Screening of Mango Germplasm against Malformation in West Bengal
Kalyan Chakraborti1, Sahar Murmu2*,
D Rana3, DK Mishra1*, Fatik Kumar Bauri1
2Survey Selection
and Mass Production of Nodule bacteria, Directorate of Research, Bidhan Chandra
Krishi Viswavidyalaya, India
3Department of
Plant Pathology, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Mohanpur, India
*Corresponding author: Sahar Murmu, Survey Selection and Mass Production of Nodule bacteria, Directorate of Research , Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Mohanpur, Nadia-741252, West Bengal, India. Tel: +919732356428; Email: saharmurmu@gmail.com
D K Mishra, AICRP on Fruits, Directorate of Research, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Kalyani, Nadia741235, West Bengal, India. Tel: +917890593195; Email: dkmbckv@gmail.com
Received Date: 19 June, 2017; Accepted Date: 05 July, 2017; Published Date: 11 July, 2017
Citation: Chakraborti K, Murmu S, Rana D, Mishra DK, Bauri FK (2017) Screening of Mango Germplasm against Malformation
in West Bengal. Food Nutr J 2: 140. DOI: 10.29011/2575-7091.100040
1.
Abstract
1.
Introduction
3.
Result and Discussion
On an average maximum variety (11 varieties
i.e 37.93 %) attain the rating scale (score)-3 which signifies intermediate level
of infection
or moderately susceptible reaction for tolerance
against floral malformation followed
by
moderately tolerant reaction (9 varieties
i.e 31.04%). In
this context
mention may be made that mango germplasm comprising of forty-three varieties was evaluated by [8] for the level of the panicle malformation
disease intensity. Out of tested
varieties,
4 (9.3%) were tolerant, 27
(62.79%)
were moderately tolerant, and 5 (11.62%) were moderately susceptible
while
7 (16.27%) were
recorded
highly susceptible to malformation.
Scale |
Range of panicle infected (per cent) |
Symptom expressed |
Reaction |
0 |
0.00 |
No visible symptom |
Total resistant/ Immune |
1 |
up to 1.0 |
Extremely low |
Highly tolerant |
2 |
>1.00-5.00 |
Low |
Moderately tolerant |
3 |
>5.00-15.00 |
Intermediate |
Moderately susceptible |
4 |
>15.00-50.00 |
High |
Susceptible |
5 |
More than 50.00 |
Very High |
Highly Susceptible |
Table 1: Mango floral malformation susceptibility rating.
Sl. No. |
Germplasm |
Per cent infection (Overall Mean) |
Rating Scale |
Expressed symptom |
Rank |
1 |
Dashehari |
8.49 |
3 |
Moderately susceptible |
6 |
2 |
Langra |
1.45 |
2 |
Moderately resistant |
23 |
3 |
Fazli |
3.67 |
2 |
Moderately resistant |
20 |
4 |
Chousa |
8.05 |
3 |
Moderately susceptible |
8 |
5 |
Baneshan |
1.47 |
2 |
Moderately resistant |
22 |
6 |
Bangalora |
5.45 |
3 |
Moderately susceptible |
13 |
7 |
Mulgoa |
5.58 |
3 |
Moderately susceptible |
12 |
8 |
Neelum |
5.91 |
3 |
Moderately susceptible |
11 |
9 |
Suvarnrekha |
16.01 |
4 |
Susceptible |
5 |
10 |
Alphonso |
8.17 |
3 |
Moderately susceptible |
7 |
11 |
Kesar |
16.36 |
4 |
Susceptible |
4 |
12 |
Mankurad |
1.45 |
2 |
Moderately resistant |
23 |
13 |
Fernandin |
1.78 |
2 |
