View
1.401
Download
1
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Role of Bio-agents in production of Medicinal Coleus and Ashwagandha
Citation preview
WEL COME
Kittur Rani Channamma College of Horticulture, Arabhavi.
UNIVERSITY OF HORTICULTURAL SCIENCES, BAGALKOT
Seminar -1
Role of bioagents in the production of medicinal coleus and ashwagandha
Shivanand Rangapur
UHS11PGM143
Dept. of PMA
Introduction
Importance of bioagents
Role of bioagents in coleus
Role of bioagents in ashwagandha
Conclusion
TOPIC DIVISION
Bioagents are preparations containing microorganisms in sufficient
numbers which enhance crop growth, reduce diseases and pests infestation
Bioagents have the ability to replicate rapidly, require minimal resources
to survive and can infect at very small doses
Biological approach will be particularly useful under organic conditions,
especially for medicinal plants, which are mainly used for treating
various human ailments, where the use of chemicals is restricted because
of health and residue considerations
(Paul, 2003)
Rising costs of chemical inputs and a host environmental concerns
have caused farmers to consider alternative agri-industrial
managements to reduce costs, protect human health, and conserve
the resource base
High intensity of chemical pesticide use has become serious cause
of concern in recent years so, lot of importance has been given to
organically produced medicinal herbs
Bioagents are eco-friendly, cost-effective and co-existence with
tissues of host without causing any harm
(Kritcher,
1993)
Bioagents
Biofertilizers
Biopesticides
Biofungicides
Bionematicides
Biofertilizers
• 'Biofertilizer' is a substance which contains living microorganisms,
when applied to seed, plant surfaces, or soil, colonizes the rhizosphere
and promotes growth by increasing the supply or availability of
nutrients to the host plant
• These add nutrients through natural processes of N- fixation,
solubilizing phosphorous and stimulating plant growth through the
synthesis of growth promoting substances
Murugan, 2002General classification of Biofertilizers
BIOFERTILIZER ORGANISMS
RHIZOBIUM
AZOSPIRILLUM
VA-MYCORRHIZA
BLUE GREEN ALGAE
AZOTOBACTER
PSB
Commercial
BIO-FERTILIZERS in market
Biopesticides
• Biologically active microbial agents applied to control insect-pests
by non-toxic mechanisms
• Stimulate plant host defenses and other physiological processes
make plants more resistant to biotic and abiotic stresses
• Prepared by growing and concentrating naturally occurring
organisms or their metabolites including bacteria, fungi,
nematodes, etc.
Viruses, Bacteria, Fungi and Nematodes are sources of
potential biopesticides
Viruses - NPV, Granulosis viruses (GV)
Bacteria- Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Streptomyces and
Salmonella
22 varieties of Bacillus thuringiensis are used as biopesticides
Fungi - Beauveria, Metarhizum, Verticillium, Hirsutella etc.
Nematodes - Paecilomyces lilacinus & Romanomermis
culicivorax
(WHO, 2009)
Biopesticides Target pest
Bacillus thurigiensis strains LBT-1, LBT-13, LBT-21, LBT-24
Lepidoptera, Mites
Beauveria bassiana strain LBB-1 Coleoptera (weevils), ants, thrips
Verticillium lecanii strain Y-57 Bemisia tabaci ,Myzus persicae
Metarhizium anisopliaestrain LBM-11
Lepidoptera and Coleoptera
Trichogramma spp. Lepidoptera
Corynebacterium paurometabolum Nematodes
Pheidole megacephala Sweet potato weevil
Biopesticides and Target pests
(Nicolas, 2006)
Biofungicides
Biofungicides are microorganisms and naturally occurring substances that control diseases of crops that are approved for organic production
Biofungicides / biologicals Diseases
Bacillus pumilus Several foliar diseases
Pseudomonas syringe Post-harvest diseases
Bacillus subtilisPythium, Rhizoctonia, Fusarium, Powdery mildew, other foliar diseases
Trichoderma harzianum Root diseases
Streptomyces lydicusFusarium, Rhizoctonia,Pythium,Phytophthora
Gliocladium virens Damping off
(Roger, 2010)
Cost effective and eco-friendly
Renewable sources to supplement chemical fertilizer
Play vital role in maintaining long term soil fertility and
sustainability
Proliferates beneficial microbes in the soil
Suppress certain plant diseases, soil-borne diseases and
parasites
ADVANTAGES Of BIO-AGENTS
Non-availability of crop/zone specific strains of
microorganisms
Genetic instability of the strains
Inconsistent performance in the field during abiotic
stresses
Lesser speed of action
Lack of adequate knowledge among the farmers
CONSTRAINTS
Medicinal coleus
B.N : Plectranthus forskohlii
Family: Lamiaceae
Active principle: Forskohlin (0.1-0.5%)
Origin: Indian-subcontinent
Medicinal Uses : Glaucoma, Asthma,
Congestive heart failures &
Certain type of cancers
Economic parts: Tuberous roots
Yield: 3.5 - 4.0 t/ha (Dry tuber)
Table 1: Effect of bioinoculants and neem cake on growth characteristics of Coleus forskohlii at the nursery stage (55 day old cuttings) prior to transplanting.
