1

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL

TRANSFORMATION DEPARTMENT OF PLANT

SCIENCES

INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF CHICKPEA FUSARIUM WILT

Fusarium Oxysporum F. Sp. Ciceri) THROUGH CHICKPEA

VARIETIES AND FUNGICIDE OF DEMBIA WOREDA CENTRAL

GONDAR ADMINISTRATIVE ZONE, AMHARA REGION

M.Sc THESIS

BY

ACHASH EYAYU GEZZIE

(B.Sc in plant Science)

MAJOR ADVISOR: Dr ASSEFA SINTAYEHU (PhD)

CO-ADVISOR: Dr SAMUEL SAHILE (PhD)

MAY 2018

GONDAR ETHIOLPIA

2

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTUR AND RURAL TRANSFORMATION

DEPARTMENT OF PLANT SCIENCES.

Msc Thesis

INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF CHICKPEA FUSARIUM WILT

Fusarium Oxysporum F. Sp. Ciceri) THROUGH CHICKPEA

VARIETIES AND FUNGICIDE OF DEMBIA WOREDA Central

Gondar Administrative Zone, Amhara Region

A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Plant Sciences, In Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF

AGRICULTURE SCIENCE (PLANT PROTECTION)

By

Achash Eyayu Gezzie

Major Advisor: Dr Assefa Sintayehu (PhD)

Co-advisor: Dr Samuel Sahile (PhD)

May, 2018

Gondar, Ethiopia

ii

UNIVERSITY OF GONDAR

POST GRADUATE DIRECTORATE

As Thesis Research Advisors, We hereby certify that we have read and evaluated this

thesis prepared, under our guidance by Mr Achash Eyayu Gezzie, entitled: Integrated

Management of Chickpea Fusarium wilt Fusarium Oxysporum F. Sp. ciceri)

Through Chickpea Varieties And Fungicide Of Dembia Woreda Centeral Gondar

Administrative Zone, Amhara Region Ethiopia

. We recommend that it can be submitted fulfilling the Thesis requirement.

Assefa Sintayehu (Ph.D.) ____________________ _____________

Major Advisor Signature Date

Sumuel Sahile (Ph.D.) ____________________ _____________

Co-Advisor Signature Date

As a member of a board of examiners of the MSc Thesis open defense examination. We

certify that we have read, evaluated the Thesis prepared by mrAchash Eyayu and

examined the candidate. We Recommended that the Thesis as accepted as fulfilling the

Thesis requirements for the degree of Master of Science in plant protection.

______________________ _________________ _____________

Chairperson Signature Date

______________________ _________________ _____________

Internal Examiner Signature Date

______________________ _________________ ____________

External Examiner Signature Date

iii

Final approval and acceptance of the Thesis is contingent up on the submisstion of the final

copy of the thesis to council of graduate study (CGS) through the department or school

graduate committee (GDC or SGC) of the candidate.

DEDICATION

I owe my deepest reverence to my family. Without family inspiration and support I would

have not arrived at all these achievements and success of my life. This work is humbly

dedicated to my family.

iv

ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMY

ANOVA Analysis of variance

AUDPC Area under Diseases Progress Curve

DZARC Debrezeit Agricultural Research Center

DAPG Diacetyl phloroglucinol

DNA Dioxinuclic acid

EIAR Ethiopian Institute Agricultural of Research

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization

CRISAT International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics

CIMMYT International Center for Maize and Wheat Impruvement

ICARDA International Center for Agriculture Research in Dry Area

IDM Integrated disease management

IPM Integrated Pest Management

M.A.S.L Meters above Sea Level

Mha Million hectares

MT Million Tone

SAS Statistical Analysis Software

PDA Potato Dextrose Agar

v

Table of Contents Pages

ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMY ...................................................................................... iv

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... ix

STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR ............................................................................................. x

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...................................................................................................... xi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ xii

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................ xiii

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. OBJECTIVE ......................................................................................................................... 3

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................................... 4

2.1. Economic Importance of Chickpea ...................................................................................... 4

2.2. Chickpea Production in Ethiopia .......................................................................................... 4

2.3. Production Constraints ......................................................................................................... 5

2.4. Chickpea fusarium Wilt ........................................................................................................ 6

2.5. Pathogen of F. oxysporum f. sp. ciceris ............................................................................... 6

2.6. Taxonomy of fusarium wilt .................................................................................................. 8

2.7. Fusarium wilt disease Symptom ........................................................................................... 8

2.8. Morphology of Pathogen ...................................................................................................... 8

2.9. Host Ranges of Pathogen ...................................................................................................... 9

2.10. Disease Spread .................................................................................................................... 9

2.11. Pathogen Survival ............................................................................................................. 10

2.12. Disease Infection Process ................................................................................................. 10

2.13. Pathogen Variability ......................................................................................................... 11

2.14. Distribution and Incidences of Disease ............................................................................ 11

vi

2.15. Epidemiology of fusarium wilt ......................................................................................... 12

2.16. Biology and ecology of fusarium wilt disease .................................................................. 12

2.17. Fusarium wilt disease life cycle ........................................................................................ 13

2.18. Management of Fusarium wilt disease ........................................................................... 14

2.18.1. Cultural Control ......................................................................................................... 14

2.18.2. Sowing Date ............................................................................................................... 15

2.18.3. Intercropping .............................................................................................................. 15

2.18.4. Mechanical Control .................................................................................................... 15

2.8.5. Biological Control ........................................................................................................ 15

2.18 .6. Host Plant Resistance ................................................................................................ 16

2.18.7. Chemical Control ....................................................................................................... 17

3. MATERIAL AND METHOD ................................................................................................ 18

3.1. Description of the Study Area ............................................................................................ 18

3.2. Treatment and experimental design .................................................................................... 19

3.3. Isolation and Identification of Fusarium oxysporum f sp. Ciceris ..................................... 20

3.4. Data Collection ................................................................................................................... 21

3.4.1. Epidemiological data ................................................................................................... 21

3.4.2. Yield and yield component data. ................................................................................. 21

3.5. Area Under Disease Progress Curve of Chickpea Fusarium wilt ....................................... 22

3.6. Relative yield loss ............................................................................................................... 22

3.7. Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 22

3.8. Cost/Benefit Analysis ......................................................................................................... 23

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .............................................................................................. 26

4.1. Laboratory Experiment ....................................................................................................... 26

4.1.1. Isolation and Characterization of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris .......................... 26

4.2. Field Experiment ................................................................................................................ 27

4.2.1. Diseases onset and level of incidence .......................................................................... 27

4.2.2. Disease Incidence ......................................................................................................... 27

4.2.3. Main effects of initial and final of Disease Incidence ................................................. 28

4.2.4. Interaction effect of chickpea varieties and fungicides on different DAP

fusarium wilt incidence. ......................................................................................................... 29

vii

4.2.5. Effect of chickpea varieties on progress of fusarium wilt incidence ........................... 30

4.2.6. Effect of fungicides on progress of fusarium wilt incidence ....................................... 30

4.2.7. Area under disease progress curve ............................................................................... 32

4.2.8. Two way Interaction Effects of varieties and fungicides on chick pea yield and

yield components ................................................................................................................... 33

4.2.9. Main Effects of varieties and fungicides on chick pea yield and yield

components ............................................................................................................................ 38

4.3.3. Relative yield loss ........................................................................................................ 41

4. 3.4. Cost benefit analysis ................................................................................................... 42

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION .................................................................... 43

5.1. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 43

5.2. Recommendation ................................................................................................................ 44

6. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 45

7. APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................... 57

7.1. Appendix: Table ................................................................................................................. 58

Appendix Table1: Disease incidence ..................................................................................... 58

Appendix Table 2: Yield components ....................................................................................... 59

Appendix Table 3.Two way interaction effects of chickpea varieties and fungicides on

AUDPC ...................................................................................................................................... 60

Appendix Table 4: Dominance analysis, analyses of Thiram & Redomil fungicides. .............. 61

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of the study area of Dembia woreda jarjar-Abanove keble ...................... 18

Figure 2.Sepate of hyphae differnt form of fusarium oxysporium f.sp.ciceri

Morphology macrocondia,microconida and morphology of pathogen ............................. 26

Figure 3.Effect of treatments on Fusarium wilt areas under disease progress curve ........ 33

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.. source and description of chickpea varieties used for field experment in Dembia

woreda ........................................................................................................................................... 19

Table 2.Description of field experment treatments for the managment of chickpea

fusairium wilt ............................................................................................................................... 19

Table 3.Description of cost of Fungicide analysis ...................................................................... 25

Table 4. Main effects of chickpea varieties and fungicides on initial and final disease

incidence of fusarium wilt. ............................................................................................................ 28

Table 5.Two way interaction effects of chickpea varieties and fungicides on initial and

final disease incidence of fusarium wilt. ....................................................................................... 31

Table 6. Two way interaction effects of chickpea varieties and fungicides on yield and

yield componts of fusarium wilt disease ....................................................................................... 36

Table 7. Main effects of Varieties and fungicides on chickpea yield and yield components ....... 40

Table 8. Effects of treatments on chickpea Fusarium wilt disease and relative yield loss .......... 41

Table 9. Cost benefit analysis of chickpea varieties and fungicide treatment on fusarium

wilt disease .................................................................................................................................... 42

x

STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR

This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced

degree at Gondar University and is deposited at the University Library to be made

available to borrowers under rules of the Library. I declare that this thesis is not submitted

to any other institution anywhere for the award of any academic degree, diploma, or

certificate. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission

provided that accurate acknowledgement of the source is made. Requests for permission

for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be

granted by the head of the department of Plant Sciences or the dean of the School of

Graduate Studies when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the

interest of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from

the author.

Name:Achash Eyayu Signature: _____________

Place: University of, Gondar

Date of Submission_______________

xi

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

The author was born from her father, Mr Eyayu Gezzie and her mother kassanesh Ereda in

May 11, 1979 e.c at Wogera Woreda, Central Gondar zone of the Amhara National

Regional State, Ethiopia. She attended her elementary and junior secondary education at

Wogera (Ambagiorgis) elementary school and wogera junior secondary school,

respectively. In 1996 e .c joined wogera comprehensive secondary school at completed.

She joined the then Alagae Agriculture vocational training college in September 1997e.c

and graduated in 1999 e.c with a diploma in plant science.

After three years of return in 2003 joined at, Bahidar University College of Agricultural

and Environmental science in Bsc degree in 2005e.c. She was graduated then employed by

the Rural Agriculture and served as woreda agricultural staff. After three years return she

joined the School of Graduate Studies at University of Gondar in September 2008 e .c

to pursue her MSc. Study in the field of plant Protection (Agricultural Plant pathology).

xii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The first and the foremost gratitude and praise goes to the Almighty God, who is helping

me in every my life including this research work. I would like to thank with due

appreciation my major advisor Dr. Assefa Sintayehu and my co-adviser Dr.Samuel Sahile

for their consistent guidance, constructive criticisms, endless cooperation and direct

support from the beginning of proposal, throughout the research work and in the

preparation of this thesis and everything activities and financially support.

I would like to thank Gondar Agriculture Research Center for supplying me certified seed.

My very special thank goes to Ato kindie Gebeye laboratory assistance of plant science

for providing the laboratory experiment of research materials and technical support.

xiii

INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF CHICKPEA FUSARIUM WILT Fusarium

Oxysporum F. Sp. Ciceri) THROUGH CHICKPEA VARIETIES AND FUNGICIDE

OF DEMBIA WOREDA CENTRAL GONDAR ADMINISTRATIVE ZONE, AMHARA

REGION.

ABSTRACT

In Ethiopia, chickpea is widely grown across the country and serves as a multi-purpose

crop. Chickpea crop is affected by several diseases but Fusarium wilt caused by Fusarium

oxysporum f. sp. ciceri is the most serious disease. It caused heavy losses up to 100% in

yield.. The objective of this study was to evaluate the resistance varieties and fungicides

against chickpea fusarium wilt disease on chickpea.. The experiment was arranged in

factorial randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. The field

experiment was carried out to evaluate the management of three different chickpea variety

Locale, Areriti and Habru with two types of fungicides Thiram and Redomil including

untreated treatment. The experimental materials were used certified seed, locale seed and

fungicides (Thiram as seed treatment and Redomil as foliar application) as treatments.

Different types of data (disease incidence, AUDPC, yield and yield components, pathogen

morphological characteristics) were collected from field and laboratory experiment. The

data obtained from experimental field were analyzed by General Linear Model procedures

using the SAS version 9.2 and least significant difference at p<0.05. Based on chickpea

disease occurrence, variety and seed treatment application of fungicide on diseases

incidence was significantly reduced disease development and increased chickpea yield as

compared to the un-treated variety. The lowest chickpea fusarium wilt incidence (15.66%)

was recorded from the Arerti with Thiram application and it was significantly different (P

< 0.05) compared with the highest final fusarium disease incidence (38.7%) of un treated

Local variety treatment. Thiram used as seed treatment was the most effective method

against Fusarium wilt disease greater than Redomil foliar application. From the main

effect of varieties Habru and Arerti significantly reduced (p<0.05) final disease incidence

compared to Local variety. This study indicated that chickpea fusarium wilt disease was

significantly affected yield of chickpea, where the untreated plot received 34.38% yield

loss compared to the best protected treatment. Among treatments the maximum yield

(49.08qt/ha) was obtained from Areriti with Thiram compared to the minimum untreated

local variety yield (31.92 qt/ha). Even though these research results study with only one year

and one location the maximum net benefit of Birr 49330.00birr/ha was obtained from Arerti

with Thiram. Thus, from the economic point of view on this study could be recommended as a

first alternative for management of chick pea fusarium wilt.

