Int. J. Biosci.

2020

International Journal of Biosciences | IJB |

ISSN: 2220-6655 (Print), 2222-5234 (Online)
http://www.innspub.net
Vol. 16, No. 1, p. 14-19, 2020

RESEARCH PAPER OPEN ACCESS

Response of chickpea genotypes against Ascochyta blight

disease

Abdul Ghaffar*, Niaz Hussain, Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Irshad, Muneer

Abbas, Mudassar Kahliq, Zubeda Parveen, Khalid Hussain

Arid Zone Research Institute, Bhakkar, Punjab, Pakistan

Key words: Chickpea, Genotypes, Susceptibility, Resistance, Ascochyta rabiei.

http://dx.doi.org/10.12692/ijb/16.1.14-19 Article published on January 15, 2020

Abstract
Blight is the becoming the serious threat in changing climate. To improve the per capita income and to overcome
the production losses the evaluation of the blight resistant genotypes is the major herder for the breeders. To
overcome this problem study was conducted to develop the Ascochyta blight resistant genotype. Evaluation of
chickpea genotypes against blight (Ascochyta rabiei (Pass) Lab) is an effective method to check the level of
resistance and susceptibility. In this study, 40 chickpea genotypes/varieties were screened out by the artificial
inoculation at the research area of Arid Zone Research Institute, Bhakkar. Out of 40 genotypes, 8, 20, 2, 6, 4
were classified as highly susceptible, susceptible, moderately susceptible, moderately resistant and resistant
respectively. Six entries (TG1401, CM54/05, TG1411, TG1413, CH888/06 and D088-11) exhibited moderately
resistant behavior against Ascochyta blight. Four entries (09AG006, D08025, CH16/06 and D072-09) classified
as resistant genotypes.
* Corresponding Author: Abdul Ghaffar  [email protected]

14 Ghaffar et al.
 Int. J. Biosci. 2020

Introduction The genetic bases of disease resistance against blight

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is commonly known as in chickpea could be the best possible solution of the
Bengal gram, gram and considered to be the third problem. Therefore, there is a dire need for the
most important grain legume in the world after dry identification of durable resistant genotypes and
beans and pea, being widely grown in subtropical and incorporation of their resistance genes into
warm-temperate regions (Bakhsh et al., 2007; commercial cultivars. For the reason, the present
Mansfeld, 2008). Chickpea is not only an important study was designed to screen out chickpea
source of human food (Malik et al., 2011) and animal cultivars/lines collected from Arid Zone Research
feed, but also fixes nitrogen, which helps in the Institute (AZRI), Bhakkar.
management of soil fertility, particularly in dry land
areas (Sharma and Jodha, 1984; Islam et al., Materials and methods
2011).chickpea is a rich source of energy, minerals The present research work was carried out in the
and vitamins. India and Pakistan are major chickpea experimental area of the Arid Zone Research
producing countries based on its area under Institute, Bhakkar during crop season 2017-18. Forty
cultivation and grain production. Pakistan ranks chickpea genotypes developed at Arid Zone Research
second to India in terms of acreage under chickpea Institute, Bhakkar were evaluated for disease
and are cultivated on an area of 985 thousand resistance against Ascochyta rabiei.
hectares and contributes the production of 673
thousand tones (Economic Survey of Pakistan 2012- Isolation of A. rabiei and Mass culture preparation
13). Chickpea pods severely infected by Ascochyta blight
was collected from field of chickpea were refrigerated
Average yield of chickpea (550 kg/ha) in Pakistan is at 5-80C. The isolation procedure carried out was
lower than its actual yield potential (Malik, adopted by (Ghazanfar et al., 2010). The culture of A.
1984).Ascochyta rabiei (pass.) is one of the major rabiei was purified through spore streak method on
factors limiting grain yield in chickpea. This disease chickpea seed agar medium and maintained at 5 0C.
has been reported in Pakistan and also in different Mass culture of the fungus was prepared by the
chickpea growing countries of the world (Nene et al., method described by (Ghazanfar et al., 2010).
1996).
Inoculation of nursery
Blight usually appears in February-March in Pakistan Forty desi and kabuli chickpea genotypes/varieties
and affects all plant parts. The disease expresses itself were screened out against chickpea blight under
as circular spots on leaves and pods and as elongated randomized complete lock design at the research area
lesions on petioles and stem. Gram blight (AB), of Arid Zone Research Institute, Bhakkar. Disease
caused by Ascochyta rabiei (Pass.) Lab. is an was developed through artificial inoculation by
important foliar disease of chickpea (Cicer arietinum maintaining humidity at 80% by applying fresh water
L.) worldwide that causes grain yield during afternoon and evening. Genotypes were sown
and quality losses up to 100% (Pande et al., 2005). in two rows with four meter length keeping row to
Although blight can be effectively controlled by the row and plant to plant spacing 30 cm & 15 cm,
foliar application and seed dressing of fungicides, the respectively.
use of disease free seed and destruction of diseased
plant debris (Malik et al., 1991; Rauf et al., 1996). A susceptible check variety Punjab-1 was planted after
Generally these approaches are not feasible and every two genotypes as a spreader. At booting stage,
economical. Hence, resistant or tolerant varieties of the nursery was daily sprayed with spore suspension
chickpea may be the most effective tool to control of A. rabiei (1x 105 spores /ml). The spray of spore
gram blight (Ilyas et al., 2007). suspension was continued till the susceptible check

