Content uploaded by Arjun Lal Yadav
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Arjun Lal Yadav on Oct 13, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
~1632~
International Journal of Chemical Studies 2017; 5(4): 1632-1634
P-ISSN: 2349–8528
E-ISSN: 2321–4902
IJCS 2017; 5(4): 1632-1634
© 2017 IJCS
Received: 28-05-2017
Accepted: 30-06-2017
AL Yadav
Ph.D student, S.K.N. COA,
Jobner, Rajasthan, India
RP Ghasolia
Assistant Professor, SKNAU,
Jobner, Rajasthan, India
Sajjan Choudhary
Ph.D student, S.K.N. COA,
Jobner, Rajasthan, India
VK Yadav
Ph.D student, Department of
Agricultural Chemistry and Soil
science, RCA Udaipur,
Rajasthan, India
Correspondence
AL Yadav
Ph.D student, S.K.N. COA,
Jobner, Rajasthan, India
Exploitation of fungicides and plant extracts for
ecofriendly management of chilli fruit rot disease
AL Yadav, RP Ghasolia, Sajjan Choudhary and VK Yadav
Abstract
Three promising fungicides, tebuconazole (0.1%), carbendazim + mancozeb (0.1%) and propiconazole
(0.1%) and two botanicals extract, NSKE (5%) and neem leaf extract (5%) were for the control of
pathogen (C. capsici) in the field against fruit rot disease of chilli. These fungicides were applied as seed
treatment and plant extracts as foliar spray. Results of the study revealed that maximum reduction in
disease (69.30%) with minimum per cent disease (17.24) and maximum fruit yield (8.23 q/ ha) were
obtained with the application of propiconazole (0.1%) as seed treatment and foliar spray of neem (NSKE
5%) followed by application of propiconazole (0.1%) as seed treatment and foliar spray with neem leaf
extract (5 %) resulted in decreased PDI and increased fruit yield.
Keywords: Chilli, Colletotrichum capsici, Percent disease index, NSKE
Introduction
Red pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) commonly known as chilli, is a prominent vegetable crop
of India belonging to the nightshade family, Solanaceae. It has 24 chromosomes (2n) and may
be herb or sub-shurb of height up to 2.5 m with extensively branched stem having hairy
growth with purplish spots near the nodes. The tap root is strong with numerous lateral roots.
Chilli fruits are considered vegetable and are botanically berries (Saxena et al., 2016). It is a
good source of capsaicin (capsaicinoid), vitamin A, vitamin C, riboflavin and thiamine. It
contains about 8.8 g, 5.3 g carbohydrates sugar, 1.9 g protein and 534 micro g beta carotene
per 100 g chilli (Panda et al., 2010). In our country, chilli is cultivated on an area of about
986.4 thousand hectares with an annual production of 1404.4 thousand tonnes. Though, in
Rajasthan, the area under chilli is about 13.7 thousand hectares with annual production of 18.7
thousand tonnes (Anonymous, 2015-16a). In Jaipur, the area under chilli is about 1296 ha with
annual production of 584 MT (Anonymous, 2015-16b). Chilli is a universal spice crop of India
grown in almost all the states of the country. The quality of the chilli varies from state to state.
For example, chilli of Karnataka is known for its oil content, Gujarat quality is majorly known
for its sharp color while that of Rajasthan is well known for making pickles.
Fruit rot or anthracnose or die-back of chilli caused by Colletotrichum capsici (Sydow) Butler
and Bisby is one of the most destructive diseases of chilli in India. The pathogen causes severe
damage to ripened fruits and reduce the quality and quantity of immature and mature fruits.
