Identification of Sources of Resistance against turcicum leaf blight of maize

2017; 5(5): 1664-1668 P-ISSN: 2349 8528 E-ISSN: 2321 4902 IJCS 2017; 5(5): 1664-1668 2017 IJCS Received: 16-07-2017 Accepted: 18-08-2017 Manu TG Gangadhara Naik B Murali R Nagaraja H Correspondence Manu TG Identification of Sources of Resistance against turcicum leaf blight of maize Manu TG, Gangadhara Naik B, Murali R and Nagaraja H Abstract Maize is one of the important cereal crops of India. Maize is utilized as a staple food by the lower strata of the society and also used as a crop par excellence for industrial use. Maize is cultivated under diverse environmental conditions. Among the foliar diseases affecting maize, the turcicum leaf blight is of worldwide importance causing moderate to severe losses in yield. Host plant resistance is considered as most practical, feasible and economical method of plant disease management. Hence 115 inbred lines were screened to know their reaction to turcicum leaf blight disease. Out of which 21 lines showed resistant reaction with a disease score of 1 and 51 lines showed moderately resistant reaction whereas, remaining lines showed moderately susceptible to highly susceptible reaction. Keywords: maize, turcicum leaf blight, resistant, screening Introduction In Indian agriculture, maize occupies an important place after wheat and rice. Maize is not only utilized as a staple food by the lower strata of the society, but it is also used as a crop par excellence for industrial use. Maize is cultivated under diverse environmental conditions. Among the cereals, maize cultivated in India, occupies fifth place in area, third place with respect to production and productivity. During the year 2010-11, India registered a production of 21.74 million tonnes with an average productivity of 2.54 tons per hectare from total maize cultivated area of 8.55 million hectares (Anon., 2012) [2]. In Karnataka, maize occupies an area of 13.22 lakh hectares with the production of 34.55 lakh tones and productivity of 28.34 q/ha, which is highest when compared to other states in the country (Anon, 2013) [3]. In Karnatka, Area under maize is increasing rapidly because of congenial environment, high yield and ease with which the crop is cultivated. Thus, there is scope to increase maize productivity in Karnataka to a global level of 49.20 q/ha (FAOSTAT, 2013) [7]. With the introduction of high yielding hybrids both indigenous and exotic and use of chemical fertilizers, there has been a phenomenal increase in the area and production, but at the same time, it is prone to the attack of several foliar and stalk rot diseases (Payak and Sharma, 1980) [14]. Among the foliar diseases affecting maize, the turcicum leaf blight also called as Northern leaf blight caused by Exserohilum turcicum (Pass.) Leonard and Suggs. (syn. Heliminthosporium turcicum Pass.) is of worldwide importance (Carlos, 1997) [4] causing moderate to severe losses in yield. Turcicum leaf blight is one of the most important fungal diseases affecting photosynthesis with severe reduction in grain yield of more than 50 per cent (Raymundo and Hooker, 1981; Perkins and Pederson, 1987) [17, 16]. The disease is more prevalent in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh and Maharashtra. Turcicum leaf blight is considered to be one of the most devastating foliar diseases in Karnataka resulting in reduction of grain yield by 28 to 91 per cent (Pandurangegowda, 1991; Harlapur et al., 2000) [13, 8]. Host plant resistance is considered as most practical, feasible and economical method of plant disease management. Hence, it is most important to carry out screening of inbred lines, under artificial epiphytotic conditions to identify sources of resistance against turcicum leaf blight. Material and Methods The present study was carried out in experimental plots of Agriculture College, Navile, Shivamogga in Kharif 2014 and Kharif 2015. Totally 115 inbred lines were collected from CIMMYT, Hyderabad to know their reaction to turcicum leaf blight disease under this conditions. ~ 1664 ~

