Research ArticleEvaluation of Chickpea Varieties and Fungicides for theManagement of Chickpea Fusarium Wilt Disease (Fusariumoxysporum fsp ciceris) at Adet Sick Plot in Northwest Ethiopia

Yigrem Mengist 1 Samuel Sahile2 Assefa Sintayehu 1 and Sanjay Singh1

1Department of Plant Sciences College of Agriculture and Rural Transformation University of Gondar PO Box 196Gondar Ethiopia2Department of Biology College of Natural and Computational Sciences University of Gondar PO Box 196Gondar Ethiopia

Correspondence should be addressed to Yigrem Mengist yigermmengist07gmailcom

Received 24 March 2018 Revised 13 July 2018 Accepted 28 August 2018 Published 18 December 2018

Academic Editor Ravindra N Chibbar

Copyright copy 2018 Yigrem Mengist et al (is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons AttributionLicense which permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work isproperly cited

A 2-year experiment was conducted at wilt sick plot infested with natural occurring Fusarium oxysporum fsp ciceris at AdetAgricultural Research Center in northwestern Ethiopia with an aim to evaluate effective chickpea varieties and fungicides for themanagement of chickpea fusarium wilt in order to integrate chickpea varieties and fungicides Four varieties namely ShashoArerti Marye and local two fungicides namely Apron Star andmancozeb and untreated local chickpea were used as treatmentsTreatments were arranged in a factorial combination in randomized complete block design in three replications (ere weresignificant differences at plt 005 in the overall mean of fusarium wilt disease incidence area under disease progress curve -dayyield and yield components among varieties and fungicides treatments Data were analyzed using SAS system version 92 (eresults indicated that the maximum disease incidence and area under disease progress curve values 6562 and 5785-dayrespectively were recorded from untreated local chickpea while the minimum disease incidence and area under disease progresscurve values 2341 and 147-day respectively were recorded from Shasho variety treated with Apron Star (e maximumbiomass and grain yield of 671 tha and 46 tha respectively were recorded from Shasho variety treated with Apron Star while theminimum biomass and grain yield of 062 tha and 021 tha respectively were recorded from untreated local chickpea (us theexperiment results suggested that the variety of Shasho treated with fungicide Apron Star caused significant reduction in chickpeafusarium wilt incidence leading to a corresponding increase in grain yield of chickpea

1 Introduction

(e average productivity of chickpea in Ethiopia is muchlower than the worldrsquos average and is also lower as comparedto other chickpea-growing countries such as Egypt andTurkey [1] (is low productivity is mainly due to a numberof biotic and a biotic stresses Among the biotic stressesfusarium wilt ascochyta blight pod borer and cutworm andabiotic stresses drought heat soil salinity low soil fertilityand poor cropmanagement practices are themost importantlimiting factors in crop production [2] However fusariumwilt caused by Fusarium oxysporum fsp ciceris is one of the

most important biotic stresses of chickpea (Cicer arietinumL) and the average annual yield losses due to wilt have beenestimated to 10 to 90 and sometimes escalate to 100when the relative humidity is greater than 60 and tem-perature ranges between 10 and 25degC [3] (e disease isprevalent in the Indian subcontinent Ethiopia MexicoSpain Tunisia Turkey and the United States [4] Fusariumoxysporum fsp ciceris is a vascular pathogen that perpet-uates in seed and soil and hence is difficult to manage by theuse of single control method [5]

Fusarium wilt of chickpea can be managed by usingresistant varieties healthy chickpea seed crop rotation

HindawiInternational Journal of AgronomyVolume 2018 Article ID 6015205 7 pageshttpsdoiorg10115520186015205

biological control and fungicides adjusting sowing datesand adopting integrated management practices [6] Seid andMelkamu [7] reported that growing resistant and moder-ately resistant varieties treated with fungicides sown atrecommended seeding rate could reduce mortality caused bychickpea fusarium wilt In spite of the occurrence of fusa-rium wilt in commonly grown varieties in most parts of thecountry every year limited research efforts have been madeto find out sources of resistance and develop suitablemethods for its management in Ethiopia (erefore themain objective of this study was to evaluate the effects ofchickpea varieties and seed dressing with fungicides onfusarium wilt development

2 Materials and Methods

21 Description of Study Area Treatments and ExperimentalDesign (e field experiment was conducted during 2015and 2016 cropping seasons on fusarium wilt sick plot at theAdet Agricultural Research Center (AARC) in the north-western part of Ethiopia (e center is located 11deg 17rsquoNlatitude 37deg 43rsquoE longitude and lies at an altitude of about2150masl According to the meteorological data of thecenter the average annual rainfall is 1250mm ranging be-tween 860mm and 1771mmwith the averagemaximum andminimum temperature 275degC and 122degC respectively [8]

(e treatments were consisted of four chickpea varietiesnamely Shasho Arerti Marye and local two seed dressingfungicides namely Apron Star and mancozeb and untreatedlocal chickpea (control) (e design was Randomized Com-plete Block Design (RCBD) with three replications (e grossplot size was 4m2 (16m times 25m) and the path plots andbetween blocks were 1m and 15m respectively Plots wereprepared and fertilized with 100 kgmiddothaminus1 diammoniumphosphate at planting (e seeds were planted at spacing of10 cm between plants and 40 cm between rows Both thefungicides were used at the rate of 3 g for a kg of seeds and thetreated seeds were shade-dried overnight before sowing Allthe recommended cultural practices were also applied in thefield

22DataCollection In the experiment field observations ofnaturally occurring fusarium wilt incidence were done at 7-day interval at sick plot based on percent of wilt incidence ineach plot Initial recording data for fusarium wilt diseaseincidence was done when wilting symptoms were visible onthe three to five basal leaves of the plants

Disease incidence (DI) on each experimental unit wascalculated by using the following formula

DI() number of plants that shows wilt symptoms

number of both disease infected plants and healthy plants1113888 1113889

times 100

(1)

Area under disease progress curve (AUDPC) was cal-culated for each treatment from the assessment of diseaseincidence by using the following formula

AUDPC 1113944nminus1

iminus105 xi+1 + xi( 1113857 ti+1 minus ti( 1113857 (2)

where xi is the disease incidence in percentage at ith as-sessment ti is the time of the ith assessment in days from thefirst assessment date and n is the total number of diseaseassessments [9]

Relative yield loss (RYL) was calculated using the for-mula of Robert and James [10]

RYL YPminusYUP

YPtimes 100 (3)

where RYL relative yield loss (reduction of the yield andyield component) YP yields which were obtained fromplots with maximum protection and YUP yields whichwere obtained from plots with minimum protection Rela-tive yield loss with different treatments was calculated withreference to the best protected plot

23 Statistical Analysis Analyses of variance (ANOVA) forthe effects of varieties and fungicides on fusarium wiltdisease incidence AUDPC -day relative yield loss andgrain yield were used to compare the level of resistanceamong evaluated varieties and fungicides All analyses wereperformed using statistical package SAS system version 92[11] Least significant difference (LSD) values were used toseparate differences among treatments means at 5 prob-ability level