15 Ghaffar et al.
 Int. J. Biosci. 2020

Punjab-1 become fully susceptible. Fresh water was killed; 8= symptoms as in 7 but up to 50% of the
daily sprayed on daily basis to develop Ascochyta plants killed and 9= symptoms as in 7 but up to 100%
disease. of the plants killed.

Disease rating The genotypes were further categorized for their

Data were taken by applying two scales;9 point scale reaction to Ascochyta blight infection on the basis of
used was modified (Pande et al., 2011) and 1 -10 Gowen et al., (1989) scale, according to this scale; 1 -
rating scale (Gowen et al., 1989). According to Pande <2= Highly resistant(HR); 2- <4= resistant (R); 4
et al., 2011 scale comprised of 1 –9 ratings (modified <6=moderately resistant (MR); 6- <7= moderately
from Jan and Wiese, 1991); 1=no visible symptoms; susceptible (MS); 7-<9= susceptible (S); and 9-
2=minute lesions prominent on the apical stem; 10=highly susceptible (HS).
3=lesions up to 5 mm in size and slight drooping of
apical stem; 4=lesions obvious on all plant parts and Results and discussion
clear drooping of apical stem; 5=lesions on all plants Forty chickpea genotypes comprising (Desi and
parts, 6=lesions as in 5, dry branches common, some Kabuli) were studied and results revealed that tested
plants killed; 7=lesions as in 5, defoliation, broken, material showed variable response against the
dry branches very common, up to 25% of plants Ascochyta blight (Table 1).

Table 1. Disease reaction of different genotypes as a result of screening against Ascochyta blight.
S.No. Genotypes Disease Rating % Av. Severity Reaction
1 TG1402 9 63.25 HS
2 TG1403 9 57.55 HS
3 TG1401 4 16.35 MR
4 09AG006 3 9.75 R
5 TG1414 7 46.5 S
6 TG1415 7 40 S
7 D08025 3 7 R
8 CH16/06 3 10 R
9 CM54/05 4 13.75 MR
10 TG1411 4 12 MR
11 TG1405 9 66.5 HS
12 TG1406 9 62.75 HS
13 TG1416 9 70 HS
14 TG1404 7 43.5 S
15 TG1407 7 45 S
16 TG1408 7 47.75 S
17 CH53/07 6 40 S
18 TG1413 4 17.5 MR
19 CH888/06 4 11.75 MR
20 TG1410 7 48 S
21 TG1423 6 33.5 MS
22 TG1424 7 42.7 S
23 TG1425 7 40 S
24 TG1420 9 66.5 HS
25 TG1417 9 77.5 HS
26 D088-11 4 11.5 MR
27 CM770/06 7 46 S
28 K7005 7 40.75 S
29 TG1430 7 45 S
30 TG1427 7 41.25 S
31 TG1426 7 43 S
32 CH87/06 9 68 HS
33 TG1409 7 43.25 S
34 TG1412 7 48 S
35 T1418 6 30.75 MS
36 TG1419 7 50 S
37 TG1421 7 48.9 S
38 TG1428 7 45 S
39 TG1429 7 41.25 S
40 D072-09 3 8.5 R
41 Punjab-1 9 83.75 HS

