AIZE AIZE OURNOURNALAL - Maize Technologists Association ...€¦ · variability, heritability,...

Directorate of Maize Research New Delhi 110 012

Maize Technologists Association of India

MAIZE JOURNAL MAIZE JOURNAL (An International Journal of Maize Research and Related Industries)

Volume 1l Number 2l October 2012

ISSN 2278-8867

MAIZE TECHNOLOGISTS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA

Chief Patron : DR. S.K.VASAL Patron : DR. SAIN DASS

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL (2011-12)

President : DR. R. SAI KUMAR Vice-President : DR. SANGIT KUMAR

Secretary : DR. ISHWAR SINGH Joint Secretary : DR. K.S. HOODA

Treasurer : DR. JYOTI KAUL Editor-in-Chief : DR. ASHOK KUMAR

The association was founded in 2011 with the following Objectives:

1. To bring together all professionals from public and private organizations involved in maize research, extension,production, processing, value addition, seed production/ marketing, energy, socio-economic and environmentalissues.

2. To facilitate linkages among maize stake holders to disseminate up-to-date and relevant technology/informationthrough organizing conferences/symposia/ seminars/ meetings, etc.

3. To publish a multidisciplinary scientific journal of international standards exclusively devoted to the maize researchnamed “Maize Journal”

Maize Journal is the official publication of the Maize Technologists Association of India and is published half yearly i.e. inApril and October. This periodical publishes peer-reviewed original research papers, short communications and critical reviewsin English on all aspects of maize research and related industries. All contributions to this Journal are peer reviewed andpublished free of charge.

The current membership/subscription rates are as follows

Membership Indian (`) Foreign (in US $ or its equivalent)

Annual 500.00 100.00

Life 4000.00 400.00

Subscription(Libraries/ 1000.00 200.00Institutes/Organizations)

All payments (membership/subscription) may be made by demand draft/ multicity Cheque in favour of “MAIZE TECHNOLOGISTSASSOCIATION OF INDIA” to the Treasures, Maize Technologists Association of India, Directorate of Maize Research, PusaCampus, New Delhi 110012.

All correspondence may please be addressed to the Secretary, Maize Technologists Association of India, Directorate of MaizeResearch, Pusa Campus, New Delhi 110 012. E-mail: [email protected]

Note: All the statements and opinions expressed in the manuscripts are those of the authors, and not those of the editor(s). Publishersdisclaim any responsibility of such material. The editor(s) and publishers also do not guarantee/warrant or endorse any product or serviceadvertised in the journal, nor do they guarantee any claim made by the manufacturers of such product or service.

Maize Technologists Association of IndiaDirectorate of Maize Research

Pusa Campus, New Delhi 110 012

Volume 1 Number 2 October 2012

MAIZE JOURNAL(An International Journal of Maize Research and Related Industries)

ISSN 2278-8867

R. SAI KUMAR, BHUPENDER KUMAR, JYOTI KAUL, CHIKKAPPA G. KARJAGI, S.L. JAT, C.M. PARIHAR

AND ASHOK KUMAR. Maize research in India - historical prospective and future challenges

SAIN DASS, S.L. JAT, G.K. CHIKKAPPA, B. KUMAR, JYOTI KAUL, C.M. PARIHAR, ASHOK KUMAR, R.KUMAR, M.C. KAMBOJ, VISHAL SINGH, YATISH K.R., M.L. JAT AND A.K. SINGH. Genetic enhancementand crop management lead maize revolution in India

S. K. VASAL. Global efforts on improving quality protein maize

JYOTI KAUL, J.C. SEKHAR, R. SAI KUMAR AND SAIN DASS. Studies on variability in elite inbred lines ofquality protein maize

S.M. KHANORKAR, H.A. AVINASHE, S.S. JAIWAR AND V.K. GIRASE. Heterosis in quality protein maize(Zea mays L.)

K. SUMALINI . Identification of potential late wilt resistant single cross maize (Zea mays L.) hybrids

K. MURALI KRISHNA, R. RANGA REDDY AND R.SAI KUMAR. Heterosis and combining ability for yieldand its traits in maize (Zea mays L.)

SAPNA, D.P. CHAUDHARY, PALLAVI SRIVASTAVA, SHIWANI MANDHANIA AND RAMESH KUMAR. Geneticvariability in nutritional profile of inbred maize germplasm

B.S. MANKOTIA, K.S. THAKUR AND DEEP KUMAR. Effect of crop diversification on productivity andprofitability of maize (Zea mays L.)- wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cropping system in North-westernHimalayas

K.N. MEENA, ASHOK KUMAR, S.L. JAT, SHIVA DHAR, C.M. PARIHAR, B.P. MEENA AND A. K. SINGH.

Production potential and profitability of maize (Zea mays L.)-wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) sequenceunder varying sources of nutrients

D. SREELATHA, Y. SIVALAKSHHMI, M. ANURADHA AND R. RANGAREDDY. Productivity and profitability ofrice-maize cropping system as influenced by site-specific nutrient management

MAIZE JOURNAL

An International Journal of Maize Researchand Related Industries

Published by:

Maize Technologists Association of IndiaDirectorate of Maize ResearchPusa Campus, New Delhi - 110 012

Volume 1, Number 1, April 2012: 1-96

1

7

13

27

30

35

40

46

49

54

58

Review/Overview Articles

Research Papers

Research Papers97

102

106

110

113

118

K. SUMALINI AND G. MANJULATHA. Heritability, correlation and path coefficient analysis in maize

JYOTI KAUL, USHA NARA, SARJEET KUMAR SHARMA, RAMESH KUMAR, SAIN DASS ANDJ.C. SEKHAR. Genetic variability studies in elite inbred lines of sweet corn

ABDUL NASIR, VAIBHAV K. SINGH AND AKHILESH SINGH. Management of maydis leaf blight using fungi-cides and phytoextracts in maize

K.S. HOODA, J.C. SEKHER, VIMLA SINGH, T.A. SREERAMA SETTY2, S.S. SHARMA,V. PARNIDHARAN, R.N. BUNKER AND J. KAUL. Screening of elite maize lines for resistance against downymildews

U. NAGABHUSHANAM AND V. RAJA . Evaluation of maize (Zea mays)-field bean (Dolichos lablab) inter-cropping system under different fertility management approaches

HARGILAS. Effect of integrated nutrient management on productivity and profitability of quality proteinmaize and soil fertility under southern humid Rajasthan conditions

J. CHOUDHARY, R.C. DADHEECH AND S.L. JAT. Effect of intercropping and weed management on weeddynamics and nutrient uptake by weeds and crops

Y. SIVA LAKSHMI, D. SREELATHA, T. PRADEEP AND R. SAI KUMAR. Performance of maize hybrids underDifferent plant densities

J.C. SEKHAR, PRADYUMN KUMAR, M. ANURADHA, K.P. SINGH AND R. SAI KUMAR. Yield infestationrelationship and economic injury level for pink borer (Sesamia inferens Walker) in sweet corn

M. ANURADHA, J.C. SEKHAR AND SREELATHA. Identification of resistant sources for maize stem borers

P. LAKSHMI SOUJANYA, J.C. SEKHAR, PRADYUMN KUMAR AND S.B. SUBY. Bioactivity of different plantextracts against angoumois grain moth (Sitotroga cerealella Oliv.) in stored maize grain

K.S. HOODA, J.C. SEKHAR, CHIKKAPPA G. KARJAGI, SANGIT KUMAR, K.T. PANDURANGE GOWDA, T.A.SREERAMSETTY, S.S. SHARMA, HARLEEN KAUR, R. GOGOI, R. RANGE REDDY, PRADEEP KUMAR, AKHILESH

SINGH, R.K. DEVLASH AND CHANDRASHEKARA. C. Identifying sources of multiple disease resistance inmaize

ABDUL NASIR, VAIBHAV K SINGH, AKHILESH SINGH AND YOGENDRA SINGH. Field evaluation of maizegermplasm for resistance against maydis leaf blight pathogen

V.K. YADAV AND P. SUPRIYA. Sustainability index for scientific maize cultivation practices

JYOTI KAUL, USHA NARA, OM PARKASH, RAMESH KUMAR, R. SAI KUMAR AND SAIN DASS. Hybrids andcomposites of maize registered under PPV & FR Act, 2001

Authors Guidelines

Volume 1, Number 2, October 2012: 97-142

61

67

70

75

79

82

85

88

91

93

Short Communication

K. KANAKA DURGA, V. SANDEEP VARMA, D. SREELATHA AND A. VISHNUVARDHAN REDDY. Influence ofplanting methods, spacing and fertilization on yield and quality of sweet corn

U. M. PATEL, P.M. PATEL, S.M. KHANORKAR AND D.B. PATEL. Utilization of sources ofagricultural information by maize growers of middle Gujarat

ANUP CHANDRA, PRADYUMN KUMAR, SHASHI BALA SINGH, ASHARANI, S.B. SUBY ANDSATYAPAL SINGH. Evaluation of maize germplasm and susceptibility, and DIMBOA role against stemborer (Chilo partellus)

M.C. WALI, R.M. KACHAPUR, V.R. KULKARNI AND S.S. HALLIKERI. Association studies on yield relatedtraits in maize (Zea mays L.)

AKHILESH SINGH AND DHANBIR SINGH. Screening of maize genotypes for resistance to bacterial stalk rotand brown stripe downy mildew

Landmark Papers of Maize Research in 2012

List of Members

Authors Guidelines

121

124

126

131

134

136

137

141

Short Communication

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Maize Technologists Association of India thankfully acknowledges the following scientists who spared their valuabletime for reviewing/editing the manuscripts during the year 2012

Dr. M.S.Nain IARI, New Delhi Dr. Shiva Dhar IARI, NEW Delhi

Dr. Dharam Paul DMR, New Delhi Dr. Dev Raj Arya Monsanto, Mumbai

Dr. Jyoti kaul DMR, New Delhi Dr. Ramesh kumar DMR, New Delhi

Dr. P. Kumar DMR, New Delhi Mr. Yatish, K.R. DMR, New Delhi

Dr. A.K.Singh DMR, New Delhi Dr. Robin Gogoi IARI, New Delhi

Dr. K.S. Hooda DMR, New Delhi Dr. S.L. Jat DMR, New Delhi

Dr. Meena Sekhar DMR, New Delhi Dr. V.K. Yadav DMR, New Delhi

Dr. Ashok Kumar DMR, New Delhi Dr. Nirupma Singh DMR, New Delhi

Dr. Anchal Das IARI, NEW Delhi Dr. Pranjal Yadava DMR, New Delhi

Maize Journal 1(2): 97 - 101 (October 2012)

Corresponding author Email: [email protected]

The development of new varieties mainly depends onthe magnitude of genetic variability in the base material forthe desired character. Genetic variability is of greatest interestto the plant breeder as it plays a vital role in framingsuccessful breeding programme. The knowledge of geneticvariability, heritability, genetic advance and relationshipbetween yield and its contributing characters in a given cropspecies is of paramount importance for the success of anyplant breeding programme. Yield of corn (Zea mays L.) iscomplex and also dependent traits which are influenced by anumber of interrelated traits. The interdependence ofcomponent characters with yield indicates only the overallrelationship. Hence information based on correlationcoefficients is only partial, whereas the path coefficientanalysis permits the partition of correlation coefficients intodirect and indirect effects and gives a more realisticrelationship of the characters and helps in identifying theeffective components. The present investigation wasundertaken to estimate genetic variance, heritability,correlations and path coefficients for some morphological,yield and yield component traits of maize inbreds.

MATERIALS AND METHODSThe germplasm consisted of 250 diverse maize inbred

lines was tested in simple lattice design with two replicationsat Karimnagar during rabi 2011-12. Each genotype was grownin a single row of 4 m length, spaced 75 cm apart with a 20 cmdistance between plants within the row. Five plants wereselected randomly in each entry for recording theobservations on plant height, ear height, ear length, ear girth,kernel rows/ear, kernels/ row, 100 kernels weight and grain

yield/plant while, data relating to days to 50 per cent silkemergence was also recorded on whole plot basis. Thegenetic parameters viz., genotypic and phenotypiccoefficients of variation, broad sense heritability, geneticadvance as per cent of mean, correlations and pathcoefficients were calculated as per standard procedures.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONSignificant differences among the germplasm for the

selected traits viz., grain yield/plant (38.41% and 34.68%),100 kernel weight (24.75% and 21.00%), kernels/row (21.94%and 18.18%) and ear height (19.66% and 19.54%) wereobserved to possess high PCV and GCV estimates(Table 1 and 2), indicating that, the selection based on thesetraits would facilitate, the successful isolation of desirablegenotypes easily. Wide difference between PCV and GCVestimates were observed for kernels/row (3.76), grain yield/plant (3.75), 100 kernel weight (3.73), kernel rows/ear (3.07),ear length (2.05) followed by ear girth (0.96) revealing greaterrole of environment interaction with the genetic factors inthe expression of the traits, where as plant height (0.07),days to 50% silk emergence (0.13) and ear length (0.12)exhibited lower differences indicated more influence ofgenetic factors in determining variability. Similar results wereobtained by Satyanarayana and Saikumar (1996).

High heritability was recorded for plant height (99.2%)followed by ear height (98.7%) and days to 50% silkemergence (96.6%). Grain yield/plant, 100 kernel weight andear height showed high GCV combined with high heritabilityindicating improvement of these traits through simple per seselection and using them in hybrid breeding programme. Thehigh genetic variance was recorded in all the traits exceptdays to 50% silk emergence, ear girth and kernel rows/ear.

Heritability, correlation and path coefficient analysis in maize

K. SUMALINI AND G. MANJULATHA

Agricultural Research Station, ANGRAU, Karimnagar 505 001

ABSTRACTGenetic variability and correlations were studied among 250 germplasm lines of Maize. The data were recorded on

morphological and yield related traits. Grain yield was found to be significant and positively correlated with all thecharacters studied except days to 50% silk emergence. High broad sense heritability estimates were detected for all thetraits studied, indicating that the additive genetic variance was the major component of genetic variation in the inheritanceof these traits and selection will be effective for improving these traits. Plant height, ear height, ear length and ear girthhad high moderate indirect positive effects on grain yield through kernels/row and 100 kernel weight. Ear girth had highsignificant positive genotypic correlation with grain yield followed by kernels/row and ear length.

Key words: Broad sense heritability, Correlation, Maize, Path coefficient analysis.

98

Selection for these traits was likely to accumulate moreadditive genes leading to further improvement. There was asignificant positive phenotypic correlation of grain yield/plant with all other characters except days to 50% silkemergence (Table 3). Bello et al. (2010) also found asignificant positive correlation between grain yield with daysto 50% tasseling, plant height, ear height, number of kernels/ear and ear weight. Genotypic correlation also showed thepositive significant correlation with all other characters exceptear length which is similar to that of phenotypic correlation.

There was a positive significant phenotypic andgenotypic correlations of plant height and ear height withgrains/plant and yield attributing traits like ear length, eargirth, kernel rows/ear, kernels/row and 100 kernels weight.Therefore the traits like plant height, ear height and grainyield/plant can be considered for relation for improvement.Results showed that ear girth has high positive genotypiccorrelation with grain yield followed by kernels/row and earlength. As ear girth increases, kernel rows/ear also increaseswhich in turn increase in kernels/row. Therefore selection ofone/more of these characters would help the breeder toincrease grain yield in maize Similar results were obtained byThanga Hemavathy et. al. (2008). Even though, bothphenotypic and genotypic correlations are comparable inmagnitude, the genetic correlations are of higher magnitude

than their corresponding phenotypic correlations, indicatinga strong inherent relationship among the characters studied.Environmental correlation coefficients showed that days to50% silk emergence has positive and significant correlationwith ear girth, kernels/row and grain yield/plant. Ear height,ear length and grain yield/plant have positive and significantcorrelation with kernels/row and ear girth have positive andsignificant correlation with ear height, ear length and kernelrows. Westermann and Crothers (1977) reported that changesin yield and yield components were attributed to plant’sresponse to its environment which may or may not permitfull genetic expression of each character. Thus, days to 50%silk emergence and kernels/row could be considered inimproving maize yield in the breeding programmes.

Path coefficient analysis was also used to obtainfurther information on the inter relationships among traitsand their effects on grain yield. The hundred kernels weightshowed the highest significant and positive direct effect ongrain yield followed by kernels/row and kernel rows/ear(Table 4). Agrama (1996) also reported that kernel rows/earhas the highest direct effect on grain yield. Ear lengthshowed high significant and negative direct effect on grainyield. Ear girth had the highest moderate indirect positiveeffects on grain yield by kernel rows/ear, kernels/row and100 kernel weight, while kernel rows/ear had the high moderate

Table 1. Analysis of variance (mean squares) for nine characters of maize germplasm.

Source of variation d.f. Days to Plant Ear height Ear Ear Kernel Kernels/ 100 Grain50% silk height (cm) length girth rows/ear row kernels yield/

emergence (cm) (cm) weight plant (g)(cm) (g)

Replications 1 9.01 4880.48 2518.88 12.85 0.08 1.46 48.87 51.41 4.07

Genotypes 248 43.53** 1172.10** 335.62** 8.12** 2.65** 6.39** 41.51** 47.87** 733.20**

Error 248 0.74 4.81 2.19 1.10 0.27 1.42 7.70 7.81 74.78

*, ** Significant at 5% and 1% probability levels respectively.

Table 2. Variability parameters for morphological, yield and yield component traits.

Characters Mean PCV (%) GCV (%) H2 in broadsense (%) GA as (%) mean

Days to 50% silk emergence 61.80 7.61 7.48 96.6 15.16

Plant height 152.32 15.93 15.86 99.2 32.54

Ear height 66.10 19.66 19.54 98.7 39.98

Ear length 13.42 16.01 13.96 76.1 25.08

Ear girth 12.27 9.85 8.89 81.6 16.55

Kernel rows/ear 13.06 15.13 12.06 63.6 19.81

Kernels/row 22.61 21.94 18.18 68.7 31.05

100 kernels weight 21.32 24.75 21.00 71.9 36.68

Grain yield/plant (g) 52.32 38.41 34.68 81.5 64.49


99

Tabl

e 3.

Gen

otyp

ic (

G )

and

Phe

noty

pic

( P

) co

rrel

atio

ns o

f gr

ain

yiel

d an

d its

com

pone

nt t

raits

in

mai

ze

Cha

ract

ers

Plan

t he

ight

Ear

heig

htEa

r le

ngth

Ear

girt

hK

erne

l ro

ws/

ear

Ker

nels

/row

100

kern

els

Gra

in y

ield

/(c

m)

(cm

)(c

m)

(cm

)w

eigh

t (g

)pl

ant

(g)

Day

s to

50%

silk

G-0

.033

0.02

40.

016

-0.0

800.

070

0.07

0-0

.271

**-0

.142

**em

erge

nce

P-0

.033

0.02

30.

007

-0.0

610.

060

0.06

8-0

.222

**-0

.114

*Pl

ant

heig

ht(c

m)

G0.

802*

*0.

286*

*0.

306*

*0.

146*

*0.

172*

*0.

291*

*0.

357*

*P

0.79

5**

0.24

7**

0.27

6**

0.11

7**

0.13

8**

0.24

5**

0.32

3**

Ear

heig

ht(c

m)

G0.

200*

*0.

242*

*0.

130*

*0.

129*

*0.

229*

*0.

265*

*P

0.17

7**

0.22

3**

0.09

8*0.

112*

0.19

7**

0.23

5**

Ear

leng

th(c

m)

G0.

360*

*0.

107*

0.64

6**

0.34

4**

0.64

1**

P0.

337*

*0.

072

0.51

7**

0.27

2**

0.51

4**

Ear

girt

h(c

m)

G0.

667*

*0.

320*

*0.

542*

*0.

838*

*P

0.55

7**

0.22

0**

0.42

3**

0.67

3**

Ker

nel

row

s/ea

rG

0.27

6**

-0.0

92*

0.48

6**

P0.

185*

*-0

.089

*0.

346*

*K

erne

ls/r

owG

-0.0

840.

657*

*P

-0.0

560.

515*

*10

0 ke

rnel

s w

eigh

t (g

)G

0.62

3**

P0.

493*

*

*, *

* Si

gnifi

cant

at

5% a

nd 1

% p

roba

bilit

y le

vels

res

pect

ivel

y

Tabl

e 4.

Dire

ct a

nd i

ndire

ct e

ffec

ts o

n gr

ain

yiel

d vi

a yi

eld

attri

butin

g ch

arac

ters

Cha

ract

ers

Indi

rect

eff

ect

Dir

ect

effe

ctD

ays

to 5

0%Pl

ant

heig

htEa

r he

ight

Ear

leng

thEa

r gi

rth

Ker

nel

row

s/K

erne

ls/

100

kern

els

silk

em

erge

nce

(cm

)(c

m)

(cm

)(c

m)

ear

row

wei

ght

(g)

Day

s to

50%

silk

em

erge

nce

-0.0

093

--0

.001

2-0

.001

3-0

.001

50.

0007

0.02

690.

0472

-0.2

031*

*Pl

ant

heig

ht (

cm)

0.03

690.

0003

--0

.042

5-0

.026

2-0

.002

70.

0564

0.11

67**

0.21

84**

Ear

heig

ht (

cm)

-0.0

530

-0.0

002

0.02

96-

-0.0

183

-0.0

022

0.05

020.

0872

*0.

1721

**Ea

r le

ngth

(cm

)-0

.091

6*-0

.000

20.

0106

-0.0

106

--0

.003

20.

0415

0.43

68**

0.25

78**

Ear

girt

h (c

m)

-0.0

090

0.00

070.

0113

-0.0

128

-0.0

330

-0.

2576

**0.

2166

**0.

4068

**K

erne

l ro

ws/

ear

0.38

63**

-0.0

007

0.00

54-0

.006

9-0

.009

8-0

.006

0-

0.18

67**

-0

.069

0K

erne

ls/r

ow0.

6767

**-0

.000

70.

0064

-0.0

068

-0.0

591

-0.0

029

0.10

66*

-

-0.0

629

100

kern

els

wei

ght

(g)

0.75

07**

0.00

250.

0107

-0.0

122

-0.0

315

-0.0

049

-0.0

355

-0.0

567

-

*, *

* Si

gnifi

cant

at

5% a

nd 1

% p

roba

bilit

y le

vels

res

pect

ivel

y.

HERITABILITY, CORRELATION AND PATH ANALYSIS

100

Tabl

e 5.

Mea

n da

ta o

f se

vent

een

best

mai

ze g

erm

plas

m l

ines

for

gra

in y

ield

and

yie

ld r

elat

ed t

raits

.

Line

no.

