seminar-1 on role of bio-agents on coleus and ashwagandha

WEL COME

Kittur Rani Channamma College of Horticulture, Arabhavi.

UNIVERSITY OF HORTICULTURAL SCIENCES, BAGALKOT

Seminar -1

Role of bioagents in the production of medicinal coleus and ashwagandha

Shivanand Rangapur

UHS11PGM143

Dept. of PMA

Introduction

Importance of bioagents

Role of bioagents in coleus

Role of bioagents in ashwagandha

Conclusion

TOPIC DIVISION

Bioagents are preparations containing microorganisms in sufficient

numbers which enhance crop growth, reduce diseases and pests infestation

Bioagents have the ability to replicate rapidly, require minimal resources

to survive and can infect at very small doses

Biological approach will be particularly useful under organic conditions,

especially for medicinal plants, which are mainly used for treating

various human ailments, where the use of chemicals is restricted because

of health and residue considerations

(Paul, 2003)

Rising costs of chemical inputs and a host environmental concerns

have caused farmers to consider alternative agri-industrial

managements to reduce costs, protect human health, and conserve

the resource base

High intensity of chemical pesticide use has become serious cause

of concern in recent years so, lot of importance has been given to

organically produced medicinal herbs

Bioagents are eco-friendly, cost-effective and co-existence with

tissues of host without causing any harm

(Kritcher,

1993)

Bioagents

Biofertilizers

Biopesticides

Biofungicides

Bionematicides

Biofertilizers

• 'Biofertilizer' is a substance which contains living microorganisms,

when applied to seed, plant surfaces, or soil, colonizes the rhizosphere

and promotes growth by increasing the supply or availability of

nutrients to the host plant

• These add nutrients through natural processes of N- fixation,

solubilizing phosphorous and stimulating plant growth through the

synthesis of growth promoting substances

Murugan, 2002General classification of Biofertilizers

BIOFERTILIZER ORGANISMS

RHIZOBIUM

AZOSPIRILLUM

VA-MYCORRHIZA

BLUE GREEN ALGAE

AZOTOBACTER

PSB

Commercial

BIO-FERTILIZERS in market

Biopesticides

• Biologically active microbial agents applied to control insect-pests

by non-toxic mechanisms

• Stimulate plant host defenses and other physiological processes

make plants more resistant to biotic and abiotic stresses

• Prepared by growing and concentrating naturally occurring

organisms or their metabolites including bacteria, fungi,

nematodes, etc.

Viruses, Bacteria, Fungi and Nematodes are sources of

potential biopesticides

Viruses - NPV, Granulosis viruses (GV)

Bacteria- Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Streptomyces and

Salmonella

22 varieties of Bacillus thuringiensis are used as biopesticides

Fungi - Beauveria, Metarhizum, Verticillium, Hirsutella etc.

Nematodes - Paecilomyces lilacinus & Romanomermis

culicivorax

(WHO, 2009)

Biopesticides Target pest

Bacillus thurigiensis strains LBT-1, LBT-13, LBT-21, LBT-24

Lepidoptera, Mites

Beauveria bassiana strain LBB-1 Coleoptera (weevils), ants, thrips

Verticillium lecanii strain Y-57 Bemisia tabaci ,Myzus persicae

Metarhizium anisopliaestrain LBM-11

Lepidoptera and Coleoptera

Trichogramma spp. Lepidoptera

Corynebacterium paurometabolum Nematodes

Pheidole megacephala Sweet potato weevil

Biopesticides and Target pests

(Nicolas, 2006)

Biofungicides

Biofungicides are microorganisms and naturally occurring substances that control diseases of crops that are approved for organic production

Biofungicides / biologicals Diseases

Bacillus pumilus Several foliar diseases

Pseudomonas syringe Post-harvest diseases

Bacillus subtilisPythium, Rhizoctonia, Fusarium, Powdery mildew, other foliar diseases

Trichoderma harzianum Root diseases

Streptomyces lydicusFusarium, Rhizoctonia,Pythium,Phytophthora

Gliocladium virens Damping off

(Roger, 2010)

Cost effective and eco-friendly

Renewable sources to supplement chemical fertilizer

Play vital role in maintaining long term soil fertility and

sustainability

Proliferates beneficial microbes in the soil

Suppress certain plant diseases, soil-borne diseases and

parasites

ADVANTAGES Of BIO-AGENTS

Non-availability of crop/zone specific strains of

microorganisms

Genetic instability of the strains

Inconsistent performance in the field during abiotic

stresses

Lesser speed of action

Lack of adequate knowledge among the farmers

CONSTRAINTS

Medicinal coleus

B.N : Plectranthus forskohlii

Family: Lamiaceae

Active principle: Forskohlin (0.1-0.5%)

Origin: Indian-subcontinent

Medicinal Uses : Glaucoma, Asthma,

Congestive heart failures &

Certain type of cancers

Economic parts: Tuberous roots

Yield: 3.5 - 4.0 t/ha (Dry tuber)

Table 1: Effect of bioinoculants and neem cake on growth characteristics of Coleus forskohlii at the nursery stage (55 day old cuttings) prior to transplanting.

