopathology, 23, 97-127.
7. Aycock R. (1966) Tech. Bull. No.174. Agric. Expt. Station, North Carolina State University, Raleigh. 202.
8. Begum S.N., Chowdhury B.C. and Ahamed H.U. (1985) 1st National Conf. Plant Pathology, held at Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Joydebpur, Gazipur, 12.
9. Davey C.B. (1996) In: National proceedings, Forest and Conservation Nursery Associations; Landis TD, Douth DB (tech. cords). General Technical Report PNW-GTR-389, USDA Forest Service PNWRS, Portland, OR, USA pp: 6-18.
10. Lumsden D.R., Lewis J.A. and Papavizas G.C. (1983) In: Environmentally Sound Agriculture (Ed.): W. Lockeretz, Praeger, New York, 51-70.
11. Bulluck L.R. and Ristaino J.B. (2002) Phytopathology, 92, 181-189.
12. Linderman R.G. (1989) Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology, 11, 180-183.
13. Gamliel A. & Stapleton J.J. (1993) Phytopathology, 83, 899-905.
14. Vander Plank J. E. (1963) Acad. Press, NY, 349.
15. Pandy H.N., Menon T.C.M. and Rao M.V. (1989) Rachis, 8 (2) 38-39.
16. Gurjar R.B.S., Bansal R.K. and Gupta R.B.L. (2003) Journal of Mycological Plant Pathology, 33(3), 482.
17. Gautam M. and Kolte S.J. (1978) Indian Phytopath. 31, 120-121.
18. Waghe S.V. and Lanjewari R.D. (1981) Oilseeds J. pp. 66-73.
19. Kulkarni S. A., Kulkarni S. and Kulkarni S. (1995) Current Res., Univ. Agric. Sci. Bangalore, 24(8), 135-136.
20. Karthikeyan A. and Karunidhi K. (1996) Plant Dis. Res. 11(2),180-181.
21. Johnson M., Subramanyam K., Balaguravaiah D. and Sudheer M. J. (2003) Ann. Pl. Prote. Sci., 11(1), 83-85.
22. Patra S., Biswas M.K. and Mahato A. (2017) Int. J. Pure App. Biosci. 5(1), 526-529.
23. Merill R., Hoberecht K. and McKeon J. (1998) Organicteas from compost and Manures. Organic Farming Research Foundation. P.O. Box 440 Santa Cruz.
24. Amanullah M.M., Somasundaram E., Alagesan A. and Vaiyapuri K. (2006) Internat. J. agric. Sci., 3 (1), 181-186.
25. Singh H.R. and Singh S.D. (2004) Agrobios Newsletter, 2(12), 21-22.
26. Cheuk K. (2005) Food Contaminants, and Agricultural Wastes, 40(3), 449 - 461.
27. Paplomatas J. (2005) European J. Plant Pathol, 112(2), 183-189.
28. Khan M.W., Khan A.M. and Saxena S.K. (1973) Acta Botanica Indica, 1,49-54.
29. Singh R.S. and Sitaramaiah K. (1970) Int. J. Pest Manage, 16(2), 287-297.
30. Arancon N.Q., Edwards C.A., Bierman P., Metzger J.D., Lee S. and Welch C. (2004) Pedobiologia, 47(5-6), 731-735.
31. Heeb A., Lundegardh B., Savage G. P. and Ericsson T. (2006) J. Plant Nut. Soil Sci.,169, 535-541.
32. Liu B., Gumpertz M.L., Hu S. and Ristaino J. B. (2007) Soil Biol. Biochem., 39, 2302-2316.
33. Tonfack L.B., Bernadac A., Youmbi E., Mbouapouognigni V. P., Ngueguim M. and Akoa A. (2009) Fruits, 64, p. 167–177.