3 Results and Discussion

(e data of two cropping seasons were analyzed separatelybut the result showed that there was no significant differencebetween the two season outputs in the experiments so thatthe two season data were combined and analyzed together

31 Disease Incidence Significant differences at plt 005were observed among varieties and fungicides on diseaseincidence percentage Among the main effects the maxi-mum disease incidence of 5345 was recorded from localchickpea while the minimum disease incidence of 2941was recorded from Shasho variety (Table 1) Shasho varietyfollowed by Arerti had lower wilt incidence over the local[12] On the contrary the maximum disease incidence of5231 was recorded from untreated plots while the min-imum disease incidence was ranged from 3276 to 3738recorded from Apron Star and mancozeb treated plotsrespectively (Table 1)

Landa et al [13] pointed out seed dressing chemical isone of the most important factors that reduces the effects offusarium wilt disease (e chickpea plants treated withfungicides gave 26ndash34 disease incidence of fusariumwilt ascompared to untreated plants which have 80 incidenceSimilarly the application of fungicides brought tremendousincrement in plant growth as well as grain yield Kamdi et al[14] stated that seed dressing fungicide applications inchickpea plants were very effective they have not onlysuppressed the pathogen activities but also increased the

2 International Journal of Agronomy

plant growth and grain yield (almost double than the controlplants)

Analysis of variance showed that disease incidence wassignificantly affected by chickpea varieties fungicides andtheir interaction at plt 005 (Table 2) Among the interactioneffects the maximum disease incidence of 6562 was ob-tained from untreated local chickpea followed by untreatedMarye variety while the minimum disease incidence of2341 was recorded from Shasho variety treated withApron Star but they did not show any significant differenceamong Shasho variety treated with mancozeb and Arertivariety treated with Apron Star fungicides that of 2668and 2839 respectively (Table 2)

32 Effect of Varieties and Fungicides on the Progress ofFusarium Wilt (e disease progress curve on chickpea va-rieties at two seed dressing fungicides ie Apron Star andmancozeb and untreated is given in Figure 1 (e fusariumwilt incidence increased from the initial to final assessmentdates and the curve showed an increasing trend of diseasedevelopment for effects of four chickpea varieties in each seeddressing fungicide in the assessments Hence the resultshowed that the rate was slower on Shasho followed by Arertivariety compared to local and Marye variety (Figure 1)

On the contrary the disease progress curve on fungicidesat four chickpea varieties ie Shasho Arerti Marye and localis given in Figure 2 (e curve showed an increasing trend ofdisease development for effects of seed dressing fungicides ineach chickpea variety in the assessments Hence the resultshowed that the rate was slower on chickpea treated withApron Star followed by the ones treated with mancozebfungicides compared to untreated plots (Figure 2)

33 Area under Disease Progress Curve (AUDPC) Amongthe main effects the minimum AUDPC -day value wererecorded from Shasho variety followed by Arerti and Maryevarieties while the maximum AUDPC -day value wasrecorded from local chickpea (Figure 3) (ese mean thatShasho variety has more resistance against to the fusariumwilt disease compared to other tested varieties

On the contrary the minimumAUDPC-day value wasrecorded from the chickpea variety treated with Apron Starfollowed by mancozeb fungicides while the maximumAUDPC -day value was recorded from untreated plots

(Figure 3) (is is because the chickpea variety treated withApron Star fungicides had more resistance against to thefusarium wilt disease incidence compared to mancozeb anduntreated

Analysis of variance showed that AUDPC -day wassignificantly affected by chickpea varieties fungicides andtheir interaction at plt 005 Among the interaction effectsthe maximum AUDPC -day value was recorded fromuntreated local chickpea followed by local chickpea treatedwith mancozeb fungicides while the minimum AUDPC-day value was recorded from Shasho variety treated withApron Star fungicides followed by Arerti treated withApron Star and Shasho treated mancozeb fungicides(Figure 4)

34 Grain Yield of Chickpea Grain yield was significantlyaffected by chickpea varieties fungicides and their in-teraction at plt 005 Among two-way interaction effects themaximum grain yield of 455 tha was recorded from Shashovariety treated with Apron Star followed by Arerti varietytreated with Apron Star which resulted in grain yield of394 tha while the minimum grain yields of 021 tha wererecorded from untreated local chickpea followed by un-treated Marye variety which resulted in grain yield of075 tha (Table 3)

Yigitoglu [15] reported that the maximum grain yieldwas obtained from resistant variety treated with seeddressing fungicides Apron Star seed-treatment gave mini-mum disease incidence of fusariumwilt andmaximum grainyield [14] Similarly Subhani et al [16] reported that ap-plications of seed dressing fungicide significantly increasedthe plant growth and yield and also decreased chickpeafusarium wilt incidence

35 Relative Losses in Grain Yield Among two way in-teraction effects the maximum relative grain yield losses of9538 and 8352 were obtained from untreated localchickpea and untreated Marye variety respectively whilethe minimum relative grain yield loss was obtained fromShasho variety treated with Apron Star fungicides whichresult of insignificance loss followed by Arerti varietytreated with Apron Star fungicides which result of 1341

Table 2 Two-way interaction effects of chickpea varieties andfungicides on disease incidence of chickpea fusarium wilt

Disease incidence percentage

Chickpea varietiesSeed dressing fungicides

Apron Star Mancozeb Untreated MeanShasho 2341a 2668ab 4015de 3008aArerti 2839ab 3267bc 4343e 3483aMarye 3633cd 4031de 6003g 4556bLocal 4491ef 4984f 6562g 5346cMean 3326a 3738a 5231bLSD (5) 6125CV () 1365LSD least significant difference CV coefficient of variation meansfollowed by the same letter did not show significant difference at plt 005according to least significant difference

Table 1 Main effects of chickpea varieties and fungicides ondisease incidence of chickpea fusarium wilt

Variety Incidence () Fungicides Incidence ()Shasho 2941a Apron Star 3276aArerti 3483a Mancozeb 3738aMarye 4556b Untreated 5231bLocal 5345bMean 4081 4082LSD 546 492CV () 1168LSD least significant difference CV coefficient of variation meansfollowed by the same letter did not show significant difference at plt 005according to least significant difference

International Journal of Agronomy 3

05

101520253035404550

30 37 44 51 58 65 72 79

Dise

ase i

ncid

ence

()

Days after sowing

ShashoArerti

MaryeLocal

(a)

ShashoArerti

MaryeLocal

0

10

20

30

40

50

30 37 44 51 58 65 72 79

Dise

ase i

ncid

ence

()

Days after sowing

(b)

ShashoArerti

MaryeLocal

05

101520253035404550

30 37 44 51 58 65 72 79

Dise

ase i

ncid

ence

()