Singh et al., 2012, Bangalore

Treatments Shoot length (cm)

Root length (cm)

Plant spread (cm)

Dry shoot weight

(g/plant)

Dry root weight

(g/plant)

TV (1.2x106 CFU mL-1) 17.6bc 10.8ab 13.2a 0.81a 0.044bc

BS (1.8x108 CFU mL-1) 15.8ab 11.6b 15.0a 0.75a 0.017a

AZ (2.3x107 CFU mL-1) 19.6bc 12.0b 16.4ab 1.31b 0.059c

GF (1.2x106 CFU mL-1) 20.6c 13.4b 20.8c 1.05b 0.069c

PF (2.5x108 CFU mL-1) 19.0bc 12.4b 18.6b 0.98ab 0.063c

NC 20.4bc 12.4b 20.2c 1.19b 0.078c

Control 13.8a 9.20a 14.4a 0.77a 0.013a

LSD (P<0.05) 3.33 2.27 2.89 0.27 0.022

TV: Trichoderma viride; BS: Bacillus subtilis; AZ: Azotobactor chroococcum; GF: Glomus fasciculatum; PF: Pseudomonas fluorescens; NC: Neem cake (Soil, sand, vermicompost & neem cake @ 1:1:1/10:1/40, v/v); values in vertical columns followed by different letters are significantly different at P=0.05 by ANOVA (LSD) test.

TreatmentsPlant height

(cm)Plant spread

(cm)No. of

branchesDry shoot yield (t/ha)

Dry root yield (t/ha)

Forskohlin yield

(Kg/ha)

TV (1.2x106 CFU mL-1) 41.7ab 43.7ab 20.3a 1.34a 0.18a 1.1a

BS (1.8x108 CFU mL-1) 40.0ab 46.7b 19.3a 1.36a 0.17a 1.02a

AZ (2.3x107 CFU mL-1) 40.2ab 41.3ab 18.3a 1.49a 0.22a 1.32ab

GF (1.2x106 CFU mL-1) 49.6c 49.3b 28.3b 2.58b 0.41c 2.71c

PF (2.5x108 CFU mL-1) 43.6b 47.1b 28.0b 2.01a 0.32bc 2.15bc

NC 48.2c 46.3b 27.7b 2.64b 0.42c 2.67c

Control 38.0a 37.1a 17.0a 1.33a 0.14a 0.83a

LSD (P<0.05) 4.1 7.0 6.8 0.8 0.1 0.84

Table 2: Effect of bioinoculants and neem cake on growth characteristics of Coleus forskohlii at harvesting in field conditions.

Singh et al., 2012, Bangalore

TV: Trichoderma viride; BS: Bacillus subtilis; AZ: Azotobactor chroococcum; GF: Glomus fasciculatum; PF: Pseudomonas fluorescens; NC: Neem cake- (Soil, sand, vermicompost & neem cake @ 1:1:1/10:1/40, v/v); values in vertical columns followed by different letters are significantly different at P=0.05 by ANOVA (LSD) test.

TreatmentShoot uptake (Kg/ha) Root uptake (Kg/ha) Total uptake (Kg/ha)

N P K N P K N P K

TV (1.2x106 CFU mL-1) 18.62a 4.89ab 22.31a 0.89a 0.39a 2.44a 19.51a 5.28a 24.75a

BS (1.8x108 CFU mL-1) 19.35ab 4.62a 21.96a 1.04a 0.44ab 2.7a 20.39ab 5.06a 24.66a

AZ (2.3x107 CFU mL-1) 26.97ab 4.82ab 24.62a 1.00a 0.55ab 3.16ab 27.97b 5.37a 27.78ab

GF (1.2x106 CFU mL-1) 28.03b 7.49b 35.68b 1.99b 0.94b 6.05b 30.02b 8.43b 41.73b

PF (2.5x108 CFU mL-1) 27.78b 5.10ab 30.06a 1.41ab 0.73b 4.76b 29.19b 5.83ab 34.82b

NC 32.78b 7.94b 36.11b 2.35b 0.83b 5.90b 35.13b 8.77b 42.01b

control 18.6a 4.62a 21.86a 0.80a 0.36a 2.27a 19.40a 4.98a 24.13a

LSD (P<0.05) 8.4 2.8 9.1 0.7 0.3 2 8.2 2.8 9.2

Table 3: Effect of bioinoculants and neem cake on nutrient uptake by Coleus forskohlii under field conditions. Singh et al., 2012, Bangalore

TV: Trichoderma viride; BS: Bacillus subtilis; AZ: Azotobactor chroococcum; GF: Glomus fasciculatum; PF: Pseudomonas fluorescens; NC: Neem cake-(Soil, sand, vermicompost & neem cake @ 1:1:1/10:1/40, v/v); values in vertical columns followed by different letters are significantly different at P=0.05 by ANOVA (LSD) test.