This disease was reported first time in India from Coimbatore of Madras Presidency (Sydow,
1913). Due to this disease, more than 50 per cent crop loss has been reported from different
parts of India (Ramchandran et al., 2007)
[14]
. In Thiland, Poonpolgul and Kumphai (2007)
[13]
noticed anthracnose disease (Colletotrichum sp.) as most damaging disease of chilli reducing
marketable yield up to 80 per cent. The disease has been reported to cause 8-27 per cent yield
loss in Maharashtra, 20-60 per cent in Punjab and Haryana and 30-76 per cent in Tamil Nadu
(Bansal and Grover, 1969; Sujathabai, 1992 and Datar, 1995)
[5, 6]
. In India, a calculated loss of
10-54 per cent has been reported in yield of the crop due to the anthracnose disease
(Lakshmesha et al. 2005)
[11]
. The loss is high owing to the post and pre-harvest involvement
of the pathogen causing a loss of 10-80 per cent of the marketable yield of chilli fruits (Than et
al., 2008). Most of work on management of fruit rot of chilli has been done through fungicide
alone. In view of the increasing disease incidence in chilli and prolonged and repeated use of
fungicides may also result in environmental pollution and non-acceptability of the produce and
also development of resistance in pathogen. Recommended integrated management
techniques, as no signal specific management program could eliminate chilli anthracnose.
Effective control of Colletotrichum diseases usually involves the use of a combination of
~1633~
International Journal of Chemical Studies
cultural control, biological control, chemical control and
intrinsic resistance. Therefore, in present study, attempts were
made to integrate the use of fungicides and botanicals to
manage this disease.
Materials and Methods
Three promising fungicides, tebuconazole (0.1%),
carbendazim + mancozeb (0.1%) and propiconazole (0.1%)
and two botanicals extract, NSKE (5%) and neem leaf extract
(5%) were selected for the control of pathogen (C. capsici) in
the field against fruit rot disease of chilli. These fungicides
were applied as seed treatment (Jadon et al., 2015) [8], and
plant extracts as foliar spray. The seeds of chilli cultivar ‘Pusa
Jwala’ were treated with required dose of fungicide and were
rolled on pure culture of C. capsici and sown in nursery bed.
The field experiment was laid down in 2.25 m x 1.50 m sized
plots having three replications in randomized block design.
Thirty day-old seedlings were transplanted in plots from the
nursery beds. Twenty five plants in each replication were
maintained at distance of 45cm x 30cm plant spacing. The
plants were raised by following the normal agronomical
practices including irrigation and fertilizers as per
requirements.
Chilli plants of 60 days age were inoculated by spraying the
spore suspension of C. capsici (3x104 conidia/ml) thoroughly
on the plant canopy in the afternoon for creating disease on
plants. Foliar sprays of each plant extract was applied after 5
days of inoculation with pathogen and second spray at 15
days interval (as per below schematic representation). Control
plots were maintained with spray of water.
The schematic presentation of the treatment is as follows:
T1 = Seed treatment with tebuconazole (0.1%) and
spray of NSKE (5%)
T2 = Seed treatment with tebuconazole (0.1%) and
spray of NLE (5%)
T3 = Seed treatment with carbendazim + mancozeb
(0.1%) and spray of NSKE (5%)
T4 = Seed treatment with carbendazim + mancozeb
(0.1%) and spray of NLE (5%)
T5 = Seed treatment with propiconazole (0.1%) and
spray of NSKE (5%)
T6 = Seed treatment with propiconazole (0.1%) and
spray of NLE (5%)
T7 = Check
Disease severity was recorded 90 DAS as standard disease
rating scale (0-5) described as follow
Fruit area affected Disease grade Disease reaction
Healthy 0 Immune (I)
1-5.0 % 1 Resistant (R)
5.1-10.0% 2 Moderately resistant (MR)
10.1-25.0% 3 Moderately susceptible (MS)
25.1-50.0% 4 Susceptible (S)
>50.1% 5 Highly susceptible (HS)
The per cent disease intensity was calculated using the
formula of Wheeler (1969) [18].
Sum of individual ratings
Per cent Disease Intensity =------------------------------------------------------------------------X100
Total no. of observations x Maximum disease rating
Results and Discussion
Integration of fungicides and botanicals
The integrated use (Table 1) of propiconazole (0.1%) as seed
treatment and NSKE (5%) as spray resulted in lowest
(17.24%) disease intensity and maximum disease control
(69.30%) over check along with highest yield (8.23 q/ha)
followed by seed treatment with propiconazole and foliar
application of NLE (22.22 PDI, 60.44 per cent disease control
and 8.10 q/ha yield). Application of tebuconazole (0.1%) as
seed treatment and NSKE (5%) as spray gave 25.55 per cent
disease intensity and 54.51 per cent disease control and 7.58
q/ha yield with 122.47 % increased yield. The foliar
application of carbendazim + mancozeb (0.1%) as seed
treatment and NLE (5%) as foliar spray was showed 34.64 per
cent disease intensity that accounted for 38.33 per cent
efficacy of disease control and its showed the lowest 6.86
q/ha yield and 101.32 per cent increase yield over control
(48.54 PDI and 3.41 q/ha yield).