Days after sowing

(c)

Figure 1 Response of different chickpea varieties to fungicides (a) untreated (b) mancozeb (c) Apron Star on disease progress curve offusarium wilt incidence

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

30 37 44 51 58 65 72 79Days after sowing

Dise

ase i

ncid

ence

()

MancozebUntreated

Apron Star

(a)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

30 37 44 51 58 65 72 79

Dise

ase i

ncid

ence

()

Days after sowing

MancozebUntreated

Apron Star

(b)

Figure 2 Continued

4 International Journal of Agronomy

050

100150200250300350400450

AU

DPC

(-d

ays)

Shas

ho

Are

rti

Mar

ye

Loca

l

(a)

050

100150200250300350400450

AU

DPC

(-d

ays)

Apro

n St

ar

Man

coze

b

Unt

reat

ed

(b)

Figure 3 (e main effects of (a) varieties and (b) fungicides on AUDPC (-day values) of fusarium wilt of chickpea

050

100150200250300350400450

AU

DPC

(-d

ays)

Varieties lowast fungicides

Shas

ho A

pron

Sta

r

Shas

ho m

anco

zeb

Shas

ho u

ntre

ated

Are

rti A

pron

Sta

r

Loca

l Apr

on S

tar

Are

rti m

anco

zeb

Loca

l man

coze

b

Loca

l unt

reat

ed

Are

rti u

ntre

ated

Mar

ye A

pron

Sta

r

Mar

ye m

anco

zeb

Mar

ye u

ntre

ated

Figure 4 Interaction effects of varieties and fungicides on AUDPC (-day values) of fusarium wilt disease

Dise

ase i

ncid

ence

()

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

30 37 44 51 58 65 72 79Days after sowing

MancozebUntreated

Apron Star

(c)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

30 37 44 51 58 65 72 79

Dise

ase i

ncid

ence

()

Days after sowing

MancozebUntreated

Apron Star

(d)

Figure 2 Response to different fungicides by the four varieties of chickpea (a) Shasho (b) Arerti (c) Marye and (d) local check variety ondisease progress of fusarium wilt incidence

International Journal of Agronomy 5

(Table 3) Grain yield losses were reduced through chickpeaseeds treated with seed dressing fungicide as compared tountreated check of the respective variety [3]

4 Conclusion

(efindings of the present study suggest that the adoption ofresistant variety Shasho with fungicide Apron Star seed-treatment may result in reduced fusarium wilt diseaseprogress with a corresponding increased grain yield ofchickpea Further undoubtedly the fusarium wilt appears tobe an important disease that calls for better attention in thestudy area in terms of economical management with fun-gicide seed-treatment and use of resistant varieties (evariety Shasho appears to have better resistance against thefusarium wilt disease therefore its genetic resistance needsto be investigated further by repeating the experiment forone more cropping season

Data Availability

(e data used to support the findings of this study areavailable from the corresponding author upon request

Conflicts of Interest

(e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

Acknowledgments

(e authors express their profound appreciation to theUniversity of Gondar College of Agriculture and RuralTransformation for granting the opportunity to the seniorauthor to pursue this study by awarding scholarship and fullfinancial support Words cannot explain his appreciation forthe Adet Agricultural Research Center for their material

support and invaluable help in creating hospitable workingenvironment for this research work

Supplementary Materials

Figure 1 the data in the three tables indicate the effect ofdifferent chickpea varieties (Shasho Arerti Marye andlocal) with the same untreated treated with mancozeb andtreated with Apron Star on disease incidence progress on 7daysrsquo interval (is mean that even though the chickpeavarieties with the same untreated treated with Mancozeband treated with Apron Star it shows difference amongvarieties in fusarium disease incidence progress Hence wehave to relate these data with Figure 1 Figure 2 the data infour tables indicate the effect of the same chickpea varietywith different fungicides Apron Star and mancozeb and thesame untreated on disease incidence progress in 7 daysrsquointerval (is means that even though the same chickpeavariety treated with different fungicides it shows differenceperformance among fungicides in fusarium disease in-cidence progress Hence we have to correlate these data withFigure 2 Figure 3 the data in two tables indicate the maineffect of chickpea varieties and fungicides and its interactioneffect on disease incidence progress On these row data I getgood results which perform good resistance for fusariumwilt incidence per days Hence you have to check on Figures3 and 4 NB even though all these agronomical parameterdata were collected on the field and included in the paperthe selected data were included in the manuscript such asfusarium wilt disease incidence and grain yield of chickpeaand their losses due to fusarium wilt disease Hence we haveto check on Tables 2 and 3 (Supplementary Materials)

References

[1] N S Jodha and K V Subba ldquoChickpea world importanceand distributionrdquo in 6e Chickpea M C Sexena andK B Singh Eds pp 1ndash10 CABI Walling ford UK 2012

[2] J B Smithson J A (ompson and R J SummerfieldldquoChickpea (Cicerarietinum L)rdquo in Grain Legume CropsR J Summerfield and E H Roberts Eds pp 312ndash390Collins London UK 2009

[3] J A N Cortes B Hav and R M Jimenez-Diaz ldquoYield loss inchickpea in relation to development of Fusarium wilt epi-demicsrdquo Phytopathology vol 90 no 11 pp 1269ndash1278 2012

[4] Y L Nene M V Reddy M P Haware A M Ghanekar andK S Amin ldquoField Diagnosis of Chickpea Diseases and theirControlrdquo Information Bulletin No 28 International CropsResearch Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics PatancheruHyderabad 2011

[5] D Cook E Barlow and L Sequeira ldquoGenetic diversity ofFusariumoxysporum f sp ciceris detection of restrictionfragment length polymorphisms with DNA probes thatspecify virulence and the hypersensitive responserdquo MolecularPlant-Microbe Interactions vol 2 pp 113ndash121 2012

[6] R Kakuhenzire J J Hakiza G T BergaLemaga andF Alacho ldquoPast present and future srategies for integratedmanagement of chickpea fusarium wilt disease in UgandardquoAfrican Potato Association Conference Proceedings vol 5pp 353ndash359 2010

Table 3 Two-way interaction effects of chickpea varieties andfungicides on grain yield of chickpea and their corresponding lossesdue to chickpea fusarium wilt

Variety Fungicides Grainyield (tha)

Relative grainyield loss ()

ShashoApron Star 455a 00Mancozeb 331bc 2725Untreated 208de 5429

ArertiApron Star 394ab 1341Mancozeb 275cd 3956Untreated 154ef 6615

MaryeApron Star 271cd 4044Mancozeb 152ef 6659Untreated 075fg 8352

LocalApron Star 216de 5252Mancozeb 151ef 6681Untreated 021g 9538

LSD (5) 0812CV () 1125LSD least significant difference CV coefficient of variation meansfollowed by the same letter did not show significant difference at plt 005according to least significant difference

6 International Journal of Agronomy

plant growth and grain yield (almost double than the controlplants)