The crop was grown by following recommended agronomic practices as per the package of practices. Each genotype was planted at 60 x 30 cm. Two spreader rows with highly susceptible line CM 202 were planted on either side of the screening block. Artificial inoculation of the pathogen was also done to increase the disease pressure and the observations on disease severity was recorded followed by categorization of genotypes as resistant, moderately resistant, susceptible and highly susceptible based on 1-5 disease severity rating scale given by Payak and Sharma 1983 [15]. Disease scoring scale for Turcicum leaf blight disease of Maize Grade Degree of infection 1 Very slight infection, one to two restricted spots (lesions) on lower leaves or traces 2 Slight to moderate infection on lower leaves a few scattered lesions on lower leaves 3 Abundant lesions on lower leaves, few on middle leaves 4 Lesions abundant on lower and middle leaves extending to upper leaves 5 Lesions abundant on all leaves. Plants may be prematurely killed by blight. Inoculum preparation The mass multiplication of the pathogen E. turcicum was prepared on sterilized sorghum grain culture (Joshi et al. 1969) [11]. Required amount of sorghum grains were soaked in water for overnight and excess water was drained off. Soaked sorghum grains were taken in 500 ml conical flask and the material was sterilized at 121.1 0 C temperature and at 15lbs pressure for 20 minutes. The flasks containing sterilized sorghum grains were aseptically inoculated with E. turcicum culture and incubated at 27±1 C for 20 days and the flasks were shaken regularly. Within three weeks, the flask of sorghum grains was covered with black mycelial growth and conidia of the fungus. Such fully colonized sporulated sorghum grain culture was used for creating artificial epiphytotic conditions in the field by following leaf whorl drop method of inoculation. Creation of artificial epiphytotic condition To ensure uniform disease infestation, artificial inoculation was done using leaf whorl technique as suggested by Shekhar and Kumar (2012) [18]. The infected sorghum grains with pathogen inoculum was ground to fine powder and 1 to 1.5 gram of the ground inoculum was added to each leaf whorl, followed by a light spray of water to create required humidity and initiate infection and the mixture of infected leaves and water was also sprayed to create artificial epiphytotic conditions. Artificial inoculation was made twice at 25 th and 35 th day after sowing during evening hours to create uniform disease intensity. Results and Discussion The present screening experiment was conducted for two seasons. In kharif 2014, out of 122 lines sown for testing resistance only 80 lines were germinated. Among these 80 lines, 18 lines viz., CML 193, CML 161, CML 436, CML 540, CML 541, CML 542, CML 543, CML 545, CML 344, CML 206, CML 322, CML 448, CML 438, CML 548, CML 547, CML 328, CML 326, VL109452 were found to be resistant with a disease score of 1. In these lines, leaf blight symptoms were not observed or small spots were observed in lower leaves only. Forty seven lines showed a moderately resistant reaction with a disease score of 2 