Integrated disease management of chickpea wilt caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceri using biological, botanical and chemical approaches

Introduction

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) (2n=16) is among the founder crops of modern agriculture. It belongs to Leguminaceae family and is a major source of food and animal-feed. It is is not merely another pulse crop in India it is, by most practical measures, the most important pulse crop. India accounts for 71% of global chickpea acreage and 65% of production, yet its per-hectare productivity sits at a modest 1,012 kg, well below the yields achieved in China or Israel (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2025) This gap is not accidental. It is the aggregation of many small defeats diseases that chip away at both yield and quality year after year. Roughly 172 pathogens were documented on chickpea worldwide (Nene et al., 1996) [6] some of them of importance are Ascochyta rabiei, Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceri, Uromyces cicerisarietini, bean leaf roll virus, Rhizoctonia bataticola, Botrytis cinerea, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and cucumber mosaic virus (Nene, 1980) [5] . In recent years there has been concern about gradual decline in per capita availability of pulses. An important reason for this miserable situation in the country is mainly due to the attack of the soil borne pathogens. According to Sarwar et al., (2012) [8] wilt is a major restrictive factor to chickpea production. Wilt of chickpea is caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceri (hereafter FOC) stands out for its sheer persistence and the severity of losses it can inflict, ranging from 10-15% annually under typical conditions to outright crop failure during especially favorable disease years (Muche et al., 2022) [3] . This disease was first reported in India by Butler in 1918 but its etiology was correctly determined by Padwick in1940. Fusarium belongs to Division Ascomycota, Order Hypocerales, Family Nectriacea. Genus Fusarium. It is widely distributed throughout the country and is responsible for heavy reduction in crop yield (Haware et al., 1986) [2] . The losses due to chickpea wilt disease mostly depend upon the favourable environmental, soil factors, amount of viable inoculums present and susceptible host (Navas-Cortes et al., 2000) [4] . Wilt reduces chickpea production both by decreasing seed yield and seed weight. Early wilting is reported to cause more yield loss (77-94%) than late wilting (24-65%), but seeds from late wilted plants are lighter, rougher, and dull. The biology of this pathogen complicates every management decision. FOC is both seed-borne and soil-borne; it produces chlamydospores that survive in soil for upwards of six years without a chickpea host. It colonizes the roots of several rotation crops, pigeonpea, lentil, pea as a symptomless carrier, and it can be found on weed species including Cyperus rotundus and Tribulus terrestris. Soil temperatures between 24.8 and 28.5 °C, combined with soil moisture above 25% of water-holding capacity, create an environment in which the pathogen thrives. Once established in a field, it is, for all practical purposes, permanent.

The management of the disease can be done through cultural, chemical, biological methods and use of resistant varieties. In the absence of resistance / tolerant variety it is difficult to manage the disease caused by soil borne pathogens because of complex soil environment of physical, chemical and biological origin. And yet progress has been made, FOC management does not lie in optimizing any one of the approaches in isolation. It lies in testing them alongside each other, under the same local conditions, and then combining the most effective options into integrated field strategies. Investigation were doneto test nine integrated management treatments under field conditions during rabi 2020-2021 at the Crop Research Centre, SardarVallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology, Meerut, U.P

Materials and Methods

The Experiment was conducted at Crop Research centre, SVPUAT, Meerut. Nine treatments were evaluated in a Randomized Block Design with three replications at the Crop Research Centre during rabi 2020-2021.

Statistical analysis

Data of the experiments conducted in the laboratory and field was subjected to statistical analysis. The data were transformed whenever required. The critical difference is calculated at a probability of 5.0% to find out the difference between the treatments.

Results and Discussion

Field experiment were conducted during rabi season of 2020-2021 at Crop Research Centre of University. The results in the table no. 2, fig No. 1 and plate 9 revealed that all treatment significantly reduced the percent disease incidence, increased the yield and test weight. The lowest percent disease incidence (7.79%) was recorded in (T9) Soil drenching with Propiconazole (@ 500 ml/ha after 15 DAS) followed by (8.89%) in (T4)Seed treatment with Thiram. (@1.5g/kg seed) + Soil application of Trichoderma harzianum[1×10 7 CFU@10 g/m 2 ). The highest percent disease incidence (16.04%) was recorded in (T5) Soil application of Mustard cake @ 0.2 kg/m 2 + Trichoderma harzianum@1 g m -2 followed by 15.12% in (T2) Soil application of Trichoderma harzianum[1×10 7 CFU@10 g/m 2 )] + FYM. (@ 2.5 kg / m 2 ) compared to control (31.02%).

The maximum yield q/ha was recorded (17.98 q/ha) and test weight (g) (192.6 g) in (T9) Soil drenching with Propiconazole @ 500 ml/ha 15 DAS followed by (16.89q/ha) and test weight (g)(185.7) in (T4) Seed treatment with Thiram. (@1.5g/kg seed) + Soil application of Trichoderma harzianum[1×10 7 CFU@10 g/m 2 .

