IntechOpen

Home > Books > Soybean - Pest Resistance

Open access

Screening of Soybean (Glycine Max (L.) Merrill) Genotypes for Resistance to Rust, Yellow Mosaic and Pod Shattering

Written By

M. H. Khan, S. D. Tyagi and Z. A. Dar

Submitted: 20 June 2012 Published: 13 February 2013

DOI: 10.5772/54697

Soybean IntechOpen
Soybean Pest Resistance Edited by Hany El-Shemy

From the Edited Volume

Soybean - Pest Resistance

Edited by Hany A. El-Shemy

Book Details Order Print

Chapter metrics overview

2,468 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics
Advertisement

1. Introduction

Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill) is known as ‘Golden bean’ and miracle crop of 20th century. Soybean is a native of North China, Asia belongs to family fabaceae. It is a versatile and fascinating crop with innumerable possibilities of not only improving agriculture but also supporting industries. Soybean besides having high yielding potential (40-45 q/ha) also provides cholesterol free oil (20%) and high quality protein (40%). It is a rich source of lysine (6.4%) in addition to other essential amino acids, vitamins and minerals. Its oil is also used as a raw material in manufacturing antibiotics, paints, varnishes, adhesives and lubricants etc.

Like other economically important crops soybean is also suffering from many diseases viz, rust (Phakopsora pachyrhizi Syd.) and yellow mosaic (Mungbean Yellow Mosaic Virus) are the major disease under Indian conditions, which causes considerable reduction in yield up to 80 per cent under severe conditions [3]. Further, another major problem in soybean is pods shattering which also reduces yield and in some varieties 100 per cent yield losses have been observed. The extent of yield loss due to pod shattering may range from negligible to significance levels depending upon the time of harvesting, environmental condition and genetic endowment of the variety [11]. Hence screening for soybean genotypes for identifying resistance to above major problems with high yielding potential will help to increase the production to a greater extent.

Advertisement

2. Materials and methods

The material consisted of 84 genotypes of soybean originated from different places of India and abroad. The experiment was laid in augmented design at the Research Farm of Kisan (PG) College, Simbhaoli, Ghaziabad, during kharif, season of 2008. In each replication the genotypes were grown in 2 m long rows with spacing of 40cm × 10cm for row to row and plant to plant, respectively. Within a row, seeds were hand dibbled 10 cm apart. Standard package of practices was followed to raise the crop. Ten competitive plants were randomly selected from each treatment in each replication and data were recorded on 3 qualitative characters namely, pod shattering resistance, rust resistance and yellow mosaic disease resistance.

2.1. Screening for pod shattering resistance

The pod shattering resistance was recorded at physiological maturity of the pod. The screening was done under laboratory condition by following the methodology adopted by IITA [4]. The results were recorded as percentage of pod shattering. IITA method of calculating pod shattering under lab conditions:

A sample of 25 pods were collected and kept in oven at 40°C for 7 days.

On the 7th day the number of shattered pods were counted and expressed in percentage as below,

Number of pods shattered

Pod shattering percentage (%) = x 100

Total number of pods

The genotypes were classified into different categories based on their reaction to pod shattering. The scoring rate was followed according to method adopted by IITA.

Sl.No Category Resistant reaction
1. No pod shattering Shattering resistant
2. <25% pod shattering Shattering tolerant
3. 25-50% pod shattering Moderately shattering
4. 51-75% pod shattering Highly shattering
5. >75% pod shattering very highly shattering

2.2. Screening for rust resistance

The scoring for rust was done just after initiation of flowering and before pod formation. The observations were taken on lower, middle and upper leaves for density of pustule and sporulating intensity. Based on the symptoms, pustule density and sporulation intensity grades were given. The genotypes were later grouped into different categories from immune to highly susceptible. The scale (0-9) used was as follows:

Sl. No. Scale Category
1. 0 Immune
2. 1 Resistant
3. 3 Moderately resistant
4. 5 Moderately susceptible
5. 7 Susceptible
6. 9 Highly susceptible

2.3. Screening for yellow mosaic disease resistance

84 soybean genotypes grown in natural (field) conditions at Research Farm of Kisan (PG) College, Simbhaoli, Ghaziabad during kharif, 2008 were screened. Number of plants showing distinct symptoms in each line was counted 60 days after sowing and per cent disease incidence was calculated by using the following formula:

Number of plants infected in a row

Per cent Disease Incidence (PDI) = x 100

Total number of plants in a row

The genotypes were later grouped into different categories from immune to highly susceptible [7]. The scale used was as follows (0-9):

Scale Description Category
0 No symptoms of plants Immune
1 1% or less plants exhibiting symptoms resistant
3 1 to 10% plants exhibiting symptoms moderately resistant
5 11 to 20% plants exhibiting symptoms moderately susceptible
7 21 to 50% plants exhibiting symptoms susceptible
9 51% or more plants exhibiting symptoms highly susceptible

Advertisement

3. Experimental results

3.1. Screening for pod shattering

84 genotypes of soybean were screened for pod shattering resistance in order to identify resistant cultivars during kharif, 2008. The screening was done according to method adopted by IITA, Nigeria. The data presented in Table 1 revealed that pod shattering percentage ranged from 8.7 (Himsoy-1560) to 93.3 per cent (Punjab- 1). The result indicated that there is no variety, which is resistant to pod shattering. However, some of the varieties viz., Bragg, CGP-76, EC-322536, EC-34092, JS 93-05, Lee, MAUS-2, NRC-7, EC-34101, EC-34092, JS 71-05, EC-34101, EC-392536, G-26, Himsoy-1560, Himsoy-1514, Pusa-16, Pusa-22, VLS-1, VLS-2, VLS-47 and the check JS-335 were found to be tolerant. Later these genotypes were grouped into different categories based on IITA, Nigeria scale and the data is presented in Table 2. The results revealed that none of the genotypes were immune or resistant to pod shattering.

Sl.No Genotypes Shattering % Grade Sl No Genotype Shattering % Grade
1. Alankar 58.7 HS 43. EC-392536 16.0 TO
2. Ankur 47.0 MS 44. EC-394839 45.3 MS
3. AGS-34 59.7 HS 45. G-48 15.0 TO
4. AGS-50 52.7 HS 46. G-479 35.0 MS
5. Bragg 15.3 TO 47. G-482 51.7 HS
6. Local black soybean 78.3 VHS 48. G-7340 83.7 VHS
7. CO-1 80.3 VHS 49. G-26 35.7 MS
8. CO-2 57.0 HS 50. G-5-1 61.7 HS
9. CGP-76 15.3 TO 51. Hardee 46.0 MS
10. CGP-248 62.0 HS 52. Hara soya 17.3 MS
11. CGP-2037 46.0 MS 53. Himsoya-1560 8.7 TO
12. DSb-1 46.3 MS 54. Himsoya-1514 11.8 TO
13. DSb-2 41.7 MS 55. Improved pelican 83.3 VHS
14. DSb-3-4 44.3 MS 56. Indira Soya 9 32.0 MS
15. DSb-5 48.7 MS 57. C-39506 51.7 HS
16. DSb-6-1 37.7 MS 58. IC-49859 56.7 HS
17. DSb-7 56.0 HS 59. IC-104877 46.3 MS
18. DSb-8 45.0 MS 60. JS-2 83.0 VHS
19. DS-17-5 35.3 MS 61. JS-71-05 18.0 TO
20. EC-103369 58.3 MS 62. JS-72-280 36.7 MS
21. EC-109923 75.0 VHS 63. JS-72-44 44.3 MS
22. EC-322536 20.7 TO 64. JS-75-46 55.0 HS
23. EC-241778 36.7 MS 65. JS-76-205 31.9 MS
24. EC-241780 63.3 HS 66. JS-80-21 67.0 HS
25. EC-34092 16.0 TO 67. JS-90-41 55.7 HS
26. EC-118420 61.3 HS 68. JS-93-105 19.0 TO
27. EC-34101 22.0 TO 69. JS-87-25 31.7 MS
28. EC-251449 72.7 HS 70. KB-79 30.0 MS
29. Lee 15.0 TO 71. Pusa-20 32.7 MS
30. MACS-13 43.0 MS 72. Pusa-22 16.3 TO
31. MACS-330 72.7 VHS 73. Pusa-24 33.0 HS
32. MACS-450 57.3 MS 74. Pusa-37 62.3 HS
33. MACS-57 46.0 MS 75. Pusa-40 74.7 HS
34. MAUS-47 85.0 VHS 76. Samrat 31.3 MS
35. MAUS-68 73.0 HS 77. T-49 71.7 HS
36. MAUS-2 19.0 TO 78. VLS-1 12.1 TO
37. NRC-7 19.7 TO 79. VLS-2 25.3 TO
38. NRC-12 26.3 MS 80. VLS-21 31.7 MS
39. PK-1024 80.0 VHS 81. VLS-47 17.0 TO
40. PK-1029 32.0 MS 82. JS-335 (C) 10.3 TO
41. Punjab-1 93.3 VHS 83. KHSb-2(C) 43.5 MS
42. Pusa-16 23.7 TO 84. Monetta (C) 90.7 VHS

Table 1.