16 Ghaffar et al.
 Int. J. Biosci. 2020

Eight entries were categorized as highly susceptible Reddy, 1991). Ali et al. (2011) conducted molecular
where 20 entries were classified as susceptible while marker study and represented that resistance in
six genotypes showed moderately disease reaction. chickpea is due to presence of three independently
Four entries were kept in resistant classification. segregating dominant genes and a recessive gene.
Various Quantitative Trait loci (QTL) also contributed
Disease behavior of all the genotypes is represented in towards inheritance of blight resistance (Collard et
Table 1. The average maximum disease severity (up to al., 2003). Different bio-chemicals and physiological
83.75%) was recorded in Punjab-1.The genotypes / characters of varieties also control the resistance
varieties which showed highly susceptible disease against blight in chickpea cultivars. Randhawa et al.
reactions were TG1402, TG1403, TG1405, TG1406, (2009) studied the role of glandular hairs density,
TG1416, TG1417, TG1420, CH87/06 and Punjab-1 population and size of stomata aperture in chickpea
(check). On the other hand, the tested lines with cultivars against Ascochyta blight. It was observed
susceptible level of reactions were TG1404, TG1407, that these characters played comprehensive role in
TG1408, TG1409, TG1410, TG1412, TG1414, TG1415, varieties resistance.
TG1419, TG1421, TG1424, TG1425, TG1426, TG1427,
TG1428, TG1429, TG1430, CH53/07, CM770/06 and It is now well established that the fungus A. rabiei
K7005. Two inbred strains (TG1418 and TG1423) possesses variability and the pathotypes present in
showed moderately susceptible behavior. Whereas, Pakistan and India are more aggressive than those
the entries TG1401, CM54/05, TG1411, TG1413, prevalent in the Mediterranean region (Singh et al., 1
CH888/06 and D088-11 expressed moderately 984). Resistant lines to the local pathogen have been
resistant behave against Ascochyta blight. Out of forty reported in India (Singh et al., 1988) and in Pakistan
genotypes studied, four genotypes (09AG006, (Iqbal et al., 1989). High level of AB resistance has
D08025, CH16/06 and D072-09) showed resistant also been identified among wild Cicer species.
type of response against blight (Table 1). Resistance against AB has been identified in C.
judiacum, C. pinnatifidum, C. echinospermum and C.
While screening, it was observed that most of the reticulatum (Singh et al., 1981; Singh and Reddy
entries were susceptible to highly susceptible. This 1991; Collard et al., 2001; Pande et al., 2005, 2006).
represents that most of the genotypes did not have Ascochyta blight resistance is a complex venture
resistance genes. These results also correlate with the controlled by various different resistant sources
Iqbal et al., (2010) who studied one hundred and comprises of resistance genes. Under such condition,
forty five genotypes against Ascochyta blight and wilt introducing diverse résistance genes into varieties
diseases and most them expressed susceptible to may assist in developing resistance stability in
highly susceptible reaction. Similarly, Bokhari et al., commercially grown varieties.
(2011) evaluated the resistance level of ten cultivars of
gram and observed that maximum number of Conclusion
varieties were susceptible under field conditions. The study concludes that none of the lines/varieties
Although, those genotypes can be released for was observed as highly resistant which indicated that
commercial cultivation which have resistant genes immunity in chickpea against blight is rather scarce.
(Nasir et al., 2000). A comprehensive study on the Sources of resistance identified during this study, can
number of genes possessing resistance against further be used in breeding programmes for the
chickpea blight, their nature, and diversity is essential development of disease resistant commercial cultivars
for exploiting a particular resistance source in after determining their genetics. Most of the
chickpea breeding programme (Ilyas et al., 2007). genotypes were susceptible to highly susceptible
Resistance against chickpea light is controlled by against chickpea blight indicating scarcity of
single dominant gene or recessive gene (Singh and resistance. To develop resistance, therefore, an