Analysis of variance showed that disease incidence wassignificantly affected by chickpea varieties fungicides andtheir interaction at plt 005 (Table 2) Among the interactioneffects the maximum disease incidence of 6562 was ob-tained from untreated local chickpea followed by untreatedMarye variety while the minimum disease incidence of2341 was recorded from Shasho variety treated withApron Star but they did not show any significant differenceamong Shasho variety treated with mancozeb and Arertivariety treated with Apron Star fungicides that of 2668and 2839 respectively (Table 2)

32 Effect of Varieties and Fungicides on the Progress ofFusarium Wilt (e disease progress curve on chickpea va-rieties at two seed dressing fungicides ie Apron Star andmancozeb and untreated is given in Figure 1 (e fusariumwilt incidence increased from the initial to final assessmentdates and the curve showed an increasing trend of diseasedevelopment for effects of four chickpea varieties in each seeddressing fungicide in the assessments Hence the resultshowed that the rate was slower on Shasho followed by Arertivariety compared to local and Marye variety (Figure 1)

On the contrary the disease progress curve on fungicidesat four chickpea varieties ie Shasho Arerti Marye and localis given in Figure 2 (e curve showed an increasing trend ofdisease development for effects of seed dressing fungicides ineach chickpea variety in the assessments Hence the resultshowed that the rate was slower on chickpea treated withApron Star followed by the ones treated with mancozebfungicides compared to untreated plots (Figure 2)

33 Area under Disease Progress Curve (AUDPC) Amongthe main effects the minimum AUDPC -day value wererecorded from Shasho variety followed by Arerti and Maryevarieties while the maximum AUDPC -day value wasrecorded from local chickpea (Figure 3) (ese mean thatShasho variety has more resistance against to the fusariumwilt disease compared to other tested varieties

On the contrary the minimumAUDPC-day value wasrecorded from the chickpea variety treated with Apron Starfollowed by mancozeb fungicides while the maximumAUDPC -day value was recorded from untreated plots

(Figure 3) (is is because the chickpea variety treated withApron Star fungicides had more resistance against to thefusarium wilt disease incidence compared to mancozeb anduntreated

Analysis of variance showed that AUDPC -day wassignificantly affected by chickpea varieties fungicides andtheir interaction at plt 005 Among the interaction effectsthe maximum AUDPC -day value was recorded fromuntreated local chickpea followed by local chickpea treatedwith mancozeb fungicides while the minimum AUDPC-day value was recorded from Shasho variety treated withApron Star fungicides followed by Arerti treated withApron Star and Shasho treated mancozeb fungicides(Figure 4)

34 Grain Yield of Chickpea Grain yield was significantlyaffected by chickpea varieties fungicides and their in-teraction at plt 005 Among two-way interaction effects themaximum grain yield of 455 tha was recorded from Shashovariety treated with Apron Star followed by Arerti varietytreated with Apron Star which resulted in grain yield of394 tha while the minimum grain yields of 021 tha wererecorded from untreated local chickpea followed by un-treated Marye variety which resulted in grain yield of075 tha (Table 3)

Yigitoglu [15] reported that the maximum grain yieldwas obtained from resistant variety treated with seeddressing fungicides Apron Star seed-treatment gave mini-mum disease incidence of fusariumwilt andmaximum grainyield [14] Similarly Subhani et al [16] reported that ap-plications of seed dressing fungicide significantly increasedthe plant growth and yield and also decreased chickpeafusarium wilt incidence

35 Relative Losses in Grain Yield Among two way in-teraction effects the maximum relative grain yield losses of9538 and 8352 were obtained from untreated localchickpea and untreated Marye variety respectively whilethe minimum relative grain yield loss was obtained fromShasho variety treated with Apron Star fungicides whichresult of insignificance loss followed by Arerti varietytreated with Apron Star fungicides which result of 1341

Table 2 Two-way interaction effects of chickpea varieties andfungicides on disease incidence of chickpea fusarium wilt

Disease incidence percentage

Chickpea varietiesSeed dressing fungicides

Apron Star Mancozeb Untreated MeanShasho 2341a 2668ab 4015de 3008aArerti 2839ab 3267bc 4343e 3483aMarye 3633cd 4031de 6003g 4556bLocal 4491ef 4984f 6562g 5346cMean 3326a 3738a 5231bLSD (5) 6125CV () 1365LSD least significant difference CV coefficient of variation meansfollowed by the same letter did not show significant difference at plt 005according to least significant difference

Table 1 Main effects of chickpea varieties and fungicides ondisease incidence of chickpea fusarium wilt

Variety Incidence () Fungicides Incidence ()Shasho 2941a Apron Star 3276aArerti 3483a Mancozeb 3738aMarye 4556b Untreated 5231bLocal 5345bMean 4081 4082LSD 546 492CV () 1168LSD least significant difference CV coefficient of variation meansfollowed by the same letter did not show significant difference at plt 005according to least significant difference

International Journal of Agronomy 3

05

101520253035404550

30 37 44 51 58 65 72 79

Dise

ase i

ncid

ence

()

Days after sowing

ShashoArerti

MaryeLocal

(a)

ShashoArerti

MaryeLocal

0

10

20

30

40

50

30 37 44 51 58 65 72 79

Dise

ase i

ncid

ence

()

Days after sowing

(b)

ShashoArerti

MaryeLocal

05

101520253035404550

30 37 44 51 58 65 72 79

Dise

ase i

ncid

ence

()

Days after sowing

(c)

Figure 1 Response of different chickpea varieties to fungicides (a) untreated (b) mancozeb (c) Apron Star on disease progress curve offusarium wilt incidence

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

30 37 44 51 58 65 72 79Days after sowing

Dise

ase i

ncid

ence

()

MancozebUntreated

Apron Star

(a)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

30 37 44 51 58 65 72 79

Dise

ase i

ncid

ence

()

Days after sowing

MancozebUntreated

Apron Star

(b)

Figure 2 Continued

4 International Journal of Agronomy

050

100150200250300350400450

AU

DPC

(-d

ays)

Shas

ho

Are

rti

Mar

ye

Loca

l

(a)

050

100150200250300350400450

AU

DPC

(-d

ays)

Apro

n St

ar

Man

coze

b

Unt

reat

ed

(b)

Figure 3 (e main effects of (a) varieties and (b) fungicides on AUDPC (-day values) of fusarium wilt of chickpea

050

100150200250300350400450

AU

DPC

(-d

ays)

Varieties lowast fungicides

Shas

ho A

pron

Sta

r

Shas

ho m

anco

zeb

Shas

ho u

ntre

ated

Are

rti A

pron

Sta

r

Loca

l Apr

on S

tar

Are

rti m

anco

zeb

Loca

l man

coze

b

Loca

l unt

reat

ed

Are

rti u

ntre

ated

Mar

ye A

pron

Sta

r

Mar

ye m

anco

zeb

Mar

ye u

ntre

ated

Figure 4 Interaction effects of varieties and fungicides on AUDPC (-day values) of fusarium wilt disease

