Screening of mungbean yellow mosaic virus resistant lines in greengram (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek) under natural conditions

Introduction

Greengram or mungbean (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek) is the third most significant pulse crop in India after Redgram and Bengalgram. It can be grown throughout all crop seasons in various parts of the country (Raj et al, 2019) [9] . It is a popular short duration grain legume which can be grown in different environments, across all cropping seasons viz., kharif, rabi and summer, as single or intercrop for grain or green manure (Robertson et al., 2004) [12] . Mungbean is mostly grown in the Southern Asia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Burma, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam, China and Philippines (Dharajiya et al, 2018) [2] . The wider adaptability of greengram is affected by both biotic and abiotic stresses. The biotic stresses include the complex viral diseases that are being transmitted by their insect vectors. In India, the major viral diseases that affect the mungbean production are mungbean yellow mosaic virus disease (MYMV) transmitted by whitefly, Urdbean Leaf crinkle virus (ULCV) transmitted by both aphids and whitefly and Leaf curl virus disease (LCV) transmitted by thrips of which MYMV is the most destructive which can cause yield loss of upto 100% in severe cases (Ramarao et al, 2023) [10] . The common method which is used to control MYMV is control of the vector population utilising insecticides. The major problem of this method is non availibility of effective insecticides. Furthermore these chemicals cause health problems and have adverse impact on environment (Nariani, 1960) [8] . Furthermore, this method is not economical and environment friendly. Developing cultivars of green gram that are genetically resistant to this disease is the most effective method of preventing it from spreading. Developing YMD resistant mungbean cultivars is more challenging due to the extensive host range of virus, genetic variability and nature of complex quantitative inheritance. It is effective to control this disease by using resistant genotypes.

Hence, continuous research to develop mungbean genotypes with high resistance to the specific virus strain against YMD is a crucial breeding objective to breeders.

Materials and Methods

The current study was conducted at AB block during the kharif seasons of 2019 and 2020, Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, BCKV, West Bengal, under natural field conditions. The sixty Greengram genotypes were planted in Randomized Block Design (RBD) with three replications. Each genotype was planted in a three meter long row with 30 cm x 10 cm spacing. After every two rows of the genotypes to be tested, MYMV susceptible variety, Sonamung was sown as infector row. The recommended agronomical practices were adhered to in the field during the experiment. Inorder to maintain whitefly population insecticidal spray was avoided. When 90% of the plants in the infector row displayed the typical MYMV disease symptoms, genotypes were evaluated for MYMV resistance. Modified scale of All India Coordinated Research Project on MULLaRP (Alice and Nadarajan, 2007) was used for scoring the disease. Five plants from each genotype were randomly selected and evaluated for MYMV resistance by scoring these genotypes based on the visual observation of the disease

The mean value was calculated for these genotypes and based on these scores, the genotypes were categorized into different disease reaction groups.

