Submit or Track your Manuscript LOG-IN

Mineral Profiling of Chickpea Wilt against Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. ciceris

Mineral Profiling of Chickpea Wilt against Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. ciceris

Hafiz Tassawar Abbas1*, Tamoor Khan1, Ghulam Khaliq2, Muhammad Aqeel Sarwar3, Muhammad Rashid4, Intazar Ali5, Muhammad Abuzar Jaffar2, Ghulam Ali Bugti6 and Muhammad Waseem4
 

1Department of Plant Pathology, Faculty of Agriculture, Lasbela University of Agriculture, Water and Marine Sciences, Uthal, District Lasbela, Balochistan, Pakistan; 2Faculty of Agriculture, Lasbela University of Agriculture, Water and Marine Sciences, Uthal, District Lasbela, Balochistan, Pakistan; 3Crop Sciences Institute, National Agricultural Research Centre Islamabad, Pakistan; 4Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Lasbela University of Agriculture, Water and Marine Sciences, Uthal, District Lasbela, Balochistan, Pakistan; 5Department of Entomology, University College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Pakistan; 6Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture, Lasbela University of Agriculture, Water and Marine Sciences, Uthal, District Lasbela, Balochistan, Pakistan.


*Correspondence | Hafiz Tassawar Abbas, Department of Plant Pathology, Faculty of Agriculture, Lasbela University of Agriculture, Water and Marine Sciences, Uthal, District Lasbela, Balochistan, Pakistan; Email: khantassawar@gmail.com 

ABSTRACT

Chickpea (Cicer arietinurn L.) is a rich source of plant protein. A number of diseases attack chickpea crop but wilt disease is the principle one. In mineral contents i.e. nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, sodium, zinc, iron and copper were decreased in chickpea plants affected with wilt disease. Leaves of three resistant and susceptible (un-inoculated and inoculated) chickpea lines/varieties were tested to find out their ionic status (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Na, Zn, Fe and Cu). The un-inoculated and inoculated plants of resistant and susceptible groups exhibited significant variation (p ≤ 0.05) in the mineral contents. Resistant plants group showed 3.75%, 2.93%, 1359, 1667, 1161, 541, 291, 756.6 and 340.26 ppm in “6005” line while susceptible plants group expressed 1.30%, 0.63%, 503 ppm, 441, 515, 152, 70.21, 285.6 and 70 ppm difference in concentration of N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Na, Zn, Fe and Cu in “Thall-2006” variety respectively. Resistant germplasm contained greater concentrations of these minerals related to susceptible lines/varieties. Increased mineral contents in resistant plants build up the physiological and biochemical methods of the host plants which help to prevent the extent of pathogen. 

 

To share on other social networks, click on any share button. What are these?

Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Research

June

Vol. 34, Iss. 2, Pages 254-493

Featuring

Click here for more

Subscribe Today

Receive free updates on new articles, opportunities and benefits


Subscribe Unsubscribe