Pedi

gree

Sour

ceG

rain

yie

ld/

Ear

leng

thEa

r gi

rth

Ker

nel

Ker

nels

/10

0 ke

rnel

spl

ant

(g)

(cm

)(c

m)

row

s/ea

rro

ww

eigh

t (g

)

172

(CM

L 44

0-1/

Bio

968

1-W

LS-6

-3-2

-1-2

-B-B

-B-B

)-B

-B-1

3-B

CIM

MY

T14

716

1516

2729

206

(DT

PWC

9-F3

1-1-

1-3-

1-2-

1-3-

B/(

DT

/LN

/EM

-46-

3-1

x C

ML

311

-2-1

-3)-

CIM

MY

T12

117

1515

3525

B-F

243-

1-1)

-B

2SW

9214

5-2P

9S2-

##-B

*5-2

-B-1

-BB

BC

IMM

YT

110

1615

1526

30

122

(DT

PYC

9-F4

6-3-

6-1-

2-2-

1-2-

B/B

io96

81-W

LS-

6-3-

2-1-

2-B

-B-B

-BC

IMM

YT

107

1615

1632

25

175

(G18

Seq

C5F

19-1

-2-1

-2-3

-B/B

io96

81-W

LS-6

-3-2

-1-2

-B-B

-B-B

)-B

-B-5

-BC

IMM

YT

9816

1414

3225

133

(DT

PWC

9-F1

6-1-

1-3-

2-2-

2-1-

B/(

DT

/LN

/EM

-46-

3-1

x C

ML

311

-2-1

)C

IMM

YT

9716

1413

3525

8(C

LQ-R

CY

Q31

x C

LQ-R

CY

Q35

)-B

-6-1

-BB

B-B

CIM

MY

T95

2013

1428

29

210

KM

L-4

61K

arim

naga

r95

1616

1422

38

156

(CM

L 44

0-1/

Bio

9681

-WLS

-6-3

-2-1

-2-B

-B-B

-B)-

B-B

-4-B

CIM

MY

T93

1615

1624

30

129

(DT

PYC

9-F4

6-3-

6-1-

2-2-

1-2-

B/B

io96

81-W

LS-

6-3-

2-1-

2-B

-B-B

-B)-

B-B

-2-B

CIM

MY

T92

1915

1528

28

243

JCY

3-7-

1-2-

1-b-

1-2-

1-1

DM

R88

1613

1230

28

170

(CM

L 44

0-1/

Bio

9681

-WLS

-6-3

-2-1

-2-B

-B-B

-B)-

B-B

-9-B

CIM

MY

T85

1714

1528

29

179

(G18

Seq

C5F

19-1

-2-1

-2-3

-B/(

DT/

LN/E

M-4

6-3-

1 x

CM

L 31

1-2-

1-3)

CIM

MY

T83

1513

1325

27-B

-F24

3-1-

1-B

-B)

244

JCY

3-7-

1-2-

1-b-

1-2-

1-1-

b-b-

bD

MR

8316

1314

2526

207

KM

L-2

26K

arim

naga

r82

1614

1525

26

124

(ZM

621A

-10-

1-1-

1-2-

B*7

-B-B

-B-6

/Bio

9681

-WL

S-6-

3-2-

1-2-

B-B

)C

IMM

YT

8212

1315

2325

249

JCY

3-7-

1-2-

1-b-

1-1-

4-1

DM

R80

1413

1223

34


101HERITABILITY, CORRELATION AND PATH ANALYSIS

indirect positive effect on grain yield by kernels/row. It isalso shown that, plant height, ear height, ear length and eargirth had high moderate indirect positive effects on grainyield by kernels/row and 100 kernels weight. In this study,plant height, ear height and all the yield component characterslike ear length, ear girth, kernel rows/ear, kernels/row and 100kernels weight appeared the prominent characters that couldbe used in selecting for high grain yield, because of theirhighly significant genotypic and phenotypic correlationswith grain yield. These characters also had the highest directand indirect effects through most of the other characters.This suggests that direct selection for these traits wouldlikely to be effective in increasing grain yield. Kernels/rowand 100 kernels weight had high heritability and positivecorrelations with grain yield, its contribution was 82.02% ofthe total grain yield variation therefore, it seemed to be themost important sources affecting grain yield variation andconsequently may be considered as important characters inselection.

In brief the traits viz., grain yield/plant, 100 kernelsweight, kernels/row and ear height exhibited high variability,moderate to high broad sense heritability and high genetic

advance are the most important traits to be considered foreffective selection of parental lines to develop high yieldinghybrids. Seventeen germplasm lines (Table 5) with desirabletraits were identified in the present study and these lines willbe utilized in future breeding programmes.

REFERENCESAgrama, H.A.S. (1996). Sequential path analysis of grain yield and its

components in maize. Plant Breeding 115: 343-346.

Allard R.W. (1960). Principles of Plant Breeding. John Wiley andSons, Inc., New York.

Bello, O. B., Abdulmaliq, S. Y., Afolabi, M. S.. and Ige, S. A. (2010).Correlation and path coefficient analysis of yield and agronomiccharacters among open pollinated maize varieties and their F1hybrids in a diallel cross. African Journal of Biotechnology 9(18):2633-2639.

Satyanarayan, E. and Sai Kumar, R. (1996). Genetic variability ofyield and maturity components in maize hybrids. Current Res.25: 10-16.

Thanga Hemavathy, A., Balaji, K., Ibrahim, S.M., Anand, G. andSankar, D. (2008).Genetic Variability and Correlation studies inMaize (Zea mays L.). Agric. Sci. Digest. 28(2): 112 – 114.

Westermann, D.T. and Crothers, S.E. (1977). Plant population effectson the seed yield components of beans. Crop Sci. 17: 493-496.

With the urbanization, specialty corn especially sweetcorn (Zea mays L. Saccharata) has gained a greatacceptability among the masses over the years. Sweet cornis one of the most popular vegetables grown in the developedworld especially in USA, where it currently ranks second infarm value for processing and fourth for fresh market amongvegetable crops (Asghar and Mehdi, 2010). Sweet corn hasbeen reported to be a mutant from field corn and ischaracterized by having atleast one of the eight mutantgenes. The main genes are:

Shrunken-2 (sh2) on chromosome 3, Brittle (bt) and Amylose Extender (ae) on chromosome 5, Sugary Enhancer(if), Sugary (su) and “Brittle-2” (BT2) on chromosome 4;“Dull” (du) on chromosome 10 and Waxy (wx) on chromosome9 (Tracy et al., 2006). The sh2 type corn is commonly referredto as ‘super sweet’ sweet corn. Improvement of sweet cornyield while retaining quality is one of the major challengesfor sweet corn breeders (Hunsperger and Davis, 1987). InIndia very little work has been done on sweet corn breeding,only three composites namely, ‘Madhuri’, ‘Priya Sweet Corn’and ‘Win Orange Sweet Corn’ and only one public-bred singlecross hybrid namely ‘HSC-1’ have been released forcultivation. The varieties lack uniformity which in turnreduces their market value and also brings difficulty incultivation practices like rouging, harvesting etc. Hence,there is an urgent need to breed for genetically uniform singlecross sweet corn hybrids. The progress depends primarilyupon the genetic variation present in the breeding material

Corresponding author E-mail: [email protected]

Genetic variability studies in elite inbred lines of sweet corn

JYOTI KAUL, USHA NARA, SARJEET KUMAR SHARMA, RAMESH KUMAR, SAIN DASS AND J.C. SEKHAR

Directorate of Maize Research, Pusa Campus, New Delhi-110012

ABSTRACTGenetic variability among 67 elite inbred lines of sweet corn (Zea mays L. Saccharata) was studied during kharif

2008 and 2009. On the basis of morpho-phenological characteristics 29 most suitable inbred lines were selected forfurther studies. On the basis of flowering these inbred lines were classified as early (seven), medium (thirteen) and late(nine). The lines displayed anthesis silking interval (ASI) between two to nine days with a mean value of 4.69. A high CVof 34.7% was discernible for this parameter indicating the inherent differences of the lines to withstand moisture deficitconditions. Traits viz., tassel length (17-34 cm), ear placement ratio (0.30-0.63), leaf width (4.6-8.2 cm), plant height (80-157 cm) and ear height (27.7-93.3 cm) were recorded with CV of these traits ranging between 13.37 and 27.86%. Eightmost promising sweet corn inbred lines namely, ‘Win Sweet Corn’, ‘DMSC-1’, ‘DMSC-6’,‘DMS-201’, ‘DMS-203’,‘DMS-206’, ‘DMS-207’ and ‘DMS-208’ having desirable characteristics including high TSS were identified and registeredat NBPGR.

Key words: Genetic variability, Inbred line, Maize, Sweet corn

and the effectiveness of the selection procedure involved.For the development of single cross hybrids geneticallydiverse and superior inbred lines with high sugar contentare pre-requisite. Therefore, an effort was made to study theelite inbred lines for different characters and to identifysuperior sweet corn inbred lines that could be further usedin future crossing programme to develop high yieldinghybrids.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The germplasm used in the present study consisted of67 elite inbred lines of sweet corn and four checks i.e. twoinbred lines (‘HKI 1831’ and ‘HKI SCST 1’), one hybrid(‘HSC-1’) and one composite (‘Win Orange Sweet Corn’).This material was laid out in augmented design with threeblocks at Directorate of Maize Research, Pusa Campus, NewDelhi during kharif 2008 and 2009. The experimental plotscomprised 2 m long one row with spacing of 75 cm and of 20cm between rows and plants, respectively. Five competitiveplants were selected at random in each entry for recordingthe data on days to 50% anthesis, days to 50% silking, plantheight, ear height, tassel length and leaf width. In everytreatment five plants were allowed for selfing by controlledpollination for the purpose of studying the quality charactersviz., total soluble sugar, TSS (%) as per standard procedure.Data were analyzed using Indostat software. Promising lineswere identified after 18-21 days of pollination based on themean performance data. The selfed green ears were harvestedat milking stage. Five random plants from each plot wereselected for organo-leptic evaluation of six quality traits (Table1) as described by Marshall, 1987.


Table 1. Relative scores (statistical scale) for six indicated qualitytraits of Sweet corn

Character Score

0 1 2

Seed Quality Poor Normal GoodPericarp tenderness Tender Medium ToughSweetness Low Medium SugarySweet Flavour No Little HighShank softness Soft Normal Tougher

Shank wetness Dry Normal Wetter

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The variability for morpho-phenological traits of sweetcorn inbred lines is given in Table 2. The days required for50% anthesis and 50% silking ranged from 48 and 63 dayswith the mean of 53.7 days after sowing and between 52 and68 days having a mean of 57.89 days after sowing,respectively. Anthesis silking interval (ASI) of these linesranged from 2-9 days with a mean of 4.69 and with a high CVof 34.7%. An ASI of 2 days was observed in two lines namely,‘Win Sweet Corn’ and ‘DMS-201’ (Table 3). Traits viz., tassellength (17-34cm), ear placement ratio (0.30-0.63), leaf width(4.6-8.2 cm), plant height (80-157cm) and ear height (27.7-93.3 cm) were recorded with CV of these traits ranging between13.37 and 27.86 %. Out of 67 inbred lines, 29 suitable inbredlines were selected on the basis of morpho-phenologicalcharacteristics and data was recorded on desirable traits. Onthe basis of flowering these inbred lines were classified asearly (seven; anthesis 45-50 days after sowing and silking48-53 days after sowing), medium (thirteen; anthesis 50-55days after sowing and silking 53-58 days after sowing) andlate (nine; anthesis > 55 days after sowing and silking > 58days after sowing).

The organo-leptic evaluation of quality traits like quality,sweetness, sweet flavor, shank softness and shank wetnesswere observed in 29 elite inbred lines. The eight inbred linesviz., ‘Win Sweet Corn’, ‘DMSC-1’, ‘DMSC-6’, ‘DMS-201’,‘DMS-203’, ‘DMS-206’, ‘DMS-207’ and ‘DMS-208’ have good

seed quality. Medium pericarp tenderness was recorded in‘DMSC-1’. Medium sweetness was observed in ‘DMSC-1’and ‘DMSC-6’ while sugary sweetness in ‘Win Sweet Corn’.Little sweet flavor was scored in ‘DMSC-1’ and ‘DMSC-6’.Normal shank softness was recorded in ‘Win Sweet Corn’and ‘DMSC-1’ whereas, tougher shank softness in case of‘DMSC-6’, ‘DMS-201’, ‘DMS-203’, ‘DMS-206’, ‘DMS-207’and ‘DMS-208’. Dry shank wetness in ‘DMSC-6’, normal in‘Win Sweet Corn’, ‘DMS-201’, ‘DMS-203’, ‘DMS-206’, ‘DMS-207’ and ‘DMS-208’, wetter in ‘DMSC-1’ was recorded. Sincethe inheritance of sweetness and pericarp tenderness iscontrolled by sugary (su) and waxy genes, when present inrecessive conditions, respectively (Asghar and Mehdi, 2010).

Studies on different morphological traits revealed that‘Win Sweet Corn’, ‘DMSC-6’, ‘DMS-201’, ‘DMS-203’, ‘DMS-206’, ‘DMS-207’, ‘DMS-208’ have short plant height (<120cm) while ‘DMSC-1’ has medium plant height with mediumsize cob length (Table 3). ‘Win Sweet Corn’, ‘DMSC-1’,‘DMSC-6’, ‘DMS-201’, ‘DMS-203’, ‘DMS-206’, ‘DMS-208’have sparse tassel branches while ‘DMS-207’ have densetassel branches and a good pollen shedder, which is a meritof good pollen parent. The grain row arrangement wasstraight in ‘Win Sweet Corn’, ‘DMSC-1’, ‘DMS-201’, ‘DMS-203’, ‘DMS-206’, ‘DMS-207’, ‘DMS-208’ while in ‘DMSC-6’is irregular with very attractive yellow shriveled grain shape.Further the total soluble sugar (TSS) of ‘Win Sweet Corn’,‘DMSC-1’, ‘DMSC-6’, ‘DMS-201’, ‘DMS-203’, ‘DMS-206’,‘DMS-207’ and ‘DMS-208’ were found suitable. The totalsoluble sugar (TSS) of these lines were ranged from 15.6% -26.1%. Highest TSS (26.1%) was recorded in DMS-203.Ramgopal (1999) also reported similar findings and revealedthat selection based on these characters would facilitate,easily, the successful isolation of desirable genotypes.

Based on the present study eight potential inbred linesviz., ‘Win Sweet Corn’, ‘DMSC-1’, ‘DMSC-6’, ‘DMS-201’,‘DMS-203’, ‘DMS-206’, ‘DMS-207’ and ‘DMS-208’ withdesirable characters were identified. The lines identified wereregistered at NBPGR (Table 3). These registered lines will beutilized in future breeding programmes to develop highyielding sweet corn hybrids.

Table 2. Variability for morpho-phenological traits of sweet corn lines

Traits Mean Range SD SE CV (%)

Days to 50% anthesis 53.70 48-63 4.93 0.91 9.2Days to 50% silking 57.90 52-68 4.33 0.80 7.5ASI (days) 4.70 2-9 1.63 0.30 34.7Ear height (cm) 50.5 27.7-93.3 14.08 2.61 27.86Plant height (cm) 104 80-157 20.01 3.71 19.22Ear placement ratio 0.48 0.30-0.63 0.07 0.01 13.78Tassel length (cm) 26 17-34 3.53 0.65 13.37Leaf width (cm) 5.9 4.6-8.2 0.90 0.17 15.22

GENETIC VARIABILITY IN SWEET CORN 103

104

Tabl

e 3.

Mea

n pe

rfor

man

ce o

f de

sira

ble

swee

t co

rn l

ines

Inbr

ed l

ines

Sour

ceIN

GR

No.

IC N

o.D

ays

toD

ays

toEa

r: n

umbe

rEa

r:di

amet

erEa

r: l

engt

hPl

ant

Ear

TSS

Ear

50%

50%

of r

ows

of (

with

out

(wit

hout

heig

htPl

acem

ent

(%)

shap

e a

nthe

sis

Silk

ing

grai

nshu

sk;

cm)

husk

; c

m)

(cm

)ra

tio

Win

Sw

eet

Cor

nW

OSC

1008

505

8459

160

6210

2.9

12.5

950.

4825

.3C

onic

al

DM

SC-1

MU

S M

AD

HU

1008

605

8459

257

6112

3.5

13.7

122

0.51

16.2

Con

ical

DM

SC-6

MU

S M

AD

HU

1008

705

8459

357

6016

3.8

14.5

100

0.46

15.6

Con

ical

DM

S-20

1C

P G

olde

n sw

eet

310

088

0584

594

5860

143.

212

.910

30.

4218

.2C

ylin

dric

al

DM

S-20

3N

SS2W

9301

A(s

h210

089

0584

595

5156

102.

811

.911

90.

5326

.1C

ylin

dric

alsh

2) x

sw

eet

corn

DM

S-20

6W

SC1

x M

US

1009

005

8459

657

6016

4.3

12.8

900.

4821

.3C

onic

alM

AD

HU

DM

S-20

7C

UB

A 3

7810

091

0584

597

5962

142.

713

.884

0.50

18.3

Con

ical

DM

S-20

8C

UB

A 3

7910

092

0584

598

6569

103.

311

.897

0.52

25.8

Con

ical

DD

MSC

-4-1

DR

10

--

-73

7510

2.5

11.5

970.

4111

.6C

onic

al

DM

SC14

--

-71

7212

3.8

13.2

680.

4410

.3C

ylin

dric

al

HK

I SC

ST

1 (C

heck

)M

adhu

ri-

5847

0153

5712

6.1

14.2

130

0.50

17.2

Con

ical

HK

I 18

31 (

Che

ck)

Pop

A(S

)co

-58

4702

5658

105.

313

.412

80.

4815

.7C

onic

al(s

h2sh

2)

HSC

-1 (

Che

ck)

--

5847

0051

5412

5.7

15.2

137

0.52

21.5

Con

ical

Win

ora

nge

swee

t co

rn-

--

5255

166.

417

.314

50.

5017

.8C

onic

o-(C

heck

)cy

lindr

ical

JYOTI KAUL ET AL.

105

REFERENCESAsghar, M. J. and Mehdi, S. S. (2010). Selection indices for yield and

quality traits in sweet corn. Pak. J. Bot. 42(2): 775-789.

Ramgopal, D. (1999). Genetic variability for sugar, protein and yieldcharacteristics in sweetcorn (Zea mays L.) genotypes M.Sc.(Ag), Thesis, ANGRAU, Hyderabad.

Hunsperger, M.H. and Davis, D.W. (1987). Effect of sugary-1 locuson plant and ear traits in corn. Crop Sci. 27: 1173-1176.

Marshell, S. M. (1987). Corn chemistry and technology. CrookhamCompany Caldwell, Idaho, USA. pp. 431-445

Tracy, W.F., Whit, S.R. and Buckler, E.S. (2006). Recurrent mutationand genome evolution: example of Sugary1 and the origin ofsweet maize. Crop Sci. 46: 1-7.

GENETIC VARIABILITY IN SWEET CORN

Corresponding author Email: [email protected] Address:1Division of Plant Pathology, Indian Agricultural Research Institute,New Delhi-1100122CSKHPKV-HAREC, Dhaulakuan, Sirmaur-173 001

Maydis leaf blight of maize also known as southern cornleaf blight incited by Drechslera maydis [(Nisikado & Miyake)Subram A. Jain], is one of the most destructive and yieldlimiting diseases reported from most maize growing regionsof the India. It is most serious in warm and wet temperate andtropical areas and causes yield losses up to 70%. Chemicalcontrol of plant diseases is an integral part of plant diseasemanagement strategy and at the present status of knowledgeabout disease system, it is not possible to raise a successfulcrop without use of fungicides. Application of plant extractsis practical and cost-effective method for the control of thisdisease. In addition, it promotes root growth of the host.Several chemical compounds released during decompositioninduce disease resistance/tolerance in the tissues. Therefore,there is an urgent need to find out suitable and effectivechemicals and plant extracts which can be integrated in themaydis leaf blight management package. Keeping in the view,the present investigations were undertaken to evaluatedifferent fungicides and phyto extracts against maydis leafblight of maize in reducing disease severity and avoidingyield loss in maize.


Field experiments were conducted for two consecutiveyears in kharif cropping season of 2006 and 2007 at CropResearch Center, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture andTechnology, Pantnagar for evaluation of fungicides and plant

extracts against maydis leaf blight of maize. The evaluationsof fungicides and antifungal activities of plant extracts werecarried out under both laboratory and field conditions.

In vitro evaluation of antifungal efficacy of fungicidesagainst Drechslera maydis: To find out the relative efficacyof fungicides in inhibiting the growth of the pathogen, ninefungicides namely mancozeb (Indofil M-45), copper-oxychloride (Nagcopper), SAAF (carbendazim + mancozeb),carbendazim (Bavistin), chlorothalonil (Kavach), propineb(Antrocol), triadimefon (Bayleton), thiram and propiconazole(Albu) were tested against the pathogen on 2% PotatoDextrose Agar medium by ‘Poisoned Food Technique’(Schemitz, 1930) under laboratory conditions. One hundredml stock solutions of 10000 ppm concentration of eachfungicide were prepared in the distilled water in 250 ml flasks.Required amount of the solution was added into 250 ml flaskcontaining 50 ml of the sterilized molten PDA, so as to getfinal concentrations of 50, 100, 200, 300 and 400 ppm. Themedium was mixed thoroughly before plating. Eachconcentration of media toxicated with fungicide was pouredin three Petriplates. Non-toxicated media poured intoPetriplates served as control. After solidification of media a 2mm mycelial disc of 6 days old culture of the test fungus(Drechslera maydis) was cut with sterile cork borer and placedin centre of each Petriplate. After 15 days of incubation at26o+1oC the radial growth was measured with the help ofscale. The percent inhibition was determined with the helpof mean colony diameter and calculated by using the methodof Bliss (1934):Field evaluation of fungicides against maydis leaf blight ofmaize: The fungicides found promising in inhibiting thegrowth of the pathogen in vitro were further evaluated

Management of maydis leaf blight using fungicides and phytoextracts in maize

ABDUL NASIR, VAIBHAV K. SINGH1 AND AKHILESH SINGH2

Department of Plant Pathology, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology,Pantnagar 263 145

ABSTRACTOut of nine fungicides screened in laboratory, propiconazole, chlorothalonil, triadimefon, mancozeb, carbendazim

+ moncozeb (SAAF) and thiram were found highly effective in reducing the radial growth of the pathogen. But whentested in vivo, only two fungicides viz., propiconazole (0.1%) or chlorothalonil (0.2%) were found highly effective inreducing disease severity and avoiding yield loss. Among all the seven plant extracts tested, garlic, onion and daturaextracts were found at par by recording maximum growth inhibition (80.00, 76.67 and 73.12%, respectively) at theconcentration of 20%. Ginger also showed significant inhibitory effect (69.98%) followed by neem (43.85%) andeucalyptus (39.89%) while least inhibition was shown by castor (32.22%) at 20% concentration.

Key words: Antifungal activities, Drechslera maydis, Fungicides, Maize, Management, Plant extracts


epiphytotic in field condition. When 1-5 lesions were presenton the inoculated plants, fungicides were sprayed. mancozeb,chlorothalonil, thiram @ 0.2%. Triadimefon and propiconazole@ 0.1% while SAAF was applied @ 0.15%. Sterilized waterwas sprayed on the plants kept as control. Spraying wasrepeated at 10 days interval. The intensity of the diseasewas recorded after 15 days of the last spraying. The per centof disease control over check was calculated as follows:

In vitro evaluation of antifungal efficacy of plant extractsagainst Drechslera maydis: Seven botanicals namely neem(Azadiracta indica), garlic (Allium sativum), ginger (Zingiberofficinale), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globules), datura (Daturaalba), onion (Allium cepa) and castor (Ricinus communis)were screened for antifungal efficacy against maydis leafblight caused by Drechslera maydis. The plant parts testedwere the leaves, rhizome and bulb. These plants were collectedfrom the campus of this University. The extracts of plants wereprepared by cold water extraction method (Shekhawat andPrasad, 1971). The leaf samples were washed separately intap water and finally in three changes of distilled water. Theywere crushed in a mortar and pestle by adding distilled water@ 2 ml/g fresh weight. The extracts were clarified by passingthrough two layers of cheese cloth, and Whatman No. 1filter paper. The filtered extracts were taken as 100%concentration. The appropriate amount of plant extract wasmixed in sterilized distilled water to make the desiredconcentration (v/v) of phyto extracts. For bioassay, doublestrength concentrations of botanicals were prepared bydissolving 10, 20, 30 and 40 ml each of plant extract in 90, 80, 70and 60 ml of sterilized distilled water, respectively to get the finalconcentrations of 5, 10, 15 and 20 %. Double strength PotatoDextrose Agar (PDA) was used as medium for bioassay test.Media was autoclaved 15 psi for 20 minutes. The pathogenicculture of fungus Drechslera maydis causing maydis leafblight of maize was used to study the antifungal activity ofplant extracts. Poisoned Food Technique (plant extractamended PDA medium) was used to screen different plantextracts in vitro. After pouring, cooling and solidification ofplant extract amended PDA medium, plates were inoculatedwith a 5 mm disc of the fungus D. maydis in centre from 6days old fungus culture. For each concentration threereplications were maintained along with check (PDA amendedwith sterilized water). Discs were cut out with the help of a 5mm sterilized steel cork borer and plates were incubated at26+10C. After 15 days, the diameter of fungal colony wasmeasured as explained earlier.