Screening of soybean genotypes for pod shattering resistance

3.2. Screening for rust resistance

Growing resistant varieties is the most economical and safe method of controlling the rust of soybean, which is a devastating disease resulting in heavy yield loss. In order to identify the resistant cultivars 84 genotypes of soybean were screened for rust resistance during kharif 2008 under natural epiphytotic conditions at Dharwad. The rust incidence was recorded at physiological maturity of the genotypes and the results are presented in Table 3. Reactions of 84 genotypes to rust revealed that, none of the genotypes showed immune reaction to rust. Two genotypes viz., EC 241778 and EC 241780 showed resistant reaction (1 grade), which were considered as resistant and the remaining 82 genotypes as highly susceptible (9 grade).

Sl.No. Category
 Resistant reaction Number ofgenotypes Genotypes
1 No pod shattering Shattering resistant 00 -
2 < 25% pod shattering Shattering tolerant 20 Bragg, CGP-76, EC-322536, EC-34092, JS 71-05, JS-93-05, Lee, MAUS-2, WEC-7, EC-34101, EC-392536, G-26, Himsoya-1560, Himsoya-1514, Pusa-16, Pusa-22, VLS-1, VLS-2, VLS-47, JS-335(C)
3 25-50% pod shattering Moderately shattering 32 Ankur, CGP-2037, DSb-1, DSb-2, DSb-3-4, DSb-5, DSb-6-1, DSb-8, PS-17-5, EC-103369, EC-241778, IC-104877, JS 72-280, JS 72-44, JS 76-205, JS 87-25, KB-79, MACS-13, MACS-450, MACS-57, NRC-12, PK-1029, EC-394839, G-48, G-7340, Hardee, Harasoya, Indira soya, Pusa-20, Samrat, VLS-21, KHSb-2 (C).
4 51-75% pod shattering Highly shattering 21 Alankar, AGS-34, AGS-50, CO-2, CGP-248, DSb-7, EC-241780, EC-118420, IC-39506, IC-49859, JS 75-46, JS 80-21, JS 90-41, MAUS-68, EC-251449, G-479, G 5-1, Pusa-24, Pusa-37, Pusa-40, T-49
5 >75% pod shattering Very highly shattering 11 Local black soybean, CO-1, EC-109923, JS-2, MACS-330, MAUS-47, PK-1024, G-482, Improved pelican, Punjab-1, Monetta (C)

Table 2.

Grouping of Soybean genotypes for pod shattering resistance

Sl.No. Reaction Grade(0-9) Number ofgenotypes Genotypes responded
1 Immune 0 00 -
2 Resistant 1 02 EC- 241778, EC- 241780
3 Moderately resistant 3 00 -
4 Susceptible 5 00 -
5 Moderately Susceptible 7 00 -
6 Highly Susceptible 9 82 Alankar, Ankur, AGS-34, AGS-50, Bragg, Local black soybean, CO-1, CO-2, CGP-76, CGP-248, CGP-2037, DSb-1, DSb-2, DSb 3-4, DSb-5, DSb 6-1, DSB-74, DSb-8, DS 17-5, EC-103369, EC-109923, EC-322536, EC-34092, EC-118420, EC-34101, EC-251449, EC-392536, EC-394839, G-48, G-479, G-482, G-7340, G-26, G-5-1, Hardee, Harasoya, Himsoya-1560, Improved pelican, Indirasoya, IC-39506, IC-49859, IC-104877, JS-2, JS 71-05, JS 72-280, JS 72-44, JS 75-46, JS 76-205, JS 80-21, JS 90-41, JS 93-105, JS 87-25, KB-79, Le, MACS-13, MACS-330, MACS-450, MACS-57, MAUS-47, MAUS-68, MAUS-2, NRC-7, NRC-12, PK-1024, PK-1029, Punjab-1, Pusa-16, Pusa-20, Pusa-22, Pusa-24, Pusa-37, Pusa-40, Samrat, T-49, VLS-1, VLS-2, VLS-21, VLS-47, JS-335 (C), KHSb-2 (C), Monetta (C).