Treatments Plant height (cm)No. of

branches/plantlength of fresh

root (cm)

Dry weight (g/plant)

Root Shoot

Uninoculated control 13.33f 81.87e 10.3d 80e 15.85d

Acaulospora laevis 13.67ef 87.87cd 12.5cd 99cd 18.85c

Gigaspora margarita 14.22de 82.87e 12.3cd 99cd 18.90c

Glomus bagyaragii 16.72a 109.20a 18.2a 121a 27.16a

G. etunicatum 14.37de 82.30e 10.6d 94d 18.85c

G. fasciculatum 15.37dc 94.00bc 14.9bc 102bc 19.63c

G. intraradices 14.52cde 87.00cd 13.4cd 99cd 19.15c

G. leptotichum 14.00def 82.05e 11.3d 94d 18.85c

G. macrocarpum 14.58cde 84.73d 11.0d 95cd 18.38c

G. monosporum 14.60cde 86.03d 10.9d 95cd 16.65d

G. mosseae 14.73cd 95.86b 14.5bc 102bc 19.60c

Scutellospora calospora 15.70b 99.43b 16.5ab 107b 23.36b

Table 4: Influence of inoculation with different arbuscular fungi on various characters of Coleus forskohlii.

Sailo and Bagyaraj, 2005, Bangalore

Means followed by the same letter in each column do not differ significantly at P= 0.05 by DMRT. Values are an average of 20 plants taken at 150 DAP.

TreatmentsP content (mg/plant)

Forskohlin concentration (%)

Forskohlin content (mg/plant)Shoot Root

Uninoculated control 19.61e 3.20e 0.57g 45.6h

Acaulospora laevis 41.31cd 4.27cde 0.74ef 73.58f

Gigaspora margarita 43.44cd 4.71bcd 0.75ef 74.58f

Glomus bagyaragii 76.49a 7.65a 0.93a 112.5a

G. etunicatum 37.41d 3.98de 0.80c 75.51f

G. fasciculatum 48.12c 5.27bc 0.79cd 80.89e

G. intraradices 48.42c 4.94bcd 0.86b 85.13d

G. leptotichum 28.07e 4.04de 0.73f 68.62g

G. macrocarpum 41.44cd 4.46bcd 0.76def 72.19f

G. monosporum 26.45e 4.45bcd 0.77cde 72.45f

G. mosseae 49.99c 4.85bcd 0.88b 89.41c

Scutellospora calospora 59.93b 5.48b 0.92a 98.43b

Table 5: Influence of inoculation with different arbuscular fungi on root and shoot P- content, and root forskohlin concentration and content of Coleus forskohlii.


Treatments Root colonization (%) Number of spore (CFU) /50 g soil

Uninoculated control 3.64f 9.67g

Acaulospora laevis 74.80cd 72.33c

Gigaspora margarita 71.82e 66.00d

Glomus bagyaragii 98.72a 158.00a

G. etunicatum 63.56e 33.33f

G. fasciculatum 77.97c 131.33bc

G. intraradices 73.75cd 124.0c

G. leptotichum 63.24e 36.33ef

G. macrocarpum 63.61e 36.3ef

G. monosporum 68.95de 43.33e

G. mosseae 76.81c 123.00c

Scutellospora calospora 85.61b 139.67b

Table 6: Influence of inoculation with different arbuscular fungi on mycorrhizal root colonization and spore numbers in the root zone of Coleus forskohlii.


Fig 1: Effect of Pseudomonas monteilii (PM) (strain CRC1) and Glomus fasciculatum (GF) alone and co-inoculated (PM + GF) on growth characteristics of Coleus forskohlii.

Alok et al., 2012, Lucknow

Fig 2: Effect of P. monteilii (PM) (strain CRC1) and G. fasciculatum (GF) alone and co-inoculated (PM + GF) on yield of C. forskohlii.


Fig 3: Effect of P. monteilii (PM) (strain CRC1) and G. fasciculatum (GF) alone and co-inoculated (PM + GF) on forskolin content (percent) in root tubers of C. forskohlii


Fig 4: Effect of P. monteilii (PM) (strain CRC1) and G. fasciculatum (GF) alone and co-inoculated (PM + GF) on percent disease index (PDI) and percent wilt incidence (PWI) of C. forskohlii.