Keywords: Chick pea, fungicide, fusarium wilt, management, variety

1

1. INTRODUCTION

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is the second most important cool season food legume crop

after common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) followed by field pea (Pisum sativum) and

third in production worldwide (Diapari et al., 2014). Currently, it is one of the widely

cultivated crops at the global level on 13.5 million hectares of area with 13.1 million tons

of grain legume is produced (FAOSTAT, 2014).

Chickpea is an annual grain legume crop grown mainly for human consumption. The seeds

contains vitamins, energy, protein, fiber, calcium, potassium, phosphorus, iron, zinc and

magnesium along with appreciable quantities of selenium, sodium and copper, which make

it one of the nutritionally best composed edible dry legumes, for human consumption in the

developing world and is considered a healthy food in many developed countries. Chickpea

like most other beans is a good source of cholesterol lowering fiber (Esha, 2010).

In Ethiopia, chickpea is widely grown across the country and serves as a multi-purpose

crop (Shiferaw et al., 2007) noted that the major chickpea producing areas of the country

are concentrated in the two regional states Amhara and Oromia. These two regions cover

more than 90% of the entire chickpea area and constitute about 92% of the total chickpea

production in Ethiopia.

Several biotic and abiotic production factors contribute for chickpea yield losses. On a

global basis, annual yield losses in chickpea were estimated to be 6.4 million tons (MT)

due to abiotic stresses and 4.8 MT due to biotic stresses (Ryan, 1997). The most common

abiotic stresses affecting chickpea production, in the order of importance, are drought, heat

and cold. Drought together with heat causes 3.3 MT yield loss per annum (Ryan, 1997).

These includes insufficient water (nutrients),poor management system, plant diseases,

insect pests, poor traditional agronomic practices, low price, lack of sustainable marketing

policy and poor extension services.

2

Among chick pea diseases fusarium wilt caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceri is the

most important disease-affecting chickpea yield in Ethiopia. Which is the most important

disease of chickpea and widely-spread in chickpea growing areas. The causative agent of

this disease is internally seed borne and is found as chlamydospore-like structures in the

helium region of the seed. Annual yield losses due to wilt have been estimated at 10-90%

(Jiméne et al., 1989). In the years of severe epidemics, crop losses have gone as high as

60-70%. Nema and Khare (1973).

Similarly, early wilting reduced the seed number/plant and caused more yield losses than

late wilting (Haware and Nene, 1980). Vascular discoloration occurs on the roots and then

towards the young stems, followed by yellowing and wilting of the leaves before final

necrosis. The fungus is seed and soil borne and can survive in the soil even in the absence

of the host.

Fusarium wilt can be managed through the use of disease prevention strategies, such as

rotation with non-host crop species, using fungicides, resistant cultivars, soil amendment

with organic matter and control of annual weeds in crop borders and headlands. However,

as the causal pathogen can survive in soils for long periods of time, there still can be some

residual disease inoculums even with good management practices hence eradication can

become a long term process. Since fusarium wilt of chickpea is seed borne, the use of clean

seed from disease-free crops using seed treatment chemical is very important.

Development of plant lines resistant to Fusarium wilts is the most effective approach to the

management or eradication of the disease (Lange 2002).

Chickpea is a legume crop when not protected from the Chickpea fusarium wilt disease it

may result in a lot of loss. Which varies between (10-90) percent of the final potential yield

problem associated with (Jiménez et al.,1989).Its production include the cost of pesticides,

environmental pollution due to heavy use of chemicals, health hazards and development of

resistance by chickpea fusarium wilt against those using pesticides. Development of plant

lines resistant to Fusarium wilts is the most effective approach to the management or

3

eradication of the disease. In view of this, the following objective is proposed to find out

the best management method for the chickpea fisarium wilt (Jiménez et al., 1989).

Fusarium wilt disease of chickpea is caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris (Foc) a

complex and destructive disease all over the world. Fusarium wilt of chickpea is seed

borne and soil borne disease the use of clean seed from disease-free crops using seed

treatment chemical is very important. Chick pea is the major crop second to cereal crops

like sorghum and teff in Dembia woreda. This study will be initiated to evaluate some

varieties and fungicides at chick pea fusarium wilt infestation field condition, and supply

to local benefit a farmer’s and opportunities. The present studies were therefore carried out

with the following objectives.

1.1. OBJECTIVE

General objective:-

The general objective of this study is to find out the management option of chickpea

fusarium wilt F. oxysporum f. sp. ciceris on chickpea in Dembia woreda (district), Central

Gondar Administrative Zone, Amhara Region.

Specific objective

i. To determine the integration management of variety and fungicides in the management of

Chickpea fusarium wilt.

ii. To assess the economic benefit of using fungicide with variety.

4

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Economic Importance of Chickpea

Chickpea (cicer arietinum L.) is the most important pulse crop and major source of protein,

carbohydrate, fibers, oil, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, iron, zinc, unsaturated fatty

acids. In addition, improves soil fertility by fix in atmospheric nitrogen in to soil Guar et

al., (2010). Chickpea is a less labor-intensive crop and its production demands low

external inputs compared to cereals. In Ethiopia, chickpea is widely grown across the

country and serves as a multipurpose crop (Shiferaw et al., 2007). It reduces malnutrition

and improves human health especially for the poor who cannot afford livestock products

and increases livestock productivity as the residue is rich in digestible crude protein

content compared to cereals.

2.2. Chickpea Production in Ethiopia

It is cultivated mainly in crop-livestock based farming systems of the Central, North and

Northwest highlands of Ethiopia where Verity soils are dominating. Chickpea is mainly

grown in Better to arrange the subtitle by this form Amhara (52.5%), Oromia (40.5%), SNNP

(3.5%) and Tigray (3%) (CSA, 2016). In Ethiopia, chickpea is cultivated at an altitude

ranging from 1400 to 2300 meters above sea level (m.a.s.l.) and with annual rainfall

ranging from 700 to 2000 mm on verti soils (black soil) with a range of pH 6.4-7.9. The

crop mainly grows under residual moisture at the end of the main rainy season in

water-logging areas.

Chickpea is a less labor-intensive crop and its production demands low external inputs

compared to cereals (Bekele et al., 2007).Over 1.86 million farmers are engaged in

producing chickpea and lentils. The total area covered by chickpea in Ethiopia is

estimated at 258,486.29ha and from which annual production of 472,611.39 tons of

chickpea grain is produced (CSA, 2016). Ethiopian chickpea production is

predominated by Desi type chickpea (about 95%). However, in recent years there has

5

been an increase in the interest of farmers in growing large seeded Kabuli varieties

due to their higher price in the market Guar et al.,( 2005). However, there has been a

substantial export of chickpea by Ethiopia during the past five years, with the

highest of 48,549 tons (valued at US$14.7 million). Ethiopia is the largest producer of

chickpea in Africa accounting for about 46% of the continent’s production (Joshi et

al.,2001).

Chickpea is an important source of protein in the diets of the poor, and is particularly

important in vegetarian diets. Also, it is being used increasingly as a substitute for animal

protein. Chickpeas are a helpful source of zinc, foliate and protein. They are also very high

in dietary fiber and hence a healthy source of carbohydrates for persons with insulin

sensitivity or diabetes. Chickpeas are low in fat and most of this is polyunsaturated. One

hundred grams of mature boiled chickpeas contains 164 calories, 2.6g of fat (of which only

0.27g is saturated), 7.6g of dietary fiber and 8.9g of protein. Chickpeas also provide dietary

calcium (49–53mg/100g). According to the International Crops Research Institute for the

Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) chickpea seeds contain on average- 23% protein, 64%total

carbohydrates (47% starch, 6% soluble sugar), 5% fat, 6% crude fiber and 3% ash. High

mineral content has been reported for phosphorus (340mg/100g), calcium (190mg/100g),

magnesium (140mg/100g), iron (7mg/100g) and zinc (3mg/100g).

2.3. Production Constraints

The main constraints chick pea production includes insufficient water (nutrients), poor

management system, plant diseases, insect pests, poor traditional agronomic practices, low

price, lack of sustainable marketing policy and poor extension services. Factors including

the length of growing period, mean air temperature, soil drainage, soil reaction, soil depth,

occurrence of soil borne diseases etc. also determine the adaptation and performance of

chickpea production (Anbessa, 2003).

6

2.4. Chickpea fusarium Wilt

Chickpea wilt is widely distributed in 32 countries causing severe losses in yield. It is one

of the severe disease causes heavy loss (20-100%) depending up on stage of

infection and wilting Nene et al., (1996). Throughout the world, annual chickpea

yield losses due to Fusarium wilt vary from 10 to 50% every year (Trapero-Casas and

Jimenez-Diaz, 1985) but can reach even 100% under certain conditions. Yield losses of

chickpea due to Fusarium wilt are estimated at 10% in India and Spain, 40% in Tunisia,

17% in Iran (Karimi et al., 2012).

In Ethiopia, about 30% yield loss of chickpea due to chickpea wilt has been

reported, where F. oxysporum f. sp. ciceris was isolated from more than 50% of the root

samples (Meki et al., 2008). On the basis of surveys made in Shewa region between

1986 and 1992, a yield loss of about 30% was estimated to have occurred due to wilt/root

rots on chickpea in farmers’ fields (Mengistu and Negussie, 1994). According to Geletu

et al., (1996) the disease caused yield loss of 50 –80% in some farmers ‘fields.

In addition to yield reduction, it also adversely affected the quality of grains by shriveling

the seed. Source of primary inoculums for the development of fusarium wilt epidemics in

chickpea. Abundant chlamydospores form in infected tissues as severe symptoms develop

and the plant senesces. Eventually, these chlamydo spores are released into the soil as

infested debris decomposes. Chlamydo spores may undergo cycles of renewal by limited

saprophytic growth of the fungus supported by organic debris and root exudates Haware et

al. (1982). Temperature and pH ranges for mycelia growth of the fungus are 7.5 to 35 0C

and 4 to 9.4, respectively; the optimal conditions being 25 to 27.5 0 C and 5.1 to 5.9,

depending upon the strain. Optimum pH for sporulation is 7.1-7.9. For a given

temperature, isolates of the yellowing pathotype grow at a higher rate compared with that

of wilting isolates (Duro Almazan, 2000).

2.5. Pathogen of F. oxysporum f. sp. ciceris

Fusarium wilt is the most important disease affecting chickpea yield in Ethiopia. The

fungus infects chickpeas via the roots system and moves throughout the plant’s vascular

7

system. The cell wall starts degrading by the enzymes produced by the pathogen. The

pathogen then forms the gels that block the plant’s transport systems and cause yellowing

and wilting of the plant. Vascular discoloration occurs on the roots and then towards the

young stems, followed by yellowing and wilting of the leaves before final necrosis. The

seedlings that are affected with fusarium, first show dropping of the leaves and then finally

collapse the roots look healthy but when split vertically the vascular tissues show brown to

black discoloration. The fungus is seed and soil borne and can survive in the soil even in

the absence of the host (Haware et al., 1992).

Chickpea is mostly sown after the main rainy season, in September and October in

Ethiopia.

It is the world’s third most important food legumes, is currently grown on about

10.1million hectare worldwide, giving an average productivity of 0.786 tons per hectare,

during the past 20 years (1985 – 2004). The global chickpea area increased by 7 %, yield

by 24 %and productivity by 33 %. Presently, Ethiopia shares 2 % among the most

chickpea producing countries globally (ICRISAT, 2004).

The main constraints chick pea production includes insufficient water (nutrients), poor

management system, plant diseases, insect pests, poor traditional agronomic practices, low

price, lack of sustainable marketing policy and poor extension services. Factors including

the length of growing period, mean air temperature, soil drainage, soil reaction, soil depth,

occurrence of soil borne diseases etc. also determine the adaptation and performance of

chickpea production (Anbessa, 2003).

The use of resistant cultivars or variety, use of safe agronomic practice and use of best

management methods are the most practical, cost-efficient, and environmentally safe

control method for solution the management of Fusarium wilt diseases on chick pea.

However, several factors that impinge upon resistance to disease can seriously limit its use

and effectiveness, including genetic and pathogenic variability, and the evolutionary

pattern of the pathogen, availability of resistance sources, co-infection of the plant by other

pathogens, genetics and penetrance of resistance i.e., reduced expression as a result of

interaction between host genotype and inoculums load, temperature, seedling (Singh et al.,

2007).

8

2.6. Taxonomy of fusarium wilt

The genus Fusarium belongs to the phylum Ascomycota, order Hypocreale and family

Nectriaceae. Among the Fusarium species, the most important one is Fusarium oxysporum

f .sp. ciceris which highly damage the chickpea crop.

