<p>Root-knot nematode, <italic>Meloidogyne incognita</italic> is associated with lentil, <italic>Lens culinaris</italic> and causes serious damage. Several management practices are recommended to control this nematode but have their own inherent limitations. Therefore, use of resistant cultivars seems to be one of the most desirable alternatives in the development of nematode management systems. Present study was undertaken to screen some cultivars/accessions of lentil against <italic>M. incognita</italic>.</p><p>The accessions used in this study were obtained from Directorate of Pulses Research, Kanpur, India. 15 cm clay pots were filled with 1 kg soil manure mixture in the ratio of 3:1. 4 seeds of <italic>lentil</italic> cultivars/accessions bacterised with <italic>Rhizobium</italic> using a 5% sucrose solution as stocker were sown separately in each plant. After seven days, thinning was done so as to retain only one plant in each pot. After 20 days of 3000 J<sub>2</sub> of <italic>M. incognita</italic> were inoculated. The study was carried out for three months from the date of inoculation. Plant growth (weight & length) were taken. Root-nodule index were assessed as: 0 = no nodulation, 1 = very light nodulation,2 = light nodulation, 3 = moderate nodulation, 4 = heavy nodulation and 5 = very heavy nodulation. Root-gall indices were assessed on the basis of 0–5 scale: 0 = no galls; 1 = 1–2 galls; 2 = 3–10 galls; 3 = 11–30 galls; 4 = 31–100 galls/root system.</p><p>The results showed that out of 12 cultivars/accessions, two cultivars/accessions, DPL-34 and DPL-25 were found to be highly resistant and three cultivars/accessions, DPL-32, DPL-23 and DPL-29 were found to be moderately resistant. Rest of the cultivars/accessions showed varying degree of susceptibility depending upon the degree of root galling caused by <italic>M. incognita</italic>(<xref ref-type="table" rid="tab001">Table 1</xref>). The cultivars/accessions DPL-34 and DPL-25 showed no signs of root galling, and therefore, were considered highly resistant to <italic>M. incognita</italic>. The increase in root galling and decrease in root-nodulation and improvement in plant growth were adequate for determining the susceptibility of lentil accessions to the root-knot nematode (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib001">Das, 1999</xref>; Pandey <italic>et al</italic>., 2002). <table-wrap id="tab001"><label>Table 1</label><caption><p>Reaction of cultivars/accessions of lentil against <italic>Meloidogyne incognita</italic>(Mean of three replicates)</p></caption><table><thead><tr><th colspan="2" align="center">Cultivars/Accessions (I = Inoculated,C = check)</th><th align="center">Root-knot index (0–5)</th><th align="center">Root-nodule index (0–5)</th><th align="center">Reaction<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab001-fn001">*</xref></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><hr /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">DPL-32</td><td align="center">I</td><td align="center">1.0</td><td align="center">4.0</td><td align="center">MR</td></tr><tr><td align="center" /><td align="center">C</td><td align="center">–</td><td align="center">4.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center">DPL-28</td><td align="center">I</td><td align="center">2.6</td><td align="center">3.3</td><td align="center">MS</td></tr><tr><td align="center" /><td align="center">C</td><td align="center">–</td><td align="center">4.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center">DPL-37</td><td align="center">I</td><td align="center">3.3</td><td align="center">2.6</td><td align="center">S</td></tr><tr><td align="center" /><td align="center">C</td><td align="center">–</td><td align="center">3.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center">DPL-38</td><td align="center">I</td><td align="center">3.6</td><td align="center">2.3</td><td align="center">S</td></tr><tr><td align="center" /><td align="center">C</td><td align="center">–</td><td align="center">3.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center">DPL-30</td><td align="center">I</td><td align="center">5.0</td><td align="center">1.0</td><td align="center">HS</td></tr><tr><td align="center" /><td align="center">C</td><td align="center">–</td><td align="center">2.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center">DPL-36</td><td align="center">I</td><td align="center">2.3</td><td align="center">2.0</td><td align="center">MS</td></tr><tr><td align="center" /><td align="center">C</td><td align="center">–</td><td align="center">2.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center">DPL-26</td><td align="center">I</td><td align="center">3.0</td><td align="center">2.3</td><td align="center">MS</td></tr><tr><td align="center" /><td align="center">C</td><td align="center">–</td><td align="center">3.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center">DPL-34</td><td align="center">I</td><td align="center">0.0</td><td align="center">5.0</td><td align="center">HR</td></tr><tr><td align="center" /><td align="center">C</td><td align="center">–</td><td align="center">5.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center">DPL-25</td><td align="center">I</td><td align="center">0.0</td><td align="center">5.0</td><td align="center">HR</td></tr><tr><td align="center" /><td align="center">C</td><td align="center">–</td><td align="center">5.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center">DPL-35</td><td align="center">I</td><td align="center">2.0</td><td align="center">3.0</td><td align="center">MS</td></tr><tr><td align="center" /><td align="center">C</td><td align="center">–</td><td align="center">3.6</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><th colspan="5"><hr /></th></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="5"><fn id="tab001-fn001"><p>*HR = Highly resistant; MR = Moderately resistant; S = Susceptible; MS = Moderately susceptible; HS = Highly susceptible.</p></fn></td></tr></tfoot></table></table-wrap></p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References