TreatmentPercent

establishment of cuttings

Plant height (cm)

Plant spread (cm)No. of

branches/Plant

Stem diameter

(cm)E -W N - S

Glomus intraradices 85.00 52.66 52.80 52.00 53.46 2.57

Glomus fasciculatum 91.66 53.40 50.63 52.36 55.83 2.26

Glomus monosporum 83.33 50.73 51.86 51.20 52.5 2.40

Glomus mosseae 91.66 56.76 56.00 52.50 52.50 2.35

Gigaspora margarita 86.66 61.23 55.16 55.20 57.66 2.34

Sclerocystis dussii 90.00 57.76 53.50 53.46 53.5 2.33

Consortia- I 93.33 58.36 56.16 56.96 58.40 2.35

Control 80.00 49.23 54.30 54.16 48.13 2.24

Mean - 55.02 54.17 53.48 54.00 2.35

S. Em± 2.530 1.406 1.190 1.122 0.769 0.020

C. D. @ 5% 7.673 4.265 3.609 3.402 2.334 0.062

CV (%) 5.00 4.43 3.80 3.63 2.47 1.50

Table 7: Effect of AM fungi on growth characters in coleus forskohlii. Dharana et al., 2006, Arabhavi

Consortia-I : Azotobacter chroococcum, Azospirillum brassilence, Pseudomonas striata & Trichoderma harzianum

TreatmentNo. of

tubers/plant

Fresh tuber yield Dry tuber yieldForskohlin

content (%)

Forskohlin yield

(mg/plant)g/plant q/ha g/plant q/ha

Glomus intraradices 9.26 107.78 89.82 14.08 11.85 - -

Glomus fasciculatum 11.60 120.74 100.62 15.78 13.15 0.329 19.30

Glomus monosporum 10.73 126.26 105.21 16.43 13.69 - -

Glomus mosseae 9.53 125.4 104.48 16.39 13.65 - -

Gigaspora margarita 10.53 160.09 133.4 20.92 17.36 0.307 17.28

Sclerocystis dussii 13.53 133.06 110.89 17.39 14.62 0.274 15.56

Consortia- I 16.8 159.46 132.89 20.85 17.35 0.403 26.07

Control 9.8 127.6 106.33 16.69 13.91 0.330 20.75

S. Em± 1.119 7.01 5.84 0.94 0.80 - -

C. D. @ 5% 3.393 21.25 17.7 2.86 2.44 - -

CV (%) 4.709 9.16 9.15 9.43 9.65 - -

Table 8: Effect of AM- fungi on tuber yield and forskohlin content in Coleus forskohlii.

Dharana et al., 2006, Arabhavi

Consortia-I : Azotobacter chroococcum, Azospirillum brassilence, Pseudomonas striata & Trichoderma harzianum

Treatments Plant height (cm) Plant spread (cm) No. of branches

GA+120F 57.21bc 39.17bc 9.13b

GF+120F 78.25d 49.75c 13.38c

GI+120F 46.96ab 36.71bc 8.0ab

GM+120F 64.5cd 37.0bc 9.0b

PF6+120F 81.88d 56.0c 12.25c

120F 50.5b 28.38ab 6.75ab

GA+240F 42.88ab 31.63ab 8.5ab

GF+240F 76.0d 39.75bc 10.75bc

GI+240F 48.38ab 34.46ab 7.13ab

GM+240F 58.38b 33.13ab 7.88ab

PF6+240F 76.0d 43.5bc 9.75bc

240F 37.25a 21.5a 4.75a

Soil only 50.42b 30.04ab 7.5ab

SED 5.564 6.3542 1.9221

Table 9: Effect of bio-inoculants on growth parameters of Coleus forskohlii Singh et al., 2009, Bangalore

GA: Glomus aggregatum; GF: Glomus fasciculatum; GI: Glomus intraradices; GM: Glomus mosseae; PF6: Pseudomonas fluorescens: 120 F: 120 mL suspension of Fusarium chlamydosporum; 240 F: 240 mL suspension of Fusarium chlamydosporum.& SED: Standard error of mean difference.

Treatments P - uptake (mg/plant) K- uptake (mg/plant)Forskohlin content

(mg/100gm dry roots)

GA+120F 66.5cd 495.0de 890.0ab

GF+120F 77.5d 600.0f 1010.0c

GI+120F 59.5cd 385.0c 795.0a

GM+120F 59.0c 390.0c 920.0bc

PF6+120F 81.0d 555.0ef 975.0bc

120F 23.5ab 150.0ab 795.0a

GA+240F 36.5b 195.0b 790.0a

GF+240F 71.5c 500.0de 835.0ab

GI+240F 50.0bc 270.0b 820.0ab

GM+240F 59.5cd 390.0c 835.0ab

PF6+240F 72.5cd 495.0de 820.0ab

240F 18.0a 115.0a 820.0ab

Soil only 30.5ab 140.0ab 895.0ab

SED 8.448 36.576 47.871

Table 10: Effect of bio-inoculants on P and K uptake, Forskohlin content of Coleus forskohlii.

