2018
DOI: 10.5958/0974-0163.2018.00036.8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Physiopathological studies, stage of infection and management of Banded leaf and Sheath Blight of Maize

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The higher content of phenol in the resistant genotypes may be the possible reason for limiting the pathogenesis of the pathogen, thus reducing the disease, and vice versa in the susceptible genotypes, so that the disease was higher due to lower phenol content (Manjunatha et al 2021) [31] . Similar findings were reported by Dahima et al (2014) [9] and Anushree et al (2016) [3] , who found that total phenol accumulation was higher in inoculated rice genotypes compared to healthy ones, and it was significantly higher in blast-resistant genotypes. Following Rhizoctonia solani Kuhn f.sp.…”
Section: Estimation Of Total Phenol Contentsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…The higher content of phenol in the resistant genotypes may be the possible reason for limiting the pathogenesis of the pathogen, thus reducing the disease, and vice versa in the susceptible genotypes, so that the disease was higher due to lower phenol content (Manjunatha et al 2021) [31] . Similar findings were reported by Dahima et al (2014) [9] and Anushree et al (2016) [3] , who found that total phenol accumulation was higher in inoculated rice genotypes compared to healthy ones, and it was significantly higher in blast-resistant genotypes. Following Rhizoctonia solani Kuhn f.sp.…”
Section: Estimation Of Total Phenol Contentsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…The finding of this study emphasized the varying reactions of the identical sets of maize genotypes to R. solani isolates across different locations in India, indicating significant interactions between genotypes and environment. Later, Bhavana and Gadag (2009) reported 27% and 13% resistant maize lines against BLSB under artificial conditions at Pantnagar and Udaipur, respectively. Similar differential responses of maize genotypes against BLSB have been recorded by various researchers under different climatic conditions: Asif & Mall (2017), Chen and Zhang (2013), Devi et al (2015), Izhar and Chakraborty (2013), Yadav, Sharma, et al (2022), Yadav, Kumar, et al (2022).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, the lack of resistance in maize germplasm further complicates this concerning scenario. Several conventional control measures have been explored such as mechanical stripping of lower leaf sheath (Batsa et al, 2004; Kaur et al, 2020; Mehra et al, 2012; Sharma & Hembram, 1989); botanical management using foliar application of garlic, neem and eucalyptus extracts (Kumar, Mehra, & Kumari, 2022e; Lal et al, 2016; Rajput et al, 2016); biological control using various biocontrol agents (Dahima et al, 2018; Lal et al, 2016); and integrated disease management combining fungicides, bioagents, and botanicals (Aggarwal et al, 2022; Debbrama & Rajesh, 2021; Kumar & Kaur, 2020; Sagar et al, 2020). However, long‐term viability of pathogen sclerotia in soil (Zachow et al, 2011; Zhao, Canaran, et al, 2006; Zhao, Zhang, et al, 2006) and inadequate implementation of agronomic practices (Raaijmakers et al, 2009; Savary et al, 2019) collectively leads to ineffectiveness of control measures against BLSB.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%