In vitro evaluation of antifungal efficacy of fungicidesagainst D. maydis: The colony diameter and inhibition ofmycelial growth varied significantly with different fungicidesand their concentrations (Table 1). In general, a gradualincrease in percent inhibition was observed with increase inconcentration of the fungicides. All the fungicidessuppressed the radial growth effectively as compared tocheck. At 50 ppm minimum concentration, radial growth wasrecorded with propiconazole (18 mm) followed by triadimefon(25 mm), mancozeb (34 mm), SAAF (42 mm) and chlorothalonil(52 mm) while the maximum growth of 81 mm was recorded incopper-oxychloride. The present investigations are inaccordance with the studies made by Tiwari et al. (2003).The efficacy of chlorothalonil against Drechslera maydishas already been reported by Debasis and Kaiser (2003).

Propiconazole at 200 ppm, triadimefon at 300 ppm,chlorothalonil at 400 ppm and Saaf at 400 ppm completelyinhibited the radial growth of the pathogen. Propiconazole foundto be most effective in inhibiting the colony diameter of D.maydis by 80, 94.4 and 100% at the concentration of 50, 100 and200 ppm, respectively. These data are in accordance with Phelpand Soto (1993). Mancozeb also inhibited the colony diameterof Drechslera maydis by 62.22, 74.44, 82.22, 86.66 and 91.11 %at the concentrations of 50, 100 and 200 ppm, respectively whilecopper oxychloride was found to be least effective whichreduced the colony diameter by 41.11% at the concentration of400 ppm. Efficacy of mancozeb against the pathogen has alsobeen reported (Jha et al., 2004).

Field evaluation of fungicides against maydis leaf blight ofmaize: All the six fungicides were found effective againstdisease compared to control (Table 2). All fungicides used inpresent investigation not only reduced disease severity butalso increased yield significantly over control. The lowestdisease severity was observed in plots sprayed withpropiconazole @ 0.1% (23.53%) followed by chlorothalonil @0.2 % (27.33%) and mancozeb @ 0.2 % (30.47%). Propiconazoleand chlorothalonil were statistically at par. Thiram @ 0.2% wasfound to be least effective both in reducing disease severity(57.20%) and in increasing yield (19.30 q/ha). There wassignificant difference in yield in plots that received propiconazole(28.70 q/ha), followed by chlorothalonil (26.30 q/ha) andmancozeb (25.80 q/ha) as compared to control (14.50 q/ha). Thefindings of the study are in agreement with Tiwari et al. (2003).Propiconazole and chlorothalonil have been found effective inreducing the Helminthosporium blight in cereal crops (Issa,1983).

In vitro evaluation of antifungal activities of plantextracts against Drechslera maydis: It is evident from thedata (Table 1) that all the extracts evaluated at 5, 10, 15 and20% concentrations inhibited the radial growth of D. maydis.Garlic (Allium sativum), onion (Allium cepa) and datura(Datura alba) exhibited maximum growth inhibition (80.00,

X 100

% disease control =

Disease intensityin treatments

Disease intensityin control-

Disease intensity in control

MANAGEMENT OF MAYDIS LEAF BLIGHT 107

108

Table 1. In vitro efficacy of different fungicides on the growth of Drechslera maydis

Fungicide Concentration (ppm a.i.) Colony diameter (mm) Growth inhibition (%)

Mancozeb 50 34 62.22100 23 74.43200 16 82.22300 12 86.67400 8 91.11

Copper oxychloride 50 81 9.96100 74 17.78200 67 25.55300 61 32.22400 53 41.19

SAAF 50 42 53.33100 35 61.13200 32 64.44300 18 80.00400 0 100.00

Carbendazim 50 53 41.15100 35 61.11200 22 75.58300 18 80.00400 10 88.89

Chlorothalonil 50 52 42.21100 25 72.27200 12 86.63300 8 91.11400 0 100.00

Propineb 50 78 13.33100 63 30.00200 41 47.78300 47 54.41400 35 61.11

Triadimefon 50 25 72.22100 17 81.11200 10 88.89300 0 100.00400 0 100.00

Thiram 50 56 37.78100 41 54.45200 34 62.24300 20 77.78400 17 81.11

Propiconazole 50 18 80.00100 5 94.40200 0 100.00300 0 100.00400 0 100.00

Check - 90 0.00

CD (P=0.05) 5.88 6.63

ABDUL NASIR ET AL.

109

Table 2. Performance of different fungicides against maydis leaf blight of maize (pooled data of kharif 2006 and 2007)

Fungicide Dose (%) Disease severity (%)* Yield (q/ha)*

Mancozeb 0.20% 30.47 25.80Chlorothalonil 0.20% 27.33 26.30Triadimefon 0.10% 68.27 21.70Propiconazole 0.10% 23.53 28.70SAAF 0.15% 42.13 24.50Thiram 0.20% 57.20 19.30Check - 83.60 14.50CD (P=0.05) 5.12 1.03

Table 3. Effect of plant extracts on the radial growth of H. maydis on PDA after 15 days of incubation

Plant extract Growth inhibition (%)

5% extract 10% extract 15% extract 20% extract

Neem 22.45 31.11 38.30 43.85Garlic 32.25 48.10 59.22 80.00Ginger 29.56 36.63 44.78 69.98Eucalyptus 20.50 27.00 31.05 39.89Datura 30.10 38.41 57.35 73.12Onion 30.36 49.66 53.65 76.67Castor 15.00 22.69 29.22 32.22Check 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00CD (P=0.05) 3.23 3.98 5.25 8.04

76.67 and 73.12 %, respectively) at the concentration of 20%and they were statistically at par. However, ginger (Zingiberofficinale) also showed significant inhibitory effect (69.98%)followed by neem (43.85 %) and eucalyptus (39.89 %) whileleast inhibition was shown by castor (32.22%) at 20%concentration. At 5% concentration garlic, onion, datura andginger recorded maximum inhibition of colony growth (32.25,30.36, 30.10 and 29.56%, respectively) followed by neem (22.45%) and eucalyptus (20.50 %). These results were similar to theprevious studies done by Jha et al. (2004). The fungicidalspectrum of the leaf extract of garlic and onion has already beeninvestigated by Shekhawat and Prasada (1971) and Tariq andMagee (1990). At all concentrations garlic, onion and daturawere found most effective against radial growth of thepathogen while castor had the least inhibitory effect on themycelial growth of the pathogen.

Several plant extracts are known to exhibit antifungalactivities against certain fungi. Under present investigationeffort was made to find out safer alternative for managementof maydis leaf blight of maize. Higher plants (Eucalyptus,Neem and Castor) have been proved to be the useful sourceof fungitoxic substances.

REFERENCESBliss, C. I. (1934). The methods of probits. Science 79: 38.

Debasis, P. and Kaiser, S.A.K.M. (2003). Evaluation of somefungicides against Drechslera maydis Nisikado race ‘O’ causingMaydis leaf blight of maize. Journal of Interacademicia 7(2):232-235.

Issa, E. (1983). Chemical control of Helminthosporium turcicumPass. on maize (Zea mays L.). Biologico. 49(2): 41-44.

Jha, M. M., Kumar, S. and Hasan, S. (2004). Efficacy of somefungicides against maydis leaf blight of maize caused byHelminthosporium maydis in vitro. Annals of Biology 20(2):181-183.

Phelp, R. H. and Soto, A. (1993). Rice diseases at CARONI andapproaches to the control in Proc. Monitoring tour and workshopon integrated pest management in rice in Caribbean, held inGuyana, Trinidad and Tobago, 7-11 October 1991.

Schmitz, H. (1930). A suggested taximetrics’ method for woodpreservation. Indust. Engin. Chem. Analyst (Ed. II) 4: 361-363.

Shekhawat, P. S. and Prasada, R. (1971). Antifungal properties ofsome plant extracts: inhibition of spore germination. IndianPhytopathology 24: 800-802.

Tariq, V. N. and Magee, A. C. (1990). Effect of volatiles from garlicbulb extract on F. oxysporum f. sp. Lycopersici. MycologicalResearch 94(5): 617-620.

Tiwari, R. K. S., Chandravanshi, S. S., and Ojha, B. M. (2003).Efficacy of different fungicides in controlling leaf blast andbrown spot in rice. Advances in Plant Sciences 6(2): 441-442.

MANAGEMENT OF MAYDIS LEAF BLIGHT

Corresponding author Email: [email protected] winter nursery, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad 500 030,2Zonal Agricultural Research Station, V.C. Farm, Mandya, (Karnataka),3MPUA & T, RCA, Udaipur 313 001 (Rajasthan),4Department of Millets, Centre for Plant Breeding and Genetics,Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore 641 003(Tamil Nadu)

Downy mildews are considered as important maizediseases due to destructive nature recorded in many regionsof tropical Asia with about 70%

losses. Downy mildews are caused by ten differentspecies of oomycete fungi of genera Peronosclerospora,Scleropthora and Sclerospora (De Leon, 1991). The importantspecies causing downy mildew of maize in India arePeronosclerospora sorghii (Weston and Uppal) Shaw(causing Sorghum downy mildew, Sorghum downy mildew)and Peronosclerospora heteropogoni Siradhana et al.(causing Rajasthan downy mildew, Rajasthan downy mildew).Sorghum downy mildew causes considerable losses as highas 30% in peninsular India, particularly states of Karnatakaand Tamil Nadu (Krishnappa et al., 1995). Outbreaks ofRajasthan downy mildews were recorded in maize growingregions of Rajasthan (Udaipur, Rajsamand and Bhilwara). Inthe state of Rajasthan, downy mildew disease was initiallyconsidered as sorghum downy mildew, the sexual phaseusually used for perpetuation of fungus for the next seasonwas not observed on maize in this case, instead,conidiophores, conidia and oospores were found on a grass,Heteropogon contortus. Strain of Sorghum downy mildewinfecting maize in other parts of India show oospores

formation on maize, also, Rajasthan downy mildew straindoes not infect sorghum like the strains of fungus from otherparts of India. Screening for resistance of maize genotypesto Sorghum downy mildew and Rajasthan downy mildewhas been routinely carried out under All-India CoordinatedMaize Improvement Projects; however; very little informationis available on resistance or susceptibility of various maizeinbreds, hence, the present study was undertaken to examinethe Indian maize germplasm for resistance to Sorghum downymildew and Rajasthan downy mildew.


The experiments were conducted during kharif 2010and 2011 at three hotspots for the two diseases. A set of 200elite maize lines derived from National and CIMMYTProgramme was screened for resistance against the twodiseases under field conditions at three locations, viz.,Sorghum downy mildew (Mandya and Coimbatore) andRajasthan downy mildew (Udaipur) during kharif 2010. Outof 200 lines, eighty three inbreds showing resistance/moderate resistance to Sorghum downy mildew andRajasthan downy mildew were re-tested during kharif 2011at the respective hot spot locations for screening the linesshowing consistency in response to the two diseases. Thematerial was sown in paired row plot of 3m length. Susceptiblecheck (CM 500) was planted after every 10th row; and onboth sides of the plot. NAH 1137 was used as resistant check.Proper humidity was maintained through irrigation channelsflooded with water. Inoculum of Peronosclerospora sorghii

Screening of elite maize lines for resistance against downy mildews

K.S. HOODA, J.C. SEKHER1, VIMLA SINGH, T.A. SREERAMA SETTY2, S.S. SHARMA3, V. PARNIDHARAN4,R.N. BUNKER2 AND J. KAUL

Directorate of Maize Research, Pusa Campus, New Delhi 110 012

ABSTRACTA study was conducted to identify resistant sources against sorghum downy mildew (SDM) incited by

Peronosclerospora sorghii and Rajasthan downy mildew (RDM) incited by Peronosclerospora heteropogoni. A set of200 elite maize lines were evaluated during kharif 2010, against sorghum downy mildew and Rajasthan downy mildewat three hotspots of the disease, viz., Mandya and Coimbatore for sorghum downy mildew and Udaipur for Rajasthandowny mildew. Out of 83 lines re-tested during kharif 2011, three lines were identified as resistant against Rajasthandowny mildew at Udaipur, whereas; at Coimbatore 16 lines were screened to be resistant and 15 lines as moderatelyresistant, to sorghum downy mildew. Two lines (‘CM 117-3-4-1-2-2-1’ and ‘PFSR-R10’) showed moderate resistance toboth SDM and RDM at Coimbatore and Udaipur, whereas; ‘JCY3-7-1-2-1-B-2-1-2-1’ showed moderate resistance tosorghum downy mildew and Rajasthan downy mildew consistently at all the three hotspots during kharif 2010 and2011.These identified elite lines could be potentially utilized as resistance sourcesin breeding programme. The presentinvestigation can serve as basis for marker assisted screening for resistance breeding.

Key words: Evaluation, Maize, Rajasthan downy mildew, resistant sources, sorghum downy mildew


isolate Mandya and Coimbatore and Peronosclerosporaheteropogoni isolate Udaipur was used for screeningmultiple disease resistance sources at the respectivehotspots above. Standard inoculation technique, the whorlinoculation for Sorghum downy mildew and Rajasthandowny mildew was followed for creating disease epiphytotic.Pot cultures of Peronosclerospora sorghii andPeronosclerospora heteropogoni were maintained in a sickplot. The diseased plants meant for inoculum productionwere sprayed with water on in the evening to maintainsufficient humidity for good sporulation. The diseased leaveswith good sporulation were collected early in the morning(before sunrise) in buckets and washed in water @ 15 leaves

/ litre and washed to collect spores. The spore suspensionwas collected in 25 litres bucket and mixed thoroughly. Theinoculum was sprayed in the whorls of 2-3 leaved plants (for7 days) with help of a hand compression sprayer early in themorning (at 4.00 A.M.) to avoid temperature rise. Theinoculated plot was given a water spray to maintain desiredhumidity. Recommended package of practices for raising thecrop at each location was followed during the croppingperiod. The disease severity was recorded 35 days afterinoculation, by a uniform rating scale of percent incidence(15.0 % = resistant; 15-20 % = moderately resistant; > 20 % =susceptible) for sorghum downy mildew and Rajasthandowny mildew (Payak and Sharma, 1983).

Table 1. Elite maize inbred lines showing resistance/moderate resistance to sorghum downy mildew

Resistant (R) Moderately resistant (MR)

Pedigree Disease score Pedigree Disease score

CM144 7.9 CM121 15.2

PFSR-R10 9.0 LM16 15.3

02POOL 33 C24 11.1 CM 117-3-4-1-2-2-1 15.4

Pool 16 BNSEQ.C3F6x38-1 11.3 WINPOP-21 15.9

CML44 16.2

HKI 1094-WG 11.8 ae-40 16.3

PFSR-R10 11.9 LM15 16.5

CML 451Q 12.0 HKI-MBR-139-2 16.6

Hyd05R/13-2 13.2 LTP4 16.8

PFSR-S2 13.2 CML141 16.9

CLQRCYQ-47-B 13.4 DMSC16-1 17.5

NC 392 13.4 PFSR-S3 18.1

LM12 13.5 JCY3-7-1-2-1-B-2-1-2-1 18.4

HKI 1040-5 14.4 CML 384 20.8

LM15 14.9 PFSR-R2 19.0

DMR QPM-58-26 14.0

Table 2. Elite maize inbred lines showing resistance/moderate resistance to Rajasthan downy mildew

Resistant (R) Moderately resistant (MR)

Pedigree Disease score Pedigree Disease score

JCY2-1-2-1-1B-1-2-3-1-1 8.6 CM114 15.9PFSR-R9 11.3 JCY3-7-1-2-1-B-2-1-2-1 16.2PFSR-S3 13.9 CM117-3-4-1-2-2-3 16.3

PFSR-R10 17.2CM117-3-4-1-2-5-2 18.8JCY3-7-1-2-1-B-1-1-2-3-1-1 20.0CM117-3-4-1-2-2-1 20.6

SCREENING OF ELITE MAIZE LINES FOR DISEASE RESISTANCE 111

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Of the total 200 elite maize lines evaluated for responseto Sorghum downy mildew and Rajasthan downy mildewduring kharif 2010. Eighty three lines were re-tested at abovethree hotspot locations, viz., Mandya, Coimbatore andUdaipur during kharif 2011 under artificially created diseaseepiphytotic conditions. All the 83 lines were found to showmoderate resistance to resistance against Rajasthan downymildew and Sorghum downy mildew, across the locationsduring the two kharif seasons (Table 1). Three lines, viz.,‘JCY2-1-2-1-1B-1-2-3-1-1’, ‘PFSR-R9’ and ‘PFSR-S3’ wereidentified as resistant and seven lines (‘CM114’, ‘JCY3-7-1-2-1-B-2-1-2-1’, ‘CM 117-3-4-1-2-2-3’, ‘PFSR-R10’, ‘CM 117-3-4-1-2-5-2’, ‘JCY3-7-1-2-1-B-1-1-2-3-1-1’ and ‘CM 117-3-4-1-2-2-1’) as moderately resistant against Rajasthan downymildew at Udaipur (Table 1). However at Mandya none of thelines was found to be resistant or moderately resistant except‘JCY3-7-1-2-1-B-2-1-2-1’ showing incidence (23.6 %) i.e. closeto moderately resistant scale. At Coimbatore 16 lines(‘CM144’, ‘PFSR-R10’, ‘02POOL 33 C24’, ‘Pool 16BNSEQ.C3F6x38-1’, ‘LM13’, ‘HKI 1094-WG’, ‘PFSR-R10’,‘CML 451Q’, ‘Hyd05R/13-2’, ‘PFSR-S2’, ‘CLQRCYQ-47-B’,‘NC 392’, ‘LM12’, ‘DMR QPM-58-26’, ‘HKI 1040-5’ and‘LM15’), were screened out as resistant; whereas 15 lines(‘CM121’, ‘LM16’, ‘CM 117-3-4-1-2-2-1’, ‘WINPOP-21’,‘CML44’, ‘ae-40’, ‘LM15’, ‘HKI-MBR-139-2’, ‘LTP4’,‘CML141’, ‘DMSC16-1’, ‘PFSR-S3’, ‘JCY3-7-1-2-1-B-2-1-2-1’, ‘PFSR-R2’ and ‘CML 384’) were moderately resistant toSorghum downy mildew (Table 2).

Lines ‘CM 117-3-4-1-2-2-1’ and ‘PFSR-R10’ weremoderately resistance to both Sorghum downy mildew andRajasthan downy mildew at Coimbatore and Udaipur. Line‘JCY3-7-1-2-1-B-2-1-2-1’ showed moderate resistance toSorghum downy mildew and Rajasthan downy mildewconsistently at all the three hotspots during 2010 and 2011.Most of the inbreds showed highly susceptible response toSorghum downy mildew at Mandya compared to Coimbatore.

None of the lines was resistant consistently for both SDMand Rajasthan downy mildew. Similar observations ondifferential reaction of same set of inbred lines to differentstrains of Peronosclerospora were made by earlier workers(Singburaudom and Renfro (1982) and Yen et al. (2001). Theseobservations are in congruent to the findings by Schmidtand Freytag (1977) in relation to pathogenic differencesbetween the downy mildew isolates from Taxas and Thailand,where, U.S. isolate showed less virulence compared toThailand isolate.

To conclude, three elite lines viz., ‘CM 117-3-4-1-2-2-1’,‘PFSR-R10’ and ‘JCY3-7-1-2-1-B-2-1-2-1’ showing moderateresistance to both sorghum downy mildew and Rajasthandowny mildew, can be potentially utilized for breedingprogramme for developing resistant varieties. The presentinvestigation can serve as basis for marker assisted screeningfor resistance breeding.

REFERENCESDe Leon C. (1991). Inheritance of resistance of downy mildews in

maize, pp. 218-230. In: K.R. Sarkar et. al. (Eds.), Maize geneticsperspectives. Indian Soc. Genet. Pl. Breed., New Delhi.

Krishnappa M, B.S. Naidu, A. Seetharam (1995). Inheritance ofresistance to downy mildew in maize. Crop Improv. 22: 33-37.

Payak, M.M. and Sharma, R.C. (1983). Techniques of scoring forresistance to important diseases of maize. AICMIP. I.A.R.I.,Publication.

Schmid, C.G. and R.E. Freytag (1977). Response of selected resistantmaize lines to three species of Sclerospora. Plant Dis. Rep. 61:478-481.

Singburaudom, N. And B. L. Renfro (1982). Heritability of resistancein maize to sorghum downy mildew (Peronosclerospora sorghii).Crop Prot. 1: 324-332.

Yen, T.T.O., R.S. Rathore, T.A. Setty, R. Kumar, N.N. Singh, S.K.Vasal and B.M. Prasanna (2001). Inheritance of resistance tosorghum downy mildew (P. sorghii) and Rajasthan downy mildew(P. heteropogoni) in maize in India. Maize Genet. Coop.Newsletter 75: 48-49.

K.S. HOODA, ET AL.112

Corresponding author Email: [email protected] Chief Agronomist and Head, AICRP-IFS, ANGRAU,Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500 030

Intercropping is one of the approaches to enhance foodproduction to meet the growing population demand indeveloping countries. Maize is an un exploited food crop forintercropping and grown at wider spacing. Slow growth ininitial stages and monocarpic nature makes it highly suitablefor intercropping. Rao (2004) reported increase in croppingintensity of rainfed maize to 200% through inter cropping offield bean in paired rows of maize. But the constraint of thiscropping system was long dry spells in kharif which reducedyield of maize and when dolichos came to flowering, there ismonsoon with drawl. Further due to spatial and temporaladjustments, this cropping system removed greater amountsof nutrients than solid sole stands of the crops. Hence, thepresent investigation was undertaken to overcome the aboveconstraints of this potential cropping system with farm yardmanure application, supplemental irrigations and newmethods of nutrient management approaches of soil test cropresponse (STCR) and nutrient supplementation index (NSI).