Dise

ase i

ncid

ence

()

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

30 37 44 51 58 65 72 79Days after sowing

MancozebUntreated

Apron Star

(c)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

30 37 44 51 58 65 72 79

Dise

ase i

ncid

ence

()

Days after sowing

MancozebUntreated

Apron Star

(d)

Figure 2 Response to different fungicides by the four varieties of chickpea (a) Shasho (b) Arerti (c) Marye and (d) local check variety ondisease progress of fusarium wilt incidence

International Journal of Agronomy 5

(Table 3) Grain yield losses were reduced through chickpeaseeds treated with seed dressing fungicide as compared tountreated check of the respective variety [3]

4 Conclusion

(efindings of the present study suggest that the adoption ofresistant variety Shasho with fungicide Apron Star seed-treatment may result in reduced fusarium wilt diseaseprogress with a corresponding increased grain yield ofchickpea Further undoubtedly the fusarium wilt appears tobe an important disease that calls for better attention in thestudy area in terms of economical management with fun-gicide seed-treatment and use of resistant varieties (evariety Shasho appears to have better resistance against thefusarium wilt disease therefore its genetic resistance needsto be investigated further by repeating the experiment forone more cropping season

Data Availability

(e data used to support the findings of this study areavailable from the corresponding author upon request

Conflicts of Interest

(e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

Acknowledgments

(e authors express their profound appreciation to theUniversity of Gondar College of Agriculture and RuralTransformation for granting the opportunity to the seniorauthor to pursue this study by awarding scholarship and fullfinancial support Words cannot explain his appreciation forthe Adet Agricultural Research Center for their material

support and invaluable help in creating hospitable workingenvironment for this research work

Supplementary Materials

Figure 1 the data in the three tables indicate the effect ofdifferent chickpea varieties (Shasho Arerti Marye andlocal) with the same untreated treated with mancozeb andtreated with Apron Star on disease incidence progress on 7daysrsquo interval (is mean that even though the chickpeavarieties with the same untreated treated with Mancozeband treated with Apron Star it shows difference amongvarieties in fusarium disease incidence progress Hence wehave to relate these data with Figure 1 Figure 2 the data infour tables indicate the effect of the same chickpea varietywith different fungicides Apron Star and mancozeb and thesame untreated on disease incidence progress in 7 daysrsquointerval (is means that even though the same chickpeavariety treated with different fungicides it shows differenceperformance among fungicides in fusarium disease in-cidence progress Hence we have to correlate these data withFigure 2 Figure 3 the data in two tables indicate the maineffect of chickpea varieties and fungicides and its interactioneffect on disease incidence progress On these row data I getgood results which perform good resistance for fusariumwilt incidence per days Hence you have to check on Figures3 and 4 NB even though all these agronomical parameterdata were collected on the field and included in the paperthe selected data were included in the manuscript such asfusarium wilt disease incidence and grain yield of chickpeaand their losses due to fusarium wilt disease Hence we haveto check on Tables 2 and 3 (Supplementary Materials)

References

[1] N S Jodha and K V Subba ldquoChickpea world importanceand distributionrdquo in 6e Chickpea M C Sexena andK B Singh Eds pp 1ndash10 CABI Walling ford UK 2012

[2] J B Smithson J A (ompson and R J SummerfieldldquoChickpea (Cicerarietinum L)rdquo in Grain Legume CropsR J Summerfield and E H Roberts Eds pp 312ndash390Collins London UK 2009

[3] J A N Cortes B Hav and R M Jimenez-Diaz ldquoYield loss inchickpea in relation to development of Fusarium wilt epi-demicsrdquo Phytopathology vol 90 no 11 pp 1269ndash1278 2012

[4] Y L Nene M V Reddy M P Haware A M Ghanekar andK S Amin ldquoField Diagnosis of Chickpea Diseases and theirControlrdquo Information Bulletin No 28 International CropsResearch Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics PatancheruHyderabad 2011

[5] D Cook E Barlow and L Sequeira ldquoGenetic diversity ofFusariumoxysporum f sp ciceris detection of restrictionfragment length polymorphisms with DNA probes thatspecify virulence and the hypersensitive responserdquo MolecularPlant-Microbe Interactions vol 2 pp 113ndash121 2012

[6] R Kakuhenzire J J Hakiza G T BergaLemaga andF Alacho ldquoPast present and future srategies for integratedmanagement of chickpea fusarium wilt disease in UgandardquoAfrican Potato Association Conference Proceedings vol 5pp 353ndash359 2010

Table 3 Two-way interaction effects of chickpea varieties andfungicides on grain yield of chickpea and their corresponding lossesdue to chickpea fusarium wilt

Variety Fungicides Grainyield (tha)

Relative grainyield loss ()

ShashoApron Star 455a 00Mancozeb 331bc 2725Untreated 208de 5429

ArertiApron Star 394ab 1341Mancozeb 275cd 3956Untreated 154ef 6615

MaryeApron Star 271cd 4044Mancozeb 152ef 6659Untreated 075fg 8352

LocalApron Star 216de 5252Mancozeb 151ef 6681Untreated 021g 9538

LSD (5) 0812CV () 1125LSD least significant difference CV coefficient of variation meansfollowed by the same letter did not show significant difference at plt 005according to least significant difference

6 International Journal of Agronomy

05

101520253035404550

30 37 44 51 58 65 72 79

Dise

ase i

ncid

ence

()

Days after sowing

ShashoArerti

MaryeLocal

(a)

ShashoArerti

MaryeLocal

0

10

20

30

40

50

30 37 44 51 58 65 72 79

Dise

ase i

ncid

ence

()

Days after sowing

(b)

ShashoArerti

MaryeLocal

05

101520253035404550

30 37 44 51 58 65 72 79

Dise

ase i

ncid

ence

()

Days after sowing

(c)

Figure 1 Response of different chickpea varieties to fungicides (a) untreated (b) mancozeb (c) Apron Star on disease progress curve offusarium wilt incidence

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

30 37 44 51 58 65 72 79Days after sowing

Dise

ase i

ncid

ence

()

MancozebUntreated

Apron Star

(a)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

30 37 44 51 58 65 72 79

Dise

ase i

ncid

ence

()

Days after sowing

MancozebUntreated

Apron Star

(b)

Figure 2 Continued

4 International Journal of Agronomy

050

100150200250300350400450

AU

DPC

(-d

ays)

Shas

ho

Are

rti

Mar

ye

Loca

l

(a)

050

100150200250300350400450

AU

DPC

(-d

ays)

Apro

n St

ar

Man

coze

b

Unt

reat

ed

(b)

Figure 3 (e main effects of (a) varieties and (b) fungicides on AUDPC (-day values) of fusarium wilt of chickpea

050

100150200250300350400450

AU

DPC

(-d

ays)