Results and Discussion

Among all the genotypes examined YMV score ranged from 0 to 9 (Table 1 and2). YMV score was noticed higher for Sonamung-2 in both seasons i.e., 8.83 and 8.91 in 2019 and 2020 kharif respectively, followed by KM-16-97 (8.60), TM-2000-2 (8.3) in the first season. In second season Sonamung-2 was followed by KM-16-119 (8.6), PM-11-9 and TMB-140 (8.5). The lowest score was observed for IPM-2-3 (0.29), BCM-18-3 (0.31), MH-421(0.43), ML-1008 (0.46) and IPM-4-10-3 (0.56) in season 1(2019). Lowest YMV score in season 2 is recorded for IPM-2-3 (0.26), IPM-410-3(0.32), BCM-18-3 (0.34), ML-1008 (0.43) and MH-421 (0.44). The genotypes were grouped into six disease reaction categories as highly resistant, resistant, moderately resistant, susceptible, moderately susceptible and highly susceptible on the basis of their YMV scores given in the Table 3 and4. Mishra et al. (2020) [6] has also classified 53 genotypes into 6 disease reaction categories. Darshan et al. (2018) [3] in a similar way investigated the resistance and susceptibility of 35 mungbean genotypes. In the kharif season of 2019 (Table 3), seven genotypes (PUSA-1432, Samrat, MH-421, IPM-2-3, IPM-4-10-3, ML-1008, BCM-18-3) exhibited YMV scores ranging from 0-1, categorized as highly resistant genotypes, comprising 12% of the total. Approximately 17% of genotypes (PUSA-1431, PUSA Vishal, HUM-16, Meha, HUM-B, Virat, IPM-512-1, IPM-2-14, TMB-37, HUM ( 6)) fell into the resistant category with scores ranging from 1.1 to 2.0. Genotypes scoring between 2.1 and 4.0 were classified as moderately resistant, with 15% frequency represented by 9 genotypes. Eleven genotypes scored between 4.0 and 5.0 were categorized as moderately susceptible, making up 18% of the total. Highly susceptible genotypes, scoring between 7 and 9, comprised 15% of the genotypes, totaling 9 genotypes. But, in kharif 2020 (Table 4), six (6) genotypes namely, PUSA-1432, MH-421, IPM-2-3, IPM-4-10-3, ML-1008, BCM-18-3 had MYMV score of 0-1 and were categorized into highly resistant genotypes with a frequency of 10%. Approximately 15% of genotypes (KM-16-103, TMB-124, IPM-521-1, KM-16-116, SML-832, IPM-410-3, DGG-5, IPM-2-23, OUM-11-5) exhibited resistance, scoring between 1.1 and 2.0. Genotypes scoring from 2.1 to 4.0 were classified as moderately resistant, comprising 20% of the total with 12 genotypes. Darshan et al. (2018) [3] identified IPM 02-03 under highly resistant category in his study similar to this. Scoring between 4 and 5, included IPM-410-9, Bireswar, Sonali, TMB-17, IPM-522-1, PM-11-10, Shwetha, MGG-347, MH-1142, EC-496841 and were categorized as moderately susceptible, totaling 23%. Highly susceptible genotypes, scoring between 7 and 9, consisted of 15% of the genotypes, totaling 9 varieties. [9] , Mishra et al. (2020) [6] , Nainu et al. (2020) [7] , Hithesh et al. (2022) [4] , Thakur et al. (2022) [13] , Choudhary et al. (2023) [1] and Kolloju et al. (2023) [5] have conducted screening against yellow mosaic disease and classified the genotypes into different reaction categories in a similar way.

The present investigation indicated significant variation in YMV resistance among different genotypes. Six genotypes which have exhibited high resistance in both seasons (PUSA-1432, MH-421, IPM-2-3, IPM-4-10-3, ML-1008, BCM-18-3) could be utilized as resistant donors in future breeding programmes. 4).

Conclusion

The present investigation indicated significant variation in YMV resistance among different genotypes. Among the 60 genotypes studied under two seasons during kharif 2019 and 2020 it is found that Six genotypes which have exhibited high resistance in both seasons (PUSA-1432, MH-421, IPM-2-3, IPM-4-10-3, ML-1008, BCM-18-3) could be utilized as resistant donors in future breeding programmes. Sonamung-2 was identified as highly susceptible and could be used as susceptible parent.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementThis study was supported by research grant from Council of Scientific and Industrial Research-University Grants Commission (CSIR-UGC), Government of India. The authors thank, AICRP on Mullarp for providing necessary material required to carry out this study.