2.7. Fusarium wilt disease Symptom

The fungus enters the vascular system of the infected plant via the roots. It produces

enzymes that degrade the cell walls so that gels are formed that block the plant’s transport

system. Discoloration of the internal tissues progresses from the roots to the aerial parts of

the plant, yellowing and wilting of the foliage occur, and finally there is necrosis,

(Brayford, 1998). It is possible to identify affected seedlings approximately three weeks

after sowing as they display preliminary symptoms such as drooping and pale-

colored leaves.

Later they collapse to a prostrate position and will be found to have shrunken stems both

above and below ground level. When adult plants are affected, they exhibit wilting

symptoms which progress from the petioles and younger leaves in two or three days to the

whole plant. The older leaves develop chlorosis while the younger leaves stay a dull green.

At a later stage of the disease, all leaves turn yellow. Discoloration of the

pith and xylem occurs in the roots and can be seen when they are cut longitudinally, (Nene

et al., 1978).

2.8. Morphology of Pathogen

They are thin-walled and 2-5 septets while micro conidia are kidney shaped and occur on

short micro conidiophores. Chlamydospores are thick walled and are produced in hyphae

or conidia. Fusarium taxonomy has been based on morphological characteristics of the

anamorph including the size and shape of macro conidia, the presence or absence of micro

conidia and chlamydospores, colony color and conidiophore structure (Gupta, 1986).

9

When grown in culture, F. oxysporum initially produces colorless to pale yellow mycelium

that turns pink or purple with age and it has no known sexual stage. Van der Maesen

(1987) described Fusarium oxysporum as having a whitish mycelium with a red-

pigmented, ovoid micro conidia and spindle-shaped, septet macro conidia. Symptom

type has been used to subdivide F.oxysporum f. sp. ciceris In to two pathotypes

(TraperoCasas and Jiménez-Díaz, 1985), designated wilting and yellowing pathotype.

Pathotypes are assigned to pathogenic races according to variation in virulence. Races can

be defined by differential disease reaction on chickpea host genotypes. For

F.oxysporum f. sp. ciceris, eight races with distinct geographic distributions have been

identified.

2.9. Host Ranges of Pathogen

This fungus is pathogenic only on ciceri spp. Kaiser et al.,( 1994) of which chickpea is

the only cultivated species. However, can also invade root tissues of other grain

legumes such as bean, faba bean (vicia faba), lentil (culinaris), field pea (pisum sativum),

and pigeon pea (cajanus cajans) without causing external symptoms, thus serving as

symptomless carriers of the pathogen. Other crops and dicotyledonous weeds can also

serve as symptomless carriers (Trapero-Casas and Jimenez-Díaz, 1985).

2.10. Disease Spread

Spores can be splash dispersed, rain splash and moving water can carry chlamydospores

and conidia short distances to surrounding plants and adjoining paddocks. The

pathogen can be transported over large distances in infected and infested seed and

harvesting equipment and into new areas seed infected by F.oxysporum f. sp. ciceris

may not show external symptoms of infection windblown plant debris could spread the

pathogen over moderate distances following harvest into adjacent paddocks (Pande et

al.,2007).

10

2.11. Pathogen Survival

The pathogen is seed and soil borne, facultative saprophyte, in the absence of

susceptible host; it can survive up to six years in the soil Haware et al.,(1992).When the

inoculums is developed in the soil, it is difficult to check the disease or eliminate the

pathogen except by following crop rotation for more than six years (Haware and

Nene,1982)Whereas, Saxena and Singh (1987) described that in alkaline soils fungus

can survive for more than 5 years. The chlamydospores of the pathogen remained viable

throughout the high temperature in the summer months during the non-cropping period

in naturally infected roots of chickpea at soil depth of 5,10 and 15 cm. Gupta (1991)

isolated chickpea wilt pathogen from roots of, pigeon pea, pea and lentil grown in wilt

infected plot. The roots of six out of seven winter weeds tested and six out of 15

summer weeds were found infected, indicating a wide host range and harbored by large

population.

2.12. Disease Infection Process

F.oxysporum f. sp. ciceris gains ingress in germinating seeds and growing seedlings

directly `without need of wounds soon after sowing in infested soil. Invasion takes

place mainly through the cotyledons and zones of the epicotyls and hypocotyls at the

junction of or close to cotyledons, and to a lesser extent in the zone of root elongation and

maturation Jimenez- Díaz et al.,(1989); Stevenson et al.( 1997) Later studies in infested

hydroponic cultures showed that races 0 and 5 of the pathogen colonize the surface of the

tap and lateral roots in both susceptible and resistant cultivars, and preferentially

penetrate the meristematic cells of the root apex Jimenez et al., (2013). Then, the

fungus grows in the intercellular spaces of the root cortex to reach the central root cylinder

and enter into the xylem vessels. Further colonization by the pathogen takes place by

means of hyphal growth and micro conidia carried in the vessels by transpiration

stream, as well as by lateral mycelia spread to adjacent vessels.

11

2.13. Pathogen Variability

Fusarium oxysporum f.sp .ciceris exhibits extensive pathogenic variability despite being

monophyletic. Two pathotype distinguished based on distinct yellowing or wilting

syndrome that induce in susceptible chickpeas (Trapero-Casas and Jimenez Díaz, 1985).

The yellowing syndrome is characterized by slow, progressive foliar yellowing and

late death of the plant, while the wilting syndrome is characterized by fast and

severe chlorosis flaccidity and early plant death. The eight f. oxysporum f. sp. ciceris

races also differ in their pathotype and geographic distribution. Races 0 and 1B/C belong

to the yellowing pathotype whereas races 1A through 6 belong to the wilting

pathotype. Races 0, 1A, 1B/C, 5 and 6 have been reported in the Mediterranean region and

in California (Jimenez-Gasco and Jimenez Díaz, 2003). According to Meki et al., (2008)

pathogenic variability studies in Ethiopia four distinct groups of isolates that categorized as

races 0, 2, 3 and 4 are observed.

2.14. Distribution and Incidences of Disease

The status of chickpea diseases varies from country to country. Chickpea wilt caused by

F. oxysporum f.sp. ciceris is widespread and has been reported from almost all the

chickpea-growing regions in the world (Haware, 1990). Mengistu and Negussie (1994)

reported the occurrence of chickpea fusarium wilt in Shewa and Kefa areas of the

country. The incidence of this disease was found to be as high as 100% on local variety

and 21% on improved variety Marye, Areriti and Habru In northwestern Ethiopia, the

distribution and incidence of chickpea fusarium wilt is also currently increasing.

Bahirdar Plant Health Clinic (BPHC), in the spot survey in two administrative zones

of three districts, reported the incidence of this disease from 50% to 100% (Asrat ,

2017).

12

2.15. Epidemiology of fusarium wilt

The fungus may be seed borne and may survive in plant debris in soil (Brayford,

1998).Haware et al., (1982) showed the fungus to be in the helium of the seed in the form

of chlamydospore like structures. Shakir and Mirza (1994) also studied the location of

pathogen in seed and reported it to be present in cotyledons and axis. The primary

infection is through chlamydospores or mycelia. The conidia of the fungus are short lived;

however, the chlamydospores can remain viable up to next crop season. The pathogen

survives well in roots and stem, even in apparently healthy looking plants growing among

diseased ones harboring enough fungus (Padwick, 1941). The fungus, however, did not

survive in the roots placed on soil surface. Plant species other than chickpea may serve as

symptomless carriers of the disease. Gupta (1991) reported that Vigna radiata, v. mungo,

cajanus cajan, pisum sativumand Lens culinarisas plants were symptomless carriers of the

disease.

2.16. Biology and ecology of fusarium wilt disease

The life cycles of the Fusarium wilts of chickpea following infection of host roots, the

`fungus crosses the cortex and enters the xylem tissues. It then spreads rapidly up through

the vascular system, becoming systemic in the host tissues, and may directly infect the

seed. Seed infestation and infection is common. In chickpea, F. oxysporum f. sp. ciceris

can be internally seed-borne and the pathogen is found as chlamydospore like structures in

the helium region of the seed. The movement of infected seed plays an important role in

the long distance dispersal and transmission of fusarium wilt diseases into new areas.

The root tips of healthy plants growing in contaminated soil are penetrated by the germ

tube of spores or fungal mycelium. Entry is either direct, through wounds, or opportunistic

at the point of formation of lateral roots. The mycelium takes an intercellular path through

the cortex, and enters xylem vessels through the pits. The pathogen is primarily confined to

the xylem vessels in which the mycelium branches and produces microconidia. The

microconidia detach and are carried upward in the vascular system until movement is

13

stopped, at which point they germinate and the mycelium penetrates the wall of the

adjacent vessel. Lateral movement between vessels is through the pits.

The water economy of infected plants is eventually severely compromised by blockage of

vessels, resulting in stomata closure, wilting and death of leaves, often followed by death

of the whole plant. The fungus then invades all tissues of the plant, to reach the surface

where it sporulates profusely. Spores may then be dispersed by wind and water or

movement of soil or plant debris. F. oxysporum can survive as mycelium and

chlamydospores in seed and soil, and also on infectedcrop residues, roots and stem tissue

buried in the soil for more than 6 years (Singh et al., 2007).

2.17. Fusarium wilt disease life cycle

The pathogen is seed and soil borne, facultative saprophyte, in the absence of

susceptible host; it can survive up to six years in the soil (Haware et al., 1992). Entry is

either direct, through wounds, or opportunistic at the point of formation of lateral roots

(Gupta, 1991). The mycelium takes an intercellular path through the cortex, and

enters xylem vessels through the pits. The pathogen is primarily confined to the xylem

vessels in which the mycelium branches and produces microconidia (Haware and Nene,

1982).

The microconidia detach and are carried upward in the vascular system until

movement is stopped, at which point they germinate and the mycelium penetrates

the wall of the adjacent vessel (Backman and Turner, 1989). Lateral movement

between vessels is through the pits. The water economy of infected plants is eventually

severely compromised by blockage of vessels, resulting in stomata closure, wilting

and death of leaves, often followed by death of the whole plant.(Gupta, 1991, Singh

et al., 2006).

14

2.18. Management of Fusarium wilt disease

Management practices directed of the disease occurrence could be exclusion and

eradication of the pathogen and to reduce its inoculum. The varied nature of

pathogen involved, evolving resistant varieties has so far proved to be the best bet,

although other conventional chemical, cultural methods and biological control have

also yielded good results. Fusarium wilt of chickpea can be managed using resistant

cultivars, adjusting sowing dates, and fungicidal seed treatment Navas et al.,(1998).

The use of wilt-resistant chickpea varieties and adjustment of sowing dates are

potentially cheap and easily adoptable methods in managing chickpea wilt. Developing

and releasing wilt resistant cultivars is the major objective of the national chickpea

improvement programmers and chickpea varieties having resistance to wilt have been

released for cultivation in Ethiopia Geletu et al., (1996).

2.18.1. Cultural Control

Fusarium wilt can be managed through the use of disease prevention strategies, such as

rotation with non-host crop species, control of volunteer pulse crop plants in cereal crops,

and control of annual weeds in crop borders and headlands. Soil amendment with organic

matter, such as wheat or barley straw, has been found to enhance antagonism by other soil

micro-organisms. Delayed sowing can reduce disease incidence, but late sowing can

dramatically reduce yield potential and its effect on disease development can differ over

locations and seasons (Kannaiyan and Nene 1975). However, as the causal pathogen can

survive in soils for long periods of time, there still can be some residual disease inoculum

even with good management practices (Lange and McLaren 2002), Hence , eradication can

become a long term process. Since fusarium wilt of chickpea, seed borne the use of clean

seed from disease-free crops is very important.

15

2.18.2. Sowing Date

Effects of altering dates of sowing on the incidence of chickpea wilt/root rots were

assessed at DZARC (Alemu, 1978). The recovery of the pathogens causing wilt/root rots

decreased with delayed sowings. However, early sowing end of July) provided higher

grain yields as compared with late sowings (Seid et al., 1990).

2.18.3. Intercropping

(Singh and Sandhu, 1973) noted effect of wheat, barley, linseed and mustard

intercrops/mixed cropping with chickpea on wilt incidence. Intercropping/mixed

cropping reduced wilt incidence and increased yield of chickpea. Lowest wilt incidence

obtained with intercropping and mixed cropping with linseed.

2.18.4. Mechanical Control

Deep plugging over summer and removal of infected trash can reduce inoculums levels of

fusarium wilt of chickpea (Haware 1998). Solarisation of soil by covering the soil with

transparent polythene sheeting for 6-8 weeks during the summer months has been shown to

effectively control fusarium wilt of chickpea and improve plant growth and yield (Chauhan

et al. 1988). However, this method of control is not practical for broad-acre farming

systems.

2.8.5. Biological Control

No commercial biological control agents that directly attack Fusarium pathogens are

Currently available. However, potential biological agents have been identified for

control of these fusarium wilt diseases. Similarly, Trichoderma harzianum and

Trichoderma koningii have shown antibiosis and mycoparasitism Mukhopadhyay et

16

al. (1989). Most recently El-Hassan and Gowen (2006) have investigated the use of

Bacillus subtilis.