Singh et al., 2009,

Bangalore

Fig 5: Effect of bio-inoculants on mean shoot dry yield. Singh et al., 2009,

Bangalore

Fig 6: Effect of bio-inoculants on mean root dry yield. Singh et al., 2009, Bangalore

Fig 7: Effect of bio-inoculants on Per cent disease index (PDI). Singh et al., 2009, Bangalore

Population of Scirtothrips dorsalis on coleus, as influenced by bio-control agents. Thangavel et al., 2011, Coimbatore

Treatment Details:

T1- Chrysoperla carnea @ 50,000 eggs/ha (5 releases)

T2- Trichogramma chilonis @ 6.25 cc/ha (5 releases)

T3- Bacillus thuringiensis 750 g/ha (5 sprays)

T4- Beauveria bassiana 2 g/L (5 sprays)

T5- C.c (1 release) + T.c (1 release) + B.b (1 spray) + B.t (2 spray)

T6- B.t (1 spray) + C.c (1 release) + T.c (1 spray) + B.t (2 spray)

T7- B.t (1 spray) + C.c (1 release) + T.c (1 spray) + B.b (2 spray)

T8- Untreated check

Treatments

Pre- treatment

count

No. of thrips/Sq. cm at monthly interval

MeanPercentage

reduction over control60 DAP 90 DAP 120 DAP 150 DAP

T1 38.2 11.5 (3.46)a 9.2 (3.11)a 7.4 (2.81)a 4.4 (2.21)a 8.2 60

T2 39.8 22.1 (4.75)f 19.2 (4.43)g 15.8 (4.03)g 13.4 (3.72)e 17.6 14.1

T3 40.7 18.3 (4.33)d 15.4 (3.98)e 12.3 (3.57)e 10.9 (3.37)d 14.4 29.7

T4 41.4 20.2 (4.54)e 17.4 (4.23)f 14.4 (3.86)f 12.8 (3.64)e 16.3 20.4

T5 37.8 12.7 (3.63)b 10.4 (3.30)b 8.8 (3.04)b 6.3 (2.60)b 9.5 53.6

T6 39.7 14.4 (3.86)c 13.2 (3.70)d 11.4 (3.44)d 8.3 (2.96)c 11.8 42.4

T7 40.5 14.2 (3.83)c 12.3 (3.57)c 10.2 (3.27)c 7.8 (2.88)c 11.2 45.3

T8 41.6 24.7 (5.01)g 22.3(4.77)h 18.6 (4.37)h 16.3 (4.09)f 20.5 -

SEd - 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 - -

C. D @ 5% - 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.14 - -

Table 11 :Population of Scirtothrips dorsalis on coleus, as influenced by bio-control agents. Thangavel et al., 2011, Madurai

Figures in parentheses are square root transformed values in a column, means followed by same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P=0.05).

TreatmentsPre-

treatment count

No. of larvae/5 plant

Mean

Percentage reduction

over control

Wet tuber yield (kg/ha)60 DAP 90 DAP 120 DAP 150 DAP

T1 7.6 5.5 (2.44)c 5.1 (2.36)c 3.9 (2.09)b 3.2 (1.92)c 4.4 48.2 20,105c

T2 8.4 7.9 (2.89)de 7.7 (2.86)e 6.6 (2.66)d 5.5 (2.44)d 6.9 18.8 17,075f

T3 9.2 7.1 (2.75)d 6.3 (2.60)d 5.1 (2.36)c 4.8 (2.30)d 5.8 31.7 18,112d

T4 8.3 7.6 (2.84)d 6.8 (2.70)de 5.7 (2.48)cd 4.4 (2.21)d 6.1 28.2 17,454e

T5 7.1 3.9 (2.09)a 3.3 (1.94)a 2.1 (1.61)a 1.3 (1.34)a 2.6 69.4 20,643a

T6 8.2 4.6 (2.25)ab 4.2 (2.16)b 3.1 (1.89)b 2.2 (1.64)b 3.5 58.8 20,455ab

T7 7.8 5.0 (2.34)bc 4.8 (2.30)bc 3.3 (1.94)b 2.5 (1.73)bc 3.9 54.1 20,283bc

T8 9.2 8.8 (3.04)e 9.1 (3.09)f 8.5 (3.00)e 7.6 (2.84)e 8.5 - 20,256g

SEd 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.11 - - - 0.33

C. D @ 5% 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.25 - - - 1.32

Table 12 : Population of Orphanostigma abruptalis and yield of wet tubers in coleus, as influenced by bio-control agents

Thangavel et al., 2011, Madurai

T5- C.c (1 relaese) + T.c (1 relaese) + B.b (1 spray) + B.t (2 spray)

Management of collar rot complex in Coleus forskohlii using bioagents, organic amendments and chemicals.