and 10 lines showed moderately susceptible reaction, whereas four lines viz., CML 474, CML 360, CM 212 and CM 500 showed susceptible reaction with a disease score of 4. The susceptible check CM 202 showed highly susceptible reaction with a disease score of 5 (Table 1). In kharif 2015, out of 122 lines seven lines were not germinated. Among these, 26 lines viz., CML 481, CML 344, CML 206, CML 176, CML 496, CML 322, CML 448, CML 438, VL 1010764, CML 193, VL 108706, CML 548, CML 547, CML 465, CML 328, CML 326, CML 483, CML 511, VL 108723, VL 109470, VL 108842, VL 109452, CML 229, CML 317, CML 465 and CML 504 showed disease score of 1 and categorized as resistant lines. Forty nine lines showed a moderately resistant reaction with a disease score of 2 and disease rating 3 was found in 34 lines and categorized as moderately susceptible reaction. Five lines viz., CML 470, CML 474, CML 469, CML 502 and CM 500 showed susceptible reaction with a disease rating of 4 and susceptible check CM 202 showed highly susceptible reaction with a disease rating of 5. The two year results revealed that none of the tested lines were immune to the turcicum leaf blight disease. However, 21 lines viz., CML 344, CML 494, CML 481, CML 322, CML 448, CML 438, VL1010764, CML 193, CML 548, CML 547, CML 465, CML 328, CML 326, VL109452, CML 229, CML 317, CML 465, CML 504, VL108723, VL109470, VL108842 showed a resistant reaction with a disease score of 1 for both the years and 51 lines showed a moderate resistant reaction with a disease score of 2 (Table 1). Thirty seven lines showed the moderately susceptible reaction and five lines viz., CML 474, CML 360, CML 502, CM 212, CM 500 showed susceptible reaction. The susceptible check CM 202 showed highly susceptible reaction with a disease rating of 5 (Table 2 and Fig 1). These results were supported by the findings of Chandrashekara et al. (2012) [5], they reported that out of 37 lines tested, 10 lines were found resistant and 18 lines were found moderately resistant. However, 7 lines were found highly susceptible to the turcicum leaf blight. Chandrashekara et al., 2014 [6] found 12 resistant lines out of 35 lines. These results are in agreement with the results of the investigations of Hooda et al. (2012) [9] who screened a set of 200 maize lines against 10 major diseases found and 16 lines found resistant against turcicum leaf blight. Similar results were reported by Jagadeesh (2013) [10] ; Ali and Chowdhary, (2014) [1] and Mir et al. (2015) [12]. The resistant reaction was found to differ among the different lines and this fact agrees with Welz and Gieger (2000) [19] working on turcicum leaf blight reported differential reaction of various maize germplasm to the disease. The reaction of the varieties to the various pathogens is governed by the resistance genotypic composition of lines. ~ 1665 ~

Table 1: Reaction of inbred lines to turcicum leaf blight S. No Lines 2014 2015 Mean Reaction 1 CML 124 2 2 2 Moderately Resistant 2 CML 144 2 2 2 Moderately Resistant 3 CML 400 * 3 3 Moderately susceptible 4 CML 473 2 3 2.5 Moderately susceptible 5 CML 345 * 3 3 Moderately susceptible 6 CML 404 * 2 2 Moderately Resistant 7 CML 387 * 2 2 Moderately Resistant 8 CML 395 2 2 2 Moderately Resistant 9 CML 407 * 3 3 Moderately susceptible 10 CML 334 2 2 2 Moderately Resistant 11 CML 344 * 3 3 Moderately susceptible 12 CML 337 * 2 2 Moderately Resistant 13 CML 413 * 3 3 Moderately susceptible 14 CML 412 3 3 3 Moderately susceptible 15 CML 440 * 2 2 Moderately Resistant 16 CML 193 1 2 1.5 Moderately Resistant 17 CML 247 2 2 2 Moderately Resistant 18 CML 161 1 2 1.5 Moderately Resistant 19 