Singh et al., 2012, Bangalore
Treatments Shoot length (cm)
Root length (cm)
Plant spread (cm)
Dry shoot weight
(g/plant)
Dry root weight
(g/plant)
TV (1.2x106 CFU mL-1) 17.6bc 10.8ab 13.2a 0.81a 0.044bc
BS (1.8x108 CFU mL-1) 15.8ab 11.6b 15.0a 0.75a 0.017a
AZ (2.3x107 CFU mL-1) 19.6bc 12.0b 16.4ab 1.31b 0.059c
GF (1.2x106 CFU mL-1) 20.6c 13.4b 20.8c 1.05b 0.069c
PF (2.5x108 CFU mL-1) 19.0bc 12.4b 18.6b 0.98ab 0.063c
NC 20.4bc 12.4b 20.2c 1.19b 0.078c
Control 13.8a 9.20a 14.4a 0.77a 0.013a
LSD (P<0.05) 3.33 2.27 2.89 0.27 0.022
TV: Trichoderma viride; BS: Bacillus subtilis; AZ: Azotobactor chroococcum; GF: Glomus fasciculatum; PF: Pseudomonas fluorescens; NC: Neem cake (Soil, sand, vermicompost & neem cake @ 1:1:1/10:1/40, v/v); values in vertical columns followed by different letters are significantly different at P=0.05 by ANOVA (LSD) test.
TreatmentsPlant height
(cm)Plant spread
(cm)No. of
branchesDry shoot yield (t/ha)
Dry root yield (t/ha)
Forskohlin yield
(Kg/ha)
TV (1.2x106 CFU mL-1) 41.7ab 43.7ab 20.3a 1.34a 0.18a 1.1a
BS (1.8x108 CFU mL-1) 40.0ab 46.7b 19.3a 1.36a 0.17a 1.02a
AZ (2.3x107 CFU mL-1) 40.2ab 41.3ab 18.3a 1.49a 0.22a 1.32ab
GF (1.2x106 CFU mL-1) 49.6c 49.3b 28.3b 2.58b 0.41c 2.71c
PF (2.5x108 CFU mL-1) 43.6b 47.1b 28.0b 2.01a 0.32bc 2.15bc
NC 48.2c 46.3b 27.7b 2.64b 0.42c 2.67c
Control 38.0a 37.1a 17.0a 1.33a 0.14a 0.83a
LSD (P<0.05) 4.1 7.0 6.8 0.8 0.1 0.84
Table 2: Effect of bioinoculants and neem cake on growth characteristics of Coleus forskohlii at harvesting in field conditions.
Singh et al., 2012, Bangalore
TV: Trichoderma viride; BS: Bacillus subtilis; AZ: Azotobactor chroococcum; GF: Glomus fasciculatum; PF: Pseudomonas fluorescens; NC: Neem cake- (Soil, sand, vermicompost & neem cake @ 1:1:1/10:1/40, v/v); values in vertical columns followed by different letters are significantly different at P=0.05 by ANOVA (LSD) test.
TreatmentShoot uptake (Kg/ha) Root uptake (Kg/ha) Total uptake (Kg/ha)
N P K N P K N P K
TV (1.2x106 CFU mL-1) 18.62a 4.89ab 22.31a 0.89a 0.39a 2.44a 19.51a 5.28a 24.75a
BS (1.8x108 CFU mL-1) 19.35ab 4.62a 21.96a 1.04a 0.44ab 2.7a 20.39ab 5.06a 24.66a
AZ (2.3x107 CFU mL-1) 26.97ab 4.82ab 24.62a 1.00a 0.55ab 3.16ab 27.97b 5.37a 27.78ab
GF (1.2x106 CFU mL-1) 28.03b 7.49b 35.68b 1.99b 0.94b 6.05b 30.02b 8.43b 41.73b
PF (2.5x108 CFU mL-1) 27.78b 5.10ab 30.06a 1.41ab 0.73b 4.76b 29.19b 5.83ab 34.82b
NC 32.78b 7.94b 36.11b 2.35b 0.83b 5.90b 35.13b 8.77b 42.01b
control 18.6a 4.62a 21.86a 0.80a 0.36a 2.27a 19.40a 4.98a 24.13a
LSD (P<0.05) 8.4 2.8 9.1 0.7 0.3 2 8.2 2.8 9.2
Table 3: Effect of bioinoculants and neem cake on nutrient uptake by Coleus forskohlii under field conditions. Singh et al., 2012, Bangalore
TV: Trichoderma viride; BS: Bacillus subtilis; AZ: Azotobactor chroococcum; GF: Glomus fasciculatum; PF: Pseudomonas fluorescens; NC: Neem cake-(Soil, sand, vermicompost & neem cake @ 1:1:1/10:1/40, v/v); values in vertical columns followed by different letters are significantly different at P=0.05 by ANOVA (LSD) test.