The experiment was conducted during two consecutiveyears (kharif–rabi seasons of 2007-08 and 2008-09) at

Agricultural College farm, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad. Theexperimental soil was red sandy loam in texture, neutral inreaction, high in available N, P and K. The experiment waslaid out in split-plot design with three replications. The fourmain plot treatments consisted of combination of two levelsof each organic manures, no application of farm yard manureand farm yard manure application @ 10 t/ha and irrigation,rainfed and irrigations scheduled at IW/CPE ratio of 1.0 tointercropping system and IW/CPE ratio of 0.8 after maizeharvest to dolichos. The sub plot treatments were crop andnutrient management practices viz., sole maize with pairedrow spacing (90:60 cm) with recommended dose of fertilizer120N: 60P2O5 and 40K2O kg/ha (PM-RDF), Sole dolichosspaced at 150 cm x 50 cm with recommended dose of fertilizer20N:60P2O5:40K2O kg/ha (SD-RDF), paired maize + dolichos(60 cm – 90:60cm and 1 row of dolichos between two pairedrows of maize) with recommended dose of fertilizer 120:60:40and 20:60:40 N, P2O5, K2O Kg/ ha applied to maize anddolichos, respectively (PM+D-RDF), paired maize + dolichoswith soil test crop response (STCR) recommendation to maizeand recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) to dolichos, as nosoil test crop response (STCR) recommendation available todolichos. Soil test crop response (STCR) recommendationto maize was find out by use of the equation, FN=4.19 t -0.4SN, FP2O5 = 1.50t -1.55 SP and FK2O = 1.49T – 0.16 SK. Thetargeted yield was 5.0 t/ha. (PM+D- STCR). Paired

Evaluation of maize (Zea mays)-field bean (Dolichos lablab) intercroppingsystem under different fertility management approaches

U. NAGABHUSHANAM AND V. RAJA1

Regional Sugarcane and Rice Research Station, ANGRAU, Rudrur,Nizamabad 503 188

ABSTRACTA field experiment to explore the potential of maize and field bean intercropping under new fertility management

approaches during 2008-2009 revealed, that farm yard manure application @ 10 t/ ha and supplemental irrigation at IW/CPE ratios of 1.0 to intercropping system and 0.8 to dolichos gave higher maize grain yield, field bean green pod yield,maize equivalent yield, net income and benefit cost ratio. Paired maize and sole dolichos with respective recommendeddose of fertilizer gave higher grain and green pod yield, but maize equivalent yield and net returns were high with pairedmaize with dolichos fertilized under nutrient supplementation index method. Benefit cost ratio was high with soledolichos and recommended dose of fertilizer, but profits accrued at one time where as in nutrient supplementation indexfertilizer method profits accrued twice. Soil microbial population and post soil fertility status were high with farm yardmanure application, irrigation treatments and sole dolichos with recommended dose of fertilizer. Paired maize with fieldbean intercropped and fertilized with nutrient supplementation index (NSI), in spite of high maize equivalent yield andnet income recorded higher microbial population and post harvest soil fertility status than paired maize with recommendeddose of fertilizer.

Key words: Dolichos, Fertility status, Intercropping, Maize, Post harvest soil bacterial count, Yield


114

maize+dolichos with nutrient supplementation index (NSI) –(PM+D-NSI). NSI was computed from book values of Rao(2004) and it was 10% more N, P and K to maize and fordolichos it was 100% more N, 24% more P2O5 and 30.6 %more K2O. Instead of 120-60-40 NPK Kg/ ha to sole maize, itwas 132-66-44 N, P2O5, K2O kg/ha to maize in intercroppingsystem. Similarly for dolichos, instead of 20-60-40 NPK Kg/ha to sole dolichos it was 40-75-87 N, P2O5, K2O Kg/ ha ininter cropping system.

Whereas, NSI = Nutrient Supplementation Index, Yak =Nutrient uptake by main crop when it is grown inIntercropping system, By = Nutrient uptakes by Intercropwhen it is grown in Intercropping system, YA = Nutrientuptakes by main crop when it is grown as sole crop.

Both the crops, maize and dolichos were sown on 10July, in 2007 and 2008. Maize was harvested on 20 November,2007 and 25 November, 2008. Dolichos was picked up in fourdifferent days, 17 December, 2007, 4 and 24 January and 26February in 2008 and 14 and 28 December, 2008, 20 Januaryand 24 February, 2009. Maize equivalent yield was computedbased on existing rates in the market of maize and dolichos.Soil available N, P and K were estimated by standardprocedures while total bacterial count was estimated by Allenand Obura (1983).


Yield attributes and grain yield of maizeFarm yard manure application and scheduling of

irrigation at IW/CPE ratio of 1.0 increased cob size (lengthand girth of cob) and test weight (Table1). Farm yard manureacts as nutrient and moisture reservoir and release themthroughout crop growth periods. Hence, growth of maizecrop was promoted, resulting in improvement of yieldattributes, which consequently increased grain yield. Byirrigation scheduling at IW/CPE 1.0 ratio to maize, crop waterrequirement was met with physical demand of crop and longdry spells normally encountered in rainfed maize were bettermaneuvered resulting in improved crop growth, yieldattributes and yield of maize. These results are in conformitywith those of Nalatwadmath et al. (2003). Paired maize, withrecommended dose of fertilizer and no competition fromintercrop, recorded highest cob size(cob length and girth),testweight and grain yield while lowest yield attributes andgrain yield were recorded with paired maize with competitionfrom dolichos inter crop and fertilizer applied, as per soil testcrop response. In spite of competition from intercrop, thegrain yield of maize with paired maize, dolichos and fertilizedunder Nutrient supplementation index was less only by 4-5% from paired maize and recommended dose of fertilizer.Intercropped stands are known to extract more nutrients than

solid sole stands (Rao, 2004). As fertilizer application undernutrient supplementation index is based on nutrient uptakeof crop and increased nutrient need of maize and dolichosinter crop was met under nutrient supplementation index andcompetitive yield of maize was obtained.

Yield attributes and yield of field beanFarm yard manure application and scheduling irrigation

at IW/CPE ratio of 1.0 to maize+dolichos and at 0.8 ratio aftermaize harvest to only dolichos, improved number of greenpods/ plant and pod weight/ plant and green pod yield ofdolichos (Table 1). Better nutrient and moisture supply withFarm yard manure was utilized by longer duration dolichosfor more time, more significantly after cessation of monsoon.Irrigation scheduling at IW/CPE ratio of 1.0 to maize+fieldbean prevented competition between two crops during longdry spells in kharif and was highly valuable in rabi whenmonsoon with drew and crop was in sensitive flowering andpod formation stages. Thus, by these two simple measures,we can overcome two ripples of high intensity maize- fieldbean intercropping pointed out by Rao (2004). Sole dolichoswith recommended dose of fertilizer, recorded more numberof green pods, green pod weight/plant and green pod yield/ha, while lowest yield attributes and green pod yield wererecorded with paired maize with dolichos and lowest nutrientsupply of soil test crop response. In spite of competitionfrom intercrop, green pod yield with paired maize, withdolichos and fertilizer application under nutrientsupplementation index was less by 6-7% from sole dolichosand recommended dose of fertilizer.

Maize Equivalent yieldMaize equivalent yield with farm yard manure application

and scheduling irrigation at IW/CPE ratio of 1.0 to maize+field bean and at 0.8 after maize harvest, to dolichos increasedby 17-19% and 21%, respectively over no farm yard manureand rainfed treatments, consequent to higher maize grainyield and field bean green pod yield with these treatments(Table1). Among crop and nutrient management practices,all maize+ field bean intercropping systems enhanced themaize equivalent yield over sole field bean and paired maizewith respective recommended dose of fertilizer. Maize andfield bean are crops of divergent nature and hence competitionwas reduced in intercropping system by good temporal andspatial adjustment and by complementary and annidationeffects. Hence, the maize grain yield and field bean greenpod yield with inter cropping treatments were reasonable,and there was additional productivity from maize or dolichos,when compared to sole paired maize and sole dolichos withrecommended dose of fertilizer. Among intercroppingtreatments, paired maize+field bean with nutrientsupplementation index, offered distinctly higher maizeequivalent yield over that obtained with paired maize anddolichos and recommended fertilizer dose and paired maizewith field bean and fertilized as per soil test crop response.In intensive, 200% cropping intensity intercropping system(maize+ field bean crop in kharif and field bean duration

U. NAGABHUSHANAM AND V. RAJA

115

Tre

atm

ents

Leng

th o

f th

eG

irth

of

the

No

of c

obs

Test

wei

ght(

g)G

rain

yie

ld o

fG

reen

pod

yie

ld o

fM

EY (

kg/h

a)co

b (c

m)

cob(

cm)

per

plan

tm

aize

(kg

/ha)

dolic

hos

(kg/

ha)

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

Org

anic

sou

rce

No

FYM

16.9

016

.59

15.6

115

.56

1.21

1.16

25.3

924

.45

3985

4010

5160

5092

9130

9334

FYM

@10

t/ha

18.5

818

.420

18.8

518

.78

1.25

1.20

26.8

225

.78

4461

4556

5680

5775

1082

610

937

SEm

+0.

420.

510.

410.

480.

120.

120.

370.

4041

4613

713

912

713

0C

D (

P=0.

05)

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

NS

NS

1.00

1.00

143

158

475

481

440

451

Irri

gatio

n le

vels

Rai

n fe

d16

.75

16.6

215

.52

15.5

41.

231.

2124

.99

24.0

837

6938

6746

0847

0290

1491

54Ir

riga

ted

18.6

018

.50

18.9

418

.81

1.28

1.26

27.0

226

.16

4677

4764

6048

6165

1094

211

116

SEm

+0.

420.

510.

410.

480.

120.

120.

370.

4041

4613

713

912

713

0C

D (

P=0.

05)

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

NS

NS

1.00

1.00

143

158

475

481

440

451

Cro

p an

d nu

trie

nts

man

agem

ent

prac

tices

SD-R

DF

--

--

--

--

--

5956

6000

9163

9230

PM-R

DF

18.4

118

.03

18.9

818

.91

1.50

1.43

27.9

826

.88

4607

4728

--

4607

4728

PM+D

-RD

F16

.53

16.3

416

.65

16.6

61.

251.

2025

.62

24.6

641

2342

1051

5052

2512

046

1224

8PM

+D-S

TCR

15.0

515

.80

15.3

315

.37

1.00

1.00

24.2

123

.00

3750

3815

4784

4862

1111

011

295

PM+N

SI17

.86

17.6

717

.82

17.7

51.

251.

3326

.80

25.7

544

1144

8755

6056

4712

965

1317

5SE

m +

0.38

0.34

0.46

0.42

0.14

0.11

0.40

0.50

4346

112

113

116

119

CD

(P=

0.05

)1.

001.

001.

001.

00N

SN

S1.

001.

0012

613

532

833

140

141

1

Tabl

e 1.

Yie

ld a

nd y

ield

attr

ibut

es o

f m

aize

, gre

en p

od y

ield

of

dolic

hos

and

mai

ze e

quiv

alen

t yi

eld

as a

ffec

ted

by

Tre

atm

ent

2007

-08

2008

-09

Cos

t of

cul

tivat

ion

(`/h

a)N

et r

etur

n (`

/ha)

B:C

rat

ioC

ost

of c

ultiv

atio

n (`

/ha)

Net

ret

urn

(`/h

a)B

:C r

atio

Org

anic

sou

rce

No

FYM

1471

044

635

3.03

1375

246

919

3.41

FYM

@10

t/h

a16

656

5371

33.

2215

682

5540

83.

53Ir

riga

tion

leve

lsR

ainf

ed15

000

4359

12.

914

057

4544

43.

23Ir

riga

ted

1636

554

758

3.34

1537

756

877

3.69

Cro

p an

d nu

trie

nt m

anag

emen

t pr

actic

esSD

-RD

F11

437

4812

24.

210

575

4942

04.

67PM

-RD

F11

980

1796

51.

4911

075

1965

71.

77PM

+D-R

DF

1829

660

003

3.27

1728

562

327

3.6

PM+D

-STC

R17

204

5501

13.

1916

253

5716

43.

51PM

+D-N

SI19

501

6477

13.

3218

401

6723

63.

65

Tabl

e 2.

Ec

onom

ics

of m

aize

+ d

olic

hos

inte

rcro

ppin

g sy

stem

as

influ

ence

d by

far

m y

ard

man

ure

and

irrig

atio

n le

vel

and

crop

and

nut

rient

man

agem

ent

prac

tices

MAIZE-BEAN INTERCROPPING SYSTEM

116

Tre

atm

ent

Tota

l ba

cter

ial

coun

t (1

04 cf

u)

A

vaila

ble

nutri

ent s

tatu

s (k

g/ha

)

N

P

K

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

2008

2009

Org

anic

man

ure

No

FYM

6.34

06.

383

284

292

2730

230

236

FYM

@10

t/ha

6.49

46.

454

293

302

3335

236

241

SEM

+/-

0.02

40.

015

2.00

2.00

1.00

1.00

2.00

2.00

SEm

+0.

083

0.05

44.

804.

902.

422.

482.

384.

70C

D (

P=0.

05)

Rai

n fe

d6.

333

6.36

428

329

224

2822

823

3Ir

riga

ted

6.43

56.

511

297

310

3636

238

244

SEm

+0.

024

0.01

52.

002.

001.

001.

002.

002.

00C

D (

P=0.

05)

0.08

30.

054

4.80

4.90

2.42

2.48

2.38

4.70

Cro

p an

d nu

trie

nts

man

agem

ent

prac

tices

SD-R

DF

6.65

56.

718

302

308

3638

240

246

PM-R

DF

6.10

76.

170

274

279

2628

221

227

PM+D

-RD

F6.

373

6.44

229

229

830

3223

424

0PM

+D-S

TCR

6.39

16.

458

296

301

3234

236

242

PD+D

-NSI

6.34

86.

401

286

292

2830

232

239

SEm

+0.

017

0.01

83.

563.

451.

371.

321.

761.

87C

D (

P=0.

05)

0.05

00.

052

10.0

010

.00

4.00

4.00

5.00

5.00

Tabl

e 3.

P

ost-h

arve

st t

otal

soi

l ba

cter

ial

coun

t an

d po

st s

oil

nutri

ent

stat

us a

s af

fect

ed b

y tre

atm

ents

U. NAGABHUSHANAM AND V. RAJA

117

extends in to rabi), nutrient requirement is very high. FertilizerScheduling under new method of Nutrient supplementationindex is based on nutrient uptake of crops and hence highnutrient needs of this intensive cropping system was metresulting in high maize equivalent yield.

EconomicsMaximum net returns and benefit cost ratio were

observed with farm yard manure application and schedulingirrigation at 1.0 and 0.8 ratio to maize+ field bean and fieldbean respectively (Table 2). Paired maize with dolichos andfertilized with nutrient supplementation index recordedhighest net returns when compared to all other intercroppingsystems with dolichos and sole crops of field bean and pairedmaize with respective recommended dose of fertilizerapplication. Though, benefit cost ratio of sole dolichos withrecommended dose of fertilizer was high, the profits accruedonly ones, after dolichos harvest. But in all paired maizedolichos inter cropping systems, profits accrued twice, onesafter maize harvest and second after dolichos harvest. Thusmaize field bean intercropping system provide periodicallyincome. Among them fertilizing with nutrient supplementationindex was highest. Rana et al (2001) also reported higherbenefit cost ratio in maize intercropping system.

Soil microbial populationFarm yard manure application and scheduling irrigation

at IW/CPE ratio of 1.0 to maize+dolichos and at 0.8 to fieldbean after maize harvest, recorded higher soil microbialpopulation when compared to no farm yard manure applicationand rainfed treatments (Table 3). Farm yard manure acts assubstrate and also retains moisture and regulate soiltemperature which might have helped for growth andmultiplication of microbes. Similarly, scheduling irrigationprovided optimum moisture and maintained requiredtemperature for growth and multiplication of microbes

Among crop and nutrient management practices, soledolichos with recommended dose of fertilizer recorded highestbacterial count, as it is a legume and with recommendedfertilizer dosage acted as good host for symbiosis of bacterialpopulation. Consequently, dolichos as intercrop in maize withdifferent fertilizer methods recorded more microbialpopulation than paired maize with recommended dose offertilizer and their population was comparable with each other.These results corroborate with results of Rao (2004).

Post harvest soil fertility statusPost harvest soil fertility status, evaluated in terms of

soil available nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium was

observed more with farm yard manure application andscheduling irrigation at IW/CPE ratio of 1.0 to maize+dolichosand 0.8 to field bean after maize harvest. Farm yard manureacted as substrate for microbes and their high populationmight have helped in mineralization and making nutrientsavailable for crop growth, yield and leaving higher residualstatus in soil. Irrigation scheduling might have regulatedoptimum temperature for soil microbial population, leadingto mineralization of nutrients in soil and transforming themto available forms for crop growth, yield, and leaving highersoil fertility status in soil.

Among crop and nutrient management practices, soledolichos with recommended dose of fertilizer left the soil inmore fertile form with higher available nitrogen, phosphorusand potassium, when compared to other treatments. Dolichoshaving deep root growth, apart from N-fixation by symbiosis,improves soil fertility by leaf shedding habit and absorbsless soluble forms of P and eventually makes them solubleand competes better for higher valency nutrient cationsLavanya (2005). Consequently in all intercropping treatments,introduction of dolichos as intercrop in maize, apart fromincreasing maize equivalent yield, left the soil with higherpost soil fertility status and was better over paired maizewith recommended dose of fertilizer. The soil fertility statuswith paired maize + field bean with nutrient supplementationindex, in spite high maize equivalent yield and net returns,was comparable with paired maize + field bean fertilized withrecommended fertilizer dose and paired maize+dolichosfertilized as per soil test crop response.

REFERENCESAllen, J.R and Obura, R.K. (1983) Yield of crop, cowpea and soybean

under different inter cropping systems. Agronomy Journal.75(6): 1005-1009.

Lavanya T. (2005). Planting pattern, fertilizer management in maizeand vegetable inter crops. M.Sc. (Ag.). Thesis submitted toAcharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad.

Nalatwadmath, Ram Mohan Rao, M.S., Patil, S.L.K., Jayaram, N.S.,Bhola, S.N and Arjun Prasad. (2003). Longterm effects ofintegrate nutrient management on crop yields and soil fertilitystatus in vertisols of Bellary. Indian Journal of AgriculturalResearch. 37(1): 64-67.

Rana R.S., Bhupinder Singh and Negi S.C. (2001). Management ofmaize/legume intercropping under mid-hill sub-humid conditions.Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 35(2): 100-103.

Rao. (2004). Planting Pattern, vegetable inter crops and fertilizermanagement. M.Sc. (Ag.). Thesis submitted to Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad.

MAIZE-BEAN INTERCROPPING SYSTEM


Maize is predominant crop of tribal area of southernhumid Rajasthan, where it’s used as food and feed. Normalmaize, have poor nutritional value because of lower contentsof essential amino-acids such as lysine and tryptophan. Butquality protein maize contains higher amount of these aminoacids in the endosperm than normal maize. The balancecombination of amino acids in quality protein maize resultsinto its higher biological value ensuring more availability ofprotein to human and animal as compared to normal maize(DMR, 2008). The productivity of quality protein maize islow due to inherent low soil fertility and poor nutrientmanagement practices like low use of inorganic fertilizers,no use of organic manures, poor recycling of crop residueand no use of secondary and micronutrient in tribal region.The conjunctive use of organic manure and chemical fertilizerscan augment the nutrient use efficiency and also enhancethe productivity of quality protein maize (Kumar et al., 2005).Thus, the present study was conducted for two consecutiveyears to find out a viable and economically nutrientmanagement option for higher productively of QPM undersouthern humid Rajasthan.


The field experiment was conducted at Banswara in tworainy seasons of 2007 and 2008. The clay loam soil ofexperiment field contained 0.52% organic carbon, 8.3 kg/haavailable P and 364 kg/ha available K with pH of 7.8. Theexperiment, consisting eight treatments viz . Staterecommendation of NPK 90:17.6:4.9 kg/ha, recommended doseof fertilizers (RDF) (150:26.4:33.2 kg NPK/ha), 125% RDF, 150%RDF, state recommendation + FYM, RDF + FYM, 125% RDF+ FYM and 150% RDF + FYM was laid out in randomizedblock design with three replications. Well rotted 6 t/ha FYMwas incorporated in the ear marked plots 15 days beforesowing and its composition on oven dry basis was 0.48 % N,0.24% P and 0.55% K. The full dose of P, K and 1/3rd dose ofN as per treatments were applied before sowing and remainingdose of N applied in two equal top dressing at knee highstage and tassel initiation stages. The ‘HQPM-1’ maizehybridwas sown in the first week of July with 60 cm x 25 cmspacing and harvested in October during both the years.Soil samples were taken from 30 cm soil depth from eachexperimental plot to determine soil properties. Standardmethods were used for analysis of the soil and plant samplesfor nutrient content. The economics was computed by usingthe prevalent price of input and output.

Effect of integrated nutrient management on productivity and profitability ofquality protein maize and soil fertility under southern humid Rajasthan

conditions

HARGILAS

Agricultural Research Station, MPUAT, Banswara, Rajasthan 327 001

ABSTRACTThe field experiment to evaluate integrated nutrient management for quality protein maize (QPM) for southern

Rajasthan was conducted at experimental field of Agricultural Research Station, Banswara during rainy seasons of 2007and 2008. The eight treatment combinations, comprising of state recommendation (90:17.6:24.9 kg NPK/ha),recommendation dose of fertilizers (RDF) (150:26.4:33.2 kg NPK/ha), 125% RDF, 150% RDF, state recommendation+FYM, RDF + FYM, 125% RDF + FYM and 150% RDF + FYM. Application of 125% RDF + FYM/ha produced significantlyhigher plant height and dry matter, whereas, application of RDF + FYM significantly increased the number of cobs(54300/ha), number of grains (375/cobs), test weight (248 g) grain yield (4.289 t/ha), net return (`22003) and B: C ratio(1.79) over inorganic nutrient alone and state recommendation with FYM. However, maximum growth and yield wererecorded with 150% RDF + FYM. Significant build up of soil fertility as organic carbon (0.58%), available N (288 kg/ha),available P (12.9 kg/ha) and available K (392 kg/ha) was registered with RDF + FYM.

Key words: Available nutrients, Economics, Farm Yard Massure, nutrient uptake, yield attributes


Tabl

e 1.

Eff

ect

of I

nteg

rate

d N

utri

ent

Man

agem

ent

on g

row

th a

nd y

ield

attr

ibut

es,

yiel

d an

d ec

onom

ics

of q

ualit

y pr

otei

n m

aize

(Po

oled

dat

a of

2 y

ears

)

Fert

ility

lev

els

Plan

t he

ight

Dry

mat

ter

Cob

sG

rain

s/co

b10

00-g

rain

Gra

in y

ield

Cos

t of

Net

ret

urns

B:C

rat

io(c

m)

(g/p

lant

)(0

00/h

a)w

eigh

t (g

)(t

/ha)

culti

vatio

n ‘/

ha)

(‘/h

a)

SRD

F15

616

547

.10

345

225

3.13

9,88

515

,155

1.53

RD

F16

117

251

.11

358

230

3.72

11,4

4918

,335

1.60

125%

RD

F17

417

852

.40

364

234

3.95

12,5

6219

,006

1.51

150%

RD

F18

018

554

.40

372

242

4.05

13,6

7418

,686

1.37

SRD

F+FY

M17

219

252

.10

362

235

3.50

10,7

4517

,247

1.61

RD

F+FY

M18

219

854

.30

375

248

4.29

12,3

0922

,003

1.79

125%

RD

F+FY

M18

820

456

.20

380

252

4.51

13,4

2222

,666

1.69

150%

RD

F+FY

M19

420

657

.00

382

253

4.65

14,5

3422

,698

1.56

CD

(P=

0.05

)11

8.12

4.20

128.

220.

3969

80.

05

Tabl

e 2.

Eff

ect

of i

nteg

rate

d nu

trie

nt m

anag

emen

t on

nut

rien

t up

take

and

res

idua

l so

il fe

rtili

ty (

pool

ed d

ata

of 2

yea

r)

Tre

atm

ent

Tota

l N

utri

ent

upta

ke (

kg/h

a)

Ava

ilabl

e nu

trien

t sta

tus

in s

oil a

fter

crop

har

vest

NP

KO

rgan

ic c

arbo

n (%

)A

vaila

ble

N (

kg/h

a)A

vaila

ble

P (k

g/ha

)A

vaila

ble

K (

kg/h

a)

SRD

F84

.517

.413

70.