CML 491 2 2 2 Moderately Resistant 20 CML 491 * 2 2 Moderately Resistant 21 CML 481 * 1 1 Resistant 22 CML 264 2 2 2 Moderately Resistant 23 CML 287 * 3 3 Moderately susceptible 24 CML 312 2 2 2 Moderately Resistant 25 CML 468 3 2 2.5 Moderately susceptible 26 CML 441 2 3 2.5 Moderately susceptible 27 CML 439 2 3 2.5 Moderately susceptible 28 CML 503 2 2 2 Moderately Resistant 29 CML 504 2 2 2 Moderately Resistant 30 CML 509 * 3 3 Moderately susceptible 31 CML 537 2 2 2 Moderately Resistant 32 CML 436 1 2 1.5 Moderately Resistant 33 CML 540 1 3 2 Moderately Resistant 34 CML 541 1 3 2 Moderately Resistant 35 CML 542 1 2 1.5 Moderately Resistant 36 CML 543 1 2 1.5 Moderately Resistant 37 CML 545 1 3 2 Moderately Resistant 38 CML 472 2 3 2.5 Moderately susceptible 39 CML 362 2 2 2 Moderately Resistant 40 CML 359 2 2 2 Moderately Resistant 41 CML 338 3 3 3 Moderately susceptible 42 CML 336 2 2 2 Moderately Resistant 43 CML 344 1 1 1 Resistant 44 CML 426 2 3 2.5 Moderately susceptible 45 CML 415 2 2 2 Moderately Resistant 46 CML 425 * 3 3 Moderately susceptible 47 CML 538 * 2 2 Moderately Resistant 48 CML 494 * 3 3 Moderately susceptible 49 CML 206 1 1 1 Resistant 50 CML 163 2 2 2 Moderately Resistant 51 CML 176 2 1 1.5 Moderately Resistant 52 CML 479 2 2 2 Moderately Resistant 53 CML 496 2 1 1.5 Moderately Resistant 54 CML 311 * 3 3 Moderately susceptible 55 CML 321 2 2 2 Moderately Resistant 56 CML 322 1 1 1 Resistant 57 CML 448 1 1 1 Resistant 58 CML 442 3 2 2.5 Moderately susceptible 59 CML 438 1 1 1 Resistant 60 CML 474 4 4 4 Susceptible 61 CML 539 2 2 2 Moderately Resistant 62 VL1010764 2 1 1.5 Moderately Resistant 63 CML 193 * 1 1 Resistant 64 VL108706 * 1 1 Resistant 65 VL109499 * 2 2 Moderately Resistant 66 CML 548 1 1 1 Resistant ~ 1666 ~

67 CML 547 1 1 1 Resistant 68 CML 557 2 2 2 Moderately Resistant 69 CML 465 * 1 1 Resistant 70 CML 470 2 4 3 Moderately susceptible 71 CML469 2 4 3 Moderately susceptible 72 CML 360 4 3 3.5 Susceptible 73 CML 376 2 2 2 Moderately Resistant 74 CML 402 2 3 2.5 Moderately susceptible 75 CML 339 * 3 3 Moderately susceptible 76 CML 335 * 2 2 Moderately Resistant 77 CML 333 * 3 3 Moderately susceptible 78 CML 406 2 3 2.5 Moderately susceptible 79 CML 429 3 3 3 Moderately susceptible 80 CML 411 2 3 2.5 Moderately susceptible 81 CML 320 2 3 2.5 Moderately susceptible 82 CML 328 1 1 1 Resistant 83 CML 251 2 2 2 Moderately Resistant 84 CML 94 2 2 2 Moderately Resistant 85 CML 555 2 3 2.5 Moderately susceptible 86 CML 490 2 2 2 Moderately Resistant 87 CML 480 3 2 2.5 Moderately susceptible 88 CML 486 2 2 2 Moderately Resistant 89 CML 254 2 3 2.5 Moderately susceptible 90 CML 326 1 1 1 Resistant 91 CML 445 * 2 2 Moderately Resistant 92 CML 434 2 2 2 Moderately Resistant 93 CML 435 3 3 3 Moderately susceptible 94 CML 444 2 3 2.5 Moderately susceptible 95 CML 502 3 4 3.5 Susceptible 96 CML 483 2 1 1.5 Moderately Resistant 97 CML 505 2 2 2 Moderately Resistant 98 CML 511 2 1 1.5 Moderately Resistant 99 VL108723 * 1 1 Resistant 100 VL109470 * 1 1 Resistant 101 VL108842 * 1 1 Resistant 102 VL109449 * 2 2 Moderately Resistant 103 VL109452 1 1 1 Resistant 104 CML 229 * 1 1 Resistant 105 CML 317 * 1 1 Resistant 106 CML 465 * 1 1 Resistant 107 CML 504 * 1 1 Resistant 108 CM 202 5 5 5 Highly Susceptible 109 CM 212 4 3 3.5 Susceptible 110 CM 119 3 2 2.5 Moderately susceptible 111 CM 122 * 3 3 Moderately susceptible 112 CM 500 4 4 4 Susceptible 113 NAI 175 2 3 2.5 Moderately susceptible 114 MAI 105 * 2 2 Moderately Resistant 115 HKI 287 3 2 2.5 Moderately susceptible *= not germinated Table 2: Categorization of lines based on reaction to turcicum leaf blight Reaction No. of Lines Resistant 21 Moderately Resistant 51 Moderately Susceptible 37 Susceptible 5 Highly Susceptible 1 ~ 1667 ~

