A 2-year experiment was conducted at wilt sick plot infested with natural occurring
The average productivity of chickpea in Ethiopia is much lower than the world’s average and is also lower as compared to other chickpea-growing countries such as Egypt and Turkey [
Fusarium wilt of chickpea can be managed by using resistant varieties, healthy chickpea seed, crop rotation, biological control, and fungicides, adjusting sowing dates, and adopting integrated management practices [
The field experiment was conducted during 2015 and 2016 cropping seasons on fusarium wilt sick plot at the Adet Agricultural Research Center (AARC) in the northwestern part of Ethiopia. The center is located 11° 17’N latitude, 37° 43’E longitude and lies at an altitude of about 2150 m.a.s.l. According to the meteorological data of the center, the average annual rainfall is 1250 mm ranging between 860 mm and 1771 mm with the average maximum and minimum temperature 27.5°C and 12.2°C, respectively [
The treatments were consisted of four chickpea varieties, namely, Shasho, Arerti, Marye, and local, two seed dressing fungicides, namely, Apron Star and mancozeb, and untreated local chickpea (control). The design was Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with three replications. The gross plot size was 4 m2 (1.6 m × 2.5 m), and the path plots and between blocks were 1 m and 1.5 m, respectively. Plots were prepared and fertilized with 100 kg·ha−1 diammonium phosphate at planting. The seeds were planted at spacing of 10 cm between plants and 40 cm between rows. Both the fungicides were used at the rate of 3 g for a kg of seeds, and the treated seeds were shade-dried overnight before sowing. All the recommended cultural practices were also applied in the field.
In the experiment, field observations of naturally occurring fusarium wilt incidence were done at 7-day interval at sick plot based on percent of wilt incidence in each plot. Initial recording data for fusarium wilt disease incidence was done when wilting symptoms were visible on the three to five basal leaves of the plants.
Disease incidence (DI) on each experimental unit was calculated by using the following formula:
Area under disease progress curve (AUDPC) was calculated for each treatment from the assessment of disease incidence by using the following formula:
Relative yield loss (RYL) was calculated using the formula of Robert and James [
Analyses of variance (ANOVA) for the effects of varieties and fungicides on fusarium wilt disease incidence, AUDPC %-day, relative yield loss, and grain yield were used to compare the level of resistance among evaluated varieties and fungicides. All analyses were performed using statistical package SAS system, version 9.2 [
The data of two cropping seasons were analyzed separately, but the result showed that there was no significant difference between the two season outputs in the experiments, so that the two season data were combined and analyzed together.
Significant differences at
Main effects of chickpea varieties and fungicides on disease incidence of chickpea fusarium wilt.
Variety | Incidence (%) | Fungicides | Incidence (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Shasho | 29.41a | Apron Star | 32.76a |
Arerti | 34.83a | Mancozeb | 37.38a |
Marye | 45.56b | Untreated | 52.31b |
Local | 53.45b | ||
Mean | 40.81 | 40.82 | |
LSD | 5.46 | 4.92 | |
CV (%) | 11.68 |
LSD = least significant difference; CV = coefficient of variation; means followed by the same letter did not show significant difference at
Landa et al. [
Analysis of variance showed that disease incidence was significantly affected by chickpea varieties, fungicides, and their interaction at
Two-way interaction effects of chickpea varieties and fungicides on disease incidence of chickpea fusarium wilt.
Disease incidence percentage | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Chickpea varieties | Seed dressing fungicides | |||
Apron Star | Mancozeb | Untreated | Mean | |
Shasho | 23.41a | 26.68ab | 40.15de | 30.08a |
Arerti | 28.39ab | 32.67bc | 43.43e | 34.83a |
Marye | 36.33cd | 40.31de | 60.03g | 45.56b |
Local | 44.91ef | 49.84f | 65.62g | 53.46c |
Mean | 33.26a | 37.38a | 52.31b | |
LSD (5%) | 6.125 | |||
CV (%) | 13.65 |
LSD = least significant difference; CV = coefficient of variation; means followed by the same letter did not show significant difference at
The disease progress curve on chickpea varieties at two seed dressing fungicides, i.e., Apron Star and mancozeb and untreated is given in Figure
Response of different chickpea varieties to fungicides: (a) untreated; (b) mancozeb; (c) Apron Star, on disease progress curve of fusarium wilt incidence.
On the contrary, the disease progress curve on fungicides at four chickpea varieties, i.e., Shasho, Arerti, Marye, and local is given in Figure
Response to different fungicides by the four varieties of chickpea: (a) Shasho, (b) Arerti, (c) Marye, and (d) local check variety, on disease progress of fusarium wilt incidence.