Varieties lowast fungicides

Shas

ho A

pron

Sta

r

Shas

ho m

anco

zeb

Shas

ho u

ntre

ated

Are

rti A

pron

Sta

r

Loca

l Apr

on S

tar

Are

rti m

anco

zeb

Loca

l man

coze

b

Loca

l unt

reat

ed

Are

rti u

ntre

ated

Mar

ye A

pron

Sta

r

Mar

ye m

anco

zeb

Mar

ye u

ntre

ated

Figure 4 Interaction effects of varieties and fungicides on AUDPC (-day values) of fusarium wilt disease

Dise

ase i

ncid

ence

()

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

30 37 44 51 58 65 72 79Days after sowing

MancozebUntreated

Apron Star

(c)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

30 37 44 51 58 65 72 79

Dise

ase i

ncid

ence

()

Days after sowing

MancozebUntreated

Apron Star

(d)

Figure 2 Response to different fungicides by the four varieties of chickpea (a) Shasho (b) Arerti (c) Marye and (d) local check variety ondisease progress of fusarium wilt incidence

International Journal of Agronomy 5

(Table 3) Grain yield losses were reduced through chickpeaseeds treated with seed dressing fungicide as compared tountreated check of the respective variety [3]

4 Conclusion

(efindings of the present study suggest that the adoption ofresistant variety Shasho with fungicide Apron Star seed-treatment may result in reduced fusarium wilt diseaseprogress with a corresponding increased grain yield ofchickpea Further undoubtedly the fusarium wilt appears tobe an important disease that calls for better attention in thestudy area in terms of economical management with fun-gicide seed-treatment and use of resistant varieties (evariety Shasho appears to have better resistance against thefusarium wilt disease therefore its genetic resistance needsto be investigated further by repeating the experiment forone more cropping season

Data Availability

(e data used to support the findings of this study areavailable from the corresponding author upon request

Conflicts of Interest

(e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

Acknowledgments

(e authors express their profound appreciation to theUniversity of Gondar College of Agriculture and RuralTransformation for granting the opportunity to the seniorauthor to pursue this study by awarding scholarship and fullfinancial support Words cannot explain his appreciation forthe Adet Agricultural Research Center for their material

support and invaluable help in creating hospitable workingenvironment for this research work

Supplementary Materials

Figure 1 the data in the three tables indicate the effect ofdifferent chickpea varieties (Shasho Arerti Marye andlocal) with the same untreated treated with mancozeb andtreated with Apron Star on disease incidence progress on 7daysrsquo interval (is mean that even though the chickpeavarieties with the same untreated treated with Mancozeband treated with Apron Star it shows difference amongvarieties in fusarium disease incidence progress Hence wehave to relate these data with Figure 1 Figure 2 the data infour tables indicate the effect of the same chickpea varietywith different fungicides Apron Star and mancozeb and thesame untreated on disease incidence progress in 7 daysrsquointerval (is means that even though the same chickpeavariety treated with different fungicides it shows differenceperformance among fungicides in fusarium disease in-cidence progress Hence we have to correlate these data withFigure 2 Figure 3 the data in two tables indicate the maineffect of chickpea varieties and fungicides and its interactioneffect on disease incidence progress On these row data I getgood results which perform good resistance for fusariumwilt incidence per days Hence you have to check on Figures3 and 4 NB even though all these agronomical parameterdata were collected on the field and included in the paperthe selected data were included in the manuscript such asfusarium wilt disease incidence and grain yield of chickpeaand their losses due to fusarium wilt disease Hence we haveto check on Tables 2 and 3 (Supplementary Materials)

References

[1] N S Jodha and K V Subba ldquoChickpea world importanceand distributionrdquo in 6e Chickpea M C Sexena andK B Singh Eds pp 1ndash10 CABI Walling ford UK 2012

[2] J B Smithson J A (ompson and R J SummerfieldldquoChickpea (Cicerarietinum L)rdquo in Grain Legume CropsR J Summerfield and E H Roberts Eds pp 312ndash390Collins London UK 2009

[3] J A N Cortes B Hav and R M Jimenez-Diaz ldquoYield loss inchickpea in relation to development of Fusarium wilt epi-demicsrdquo Phytopathology vol 90 no 11 pp 1269ndash1278 2012

[4] Y L Nene M V Reddy M P Haware A M Ghanekar andK S Amin ldquoField Diagnosis of Chickpea Diseases and theirControlrdquo Information Bulletin No 28 International CropsResearch Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics PatancheruHyderabad 2011

[5] D Cook E Barlow and L Sequeira ldquoGenetic diversity ofFusariumoxysporum f sp ciceris detection of restrictionfragment length polymorphisms with DNA probes thatspecify virulence and the hypersensitive responserdquo MolecularPlant-Microbe Interactions vol 2 pp 113ndash121 2012

[6] R Kakuhenzire J J Hakiza G T BergaLemaga andF Alacho ldquoPast present and future srategies for integratedmanagement of chickpea fusarium wilt disease in UgandardquoAfrican Potato Association Conference Proceedings vol 5pp 353ndash359 2010

Table 3 Two-way interaction effects of chickpea varieties andfungicides on grain yield of chickpea and their corresponding lossesdue to chickpea fusarium wilt

Variety Fungicides Grainyield (tha)

Relative grainyield loss ()

ShashoApron Star 455a 00Mancozeb 331bc 2725Untreated 208de 5429

ArertiApron Star 394ab 1341Mancozeb 275cd 3956Untreated 154ef 6615

MaryeApron Star 271cd 4044Mancozeb 152ef 6659Untreated 075fg 8352

LocalApron Star 216de 5252Mancozeb 151ef 6681Untreated 021g 9538

LSD (5) 0812CV () 1125LSD least significant difference CV coefficient of variation meansfollowed by the same letter did not show significant difference at plt 005according to least significant difference

6 International Journal of Agronomy

050

100150200250300350400450

AU

DPC

(-d

ays)

Shas

ho

Are

rti

Mar

ye

Loca

l

(a)

050

100150200250300350400450

AU

DPC

(-d

ays)

Apro

n St

ar

Man

coze

b

Unt

reat

ed

(b)

Figure 3 (e main effects of (a) varieties and (b) fungicides on AUDPC (-day values) of fusarium wilt of chickpea

050

100150200250300350400450

AU

DPC

(-d

ays)

Varieties lowast fungicides

Shas

ho A

pron

Sta

r

Shas

ho m

anco

zeb

Shas

ho u

ntre

ated

Are

rti A

pron

Sta

r

Loca

l Apr

on S

tar

Are

rti m

anco

zeb

Loca

l man

coze

b

Loca

l unt

reat

ed

Are

rti u

ntre

ated

Mar

ye A

pron

Sta

r

Mar

ye m

anco

zeb

Mar

ye u

ntre

ated

Figure 4 Interaction effects of varieties and fungicides on AUDPC (-day values) of fusarium wilt disease