In the field study, seed treatment with Trichoderma harzianum and Pseudomonas fluorescens and soil application of organic amendments viz., FYM, Press mud, Neem cake and Mustard cake with biocontrol agents i.e., T.harzianum, P. fluorescens and soil drenching with Propiconazole were evaluated in possible combinations to asses the integrated effect of treatments on chickpea wilt incidence in the field condition. Field experiment were conducted during rabi season 2020-2021 at Crop Research Centre of University. The results revealed that all treatment significantly reduced the percent disease incidence, increase the yield and test weight. The lowest percent disease incidence (7.79%) was recorded in (T9) soil drenching with Propiconazole followed by (8.89%) in (T4) Seed treatment with Thiram(@1.5 g/kg) + Soil application of Trichoderma harzianum [1×10 7 CFU@10 g m -2 ]. The highest percent disease incidence (16.04%) was recorded in (T5) Soil application of Mustard cake @ 0.2 kg m -2 + Trichoderma harzianum@1 g m -2 followed by 15.12% in (T2) Soil application of Trichoderma harzianum[1×10 7 CFU@10 g m -2 ] + FYM(@ 2.5 kgm -2 ) compared to control (31.02%).

The maximum yield q/ha (17.98 q/ha) and test weight (g) (192.6 g) was recorded in (T9) soil drenching with Propiconazole @ 500 ml/ha 15 DAS followed by (16.89q/ha) and test weight (g)(185.7) in (T4) Seed treatment with Thiram(@1.5g/kg) + Soil application of Trichoderma harzianum [1×10 7 CFU@10 g m -2 ]was recorded in (T5) Soil application of Mustard [email protected] kg m -2 + T harzianum@1 g m -2 compared to control (12.59 q ha -1 ) and (16.73g). Similarly, Khan et. al. (2004) [9] ciceri. On control plants, wilting was observed and significantly decreased dry weight and the seed yield of chickpea by 20 and 18%, respectively. On chickpea without wilt, treatment with P. fluorescens improved the yield by 36% and T. harzianum + P. fluorescens by 25%. Both bio fungicides suppressed wilt severity, the most effective being T. harzianum + P. fluorescence (66%). Carbendazim alone reduced wilt incidence by 33% and with T. harzianum + P. fluorescens by 44%. The soil population of F. oxysporum f.sp. ciceri (C.F.U./g soil) in untreated plots increased during the first 2 months, but in the bio fungicide/ fungicide treated plots, it gradually and significantly decreased during the 4 months of the crop season. The greatest decrease in the soil population of F. oxysporum f.sp. ciceri with T. harzianumor T. harzianum +P. fluorescens, followed by P. fluorescens and Carbendazim. The rhizosphere population of the bioagents increased significantly in plots where wilt population decreased. The greatest increases in the population of the bioagents was recorded for T. harzianum (108-120%), followed by P.

fluorescens (65-119%) in the combined treatment, compared with the pre-plant control (December). When the bio agents were applied alone, the population of T. harzianum increased by 71-96% and P. fluorescens by 46-103%. Nikam et. al. (2007) [10] reported chemical seed treatment with Thiram (0.15%) + Carbendazim (0.1%) is proved to be the most effective against Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. ciceri. In vitro evaluation of Trichoderma spp. against F. oxysporum f. sp. cicero revealed the positive cumulative effect of Trichoderma viride + Trichoderma harzianum + Trichoderma hamatumin respect to the percent inhibition of the test fungus. Pot culture studies revealed that the soil applications of T. viride @ 2.5kg/ha as the most effective in reducing the incidence of chickpea wilt. Soil amendment with Groundnut cake is proved to be effective against F. oxysporum f.sp. ciceri followed by neem cake. Thus, chickpea wilt incited by F. oxysporum f.sp. ciceribeing soil borne disease could be managed by the integration of various practices like using resistant varieties, seed treatment with chemicals, seed and soil applications of bio-agents and amendment of soils with oil seed cakes.

References

1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAOSTAT production statistics of crops. 2025.
2. Haware MP, Nene YL, Mathur SB. Seed borne diseases of chickpea. Technical Bulletin No. 1. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danish Government Institute of Seed Pathology for Developing Countries in collaboration with ICRISAT; 1986. p. 32.
3. Muche M, Yemata G. Epidemiology and pathogenicity of vascular wilt of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris, and the host defense responses. South African Journal of Botany. 2022;151:339348.
4. Navas-Cortés JA, Alcalá-Jiménez AR, Jiménez-Díaz RM. Influence of inoculum density of races 0 and 5 of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris on development of Fusarium wilt in chickpea cultivars. European Journal of Plant Pathology. 2000;106:135-146.
5. Nene YL. Diseases of chickpea. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Chickpea Improvement. 1980. p. 171-178.
6. Nene YL, Sheila VK, Sharma SV. A world list of chickpea and pigeonpea pathogens. 5th ed. Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India: ICRISAT; 1996. p. 27.
7. Padwick GW, Bhagwagor PR. Wilt of gram in relation to date of sowing. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 1943;13:289-290.
8. Sarwar N, Akhtar KP, Shah TM, Atta BM. Evaluation of chickpea advanced genotypes against blight and wilt diseases under field conditions. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology. 2012;14:993-996.
9. Khan MR, Khan SM, Mohiddin FA. Biological control of Fusarium wilt of chickpea through seed treatment with the commercial formulation of Trichoderma harzianum and Pseudomonas fluorescens. Phytopathologia Mediterranea. 2004;43:20-25.
10. Nikam PS, Jagtap GP, Sontakke PL. Management of chickpea wilt caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceri. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 2007;2(12):692697.