Treatments Plant height (cm)No. of
branches/plantlength of fresh
root (cm)
Dry weight (g/plant)
Root Shoot
Uninoculated control 13.33f 81.87e 10.3d 80e 15.85d
Acaulospora laevis 13.67ef 87.87cd 12.5cd 99cd 18.85c
Gigaspora margarita 14.22de 82.87e 12.3cd 99cd 18.90c
Glomus bagyaragii 16.72a 109.20a 18.2a 121a 27.16a
G. etunicatum 14.37de 82.30e 10.6d 94d 18.85c
G. fasciculatum 15.37dc 94.00bc 14.9bc 102bc 19.63c
G. intraradices 14.52cde 87.00cd 13.4cd 99cd 19.15c
G. leptotichum 14.00def 82.05e 11.3d 94d 18.85c
G. macrocarpum 14.58cde 84.73d 11.0d 95cd 18.38c
G. monosporum 14.60cde 86.03d 10.9d 95cd 16.65d
G. mosseae 14.73cd 95.86b 14.5bc 102bc 19.60c
Scutellospora calospora 15.70b 99.43b 16.5ab 107b 23.36b
Table 4: Influence of inoculation with different arbuscular fungi on various characters of Coleus forskohlii.
Sailo and Bagyaraj, 2005, Bangalore
Means followed by the same letter in each column do not differ significantly at P= 0.05 by DMRT. Values are an average of 20 plants taken at 150 DAP.
TreatmentsP content (mg/plant)
Forskohlin concentration (%)
Forskohlin content (mg/plant)Shoot Root
Uninoculated control 19.61e 3.20e 0.57g 45.6h
Acaulospora laevis 41.31cd 4.27cde 0.74ef 73.58f
Gigaspora margarita 43.44cd 4.71bcd 0.75ef 74.58f
Glomus bagyaragii 76.49a 7.65a 0.93a 112.5a
G. etunicatum 37.41d 3.98de 0.80c 75.51f
G. fasciculatum 48.12c 5.27bc 0.79cd 80.89e
G. intraradices 48.42c 4.94bcd 0.86b 85.13d
G. leptotichum 28.07e 4.04de 0.73f 68.62g
G. macrocarpum 41.44cd 4.46bcd 0.76def 72.19f
G. monosporum 26.45e 4.45bcd 0.77cde 72.45f
G. mosseae 49.99c 4.85bcd 0.88b 89.41c
Scutellospora calospora 59.93b 5.48b 0.92a 98.43b
Table 5: Influence of inoculation with different arbuscular fungi on root and shoot P- content, and root forskohlin concentration and content of Coleus forskohlii.
Sailo and Bagyaraj, 2005, Bangalore
Treatments Root colonization (%) Number of spore (CFU) /50 g soil
Uninoculated control 3.64f 9.67g
Acaulospora laevis 74.80cd 72.33c
Gigaspora margarita 71.82e 66.00d
Glomus bagyaragii 98.72a 158.00a
G. etunicatum 63.56e 33.33f
G. fasciculatum 77.97c 131.33bc
G. intraradices 73.75cd 124.0c
G. leptotichum 63.24e 36.33ef
G. macrocarpum 63.61e 36.3ef
G. monosporum 68.95de 43.33e
G. mosseae 76.81c 123.00c
Scutellospora calospora 85.61b 139.67b
Table 6: Influence of inoculation with different arbuscular fungi on mycorrhizal root colonization and spore numbers in the root zone of Coleus forskohlii.
Sailo and Bagyaraj, 2005, Bangalore
Fig 1: Effect of Pseudomonas monteilii (PM) (strain CRC1) and Glomus fasciculatum (GF) alone and co-inoculated (PM + GF) on growth characteristics of Coleus forskohlii.
Alok et al., 2012, Lucknow
Fig 2: Effect of P. monteilii (PM) (strain CRC1) and G. fasciculatum (GF) alone and co-inoculated (PM + GF) on yield of C. forskohlii.
Alok et al., 2012, Lucknow
Fig 3: Effect of P. monteilii (PM) (strain CRC1) and G. fasciculatum (GF) alone and co-inoculated (PM + GF) on forskolin content (percent) in root tubers of C. forskohlii
Alok et al., 2012, Lucknow
Fig 4: Effect of P. monteilii (PM) (strain CRC1) and G. fasciculatum (GF) alone and co-inoculated (PM + GF) on percent disease index (PDI) and percent wilt incidence (PWI) of C. forskohlii.
Alok et al., 2012, Lucknow
TreatmentPercent
establishment of cuttings
Plant height (cm)
Plant spread (cm)No. of
branches/Plant
Stem diameter
(cm)E -W N - S
Glomus intraradices 85.00 52.66 52.80 52.00 53.46 2.57
Glomus fasciculatum 91.66 53.40 50.63 52.36 55.83 2.26
Glomus monosporum 83.33 50.73 51.86 51.20 52.5 2.40
Glomus mosseae 91.66 56.76 56.00 52.50 52.50 2.35
Gigaspora margarita 86.66 61.23 55.16 55.20 57.66 2.34
Sclerocystis dussii 90.00 57.76 53.50 53.46 53.5 2.33
Consortia- I 93.33 58.36 56.16 56.96 58.40 2.35
Control 80.00 49.23 54.30 54.16 48.13 2.24
Mean - 55.02 54.17 53.48 54.00 2.35
S. Em± 2.530 1.406 1.190 1.122 0.769 0.020
C. D. @ 5% 7.673 4.265 3.609 3.402 2.334 0.062
CV (%) 5.00 4.43 3.80 3.63 2.47 1.50
Table 7: Effect of AM fungi on growth characters in coleus forskohlii. Dharana et al., 2006, Arabhavi
Consortia-I : Azotobacter chroococcum, Azospirillum brassilence, Pseudomonas striata & Trichoderma harzianum
TreatmentNo. of
tubers/plant
Fresh tuber yield Dry tuber yieldForskohlin
content (%)
Forskohlin yield
(mg/plant)g/plant q/ha g/plant q/ha
Glomus intraradices 9.26 107.78 89.82 14.08 11.85 - -
Glomus fasciculatum 11.60 120.74 100.62 15.78 13.15 0.329 19.30
Glomus monosporum 10.73 126.26 105.21 16.43 13.69 - -
Glomus mosseae 9.53 125.4 104.48 16.39 13.65 - -
Gigaspora margarita 10.53 160.09 133.4 20.92 17.36 0.307 17.28
Sclerocystis dussii 13.53 133.06 110.89 17.39 14.62 0.274 15.56
Consortia- I 16.8 159.46 132.89 20.85 17.35 0.403 26.07
Control 9.8 127.6 106.33 16.69 13.91 0.330 20.75
S. Em± 1.119 7.01 5.84 0.94 0.80 - -
C. D. @ 5% 3.393 21.25 17.7 2.86 2.44 - -
CV (%) 4.709 9.16 9.15 9.43 9.65 - -
Table 8: Effect of AM- fungi on tuber yield and forskohlin content in Coleus forskohlii.