References

1. 5-7 Susceptible SML-668, TMB-120, TM-153, Sukumar, Sikha, TMB-117, TMB-112, TMB-136, TMB-140, OBGG-52, ADT-03, KM-16-92, PUSA M-1721. 14 23 7-9 Highly susceptible KM-16-97, TM-2000-2, MH-1315, KM-16-119, PM-11-9, SML-1741, Sona Mung-2, ML-1464, DGG54. 9 15 In the first season (2019) the genotypes, PUSA-1432, Samrat, MH-421, IPM-2-3, IPM-4-10-3, ML-1008, BCM-18-3 were found as highly resistant and genotypes, PUSA-1431, PUSA Vishal, HUM-16, Meha, HUM-B, Virat, IPM-512-1, IPM-2-14, TMB-37, HUM(6) were resistant. The genotypes which exhibited moderate resistance are KM-16-103, TMB-124, IPM521-1, IMP-103-3, SML-832, IPM-410-3, DGG-5, IPM-2-23, OUM-11-5. IPM-410-9, Bireswar, Sonali, TMB-17, IPM-522-1, PM-11-10, Shwetha, MGG-347, MH-1142, EC-496841 were noticed as moderately susceptible. Susceptibile reaction to YMV includes SML-668, TMB-120, TM-153, Sukumar, Sikha, TMB117, TMB-112, TMB-136, TMB-140, OBGG-52, ADT-03, KM16-92, PUSA M-1721. KM-16-97, TM-2000-2, MH-1315, KM16-119, PM-11-9, SML-1741, Sonamung-2, ML-1464, DGG-54 were highly susceptible (Table 3).
2. Choudhary A, Choudhary S, Singh M, Yadav VL, Moond V. Screening of mung bean genotypes against yellow mosaic virus (YMV) resistance. Int J Environ Clim Chang. 2023;13(2):109-114.
3. Dharajiya DT, Ravindrababu Y, Pagi NK. Screening of mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) genotypes for resistance against mungbean yellow mosaic virus (MYMV) under field condition. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2018;7(5):3472-3483. doi:10.20546/ijcmas.2018.705.401.
4. Darshan T, Dharajiya Y, Ravindrababu, Pagi NK. Screening of mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) genotypes for resistance against mungbean yellow mosaic virus (MYMV) under field condition. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2018;7(5):3472-3483.
5. Hithesh GR, Shah KD, Keerthi MC, Kabaria BB. Screening of mungbean genotypes against whitefly Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) and thrips Megalurothrips distalis (Karny). Indian J Entomol. 2022;84:1-4.
6. Kolloju DS, Bhat S, Mogali SC, Balol G. Identification of mungbean genotypes with multiple disease resistance. J Genet Breed. 2023;54:237-243.
7. Mishra N, Tripathi MK, Tiwari S, Tripathi N, Trivedi HK. Morphological and molecular screening of soybean genotypes against yellow mosaic virus disease. Legum Res. 2020;43:1-8.
8. Nainu A, Murugan S. Screening of mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) genotypes under field condition for resistance against mungbean yellow mosaic virus (MYMV). Plant Arch. 2020;20(2):6867-6871.
9. Nariani TK. Yellow mosaic of mung (Phaseolus aureus). Indian Phytopathol. 1960;13:24-29.
10. Wilczek). Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2019;8(10):666670.
11. Ramarao G, Satishbabu J, Harisatyanarayana N, Adinarayana M. Morpho-physiological and biochemical variability in greengram (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) varieties for mungbean yellow mosaic virus (MYMV) resistance under natural field conditions. Legume Res. 2023;46(7):934-939.
12. Reshmi Raj KR, Baisakh B, Tripathy SK, Lenka D, Pradhan B, Mishra MK, Salini K, Mohanty MR. Screening for mungbean yellow mosaic virus resistance in green gram (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek). Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2019;8(10):666-670. doi:10.20546/ijcmas.2019.810.075.
13. Robertson MJ, Fukai S, Peoples MB. The effect of timing and severity of water deficit on growth, development, yield accumulation and nitrogen fixation of mungbean. Field Crops Res. 2004;86(1):67-80.
14. Thakur S, Sharma S, Tomar S, Tiwari P, Pathak N, Goswami S, Ramakrishnan SR. Field screening of Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek genotypes against mungbean yellow mosaic virus. Front Crop Improv. 2022;10(1):2454-6011.