4522

67.

535

6

RD

F96

.720

.015

50.

4724

08.

437

5

125%

RD

F10

4.2

21.2

168

0.49

252

9.1

385

150%

RD

F10

5.3

21.8

173

0.50

260

10.6

390

SR

DF+

FYM

95.6

20.6

166

0.54

272

11.5

378

RD

F+FY

M10

8.2

22.0

182

0.58

288

12.9

392

125%

RD

F+FY

M11

5.3

23.4

191

0.61

305

13.7

408

150%

RD

F+FY

M11

7.6

24.4

198

0.62

315

14.8

415

CD

(P=

0.05

)9.

52.

516

0.07

27.3

2.10

23.2

0

INM STUDY IN QUALITY PROTEIN MAIZE 119


Growth and yield attributesThere was significant effect of different fertility levels

on all growth and yield attributes (Table 1). Sole applicationof 150% RDF, being at par with 125% RDF recorded highervalues of all growth and yield parameters except cobs/ha,which was higher over state RDF only. Integration of FYM@ 6 t/ha further improved the plant height, dry matter, grains/cob and 1000-grain weight at all the fertilizer doses. Thehighest plant height, dry matter, cobs/ha, grains/cob and1000-grain weight were recorded with the integrated use of150% RDF and FYM.

YieldIncreased doses of fertilizers significantly increased

grain yield as compared to lower doses of nutrients with andwithout FYM (Table 1). Application of RDF + FYM producedsignificantly higher grain yield over state recommendation,RDF without FYM and state recommendation with FYM.Compared to state recommended doses of fertilizers, per centincrease in grain yield was recorded to the tune of 37.0, 22.6,15.2, 8.7 and 6.0 with state recommendation with FYM,RDF,125% RDF and 150% RDF, respectively. Increase in grainyield might be due to increased the number of cobs, grains/cob and test weight. These results corroborate the findingof Tetarwal et al. (2011), who reported a significant increasein grain yield of maize with RDF + FYM under rain-fedcondition.

Economics The maximum cost of cultivation and net return were

recorded at 150% RDF + FYM, however, maximum benefit:cost ratio (1.79) was worked out with RDF + FYM (Table 1).The maximum net return (‘ 22,698/ha) was recorded withapplication of 150% RDF + FYM which was statistically atpar with RDF + FYM. Integrated nutrient management practiceof RDF + FYM for QPM cultivation was significantly superiorover lower and higher doses of nutrients with and withoutFYM. This might be due to higher productivity with lowercost of cultivation resulted in increased economic return inmaize cultivation. These results are in conformity with findingof Kumar et al. (2005).

Nutrient uptakeThe highest and significantly higher amount of

nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium uptake by maize cropwas recorded with the application of 150% RDF + FYM, whichwas at par with RDF + FYM (Table 2) and significantlysuperior over inorganic fertilization alone and staterecommendation with FYM. Application of RDF + FYMrecorded significantly higher uptake of N, P and K. Thepercent increase of N uptake was in amounting 29.0, 14.0,12.7, 4.6 and 3.5 N, state recommendation + FYM, RDF, 125%RDF, and 150% RDF, respectively. Whereas, percentageincrease of 32.2, 15.0, 11.7,9.0 and 5.0 P over state

recommendation, RDF, state recommendation + FYM, 125%RDF and 150% RDF over state recommendation, respectively.Similarly, higher K uptake in percentage of 53.1, 27.6, 16.7,13.4 and 8.7 higher with RDF, state recommendation + FYM,125%RDF and 150% RDF over state recommendation,respectively. Increase in nutrient uptake is mainly due toincrease grain and stover yield and higher concentration ofapplied nutrients. The similar findings were reported by Karkiet al. (2005).

Soil fertilityIntegrated use of inorganic and organic sources of

nutrients to maize crop influenced physico-chemicalproperties of the soil (Table 2). The organic carbon wassignificantly higher in the treatment of RDF + FYM overinorganic fertilization and state recommendation + FYM. Theincrease was to the tune of 28.9, 23.4, 18.4, 16.4 and 7.4% inorganic carbon in RDF, 125% RDF, 150% RDF and staterecommendation + FYM over state recommendation,respectively. The net gain in organic carbon over initialvalue was 11.5% under RDF + FYM. The maximum availablenitrogen was recorded with application of 150% RDF + FYMwhich was statistically at par with RDF + FYM. Applicationof RDF + FYM recorded significantly increase of 27.4% inavailable nitrogen compared to state recommendation.Application of RDF+ FYM was significantly increasedavailable P and K contents over inorganic nutrientsapplication. The available content of P and K was recorded55.4 and 7.7 % higher under RDF + FYM after crop harvestover its initial availability in soil respectively. These resultscorroborate the finding of Pathak et al. (2005).

It is concluded that application of RDF + FYM is anideal nutrient management practice for increasing QPMproductivity and sustaining soil fertility under rainfedcondition of southern humid Rajasthan.

REFERENCESDMR (2008). Quality protein maize: production technology of value

addition. DMR Technical Bulletin 2008/5.

Karki, T.B., Ashok Kumar and Gautum, R.C. (2005). Influence ofintegrated nutrient management on growth, yield, content anduptake of nutrients and soil fertility status in maize (Zea mays).Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 75(11): 682-85.

Kumar, A., Gautum, R.C., Singh, R. and Rana, K.S. (2005). Growth,yield and economics of maize (Zea mays)-wheat (Triticumaestivum) cropping sequence as influenced by integrated nutrientmanagement. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 75(11):709-11.

Pathak, S.K., Singh, S.B., Jha, R.N. and Sharma, R.P. (2005). Effectof nutrient management on nutrient uptake and change in soilfertility in maize (Zea Mays L.)–wheat (Triticum aestivum)cropping system. Indian Journal of Agronomy 50 (4): 269-73.

Tetarwal, J.P. Baldev Ram and Meena, D.S. (2011). Effect ofintegrated nutrient management on productivity, profitability,nutrient uptake and soil fertility in rainfed maize (Zea mays).Indian journal of Agronomy 56(4): 373-376.

HARGILAS120

Corresponding author Email: [email protected] Research Centre, ARI, ANGRAU, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad

Maize is the third most important cereal in the world.India ranks fifth in area and third in production andproductivity among cereal crops. Maize growers are shiftingto specialty corn production due to higher returns and alsoopening opportunities for employment generation speciallyin peri-urban areas. Among specialty corns, sweet corn hasa very big market potential and has great genetic variabilityand scope to improve its nutritive value.

The quality of sweet corn depends on the type of geneinvolved for sweetness. Besides, genetic architectureconferring the sweetness, crop management practices alsoplay a critical role in realizing the desired sweetness in thecobs. Of the agronomic practice, planting technique is ofconsiderable importance. It ensures optimum plantpopulation and enable plants to utilize land and otherresources efficiently for better growth and development.Moreover, major maize area is under rainfed situations andhence adoption of suitable planting method is also ofconsiderable importance in getting desired yield and quality.Further inter and intra row spacing and balanced nutrition ofNPK is an essential component of nutrient management andplays a significant role in increasing crop production and itsquality. The recommended plant spacing and nitrogen dosevary for the hybrids and the same may not be applicable forthe composites like sweet corn. As the information onplanting geometry and fertilizer requirement for sweet corn

is very meager, the present experiment was initiated as a partof All India Co-ordinated Programme on Seed Productionand Certification under Directorate of Seed Research to studythe influence of planting methods, spacing and fertilizer doseson yield and quality of sweet corn.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The experiment was conducted during the early rabiseason of 2010-11 at the Seed Research and TechnologyCenter, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad. The test variety wasMadhuri (composite). Twenty four treatment combinationsof two methods of planting (furrow and flat bed) as main plotfactors and four spacings (45 cm x 15 cm, 45 cm x 20 cm, 60 cmx 15 cm and 60 x 20 cm) and three fertilizer doses (90:45:45,120:60:45 and 150:75:45 N:P2O5:K2O kg/ha) as sub-plotfactors, were tested in a split plot design with factorialconcept in three replications. Each treatment was imposed ina plot size of 21.6 m2. The experimental field was sandy loam.Entire phosphorous and potassium along with half of thenitrogen as per the treatment was applied as basal in bandplacement in small grooves. The remaining half of thenitrogen was top dressed in two split doses at knee highstage and taselling and silking stage of the crop. Plantprotection measures were taken as per the recommendedschedule. Five plants were selected randomly from eachtreatment for recording data on yield and yield componentslike plant height, cob length, seeds/cob, shelling percentage,seed yield/ha and test weight and seed quality parameters

Influence of planting methods, spacing and fertilization on yield andquality of sweet corn

K. KANAKA DURGA, V. SANDEEP VARMA, D. SREELATHA1 AND A. VISHNUVARDHAN REDDY

Seed Research and Technology Center, ANGRAU, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad

ABSTRACTA field experiment was conducted during early rabi season of 2010-11 at Hyderabad to study the influence of

planting methods, spacing and fertilizer doses on sweet corn (Zea mays) cv. Madhuri. Twenty four treatment combinationswith two methods of planting (furrow and flat bed) as main plot factors and four spacings (45 cm x 15 cm, 45 cm x 20 cm,60 cm x 15 cm and 60 cm x 20 cm) and three fertilizer doses (90:45:45, 120:60:45 and 150:75:45 N:P2O5:K2O kg/ha) as sub-plot factors, were tested in a split plot design with factorial concept in three replications. The flat bed method of plantingresulted in 14.17% yield improvement over furrow method of planting. The spacing of 45 cm x 15 cm with 120:60:45N:P2O5:K2O kg/ha raised on flat beds not only increased the seed yield but also found superior for 100-seed weight andprotein content. The highest protein and starch contents were noticed with a spacing of 60 cm x 20 cm and 150: 75: 45N: p205: k2o dosed where as similar values for oil content recored was at 45 cm x 20 cm spacing and fertilize level of120:65:40. N:P2O5:K2O kg/ha.

Key words: Fertilizer rates, Planting methods, Spacing, Sweet corn, Yield and Quality


122

Tabl

e 1.

Y

ield

and

yie

ld a

ttrib

utin

g ch

arac

ters

of

swee

t co

rn

Tre

atm

ents

Cob

len

gth

Seed

s/co

bSh

ellin

g %

Seed

yie

ld10

0- S

eed

Ger

min

atio

nO

il co

nten

tPr

otei

nM

oist

ure

Star

ch c

onte

nt(c

m)

(q/h

a)w

eigh

t (g

) (

%)

(%)

cont

ent

(%)

(%)

(%)

Pla

ntin

g m

etho

dsFu

rrow

13.2

300.

380

.913

.20

12.3

999

.05

12.5

013

.45

5.9

52.5

9Fl

at b

ed13

.228

7.4

81.8

15.0

713

.11

97.1

012

.83

13.1

46.

05.

29S.

Em+

0.20

8.03

0.61

0.41

0.40

0.36

0.15

0.16

0.06

0.32

C.D

(P=

0.05

)0.

4116

.18

1.23

0.82

0.81

0.73

0.31

0.32

0.13

0.64

Spac

ing

(cm

)45

x 1

512

.927

9.5

80.9

14.9

613

.14

96.8

812

.58

12.8

76.

053

.03

45 x

20

13.2

298.

081

.414

.20

12.6

898

.96

12.7

513

.42

5.9

52.1

260

x 1

513

.330

3.3

81.4

13.4

812

.49

98.3

812

.73

13.1

65.

952

.29

60 x

20

13.4

294.

781

.713

.90

12.6

998

.08

12.6

013

.73

6.0

52.3

3S.

Em+

0.29

11.3

60.

870.

580.

570.

510.

210.

230.

090.

45C

.D (

P=0.

05)

0.57

22.8

81.

741.

161.

141.

030.

430.

460.

180.

90Fe

rtili

zer

rate

(N

:P2O

5:K2O

kg/

ha)

90:4

5:45

13.0

281.

480

.813

.46

12.7

197

.86

12.5

413

.12

5.9

52.6

012

0:60

:45

13.2

306.

782

.013

.88

12.9

398

.19

12.8

113

.30

5.9

52.2

015

0:75

:45

13.4

293.

681

.215

.07

12.6

298

.18

12.6

513

.48

6.0

52.5

3SE

m+

0.25

9.84

0.75

0.50

0.49

0.44

0.19

0.20

0.08

0.39

CD

(P=

0.05

)0.

5019

.81

1.51

1.01

0.99

0.89

0.37

0.40

0.16

0.78

Tre

atm

ents

Seed

yie

ld (

q/ha

)

90:4

5:45

N:P

2O5:K

2O k

g/ha

120:

60:4

5N

:P2O

5:K2O

kg/

ha15

0:75

:45

N:P

2O5:K

2O k

g/ha

F.M

Fb. M

F.M

Fb. M

F.M

Fb. M

45 c

m x

15

cm14

.32

14.0

913

.53

14.9

516

.07

16.8

345

cm

x 2

0 cm

14.2

511

.34

13.4

916

.87

13.3

915

.87

60 c

m x

15

cm11

.84

14.6

813

.19

12.5

713

.43

15.1

560

cm

x 2

0 cm

11.3

815

.74

11.2

815

.18

12.2

417

.59

Mea

n12

.95

13.9

612

.87

14.8

913

.78

16.3

6PM

* S

PM *

FS*

FPM

*S*

FSE

m +

0.82

0.71

1.00

1.42

CD

(P=

0.05

)1.

651.

432.

022.

85

F.M

. = F

urro

w m

etho

d of

pla

ntin

g; F

b.M

.= F

lat

bed

met

hod

of p

lant

ing;

PM

= P

lant

ing

met

hods

; S

= Sp

acin

g an

d F

– Fe

rtiliz

er d

oses

Tabl

e 2.

I

nter

actio

n ef

fect

s fo

r yi

eld

of s

wee

t co

rn

K. KANAKA DURGA, ET AL.

123

like germination percentage, total seedling length andseedling vigour index.


Yield attributesIn the present study, though furrow method of planting

(300.4) numerically out yielded with respect to seeds/cob,was found statistically on par with flat bed method of planting(287.4) (Table 1). Application of 120:60:45 N:P2O5:K2O kg/haresulted in more seeds/cob (306.7) and was statistically onpar with application of 150:75:45 N:P2O5:K2O kg/ha (293.6)which indicates a non-significant improvement in number ofseeds/cob as the NPK dose was raised from 120:60:45N:P2O5:K2O kg/ha to 150:75:45 N:P2O5:K2O kg/ha. However itwas significantly high with application of 90:45:45 N:P2O5:K2Okg/ha (281.5). Though higher dose is directly related toenhanced seed rows per cob, in contrast non-significantimprovement with respect to seeds/cob was reported in thepresent study suggesting that application of optimum doseof fertilizers (120:60:45 N:P2O5:K2O kg/ha) not only results inhigh yield attributing characters but also realized highereconomic yield. In contrary, Mahesh et al (2010) reportedincreased seed number with a higher fertilizer dose of150:75:45 N:P2O5:K2O kg/ha. Bors et al (2009) indicated theimportance of increased dose of NPK for attaining desirablenumber of seeds per cob. Similarly the different spacings (60cm x 15 cm, 45 cm x 20 cm, 60 cm x 20 cm and 45 cm x 15 cm)also reflected a non significant improvement in seeds/cob insweet corn.

All the treatments viz., planting methods, fertilizer dosesand spacings have not shown significant improvement interms of cob length of sweet corn (Table 1). However,numerically the sweet corn planted at wider row spacingswith higher fertilizer application has resulted in marginalincrease in length of the cob compared to narrow spacings.These results are in conformity with the work of SikandarAjam et al. (2007) who suggested that higher cob dimensionswere realized at wider planting geometry in combination withhigher fertilizer dose of NPK.

Hundred seed weight is another important yieldattributing trait. However, in the present study, the methodsof planting, spacing and fertilizer doses could not realizesignificant improvement (Table 1). Similar to seed size, nonignificant improvement in shelling percentage was noticedwith respect to the factors indicating that test weight andshelling percentage are least influenced by managementpractices like planting method, planting geometry andnutrition.

YieldSignificant differences were noticed among the

treatments for all the characters under study. Significantly

higher yield was resulted in flat bed planting over the furrowplanting. The yield increase was 14.17% over the furrowmethod of planting (Table 1). Maize planted at 45 cm interrow spacing with 15/20 cm intra row spacing gave higheryields (14.96 q/ha and 14.20 q/ha, respectively) compared towider row spacing of 60 x 15 cm and 60 x 20 cm (13.48 q/haand 13.90 q/ha). However, maize planted at 45 x 15 cm wasstatistically on par with maize planted at 45 x 20 cm and 60 x20 cm but significantly different from maize planted at 60 x 15cm (13.48 q/ha) which indicates that the sweet corn variety,Madhuri is early maturing and medium statured and hencehigher plant population at 45 x 20 cm spacing was foundoptimum to obtain higher yields. Considering the three wayinteraction of different treatment combinations irrespectiveof row spacings, flat bed method of planting at higher fertilizerdose (150:75:45 N:P2O5:K2O kg/ha) showed superiorperformance in realizing higher seed yields compared to lowerfertilizer doses (120:60:45 N:P2O5:K2O kg/ha and 90:45:45N:P2O5:K2O kg/ha) (Table 2). However, the sweet corn plantedin flat bed at a row spacing of 45 x 20 cm and application of120:60:45 N:P2O5:K2O kg/ha excelled for all the parametersand found to be promising due to its capacity to exploitinherent yield potential using moderate resources.

Quality parametersSignificantly higher percentage of protein, oil and starch

contents in sweet corn seed was realized under flatbedmethod (Table 1). It might be due to higher seed yields withhigher test weight indicating the better quality of seedcompared to furrow method. Similarly, the wider row spacingof 45 cm x 20 cm at optimum fertilizer dose of 12:80:45N:P2O5:K2O kg/ha have resulted in the highest oil content(Table 1). In contrast higher protein and starch contents wereresulted in 60 cm x 20 cm spacing with lower dose of fertilizers150:75:45 N:P2O5:K2O kg/ha. This geometry might havefacilitated most efficient utilization of sunlight and performedperfect translocation of assimilates leading to higher seedreserves and seed yield/plant.

Sowing maize on flat beds with 45 cm spacing betweenrows and 20 cm between plants along with application of120:60:45 N:P2O5: K2O kg/ha was found superior for seedyield besides other yield attributing traits viz., seeds/cob-1,100-seed weight, plant height and high protein content.

REFERENCESBors, A., Ardelean, M., Has, V. and Chicinas, C. (2009). Performance

of five sweet corn hybrids grown in conventional and organic(low input) agricultural systems: I. Yield and kernel quality.Bulletin of University of Agricultural Sciences and VeterinaryMedicine Cluj-Napoca Hort., 66(1): 23-27.

Mahesh, L.C., Kalyanamurthy, K.N., Ramesha, Y.M., Yogeeshappa,H., Shivakumar, K. M. and Prakash, H. (2010). Effect ofintegrated nutrient management on growth and yield of maize(Zea mays L.). Int. J. Agri. Sci., 6(1): 275-277.

PLANTING METHODS, SPACING AND FERTILIZATIION IN SWEET CORN

Adoption of improved agricultural technology by maizegrowers mainly depends on effective utilization of sourcesof agricultural information and channels to which they areexposed directly or indirectly. Because of lack of awarenessand through knowledge about these technologies, it isobserved that improved agricultural technologies areavailable but that technologies are not reaching to the maizegrowers in adoptable form for better crop yield. This gapmay partially be filled by use of various sources ofinformation viz., personal localite, cosmopoliteness, massmedia exposure and commercial agencies and non-government organizations, which are chief sources to getagricultural information. It is known that, adoption ofimproved maize cultivation practices varies farmer to farmerdepending upon their situation, availability of informationsources and use of communication media to obtain latestinformation. Therefore, the present study has beenundertaken to know various sources utilized by maize growersto get agricultural information.


The present study was randomly undertaken in 13villages from Panchmahals district and 11 villages from Dahoddistrict of middle Gujarat zone, covering 75 and 65 maizegrowers, respectively. For the collection of requiredinformation, structured interview schedule was prepared(Table 1). Frequencies and percentages were worked out toknow the extent of use of various source of information.


In personal localite, majority of maize growers frequentlyused information from family members (57.86%) followed byneighbours (46.83%) and friends (40.71%). Similarly, friends,neighbours and progressive maize growers were contactedsometimes to get agricultural information by the 48.57, 37.86and 35.0% maize growers, respectively. It was also notedthat 62.86 and 60.0% of maize growers did never used localleaders and relatives to get agricultural information.

In case of cosmopoliteness, 22.14, 12.86 and 9.29% ofmaize growers obtained information from village level worker,Agricultural Research Station and K.V.K. scientists,respectively. While, 72.14, 42.86 and 35.00% of maize growerssometimes used Agricultural Research Station, village levelworker and demonstration, respectively as the source ofagricultural information. Agricultural Extension Officer, K.V.K.Scientists and Farmer Training Centre were never used bythe 76.43, 68.57 and 63.5% of maize growers for gettingagricultural information.

In case of mass media exposure, 32.86, 21.43 and 17.86%of maize growers always used printed literature, newspaperand television, respectively as the source of agriculturalinformation. While printed literature, agricultural magazinesand news paper, respectively were as the source foragricultural information to the tune of 33.57, 26.43 and 25.71%of growers, respectively. Agricultural magazines, exhibitionand television were never used by the 62.86, 62.14 and 58.57%of maize growers for agricultural information.

Utilization of sources of agricultural information by maize growers ofmiddle Gujarat

U. M. PATEL, P.M. PATEL, S.M. KHANORKAR AND D.B. PATEL

Main Maize Research Station, AAU, Godhra, Panchmahals, Gujarat

ABSTRACTEffective source of information is pre-requisite for adoption of technology. The present study was undertaken in

year 2011-12 to study the sources of agricultural information used by maize growers in tribal areas of middle Gujarat. The140 maize growers belonging to Panchmahals and Dahod district were interviewed. The findings revealed that personallocalite source like family members, neighbours and friends were playing major role in transfer of maize productiontechnology. In case of cosmopoliteness, village level workers, Agricultural Research Station and K.V.K. scientists wereplaying major role. Whereas, the printed literatures, news papers and television displays had played major role in massmedia exposure .In case of commercial agencies, the maize growers always used fertilizer and chemical dealers andcooperative society as the source of agricultural information. It was important to note that family members, neighboursand friends were perceived best by tribal maize growers to get agricultural information.

Key words: Agricultural information, Information source, Maize

Maize Journal 1(2): 124-125 (October 2012)

In case of commercial agencies and non-governmentorganization, 25.00% maize growers always used fertilizerand chemical dealers as the source of agricultural information.Whereas, 60.71, 46.43 and 42.86% maize growers sometimesused fertilizer and chemical dealers, seed dealers andcooperative society, respectively as the source of agriculturalinformation. Non-Governmental organization, AgriculturalProduce Marketing Committee (APMC) and seed dealerswere never used by the 82.14, 77.86 and 50.71% maize growersto get agricultural information, respectively.