Dharana et al., 2006, Arabhavi
Consortia-I : Azotobacter chroococcum, Azospirillum brassilence, Pseudomonas striata & Trichoderma harzianum
Treatments Plant height (cm) Plant spread (cm) No. of branches
GA+120F 57.21bc 39.17bc 9.13b
GF+120F 78.25d 49.75c 13.38c
GI+120F 46.96ab 36.71bc 8.0ab
GM+120F 64.5cd 37.0bc 9.0b
PF6+120F 81.88d 56.0c 12.25c
120F 50.5b 28.38ab 6.75ab
GA+240F 42.88ab 31.63ab 8.5ab
GF+240F 76.0d 39.75bc 10.75bc
GI+240F 48.38ab 34.46ab 7.13ab
GM+240F 58.38b 33.13ab 7.88ab
PF6+240F 76.0d 43.5bc 9.75bc
240F 37.25a 21.5a 4.75a
Soil only 50.42b 30.04ab 7.5ab
SED 5.564 6.3542 1.9221
Table 9: Effect of bio-inoculants on growth parameters of Coleus forskohlii Singh et al., 2009, Bangalore
GA: Glomus aggregatum; GF: Glomus fasciculatum; GI: Glomus intraradices; GM: Glomus mosseae; PF6: Pseudomonas fluorescens: 120 F: 120 mL suspension of Fusarium chlamydosporum; 240 F: 240 mL suspension of Fusarium chlamydosporum.& SED: Standard error of mean difference.
Treatments P - uptake (mg/plant) K- uptake (mg/plant)Forskohlin content
(mg/100gm dry roots)
GA+120F 66.5cd 495.0de 890.0ab
GF+120F 77.5d 600.0f 1010.0c
GI+120F 59.5cd 385.0c 795.0a
GM+120F 59.0c 390.0c 920.0bc
PF6+120F 81.0d 555.0ef 975.0bc
120F 23.5ab 150.0ab 795.0a
GA+240F 36.5b 195.0b 790.0a
GF+240F 71.5c 500.0de 835.0ab
GI+240F 50.0bc 270.0b 820.0ab
GM+240F 59.5cd 390.0c 835.0ab
PF6+240F 72.5cd 495.0de 820.0ab
240F 18.0a 115.0a 820.0ab
Soil only 30.5ab 140.0ab 895.0ab
SED 8.448 36.576 47.871
Table 10: Effect of bio-inoculants on P and K uptake, Forskohlin content of Coleus forskohlii.
Singh et al., 2009,
Bangalore
Fig 5: Effect of bio-inoculants on mean shoot dry yield. Singh et al., 2009,
Bangalore
Fig 6: Effect of bio-inoculants on mean root dry yield. Singh et al., 2009, Bangalore
Fig 7: Effect of bio-inoculants on Per cent disease index (PDI). Singh et al., 2009, Bangalore
Population of Scirtothrips dorsalis on coleus, as influenced by bio-control agents. Thangavel et al., 2011, Coimbatore
Treatment Details:
T1- Chrysoperla carnea @ 50,000 eggs/ha (5 releases)
T2- Trichogramma chilonis @ 6.25 cc/ha (5 releases)
T3- Bacillus thuringiensis 750 g/ha (5 sprays)
T4- Beauveria bassiana 2 g/L (5 sprays)
T5- C.c (1 release) + T.c (1 release) + B.b (1 spray) + B.t (2 spray)
T6- B.t (1 spray) + C.c (1 release) + T.c (1 spray) + B.t (2 spray)
T7- B.t (1 spray) + C.c (1 release) + T.c (1 spray) + B.b (2 spray)
T8- Untreated check
Treatments
Pre- treatment
count
No. of thrips/Sq. cm at monthly interval
MeanPercentage
reduction over control60 DAP 90 DAP 120 DAP 150 DAP
T1 38.2 11.5 (3.46)a 9.2 (3.11)a 7.4 (2.81)a 4.4 (2.21)a 8.2 60
T2 39.8 22.1 (4.75)f 19.2 (4.43)g 15.8 (4.03)g 13.4 (3.72)e 17.6 14.1
T3 40.7 18.3 (4.33)d 15.4 (3.98)e 12.3 (3.57)e 10.9 (3.37)d 14.4 29.7
T4 41.4 20.2 (4.54)e 17.4 (4.23)f 14.4 (3.86)f 12.8 (3.64)e 16.3 20.4
T5 37.8 12.7 (3.63)b 10.4 (3.30)b 8.8 (3.04)b 6.3 (2.60)b 9.5 53.6
T6 39.7 14.4 (3.86)c 13.2 (3.70)d 11.4 (3.44)d 8.3 (2.96)c 11.8 42.4
T7 40.5 14.2 (3.83)c 12.3 (3.57)c 10.2 (3.27)c 7.8 (2.88)c 11.2 45.3
T8 41.6 24.7 (5.01)g 22.3(4.77)h 18.6 (4.37)h 16.3 (4.09)f 20.5 -
SEd - 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 - -
C. D @ 5% - 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.14 - -
Table 11 :Population of Scirtothrips dorsalis on coleus, as influenced by bio-control agents. Thangavel et al., 2011, Madurai
Figures in parentheses are square root transformed values in a column, means followed by same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P=0.05).