Moderately resistant |
21 |
14 |
Vanraj |
3.67 |
2 |
Moderately resistant |
20 |
15 |
Zardalu |
0.86 |
1 |
Highly resistant |
25 |
16 |
Bombai |
0.78 |
1 |
Highly resistant |
27 |
17 |
Bombay Green |
0.96 |
1 |
Highly resistant |
24 |
18 |
Himsagar |
3.93 |
2 |
Moderately resistant |
18 |
19 |
Kishan Bhog |
0.79 |
1 |
Highly resistant |
26 |
20 |
Swarna Jehangir |
6.20 |
3 |
Moderately susceptible |
10 |
21 |
Ratna |
19.08 |
4 |
Susceptible |
2 |
22 |
Au Rumani |
5.29 |
3 |
Moderately susceptible |
15 |
23 |
Mallika |
17.19 |
4 |
Susceptible |
3 |
24 |
Prabha Sankar |
3.76 |
2 |
Moderately resistant |
19 |
25 |
Neelgoa |
19.98 |
4 |
Susceptible |
1 |
26 |
Neeleshan |
5.09 |
3 |
Moderately susceptible |
16 |
27 |
Neeluddin |
5.42 |
3 |
Moderately susceptible |
14 |
28 |
Amrapali |
6.45 |
3 |
Moderately susceptible |
9 |
29 |
Mahmud Bahar |
4.16 |
2 |
Moderately resistant |
17 |
|
SE (m) |
2.12 |
|
|
|
|
CD (0.05) |
5.36 |
|
|
|
Table 2: Screening of mango germplasm against floral malformation.
Score |
Score 5 |
Score 4 |
Score 3 |
Score 2 |
Score 1 |
Score 0 |
Reaction |
Highly Susceptible |
Susceptible |
Moderately susceptible |
Moderately tolerant |
Highly tolerant |
Total resistant/ Immune |
Number of variety |
Nil |
5 |
11 |
9 |
4 |
Nil |
Percentage of the total |
0 |
17.24 |
37.93 |
31.04 |
13.79 |
0 |
Name of the germplasm |
Nil |
Kesar, Suvarnrekha, Mallika, Neelgoa, Ratna |
Neelum, Bangalora, Mulgoa, Dashehari, Alphonso, Chousa, Amrapali, Swarna Jehangir. Au Rumani, Neeluddin, Neeleshan, |
Fazli, Himsagar, Vanraj, Mahmud Bahar, Prabha Sankar, Mankurad, Baneshan, Langra, Fernandin, |
Kishan Bhog, Bombai, Zardalu, Bombay Green, |
Nil |
Table 3: Summary of total number of germplasm in different level against mango floral malformation.
- Shahbaz M, Iqbal Z, Saleem A, Anjum MA (2009) Association of Lasiodiplodia theobromae with different decline disorders in mango (Mangifera indica L.). Pak J Bot 41: 359-368.
- Ploetz RC, Zheng Q, Vazquez A, Sattar MAA (2002) Current status and impact of mango malformation in Egypt. Int J Pest Manag 48: 279-285.
- Britz
H, Steenkamp ET, Coutinho TA, Wingfield BD, Marasas WF, et al. (2002) Two new species of Fusarium section Liseola associated with mango malformation. Mycologia 94: 722-730.
- Iqbal Z, Valeem EE, Ahmad K, Khan ZI, Pervez MA, et al. (2008) Variability among Fusarium mangiferae isolates causing mango malformation disease globally. Pak J Bot 40: 445-452.
- Chakraborti
DK (2007). Mango malformation - a menace to
productivity, Association for advancement in plant protection. News letter 2: 4.
- Freeman
S,
Shtienberg D, Maymon
M, Levin
AG, Ploetz
RC (2014) Plant Disease
98: 1458-1466.
- Chakraborti K (2010)
Screening
of mango hybrids for
tolerance against
the incidence
of floral malformation in new alluvial zone of West Bengal. Agric Biol Res 26: 151-158.
- Hafiz IA, Ahmed S, Abbasi NA, Anwar R, Chatha ZA, et al. (2008) Intensity of panicle malformation in mango (Mangifera indica L.) varieties. Pak J agri Sc 45: 418-423.