Fig 1: Reaction of different lines to turcicum leaf blight References 1. Ali S, Chowdhary AK. Leaf anatomical studies of maize (Zea mays L.) in relation to tolerance and susceptibility to turcicum leaf blight disease. International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology. 2014; 7(2):321-324. 2. Anonymous. 56 th Annual Progress Report, All India Coordinated Maize Research Project, Directorate of Maize Research, New Delhi, 2012, 15. 3. Anonymous. Area and Production of maize in India and Karnataka. In: Annual Progress Report for Kharif Maize, Directorate of Maize Research, IARI, New Delhi 2013. 4. Carlos DL. Diseases of maize in south-east Asia relevance and management. Paper presented at the International Conference on Integrated Plant Disease Management for Sustainable Agriculture, New Delhi, 1997, 22. 5. Chandrashekara C, Jha SK, Agrawal PK, Singh NK, Bhatt JC. Screening of Extra Early Maize Inbred under artificial epiphytotic condition for North-Western Himalayan region of India. Maize Genetics Cooperation Newsletter. 2012; 86:1-4. 6. Chandrashekara C, Jha SK, Arunkumar R, Agrawal PK. Identification of new sources of resistance to turcicum leafblight and maydis leaf blight in maize (Zea mays l.). SABRAO Journal of Breeding and Genetics. 2014; 46(1):44-55. 7. Faostat. Statistical database of the food and agriculture organization of the United Nations, 2013. 8. Harlapur SI, Wali MC, Anahosur KH, Muralikrishna S. A report on survey and surveillance of maize diseases in northern Karnataka. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2000; 13:750-751. 9. Hooda KS, Sekhar JC, Chikkappa GK, Sangit Kumar, Pandurangegowda KT, Sreeramsetty TA et al. Identifying sources of multiple disease resistance in maize, Journal of Maize. 2012; 1(1):82-84. 10. Jagadeesh E. Studies on biochemical basis and resistance sources of maize to Turcicum leaf blight caused by Exserohilum turcicum (Pass.) Leonard and Suggs. M.sc (Agri) thesis, University of Agriculture Sciences, Bengaluru.,, 2013, 84. 11. Joshi LM, Goel LB, Renfro BL. Multiplication of inoculum of Helminthosporium turcicum on sorghum seeds. Indian Phytopathology. 1969; 22:146-148. 12. Mir SD, Mushtaq A, Parray GA, Razvi SM, Gul-Zaffar. Screening of maize inbred lines under artificial epiphytotic conditions for turcicum leaf blight. African Journal of Microbiology Research. 2015; 9(7):481-483. 13. Pandurangegowda KT. Host resistance, loss assessment and management of Exserohilum turcicum (Pass) Leonard and Suggs. leaf blight of maize. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Mysore, 1991. 14. Payak MM, Sharma RC. An inventory and bibliography of maize diseases in India. Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, 1980, 45. 15. Payak MM, Sharma RC. Disease rating scales in maize in India. In: Techniques of Scoring for Resistance to Important Diseases of Maize. All India Coordinated Maize Improvement Project, IARI, New Delhi, 1983, 1-4. 16. Perkins JM, Pederson WL. Disease treatment and yield loss associated with northern leaf blight of corn. Plant Dis. 1987; 71:940-943. 17. Raymundo AD, Hooker AC. Measuring relationship between northern leaf blight of maize and yield losses. Plant Disease. 1981; 65:325-327. 18. Shekhar M, Kumar S. Inoculation methods and disease rating scales for maize diseases. Directorate of Maize, ICAR, New Delhi, 2012, 2-16. 19. Welz HG, Geiger HH. Genes for resistance to northern corn leaf blight in diverse maize populations. Plant Breeding. 2000; 119:1-14. ~ 1668 ~