TreatmentsPre-
treatment count
No. of larvae/5 plant
Mean
Percentage reduction
over control
Wet tuber yield (kg/ha)60 DAP 90 DAP 120 DAP 150 DAP
T1 7.6 5.5 (2.44)c 5.1 (2.36)c 3.9 (2.09)b 3.2 (1.92)c 4.4 48.2 20,105c
T2 8.4 7.9 (2.89)de 7.7 (2.86)e 6.6 (2.66)d 5.5 (2.44)d 6.9 18.8 17,075f
T3 9.2 7.1 (2.75)d 6.3 (2.60)d 5.1 (2.36)c 4.8 (2.30)d 5.8 31.7 18,112d
T4 8.3 7.6 (2.84)d 6.8 (2.70)de 5.7 (2.48)cd 4.4 (2.21)d 6.1 28.2 17,454e
T5 7.1 3.9 (2.09)a 3.3 (1.94)a 2.1 (1.61)a 1.3 (1.34)a 2.6 69.4 20,643a
T6 8.2 4.6 (2.25)ab 4.2 (2.16)b 3.1 (1.89)b 2.2 (1.64)b 3.5 58.8 20,455ab
T7 7.8 5.0 (2.34)bc 4.8 (2.30)bc 3.3 (1.94)b 2.5 (1.73)bc 3.9 54.1 20,283bc
T8 9.2 8.8 (3.04)e 9.1 (3.09)f 8.5 (3.00)e 7.6 (2.84)e 8.5 - 20,256g
SEd 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.11 - - - 0.33
C. D @ 5% 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.25 - - - 1.32
Table 12 : Population of Orphanostigma abruptalis and yield of wet tubers in coleus, as influenced by bio-control agents
Thangavel et al., 2011, Madurai
T5- C.c (1 relaese) + T.c (1 relaese) + B.b (1 spray) + B.t (2 spray)
Management of collar rot complex in Coleus forskohlii using bioagents, organic amendments and chemicals.
Kulkarni et al., 2007, Arabhavi
Treatment Details:
T1- Trichoderma viride @ 10 ml/plant (8x103 cfu/ml)
T2- Trichoderma harzianum @ 10 ml/plant (8x103 cfu/ml)
T3- Pseudomonas fluorescens @ 10 ml/plant (24x105 cfu/ml)
T4- Pronto @ 5% as soil drench (neem based product)
T5- Neemto @500 g/5 m2 (neem based product)
T6-Carbofuran 3G @ 15 gai/5 m2
T7- Farm yard manure @ 5 kg/5 m2
T8- Trichoderma viride @ 10 ml/plant (8x103 cfu/ml) + Neemto @500 g/5 m2
T9- Carbendazim @ 0.1% soil drench
T10- Propiconazole @ 0.1% soil drench
T11- Control
Treatments Wilt incidence (%)
Population of root knot juveniles/200
cc of soil
No. of galls / 5 g of root
CFU (103/g)
F. chlamydosporum R. bataticola
T1 21.09 (27.33) 1640 21.13 7.6 12.2
T2 18.87 (25.74) 1633.33 19.53 8 12.6
T3 19.98 (26.51) 1533.33 18.27 8 14.2
T4 23.31 (28.84) 136.67 17.33 10.6 15.6
T5 21.09 (27.24) 1180 16.07 12.6 16.4
T6 24.42 (29.57) 1066.67 14.93 16.2 17.6
T7 25.53 (30.38) 1960 25.67 15.2 18.8
T8 12.76 (20.93) 873.33 10.13 6.2 9.6
T9 21.09 (27.33) 1933.33 23.33 3.6 6.8T10 23.31 (28.84) 1906.67 23 3.8 7.4T11 35.52 (36.59) 2177.33 28.4 19.6 21.6
Mean 22.45 (28.12) 1569.69 19.82 10.13 13.89
S.Em± 1.18 49.05 1.83 0.87 0.95CD @ 5% 3.48 144.68 5.38 2.49 2.72
Table 13: Management of collar rot complex of Coleus forskohlii using bioagents, organic amendments and chemicals.