In personal locality, majority of maize growersgenerally used their self experience, contacted familymembers, sometimes contacted friends and neighbours andhardly contacted local leaders and relatives for obtainingagricultural information. In a composite society, maizegrowers approached village level workers and Agricultural

Research Station and hardly approached AgriculturalExtension Officers and K.V.K. scientists. When mass mediaexposure is considered, majority of the maize growerspreferred printed literature while exhibitions were lesspreferred. In case of commercial agencies and non-government organizations, fertilizer and chemical dealers wereused as the source of agricultural information, whereas, non-government organizations and Agricultural ProduceMarketing Committee (APMC) were never used by majorityof maize growers.

REFERENCESSharma, R., Singh, P.P. and Sharma, R.N. (2000). Utility of farm

information sources amongst tribals. Maha. J. Exten. Educ.XIX: 340-341.

Wakle, P.K., Wattamwar, V.T. nd Khalge, M.I. (1998). Utilization ofdifferent sources by maize growers for seeking farm information.Maha. J. Exten. Educ. XVII: 299-301.

Table 1. Extent of information sources used by the maize grower

Sources of information Always Sometimes Never

No. % No. % No. %

Personal localiteNeighbour 65 46.43 53 37.86 22 15.71Friends 57 40.71 68 48.57 15 10.71Relatives 15 10.71 41 29.29 84 60.00Progressive maize growers 51 36.43 49 35.00 40 28.57Local leaders 20 14.29 32 22.86 88 62.86Family members 81 57.86 40 28.57 19 13.57CosmopolitenessVillage Level Worker 31 22.14 60 42.86 49 35.00Agricultural Extension Officer 10 7.14 23 16.43 107 76.43Agricultural Research Station 18 12.86 101 72.14 21 15.00K.V.K. Scientist 13 9.29 31 22.14 96 68.57Farmer Training Centre 11 7.86 40 28.57 89 63.57Maize growers’ day 9 6.43 45 32.14 86 61.43Demonstration 10 7.14 49 35.00 81 57.86Mass media exposureNews paper 30 21.43 36 25.71 74 52.86Radio 24 17.14 35 25.00 81 57.86Television 25 17.86 33 23.57 82 58.57Printed literature (Leaflets and Folders) 46 32.86 47 33.57 47 33.57Exhibition 19 13.57 34 24.29 87 62.14Agricultural magazines 15 10.71 37 26.43 88 62.86Commercial agencies and non-government organizationsFertilizer and chemical dealers 35 25.00 85 60.71 20 14.29Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee 7 5.00 24 17.14 109 77.86Cooperative society 13 9.29 60 42.86 67 47.86Seed dealer 4 2.86 65 46.43 71 50.71Non-Governmental organization 4 2.86 21 15.00 115 82.14

SOURCES OF AGRICULTURAL INFORMATION 125

Corresponding author Email: [email protected] of Maize Research, New Delhi 110 012

Stem-borer (Chilo partellus) is one of the major insectpests of maize causing 24.3 to 36.3% losses in maize yield(Chatterji et al., 1969). Breeding for host plant resistance byidentifying lines with resistance to the stem borers coupledwith good adaptation to local environment and goodagronomic performance is the cardinal component of IPM(Sekhar et al., 2008). Screening of germplasm for leastsusceptibility to stem-borer for developing stem-borerresistant hybrid has been always emphasized. DIMBOA 2,4- dihydroxy-7-methoxy-1, 4-benzoxazine-3-one, an importantsecondary metabolite for European Corn borer, (Ostrinianubilalis) Its role in imparting resistance against Chilopartellus at different plant ages has been determined byKlun et al. (1967). It is one of the predominant cyclichydroxamic acids reported in several gramineous species,including maize, wheat and rye. Hence, the present studywas conducted involving screening of 20 different maizegermplasm and seven different plant ages for theirsusceptibility to the stem-borer (Chilo partellus) with respectto their DIMBOA concentrations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two experiments consisting of twenty different maizegermplasm including 11 (‘HKI 1011’, ‘HKI 323’, ‘HKI 1348-6-2’, ‘HKI 1128’, ‘HKI 161’, ‘HKI 335’, ‘HKI 1344’, ‘HKI 193-2’,‘HKI 1105’, ‘HKI 163’ and ‘HKI 193-1’) inbreds and 9 (‘HQPM1’, ‘HM 9’, ‘HM 4’, ‘HM 7’, ‘HQPM 7’, ‘HM 10’, ‘HM 5’,

‘HQPM 5’ and ‘HM 8’) hybrids were conducted at New Delhiduring 2009-10.

Experiment 1. Evaluation of maize germplasm and their ageswith respect to their susceptibility to the stem-borer, Chilopartellus.

Plants were grown in pots under glass house. In eachpot eight seeds were sown and after emergence, only fiveplants/pot were maintained. Each of twenty germplasm wasreplicated three times. In this way, total of 300 plants wereartificially infested with neonates of Chilo partellus at 6DAG (days after germination). Freshly hatched larvae ofChilo partellus were carefully picked up with the help of afine brush and placed inside the whorl of each plant withoutlending any injury to them. Each plant was infested with fiveneonates. Likewise artificial infestation of a hybrid, ‘HQPM1’ and an inbred, ‘HKI 335’ was also done at 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 15and 20 DAG in a separate set of experiments. After twentyfive days of infestation, plants were observed for leaf injuryand rating was done on the scale of 1 (healthy plant) to 9(dead heart) based on the extent of injury. The technique ofGuthrie et al. (1960) and Rao (1983) were used for assessmentof susceptibility to stem-borers.

Experiment 2. Quantification of DIMBOA in different maizegermplasm and at different plant ages

DIMBOA was quantified in all 20 germplasm at 6 DAGand also in ‘HQPM 1’ and ‘HKI 335’ at 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 15 and 20DAG. The isolation was done by modification of the methodas described by Lyons et al. (1988). Ten grams of seedlingswere homogenized in 250 ml of distilled water and leftundisturbed for 24 hrs where the glucoside form of DIMBOA

Evaluation of maize germplasm and susceptibility, and DIMBOA role againststem borer (Chilo partellus)

ANUP CHANDRA, PRADYUMN KUMAR1, SHASHI BALA SINGH, ASHARANI,S.B. SUBY1 AND SATYAPAL SINGH

Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012

ABSTRACTTwenty maize genotypes at 6 DAG (days after germination) and two genotypes at 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 15 and 20 DAG were

evaluated for their susceptibility to the stem-borer Chilo partellus (Swinhoe). The quantitative analysis of 2, 4-dihydroxy-7-methoxy-1, 4-benzoxazine-3-one (DIMBOA) was also done at their respective plant-age. A significant negativecorrelation found between the DIMBOA concentration in germplasm and the leaf injury inflicted on them due to stem-borer indicating the role of DIMBOA in imparting resistance against the stem-borer.

Key words: Chilo partellus, DIMBOA, Maize, Susceptibility


Table 1. DIMBOA concentration LIR of maize germplasm at 6 DAG

Germplasm DIMBOA content (mg/g fresh wt.) *Mean LIR Susceptibility

HKI-193-2 1.3047 3.00 Least susceptibleHQPM-1 0.6909 5.19 Moderately susceptibleHKI-161 0.6808 6.58 Highly susceptibleHKI-193-1 0.6224 2.86 Least susceptibleHM-10 0.5761 8.75 Highly susceptibleHM-5 0.5568 4.50 Moderately susceptibleHQPM-5 0.5337 6.50 Highly susceptibleHM-9 0.4341 4.93 Moderately susceptibleHM-8 0.3914 3.08 Moderately susceptibleHKI-335 0.3599 7.08 Highly susceptibleHQPM-7 0.3555 5.75 Moderately susceptibleHKI-1344 0.3498 7.16 Highly susceptibleHM-4 0.3274 5.38 Moderately susceptibleHKI-1128 0.2633 8.83 Highly susceptibleHKI-163 0.1068 9.00 Highly susceptibleHM-7 0.0986 8.33 Highly susceptibleHKI-1011 0.0612 8.66 Highly susceptibleHKI-323 0.0013 9.00 Highly susceptibleHKI-1348-6-2 0.0008 8.08 Highly susceptibleHKI-1105 0.0001 8.75 Highly susceptible

Table 1. DIMBOA concentration LIR of maize germplasm at 6 DAG

Germplasm DIMBOA content (mg/g fresh wt.) *Mean LIR Susceptibility

HKI-193-2 1.3047 3.00 Least susceptibleHQPM-1 0.6909 5.19 Moderately susceptibleHKI-161 0.6808 6.58 Highly susceptibleHKI-193-1 0.6224 2.86 Least susceptibleHM-10 0.5761 8.75 Highly susceptibleHM-5 0.5568 4.50 Moderately susceptibleHQPM-5 0.5337 6.50 Highly susceptibleHM-9 0.4341 4.93 Moderately susceptibleHM-8 0.3914 3.08 Moderately susceptibleHKI-335 0.3599 7.08 Highly susceptibleHQPM-7 0.3555 5.75 Moderately susceptibleHKI-1344 0.3498 7.16 Highly susceptibleHM-4 0.3274 5.38 Moderately susceptibleHKI-1128 0.2633 8.83 Highly susceptibleHKI-163 0.1068 9.00 Highly susceptibleHM-7 0.0986 8.33 Highly susceptibleHKI-1011 0.0612 8.66 Highly susceptibleHKI-323 0.0013 9.00 Highly susceptibleHKI-1348-6-2 0.0008 8.08 Highly susceptibleHKI-1105 0.0001 8.75 Highly susceptible

*artificially infested with 5 neonates of Chilo partellus at 6 DAG and LIR observed 25 days after infestation

Table 2. Concentration of DIMBOA reducing with plant age observed in HQPM 1 and HKI 335

Plant age(days after HQPM-1 HKI-335germination)

DIMBOA DIMBOA Fall in % Mean DIMBOA DIMBOA Fall in Mean(mg/g (%) with LIR* (mg/g fresh (%) with % with LIR*fresh wt) with age age wt) age age

2 1.38 100 - 8.42 1.88 100 - 8.833 0.89 62.72 37.28 8.41 0.91 48.35 51.65 8.834 0.82 59.48 3.24 8.16 0.39 20.96 27.39 8.306 0.69 49.91 9.57 5.19 0.36 19.10 1.86 7.0810 0.08 5.85 44.06 5.27 0.09 4.53 14.57 6.7515 0.03 2.45 3.44.33 0.06 3.22 1.31 6.25

20 0.02 1.40 1.05 4.25 0.05 2.87 0.35 5.58

* mean LIR of plants infested artificially with 5 neonates of Chilo partellus at their respective ages

was allowed to convert into its aglycone form. The aqueousextract was centrifuged at 8500 rpm for 15 minutes. Theaqueous extract was then washed twice with equal volumeof hexane (2 X 250 ml). Hexane was discarded and the aqueousportion was extracted thrice with equal volume of ethylacetate (3 X 250 ml). Ethyl acetate was evaporated on a rotaryevaporator to dryness and to the residue obtained; 5 ml ofacetonitrile (HPLC grade) was added. The extract was filteredthrough 0.02 µm membrane and analyzed by HPLC. (Fig. 1)

The structure of DIMBOA was characterized by LC-MS/MS of the extract which showed a peak at 10.85 minutesbesides others (Figure 2). Mass spectral fragmentation of10.85 minutes peak showed M+ = 211 indicating the presenceof DIMBOA. The amount of DIMBOA were calculated inmilligram per gram of plant sample (fresh weight) based onthe peak area obtained from HPLC analysis and also whileanalysis some amount converted into MBOA were backcalculated into DIMBOA.

EVALUATION OF MAIZE GERMPLASM AND DIMBOA AGAINST STEM BORER 127

128

Figure 1. HPLC peak at RT 4.06 representing DIMBOA

Figue 2. Characterization of DIMBOA by LC-MS

ANUP CHANDRA, ET AL.

129


The leaf injury rating (LIR) at 6 DAG ranged from 2.86 to9.00 for least susceptible (‘HKI 193-1’) and most susceptiblegermplasm (‘HKI 163’ and ‘HKI 323’) (Table 1), respectively.As per the study of susceptibility with plant-age concerned,‘HQPM 1’ was highly susceptible up to 4 DAG while the‘HKI 335’ was highly susceptible in all ages tested except at20 DAG plants (Figure 3). Considering the pattern of variationof mean LIR values, it was classified into three broadcategories of ‘least susceptible 1 to 3’, moderately susceptible3.1 to 6 and highly susceptible for 6.1 and above. The resultsshowed that ‘HKI 193-1’, ‘HKI 193-2’ and ‘HM 8’ were amongthe least susceptible varieties whereas ‘HKI 163’, ‘HKI 323’and ‘HKI 1128’ were found to be highly susceptible to thestem-borer. Visualizing the susceptibility to the stem-borer,

the plants were found highly susceptible at 2 DAG with LIRvalue of 8.42 and 8.83 for ‘HQPM-1’ and ‘HKI-335’respectively. The susceptibility decreased with age and at20 DAG the plants were graded as moderately susceptiblewith LIR value of 4.25 and 5.58 for ‘HQPM-1’ and ‘HKI-335’,respectively.

Highest DIMBOA content was found to be 1.31 mg/gfresh weight in ‘HKI 193-2’, which was graded as a leastsusceptible genotype with LIR of 3. Likewise the mostsusceptible genotypes viz., ‘HKI 323’, ‘HKI 1348-6-2’ and‘HKI 1105’ were found with traces of DIMBOA content of0.0013, 0.0008 and 0.0001 mg/g fresh weight, respectively. Anegative correlation of 0.71 was found between DIMBOAcontent (at 6 DAG) and LIR (artificially infested with C.partellus at 6 DAG) of all 20 germplasm (Figure 4), indicating

Figure 3. Decreasing susceptibility with plant age observed in HQPM-1 and HKI-335*Infestation done with neonates of C. partellus at respective plant ages, leaf injury recorded 25 days after infestation

Figure 4. Correlation between DIMBOA concentration and plant susceptibility to the stem-borer* Quantification of DIMBOA done in plants of 6 DAG **LIR done 25 days after infestation with neonates of stem-borer

EVALUATION OF MAIZE GERMPLASM AND DIMBOA AGAINST STEM BORER

role of the compound in imparting resistance to the stem-borer. This reveals higher the quantity of DIMBOA, lesswas the susceptibility. Klun and Brindley (1966) did aquantitative analysis of 6MBOA (a degraded product ofDIMBOA) in eleven maize inbreds. They found a correlationbetween the amount of 6MBOA produced by 11 inbredstrains of maize at the whorl stage of plant development andthe field rating of resistance of the inbred strains to 1st broodlarvae of the European corn borer, Ostrinia nubilalis. In theirstudy, highly resistant inbred lines yielded about 10 timesmore 6MBOA than the highly susceptible inbred strains.

However, in spite of having good quantity of DIMBOA(0.58 mg/g fresh weight) the genotype, ‘HM-10’ (LIR 8.75)was found highly susceptible. This clearly indicates thatDIMBOA, in case of HM-10, is overruled by some otherfactors and need to be investigated. As per the plant agestudy concerned, the highest concentration of DIMBOA wasobserved at 2 DAG with 1.38 mg and 1.88 mg per g freshweight in HQPM-1 and HKI-335, respectively (Table 2).Thereafter the concentration declined gradually with age toas low as 0.02 mg and 0.05 mg per g fresh weight at 20 DAG(Figure 2). Cambier et al. (2000) reported high concentrationof DIMBOA after seed germination and then decreases withplant age. In spite of having high concentration of DIMBOA,the plants were found highly susceptible at 2 DAG whichmay be because of morphological susceptibility at youngage and should not be taken into consideration when thesusceptibility was compared at different ages. At the sametime, DIMBOA shows its effect when the study conductedonly at a particular age (6 DAG). This indicates that DIMBOAhad some effects in imparting resistance to the stem-borer,

but with varying age of the plant, the susceptibility wasdominated by some other unknown factors instead ofDIMBOA, which need to be investigated.

REFERENCESCambier, V., Hance, T. and Hoffman, E.D. (2000). Variation of

DIMBOA and related compounds content in relation to the ageand plant organ in maize. Phytochemistry, 53: 223-229.

Chatterji, S. M., Young, W. R., Sharma, G. C., Sayi, I. V., Chahai, B.S., Khare, B.P., Rathore, Y. S., Panwar, V. P. S. and Siddiqui, K.S. (1969). Estimation of loss in yield of maize due to insectpests with special reference to borers. Indian Journal ofEntomology, 31(2): 109-115.

Guthrie, W. D., Dicke, F. F. and Neiswander, C. R. (1960). ResearchBulletin. Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station No. 860 pp. 34-38.

Klun, J. A. and Brindley, T. A. (1966). Role of 6-methoxybenzoxazolinone in inbred resistance of host plant(maize) to first brood larvae of European corn borer. Journal ofeconomic entomology, 59 (3): 711-718.

Klun, J. A., Tipton, C. L. and Brindley, T. A. (1967). 2, 4-dihydroxy-7-methoxy-1, 4-benzoxazine-3-one (DIMBOA), an active agentresistance of maize to the European corn borer. J. Econ.Entomol., 60: 1529-1533.

Lyons, P.C., Hipskind, J.D., Wood, K.V. and Ralph, L.N. (1988).Separation and quantification of cyclic hydroxamic acids andrelated compounds by high-pressure liquid chromatography. J.Agric. Food Chem., 36: 57-60.

Rao, A. B. (1983). Techniques of scoring resistance to maize stalkborer (Sesamia inferens). In: J. Singh (Ed.) Techniques of Scoringfor Resistance to the Major Insect Pests of Maize. All Indiacoordinated maize improvement project, New Delhi, 16-26.

Sekhar, J.C., Rakshit, S., Kumar, P., Mehrajuddin., Anuradha, M. andDass, S. (2008). Differential reaction of CIMMYT maize linesand their hybrid combinations to pink stem Borer, Sesamiainference Walker. Ann. Pl. Protec. Sci., 16 (2): 404-406.

ANUP CHANDRA, ET AL.130


A number of maize hybrids are being developed andgrain yield is important criteria for selection of hybrids inmaize breeding programme. To make selection for grain yieldeffective which is a complex phenomenon andinterdependent on various other yield contributing factors,it is highly essential to study the association between theyield contributing factors and grain yield. Therefore, thepresent study was carried out to generate information onassociation of different yield attributing traits. Theexperimental material consisted of 87 single cross hybrids,developed by crossing 29 inbred lines derived from NationalYellow Pool with three testers in Line x Tester fashion. Allthese hybrids were evaluated in replicated trial with fivechecks at AICMIP, ARS, Arabhavi during 2008-09 followingall the requisite agronomic package of practice. The datacompiled was subjected to analyze correlation and Path co-efficient analysis as per standard methods.

The correlation studies were computed for 12quantitative traits (Table 1 and 2). The association betweentwo variables which can be directly observed is termed asphenotypic correlation whereas the inherent or heritableassociation is known as genotypic correlation. In the presentstudy, in general, the genotypic correlation was higher thanphenotypic correlation indicating a strong genetic associationbetween the traits. Grain yield showed highly significant andpositive correlation with most of the characters, however,there was significant and negative correlation with days to50% tasseling and days to 50 % silking. The findings are inclose conformity of Netaji et al. (2000). The phenotypiccorrelation is greater than genotypic correlation betweennumber of kernels/row (0.700) with number of kernel rows/cob (0.667) and so also with ear length. This indicates thatsuch type of association is not only due to genes but alsodue to favourable influence of environment. Grain yield hadhighly significant and positive genotypic correlation withnumber of kernel rows/cob (0.962) and number of kernels/row (0.954) but the phenotypic correlation was reduced to(0.515) and (0.803), respectively for the two traits. However,it was number of kernels/row which had stronger correlationwith grain yield as compared to number of kernel rows/cob.These results are also in accordance with findings of Kumar

and Satyanarayana (2001). Similarly, grain yield hadsignificant negative correlation with days to 50% silkingindicating that increase in number of days results intoincreased in grain yield. Grain yield/plant has a very highgenotypic (0.987) and phenotypic (0.946) correlation withgrain yield, hence selection for grain yield/plant will increasethe grain yield of maize.

The correlation values decide only the nature and degreeof association between existing pair of characters. A characterlike grain yield is dependent on several mutually associatedcharacter as evident from the above and change in any oneof these components is likely to affect the whole network ofcause and effect relationship. This in turn might affect thetrue association. Therefore, it is essential to analyze the causeand effect relationship between dependent and independentvariable to entangle the nature of relationship between thevariable by means of path co-efficient analysis (Table 3).The direct effects of grain yield/plant over grain yield ispositive and high (1.020) and so also the correlation (0.987).Therefore, selection can be made for grain yield per plant fordirect improvement of grain yield. Similarly, the direct effectof number of kernels per row (0.541) followed by number ofkernel rows per cob (0.409) was also higher hence selectioncan also be made for these traits in bringing improvement ofgrain yield. Manivannan (1998) also made similar observationin maize.

However, the direct effect of days to 50% silking washigh (1.314) but the correlation of this trait with grain yieldwas significant and in negative direction (-0.403) thereforedirect selection for days to 50% silking is not useful inbringing a desired improvement in grain yield. Likewise earcircumference (-0.322) and ear length (-0.227) exhibitednegative direct effects over grain yield and so the ear lengthcontributed indirectly through shelling percentage to grainyield. The residual effect was in the range of moderate tohigh (0.3816), which indicates that there are some morecharacters which contribute to the grain yield which need tobe studied.

Thus, the information generated from the above studyon character association and path analysis between differenttraits of maize will facilitate in selecting potential maizehybrids.

Association studies on yield related traits in maize (Zea mays L.)

M.C. WALI, R.M. KACHAPUR, V.R. KULKARNI AND S.S. HALLIKERI

Agricultural Research Station, University of Agricultural Sciences, Arabhavi 591 310

Key words: Correlation, Maize, Yield traits

SHORT COMMUNICATION


132

Tabl

e 1.

Phe

noty

pic

corr

elat

ion

coef

fici

ent

for

grai

n yi

eld

and

its c

ompo

nent

s in

mai

ze

Cha

ract

ers

Day

s to

Day

s to

Plan

tE

arE

arN

umbe

r of

Num

ber

of10

0-gr

ain

Shel

ling

Gra

in y

ield

Fodd

erG

rain

50%

50%

heig

htle

ngth

circ

umfe

renc

eke

rnel

row

s/ke

rnel

s/w

eigh

t (g

)pe

rcen

tage

(g/p

lant

)yi

eld

yiel

dta

ssel

ing

silk

ing

(cm

)(c

m)

(cm

)co

bro

w(%

)(t

/ha)

(q/h

a)

Day

s to

50%

tas

selin

g1.

000

0.80

4**

-0.1

86-0

.161

-0.2

77*

0.02

4-0

.215

*-0

.236

*-0

.062

-0.3

70**

-0.1

24-0

.248

*D

ays

to 5

0 %

silk

ing

1.00

0-0

.189

-0.1

63-0

.223

*-0

.022

-0.1

78-0

.205

*-0

.089

-0.2

78*

-0.0

71-0

.223

*Pl

ant

heig

ht (

cm)

1.00

00.

447*

*0.

565*

*0.

133

0.34

1**

0.36

9**

0.21

7*0.

344*

*0.

575*

*0.

297*

*Ea

r le

ngth

(cm

)1.

000

0.74

1**

0.27

5**

0.44

9**

0.32

7**

0.21

6*0.

442*

*0.

378*

*0.

515*

*Ea

r ci

rcum

fere

nce

(cm

)1.

000

0.26

6**

0.51

7**

0.48

6**

0.22

5*0.

553*

*0.

509*

*0.

570*

*N

o. o

f ke

rnel

row

s pe

r ea

r1.

000

0.70

0**

0.23

1*0.

323*

*0.

396*

*0.

