Screening of soybean genotypes for pod shattering resistance
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 (
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
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 . 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.
|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:
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
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 . The scale used was as follows (0-9):
|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|
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
|6.||Local black soybean||78.3||VHS||48.||G-7340||83.7||VHS|
|14.||DSb-3-4||44.3||MS||56.||Indira Soya 9||32.0||MS|
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
|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)|
|2||Resistant||1||02||EC- 241778, EC- 241780|
|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).|
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
|6.||Local black soybean||61.25||HS||48.||G-7340||32.15||S|
|14.||DSb-3-4||15.25||MR||56.||Indira Soya 9||0.45||R|
|0||No symptoms on plants||Immune||00||-|
|1||1% or less plants|
|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|
|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|
|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|
|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|
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 . 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 . 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 , 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
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.
Basavaraja GT. Studies on induced mutagenesis in soybean. PhD thesis. University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad; 2002.
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.
Dashell KE, Bello L. Screening for resistant to pod shattering. IITA Grain Legume Improvement Programme. Annual report for 1986.Ibadan, Nigeria; 1988. p.120.
Hundekar AR. Studies on some aspects of soybean rust caused by Phakopsora pachyrizi Syd. PhD thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad; 1999.
Koranne KD, Tyagi PC. Screening of soybean germplasm against yellow mosaic diseases. Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding 1985; 45(1) 30-33.
Mayee CR, Datar VV. Phytopathametry, Maharashtra Agricultural University, Parbhani, Technical Bulletin No.1, 1986; pp: 145-146.
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.
Patil PV, Basavaraja GT. A prospective source of resistance to soybean rust. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences 1997; 10 1241-1243.
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.
Tiwari SP, Bhatnagar PS. Pod shattering of soybean in India. Journal of Oilseed Research 1988; 5 : 92-93.
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.
Tukamuhabwa P, Rubaihayo P, Dashiell KE. Genetic components of pod shattering in soybean. Euphytica 2002; 125(1) 29-34.
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.
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.
Upadhaya and Paradkar. Pod shattering in soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill). Journal of Oilseed Research 1991; 8 121-122.
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.