APPS

Annals of Plant Protection Sciences

0971-3573

Society of Plant Protection Sciences

apps-13-2-066

SHORT COMMUNICATION

Response of cultivars/accession of lentil to Meloidogyne incognita

Wani

Abdul Hamid

Section of Plant Pathology, P.G. Department of Botany, University of Kashmir, Hazratbal, Srinagar – 190 006, India

92005

132502503

<p>Root-knot nematode, <italic>Meloidogyne incognita</italic> is associated with lentil, <italic>Lens culinaris</italic> and causes serious damage. Several management practices are recommended to control this nematode but have their own inherent limitations. Therefore, use of resistant cultivars seems to be one of the most desirable alternatives in the development of nematode management systems. Present study was undertaken to screen some cultivars/accessions of lentil against <italic>M. incognita</italic>.</p><p>The accessions used in this study were obtained from Directorate of Pulses Research, Kanpur, India. 15 cm clay pots were filled with 1 kg soil manure mixture in the ratio of 3:1. 4 seeds of <italic>lentil</italic> cultivars/accessions bacterised with <italic>Rhizobium</italic> using a 5% sucrose solution as stocker were sown separately in each plant. After seven days, thinning was done so as to retain only one plant in each pot. After 20 days of 3000 J<sub>2</sub> of <italic>M. incognita</italic> were inoculated. The study was carried out for three months from the date of inoculation. Plant growth (weight & length) were taken. Root-nodule index were assessed as: 0 = no nodulation, 1 = very light nodulation,2 = light nodulation, 3 = moderate nodulation, 4 = heavy nodulation and 5 = very heavy nodulation. Root-gall indices were assessed on the basis of 0–5 scale: 0 = no galls; 1 = 1–2 galls; 2 = 3–10 galls; 3 = 11–30 galls; 4 = 31–100 galls/root system.</p><p>The results showed that out of 12 cultivars/accessions, two cultivars/accessions, DPL-34 and DPL-25 were found to be highly resistant and three cultivars/accessions, DPL-32, DPL-23 and DPL-29 were found to be moderately resistant. Rest of the cultivars/accessions showed varying degree of susceptibility depending upon the degree of root galling caused by <italic>M. incognita</italic>(<xref ref-type="table" rid="tab001">Table 1</xref>). The cultivars/accessions DPL-34 and DPL-25 showed no signs of root galling, and therefore, were considered highly resistant to <italic>M. incognita</italic>. The increase in root galling and decrease in root-nodulation and improvement in plant growth were adequate for determining the susceptibility of lentil accessions to the root-knot nematode (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib001">Das, 1999</xref>; Pandey <italic>et al</italic>., 2002). <table-wrap id="tab001"><label>Table 1</label><caption><p>Reaction of cultivars/accessions of lentil against <italic>Meloidogyne incognita</italic>(Mean of three replicates)</p></caption><table><thead><tr><th colspan="2" align="center">Cultivars/Accessions (I = Inoculated,C = check)</th><th align="center">Root-knot index (0–5)</th><th align="center">Root-nodule index (0–5)</th><th align="center">Reaction<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab001-fn001">*</xref></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><hr /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">DPL-32</td><td align="center">I</td><td align="center">1.0</td><td align="center">4.0</td><td align="center">MR</td></tr><tr><td align="center" /><td align="center">C</td><td align="center">–</td><td align="center">4.