A comparison of formulations found that use of either talc or glucose significantly

decreased disease severity and enhanced plant growth promoting activity by increasing

root length. Similar results have been found for the control of F. oxysporum f.sp. ciceris,

with Trichoderma spp reducing plant mortality when applied to seed and sown in

the field Kumar et al., (2006).

Numerous other microorganisms have been reported as potential bio-control agents of F.

oxysporum f.sp. ciceris including Rhizobium (Arfaoui et al., 2007). Trichoderma species

are more effective when integrated with moderately susceptible or resistant cultivars

controlled Fusarium wilt by 30–46% ( Meki et al.,2011). Enrichment of soils with the

beneficial mycorrhiza fungi Goswami et al. (2007) or Rhizobium leguminosarum bacteria

(Essal, Mani and Lahlou, 2003) may provide an effective management strategy against

pathogenic fungal species. In addition, prior inoculation of chickpea with non-pathogenic

isolates of F.oxysporum significantly reduced disease incidence and severity Hervás et al.,

(1995)However, this method has been given no or little attention in managing

chickpea wilt in Ethiopia.

2.18 .6. Host Plant Resistance

Development of plant lines resistant to Fusarium wilts is the most effective approach to the

management or eradication of the disease. Breeding of resistant lines and identification of

DNA markers for resistance to fusarium wilt has been achieved in chickpea Sharma et al.

(2005), Bayaa et al.,(1998), Eujayl et al.,(1998).For example resistant variety chefe, Daba

et al,. (2005),Shasho, Arerity, Habru, Teji, Natoli and Ejeri . It is important to note that in

some cases, resistant plant varieties are only suitable for use against certain fusarium wilt

races (Jiménez- et al., 2004).

17

2.18.7. Chemical Control

In where fusarium wilt can appear at the seedling stage, the use of fungicide seed dressings

can be effective in reducing disease severity. Chickpea seed treatments with thiram,

Redomile, apron star or carboxin were reduced the incidence of the disease (Bayaa and

Erskine 1998). For chickpea obtaining useful levels of fusarium wilt control with seed-

applied fungicides can be difficult because the disease appears to be most aggressive late in

the growing season, long after seed-applied fungicides can reasonably be considered

effective.

However, seed- treatments may reduce losses by eliminating or reducing seed-borne

inoculums sources. Foliar fungicides tend to be expensive, and must be applied as

protective sprays well before symptoms become apparent (Lang 2002) in addition to the

technical difficulty of incorporating chemicals into the soil. Fumigants provide control of

fusarium wilt (but not eradication), but are not cost effective for routine use in chickpea.

18

3. MATERIAL AND METHOD

3.1. Description of the Study Area

The experiment was conducted at Dembia woreda Jarjar Abanove keble in Centeral

Gondar Administrative Zone during chickpea growing period of 2016. It site is

geographical located at latitude 06°36' N and longitude of 37°12' E with an altitude of

2000 m. a. s. l. The average maximum temperature 30.8°C and minimum 15.4°C of the

area and the mean maximum and minimum relative humidity are 91.4 and 39.92%,

respectively.

The fungicide seed treatments Thiram were applied at the rate of 5gr/kg chickpea seed and

Ridomil 68wg using foliar application. Certified seed chickpea variety Areriti and Habru

was obtained from Gondar Agricultural institute research center. And Local chickpea

variety was from local farmers. Two fungicides Thiram 5% and Ridomil 68wg were

purchase from the local market. Agronomical practices were done according to the

researcher recommendations. Planting were carried out on September, 2016. The following

maps are the study area of Jarjar Abanove keble in Dembia woreda (Fig 1).

Source of map FAO data 2018.

Figure 1. Map of the study area of Dembia woreda jarjar-Abanove keble

19

3.2. Treatment and experimental design

The field experiments were conducted by using nine treatments such as three chickpea

varieties (Local varieties Areriti and Habru) with two fungicides (Thiram and Ridomil and

control were arranged in a factorial randomized complete block design with 3 replications.

Each individual variety was planted at the rate of 0.5 Q/ha in the experimental field plots

size of 2x4m =8m2 Spacing between plants 4 rows in each plots and b/n rows10 and 30cm,

and between plots and blocks 0.5 m, and1m respectively. Planting were carried out on

September, 2016.

The fungicide seed treatments Thiram were applied at the rate of 5gr/kg chickpea seed and

Ridomil 68wg using foliar application. Certified seed chickpea variety was obtained from

Gondar Agricultural institute research center. Two fungicides Thiram 5% and Ridomil

68wg were purchase from the local market. Agronomical practices were done according to

the researcher recommendations.

Table 1.source and description of chickpea varieties used for field experment in Dembia

woreda.

S.N

Variety

Day to

maturity Source

Yield (Q/ ha)

Research

center

Farmers

Field

1

Locale

90 days Local farmer 38Q/ha 25Q//ha

2

Areriti

90 days CDZARC/EIAR 48Q/ha 39Q//ha

3 Habru 95 days CDZARC/EIAR 40Q/ha 33Q//ha

Source. DZARC (Debrezeit Research Center), Dembia agriculture office report.

Table 2.Treatment combination for field experiment.

N0 Treatment Formulation Rate of fungicides

{kg/seed (kg/ha)}

20

1 Local with Thiram Thiram 25%DP 5gr/kg seed

2 Local with Ridomil Ridomil 68WG 2.5kg/ha

3 Local (un-treated) - -

4 Areriti with Thiram Thiram 25%DP 5gr/kg seed

5 Areriti with Ridomil Ridomil 68WG 2.5kg/ha

6 Areriti (un-treated) - -

7

8

Habru with Thiram

Habru with Ridomil

Thiram 25%DP

Ridomil 68WG

5 gr/kg seed

2.5kg/ha

9 Habru (untreated) - -

3.3. Isolation and Identification of Fusarium oxysporum f sp. Ciceris

Chickpea plants showing yellowing, drooping of leaves were collected from Chickpea

Fusarium wilt infected Plant. The infected root was washed under tap water to remove soil

particles. The infected leaf or root was washed under tap water to remove soil particles and

into cut small pieces of 5 – 8 cm long and surface sterilized by dipping in 0.1% HgCl2

solution for 1 minutes and followed by 3 time washed with sterilized distilled water and28 oC

in the incubator with 12 hr of light and 12 hr darkness for the growing of pathogenic fungi

and 12 hr darkness for the emergence of pathogenic fungi.

The growth was cut into trisection and transferred by hyphal tip method on PDA media for

sporulation. Again, these plates were kept in the incubator with earlier mentioned control

condition for next seven days. The morphological characters of isolated pathogen for shape

and size of macro conidia, micro conidia and chlymadospore were examined under

calibrate compound microscope (Onion et al., 1981). The funguses were identified based

on morphology and colony characteristics using the method of Watanabe (2000).

21

3.4. Data Collected

3.4.1. Epidemiological data

Wilt incidences

Were calculated on the basis of initial plant count and were calculated disease incidence in

the field experiments. The Chickpea fusarium wilt incidences of each test entry were

calculated by the following formula (Nene et al. 1981).

Disease incidence (%) = Number of infected plants *100

Total number of plants

The morphological characteristics of the isolated pathogen were examined under calibrated

compound microscope for the shape and size of septet of macroconidia, microconidia and

pathogen hypha.

3.4.2. Yield and yield component data.

Plant height (cm): Average height of main stem of five plants taken at random in each

experimental unit.

Number of pods per plant (no): five plants were randomly taken from the middle four rows

and then number of pods per plant counted and average count was taken.

Number of seeds per pod (no): five plants were randomly taken from the middle four rows

and then seeds per pods counted and average count was taken.

Number of seeds per plant (no): five plants were randomly taken from the middle four rows

and threshed then counted and average count was taken.

Days to flowering: Number of days from date of planting to 75% of plants attained to

flowering.

Days to maturity: Number of days from date of planting to 75% of plants attained

physiological maturity.

Biomass at harvest maturity (kg/ha): the middle four rows from each plot were harvested and

the total biomass was weighed.

22

Hundred-kernel weight (g): hundred seeds sampled at random from each experimental

plot was weighed using analytical balance.

Grain weight (t/ha): at harvest maturity the middle rows from each plot were harvested and

the grain yield was weighed.

3.5. Area Under Disease Progress Curve of Chickpea Fusarium wilt

AUDPC values were calculated for each treatment using the following formula (Shaner

and Finney, 1977).

Where yi is the disease incidence expressed in percentage at i th observation, ti, is time

(days after planting) at the ith observation, t' is the epidemic duration for each treatment

and n is total number of disease assessment was made. AUDPC values were expressed in

%- days (Shaner and Finney, 1977).

3.6. Relative yield loss

The relative yield loss with different fungicides and varieties was calculated to the best-

protected plot where Yp yield of the highest protected plot and Yup yield of unprotected

plot (Assefa et al., 2007). Relative yield loss (%) = RL= (%) = (Y1-Y2) *100

Y1

3.7. Data Analysis

The effect of different combinations of selected experimental treatments was assessed by

single degree of freedom contrasts at P<0.05. The significant difference between

treatments means Analyses of variance (ANOVA) for the effects of varieties and

fungicides on fusarium wilt incidence, AUDPC, plant height, yield and yield components

were used to compare the level of resistance and efficacy among evaluated treatments. The

data of each trait were subjected the two ways ANOVA with General Linear Model GLM

23

procedures using the SAS, version 9.2 (SAS institute Inc, 2002) Mean separation was done

by Least significant difference.

3.8. Cost/Benefit Analysis

The cost and benefit of each treatment was analyzed partially and marginal rate of return

(MRR) was computed by considering the variable cost available in the respective

treatment. Yield and economic data were computed to compare the advantage of

different chickpea varieties and different fungicide applications in different treatment

combinations.

Economic data included input cost that varies; cost for chemical and labour during

production time. The price of fungicides of Thiram DP 25% was Birr 250kg/ha-1and

Ridomil 68 WG was Birr 200 kg /ha-1; labour cost of Birr 5000 man-days for applications

was taken. As an output, total growth benefit was calculated from chickpea yield of the

crop. Local market price of chickpea was Birr 5 birr depends on variety during the 2017 at

harvest and was changed into hectare basis (CIMMYT, 1988).

Partial budget analysis is a method of organizing data and information about the cost and

benefit of various agricultural alternatives. Partial budgeting is employed to assess

profitability of any new technologies (practices) on to be imposed to the agricultural

business. Marginal analysis is concerned with the process of making choice, between

alternative factor product combinations considering small changes.

Marginal rate of return is a criterion which measures the effect of additional capital

invested on net returns using new managements compared with the previous one

(CIMMYT, 1988). It provides the value of benefit obtained per the amount of additional

cost incurred percentage the following Gross benefits (birr) = Adjusted yield x unit price

(birr)

Net benefit (birr) = Gross benefit – total cost

Marginal cost (birr) = Change in total cost (Total cost 2- Total cost 1)

24

Marginal net benefit (birr) = Change in net benefit (Net benefit2 – Net benefit1)

Marginal rate of return (%) = Change in net benefit X 100

Change in total cost

The following points were considered during cost/benefit analysis using partial budget.

Costs for all agronomic practices were constant.

Price of chickpea per kg for each variety was the same.

Costs of labor were taken based on the price in the locality.

Costs, return and benefit were calculated per hectare basis.

Chickpea yield calculation considered only the marketable ones.

NB. Cost was taken from 2017ec.

It was assumed that, farmers produce these varieties under integrated management of

chickpea when the varieties provided 100% marginal rate of returns. This was done by

comparing average on-station yield with average on-farm yield for each variety.

25

Table 3.Description of treatment cost of Fungicide analysis

NB. Cost was taken from 2017.

Treatments Required

Application

rate (kg/ha)

Cost of

fungicides

(birr/ha-1

)

Transpo

rt cost

(birr)

Sub total

cost

(birr)

Seed

rat

(kg/ha-

1)

Cost of

seed

(birr/ha-

1)

Total cost

that

varies(birr/h

a-1

)

Local with

Thiram

25%DP

0.3kg/ha 250 300 550 0.4 80 630

Local with

Ridomil

2.5kg/ha 200 300 500 0.4 120 620

Local (un-

treated)

None none 300 300 0.4 80 380

Areriti with

Thiram

25%DP

0.3kg/ha 250 300 550 0.4 120 670

Areriti with

Ridomil

2.5kg/ha 200 300 500 0.4 120 620

Areriti (un-

treated)

None None 300 300 0.4 80 380

Habru with

Thiram

25%DP

2.5/ha 250 300 550 0.4 120 670

Habru with

Ridomil

2.5kg/ha 200 300 500 0.4 120 620

Habru

(untreated)

None None 300 300 0.4 80 380

26

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Laboratory Experiment

4.1.1. Isolation and Characterization of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris

After laboratory examination the morphological characters of pathogen for shape and size

isolated of macro conidia, micro conidia and chlymadospore were examined under

calibrate compound microscope. The fungus shapes were septet, kidney identify based on

morphology and colony Conidiophores hyaline, simple, short or not well differentiated

from hyphae, bearing spore masses at the apexes. Conidia phialosporous, hyaline, of two

kinds: macroconidia boat-shaped, with slightly tapering apical cells and hooked basal cells,

4-celled; and microconidia ellipsoidal, 1-celled.

