We are IntechOpen, the world's leading publisher of Open Access books Built by scientists, for scientists

Open access books available 5,300

130,000 155M

International authors and editors

Downloads

Our authors are among the

most cited scientists 154 TOP 1%

Selection of our books indexed in the Book Citation Index in Web of Science™ Core Collection (BKCI)

# Interested in publishing with us? Contact book.department@intechopen.com

Numbers displayed above are based on latest data collected. For more information visit www.intechopen.com

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

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

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54697

### **1. Introduction**

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

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

© 2013 Khan et al.; licensee InTech. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

# **2. Materials and methods**

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

#### **2.1. Screening for pod shattering resistance**

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

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

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

Number of pods shattered

Pod shattering percentage (%) = x 100

Total number of pods

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


#### **2.2. Screening for rust resistance**

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


#### **2.3. Screening for yellow mosaic disease resistance**

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

Number of plants infected in a row

Per cent Disease Incidence (PDI) = x 100

Total number of plants in a row

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


# **3. Experimental results**

### **3.1. Screening for pod shattering**

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


Screening of Soybean (Glycine Max (L.) Merrill) Genotypes for Resistance to Rust, Yellow Mosaic and Pod Shattering http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54697 177


**Table 1.** Screening of soybean genotypes for pod shattering resistance

#### **3.2. Screening for rust resistance**

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


**Table 2.** Grouping of Soybean genotypes for pod shattering resistance


6 Highly Susceptible 9 82

Alankar, Ankur, AGS-34, AGS-50, Bragg, Local black soybean, CO-1, CO-2, CGP-76, CGP-248, CGP-2037, DSb-1, DSb-2, DSb 3-4, DSb-5, DSb 6-1, DSB-74, DSb-8, DS 17-5, EC-103369, EC-109923, EC-322536, EC-34092, EC-118420, EC-34101, EC-251449, EC-392536, EC-394839, G-48, G-479, G-482, G-7340, G-26, G-5-1, Hardee, Harasoya, Himsoya-1560, Improved pelican, Indirasoya, IC-39506,

Screening of Soybean (Glycine Max (L.) Merrill) Genotypes for Resistance to Rust, Yellow Mosaic and Pod Shattering http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54697 179


**Table 3.** Grouping of soybean genotypes for soybean rust resistance

#### **3.3. Screening for yellow mosaic disease (YMD)**

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



\* Percent disease incidence

**Table 4.** Screening of soybean genotypes for yellow mosaic disease resistance

Screening of Soybean (Glycine Max (L.) Merrill) Genotypes for Resistance to Rust, Yellow Mosaic and Pod Shattering http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54697 181


### **4. Discussion**

#### **4.1. Screening for pod shattering resistance**

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

#### **4.2. Screening for rust resistance**

Among many of the diseases in soybean, rust is the major fungal disease which may reduce the yield drastically. So identification of resistant sources and involving them in resistant breeding forms one of the criteria in resistant breeding programme. In the present study 84 genotypes of soybean were screened for rust resistance under natural epiphytotic condition. None of the genotypes showed immune reaction. However, genotypes EC-241778 and EC-241780 showed resistance reaction. Remaining all genotypes exhibited highly susceptible reaction. In general, over all disease incidence was very high. Similar results are reported in [9], who evaluated several soybean genotypes and varieties under natural epiphytotic condition and reported EC-392530, EC-392538, EC-392539, EC-392541, SL-423, RSC-1, RSC-2, JS-80-21 and PK-1029 as moderately resistant. Hundekar (1999) also evaluated S-22, WC-12 and 92-10 as rust resistant germplasm. Among varieties PK-1162, PK-1029, JS-80-21 and PK-1024 showed moderately resistant reaction with better yield. Basavaraja (2002) identified three useful mutants which are moderately resistant to rust among 270 induced mutant families studied in M<sup>3</sup> generation. Similar results were also reported by various researchers [8, 10, 14, 15]

#### **4.3. Screening for yellow mosaic disease**

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

## **Author details**

M. H. Khan<sup>1</sup> , S. D. Tyagi<sup>2</sup> and Z. A. Dar<sup>3</sup>

1 Central Institute of Temperate Horticulture, Indian Council of Agriculture Research, Srina‐ gar, India

2 Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, Kisan (P.G) College, Simbhaoli, Ghaziabad, India

3 S.K. University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Kashmir, Shalimar, Srinagar, India

## **References**