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center">DPL-28</td><td align="center">I</td><td align="center">2.6</td><td align="center">3.3</td><td align="center">MS</td></tr><tr><td align="center" /><td align="center">C</td><td align="center">–</td><td align="center">4.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center">DPL-37</td><td align="center">I</td><td align="center">3.3</td><td align="center">2.6</td><td align="center">S</td></tr><tr><td align="center" /><td align="center">C</td><td align="center">–</td><td align="center">3.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center">DPL-38</td><td align="center">I</td><td align="center">3.6</td><td align="center">2.3</td><td align="center">S</td></tr><tr><td align="center" /><td align="center">C</td><td align="center">–</td><td align="center">3.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center">DPL-30</td><td align="center">I</td><td align="center">5.0</td><td align="center">1.0</td><td align="center">HS</td></tr><tr><td align="center" /><td align="center">C</td><td align="center">–</td><td align="center">2.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center">DPL-36</td><td align="center">I</td><td align="center">2.3</td><td align="center">2.0</td><td align="center">MS</td></tr><tr><td align="center" /><td align="center">C</td><td align="center">–</td><td align="center">2.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center">DPL-26</td><td align="center">I</td><td align="center">3.0</td><td align="center">2.3</td><td align="center">MS</td></tr><tr><td align="center" /><td align="center">C</td><td align="center">–</td><td align="center">3.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center">DPL-34</td><td align="center">I</td><td align="center">0.0</td><td align="center">5.0</td><td align="center">HR</td></tr><tr><td align="center" /><td align="center">C</td><td align="center">–</td><td align="center">5.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center">DPL-25</td><td align="center">I</td><td align="center">0.0</td><td align="center">5.0</td><td align="center">HR</td></tr><tr><td align="center" /><td align="center">C</td><td align="center">–</td><td align="center">5.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center">DPL-35</td><td align="center">I</td><td align="center">2.0</td><td align="center">3.0</td><td align="center">MS</td></tr><tr><td align="center" /><td align="center">C</td><td align="center">–</td><td align="center">3.6</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><th colspan="5"><hr /></th></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="5"><fn id="tab001-fn001"><p>*HR = Highly resistant; MR = Moderately resistant; S = Susceptible; MS = Moderately susceptible; HS = Highly susceptible.</p></fn></td></tr></tfoot></table></table-wrap></p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>ReferencesDas

(1999). Screening of rice varieties/germplasms against rice root knot nematode. Ann. Pl. Protec. Sci 7: 235-236.Pandey

Gopal

Pant

Hemlata

RajeshPandey

(2003). Screening of chickpea cultivars against Meloidogyne incognita. Ann. Pl. Protec. Sci. 11: 409-410.Das

(1999) Screening of rice varieties/germplasms against rice root knot nematode. Ann. Pl. Protec. Sci. 7: 235–236.Pandey

Gopal

Pant

Hemlata

Pandey

Rajesh K.

(2003) Screening of chickpea cultivars against Meloidogyne incognita. Ann. Pl. Protec. Sci. 11: 409–410.