Dise

ase i

ncid

ence

()

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

30 37 44 51 58 65 72 79Days after sowing

MancozebUntreated

Apron Star

(c)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

30 37 44 51 58 65 72 79

Dise

ase i

ncid

ence

()

Days after sowing

MancozebUntreated

Apron Star

(d)

Figure 2 Response to different fungicides by the four varieties of chickpea (a) Shasho (b) Arerti (c) Marye and (d) local check variety ondisease progress of fusarium wilt incidence

International Journal of Agronomy 5

(Table 3) Grain yield losses were reduced through chickpeaseeds treated with seed dressing fungicide as compared tountreated check of the respective variety [3]

4 Conclusion

(efindings of the present study suggest that the adoption ofresistant variety Shasho with fungicide Apron Star seed-treatment may result in reduced fusarium wilt diseaseprogress with a corresponding increased grain yield ofchickpea Further undoubtedly the fusarium wilt appears tobe an important disease that calls for better attention in thestudy area in terms of economical management with fun-gicide seed-treatment and use of resistant varieties (evariety Shasho appears to have better resistance against thefusarium wilt disease therefore its genetic resistance needsto be investigated further by repeating the experiment forone more cropping season

Data Availability

(e data used to support the findings of this study areavailable from the corresponding author upon request

Conflicts of Interest

(e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

Acknowledgments

(e authors express their profound appreciation to theUniversity of Gondar College of Agriculture and RuralTransformation for granting the opportunity to the seniorauthor to pursue this study by awarding scholarship and fullfinancial support Words cannot explain his appreciation forthe Adet Agricultural Research Center for their material

support and invaluable help in creating hospitable workingenvironment for this research work

Supplementary Materials

Figure 1 the data in the three tables indicate the effect ofdifferent chickpea varieties (Shasho Arerti Marye andlocal) with the same untreated treated with mancozeb andtreated with Apron Star on disease incidence progress on 7daysrsquo interval (is mean that even though the chickpeavarieties with the same untreated treated with Mancozeband treated with Apron Star it shows difference amongvarieties in fusarium disease incidence progress Hence wehave to relate these data with Figure 1 Figure 2 the data infour tables indicate the effect of the same chickpea varietywith different fungicides Apron Star and mancozeb and thesame untreated on disease incidence progress in 7 daysrsquointerval (is means that even though the same chickpeavariety treated with different fungicides it shows differenceperformance among fungicides in fusarium disease in-cidence progress Hence we have to correlate these data withFigure 2 Figure 3 the data in two tables indicate the maineffect of chickpea varieties and fungicides and its interactioneffect on disease incidence progress On these row data I getgood results which perform good resistance for fusariumwilt incidence per days Hence you have to check on Figures3 and 4 NB even though all these agronomical parameterdata were collected on the field and included in the paperthe selected data were included in the manuscript such asfusarium wilt disease incidence and grain yield of chickpeaand their losses due to fusarium wilt disease Hence we haveto check on Tables 2 and 3 (Supplementary Materials)

References

[1] N S Jodha and K V Subba ldquoChickpea world importanceand distributionrdquo in 6e Chickpea M C Sexena andK B Singh Eds pp 1ndash10 CABI Walling ford UK 2012

[2] J B Smithson J A (ompson and R J SummerfieldldquoChickpea (Cicerarietinum L)rdquo in Grain Legume CropsR J Summerfield and E H Roberts Eds pp 312ndash390Collins London UK 2009

[3] J A N Cortes B Hav and R M Jimenez-Diaz ldquoYield loss inchickpea in relation to development of Fusarium wilt epi-demicsrdquo Phytopathology vol 90 no 11 pp 1269ndash1278 2012

[4] Y L Nene M V Reddy M P Haware A M Ghanekar andK S Amin ldquoField Diagnosis of Chickpea Diseases and theirControlrdquo Information Bulletin No 28 International CropsResearch Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics PatancheruHyderabad 2011

[5] D Cook E Barlow and L Sequeira ldquoGenetic diversity ofFusariumoxysporum f sp ciceris detection of restrictionfragment length polymorphisms with DNA probes thatspecify virulence and the hypersensitive responserdquo MolecularPlant-Microbe Interactions vol 2 pp 113ndash121 2012

[6] R Kakuhenzire J J Hakiza G T BergaLemaga andF Alacho ldquoPast present and future srategies for integratedmanagement of chickpea fusarium wilt disease in UgandardquoAfrican Potato Association Conference Proceedings vol 5pp 353ndash359 2010

Table 3 Two-way interaction effects of chickpea varieties andfungicides on grain yield of chickpea and their corresponding lossesdue to chickpea fusarium wilt

Variety Fungicides Grainyield (tha)

Relative grainyield loss ()

ShashoApron Star 455a 00Mancozeb 331bc 2725Untreated 208de 5429

ArertiApron Star 394ab 1341Mancozeb 275cd 3956Untreated 154ef 6615

MaryeApron Star 271cd 4044Mancozeb 152ef 6659Untreated 075fg 8352

LocalApron Star 216de 5252Mancozeb 151ef 6681Untreated 021g 9538

LSD (5) 0812CV () 1125LSD least significant difference CV coefficient of variation meansfollowed by the same letter did not show significant difference at plt 005according to least significant difference

6 International Journal of Agronomy

(Table 3) Grain yield losses were reduced through chickpeaseeds treated with seed dressing fungicide as compared tountreated check of the respective variety [3]

4 Conclusion

(efindings of the present study suggest that the adoption ofresistant variety Shasho with fungicide Apron Star seed-treatment may result in reduced fusarium wilt diseaseprogress with a corresponding increased grain yield ofchickpea Further undoubtedly the fusarium wilt appears tobe an important disease that calls for better attention in thestudy area in terms of economical management with fun-gicide seed-treatment and use of resistant varieties (evariety Shasho appears to have better resistance against thefusarium wilt disease therefore its genetic resistance needsto be investigated further by repeating the experiment forone more cropping season

Data Availability

(e data used to support the findings of this study areavailable from the corresponding author upon request

Conflicts of Interest

(e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

Acknowledgments

(e authors express their profound appreciation to theUniversity of Gondar College of Agriculture and RuralTransformation for granting the opportunity to the seniorauthor to pursue this study by awarding scholarship and fullfinancial support Words cannot explain his appreciation forthe Adet Agricultural Research Center for their material

support and invaluable help in creating hospitable workingenvironment for this research work