Kulkarni et al., 2007, Arabhavi

Treatment Details:

T1- Trichoderma viride @ 10 ml/plant (8x103 cfu/ml)

T2- Trichoderma harzianum @ 10 ml/plant (8x103 cfu/ml)

T3- Pseudomonas fluorescens @ 10 ml/plant (24x105 cfu/ml)

T4- Pronto @ 5% as soil drench (neem based product)

T5- Neemto @500 g/5 m2 (neem based product)

T6-Carbofuran 3G @ 15 gai/5 m2

T7- Farm yard manure @ 5 kg/5 m2

T8- Trichoderma viride @ 10 ml/plant (8x103 cfu/ml) + Neemto @500 g/5 m2

T9- Carbendazim @ 0.1% soil drench

T10- Propiconazole @ 0.1% soil drench

T11- Control

Treatments Wilt incidence (%)

Population of root knot juveniles/200

cc of soil

No. of galls / 5 g of root

CFU (103/g)

F. chlamydosporum R. bataticola

T1 21.09 (27.33) 1640 21.13 7.6 12.2

T2 18.87 (25.74) 1633.33 19.53 8 12.6

T3 19.98 (26.51) 1533.33 18.27 8 14.2

T4 23.31 (28.84) 136.67 17.33 10.6 15.6

T5 21.09 (27.24) 1180 16.07 12.6 16.4

T6 24.42 (29.57) 1066.67 14.93 16.2 17.6

T7 25.53 (30.38) 1960 25.67 15.2 18.8

T8 12.76 (20.93) 873.33 10.13 6.2 9.6

T9 21.09 (27.33) 1933.33 23.33 3.6 6.8T10 23.31 (28.84) 1906.67 23 3.8 7.4T11 35.52 (36.59) 2177.33 28.4 19.6 21.6

Mean 22.45 (28.12) 1569.69 19.82 10.13 13.89

S.Em± 1.18 49.05 1.83 0.87 0.95CD @ 5% 3.48 144.68 5.38 2.49 2.72

Table 13: Management of collar rot complex of Coleus forskohlii using bioagents, organic amendments and chemicals.

Kulkarni et al., 2007, Arabhavi

Figures in parentheses are arc sine (angular) transformed values

Treatment Mycelial growth (cm)Per cent reduction over

control

Trichoderma viride 4.2 52.2

T. viride Isolate1 4.3 51.1




Trichoderma harzianum 3.6 59.6

Trichoderma reesei 5.1 41.1

Trichoderma koningeei 4.2 48.5

Chaetomium globosum 4.5 55

Pseudomonas fluorescens 3.7 58.7

Bacillus subtilis 4.2 51.1

Carbendazim 4 59.1

Control 9 -

C. D @ 5% 0.3 -

Table 14: Effect of antagonists on the growth of Macrophomina phaseolina in the dual culture technique in coleus.

Paramasivan et al., 2007, TN

Treatment Disease incidence Total sprouts Yield (g)

Trichoderma viride 28.6 (33.2)* 3 105

T. viride Isolate1 21.8 (27.8) 2 107

T. viride Isolate2 22.9 (28.5) 4 107

T. viride Isolate3 24.6 (29.7) 5 110

T. viride Isolate4 19.2 (26.7) 7 150

T. harzianum 20.6 (26.9) 5 120

T. reesei 33.5 (35.3) 4 90

T. koningeei 27.9 (31.1) 3 80

Chaetomium globosum 31.5 (34.2) 2 70

Pseudomonas fluorescens 20.8 (27.2) 6 135

Bacillus subtilis 22.3 (28.7) 5 114

Carbendazim 18.3 (25.3) 5 140

Control 44.3 (41.5) 1 60

C. D @ 5% 3.4 2.1 12

Table 15: Efficacy of bioagents against dry root rot of coleus under pot culture conditions Paramasivan et al., 2007, TN

Figures in parentheses are arc sine transformed values

Sl. No. Biocontrol agents Per cent inhibition of mycelial growth of R. bataticola

1 Bacillus subtilis Cohn. 12.18 (20.43)

2 Pseudomonas fluorescens Migula. 6.45 (14.68)

3 Trichoderma koningii Rifai. 57.40 (49.29)

4 Trichoderma virens Miller. 56.66 (48.89)

5 Trichoderma viride Pers. 76.29 (60.83)

6Trichoderma harzianum Rifai. (Dharwad isolate) 79.63 (63.57)

7 Trichoderma harzianum Rifai. 77.03 (61.23)

Mean 52.23 (45.57)