Among the main effects, the minimum AUDPC %-day value were recorded from Shasho variety, followed by Arerti and Marye varieties while the maximum AUDPC %-day value was recorded from local chickpea (Figure
The main effects of (a) varieties and (b) fungicides on AUDPC (%-day values) of fusarium wilt of chickpea.
On the contrary, the minimum AUDPC %-day value was recorded from the chickpea variety treated with Apron Star, followed by mancozeb fungicides while the maximum AUDPC %-day value was recorded from untreated plots (Figure
Analysis of variance showed that AUDPC %-day was significantly affected by chickpea varieties, fungicides, and their interaction at
Interaction effects of varieties and fungicides on AUDPC (%-day values) of fusarium wilt disease.
Grain yield was significantly affected by chickpea varieties, fungicides, and their interaction at
Two-way interaction effects of chickpea varieties and fungicides on grain yield of chickpea and their corresponding losses due to chickpea fusarium wilt.
Variety | Fungicides | Grain yield (t/ha) | Relative grain yield loss (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Shasho | Apron Star | 4.55a | 0.0 |
Mancozeb | 3.31bc | 27.25 | |
Untreated | 2.08de | 54.29 | |
|
|||
Arerti | Apron Star | 3.94ab | 13.41 |
Mancozeb | 2.75cd | 39.56 | |
Untreated | 1.54ef | 66.15 | |
|
|||
Marye | Apron Star | 2.71cd | 40.44 |
Mancozeb | 1.52ef | 66.59 | |
Untreated | 0.75fg | 83.52 | |
|
|||
Local | Apron Star | 2.16de | 52.52 |
Mancozeb | 1.51ef | 66.81 | |
Untreated | 0.21g | 95.38 | |
|
|||
LSD (5%) | 0.812 | ||
CV (%) | 11.25 |
LSD = least significant difference; CV = coefficient of variation; means followed by the same letter did not show significant difference at
Yigitoglu [
Among two way interaction effects, the maximum relative grain yield losses of 95.38% and 83.52% were obtained from untreated local chickpea and untreated Marye variety, respectively, while the minimum relative grain yield loss was obtained from Shasho variety treated with Apron Star fungicides which result of insignificance loss, followed by Arerti variety treated with Apron Star fungicides, which result of 13.41% (Table
The findings of the present study suggest that the adoption of resistant variety Shasho with fungicide Apron Star seed-treatment may result in reduced fusarium wilt disease progress with a corresponding increased grain yield of chickpea. Further, undoubtedly the fusarium wilt appears to be an important disease that calls for better attention in the study area in terms of economical management with fungicide seed-treatment and use of resistant varieties. The variety Shasho appears to have better resistance against the fusarium wilt disease; therefore, its genetic resistance needs to be investigated further by repeating the experiment for one more cropping season.
The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
The authors express their profound appreciation to the University of Gondar, College of Agriculture and Rural Transformation, for granting the opportunity to the senior author to pursue this study by awarding scholarship and full financial support. Words cannot explain his appreciation for the Adet Agricultural Research Center for their material support and invaluable help in creating hospitable working environment for this research work.
Figure 1: the data in the three tables indicate the effect of different chickpea varieties (Shasho, Arerti, Marye, and local) with the same untreated, treated with mancozeb, and treated with Apron Star on disease incidence progress on 7 days’ interval. This mean that even though the chickpea varieties with the same untreated, treated with Mancozeb, and treated with Apron Star it shows difference among varieties in fusarium disease incidence progress. Hence, we have to relate these data with Figure 1. Figure 2: the data in four tables indicate the effect of the same chickpea variety with different fungicides Apron Star and mancozeb and the same untreated on disease incidence progress in 7 days’ interval. This means that even though the same chickpea variety treated with different fungicides it shows difference performance among fungicides in fusarium disease incidence progress. Hence, we have to correlate these data with Figure 2. Figure 3: the data in two tables indicate the main effect of chickpea varieties and fungicides and its interaction effect on disease incidence progress. On these row data, I get good results which perform good resistance for fusarium wilt incidence per days. Hence you have to check on Figures 3 and 4. NB: even though all these agronomical parameter data were collected on the field and included in the paper, the selected data were included in the manuscript such as fusarium wilt disease incidence and grain yield of chickpea and their losses due to fusarium wilt disease. Hence, we have to check on Tables 2 and 3.