Table 3.

Grouping of soybean genotypes for soybean rust resistance

3.3. Screening for yellow mosaic disease (YMD)

84 genotypes of soybean were screened for yellow mosaic disease under natural conditions at Research Farm of Kisan (PG) College, Simbhaoli, Ghaziabad during kharif, 2008. The data presented in Table 4 revealed that, YMD incidence ranged from 0.95 to 90.12 per cent. Among the 84 genotypes screened lowest incidence was recorded with genotype MACS 57 (0.48%), followed by EC 241778 (0.49%). Genotypes JS 90-41 (90.12) recorded highest incidence followed by JS 76-205 (89.15%) and T 49 (86.21%). All the genotypes and their percent disease incidence are tabulated in Table 5, which categorizes these genotypes based on 0-9 scale into different reaction types. It is evident from the table that none of the genotypes tested were immune or resistant.

Sl.No Genotypes PDI* Reaction Sl No Genotype PDI* Reaction
1. Alankar 9.25 MR 43. EC-392536 27.00 S
2. Ankur 0.75 R 44. EC-394839 42.12 S
3. AGS-34 8.21 MR 45. G-48 15.25 MS
4. AGS-50 7.68 MR 46. G-479 17.25 MS
5. Bragg 8.58 MR 47. G-482 25.65 S
6. Local black soybean 61.25 HS 48. G-7340 32.15 S
7. CO-1 3.58 MR 49. G-26 9.12 MR
8. CO-2 7.54 MR 50. G-5-1 42.12 S
9. CGP-76 15.61 MS 51. Hardee 39.15 S
10. CGP-248 19.25 MS 52. Hara soya 33.89 S
11. CGP-2037 9.21 MR 53. Himsoya-1560 19.14 MS
12. DSb-1 25.23 S 54. Himsoya-1514 40.01 S
13. DSb-2 32.15 S 55. Improved pelican 42.15 S
14. DSb-3-4 15.25 MR 56. Indira Soya 9 0.45 R
15. DSb-5 75.25 HS 57. C-39506 7.12 MR
16. DSb-6-1 13.25 MS 58. IC-49859 62.15 HS
17. DSb-7 27.85 S 59. IC-104877 75.12 HS
18. DSb-8 26.32 S 60. JS-2 46.12 S
19. DS-17-5 16.25 MR 61. JS-71-05 78.98 HS
20. EC-103369 0.75 R 62. JS-72-280 46.25 S
21. EC-109923 39.25 HS 63. JS-72-44 29.12 S
22. EC-322536 0.52 R 64. JS-75-46 89.12 HS
23. EC-241778 0.49 R 65. JS-76-205 8.81 MR
24. EC-241780 9.85 MR 66. JS-80-21 90.12 HS
25. EC-34092 45.25 S 67. JS-90-41 11.85 MS
26. EC-118420 37.12 S 68. JS-93-105 8.82 MR
27. EC-34101 13.25 MS 69. JS-87-25 7.81 MR
28. EC-251449 8.25 MR 70. KB-79 6.23 MR
29. Lee 46.3 S 71. Pusa-20 7.15 MR
30. MACS-13 5.12 MR 72. Pusa-22 0.92 R
31. MACS-330 81.21 HS 73. Pusa-24 8.25 MR
32. MACS-450 0.89 R 74. Pusa-37 7.10 S
33. MACS-57 0.48 R 75. Pusa-40 29.12 S
34. MAUS-47 0.56 R 76. Samrat 36.57 S
35. MAUS-68 85.12 HS 77. T-49 86.21 HS
36. MAUS-2 31.25 S 78. VLS-1 40.25 S
37. NRC-7 0.78 R 79. VLS-2 79.85 HS
38. NRC-12 16.25 MS 80. VLS-21 33.25 S
39. PK-1024 0.85 R 81. VLS-47 30.5 S
40. PK-1029 0.52 R 82. JS-335 (C) 30.96 S
41. Punjab-1 5.23 MR 83. KHSb-2(C) 28.25 S
42. Pusa-16 6.12 MR 84. Monetta (C) 7.6 MR

Table 4.