Figure 2.Sepate of hyphae differnt form of fusarium oxysporium f.sp.ciceri Morphology

macrocondia, microconida and morphology of pathogen

During identification Culture of the pathogen pink color

Mycelium, Macrconidia and Microconidia

27

On culture media of PDA the F.oxysporium f.sp. ciceris growth was showed pink color.

The result was coincided with research findings of Honnareddy and Dubey (2007) reported

that the isolate of Fusarium .oxysporium f.sp. ciceris was variable pigmentation which

varied from normal white to violet, brown, reddish violet, greenish violet, yellowish

pink and dark green.

4.2. Field Experiment

4.2.1. Diseases onset and level of incidence

The first symptoms of fusarium wilt were observed on un treated plots at 15 DAP about

seedling stage of the crop. At the first time plots the treated with Areriti and Redomil were

showed minimum disease incidence than un-treated plots. From the field and the

laboratory study the following morphological characteristics and agronomic parameters

were recorded and analyzed.

4.2.2. Disease Incidence

The effects of treatments were evaluated in terms of disease and other parameters. The

plant disease was measured using three parameters; incidence, severity and relative yield

loss. Weather conditions for chick pea fusarium wilt epidemic development were very

favorable during the growing period (Table 4). The first fusarium wilt disease incidence

was appeared on 15 DAP at chick pea seedling stage of the crop. Analysis of variance

showed that initial disease incidence was significantly affected by main effect chickpea

varieties and fungicides at p<0.05 (Table 4). Among the main effect the maximum initial

disease incidence was 9.18% recorded from Local chickpea, followed by Arerti chickpea

varieties with 7.29% incidence, while the minimum initial disease incidence was 6.09%

recorded from the Habru variety. There was no any significant different between the

Thiram and Redomile fungicide treatments, however both fungicides were significant

different when compared to with untreated plots.

28

4.2.3. Main effects of initial and final of Disease Incidence

Analysis of variance showed that final disease incidence was significantly affected by main

effect chickpea varieties and fungicides at p<0.05. Among the main effect of varieties the

maximum final disease incidence 30.84% was recorded from local chickpea, followed by

Arerti variety 24.83 % respectively, while the minimum final disease incidence 24.47 %

was recorded from Habru chickpea variety. On the other hand, the maximum final disease

incidence was 34.49% recorded from untreated plots, while the minimum final disease

incidence 21.13% was recorded from Thiram and followed by Redomil fungicides sprayed

plots 24.51% (Table 4).

Generally the present study indicated that Habru chickpea variety was not highly

susceptible to fusarium wilt disease than other experimental varieties. The incidence of

fusarium wilt disease was found to be as high as 30.84 % on local variety and 24.83 % on

improved variety of Arerti chickpea variety. In agreement with respect to variety resistant

had less disease incidence than that of the susceptible variety (Irena and Ruta, 2013).

Table 4. Main effects of chickpea varieties and fungicides on initial and final disease

fusarium wilt disease condition.

Treatments

Initial disease

Incidence (% 15DAP)

Final disease

Incidence (% 90DAP)

Variety

Local 9.18a 30.84a

Arerti 7.29ab 24.83b

Habru 6.09b 24.47b

LSD (5%) 2.32 3.04

Fungicides

Thiram 5.70b 21.13 c

Redomil 6.85b 24.51b

No chemical 10.01a 34.49a

LSD (0.05%)

C.V (%)

2.32

31.18

3.04

11.49

Means followed by the same letter(s) in the same column are not significantly different at

P<0.05 LSD.

29

4.2.4. Interaction effect of chickpea varieties and fungicides on different DAP

fusarium wilt incidence.

Among interaction effect of treatments the maximum initial disease incidence was

(12.31%) recorded from Local untreated plot, while the minimum initial disease incidence

was (4.14%) recorded from Areriti variety treated with Thiram fungicide plots. However,

three chick pea varieties treated with both fungicides were not varied statistically at initial

disease incidence (Table 5).( Champawat R. S. and Pathak V. N. 2011).

.

Among overall treatments during the period of disease progress from 30 up to 90 DAP

with lower fusarium wilt incidence ranging from 7.03 to 15.66 % across all growth stages

was reduced by Thiram treated with two improved varieties plots and it was significantly

(P≤0.05) different compared to both improved variety untreated plots ranging from 15.12

to 36.16% (Table 5). Thiram application was protect the seed from soil and seed borne

fusarium wilt disease by mechanism like eradication of seed or soil borne pathogen.

Verma, (1976) showed that seed treatment fungicides were absorbed into the plant and

translocated in the plant and protected the seedlings in the field. This study demonstrated

that treatment of chickpea with Thiram significantly reduced plant incidence, which was in

agreement with studies by Maitlo et al., (2014) and Nikam et al., (2007) in field studies on

the inhibition of F. oxysporum f. sp ciceris by various fungicides indicated that Thiram

5% was effective against this pathogen.

The two way interaction effects the maximum final disease incidence (90 DAP) was 38.70

% observed from untreated Local chickpea variety, followed by Arereti and Habru

chickpea variety both un-treated plots 36.16% and 28.61% respectively, while the

minimum final disease incidence 15.66 % was recorded from Areriti variety treated with

Thiram followed by Habru variety treated with Thiram treated with fungicide 20.73 % and

which were not statistically significant different at p<0.05(Table 5). These resistance

varieties could be used as valuable sources for breeding programs to enhance resistance in

chickpea crops against fusarium wilt disease. But local chickpea easily susceptible to a

given disease rather than other listed improved varieties. In the present study, even though,

the incidence of fusarium wilt increase from seedling to maturity stage, chickpea variety

30

treated with fungicides minimize initial as well as final disease incidence compared to the

controls.

4.2.5. Effect of chickpea varieties on progress of fusarium wilt incidence

The three chickpea varieties, the disease progressed slowly till 45 DAP. On the susceptible

local chickpea the disease progressed rapidly starting from 45 DAP till to final stage. Three

chickpea varieties without fungicide treatments indicated higher disease progress

performance fusarium wilt incidence ranged from 18.91 to 38.70% during 45 to 90 DAP

respectively. However, Habru variety with untreated was showed minimum fusarium wilt

incidence 18.91% starting from 45DAP until with the final wilt incidence 28.61% of 90

DAP, followed by Arerti variety with untreated. But, the Local chickpea with untreated

plot was showed the maximum fusarium wilt incidence (27.37 to 38.70%) starting from 45

to 90 DAP stage of the crops. On the other hand treatments indicated as the performance of

two improved chickpea varieties treated with Thiram was showed significant difference

P<0.05 compared with untreated improved varieties at 75 DAP of fusarium disease

incidence (Table 5). Dagne (2004). Assessment of losses in yield components of chickpea

varieties due to fusarium wilt. Pest Management Journal of Ethiopia. 8: 59-69.

4.2.6. Effect of fungicides on progress of fusarium wilt incidence

In three chickpea varieties the most damaging fusarium wilt was observed in untreated

plots of chickpea variety, while the medium and minimum fusarium wilt was observed on

Redomil and Thiram treated plots respectively. Generally chickpea variety treated with

different fungicides (Thiram and Redomil) and untreated was showed significant different

among fusarium wilt incidence. Hence, the minimum incidence was observed from Thiram

treated chickpea variety, followed by Redomil treated variety with compared to untreated

the same chickpea variety. Starting from 15 DAP the chickpea varieties with untreated was

showed significantly maximum disease incidence, followed by Redomil and Thiram

treated plots (Table 5). Muhammad, (2002) reported that fungicide application reduced the

inoculums which resulted low wilt incidence. Thus, fungicides treatment application aimed

at reducing the amount of incidence that carries over from the soil and seed infested could

31

be used to manage fusarium wilt (Cother, 2007). Maitlo et al., (2014) and Singh et al.

(2004) also reported highest seed germination with Thiram is increased yield. Our research

findings indicated that better wilt management was achieved through seed treatment

fungicide application.

Table 5.Two way interaction effects of chickpea varieties and fungicides of different days

of planting.

Variety Fungicids Disease incidence (%)

(15DAP) 30 45 60 75 (90 DAP)

Variet Fungicides

Local Thiram

8.07bc

12.62cd

14.53cde

21.33bc

24.88b

27.01bc

Redomil

7.17c

10.79de

16.873cd

20.843bc

24.49bc

26.81bc

Control

12.31a

20.73a

27.37a

32.98a

36.43a

38.70a

Areriti Thiram

4.14c

7.03f

9.62e

13.16d

14.38d

15.66e

Redomil

6.54c

11.09de

15.36cd

19.23bc

21.51bc

22.65cd

Control

11.21ab

17.72ab

24.44ab

30.6a

33.61a

36.16a

Habru Thiram

4.91c

8.49ef

12.62de

16.88cd

19.36cd

20.73de

Redomil

6.84c

11.98cde

17.13cd

20.77bc

22.23bc

24.07bcd

Control

6.53c

15.12bc

18.91bc

22.82b

26.71b

28.61b

LSD

(0.05%)

4.02

3.73

5.72

5.18

5.39

5.27

C.V (%) 31.18 16.94 19.15 13.54 12.65 11.49

Means followed by the same letter(s) in the same column are not significantly different at

P<0.005 LSD.

32

4.2.7. Area under disease progress curve

AUDPC value showed highly significant (P<0.001) differences among varieties and

fungicides interaction treatments but the highest AUDPC value (496.14 % days) was

recorded from Local chickpea variety with un treated plots and followed by Arerti

chickpea variety with untreated plot of AUDPC value (443.74 % days), while the lowest

AUDPC (67.31 % days) was obtained from the Areriti variety treated with Thiram

fungicide treatment (Fig 4., Appendix Table 3). These were because fungicides untreated

variety is more susceptible to the development of a given disease than the variety treated

with a given fungicides. Since fungicides acts against infections of the past and controls

the secondary spread of the disease, it is able to reduce disease development (Kapoor and

Sugha, 2005).

In general the highest value of AUDPC indicated the highest disease development on plots that

were not treated with any combinations of these varieties and types of fungicide applications.

While the lowest AUDPC value indicates use of resistance varieties and different types of

chemicals had reduced the disease incidence. Their for improve varieties treated with seed

dressing fungicides having lower AUDPC are acceptable for practical purposes. The AUDPC

value of the diseases was the higher for susceptible variety treated with fungicides than that of

resistant variety with untreated (chang et al., 2007).

33

Means followed by the same letter (s) in the same column are not significantly different at

P<0.05 LSD; T1 =Local with Thiram, T2 = Local with Redomil, T3 = Local un treated,

T4 = Areriti with Thiram,T5= Areriti with Redomil, T6 = Areriti untreated, T7 = Habru

with Thiram, T8 = Habru with Redomil, T9 = Habru un treated.

4.2.8. Two way Interaction Effects of varieties and fungicides on chick pea yield and

yield components.

Management of Fusarium wilt of chickpea is difficult to achieve and no single

control measure is fully effective. Considering the nature of damage and survival

ability of the fungus, the use of resistant varieties and fungicides were considered to

be the only economical and practical solution. The following yield components results

were indicated by the effect of the combination of resistant variety and fungicide

treatments (Table 6 Appendix Table 2).

Analysis of the two way interaction effects variance showed that plant height data revealed

highly significant (P < 0.01) different among the treatments compared to the three varieties

without fungicide treatments (Table 6 Appendix Table 2). The tallest plant height

(65.33cm) was obtained from Areriti chickpea variety treated with Thiram followed by

Figure 3.Effect of treatments on Fusarium wilt areas under disease progress curve (AUDPC).

34

(60.50cm) Habru treated with Thiram fungicide treatment and these were significantly

different from other treatments (Table 6). However the smallest plant height (37.33cm)

was recorded from Local chickpea variety with fungicide untreated plot and significantly

different from the other treatments.

In the two ways interaction effects showed that all un treated variety Locale, Habru and

Areriti had smaller plant height length than other treatments by 37.33, 41.00 and 41.83cm

respectively. The results of the present study, plant height could be increased by

integrating moderately resistant varieties with reduced the incidence of disease severity.

Since plant height had an important contribution to branch or canopy and correspondingly

affected chickpea yield, developing an appropriate management strategy of fusarium wilt is

very important role to increasing yield. The results were in agreement with previous

studies in chickpea who reported chickpea treated with fungicides showed good

performance plant height than untreated (Tesfamichael et al., 2014). EL-Waraky and EL-

koliey (2011) who was found genotypic variations in plant height existed among chickpea

varieties.

Analyses of the two ways interaction effects on seed per plant were highly significant (P <

0.01) differences among varieties with fungicides combined application (Table 6 and

appendix Table 2). The minimum seed number 68 no. per plant was obtained from Local

untreated plot, while the maximum number 95 no was on Areriti with Thiram treated plot,

followed by 90.00 numbers on Areriti with Redomil treatment. However, all three

untreated varieties were significantly different with fungicide treated variety treatments.