17 Ghaffar et al.
 Int. J. Biosci. 2020

intensive screening of chickpea germplasm is Ilyas MB, Chaudhry MA, Javed N, Ghazanfar
required to be conducted. MU, Khan MA. 2007. Sources of resistance in
chickpea germplasm against Ascochyta blight.
References Pakistan Journal of Botany 39(5), 1843-1847.
Ali Q, Ahsan M, Tahir MHN, Farooq J,
Waseem M, Anwar M, Ahmad W. Iqbal SM, Ghafoor A, Bakhsh A, Iftikhar A,
(2011).Molecular markers and QTLs for Ascochyta Sher A. 2010. Identification of resistant sources for
rabiei resistance in chickpea. International Journal multiple disease resistance in chickpea. Pakistan
for Agro Veterinary and Medical Sciences 5(2), 249- Journal of Phytopathology 22(2), 89-94.
270.
Iqbal SM, Khan IA, Bashir M. 1989. Screening of
Bakhsh A, Malik SR, Iqbal U, Arshad W. 2007. chickpea cultivars against Ascochyta blight in
Heterosis and heritability studies for superior Pakistan. International Chickpea Newsletter, 20:16.
segregants selection in chickpea. Pakistan Journal of
Botany 39(7), 2443-2449. Islam M, Mohsan S, Ali S, Khalid R, Hassan F,
Mahmood A, Subhani A. 2011. Growth, nitrogen
Bokhari AA, Ashraf M, Rehman A, Ahmad A, fixation and nutrient uptake by chickpea pea (Cicer
Iqbal M. 2011. Screening of chickpea germpalsm arietinum) in response to phosphorus and sulfur
against Ascochyta blight. Pakistan Journal of application under rain fed conditions in Pakistan.
Phytopathology 23(1), 05-08. International journal of Agriculture and Biology 13,
725‒730.
Collard BCY, Ades PK, Pang ECK, Brouwerand
JB, Taylor PWJ. 2001. Prospecting for sources of Malik BA. 1984. Pulses in Pakistan with emphasis
resistance to Ascochyta blight in wild Cicer species. on chickpea and Ascochyta blight. Pp 1-9. In
Australian Plant Pathology 30, 271-276. Proceedings of a Training course on Ascochyta blight
http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AP01036. of chickpea in Pakistan.3-10 March, 1984, Islamabad,
Pakistan.
Collard BCY, Pang ECK, Ades PK, Taylor PWJ.
2003. Preliminary investigations of QTL associated Malik MR, Iqbal SM, Malik BA. 1991. Economic
with seedlings resistance to Ascochyta blight from loses of Ascochyta blight in chickpea. Sarhad Journal
Cicere chino spermum, a wild relative of chick pea. of Agriculture 8, 765‒768.
Theoretical and Applied Genetics 107, 719-729.
Malik SR, Saleem M, Iqbal U, Zahid MA,
Economic Survey of Pakistan. 2012. Economic Bakhah A, Iqbal SM. 2011. Genetic analysis of
Advisor’s Wing, Finance Division, Government of physiochemical traits in chickpea (Cicer arietinum)
Pakistan, Islamabad. seeds. International journal of Agriculture and
Biology 13, 1033‒1036.
Ghazanfar MU, Sahi ST, Javed N, Waqil W.
2010. Response of advanced lines of chickpea against Mansfeld. 2008. Cicerarietinum subsp. arietinum
chickpea blight disease. Pakistan Journal of Botany. Mansfeld’s World Database of Agricultural and
42(5), 3423-3430. Horticultural Crops.

Gowen SR, Onon M, Tiurley B, White A. Nasir A, Bretag TW, Kaiser WJ, Meredith KA.
1989.Variation in pathogenicity of Ascochyta rabiei in Brouwer JB. 2000. Screening chickpea germplasm
chickea. Tropical Pest Managent 35(2), 182- 186. for Ascochyta blight resistance. Australian journal of

18 Ghaffar et al.
 Int. J. Biosci. 2020

plant pathology 29(2), 102-107. cultivars of chickpea to Ascochyta blight disease.

Pakistan Journal of Botany 41(1), 121 -129.
Nene YL, Sheila VK, Sharma SB. 1996. A world
list of chickpea and pigeonpea pathogens. Patancheru Rauf CA, Malik MR, Iqbal SM, Rahat S,
502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Hussain S. 1996.Fungicides; an economic tool to
Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. enhance productivity and net returns in chickpea
crop. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture 12, 445‒448.
Pande S, Ramgopal D, Kishore GK,
Mallikarjuna N, Sharma M, Pathak M. Sharma D, Jodha NS. 1984. Pulse Production in
Rao Narayana J. 2006. Evaluation of wild Cicer Semi-arid Region of India, p 241‒265. Proceedings
species for resistance to Ascochyta blight and Botrytis of pulses production, constraints and opportunities.
grey mold in controlled environment at ICRISAT,
Patancheru, India. International Chickpea and Singh G, Singh G, Kumar L. 1988. Chickpea
Pigeonpea Newsletter 13, 25-27. response to various races of Ascochyta rabiei. ICN 19,
10-13.
Pande S, Siddique KHM, Kishore GK, Baya B,
Gaur PM, Gowda CLL, Bretagand T, Crouch Singh KB, Reddy MV. 1991. Advances in disease-
JH. 2005. Ascochyta blight of chickpea: biology, resistance breeding in chickpea. Advances in
pathogenicity and disease management. Australasian Agronomy 45, 191-222.
Journal of Agricultural Research 56, 317-332.
Singh KB, Hawtin GC, Nene YL, Reddy MV.
Pande S, Sharma M, Gaur PM, Tripathi S, 1981. Resistance in chickpeas to Ascochyta blight.
Kaur L, Basandrai A, Khan T, Gowda CLL, Plant Disease 65, 586-587.
Siddique KHM. 2011. Development of screening
techniques and identification of new sources of Singh KB, Reddy MV, Nene YL. 1984.
resistance to Ascochyta blight disease of chickpea. International testing of chickpeas for resistance to
Australasian Plant Pathology 40, 149 –156. Ascochyta blight. Plant Disease 68(9), 782-784.

Randhawa MA, Sahi ST, Ilyas MB, Ghazanfar

MU, Javed N. 2009. Comparative assessment of
density of glandular hairs, population and size of
aperture of stomata in resistant and susceptible

19 Ghaffar et al.