Most of work on management of fruit rot of chilli has been
done through fungicide alone. In view of the increasing
disease incidence in chilli and prolonged and repeated use of
fungicides may also result in environmental pollution and
non-acceptability of the produce and also development of
resistance in pathogen. Bailey (1987) [4] and Agrios (2005) [1]
recommended integrated management techniques, as no
signle specific management program could eliminate chilli
anthracnose. Effective control of Colletotrichum diseases
usually involves the use of a combination of cultural control,
biological control, chemical control and intrinsic resistance
(Wharton and Dieguez-Uribeondo, 2004). Therefore, in
present study, attempts were made to integrate the use of
fungicides and botanicals to manage this disease. Results of
the study revealed that maximum reduction in disease
(69.30%) with minimum per cent disease (17.24) and
maximum fruit yield (8.23 q/ ha) were obtained with the
application of propiconazole (0.1%) as seed treatment and
foliar spray of neem (NSKE 5%). This was followed by
application of propiconazole (0.1%) as seed treatment and
foliar spray with neem leaf extract (5 %) resulted in decreased
PDI and increased fruit yield. Our findings are in agreement
with results of Hegde et al, (2001) [7] who tested the efficacy
of the plant extracts (chilli, ocimum, neem, onion,
Clerodendron) and fungicides (0.05% carbendazim, 0.2%
mancozeb) in controlling C. capsici causing fruit rot of chilli
and reported that all the plant extracts and fungicides tested
exhibited inhibitory activity against the pathogen. Similarly,
Krishnam and Reddy (2007) [10] have also been tested
differential in sensitivity of carbendazim and thiophanate
methyl at different concentrations against different isolates of
C. capsici and reported that the some isolates are highly
sensitive to carbendazim and other were highly sensitive to
thiophanate methyl and all the isolates was varied greatly in
their per cent inhibition values at all the seven concentrations
tested. However, use of botanicals and vermivash was less
effective as compared to chemicals. But they are safer in
application for vegetables and fruit crops in terms of toxic
residues and also eco-friendly for maintaining in the
ecological biodiversity in the environment.
Jadon et al. (2015) [8] have also been tested various fungicides
(hexaconazole, tebuconazole, propiconazole, difenoconazole,
vitavax, carbendazim with captan and mancozeb) as seed
~1634~
International Journal of Chemical Studies
treatment against groundnut diseases and found effective in managing soil borne diseases along with yield advantage.
Table 1: Efficacy of fungicides and botanicals against fruit rot of chilli (C. capsici) and dry fruit yield (In vivo)
Fungicides Disease severity (%)* Disease control (%) Dry fruit yield (q/ha) Yield increase (%)
2015-16 2016-17 Pooled 2015-16 2016-17 Mean 2015-16 2016-17 Pooled 2015-16 2016-17 Mean
T1 24.44 26.66 25.55 55.56 53.50 54.51 8.05 7.10 7.58 111.29 136.67 122.47
(29.63) (31.09) (30.36)
T2 25.00 28.61 26.81 54.55 50.10 52.27 7.95 6.90 7.43 108.66 130.00 118.06
(30.00) (32.34) (31.18)
T3 28.88 32.22 30.55 47.49 43.80 45.61 7.65 6.80 7.23 100.79 126.67 112.19
(32.51) (34.58) (33.55)
T4 31.72 37.55 34.64 42.33 34.50 38.33 7.05 6.66 6.86 85.04 122.00 101.32
(34.28) (37.79) (36.05)
T5 15.31 19.17 17.24 72.16 66.56 69.30 8.75 7.70 8.23 129.66 156.67 141.56
(23.03) (25.97) (24.53)
T6 21.11 23.33 22.22 61.62 59.31 60.44 8.65 7.55 8.10 127.03 151.67 137.89
(27.35) (28.88) (28.12)
T7 55.00 57.33 56.17 - - - 3.81 3.00 3.41 - - -
(47.87) (49.21) (48.54)
Sem + 0.52 0.60 0.42 - - - 0.18 0.17 0.20 - - -
CD (p=0.05) 1.56 1.78 1.24 - - - 0.54 0.49 0.60 - - -
* Average of three replications
** Values in parenthesis are angular transformed
T1= ST with Tebuconazole & NSKE Spray, T2=ST with Tebuconazole & NLE spray, T3=ST with Carbendazim +
mancozeb & NSKE spray,
T4=ST with Carbendazim + mancozeb & NLE spray, T5=ST with Propiconazole & NSKE spray, T6= ST with
Propiconazole & NLE spray, T7 = Control
References
1. Agrios GN. Plant Pathology, 5th Ed. San. Diego:
Academic Press. 2005, 922.