Supplementary Materials

Figure 1 the data in the three tables indicate the effect ofdifferent chickpea varieties (Shasho Arerti Marye andlocal) with the same untreated treated with mancozeb andtreated with Apron Star on disease incidence progress on 7daysrsquo interval (is mean that even though the chickpeavarieties with the same untreated treated with Mancozeband treated with Apron Star it shows difference amongvarieties in fusarium disease incidence progress Hence wehave to relate these data with Figure 1 Figure 2 the data infour tables indicate the effect of the same chickpea varietywith different fungicides Apron Star and mancozeb and thesame untreated on disease incidence progress in 7 daysrsquointerval (is means that even though the same chickpeavariety treated with different fungicides it shows differenceperformance among fungicides in fusarium disease in-cidence progress Hence we have to correlate these data withFigure 2 Figure 3 the data in two tables indicate the maineffect of chickpea varieties and fungicides and its interactioneffect on disease incidence progress On these row data I getgood results which perform good resistance for fusariumwilt incidence per days Hence you have to check on Figures3 and 4 NB even though all these agronomical parameterdata were collected on the field and included in the paperthe selected data were included in the manuscript such asfusarium wilt disease incidence and grain yield of chickpeaand their losses due to fusarium wilt disease Hence we haveto check on Tables 2 and 3 (Supplementary Materials)

References

[1] N S Jodha and K V Subba ldquoChickpea world importanceand distributionrdquo in 6e Chickpea M C Sexena andK B Singh Eds pp 1ndash10 CABI Walling ford UK 2012

[2] J B Smithson J A (ompson and R J SummerfieldldquoChickpea (Cicerarietinum L)rdquo in Grain Legume CropsR J Summerfield and E H Roberts Eds pp 312ndash390Collins London UK 2009

[3] J A N Cortes B Hav and R M Jimenez-Diaz ldquoYield loss inchickpea in relation to development of Fusarium wilt epi-demicsrdquo Phytopathology vol 90 no 11 pp 1269ndash1278 2012

[4] Y L Nene M V Reddy M P Haware A M Ghanekar andK S Amin ldquoField Diagnosis of Chickpea Diseases and theirControlrdquo Information Bulletin No 28 International CropsResearch Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics PatancheruHyderabad 2011

[5] D Cook E Barlow and L Sequeira ldquoGenetic diversity ofFusariumoxysporum f sp ciceris detection of restrictionfragment length polymorphisms with DNA probes thatspecify virulence and the hypersensitive responserdquo MolecularPlant-Microbe Interactions vol 2 pp 113ndash121 2012

[6] R Kakuhenzire J J Hakiza G T BergaLemaga andF Alacho ldquoPast present and future srategies for integratedmanagement of chickpea fusarium wilt disease in UgandardquoAfrican Potato Association Conference Proceedings vol 5pp 353ndash359 2010

Table 3 Two-way interaction effects of chickpea varieties andfungicides on grain yield of chickpea and their corresponding lossesdue to chickpea fusarium wilt

Variety Fungicides Grainyield (tha)

Relative grainyield loss ()

ShashoApron Star 455a 00Mancozeb 331bc 2725Untreated 208de 5429

ArertiApron Star 394ab 1341Mancozeb 275cd 3956Untreated 154ef 6615

MaryeApron Star 271cd 4044Mancozeb 152ef 6659Untreated 075fg 8352

LocalApron Star 216de 5252Mancozeb 151ef 6681Untreated 021g 9538

LSD (5) 0812CV () 1125LSD least significant difference CV coefficient of variation meansfollowed by the same letter did not show significant difference at plt 005according to least significant difference

6 International Journal of Agronomy

[7] A Seid and A Melkamu ldquoChickpea Lentil GrasspeaFenugreek and Lupine Disease Research In Ethiopiardquo in Foodand forage legume K Ali G Kenneni S Ahmed et al Edsp 351 Alleppo Syria 2003

[8] Y Gelanew ldquoSelected chemical and physical characteristics ofsoils of Adet agricultural research center and its testing sites inNorthwest Ethiopiardquo Ethiopian J Natural Resource vol 4pp 199ndash215 2013

[9] C L Campbell and V L Madden Introduction to PlantDisease Epidemiology John Wiley and Sons Inc New YorkNY USA 1990

[10] G D Robert and H T James A Biometrical ApproachPrinciples of Statistics McGraw-Hill New York USA 2ndedition 1991

[11] SAS Institute SAS Technical Report SAS system for windowsV8 SASSTAT Software Release 802 TS Level 02 M0 SASInstitute Inc Cary NC USA 2001

[12] A Merkuz and A Getachew ldquoInfluence of chickpea fusariumwilt (Fusariumoxysporum fsp ciceris) on Desi and Kabuli-type of chickpea in integrated disease management option atwilt sick plot in North western Ethiopiardquo InternationalJournal of Current Research vol 4 no 4 pp 46ndash45 2012

[13] B B Landa J A Navas-Cortes and R M Jimenez-DiazldquoIntegrated management of Fusarium wilt of chickpea withhost resistance biological control and seed dressing fungi-cidesrdquo Phytopathology vol 94 pp 946ndash960 2014

[14] D R Kamdi M KMondhe G Jadesha D N Kshirsagar andK D (akur ldquoEfficacy of botanicals bio-agents and fungi-cides against Fusariumoxysporum f sp ciceris in chickpea wiltsick plotrdquo Annals of Biological Research vol 11 pp 5390ndash5392 2012

[15] D Yigitoglu Research on the effect of different fungicides onthe yield and yield components of some chickpea (Cicerar-ietinumL) cultivars that treated in different fungicides inkahramanmaras region PhD (esis Department of FieldCrops Institute of Natural and Applied Science University ofCukurova Adana Turkey 2006

[16] M N Subhani S T Sahi S Hussain A Ali J Iqbal andK Hameed ldquoEvaluation of various fungicides for the controlof gram wilt caused by Fusariumoxysporum f sp cicerisrdquoAfrican Journal of Agricultural Research vol 6 no 19pp 4555ndash4559 2011

International Journal of Agronomy 7

Nutrition and Metabolism

Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Food ScienceInternational Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

International Journal of

Microbiology

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom

The Scientific World Journal

Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom

Applied ampEnvironmentalSoil Science

Volume 2018

AgricultureAdvances in

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

PsycheHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

BiodiversityInternational Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

ScienticaHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

GenomicsInternational Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Plant GenomicsInternational Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Biotechnology Research International

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Forestry ResearchInternational Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

BotanyJournal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

EcologyInternational Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Veterinary Medicine International

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Cell BiologyInternational Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

BioMed Research International

Agronomy

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

International Journal of

Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom

Nutrition and Metabolism

Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Food ScienceInternational Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

International Journal of

Microbiology

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2013Hindawiwwwhindawicom

The Scientific World Journal

Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom

Applied ampEnvironmentalSoil Science

Volume 2018

AgricultureAdvances in

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

PsycheHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

BiodiversityInternational Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

ScienticaHindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

GenomicsInternational Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Plant GenomicsInternational Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Biotechnology Research International

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Forestry ResearchInternational Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

BotanyJournal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

EcologyInternational Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Veterinary Medicine International

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Cell BiologyInternational Journal of

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

BioMed Research International

Agronomy

Hindawiwwwhindawicom Volume 2018

International Journal of

Submit your manuscripts atwwwhindawicom