The three tested chick pea varieties required almost 80 days to reach for seed setting stage.

Thiram and Redomil fungicide applications significantly affect days for seed setting of

tested varieties. The result indicated that integration of chick pea varieties with fungicide

application affected the seed setting (maturing) time and as to increase the seed formation

as correspondingly increased yield compared to un treated varieties.

35

Analysis of the two ways interaction effects number of pod per plant data were highly

significant (P< 0.01) differences among varieties and fungicides combinations (Table 6

and Appendix Table 2).

The analysis results showed that the highest number of pod per plant obtained from Areriti

with Thiram 95.06 and the second number of pod per plant obtained from Areriti with

Redomil 90., while the lowest was recorded from untreated Local variety 68.00no and

significantly different compared with other treatments. Plant growth behavior and yield

performance of pulse crops like chickpea could be determined by number of effective pods

per plant. Similar results were reported by many researchers according to Tesfamichael et

al (2014) who proved that chickpea and cowpea germplasim showed significant variation

for number of pods per plant. Different chickpea varieties with different fungicides were

increased pod per plant. Thiram and Redomil applications were significantly affect

initiation of number of pod per plants in the tested varieties.

Effect of hundred seed weight showed highly significant (P < 0.01) difference among

treatments (Table 6 and appendix Table 2). The higher hundred seed weight (HSW) were

obtained from treated and untreated improved varieties with the ranging from 23.38 to

26.01 HSW, while the lower HSW was recorded from treated and untreated Local

variety with the ranging from 15.62 to 17.01 HSW. But the growth of treated and untreated

improved varieties significantly different with treated and untreated Local variety (Table 6

and Appendix Table 2).

Generally, the results of this study indicated that integration of improved chickpea varieties

and different types of fungicide application had considerable significant effect to chickpea

weights. From this, it can be concluded that integration of improved varieties with different

types of fungicide applications were played an important role in improving chickpea

weight. Bicer (2009) reported that 4-6% increases in grain weight of large seeded varieties

compared to medium and small seeded varieties in chickpea varieties.

Analysis of the two way interaction effect biomass data revealed significant (P < 0.05)

difference among the combinations of the three chickpea varieties with fungicides. From

all variety and fungicide combination treatments higher biomass 45 and 44 Q/ha was

36

obtained from Areriti and Habru variety plots treated with Thiram fungicide application

respectively, and the lowest biomass 20 Q/ha was found from untreated local variety.

However all treated and untreated treatments were significantly each other (Table 6 and

Appendix Table 2).

Analysis of the two way interaction effect of variety with fungicides on yield data showed

highly significant (P < 0.01) differences among treatments (Table 6 and Appendix Table

2). The higher chickpea yield (49.06 qt/ha-1 and 47.08 qt/ha-1) were obtained from Areriti

variety plots treated with Thiram and Redomil fungicide application respectively. On the

other hand, the lower yield 31.92 and 35.88qt/ha chickpea yield was recorded from Locale

plot with untreated and treated Redomil fungicide application.

The fungicide treated improved varieties significantly increased yield compared to

untreated all varieties and treated local variety treatments. From this could be generalized

that improved variety treated with fungicide significantly increased yield. The result was

coincided with the researchers Oladejo et al (2011) reported that a significant difference

was obtained from grain yi.eld among fungicide treated and untreated plots. In general

Rajib et al (2006) also indicated that higher grain yields were harvested from plots which

were treated by fungicides.

37

Table 6. Interaction effects of chickpea varieties and fungicides on yield and yield

componts of fusarium wilt disease.

Variety

Fungicide PHcm NSP(no) NPOP(no) HSWg/plot

BMQ/HA

YLDQ/ha

NSPO(NO)

Local

Thiram

56.83cd

77.0ab 77.0ab

17.01b

32.80e

37.58f

1b

1c

1c

1a

1b

1c

1b

1c

1c

Redomil

55.00d

77.0ab 77.0ab

16.35b

31.4f

35.54g

No-chemical

37.33f

68.0e 68.0e

15.62b

20.73h

31.72h

Areriti

Thiram

65.33a

95.06.ab 95.06a

26.03a

45.05a

49.23a

Redomil 57.17c 90..0b 90.0c 26.22a 40.50d 47.33b

Nochmical 41.83e 70.33d 70.33d 23.38a 25.42g 39.4e

Habru

Thiram

Redomil

No-chemical

60.5b

55.83cd

41.00e

89..67a 89.67b

88.67c 88.67c

71.33 71.33

27.39a

26.99a

26.01a

44.83b

43.04c

25.42g

43.c

42..3d

37.58f

LSD

(0.05%)

C.V (% )

2.08

2.32

2.08 2.08

6.16 6.16

4.28

10.96

4.24

0.723

66.259

0.956

0.087

3.95

Note: Means followed by the same letter (s) in the same column are not significantly

different at P<0.05 LSD.ph=plant height (cm), nsp=number of seed per plant (no),

npop=number of pod per plant(no), hsw=hundred seed weight(gr/plot), bm=biomass(t/ha),

yld=yield per hectare(qt/ha) nspo=number of seed per pod (no).

38

4.2.9. Main Effects of varieties and fungicides on chick pea yield and yield

components

Analysis of variance showed that plant height was highly affected (p<0.05) by chickpea

varieties and fungicides (Table 7) Among the main effects the largest plant height 53.39cm

was obtained from Arerti chickpea variety and significantly greater than Local chickpea

variety. However Areriti and Habru were not significant different each other, while the

shortest plant height of 51.0cm was recorded from local chickpea variety (Table 7). On the

other hand the largest plant height was 54.72cm recorded from Thiram treated plots,

followed by Redomil treated which resulted in medium plant height 52.77cm. While the

smallest plant height 49.44 cm was recorded from fungicide un treated plots (Table 7).

Analysis of variance showed that number of seed per plant was highly affected (p<0.05) by

chickpea varieties and fungicides. Among the main effects the maximum number of seed

per plant 89.11no was observed from Areriti, followed by Habru varieties 70.44 no. while

the minimum number of seed per plant 60.5 was obtained from local chickpea. Among the

main effects the maximum number of seed per plant was obtained from plots treated with

Thiram 77.75no followed by treated with Redomil which result 73.92no while significantly

the minimum number of seeds per plant 69.17no was obtained from un treated plots (Table

7).

Analysis of variance showed that number of pod per plant was highly affected (p<0.05) by

chickpea varieties and fungicides, among the main affects the maximum number of pod per

plant 89.11 was obtained from Areriti, followed by Habru varieties 70.44 while the

minimum number of pod per plant 60.5dwas obtained from local chickpea (Table 7).

Among the main effects the maximum number of pods per plant 77.75 was obtained from

plots treated with Thiram of pods per plant 69.17 was obtained from un treated

plots (Table 7). Plant growth behavior and yield performance of pulse crops like chickpea

could be determined by number of pod per plant. In this study varieties showed significant

variation with respect to number of pods per plant. Similar results were reported by many

researchers (Tesfamichael et al., 2014) who proved that chickpea and cowpea germplasim

showed significant variation for number of pods per plant.

39

Analysis of variance showed that hundred grain weights were highly affected (p<0.01) by

chickpea varieties and fungicides, the main affects of the maximum hundred grain weights

were 23.49g obtained from Areriti, followed by Habru varieties 22.56g while the

minimum hundred grain weights were 22.28g obtained from local chickpea (Table 7).

Likewise, among the main effects the maximum hundred grain weights were 26.33g

obtained from plots treated with Thiram, followed by treated with Redomil which result

25.21g while significantly the minimum hundred grain weights 16.78g was obtained from

un treated plots (Table 7).seed size trait is one of the main yield related characters in

chickpea and could attribute to the final grain weight. In the present study large seeded

varieties gave more hundred grain weight compared to small seeded varieties. The

variation in grain weight could be contributed significant to final grain yield.

Analysis of variance showed that numbers of seed per pod were affected (p<0.05) by

chickpea varieties and fungicides, among the main effects the number of seed per pod not

significant different was observed from Areriti, Habru and Local varieties (Table 7).

Among the main effects the all varieties of number of seed per pod was one obtained from

all plots treated and un treated varieties. (Table 7).

Analysis of variance showed that biomass yield was highly affected (p<0.05) by chickpea

varieties and fungicides, among the main affects the maximum biomass yield 34.98Q/ha

was observed from Areriti, followed by Habru varieties 34.77 Q/ha while the minimum

biomass yield 34.99 Q/ha was obtained from local chickpea (Table 7). Among the main

effects the maximum biomass yield 37.54 Q/ha was obtained from plots treated with

Thiram, followed by treated with redomil which result 36.30 Q/ha while significantly the

minimum biomass yield 27.88 was obtained from un treated plots (Table 7).

Analysis of variance showed that grain yield was significantly affected by the main effect

of chickpea varieties and fungicides at p<0.05(Table 7) Among the main effects the

maximum grain yield 40.64Q/ha was obtained from plots treated with Areriti, followed by

treated with Habru varieties which result 40.32 Q/ha while significantly the minimum

grain yield 40.31 Q/ha was obtained from Local chickpea plots.

40

Similarly, the maximum grain yield of 45.94 Q/ha was obtained plots treated with Thiram,

followed by Redomil which resulted in grain yield of 41.96 Q/ha However, the grain yield

which was obtained from Thiram and redomil fungicides were showed significant different

while the minimum grain yield of 35.64 Q/ha was obtained from un treated plots.

However, there was showed significantly difference among fungicides treated and

untreated plots (Table 8).in chickpea, previous studies have reported significant variation

for grain yield (Tesfamichael et al.,2014). In general, higher grain yields were harvested

from plots which treated by fungicides. This finding is related with (Rajib et al., 2006).

Table 7. Main effects of Varieties and fungicides on chickpea yield and yield components

Treatments PH cm NSP(no) NPOP(no) HSWg/plot NSPO(no) BMtQ/ha YPHQ/ha

Variety

Local 51.0a 60.5d 60.5d 22.28a 1a 34.99a 40.24a

Areriti 53.39ab 89.11b 89.11b 23.49a 1a 34.98a 40.25ab

Habru 52.6b 70.44c 70.44c 22.56a 1a 34.77a 40.04b

LSD (5%) 1.03 2.37 2.37 2.56 0.06 2.44 34.56

Fungicides

Thiram 54.72c 77.75a 77.75a 26.33b 1b 37.54c 45.94c

Redomil 52.77a 73.92b 73.92b 25.21a 1a 36.3b 41.96

Untreated 49.44b 69.17c 69.17c 16.798a 1b 27.88a 35.64b

LSD (5%) 1.03 2.12 2.12 2.56 2.44 0.06 34.56

CV (%) 1.97 4.58 4.58 11.24 0.715 4.09 0.86

LSD=Least significant diffirent, CV= Coefficient of variation, Means within column followed by

the same letter is not significantly different at p<0.05.

Means followed by the same letter (s) in the same column are not significantly different at

P<0.05 LSD.PH=plant height (cm), NSP=number of seed per plant (no), NPOP=number of

pod per plant (no),HSW=hundred seed weight(gr/plot),BM=biomass(t/ha),YPH=yield per

hectare(qt/ha), NSPO=number of seed per pod (no).

41

4.3.3. Relative yield loss

Relative yield loss was highly significant (P<0.01) differences between protected plots

and un protected plots treatments (Table 9), The best protected plot among treatments was

Areriti variety treated with Thiram fungicide applied plot. The lowest yield loss 5.94 %

was obtained from Areriti variety treated with Redomil fungicide application, while the

highest yield loss 34.38% was recorded from un-treated Local variety plots and followed

by local variety treated with Redomil fungicide of 28.12% relative yield loss. In general

the highest yield loss more than 25% was recorded from treated and un-treated Local

variety. In general the plots treated with fungicide of improved varieties were highly

reduced yield loss compared to treated and untreated Local variety. Navas-Cortes et al

(2000) also indicated that application of different fungicides and resistance variety had

reduced the loss yields. Hence, the lower yield per hectare was obtained from higher

disease incidence experimental units (Geletu, 2004).As disease incidence increased all

yield related parameter were highly influenced and decreased the yield obtained

(Mohammed et al.,2008).

Table 8. Effects of treatments on chickpea yield and relative yield loss.

Treatments Grain yield

( qt/ha)

Relative

grain yield loss (%)

Variety Fungicid

Local Thiram 37.50.0

25

Local Redomil 35.93

28.124

Local untreated 31.92

34.38

Areriti Thiram 49.08

0

Areriti Redomil 47.08

5.938

Habru Thiram 47.78

12.5

Habru Redomil 42.08

15.624

Habru untreated 37.39

25

Chickpea fusariums wilt yield loss.

42

4. 3.4. Cost benefit analysis

The highest marginal rate of return of 11483.90% was obtained from Areriti with Thiram

treatment and followed by a marginal rate of return of 5838% resulted from treatment

which received a combination of chemical and variety (Table 10). This implies that for

every Birr 1.00 that a farmer invests for Thiram chemicals, he expected Birr 1.00 plus

additional Birr 114.839 and 58.38 respectively. Thus, from the economic point of

view,( Thiram + Areriti ) could be recommended as a first alternative and (Areriti

+Redomil ) could be recommended as second alternatives.