2. Anonymous. Indian Horticulture Data Base. National
Horticulture Board, 2015-16. www.nhb.in.com
3. Anonymous. Government of Rajasthan. Directorate of
Horticulture, 2015-16. www.agriculture.rajasthan.gov.in
4. Bailey JA. Phytoalexins: A genetic view of their
significance. In: Day P.R., Jellis G.J. editors. Genetics
and Plant Pathogenesis. Oxford: Blackwell. 1987, 13-26.
5. Bansal RD, Grover RK. Reaction of chilli (Capsicum
frutescens) varieties to Colletotrichum truncatum. J. Res.
Ludhiana. 1969; 6(2):345-348.
6. Datar VV. Pathogenicity and effect of temperature on six
fungi causing fruit rot of chilli. Indian J. Mycol. Pl.
Pathol. 1995; 25:312-313.
7. Hegde GM, Anahosur KH, Srikant K. Biological control
of Colletotrichum capsici causing fruit rot of chilli. Pl.
Path. Newslet. 2002; 20:4-5.
8. Jadon KS, Thirumalaisamy PP, Kumar V, Koradia VG,
Padavi DR. Management of soil borne diseases of
groundnut through seed dressing fungicides. Crop Prot.
2015; 78:198-203.
9. Jayalakshmi C. Studies on fruit rot of chillies (Capsicum
annuum) caused by Colletotrichum capsici. M.Sc. (Ag.)
Thesis TNAU, Coimbatore, India. 1998, 173.
10. Krishnam RS, Reddy DR. Differential sensitivity of
isolates of Colletotrichum capsici to systemic fungicides.
Indian J. Plant Protect. 2007; 35(1):125-127.
11. Lakshmesha K, Lakshmi devi K, Aradhya N, Mallikarjun
S. Changes in pectinase and cellulose activity of
Colletotrichum capsici mutants and their effect on
anthracnose disease on Capsicum fruit. Plant Prot. 2005;
38:267-279.
12. Panda R, Panda H, Prakash K, Panda A. Prospects of
Indian Chillies. Science Tech Entrepreneur. 2010, 8.
13. 13. Poonpolgul S, Kumphai S. Chilli pepper anthrachose
in Thailand country report. In: Oh, DG, Kim, K.T.,
editors. Abstracts of the first international symposium on
chilli anthracnose, Republic of Korea: National
Horticultureal Res. Institute, Rural Development of
Administration, 2007, 23.
14. Ramchandran N, Madhavi RK, Rathnamma K. Current
status of chilli anthracnose in India. The first
International Symposium on chilli Anthracnose. 25,
Covention Centre, Seoul National University, Korea,
2007, 26.
15. Saxena, Amirta, Raghuwanshi, Richa, Gupta VK, Singh
HB. Chilli anthracnose: the epidemiology and
management. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 1527.
16. Sydow, H. (1913). Butrage zur kenntinis der pilzflora des
sudlichen ostinadiens. J. Ann. Mycol. XI: 329-330.
17. Than PP, Jeewon R, Hyde KD, Pongsupasamit S,
Mongkolporn O, Taylar PWJ. Characterization and
pathogencity of Colletotrichum species associated with
anthracnose on chilli (Capsicum spp.) in Thialand. Plant
Pathol. 2008; 51:562-572.
18. Wheeler BEJ. An Introduction to Plant Diseases. John
Willey and Sons Ltd. London. 1969, 301.