S.Em+ 0.28

C.D @1% 1.16

Table 16: Effect of biocontrol agents on inhibition of mycelial growth of Rhizoctonia bataticola infecting Coleus forskohlii. Ammajamma et al., 2009, Dharwad

Figures in the parenthesis indicate angular transformed values

Treatments

Length (cm)Shoot

weight (g)Root gall

index

Per cent disease

incidence

Tuber yield/

plant (g)Shoot Root

Super Pseudomonas @ 2.5 kg/ha 120.62 81.87 958.12 2.25 35.62 223.7

P. fluorescens @ 2.5 kg/ha 120.6 75 883.12 2.37 36.87 212.2

Consortial formulations of Pfbv22 + Bbv 57 @ 2.5 kg/ha 113.12 72.5 886.87 2.5 38.12 201.2

T. viride @ 2.5 kg/ha 125 85.6 994.37 2.00 31.87 235.6

P. fluorescens + T. viride each @ 2.5 kg/ha 113.12 70.62 813.87 3.12 46.87 190

Carbofuran 3G @ 1 kg a.i/ ha + drenching with bavistin (1 g/L water)

101.87 68.75 772.5 3.37 51.25 185

Untreated control 70.6 47.5 762.18 5 93.75 157.5

C D @ 5 % 10.53 4.21 22.7 0.78 3.54 10.5

Table 17: Biomanagement of nematode fungal disease complex in coleus under controlled conditions.

Ramakrishnan and Deepa, 2011, Coimbatore

Pooled analysis of two pot culture experiments.

Treatments

Shoot Root Nematode populationTuber yield (t/ha)Length

(cm)Weight

(cm)Length

(cm)Weight

(cm)Soil

(200cc)Root (5g)

Gall index PDI

T. viride @ 2.5 kg/ha 134.21 (83.37)

1158.70 (79.25)

76.75 (134.42)

258.18 (129.16)

77.43 (76.90)

23.56 (84.58)

0.866 (81.54)

17.85 (77.69) 24 (68.1)

Super pseudomonas @ 2.5 kg/ha

115.20 (57.39)

825.07 (27.60)

60.33 (84.27)

208.53 (85.09)

201.36 (39.95)

50.40 (67.02)

2.733 (41.41)

31.23 (60.96)

22.6 (58.8)

Carbofuran 3G @ 1 kg a.i / ha + drenching

with Bavistin (1 kg/ha)

117.36 (60.34)

932.46 (44.25)

64.19 (96.05)

218.47 (93.91)

194.30 (42.05)

57.96 (62.07)

2.40 (48.49)

35.00 (56.25)

22.0 (54.6)

Untreated control 73.19 646.4 32.74 112.66 335.33 152.83 4.66 80.01 14.2

C D @ 5 % 21.67 145.1 14.99 48.92 33.05 19.1 1.19 19.43 6.7

Table 18: On farm trial on Biomanagement of nematode fungal disease complex in medicinal coleus

Ramakrishnan and Deepa, 2011, Coimbatore -

Pooled analysis of three field experiments.

Effect of integrated bio-management strategies on root tuber yield in medicinal coleus infested with M. incognita and M. phaseolina Seenivasan, 2010, TN

Treatment Details:

T1-Integrated nematode management strategy (INMS) i.e. dipping of stem

cuttings in 0.1% Pseudomonas fluorescens (strain Pf1 @ 6x108 CFU/g) talc

based formulation at planting + growing marigold (Tagetes errecta) as

intercrop

T2- T1 (INMS) + Biointensive disease management strategy (BDMS) i.e.

soil drenching with P. fluorescens (strain PfC6 @ 6x108 CFU/g) talc

formulation @ 2.5 kg/ha at planting, 30, 60, 90 & 120 DAP

T3- Standard chemical check i.e. Carbofuran 3G @ 1 kg a.i/ ha + soil

drenching with carbendazim 0.1%

T4- Untreated control

Table 19 : Effect of integrated bio-management strategies on root tuber yield in medicinal coleus infested with M. incognita and M. phaseolina

Seenivasan, 2010, TN

TreatmentsTuber length

(cm)No. of

tubers /plantTuber weight/

plant (g)Root tuber yield (t/ha) B:C ratio

T1 11.3a (29.2) 4.8a (22.9) 250.0b (47.6) 6.92b (45.3) 1.37:1

T2 11.3a (29.2) 4.8a (22.9) 258.3b (49.3) 7.07b (46.5) 1.22:1

T3 12.3a (34.9) 4.9a (24.5) 297.8a (56.0) 7.31a (48.2) 1.35:1

T4 8.0b 3.7b 131.0c 3.78c 0.78:1

SEd 0.84 0.26 8.4 0.16 -

C.D @ 5 % 1.85 0.56 18.3 0.21 -

CV % 12.6 8.75 5.7 8.92 -

Figures in a column followed by different letters are significantly different at P=0.05 level by DMRT; Figures in the parentheses are percent decrease over control; Pooled 2 years data.