143

0.51

5**

No.

of

kern

els

per

row

1.00

00.

418*

*0.

421*

*0.

761*

*0.

347*

*0.

803*

*10

0 gr

ain

wei

ght

(g)

1.00

00.

167

0.43

4**

0.30

0**

0.41

1**

Shel

ling

(%)

1.00

00.

364*

*0.

176

0.39

9**

Gra

in y

ield

(g/

plan

t)1.

000

0.46

2**

0.94

6**

Fodd

er y

ield

(t/h

a)1.

000

0.38

9**

Gra

in y

ield

(q

/ha)

1.00

0

*-

Sign

ifica

nt a

t 5%

leve

l

**

-Sig

nific

ant a

t 1%

leve

l

Tabl

e 2.

Gen

otyp

ic c

orre

latio

n co

effi

cien

t fo

r gr

ain

yiel

d an

d its

com

pone

nts

in m

aize

Cha

ract

ers

Day

s to

Day

s to

Plan

tE

arE

arN

umbe

r of

Num

ber

of10

0-gr

ain

Shel

ling

Gra

in y

ield

Fodd

erG

rain

50%

50%

heig

htle

ngth

circ

umfe

renc

eke

rnel

row

s/ke

rnel

s/w

eigh

t (g

)pe

rcen

tage

(g/p

lant

)yi

eld

yiel

dta

ssel

ing

silk

ing

(cm

)(c

m)

(cm

)co

bro

w(%

)(t

/ha)

(q/h

a)

Day

s to

50%

tas

selin

g1.

000

0.91

9**

0.20

1-0

.144

-0.3

04**

-0.1

64-0

.254

*-0

.329

**-0

.145

-0.6

06**

-0.1

01-0

.571

**D

ays

to 5

0 %

silk

ing

1.00

00.

206

0.09

7-0

.189

-0.1

80-0

.202

*-0

.361

**-0

.202

*-0

.442

**-0

.014

-0.4

03**

Plan

t he

ight

(cm

)1.

000

0.23

3*0.

188

0.90

6**

0.62

7**

0.71

6**

0.36

2**

0.82

7**

0.99

8**

0.94

6**

Ear

leng

th (

cm)

1.00

00.

720*

*-0

.468

**0.

412*

*0.

362*

*0.

899*

*0.

948*

*0.

958*

*0.

911*

*Ea

r ci

rcum

fere

nce

(cm

)1.

000

0.67

9**

0.75

2**

0.42

3**

0.55

3**

0.96

8**

0.92

8**

0.92

6**

No.

of

kern

el r

ows

per

ear

1.00

00.

667*

*0.

493*

*0.

821*

*0.

797*

*0.

310*

*0.

962*

*N

o. o

f ke

rnel

s pe

r ro

w1.

000

0.47

3**

0.71

4**

0.89

8**

0.38

3**

0.95

4**

100

grai

n w

eigh

t (g

/pla

nt)

1.00

00.

306*

*0.

486*

*0.

320*

*0.

549*

*Sh

ellin

g (%

)1.

000

0.55

3**

0.30

3**

0.71

0**

Gra

in y

ield

per

pla

nt (

g)1.

000

0.52

3**

0.98

7**

Fodd

er y

ield

(t/h

a)1.

000

0.52

7**

Gra

in y

ield

(q

/ha)

1.00

0

*-

Sign

ifica

nt a

t 5%

leve

l

**-

Sign

ifica

nt a

t 1%

leve

l

M.C. WALI, ET AL.

133

REFERENCESKumar, P. and Satyanarayana, E. (2001). Variable and correlation

studies of full season inbred lines of maize. J. Res., ANGARU 29:71-75.

Manivannan, N. (1998), Character association and componentanalysis in maize. Madras Agric. J. 85: 293-294.

Netaji, S.V.S.R.K., Satyanarayana, E. and Suneetha, V. (2000).Heterosis studies for yield and yield component characters inmaize (Zea mays L.). The Andhra Agric. J. 47: 39-42.

Tabl

e 3.

Dir

ect

and

indi

rect

eff

ects

of

diff

eren

t ch

arac

ters

on

grai

n yi

eld

(Gen

otyp

ic p

ath)

Cha

ract

ers

Day

s to

Day

s to

Plan

tE

arE

arN

umbe

r of

Num

ber

of10

0-gr

ain

Shel

ling

Gra

in y

ield

Fodd

erC

orre

lati

on50

%50

%he

ight

leng

thci

rcum

fere

nce

kern

el r

ows/

kern

els/

wei

ght

(g)

perc

enta

ge(g

/pla

nt)

yiel

dw

ith g

rain

tass

elin

gsi

lkin

g(c

m)

(cm

)(c

m)

cob

row

(%)

(t/h

a)yi

eld

Day

s to

50%

tas

selin

g-1

.684

1.20

70.

009

0.03

30.

098

-0.0

22-0

.137

-0.0

29-0

.072

0.07

6-0

.049

-0.5

71**

Day

s to

50

% s

ilkin

g-1

.547

1.31

40.

009

-0.0

220.

061

-0.0

24-0

.109

-0.0

32-0

.101

0.05

5-0

.007

-0.4

03**

Plan

t he

ight

(cm

)-0

.338

0.27

10.

043

-0.0

53-0

.061

0.11

90.

339

0.06

40.

180

-0.1

030.

486

0.94

6**

Ear

leng

th (

cm)

0.24

20.

127

0.01

0-0

.227

-0.2

32-0

.061

0.22

30.

032

0.44

8-0

.118

0.46

60.

911*

*Ea

r ci

rcum

fere

nce

(cm

)0.

512

-0.2

480.

008

-0.1

63-0

.322

0.08

90.

407

0.03

80.

276

-0.1

210.

452

0.92

6**

No.

of

kern

el r

ows

per

ear

0.27

6-0

.237

0.03

90.

106

-0.2

190.

409

0.36

10.

044

0.13

1-0

.100

0.15

10.

962*

*N

o. o

f ke

rnel

s pe

r ro

w0.

428

-0.2

650.

027

-0.0

93-0

.242

0.08

70.

541

0.04

20.

356

-0.1

120.

186

0.95

4**

100

grai

n w

eigh

t (g

)0.

089

-0.4

740.

031

-0.0

82-0

.136

0.06

50.

256

0.55

40.

153

-0.0

610.

156

0.54

9**

Shel

ling

(%)

0.24

4-0

.265

0.01

6-0

.204

-0.1

780.

108

0.38

60.

027

0.49

8-0

.069

0.14

70.

710*

*G

rain

yie

ld p

er p

lant

(g)

-0.1

25-0

.581

0.03

5-0

.215

-0.3

120.

104

0.48

60.

043

0.27

61.

020

0.25

50.

987*

*Fo

dder

yie

ld (

t/ha)

0.17

0-0

.018

0.04

3-0

.217

-0.2

990.

041

0.20

70.

029

0.15

1-0

.065

0.48

70.

527*

*1.

000

R=

0.38

16

*-S

igni

fican

t at 5

% le

vel

*

*-Si

gnifi

cant

at 1

% le

vel

STUDIES ON YIELD RELATED TRAITS


The bacterial stalk rot (Erwinia chrysanthemi pv. zeae)and brown stripe downy mildew (Sclerophthora rayssiaevar. zeae) are important diseases of maize causing significantreduction in grain yield (Sharma et al., 1993). These diseasescan be managed with biocides. However, resource starvedfarmers can not afford to use costly chemicals. Moreover,efficacy of chemicals is usually reduced by continued rainsduring the cropping season. Hence, losses due to diseasescan be mitigated by cultivation of resistant varieties. Keepingthis in view, some Indian hybrid and composite stocks wereevaluated against these diseases for identification ofresistant sources.

A group of 201 hybrid and composite stocks ofdifferent maturity groups obtained from Directorate of MaizeResearch, New Delhi, was planted during kharif 2009 and2010 at experimental farm of HAREC, Dhaulakuan. Bacterial

stalk rot epiphytotics were created by inoculating about 75-100 plants/entry with 48 hours old cell suspension of Erwiniachrysanthemi pv zeae at pre-tasseling stage usinghypodermic syringe method. Plants were whorl inoculatedwith downy mildew infected leaf bits at 30 days stage. Thedata on incidence of bacterial stalk rot was recorded as percent wilted plants after 20 days of inoculations. The data forbrown stripe downy mildew was recorded on 0-5 scale (0-2.0- highly resistant, 2.1-2.5 - resistant,2.6-3.0 – moderatelyresistant, >3.0 – susceptible) at pre-tasseling stage. The leftover seed of each entry was evaluated during the subsequentkharif season to confirm their reaction to thesediseases.

Fourteen hybrids were highly resistant to bacterial stalkrot and thirty stocks showed highly resistant reaction tobrown stripe downy mildew. Twenty five stocks with less than20% stalk rot incidence were resistant to bacterial stalk rot and

Screening of maize genotypes for resistance to bacterial stalk rot and brownstripe downy mildew

AKHILESH SINGH1 AND DHANBIR SINGH

CSKHPKV, HAREC, Dhaulakuan, Sirmour-173 001

Key words: Bacterial Stalk Rot, Brown Stripe Downy Mildew, Resistance, Maize, Zea mays

SHORT COMMUNICATION


Table 1. Maize genotypes resistant to Erwinia stalk rot and brown stripe downy mildew

Maize diseases Highly Resistant Resistant

Erwinia stalk rot (Erwinia JCY 2-7 X HKI 163-1, , BISCO-74, PAC-799, PLM-21, L-183, EHL-162-308, PMSW-4, PMSW-chrysanthemi pv zeae) NMH-731, NMH-920, NMH-958, NK-6617, 309, PMSW-310, PMSW-311, MALVIYA

KMH-548, C-1945, KF-105, BIO 9681, MAKKA-2, VEH-09-2, REH-2102, JH-31314, SEED TECH 2324, FH-3506, REH-2002, JH-31285, JH-31336, BML7 X HKI 163-1, HKI

1128 X HKI 163 – 1, KMH-218, MUKHYA-108,KDMH-017, NMH-803, MCH-41, MCH-42, KH717, KMH-3712, COMP. R-2007-1, HQPM-20.

Brown stripe downy mildew KNMH-40901, KNMH-40902, KNMH-40904, PMSW-4, PMSQ-5, REH-2101, REH-2102, REH-(Sclerophthora rayssiae CMH08-154, HKH-406, IDX-2901, BMH-107, 2103, JH-31314, -31285, HKI 1105 X HKI 163-1,var. zeae) HKI 1126 X HKI 163, LAXMI 288, BISCO-74, BML7 X HKI 163-1, KMH-3426, MUKHYA-108,

BISCO-574, PAC-799, JKMH-7005, JH-31308, SARPANCH-171, KDMH-017, HM-9, FH-3478,X 713401, X-403, LAXMI-9495, MO5008, FQH-76, DH-177, JH-31240, JH-31242, EH-1858,PHS-520247, JKMH-8003, BISCO-4564, EH-1877, VEHQPM-3018, VEHQPM-3027,BL-2801, HTCH-5401, MCH-38, JH-31110,FH-3463, FH-3464, FH-3473, FH-3358,VIVEK QPM-9

23 were resistant to brown stripe downy mildew. Eight stocksviz., ‘HKH407’, ‘JH-12114’, ‘BMH-109’, ‘MCH-40’, ‘BIO-265’,‘HQPM-7’, ‘KMH SUPER-244’, ‘HKH-308’ showed multiple

disease reaction to bacterial stalk rot and brown stripedowny mildew (Table 1). Sources of resistance amonginbreds, hybrids and composites have also been reportedagainst bacterial stalk rot (Ebron et al., 1987) and brown stripedowny mildew (Sharma and Payal, 1990).

SCREENING OF MAIZE GENOTYPES FOR DISEASE RESISTANCE 135

The hybrids ‘HKH407’, ‘JH-12114’, ‘BMH-109’, ‘MCH-40’, ‘BIO-265’, ‘HQPM-7’, ‘KMH SUPER-244’, ‘HKH-308’showed multiple disease reaction to bacterial stalk rot andbrown stripe downy mildew. Multiple resistance has beenreported against maydis leaf blight and brown stripe downymildew (Dey et al., 1993), bacterial stalk rot, brown stripedowny mildew and maydis leaf blight (Basandrai et al., 2000).

Interestingly ‘BIO 9681’, ‘SEED TECH 2324’, ‘MALVIYAMAKKA-2’, ‘HQPM-20’, ‘BISCO-74’, ‘VIVEK QPM-9’,‘HQPM-7’, ‘KMH SUPER-244’ and ‘HKH-308’ were identifiedgenotypes, which may be directly recommended in diseaseprone areas. Hence, the parental inbred lines of resistantstocks may be helpful to work out genetics of resistanceagainst these diseases, for their utilization in developmentof resistant hybrids.

REFERENCESBasandrai, A. K., Singh, Akhilesh and Kalia, V. (2000). Multiple disease

resistance in Indian maize hybrids and composites. India J. Pl.Genet. Resources 13(2): 188-190

Dey, S. K., Dhillon, B. S., Kanta, U., Sekhon S. S., Saxena, V. K.,Malhi, N. S. and Khera, A. S. (1993). Resistance to multi-bioticstresses in maize. J. Ent. Res. 17: 75-80.

Ebron, L. A., Tolintino, M. S. and Lantin, M. M. (1987). Screeningfor bacterial stalk rot resistance in corn. Philippine. J. CropSci. 12: 31-32.

Sharma, R. C. and Payak, M. M. (1990). Durable resistance to twoleaf blights in two maize inbred lines. Theor. Appl. Genet. 80:443-544.

Sharma, R. C., Carlos, De Leon and Payak, M. M. (1993). Diseases ofMaize in south and southeast Asia: Problems and Progress. CropProtection 12: 414-422.

LANDMARK PAPERS OF MAIZE RESEARCH IN 2012

S.No Paper Journal Impact Key findingfactor

1 Hufford et al. (2012). Comparative population 35.532 A comprehensive assessment of the evolution of moderngenomics of maize domestication and maize suggesting the effect of breeding on genomeimprovement. Nature Genetics 44: 808–811 expression.

2 Chia et al. (2012). Maize HapMap2 35.532 Reports that structural variations are pervasive inidentifies extant variation from a genome the maize genome and are enriched at loci associatedin flux. Nature Genetics 44: 803-807 with important traits.

3 Jiao et al. (2012). Genome-wide genetic 35.532 The results show that modern breeding has introducedchanges during modern breeding of maize. highly dynamic genetic changes into the maize genome.Nature Genetics 44: 812-815 Artificial selection has affected thousands of targets,

including genes and non-genic regions, leading to areduction in nucleotide diversity and an increase in theproportion of rare alleles.

4 Riedelsheime et al. (2012). Genomic and 35.532 Presents a complementary approach that exploitsmetabolic prediction of complex large-scale genomic and metabolic information toheterotic traits in hybrid maize. predict complex, highly polygenic traits in hybrid testNature Genetics 44: 217-220 crosses of diverse dent inbred lines.

5 Du et al. (2012). Dual binding of 32.403 Unravels the epigenetic control of gene expression bychromomethylase domains to solving crystal structure of maize Chromomethylase3H3k9ME2-containing nucleosomes homolog ZMET2.directs DNA methylation in plants.Cell 151: 167-180

6 Kelliher and Walbot. (2012). Hypoxia triggers 31.201 Shows that germline cell identity in maize is specified bymeiotic fate acquisition in maize. cellular redox potential under the influence of theScience 337: 345-348 environment, and not by cell lineage, as previously

thought.7 Ding et al. (2012).How does plant cell wall 31.201 A breakthrough that could lead to optimizing sugar yields

nanoscale architecture correlate with and lowering the costs of making maize based biofuels byenzymatic digestibility? Science 338: lignin modification.1055 1060

8 Shen et al. (2012). Engineering a 23.268 Transgenic maize with an engineered version of xylanasethermoregulated intein-modified xylanase that can pave way for low cost cellulosic ethanol forinto maize for consolidated lignocellulosic energy security.biomass processing. Nature Biotechnology30:1131-1136

9 Robert et al. (2012). A specialist root herbivore 17.557 Explains the voracious behaviour of the billion dollarexploits defensive metabolites to locate maize insect- rootworm. Natural maize toxins were foundnutritious tissues. Ecology Letters 15 : 55-64 to be indispensable indicator for rootworm in search of

food.10 Bell et al. (2012). Putting the brakes on a 17.557 A compelling entomology investigation analyzing nearly

cycle: bottom-up effects damp cycle 50 years data on the larval population of the Europeanamplitude. Ecology Letters 15: 310–318 corn borer showing that Bt maize substantially reduced

pest populations over a landscape in large enoughproportions. The first demonstration that host plantmodification is a successful strategy of controlling pests.

11 Paschold et al. (2012). Complementation 13.608 Sheds light on mechanism of hybrid vigour by providingcontributes to transcriptome complexity in evidence for interactions of root regulatory factors frommaize (Zea mays L.) hybrids relative to their one parental genome with target genes from the otherinbred parents. Genome Research 22: parental genome.2445-2454

12 Li et al. (2012). Genic and nongenic 13.608 Presents first systematic tabulation of the relativecontributions to natural variation of contribution of different genomic regions to quantitativequantitative traits in maize. Genome Research trait variation in maize.22: 2436-2444

13 Bolduc et al. (2012). Unraveling the 11.659 Provides a blueprint to improve desired traits, such asKNOTTED1 regulatory network in maize yield, in maize, in addition to serving as a foundation formeristems. Genes and Development 26: a systems approach to understanding stem cell function1685-1690 maize.

(Compiled and edited by Pranjal Yadava and Ishwar Singh, Directorate of Maize Research, Pusa Campus, New Delhi 110012)

Maize Journal 1(2): 136 (October 2012)

MAIZE TECHNOLOGISTS ASSOCIATION OF INDIADIRECTORATE OF MAIZE RESEARCH, PUSA CAMPUS, NEW DELHI 110012

List of Members as on 31-12-2012

Sl No. Name Membership ID Address

LIFE MEMBERS

1 Dr. B.S. Dhillon 101 Vice-Chancellor, Punjab Agricultural University,Ludhiana 141004 (Punjab)

2 Dr. K.S.Hooda 102 Principal Scientist (Plant Pathology), Directorate ofMaize Research, Pusa Campus, New Delhi-110012

3 Dr. K.P. Singh 103 Senior Scientist (Computer Application), Directorateof Maize Research, Pusa Campus, New Delhi-110012

4 Dr. Ishwar Singh 104 Principal Scientist (Plant Physiology), Directorate ofMaize Research, Pusa Campus, New Delhi-110012

5 Mr. Yaganti Venkateswarlu 105 103, Aparna’s Chandradeep, Road No.7, Banjarahills,Hyderabad -500030 (A.P.)

6 Dr. Ashok Kumar 107 Principal Scientist (Agronomy), Directorate of MaizeResearch, Pusa Campus, New Delhi-110012

7 Dr. V.K. Yadav 110 Senior Scientist (Agril. Extension), Directorate ofMaize Research, Pusa Campus, New Delhi-110012

8 Ms. Suby S.B. 111 Scientist (Entomology), Directorate of MaizeResearch, Pusa Campus, New Delhi-110012

9 Dr. Pranjal Yadava 112 Scientist (Agrl Biotechnology), Directorate of MaizeResearch, Pusa Campus, New Delhi-110012

10 Dr. Shankar Lal Jat 113 Scientist (Agronomy), Directorate of MaizeResearch, Pusa Campus, New Delhi-110012

11 Dr. Aditya Kumar Singh 114 Principal Scientist (Agronomy), Directorate of MaizeResearch, Pusa Campus, New Delhi-110012

12 Dr. (Mrs.) Jyoti Kaul 115 Principal Scientist (Plant Breeding), Directorate ofMaize Research, Pusa Campus, New Delhi-110012

13 Dr. Dharam Paul Chaudhary 116 Senior Scientist (Biochemistry), Directorate of MaizeResearch, Pusa Campus, New Delhi-110012

14 Ms. Sapna 117 Scientist (Biochemistry), Directorate of MaizeResearch, Pusa Campus, New Delhi-110012

15 Dr. (Ms.) Meena Shekhar 118 Principal Scientist (Plant Pathology), Directorate ofMaize Research, Pusa Campus, New Delhi-110012

16 Dr. Ganpati Mukri 122 Scientist (Plant breeding), Directorate of MaizeResearch, Pusa Campus, New Delhi-110012

17 Dr. C.M. Parihar 123 Scientist (Agronomy), Directorate of MaizeResearch, Pusa Campus, New Delhi-110012

18 Dr. (Mrs.) P. Lakshmi Soujanya 124 Scientist (Entomology), DMR-Maize WinterNursery, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad -500030 (A.P.)

19 Dr. Ramesh Kumar 075 Senior Scientist (Plant Breeding), Directorate ofMaize Research, Pusa Campus, New Delhi-110012

20 Dr. S.K. Chandel 010 Vibha Seeds, Plot # 21, Sector 1, HUDA TechnoEnclave, Hitech City Road, Madhapur,Hyderabad 500081. Andhra Pradesh

21 Dr. M.C. Kamboj 014 Assistant Scientist (Plant Breeding), CCSHAURegional Research Station, Uchani, Karnal- 132001,Haryana

22 Dr. Bijender Pal 026 Flat No. 127, Lilac Tower, Serene County, L & TInfo city, Telecom Nagar, Gachibowli,Hyderabad 500 032, A.P.

23 Dr. Bashir Ahmad Alaie 040 Junior Scientist (Agronomy), KD Research Station,S.K.U.A&T, Srinagar- 190001 (J&K)


138 138

24 Dr. C.S. Singh 064 Assistant Agronomist, Deptt. of Plant Breeding &Genetics, BAU, Kanke, Ranchi- 834006 (Jharkhand)

25 Dr. A.K. Sinha 065 Assistant Agronomist, RMD college of Agriculture andResearch Station, Ajirma, Ambikapur-497001, Surguja(Chhattisgarh)

26 Dr. S.K Sinha 070 Assistant Breeder, RMD college of Agriculture andResearch Station, Ajirma, Ambikapur-497001,Surguja (Chhattisgarh)

27 Dr. H.C. Singh 004 Maize Breeder (Plant Breeding), Department ofGenetics and Plant Breeding, C.S. Azad University ofAg. & Tech., Kanpur – 208002 (U.P.)

28 Dr. V.K. Pradkar 067 Senior Agronomist, JNKVV Zonal AgriculturalResearch Station, Chhindwara-48001 (M.P.)

29 Dr. Ajay Kumar 002 Assistant Breeder (Plant Breeding), Tirhut College ofAgriculture, Dholi, Bihar

30 Dr. (Mrs.) Kavita Singh 005 Assistant Physiologist, Tirhut College of Agriculture,Dholi, Bihar

31 Dr. Hema Reddy HB 007 Monsanto Research Center 44/2A, Second Floor,Vasant’s Business Park, Bellary Road, NH 7, Hebbal,Bangalore- 560092.

32 Dr. R.M. Kachapur 015 H.No 49, Krishinagar, Kelgeri Road, Dharwad -580001(Karnataka)

33 Dr. V.R. Kulkarni 016 Assistant Pathologist, Agriculture Research Station,Arbhavi - 591306, Belgaum (Karnataka)

34 Dr. K. Murali Krishna 017 Scientist (Plant Breeding), Maize Research Centre,ARI, ANGRAU, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad- 500030

35 Dr. N.K. Bajpai 029 Entomologist , MPUA&T, RCA, Udaipur-313001,Rajasthan

36 Dr. (Ms.) D. Sreelatha 031 Scientist (Agronomy), Maize Research Centre, ARI,ANGRAU, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad- 500030

37 Dr. (Ms.) K. Sumalini 033 Scientist (Plant Breeding), Agricultural ResearchStation, ANGRAU, Karimnagar-505001 (A.P)

38 Dr. Akhilesh Singh 034 Sr. Plant Pathologist, CSKHPKV Research Station andKrishi Vigyan Kendra Berthin Distt. Bilaspur, 174029(H.P.)