Recommended input combinations should result in maximum possible return with the

possible minimum cost. The above recommendation is not only based on the marginal

benefit and the net benefit which would be gained by a farmer by adopting this new

technology.

Table 9. Cost benefit analysis of chickpea variety and fungicide treatment on fusarium

wilt disease condition.

Variety Fungici

des

Gross

benefit(bir

r ha-1)

Total cost

that

varies(birr

ha-1)

Net benefit

(birr ha-1)

Marginal

cost

(Birr ha-1

)

Marginal

net

benefit

(birr ha-

1)

Marginal

rate of

return (%)

Local Thiram 18750 630 18120 - - -

Redoml 17969 620 17349 240 1322.5 92.38

Un trtd 16406.5 380 16026.5 240 1322.5 551.04

Aeriti Thiram 50000 670 49330 290 33303.5 11483.9

Redoml 47031 620 46411 50 2919 5838

Untrtd 39063 380 38683 240 7728 3220

Habru Thiram 43750 670 43080 290 4397 1516.2

Redoml 42188 620 36988 50 1512 3024

Un trtd 37500 380 32500 200 4488 -2244

NB. Cost of price in 2017 e.c in local market. Net benefit (Birr ha-1); Un trtd =untreated

43

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1. CONCLUSION

Fusarium wilt is the most important disease affecting chickpea yield in Ethiopia. In

Ethiopia, about 30% yield loss of chickpea reported. One of the most series diseases

throughout all chickpea growing places in the world. On the findings of this study,

fusarium wilt is an important disease that calls better attention in the study area in terms of

economical management with fungicides and resistant varieties.

Based on Researches’ finding indicated that the use of minimum chemical and Resistance

variety were to reduce the incidence of the pathogens. In this study tried to find out the

best management based on two types of fungicides treated with Thiram 5g/kg seed &

Redomil 2.5kg /ha according to manufacturer recommendation and three chickpea variety

were factorially combined to test their effect on fusarium wilt disease.

The result of the present study indicated that lower fusarium wilt incidence was observed

on Thiram fungicide combined with Areriti variety treatment were and higher on

suppression of disease compared to Redomil application and local chickpea variety.

Higher fusarium wilt incidences were observed in all untreated varieties. Generally

fusarium wilt incidence was decreased when chickpea was seed dressed with Thiram and

Redomil fungicide application at all growth stages.

Interactions observed indicate that using moderately resistant variety required much

fungicide Application to control Fusarium wilt as compared to locale variety. The use of

wilt resistant chickpea varieties and different types of fungicides were in managing

chickpea fusarium wilt. So fusarium wilt of chickpea can be better managed using resistant

cultivars and fungicidal seed treatment.

44

5.2. Recommendation

In future studies, it is important to increase number of varieties and introduction of

resistance source materials and varietal development as well as increasing testing locations

is suggested and increasing testing over year is important and should be aware the farmers

to use resistance varieties with fungicides treatment rather than local chickpea with

untreated. Moreover, precise information specific to regions is required on the performance

of chickpea varieties, particularly in terms of their reaction to major diseases such as

fusarium wilt.

Finally, from this study the following recommendations have been developed. To improve

Chickpea production in the North Gondar, Fusarium wilt diseases that occur serious and

common disease on Chickpea should be managed by using minimum Chemical (Thiram

and Redomil) as alternative to the currently used fusarium wilt.

45

6. REFERENCES

Alemu, A. (1978) Food legume disease in Ethiopia. In Food legume improvement and

development (Hawtin, G.C., and Chancellor, G.H., (eds) Proceedings of a

workshop held at the University of Aleppo, 2-7May1978, Aleppo, Syria.

ICARDA/IDRC pp106-108.

Anjaiah, V. Cornelis, P. and Koedam, N.(2003).Effect of genotype and root colonization in

the biological control of fusarium wilts in pigeon pea and chickpea by

Pseudomonas aeruginosa PNA1. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 49:85-91.

Arfaoui A, Sifi B, El-Hassni M, El-Hadrami I, Boudabbous A, Cherif M (2005)

Biochemical analysis of chickpea protection against Fusarium wilt afforded by

two Rhizobium isolates. Plant Pathology Journal, 4:35-42.

Assefa Sintayehu a,*, P.K. Sakhujaa, Chemeda Fininsaa, Seid Ahmed b(2007)

Management of fusarium basal rot (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cepae) on shallot

through fungicidal bulb treatment Crop Protection 30 (2011) 560-565.

Backman PA and Turmer JT (1989) Plant response and disease control following seed

inoculation with Bacillus subtilis. In proceedings belt wide Cotton Products

Research Conference (Book 2), J.M. Brown (ed.) National Cotton Council of

American, Memphis, 16-17.

Bayaa, (1998), Sharma. (2005), breeding of resistant lines and identification of DNA

markers for resistance to fusarium wilt has been achieved in chickpea.

46

Bayaa B, Erskine W, Dholli M (1998) The transmissibility of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp.

lentis via seeds and the effect of some biotic and abiotic factors on its growth.

Arab Journal of Plant Protection, 8:34-37.

Bekele S Jones R, Silim S, Tekelewold H and Gwata E (2007)Analysis of production

costs, market opportunities and competitiveness of desi and kabuli chickpea

in Ethiopia. IMPS (Improving productivity and market Success) of Ethiopian

Farmers Project Working Paper 3. ILRI (International Livestock Research

Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. 48pp.

Brayford D (1998) Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris. IMI Descriptions of Fungi and

Bacteria No. 1113.

Bendre NJ, Barhate BG (1998). A souvenir on Disease Management in Chickpea.

M.P.K.V., Rahuri during 10th Dec. 1998.

Berger, R.D., (1988) Measuring disease intensity. Special Report: biological and Cultural

Tests for Control of Plant Diseases. APS Press, 2: 1-3.

Bicer, B.T.(2009).The effect of seed size on yield and yield components of chickpea and

lentil.African Journal of Biotechnology.8(8),1482-1487.

Chang, K.F. Ahmad,H.U. Hwang, S.F. and Howard R.J (.2007). Evaluation of chickpea for

resistance to fusarium wilt using resistance varieties and fungicides

methods.Canadan Journal plant pathology.

Chauhan YS, Nene YL, Johansen C, Haware MP, Saxena NP, Singh S, Sharma SB,

Sahrawat KL, Burford JR, Rupela OP, Kumar Rao JVDK, Sithanantham S (1988)

Effects of soil solarisation on pigeonpea and chickpea. ICRISAT Research Bulletin

No. 11, 16pp.

47

CIMMYT (Centro International de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo),( 1988). Farm

agronomic data to farmers’ recommendations: Economic training

manual. Completely revised edition. (International Maize and Wheat

Center), Mexico, 124p.

Cother EJ.(2007).Identification and control of wilt fungi in cicer arietinum

(chickpea).plant Dis.Rep. 61:736-740.

CSA (Central Statistical Agency) (2016) Agricultural sample survey report on area

and production of crops private peasant holdings, meher season. Pp 2-4.

September–December 2014/2015 Volume I, Statistical Bulletin No. 388, Addis

Ababa, Ethiopia.

Dagne Wegary, (2004). Assessment of losses in yield components of chickpea varieties due to

fusarium wilt. Pest Management Journal of Ethiopia. 8: 59-69.

Diapari M, Sindhu A, Bett K, Deokari A, Warkentin DT and Tar’an B (2014) Genetic

diversity and association mapping of iron and zinc concentration in chickpea

(Cicer arietinum L). Genome, 57: 459-468.

Duro Almazan, MD (2000) Influence of the Temperature, PH in vitro the Races of the

Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris. M. Sc. thesis. Universidad the Cordoba,

Cordoba, Spain (in Spanish).

El-Hassan SA, Gowen SR (2006) Formulation and delivery of the bacterial antagonist

Bacillus subtilis for management of lentil vascular wilt caused by Fusarium

oxysporum f. sp. lentis. Journal of Phytopathology, 154:148-155.

ESHA food data base. 2010. ESHA Foundation, Salem, Oregon., USA.

48

Bayaa B, Erskine W, Dholli M (1998) The transmissibility of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp.

lentis via seeds and the effect of some biotic and abiotic factors on its growth.

Arab Journal of Plant Protection, 8:34-37.

Eujayl I, Erskine W, Bayaa B, Baum M, Pehu E (1998) Fusarium vascular wilt in lentil:

Inheritance and identification of DNA markers for resistance. Plant Breeding,

117:497-499. FAOSTAT, 2007,.while in Africa, Ethiopia is the leading chickpea

producer. , L.M., Smith, J., Forsyth,. And Aitken, E.A.B. 2006, Mycol. Res., 110,

929.

FAO, 2009. http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/desktopdefault.aspx?pageid=567.

FAOSTAT, (2014) Available online:http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx

(accessed on 10 July 2017).

Gaur, P.M., Tripathi, S., Gowda, C.L.L., Ranga Rao,G.V., Sharma, H.C., Pande, S. and

Sharma, M. (2010). Chickpea Seed Production Manual. Patancheru,

Andhra Pradesh, India: ICRISAT.

Gaur MP, Kumar J, Rao BV, Ketema D, Geletu B and Yadeta A (2005) A new kabuli

chickpea variety for Ethiopia. Pp 15-16.

Grattidge R, O’Brien R.G.9 ( 1982). Occurrences of third race of Fusarium wilt of

tomatoes in Queensland. Plant Dis. 66: 165–166.

Geletu B, Million E, Yadeta A (1996) Improved cultivars and production technology of

chickpea in Ethiopia. DebreZeit Agricultural Research Center Research Bulletin.

No. 2: p. 60.

Geletu Bejiga.(2004). Forty years of Research Experience. Debrezeit Agricultural

Research center (1955-1994). Debrezeit,Ethiopia.

49

Goswami BK, Pandey RK, Goswami J, Tewari (2007) Management of disease complex

caused by root knot nematode and root wilt fungus on pigeonpea through soil

organically enriched with Vesicular Arbuscular Mycorrhiza, karanj (Pongamia

pinnata) oilseed cake and farmyard manure. Journal of Environmental Science and

Health, 42:899-904.

Gupta OM (1991) Symptomless carrier of chickpea vascular wilt pathogen F. oxysporum

f. sp ciceris. Legume Research. Jabalpur 482004. Madhya Pradesh, India.

14(4):193-194.

Honnareddy, N and Dubey, S. C.( 2007). Morphological characterization of Indian

isolates of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris causing Horticulture (New Series).

8 (4):

320-321.

Haware MP (1982) Fusarium wilt and its managements.Phytopathology 68: 1364-1367.

Haware MP (1990) Fusarium wilt and other important disease of chickpea in the

Mediterranean area. Options Mediterranean Seminar 9, 61-64.

Hervás A, Tapero-Casas JL, Jiménez-Díaz RM (1995) Induced resistance against Fusarium

wilt of chickpea by non-pathogenic races of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris and

non-pathogenic isolates of F. oxysporum. Plant Disease, 79:1110-1116.

ICRISAT.,(1989). Annual Report 1988. ICRISAT, Patancheru, India. Jalali, B.L., Chand,

H., 1992 Jalali, B.L., Chand, H., 1992. Chickpea wilt. In: Singh, U.S.,

Mukhopadhayay, A.N.

50

Ilyas, M.B., M.J. Iqbal and K. Iftikhar.( 1992). Evaluation of some fungicides against

Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris and chickpea wilt. Pak. J. Phytopathol., 4(1-

2): 5-8.

Irena, G. and Ruta, C. (2013). The susceptibility of chickpea (Pisum sativum L.) to wilt

Under Lithuanian conditions. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture, 100 (3) 283‒288.

Jiménez-Díaz, R.M., Castillo Castillo, P., Jiménez Gasco, M.M., Mercado Blanco, J.,

Navas Cortés, J.A., Pérez Artés, E., Rodríguez Jurado, D., Landa del Castillo,

B.B., and BejaranoAlcázar, J. (2003).Integrated disease management of fusarium

wilt. Phytoma-España, 148, 16.

Jimenez-Fernandez D, Landa BB, Kang S, Jimenez-Díaz RM, Navas-Cortes JA

(2013) Quantitative and microscopic assessment of compatible and incompatible

interactions

Between chickpea cultivars and Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris races.

Jimenez-Díaz RM, Basallote-Ureba MJ, Rapoport H (1989) Colonization and

pathogenesis in chickpea infected by races of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp.

ciceris. In: Tjamos, E.C., Beckman, C. (Eds.), Vascular Wilt Diseases of Plants,

vol. H28. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, pp. 113-12.

Joshi PK Parthasarathy RP, Gowda CLL, Jones RB. Silim SN, Saxena KB and

Jagdish K (2001) The world chickpea and pigeon pea Economies: Facts,

Trends, and Outlook. Patancheru (502) 324, Andhra Pardesh, India:

International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. 68 pp.

Karimi K, Amini J, Harighi B and Bahramnejad B (2012)Evaluation of biocontrol

potential of Pseudomonas and Bacillus spp. Against Fusarium wilt of chickpea.