Screening of soybean genotypes for yellow mosaic disease resistance

* Percent disease incidence


Scale Description Category Number ofgenotypes Genotypes
0 No symptoms on plants Immune 00 -
1 1% or less plants
exhibiting symptoms		 Resistant 12 Ankur, EC-103369, EC-322536, EC-241778, Indirasoya 9, MACS-450, MACS-57, MAUS-47, NRC-7, PK-1024, PK-1025, Pusa-22
3 1-10% plants exhibiting
symptoms		 Moderately
resistant		 22 Alankar, AGS-34, Bragg, AGS-50, CO-1, CO-2, CGP-2037, DSb 3-4, PS-17-5, EC-241780, EC-251449, G-26, IC-39506, JS 80-21, JS 87-25, KB-79, MACS-13, Punjab-1, Pusa-16, Pusa-20, Pusa-24, Monetta (Check).
5 11-20% plants exhibiting symptoms Moderately
susceptible		 10 CGP-76, CGP-248, DSb-6-1, EC-34101, G-48, G-479, Himory-1560, IC- 49859, JS-93-105, NRC-12
7 21-50% plants exhibiting symptoms Susceptible 28 DSb-1, DSb-2, DSb-7, DSb-8, EC-34092, EC-118420, EC-392536, EC-394839, G-7340, G-482, G-5-1, Hardee, Harasoya, Improved pelican, JS 71-05, JS 72-44, JS 75-46, Lee, MAUS-2, Pusa-37, Pusa-40, Samrat, VLS-1, Himsoya-1514, VLS-21, VLS-47, JS-335(C), KHSb-2 (Check)
9 51% or more plants
exhibiting symptoms		 Highly
susceptible		 12 Local black soybean, DSb-5, EC-109923, IC-104877, JS-2, JS 72-280, JS 76-205, JS 90-41, MACS-330, MAUS-68, T-49, VLS-2

Table 5.

Grouping of genotypes into different categories for soybean yellow mosaic virus resistance

Advertisement

4. Discussion

4.1. Screening for pod shattering resistance

Pod shattering is one of the major constraints in soybean, which reduces the yield potential considerably. So management of pod shattering is of great importance for achieving higher productivity. Hence, the identification of resistant sources for pod shattering is one of the most important aspect in the management of pod shattering. In the present study 84 genotypes of soybean were screened for pod shattering resistance under lab condition. The pod shattering values ranged from 8.7 to 93.3 per cent. JS-335 one of the most popular variety recorded as tolerant with mean pod shattering value of 10.3 per cent. It is evident from the table that, none of the genotypes were better than the JS-335 except Himsoy-1560, which recorded 8.7 per cent mean pod shattering value. Among 84 genotypes, 20 genotypes fall under tolerant category and 32 under moderately shattering. Fifteen Indian soybean varieties were screened for pod shattering resistance and out of these three varieties viz., JS-1515, JS-1608 and JS-1625 were found resistant against pod shattering [16]. Similarly, while screening for pod shattering resistance, Bragg and JS-71-05 recorded the lowest pod shattering and Punjab-1 with highest pod shattering value [12]. Similar results were also reported [1, 13].

4.2. Screening for rust resistance

Among many of the diseases in soybean, rust is the major fungal disease which may reduce the yield drastically. So identification of resistant sources and involving them in resistant breeding forms one of the criteria in resistant breeding programme. In the present study 84 genotypes of soybean were screened for rust resistance under natural epiphytotic condition. None of the genotypes showed immune reaction. However, genotypes EC-241778 and EC-241780 showed resistance reaction. Remaining all genotypes exhibited highly susceptible reaction. In general, over all disease incidence was very high. Similar results are reported in [9], who evaluated several soybean genotypes and varieties under natural epiphytotic condition and reported EC-392530, EC-392538, EC-392539, EC-392541, SL-423, RSC-1, RSC-2, JS-80-21 and PK-1029 as moderately resistant. Hundekar (1999) also evaluated S-22, WC-12 and 92-10 as rust resistant germplasm. Among varieties PK-1162, PK-1029, JS-80-21 and PK-1024 showed moderately resistant reaction with better yield. Basavaraja (2002) identified three useful mutants which are moderately resistant to rust among 270 induced mutant families studied in M3 generation. Similar results were also reported by various researchers [8, 10, 14, 15]

4.3. Screening for yellow mosaic disease

Yellow mosaic is one of the major viral diseases in India and it is causing major problem during rabi/summer in Utter Pradesh in recent years. The yield loss due to disease may range from minor to complete loss depending upon severity. So identification of resistant sources will help in optimum management and thus help in future breeding programmes. In the present study, 84 genotypes of soybean were taken for screening against yellow mosaic disease under natural conditions. None of the genotypes tested were immure to the disease. Over the entire disease incidence was high which was evident from the results as most of the genotypes fall under the category moderately susceptible to susceptible. Similar results were also reported [6, 17]. They screened 88 indigenous and exotic soybean genotypes in the field and found EC-107014, EC-107003 and EC-100777 resistant.

