Back Home

Journal: Vegetos- An International Journal of Plant Research

Article DOI :10.5958/2229-4473.2017.00029.5
Year :2017, Volume : 30, Issue :special
First page : (23) Last page : (28)
Print ISSN : 0970-4078. Online ISSN : 2229-4473.


Dry Root Rot Resistance in Chickpea Studies on Genetic and Molecular Variations

Desai P.B., Patil B.S.*, Vijayakumar A.G.1, Basavarajappa M.P.2, Subramanya A.E.S.3, Bharadwaj C.4, Kulkarni V.R.5

IARI, Regional Research Centre, Dharwad, India
1AICRP for Dry land Agriculture, RARS, Vijaypur, India
2Department of Plant Pathology, College of Horticulture, Bagalkot, India
3Department of Plant Biotechnology, University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bangaluru, India
4Division of Genetics, IARI, New Delhi
5Plant Pathology, ARS, Dharwad

*Corresponding author: B. S. Patil, IARI, Regional Research Centre, Dharwad, India, Email:

Dry root rot of chickpea caused by Rhizoctonia bataticola is emerging as a serious threat to chickpea production and gaining importance in the changing climatic scenario especially in tropical arid and semiarid region. The disease causes 10–20% yield loss. The objective of the present study was screening and identification of DRR resistant genotypes and to assess the molecular variability among the genotypes showing different response to DRR. Fifty five chickpea genotypes were screened for resistance to dry root rot in sick pots using A1 as susceptible check. The number of days taken to wilting was recorded as a measure of DRR resistance and the genotypes which complete their life cycle by setting seeds were considered as resistant to DRR. Significant difference was observed among the genotypes for number of days taken to wilting which may be attributed to polygenic nature of the trait. The genotypes K 850, KAK 2, H 208, BG 14-4, BG 12- 119 and ICC 14395 were identified as resistant in present study could be used as donors in resistant breeding programme. Based on previous reports, genotypes with differential response to dry root rot (3 resistant and 3 susceptible) were subjected for molecular analysis employing 32 SSR and 13 RAPD markers. However, in the present study only one of them (ICC 14395) was found to be resistant. Two SSR (GSSR106 and TR19) and two RAPD (A05 and A18) markers showed distinct polymorphism between dry root rot resistant and five susceptible genotypes. These markers could be used to investigate possible linkage with dry root rot resistance.