51

Australian Journal of Crop Sciences 6(4):695-703

Kannaiyan J, Nene YL (1975) Note on the effect of the sowing date on the reaction of 12

lentil varieties to wilt disease. Madras Agricultural Journal, 62:240-242.

Kapoor,A.S. and Sugha, S. K. 2005. Efficacy of different fungicides in controlling

powdery mildew (Erysiphe pisi) of pea (pisum sativum) in field Indian Journal of

Science 65: 771-773.

Keyvan,S.Soheil K. and Reza,H.(2011).Drought stress mitigation using supplemental

irrigation in rainfed chickpea (cicer arietinum L.) varieties in Kermanshah, Iran. African

Journal of Biotechnology;9(27):4197-4203.

Khan, H.S.I., M. Saifulla, A.S.N. Nawaz, P.R. Somashekharappa and R. Razvi.(2012).

Efficacy of fungicides and biocontrol agents against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris

causing wilt of chickpea. J. Enviro. & Ecol., 3: 570-572.

Kirui KR, Kibe AM, Wagara IN, Thagana MW (2015) Screening of chickpea genotypes

for resistance to Fusarium wilt and its management with fungicides. Msc. Thesis,

Egerton University.

Kumar D, Srivastava M, Srivastava S, Singh HB (2006) Selection of chickpea rhizosphere

competent Trichoderma harzianum antagonistic to Fusarium oxysporum f. sp.

ciceris. Farm Science Journal, 15:35-37.

Landa, B.B., Navas-Cortés, J.A., Jiménez-Gasco, M.M., Katan, J., Retig, B., and

Jiménez-Díaz, R.M. (2006), integrated management of fusarium wilt disease. Plant

Dis., 90, 365.

52

Lange R, McLaren D (2002) Fusarium wilt – a new disease of canola. University of

Manitoba website. Viewed 27 August 2008, www. umanitoba. ca/afs/agronomists_

conf/2002/pdf/lang e.pdf.

Maitlo SA, Syed RN, Rustamani MA, Khuhro RD, Lodhi AM (2014) Comparative

efficacy of different fungicides against Fusarium wilt of chickpea (Cicer arietinum

L.). Pak J Bot 46(6): 2305-2312.

Mani A., Sethi, C.L.,( 1987). Interaction of root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita

with Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris and F. solani on chickpea. Ind. J. Nematol.

17, 1e6.

Mazzola M (2002) Mechanisms of natural soil suppressiveness to soilborne diseases.

Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek, 81:557-564.

Mehrotra RS, Claudius GR (1972) Biological control of root rot and wilt diseases of Lens

culinaris Medic. Plant and Soil, 39:657-664.

Meki S, Seid A and Sakhuja PK (2008) Pathogenic variability in Ethiopian isolates of

Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris and reaction of chickpea improved varieties to

the isolates, International Journal of Pest Management, 54:2, 143-149.

Menale Kassie, Bekele Shiferaw, Solomon Asfaw, Tsedeke Abate, Geoffrey Muricho,

Setotaw Ferede, Million Eshete and Kebebew Assefa. (2009).

Mengistu H, Negussie T (1994) Chickpea and lentil disease research in Ethiopia.

In: Asfaw T, Geletu B, Saxena MC, Solh MB, editors. Cool-season food

legumes of Ethiopia. Proceedings of the First National Cool-Season Food

Legumes Review Conference; 1993 Dec 16–20; Addis Ababa: ICARDA; p.

315–366.

53

Muhammad, S.I. Shaukat, A. and Abdul, G.( 2008). Development of resistance in chickpea

to wilt. Journal of Myco pathology,8 (2): 61-64.

Mukhtar, I.( 2007). Comparison of phytochemical and chemical control of Fusarium

oxysporum f. sp. ciceris. Mycopath, 5(2): 107-110.

Muhammad AA (2010) Variability in Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris for Chickpea Wilt

resistance in Pakistan. Phd Thesis submitted to Quaid-i-Azam University,

Islamabad. Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Biological Sciences.

Mukhopadhyay AN, Kaur N, Saxena HC (1989) Biological control of soil borne diseases

of chickpea and lentil. Indian Phytopathology, 42:315.

Navas-Cortes JA, Hau B, Jimenez-Diaz RM (1998) Effect of sowing date, host

cultivar, and race of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris on development of

Fusarium wilt of chickpea. Phytopathology. 88:1338–1346.

Navas-Cortes JA, Hau B, Jimenez-Diaz RM (2000) yield loss in chickpeas in relation to

development of fusarium wilt epidemics. phytopathology 90:1269-1278.

Nene YL, Sheila VK and Sharma SB (1996) A World List of Chickpea and Pigeon

pea Pathogens, 5th ed. ICRISAT, Patancheru, India, pp. 27.

Nene YL, Haware MP & Reddy MV (1978) Diagnosis of some wilt-like disorders of

chickpea (Ciceri arietinum L.). International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-

Arid Tropics. Information Bulletin No. 3.

Nikam PS, Jagtap GP, Sontakke PL (2007) Management of chickpea wilt caused by

Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris African. Journal of Agricultural Research 2

(12): 692-697.

54

Pande S, Rao JN, Sharma M (2007)Establishment of the chickpea wilt pathogen

Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris in the soil through seed transmission. Plant

Pathology Journal 23, 3-6.

Poddar, R.K., D.V. Singh and S.C. Dubey. (2004). Management of chickpea wilts through

combination of fungicides and bioagents. Indian Phytopathol., 57: 39-43.

Rajput, A.Q., M.H. Arain, M.A. Pathan, M.M. Jiskani and A.M. Lodhi. (2006.) Efficacy of

different fungicides against Fusarium wilts of cotton caused by Fusarium

oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum. Pak. J. Bot., 38(3): 875-880.

Rajib K. D. E., Chaudhary R. G. 2006 fungicides for controlling chickpea wilt coused

by fusarium oxysporum f. sp. Ciceri . Indian j Agril.Sci 66 ( 6 )370-3

Ryan, J.G. (1997.) A global perspective on pigeonpea and chickpea sustainable production

systems: Present status and future potential. Indian Society of Pulses Research and

Development, IIPR, Kanpur, India, 1-31.Sharma, K.D., Chen, W., Muehlbauer,

F.J., 2005. Genetics of chickpea resistance to five races of Fusarium wilt and a

concise set of race differentials for Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris. Plant Dis.

89, 385-390.

Seid A, Beniwal SPS and Negussie T (1990) Field screening of chickpea for resistance to

wilt/root rot in Ethiopia. International Chickpea Newsletter 22, 34-36.

Shiferaw Bekele, Jones R., Silim S., Tekelewold H. and Gwata E.( 2007). Analysis of

production

costs, market opportunities and competitiveness of desi and kabuli Chickpea in

Ethiopia.

International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya, 48.

55

Shiferaw, B., and Hailemariam, T. (2007) Structure and functioning of chickpea markets in

Ethiopia: Evidence based on analyses ofvalue chains linking smallholders and

markets. IPMS Working Paper 6, ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya. 55 pp.

Singh BP, Saikia R, Yadav M, Singh R, Chauhan VS and Arora DK (2006) Molecular

characterization of F. oxysporum f. sp. ciceris causing wilt of chickpea, African

Journal of Biotechnology. 5(6):497-502.

Singh K, Singh AK, Singh RP (2004) Effect of fungicidal seed treatment on the fungi

associated with chickpea. Annals of Plant Protection-Sciences 12(2): 450-451.

Singh, H., Kumar, J., Haware, M.P., Smithson, J.B., (1987). Genetics of resistance to

Fusarium wilt in chickpeas. In: Day, P.R., Jellis, G.J. (Eds.), Genetics and Plant

Pathogenesis. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, UK, pp. 339e342.

Song, W., L. Zhou, C. Yang, X. Cao, L. Zhang and X. Liu. (2004). Tomato Fusarium wilt

and its chemical control strategies in a hydroponic system. Crop Protection, 23:

243-247.

Stevenson PC, Turner HC, Haware MP (1997) Phytoalexin accumulation in the roots

of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) seedlings associated with resistance to Fusarium

wilt (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris). Physiology ‘of Molecular Plant

Pathology. 50,167-178.

Sultana, N. and A. Ghaffar. (2010). Effect of fungicides, microbial antagonists and

oilcakes in the control of Fusarium solani, the cause of seed rot, seedling and root

infection of bottle gourd, bitter gourd and cucumber. Pak. J. Bot., 42(4): 2921-

2934.

56

Tesfamichael s.m, Githiri, s.m., Nyende, A.B., Rao, G.N.V.P.R.,Odeny,D.A., Rather, A.

and Kumar, A. (2014).Assessment of Genetic varation and Hertablity of

Agronomic Traits in chickpea (Cicer arietinum (L).International Journal of

Agronomy and Agricultural Research .5(4),75-88.

Trapero-Casas A and Jiménez-Díaz RM (1985) Fungal wilt and root rot diseases of

Chickpea in Southern Spain. Phytopathology 75: 1146-1151.

Van-der Maesen LJG (1987) Cicer L. Origin, history and taxonomy of chickpea. P.11-

34. In: M.C. Saxena and K.B. Singh (ed.), the Chickpea. C.A.B. Int. Cambrian

News Ltd, Aberystwyth, UK.

Verma RK (1976) Chemotherapeutic activity of five systemic fungicides in gram

seedlings against three soil borne pathogens. Msc. Thesis, JN Agricultural

University,

57

7. APPENDICES

58

7.1. Appendix: Table

Appendix Table1: Disease incidence

Mean square of disease incidence

Appendix table1.Smmaryof ANOVA for average disease incidence from 15 days up to 90

days the three chickpea varieties versus with two types of fungicide application and un

treated to evaluated for their against fusarium wilt under field conditions

Source Df 15 30 45 60 75 90 AUDPC

Rep 2 5.346ns 0.794** 0.366** 9.885ns 11.636ns 10.636ns 30.001ns

Var 2 5.346** 0.794** 0.366** 9.885** 11.636** 10.636** 49.49**

Che 2 21.835ns 23.677* 31.735ns 61.67ns 95.638ns 115.397ns 190ns

Var*che 4 1.4577** 3.73** 6.41** 5.088** 7.165** 7.757** 21.05**

C.V

Error

31.24

12.567

16.94

29.721

19.15

53.24

13.5

56.936

12.65

64.218

11.39 250.33

69.986 255.83

df = degree of freedom %,CV = % coefficient of variation ***Very highly significant (P <

0.001)**highly significant (p< 0.01). ns = non significant.

59

Appendix Table 2: Yield components Mean square

Source Df Ph Npop Nsp Hsw Bm Yld Nspo

Error 16 155.8 21.27 21.27 2.168 9704.4 176334.59 0.24

Rep 2 4.731** 61.42*** 61.42*** 3.653ns 7.18*** 3862.516** 0.001**

Var 2 4.731** 61.42*** 61.42*** 3.653ns 7.18*** 3862.516** 0.001**

Che 2 57.62** 3224.0ns 3224.0ns 286.599ns 26465.65ns 2280408.05ns 0.07ns

Var*che 4 1.634** 19.909*** 19.909** 21.0028ns 6.89*** 551.058*** 0.004ns

C.V 2.32 2.32 6.16 10.96 0.723 0.956 3.95

df = degree of freedom %, CV = % coefficient of variation ***Very highly significant (P < 0.001)

**highly significant (p< 0.01), ns = non significant(p<0.05).

Appendix table2.Smmary of ANOVA for average plant height, number of pod per plant,

number of seed per plant, hundred seed weight, biomass, yield, number of seed per pod of

the three chickpea varieties versus with two types of fungicide application evaluated for

their against fusarium wilt under field conditions.

60

Appendix Table 3.Two way interaction effects of chickpea varieties and fungicides on

AUDPC.

Variety Fungicides AUDPC (days)

Local

Thiram

272.55e

Redomil 239.77f

Nochemical 496.15a

Areriti Thiram 67.31i

Redomil 90.94h

No chemical 443.74b

Habru Thiram 202.85d

LSD(0.0)

C.V(%)

Redomil 258.68e

258.07g

132.24

52.87

No chemical

Means followed by the same letter(s) in the same column are not

Significantly different at P<0.05 LSD.

61

Appendix Table 4: Dominance analysis, analyses of Thiram & Redomil fungicides.

Dominance analysis, analyses of Thiram & Redomil fungicides.

Variety

Fungici

des

Total cost

that

varies(birr

ha-1

)

Net

benefit

(birr ha-1

)

Local Thiram 630 18120

Redoml 620 17349

Un trtd 380 16026.5D

Aerity Thiram 670 49330D

Redoml 620 46411

Untrtd 380 38683

Habru Thiram 670 43080

Redoml 620 36988

Un trtd 380 32500

D= dominance, net benefit value which is lower than the predecessor value of net benefit.

Figure 4. Sepate of hyphae differnt form of fusarium oxysporium f.sp.ciceri Morphology

macrocondia, microconida and morphology of pathogen.

During identification Culture of the pathogen pink color

Mycelium, Macrconidia and Microconidia