Kulkarni et al., 2007, Arabhavi
Figures in parentheses are arc sine (angular) transformed values
Treatment Mycelial growth (cm)Per cent reduction over
control
Trichoderma viride 4.2 52.2
T. viride Isolate1 4.3 51.1
T. viride Isolate2 3.8 56.8
T. viride Isolate3 4.6 47.7
T. viride Isolate4 3.1 64.7
Trichoderma harzianum 3.6 59.6
Trichoderma reesei 5.1 41.1
Trichoderma koningeei 4.2 48.5
Chaetomium globosum 4.5 55
Pseudomonas fluorescens 3.7 58.7
Bacillus subtilis 4.2 51.1
Carbendazim 4 59.1
Control 9 -
C. D @ 5% 0.3 -
Table 14: Effect of antagonists on the growth of Macrophomina phaseolina in the dual culture technique in coleus.
Paramasivan et al., 2007, TN
Treatment Disease incidence Total sprouts Yield (g)
Trichoderma viride 28.6 (33.2)* 3 105
T. viride Isolate1 21.8 (27.8) 2 107
T. viride Isolate2 22.9 (28.5) 4 107
T. viride Isolate3 24.6 (29.7) 5 110
T. viride Isolate4 19.2 (26.7) 7 150
T. harzianum 20.6 (26.9) 5 120
T. reesei 33.5 (35.3) 4 90
T. koningeei 27.9 (31.1) 3 80
Chaetomium globosum 31.5 (34.2) 2 70
Pseudomonas fluorescens 20.8 (27.2) 6 135
Bacillus subtilis 22.3 (28.7) 5 114
Carbendazim 18.3 (25.3) 5 140
Control 44.3 (41.5) 1 60
C. D @ 5% 3.4 2.1 12
Table 15: Efficacy of bioagents against dry root rot of coleus under pot culture conditions Paramasivan et al., 2007, TN
Figures in parentheses are arc sine transformed values
Sl. No. Biocontrol agents Per cent inhibition of mycelial growth of R. bataticola
1 Bacillus subtilis Cohn. 12.18 (20.43)
2 Pseudomonas fluorescens Migula. 6.45 (14.68)
3 Trichoderma koningii Rifai. 57.40 (49.29)
4 Trichoderma virens Miller. 56.66 (48.89)
5 Trichoderma viride Pers. 76.29 (60.83)
6Trichoderma harzianum Rifai. (Dharwad isolate) 79.63 (63.57)
7 Trichoderma harzianum Rifai. 77.03 (61.23)
Mean 52.23 (45.57)
S.Em+ 0.28
C.D @1% 1.16
Table 16: Effect of biocontrol agents on inhibition of mycelial growth of Rhizoctonia bataticola infecting Coleus forskohlii. Ammajamma et al., 2009, Dharwad
Figures in the parenthesis indicate angular transformed values
Treatments
Length (cm)Shoot
weight (g)Root gall
index
Per cent disease
incidence
Tuber yield/
plant (g)Shoot Root
Super Pseudomonas @ 2.5 kg/ha 120.62 81.87 958.12 2.25 35.62 223.7
P. fluorescens @ 2.5 kg/ha 120.6 75 883.12 2.37 36.87 212.2
Consortial formulations of Pfbv22 + Bbv 57 @ 2.5 kg/ha 113.12 72.5 886.87 2.5 38.12 201.2
T. viride @ 2.5 kg/ha 125 85.6 994.37 2.00 31.87 235.6
P. fluorescens + T. viride each @ 2.5 kg/ha 113.12 70.62 813.87 3.12 46.87 190
Carbofuran 3G @ 1 kg a.i/ ha + drenching with bavistin (1 g/L water)
101.87 68.75 772.5 3.37 51.25 185
Untreated control 70.6 47.5 762.18 5 93.75 157.5
C D @ 5 % 10.53 4.21 22.7 0.78 3.54 10.5
Table 17: Biomanagement of nematode fungal disease complex in coleus under controlled conditions.
Ramakrishnan and Deepa, 2011, Coimbatore
Pooled analysis of two pot culture experiments.
Treatments
Shoot Root Nematode populationTuber yield (t/ha)Length
(cm)Weight
(cm)Length
(cm)Weight
(cm)Soil
(200cc)Root (5g)
Gall index PDI
T. viride @ 2.5 kg/ha 134.21 (83.37)
1158.70 (79.25)
76.75 (134.42)
258.18 (129.16)
77.43 (76.90)
23.56 (84.58)
0.866 (81.54)
17.85 (77.69) 24 (68.1)
Super pseudomonas @ 2.5 kg/ha
115.20 (57.39)
825.07 (27.60)
60.33 (84.27)
208.53 (85.09)
201.36 (39.95)
50.40 (67.02)
2.733 (41.41)
31.23 (60.96)
22.6 (58.8)
Carbofuran 3G @ 1 kg a.i / ha + drenching
with Bavistin (1 kg/ha)
117.36 (60.34)
932.46 (44.25)
64.19 (96.05)
218.47 (93.91)
194.30 (42.05)
57.96 (62.07)
2.40 (48.49)
35.00 (56.25)
22.0 (54.6)
Untreated control 73.19 646.4 32.74 112.66 335.33 152.83 4.66 80.01 14.2
C D @ 5 % 21.67 145.1 14.99 48.92 33.05 19.1 1.19 19.43 6.7
Table 18: On farm trial on Biomanagement of nematode fungal disease complex in medicinal coleus
Ramakrishnan and Deepa, 2011, Coimbatore -
Pooled analysis of three field experiments.