References

  1. 1. Agrawal AP, Salimath PM, Patil SA. Soybean Pod Growth Analysis and its Relationship with Pod Shattering. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences 2004; 17(1) 41-45.
  2. 2. Basavaraja GT. Studies on induced mutagenesis in soybean. PhD thesis. University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad; 2002.
  3. 3. Bromfield KR, Yang CY. Soybean rust: Summary of available knowledge In: Expanding the use of Soybean. (Editors: Roberts,M.Goodman). INTSOY Series No.10, Illionis; 1976. pp.161-163.
  4. 4. Dashell KE, Bello L. Screening for resistant to pod shattering. IITA Grain Legume Improvement Programme. Annual report for 1986.Ibadan, Nigeria; 1988. p.120.
  5. 5. Hundekar AR. Studies on some aspects of soybean rust caused by Phakopsora pachyrizi Syd. PhD thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad; 1999.
  6. 6. Koranne KD, Tyagi PC. Screening of soybean germplasm against yellow mosaic diseases. Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding 1985; 45(1) 30-33.
  7. 7. Mayee CR, Datar VV. Phytopathametry, Maharashtra Agricultural University, Parbhani, Technical Bulletin No.1, 1986; pp: 145-146.
  8. 8. Miles MR, Bonde MR, Nester SE, Berner DK, Frederick RD, Hartman GL. Characterizing Resistance to Phakopsora pachyrhizi in Soybean. Plant Disease 2011; 95(5) 577-581.
  9. 9. Patil PV, Basavaraja GT. A prospective source of resistance to soybean rust. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences 1997; 10 1241-1243.
  10. 10. Pham TA, Miles MR, Frederick RD, Hill CB, Hartman GL. Differential Responses of Resistant Soybean Entries to Isolates of Phakopsora pachyrhizi. Plant Disease 2009; 93(3) 224-228.
  11. 11. Tiwari SP, Bhatnagar PS. Pod shattering of soybean in India. Journal of Oilseed Research 1988; 5 : 92-93.
  12. 12. Tiwari SP, Bhatnagar PS. Consistent resistance for pod shattering in soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill) varieties. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 1992; 63(3) 173-174.
  13. 13. Tukamuhabwa P, Rubaihayo P, Dashiell KE. Genetic components of pod shattering in soybean. Euphytica 2002; 125(1) 29-34.
  14. 14. Twizeyimana M, Ojiambo PS, Hartman GL, Bandyopadhyay R. Dynamics of Soybean Rust Epidemics in Sequential Plantings of Soybean Cultivars in Nigeria. Plant Disease 2011; 95(1): 43-50.
  15. 15. Twizeyimana M, Ojiambo PS, Ikotun T, Ladipo JL, Hartman GL, Bandyopadhyay R. Evaluation of Soybean Germplasm for Resistance to Soybean Rust (Phakopsora pachyrhizi) in Nigeria. Plant Disease 2008; 92(6) 947-952.
  16. 16. Upadhaya and Paradkar. Pod shattering in soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill). Journal of Oilseed Research 1991; 8 121-122.
  17. 17. Yadav RK, Shukla RK, Chattopadhyay D. Soybean cultivar resistant to Mungbean Yellow Mosaic India Virus infection induces viral RNA degradation earlier than the susceptible cultivar. Virus Research 2009;144(1-2) 89-95.

Written By

M. H. Khan, S. D. Tyagi and Z. A. Dar

Submitted: 20 June 2012 Published: 13 February 2013

© 2013 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Continue reading from the same book

View All
Chapter 8 Mycotoxins in Cereal and Soybean-Based Food and Fe...

By Małgorzata Piotrowska, Katarzyna Śliżewska and J...

4708 downloads

Chapter 9 Integrated Management of Helicoverpa armigera in S...

By Yaghoub Fathipour and Amin Sedaratian

4817 downloads

Chapter 1 Nutritional Requirements of Soybean Cyst Nematodes

By Steven C. Goheen, James A. Campbell and Patricia D...

2382 downloads