39 Dr. (Ms) M. Chakraborty 042 Assistant Breeder, Deptt. of Plant Breeding &Genetics, BAU, Kanke, Ranchi- 834006 (Jharkhand)

40 Dr. Harleen Kaur 045 Asst. Pathologist , Maize Section, Deptt. of PlantBreeding, Genetics & Biotech, P.A.U. Ludhiana-141004 (Punjab)

41 Dr. S.S. Hallikeri 054 Agricultural Research Station, Arabhavi 591306,Belgaun, Karnataka

42 Dr. G. Shantha Kumar 055 Associate Professor (GPB), Maize Scheme, MARS,UAS Dharwad-5

43 Dr. S.K. Guleria 056 Maize Breeder , CSKHPKV, HAREC, Bajaura, Distt.Kullu- 175125 (Himachal Pradesh)

44 Dr. D.R. Thakur 057 Sr. Agronomist & I/c (Agronomy), CSKHPKV,HAREC, Bajaura, Distt. Kullu- 175125 (HP)

45 Dr. R. Devlash 058 Asst. Pathologist (Plant Pathology), CSKHPKV,HAREC, Bajaura, Distt. Kullu- 175125 (HP)

46 Dr. Dilip Singh 063 Maize Agronomist , MPUA&T, RCA, Udaipur-313001, Rajasthan

47 Dr. A.K. Razdan 069 SKUAT-J, 138/2, Pamposh Colony, Ganipur, Jammu180007 (J & K.)

48 Dr. Amit Bhatnagar 072 Asst. Agronomist, College of Agriculture, G.B. PantUniversity of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar-263145 (Uttarakhand)

49 Dr. Mahinder Singh 073 Agronomist, KVK, Near Rajgarh Naha, Jhabua 457661(M.P.)

ANNUAL MEMBERS

50 Dr. Pradyumn Kumar 068 Principal Scientist (Entomology), Directorate ofMaize Research, Pusa Campus, New Delhi-110012

LIST OF MEMBERS (2012)

139

51 Dr. Dev Raj Lenka 050 Maize Breeder, Department of Plant Breeding &Genetic, College of Agriculture, OUAT,Bhubaneswar-751003. Odisha

52 Dr. (Ms.) Usha Singh 051 Nutritionist (Nutrition), Tirhut College of Agriculture,Dholi, Bihar

53 Dr. Hargilas 071 Asst. Agronomist), Agricultural Research Station,Borwat Farm, Dahot Road, Banswara, - 327001.(Rajasthan)

54 S. Muralikrishna 106 Maize Breeder, Yaganti Seeds Pvt Ltd. SY No. 95/2,Gundlapochampalli, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy(Dist) Hyderabad-500014

55 Dr. Sangit Kumar 119 Principal Scientist (Plant Pathology), Directorate ofMaize Research, Pusa Campus, New Delhi-110012

56 Dr. Vinay Mahajan 120 Principal Scientist (Plant Breeding), Directorate ofMaize Research, Pusa Campus, New Delhi-110012

57 Dr. Mukesh Mohan 001 Flat No. 504, Block D, PET Basheerabad, Hyderabad500 067 (A.P.)

58 Dinesh M. Chiplonker 003 Breeder, Bayer BioScience Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 13,SY. No. P 64/2 Software Layout, Madhapur,Hyderabad- 500081 (A.P.)

59 Dr. Ashish Srivastava 008 Monsanto Research Center 44/2A, Second Floor,Vasant’s Business Park, Bellary Road, NH 7, Hebbal,Bangalore - 560092, India

60 Dr. Ajaz Ahmad Lone 009 Junior Scientist (Agronomy), KD Research Station,S.K.U.A&T, Srinagar- 190001 (J&K)

61 Dr. J.N. Hanumatharaya 011 Hytech Seed India Pvt. Ltd. R&D Centre:ICRISAT Bulilding 303, Room No. 15-23 Patancheru,Hyderabad - 502 324, A.P.

62 Dr. Om Prakash J. Patil 013 Manager- Product Development (C&OS), BayerBioscience Pvt Ltd, Plot No. 13, Sy. NO. P64/2,Software Layout, Madhapur, Hyderabad- 500081,Andhra Pradesh

63 Dr. M.R. Sudarshan 018 Principal Scientist (Plant Breeding), Maize ResearchCentre, ARI, ANGRAU, Rajendra Nagar,Hyderabad- 500030

64 Dr. Maninder Singh Grewal 019 Senior Breeder & I/c Maize Section, Deptt. of PlantBreeding, Genetics & Biotech, P.A.U. Ludhiana-141004 (Punjab)

65 Dr. Pawan Arora 020 Bioseed Research India Pvt Limited, Plot No. 206,Road No. 14, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – 500033. A.P.

66 Dr. Gaurav Yadav 021 Syngenta India Ltd (Seeds Division), Plot No : 9-1-164/a, 165,166, 4th floor, Amsari Faust, S. D. Road,Beside Hotel Basera, Near Clock tower, Opp. SigmaHospital, Secunderabad – 500025. A.P

67 Dr. R.S. Sudan 022 Maize Breeder, Maize Research Centre (AICRP),SKUA&T-J, Sansoo, Behind 71 Sub Area OfficersMess, Via P.O. Garhi, Udhampur, J&K

68 Dr. N.S. Barua 023 Maize Breeder, Regional Agricultural Research Station,AAU, Gossaigaon, Telipara Dist. Kokrajhar-783360(Assam)

69 Dr. J.P. Shahi 024 Senior Maize Breeder, Institute of AgriculturalSciences, BHU, Varanasi 221005 (U.P.)

70 Dr. J.M. Patel 025 SDAU, Maize Research Station, Bhiloda, Gujrat71 Dr. Mritunjay Kumar 027 Maize Agronomist, Tirhut College of Agriculture,

Dholi, Bihar72 Dr. T. Pradeep 030 Principal Scientist (Plant Breeding), Maize Research

Centre, ARI, ANGRAU, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad-50003

73 Dr. B.L. Baheti 032 Nematologist, MPUA&T, RCA, Udaipur-31300174 Dr. (Mr.) Y. Siva Lakshmi 035 Scientist (Agronomy), Maize Research Centre, ARI,

ANGRAU, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad- 50003075 Dr. Veer Singh 036 Asst. Soil Scientist, Department of Plant Pathology,

College of Agriculture, GB PUAT, Pantnagar-263145,Uttrakhand

76 Dr. Sunil Kumar Bhatt 037 H.N. 111, Varun Towers, Begumpet,Hyderabad 500016 AP

LIST OF MEMBERS (2012)

77 K.P. Tiwari 038 Senior Scientist, Bioscience (P) Ltd, C 39. Bharanicomplex Minister Road, Secundrabad (A.P)

78 Dr. R.N. Bunker 039 Asst. Pathologist, MPUA&T, RCA, Udaipur-313001,Rajasthan

79 Dr. Akhil Verma 041 Maize Agronomist, Maize Research Centre (AICRP),SKUA & T-J, Sansoo, Behind 71 Sub Area OfficersMess, Via P.O. Garhi, Udhampur, J&K

80 Dr. (Ms.) M. Anuradha 043 Senior Scientist (Entomlogy), Maize Research Centre,ARI, ANGRAU, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad- 500030

81 Dr. G. Manjulatha 044 Senior Scientist (Agronomy) & Head, AgriculturalResearch Station, ANGRAU, Karimnagar, A.P.

82 Dr. Uttam Chandel 046 Asst. Breeder, Shivalik Agricultural Research andExtension Centre, Kangra-176001,H.P)

83 Dr. B.S. Mankotia 047 Asst. Professor (Agronomy), Shivalik AgriculturalResearch and Extension Centre, Kangra-176001,H.P.

84 Dr. K.T. Pandurange Gowda 048 Dean, College of Agriculture, V.C. Farm, Mandya(Karnataka)

85 Dr. (Ms). D. Shobha 049 Asst. Nutritionist, Zonal Agricultural Research Station,V.C. Farm, Mandya (Karnataka)

86 Dr. S.S. Verma 052 Senior Breeder, Department of Plant Pathology,College of Agriculture, GB PUAT, Pantnagar-263145,Uttrakhand

87 Dr. Vijay Kumar Tiwari 053 Ist Floor, Corporation Bank Building, Near Satya SaiPetrol Pump NH-7, Medchal. Ranga.Reddy Distt.501401 (AP)

88 Dr. Puttur Naik 059 Maize Breeder, Zonal Agricultural Research Station,VC Farm, Mandya (Karnataka)

89 Dr. Mahesh Kumar 060 Assistant Scientist (Agronomy), Cotton ResearchStation (CCSHAU), Sirsa 125055 (Haryana)

90 Dr. M. C. Wali 061 Senior Maize Breeder, Agriculture Research Station,Arbhavi- 591306, Belgaum (Karnataka)

91 Udaya Shetty 062 Flat No 215, Pyramid Green- Woods, AYYAPPATemple Road, BYATARAYANAPURA, Bangalore-560092, Karnataka

92 Dr. Jatender Manan 066 Technology development Manager, Prem Street,Backside Police Station, Chheharata, Amritsar-143105, Punjab

93 Dr. J.C. Sekhar 076 Principal Scientist & I/c DMR-Maize Winter Nursery,Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad- 500030

94 Dr. R.B. Dubey 077 Maize Breeder, MPUA&T, RCA, Udaipur-313001,Rajasthan

95 Dr. S.M. Khanorkar 078 Senior Maize Breeder, Main Maize Research Station,Anand Agricultural University, Godhra, Panchmahals-389001 (Gujarat)

96 Dr. U.M. Patel 079 Asst. Scientist (Extension), Main Maize ResearchStation, Anand Agricultural University, Godhra,Panchmahals-389001 (Gujarat)

97 Mr. K.H. Patel 080 Asst. Breeder, Main Maize Research Station, AnandAgricultural University, Godhra, Panchmahals- 389001(Gujarat)

98 Dr. Rajesh Pandya 081 Agricultural Research Station, Borwat Farm, DahotRoad, Banswara-327001 Rajsthan

INSTITUTIONAL MEMBERS99 Monsanto India Limited 006 Monsanto Research Center, 44/2A, Second Floor,

Vasant’s Business Park, Bellary Road, NH 7, Hebbal,Bangalore- 560092. India

100 SM Sehgel Foundation 012 ICRISAT, Patancheru- 502 324, Andhra Pradesh101 Yaganti Seeds Pvt Ltd. 109 3rd Floor, D. No. B-2-277/45,UBI Colony, Road No.3,

Hyderabad-500034 (A.P.)102 Hytech Seed India Pvt. Ltd, 125 8-2-311/E/1 Mithila Nagar, Road No 10, Banjara Hills

Hyderabad-500034103 Adventa India Limited 126 Krishnama House Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500034104 Dow AgroScience India Pvt Ltd 127 Unit No. 1, 1st Floor, Corporate Park,V.N. Purav marg,

Chembur, Mumbai-400071

LIST OF MEMBERS (2012)140


Aim and ScopeThe Maize Journal publishes peer-reviewed original

research papers, short communications and critical reviewsin English on all aspects of maize research and relatedindustries (starch, oil, protein, alcoholic beverages, foodsweeteners and bio-fuel, etc.) from around the globe. TheMaize Journal is published half yearly by the MaizeTechnologists Association of India (MTAI). All contributionsto this Journal are peer reviewed and published free of charge.

Legal PoliciesAll manuscript submitted to the Maize Journal should

not have been published in any form or in any otherpublication, and become the property of the Association. Allstatement and opinions expressed in the manuscripts arethose of the authors, and not those of the editor(s) andpublishers disclaim any responsibility for such material. Theeditor(s) and publishers also do not guarantee, warrant orendorse any product or service advertised in the journal, nordo they guarantee any claim made by the manufacturer ofsuch product of service.

Article types and submissionSubmissions that fall on the below mentioned categories

would be considered for publication:

Invited reviewsAuthors interested in writing a review article should

contact the Editor-in-Chief in advance by submitting asummary of the intended manuscript. The Editor-in-Chiefmay then send an official letter of invitation with furtherinstructions.

Original PapersOriginal papers should not exceed 15 double-spaced

pages with 2.5 cm margins including tables and figures.

Short CommunicationsShort Communications should not exceed 6 double-

spaced pages with 2.5 cm margins including tables andfigures.

Authors are requested to submit their completemanuscript (text in MS word, figures in excel andphotographs saved as JPEG images/ ppt slide) to the Editor-in-Chief, Maize Journal, Directorate of Maize Research, PusaCampus, New Delhi - 110012 preferably by e-mail<[email protected]>.

MANUSCRIPT ORGANISATIONSubmitted manuscripts should conform to the following

format and sequence. Type double spaced, and orders the

AUTHORS GUIDELINES

elements comprising the manuscript as follows:• Title Page• Abstract• Key words (maximum eight)• Introduction• Materials and Methods• Results• Discussion (may be combined with results)• Conclusions• Appendix (if any)• Acknowledgements• References• Tables• Figures/Plates• Figure/Plates legends

Title PageThis should contain the page title of the manuscript,

which consist of a concise and specific designation of thetopic to be discussed. This should be followed by the name(s)and addresses of the author(s).E-mail address of thecorresponding author should be given in foot note.

AbstractThe abstract should indicate concisely (normally in less

than 300 words) the scope and main conclusions of the paper.Do not use abbreviations, footnotes, or references in theabstract.

KeywordPlease provide up to eight additional keywords below

the abstract. Keywords should express the precise contentof the manuscript, as they are used for indexing purposes.

Main textThe main text must be divided onto the following

sections: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results andDiscussion (together or separately), Conclusion (ifnecessary), Acknowledgements and References. These majorheadings should be separated from the text by 2 line spacesabove and 1 line space below. Each heading should be incapital letters and flush left. Secondary headings should beflush with the left margin and have the first letter of all mainwords capitalized.

IntroductionA brief review of the background to be researched with

a listing of important references and views based on themost recent literature on the topic(s). This should providethe current state of work in the relevant field and the reasonsfor carrying out the experiments, as well as clear statementsof the objectives.

142

Materials and MethodsA concise but complete presentation of the techniques

employed to conduct the research, listing reference toprevious work that describes the various techniquesemployed should be discussed

Results and DiscussionThis section should focus on the fulfillment of stated

objectives as given in the Introduction, Figures and Tablesshould be used to clarify and amplify obtained results withoutduplication. Sufficient statistical verification should beprovided to identify differences in significance.

References1. All publications cited in the text should be presented in

a list of references following the text of the manuscript.The manuscript should be carefully checked to ensurethat the spelling of author’s names and dates are exactlythe same in the text as in the reference list.

2. In the text refer to the author’s name (without initial)and year of publication, followed - if necessary - by ashort reference to appropriate pages. Examples: “SincePeterson (1988) has shown that...” “This is inagreement with results obtained later (Kramer, 1989, pp.12-16)”.

3. If reference is made in the text to a publication writtenby more than two authors the name of the first authorshould be used followed by “et al.”. This indication,however, should never be used in the list of references.In this list names of first author and co-authors shouldbe mentioned.

4. References cited together in the text should be arrangedchronologically. The list of references should bearranged alphabetically on authors’ names, andchronologically per author. Publications by the sameauthor(s) in the same year should be listed as 1974a,1974b, etc.

5. Use the following system for arranging your references,please note the proper position of the punctuation:

a. For periodicalsCampos, H.., Cooper, M., Habben, J.E., Edmeades, G.O.

and Schussler, J.R. (2004). Improving drought tolerance inmaize: a view from industry. Field Crops Res. 90: 19-34.

b. For edited symposia, special issues, etc., published in aperiodical

Rice, K. (1992). Theory and conceptual issues. In: Gall,G.A.E. and Staton, M. (Eds.), Integrating ConservationBiology and Agricultural Production. Agriculture,Ecosystems and Environment. 42: 9-26.

c. For booksGaugh, Jr., H.G. (1992). Statistical Analysis of Regional

Yield Trials. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

d. For multi-author booksDeLacy, I.H., Cooper, M. and Lawrence, P.K. (1990).

Pattern analysis over years of regional variety trials:relationship among sites. In: Kang, M.S. (Ed.), Genotype byEnvironment Interaction and Plant Breeding. Louisiana StateUniversity, Baton Rouge, LA, pp. 189-213.6. Always use the standard abbreviation of a journal’s

name according to the ISSN List of Title WordAbbreviations, see http://www.issn.org/en/node/344.

7. Work accepted for publication but not yet publishedshould be referred to as “in press”.

8. References concerning unpublished data and “personalcommunications” should not be cited in the referencelist but may be mentioned in the text.

Tables and FiguresThe tables (numbered and with a heading) and figure

legends should be typed on separate sheets of paper andshould be self-explanatory without reference to text. Eachtable must have a title and should be numbered with Arabicnumerical (1, 2). Explanatory matter should be given asfootnotes. Units, dimensions, terms, symbols, abbreviationetc., recommended by the Systéme International d’ Unités(SI) should be used.

Line drawings may be produced using computer graphicswith laser printing. Figure caption should be typed in singlespace and should extend across the width of the figure. Thequantity measured should be given alongside the ordinateand abscissa followed by appropriate dimensions in SI unitsin brackets. Locally used units and measures are notacceptable.

PhotographsAll photographs should be saved as JPEG image with a

range of tone and good contrast. If necessary photographsshould be supplied as clear color or black and white printson glossy paper. A descriptive legend must accompany eachillustration and must define all abbreviations used therein.Reproduction in color will have to be approved by the editor.The extra cost for color reproduction (normally US $ 75.00per page for one or more plates) will be charged to theauthor(s).

ProofGalley proofs will be sent to the corresponding author

for final correction via email as pdf-file. Alterations otherthan the correction of printing errors will be charged to theauthor(s).

ReprintsAn electronic reprint (PDF) will be sent to the

corresponding author free of charge. However, for printversion, a nominal fee will be charged on per page basis. ForIndia Rs 100 and for abroad US$ 10.00 will be charged perpage for reprints up to a maximum of 25 reprints.

AUTHOR INSTRUCTIONS 142

World’s first drought tolerant transgenic crop is maize

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has approved a transgenic variety ofmaize that is genetically engineered for tolerating drought. This maize was planted in theUnited States for the first time in 2012 as a limited commercial launch product. Full scaleplantings are expected in 2013. The event once again marked the trend of enhanced use ofgenetic engineering in maize improvement. Maize is the world’s first crop in which droughttolerance trait has been approved.

The drought tolerant transgenic maize contains the gene for “cold shock protein B” (cspB)from Bacillis subtilis. Cold shock proteins were discovered (and named) due to their rapidaccumulation in cold shocked bacterial cells. Some CSPs such as CSPB act as RNAchaperones, which help to maintain normal physiological performance during stress eventsby b inding and unfo ld ing tangled RNA molecules so tha t they can func t ionnormally. Castiglioni et al. described this initial research, published in Plant Physiology in2008.

The elite maize transgenic CspB-Zm event 1, was assessed in several years of field trials.The transgenic locus was crossed into three different hybrid genotypes, which were testedunder three physiological conditions (well-watered, drought immediately preceding flowering,drought during grain fill) at five replicated locations. Non-transgenic controls suffered 50%or 30-40% yield losses under the two drought stresses, respectively, while cspB linesproduced 11-21% relative yield gains. The yield stability of CspB-Zm event 1 was alsoanalyzed over four years of testing in three hybrid test-crosses, where cspB provided anaverage yield benefit of 10.5% (with a range of 6.7-13.4%). CspB lines were also testedunder dryland (non-irrigated) conditions with a field design that approximated normalcommercial planting densities (rather than a more open field plot design). Of the sites thathappened to experience seasonal drought during the experimental timeframe, the maximumyield gain of the transgenic lines was 15%.

The complete data about the product is available in the public domain on USDA-APHISportal. American farmers are expected to go for large scale plantings of drought tolerantmaize in 2013 season. This transgenic drought tolerance trait is also expected to be availableto the African farmers by 2017, under the aegis of not-for-profit and humanitarian WaterUse Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) project led by the International Maize and WheatImprovement Centre (CIMMYT).

Compiled and edited by Pranjal Yadava and Ishwar Singh, Directorate of MaizeResearch, Pusa Campus, New Delhi 110012.(Based on commentary by Matt DiLeo, Biology Fortified, Inc. and Castiglioni, et al., PlantPhysiol. 147 : 446-455, 2008)

Published by Dr. Ishwar Singh, Secretary on behalf of the Maize Technologists Association of India, and printed at AlphaPrintographics (India), WZ 572/O, Naraina, New Delhi 110028 (Phone : 09999039940). All disputes are subject to the exclusivejurisdiction of competent courts and forums in Delhi/New Delhi only.

Editor-in-Chief: Dr. Ashok Kumar

97

102

106

110

113

118

121

124

126

131

134

136

137

141

K. SUMALINI AND G. MANJULATHA. Heritability, correlation and path coefficient analysis in maize

JYOTI KAUL, USHA NARA, SARJEET KUMAR SHARMA, RAMESH KUMAR, SAIN DASS ANDJ.C. SEKHAR. Genetic variability studies in elite inbred lines of sweet corn

ABDUL NASIR, VAIBHAV K. SINGH AND AKHILESH SINGH. Management of maydis leaf blight usingfungicides and phytoextracts in maize

K.S. HOODA, J.C. SEKHER, VIMLA SINGH, T.A. SREERAMA SETTY2, S.S. SHARMA,V. PARNIDHARAN, R.N. BUNKER AND J. KAUL. Screening of elite maize lines for resistance againstdowny mildews

U. NAGABHUSHANAM AND V. RAJA . Evaluation of maize (Zea mays)-field bean (Dolichos lablab)intercropping system under different fertility management approaches

HARGILAS. Effect of integrated nutrient management on productivity and profitability of qualityprotein maize and soil fertility under southern humid Rajasthan conditions

K. KANAKA DURGA, V. SANDEEP VARMA, D. SREELATHA AND A. VISHNUVARDHAN REDDY. Influ-ence of planting methods, spacing and fertilization on yield and quality of sweet corn

U. M. PATEL, P.M. PATEL, S.M. KHANORKAR AND D.B. PATEL. Utilization of sources ofagricultural information by maize growers of middle Gujarat

ANUP CHANDRA, PRADYUMN KUMAR, SHASHI BALA SINGH, ASHARANI, S.B. SUBY ANDSATYAPAL SINGH. Evaluation of maize germplasm and susceptibility, and DIMBOA role againststem borer (Chilo partellus)

M.C. WALI, R.M. KACHAPUR, V.R. KULKARNI AND S.S. HALLIKERI. Association studies on yieldrelated traits in maize (Zea mays L.)

AKHILESH SINGH AND DHANBIR SINGH. Screening of maize genotypes for resistance to bacterialstalk rot and brown stripe downy mildew

Landmark Papers of Maize Research in 2012

List of Members

Authors Guidelines

MAIZE JOURNAL

An International Journal of Maize Researchand Related Industries

Published by:

Maize Technologists Association of IndiaDirectorate of Maize ResearchPusa Campus, New Delhi - 110 012

Short Communication

Date post:	24-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

AIZE AIZE OURNOURNALAL - Maize Technologists Association ...€¦ · variability, heritability,...

Documents