Effect of integrated bio-management strategies on root tuber yield in medicinal coleus infested with M. incognita and M. phaseolina Seenivasan, 2010, TN
Treatment Details:
T1-Integrated nematode management strategy (INMS) i.e. dipping of stem
cuttings in 0.1% Pseudomonas fluorescens (strain Pf1 @ 6x108 CFU/g) talc
based formulation at planting + growing marigold (Tagetes errecta) as
intercrop
T2- T1 (INMS) + Biointensive disease management strategy (BDMS) i.e.
soil drenching with P. fluorescens (strain PfC6 @ 6x108 CFU/g) talc
formulation @ 2.5 kg/ha at planting, 30, 60, 90 & 120 DAP
T3- Standard chemical check i.e. Carbofuran 3G @ 1 kg a.i/ ha + soil
drenching with carbendazim 0.1%
T4- Untreated control
Table 19 : Effect of integrated bio-management strategies on root tuber yield in medicinal coleus infested with M. incognita and M. phaseolina
Seenivasan, 2010, TN
TreatmentsTuber length
(cm)No. of
tubers /plantTuber weight/
plant (g)Root tuber yield (t/ha) B:C ratio
T1 11.3a (29.2) 4.8a (22.9) 250.0b (47.6) 6.92b (45.3) 1.37:1
T2 11.3a (29.2) 4.8a (22.9) 258.3b (49.3) 7.07b (46.5) 1.22:1
T3 12.3a (34.9) 4.9a (24.5) 297.8a (56.0) 7.31a (48.2) 1.35:1
T4 8.0b 3.7b 131.0c 3.78c 0.78:1
SEd 0.84 0.26 8.4 0.16 -
C.D @ 5 % 1.85 0.56 18.3 0.21 -
CV % 12.6 8.75 5.7 8.92 -
Figures in a column followed by different letters are significantly different at P=0.05 level by DMRT; Figures in the parentheses are percent decrease over control; Pooled 2 years data.
Ashwagandha
B.N : Withania somnifera
Family: Solanaceae
Active principle: Withanine & Somniferine
(0.13-0.31 %)
Medicinal Uses: Rheumatic pain, antitumor,
Anti-inflammatory, antioxidant & nervine tonics.
Economic parts: Roots and seeds
Yield: 4-5 q/ha (Dry roots) &
50-75 kg/ha (Seed yield)
Treatment
Shoot length /plant (cm )No. of
primary branches/plant
No. of lateral branches/plant
90 DAI 120 DAI 150 DAI 180 DAI90 DAI
120 DAI
150 DAI
180 DAI
T1- Azospirillum (AAs-11)
30.25 43.55 52.11 59.75 2.65 9 12.86 13 16.1
T2- Azotobacter (AAz-3)
27.25 39.66 50 56.66 2.15 8.16 12 12.95 15.86
T3- Bacillus(APb-1) 27 38.44 48 55 2.05 8 11.86 12.85 15.33 T4- Pseudomonas(APs-1)
28.33 41.24 51.15 58.85 2.75 8.76 12.22 13 16
T5-T1+T2 31.25 46.33 54.66 62..77 2.85 9.15 11 13 16.65 T6-T1+T3+T4 35.25 62.55 64.65 71.33 3.25 11 12.1 14.25 18
T7-T2+T3+T4 33.34 49.65 60 68.65 3.12 10.1 12 14 17.23
T8-T1+T2+T3 32.15 48.25 57.15 66.45 3 9.85 11.86 13.25 17 T9-T1+T2+T3+T4 38.47 56.22 69.47 76.5 3.52 11.44 13.24 16.32 20.25 T10-Uninoculated control 26.00 37.33 45.66 53 2 7.96 10 11.85 15.33
S.E± C.D(P=0.05) S.E± C.D(P=0.05)
T 2.24 4.45 0.59 1.18
D 2.42 2.82 0.37 0.75
T×D 4.47 8.9 1.18 2.35
Table 20: Effect of rhizobacterial inoculation on the shoot length, primary and lateral branches development of ashwagandha (var.Jawahar 20).
Gopal, 2010, Coimbatore
Table 21: Effect of rhizobacterial inoculation on the root growth of ashwagandha (var.Jawahar 20). Gopal, 2010, Coimbatore
-Treatment
Root parameters (180 DAS)
Root length/Plant(cm)
Root girth /Plant (cm)
Lateral roots/Plant
(no.)
Root fresh weight/ Plant
(g )
Root dry weight/Plant
(g)
T1- Azospirillum(AAs-11) 19.65 1.78 16.33 17.65 4.72
T2- Azotobacter(AAz-3) 18.95 1.75 14.66 16.95 4.3
T3- Bacillus(APb-1) 18.2 1.75 14 17 4.33
T4- Pseudomonas(APs-1) 19 1.76 14.33 17.33 4.43
T5-T1+T2 20.65 1.8 17.66 18 4.92
T6-T1+T3+T4 23 2 18.33 19 5.53
T7-T2+T3+T4 22.55 1.92 18 18.55 5.33
T8-T1+T2+T3 21 1.85 17 18.2 5
T9-T1+T2+T3+T4 26.17 2.32 19.66 21.33 6.1
T10-Uninoculated control 17 1.72 14.66 15.33 4
S.E.± 1.76 0.16 1.31 1.53 0.41
C.D.(P=0.05) 3.69 0.33 2.76 3.22 0.87
TreatmentsDry matter production(g/plant)
90 DAI 120 DAI 150 DAI 180 DAI
T1- Azospirillum(AAs-11) 0.58 4.72 9.65 15.18
T2- Azotobacter(AAz-3) 0.49 4.55 9 14.6
T3- Bacillus(APb-1) 0.51 4.6 9.15 14.64
T4- Pseudomonas(APs-1) 0.55 4.65 9.26 15
T5-T1+T2 0.61 4.78 9.85 15.33
T6-T1+T3+T4 0.693 5.11 11.12 16.17
T7-T2+T3+T4 0.68 4.93 10.56 16
T8-T1+T2+T3 0.65 4.82 10 15.92
T9-T1+T2+T3+T4 0.703 5.47 12.56 17.27
T10-Uninoculated control 0.41 4.16 8.5 13.26
S.E.± C.D.(P=0.05)
T 0.42 0.84
D 0.27 0.53
T×D 0.85 1.68
Table 22: Effect of rhizobacterial inoculation on dry matter production of ashwagandha (var.Jawahar 20). Gopal, 2010, Coimbatore
Table 23: Effect of rhizobacterial inoculation on total alkaloid content of ashwagandha (var.Jawahar 20) roots.
Gopal and Kumutha, 2010, Coimbatore
Treatments Total alkaloid (%)Total alkaloid yield
(mg/plant)
T1- Azospirillum(AAs-11) 1.18 56
T2- Azotobacter(AAz-3) 1.12 48
T3- Bacillus(APb-1) 1.13 49
T4- Pseudomonas(APs-1) 1.15 51
T5-T1+T2 1.20 59
T6-T1+T3+T4 1.29 71
T7-T2+T3+T4 1.26 67
T8-T1+T2+T3 1.23 62
T9-T1+T2+T3+T4 1.42 87
T10-Uninoculated control 1.10 44
S.E.± 0.10 5.33
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.22 11.13
Table 24: Effect of rhizobacterial inoculation on Withaferin-A content of ashwagandha (var. Jawahar 20) roots by HPLC.
Gopal and Kumutha, 2010, Coimbatore
Treatments
Withaferin-A content (mg /100g of roots)
T1- Azospirillum (AAs-11) 44.80
T2- Azospirillum (AAs-11) + Azotobacter (AAz-3) 57.80
T6- Azospirillum (AAs-11) + Bacillus (APb-1) + Pseudomonas (APs-1)
66.42
T9- Azospirillum (AAs-11) + Azotobacter (AAz-3) + Bacillus (APb-1) + Pseudomonas (APs-1)
110.00
T10- Uninoculated control 40.40
Treatments Root knot Index (RKI)
Untreated control 3.33a
Trichoderma harzianum (2x108 cfu/g)@0.9 kg/bed 0.66cd
Cow urine @4.5 L/bed 0.83cd
Vermicompost @4.5 kg/bed 1.33bc
Neem oil seed cake @ 0.36 kg/bed 1.16bc
Cow urine + T. harzianum 0.33d
Vermicompost + T. harzianum 0.66cd
Neem oil seed cake + T. harzianum 0.33d
Table 25: Influence of organic and biological amendments on root knot index in Withania somnifera L.
Pandey et al., 2011, Lucknow
Mean in each column followed by same letters do not differ significantly (P= 0.05) according to Duncan’s multiple range test.
Treatments Shoot dry weight (kg/m2)Root dry weight
(kg/m2)
Untreated control 1.3f 0.15h
Trichoderma harzianum (2x108 cfu/g) @0.9kg/bed 2.3d 0.25e
Cow urine @4.5L/bed 2.7b 0.28d
Vermicompost @4.5 kg/bed 2.3d 0.29bc
Neem oil seed cake @ 0.36kg/bed 2.5c 0.23f
Cow urine + T. harzianum 2.8ab 0.30b
Vermicompost + T. harzianum 2.9a 0.32a
Neem oil seed cake + T. harzianum 2.8ab 0.29bc
Table 26: Effect of different organic and biological amendments on the root & Shoot dry weight (kg) of Withania somnifera.
Pandey et al., 2011, Lucknow
Mean in each column followed by same letters do not differ significantly (P= 0.05) according to Duncan’s multiple range test.
Conclusion
• Biological approach could be practiced to obtain maximum
yield, quality and to manage pest & diseases
• Different AM- fungi and PGPR improve growth, forskohlin
and withaferin- A in coleus and ashwagandha, respectively
• Chrysoperla carnea, Trichogramma chilonis, Beauveria
bassiana and Bacillus thuringiensis are effective in pest
management
• Trichoderma harzianum found to be effective in controlling the
population of Meloidogyne incognita and Rhizoctonia
bataticola
Use Bioagents
For Healthy and living soil
Recommended