Ashwagandha

B.N : Withania somnifera

Family: Solanaceae

Active principle: Withanine & Somniferine

(0.13-0.31 %)

Medicinal Uses: Rheumatic pain, antitumor,

Anti-inflammatory, antioxidant & nervine tonics.

Economic parts: Roots and seeds

Yield: 4-5 q/ha (Dry roots) &

50-75 kg/ha (Seed yield)

Treatment

Shoot length /plant (cm )No. of

primary branches/plant

No. of lateral branches/plant

90 DAI 120 DAI 150 DAI 180 DAI90 DAI

120 DAI

150 DAI

180 DAI

T1- Azospirillum (AAs-11)

30.25 43.55 52.11 59.75 2.65 9 12.86 13 16.1

T2- Azotobacter (AAz-3)

27.25 39.66 50 56.66 2.15 8.16 12 12.95 15.86

T3- Bacillus(APb-1) 27 38.44 48 55 2.05 8 11.86 12.85 15.33 T4- Pseudomonas(APs-1)

28.33 41.24 51.15 58.85 2.75 8.76 12.22 13 16

T5-T1+T2 31.25 46.33 54.66 62..77 2.85 9.15 11 13 16.65 T6-T1+T3+T4 35.25 62.55 64.65 71.33 3.25 11 12.1 14.25 18

T7-T2+T3+T4 33.34 49.65 60 68.65 3.12 10.1 12 14 17.23

T8-T1+T2+T3 32.15 48.25 57.15 66.45 3 9.85 11.86 13.25 17 T9-T1+T2+T3+T4 38.47 56.22 69.47 76.5 3.52 11.44 13.24 16.32 20.25 T10-Uninoculated control 26.00 37.33 45.66 53 2 7.96 10 11.85 15.33

S.E± C.D(P=0.05) S.E± C.D(P=0.05)

T 2.24 4.45 0.59 1.18

D 2.42 2.82 0.37 0.75

T×D 4.47 8.9 1.18 2.35

Table 20: Effect of rhizobacterial inoculation on the shoot length, primary and lateral branches development of ashwagandha (var.Jawahar 20).

Gopal, 2010, Coimbatore

Table 21: Effect of rhizobacterial inoculation on the root growth of ashwagandha (var.Jawahar 20). Gopal, 2010, Coimbatore

-Treatment

Root parameters (180 DAS)

Root length/Plant(cm)

Root girth /Plant (cm)

Lateral roots/Plant

(no.)

Root fresh weight/ Plant

(g )

Root dry weight/Plant

(g)

T1- Azospirillum(AAs-11) 19.65 1.78 16.33 17.65 4.72

T2- Azotobacter(AAz-3) 18.95 1.75 14.66 16.95 4.3

T3- Bacillus(APb-1) 18.2 1.75 14 17 4.33

T4- Pseudomonas(APs-1) 19 1.76 14.33 17.33 4.43

T5-T1+T2 20.65 1.8 17.66 18 4.92

T6-T1+T3+T4 23 2 18.33 19 5.53

T7-T2+T3+T4 22.55 1.92 18 18.55 5.33

T8-T1+T2+T3 21 1.85 17 18.2 5

T9-T1+T2+T3+T4 26.17 2.32 19.66 21.33 6.1

T10-Uninoculated control 17 1.72 14.66 15.33 4

S.E.± 1.76 0.16 1.31 1.53 0.41

C.D.(P=0.05) 3.69 0.33 2.76 3.22 0.87

TreatmentsDry matter production(g/plant)

90 DAI 120 DAI 150 DAI 180 DAI

T1- Azospirillum(AAs-11) 0.58 4.72 9.65 15.18

T2- Azotobacter(AAz-3) 0.49 4.55 9 14.6

T3- Bacillus(APb-1) 0.51 4.6 9.15 14.64

T4- Pseudomonas(APs-1) 0.55 4.65 9.26 15

T5-T1+T2 0.61 4.78 9.85 15.33

T6-T1+T3+T4 0.693 5.11 11.12 16.17

T7-T2+T3+T4 0.68 4.93 10.56 16

T8-T1+T2+T3 0.65 4.82 10 15.92

T9-T1+T2+T3+T4 0.703 5.47 12.56 17.27

T10-Uninoculated control 0.41 4.16 8.5 13.26

S.E.± C.D.(P=0.05)

T 0.42 0.84

D 0.27 0.53

T×D 0.85 1.68

Table 22: Effect of rhizobacterial inoculation on dry matter production of ashwagandha (var.Jawahar 20). Gopal, 2010, Coimbatore

Table 23: Effect of rhizobacterial inoculation on total alkaloid content of ashwagandha (var.Jawahar 20) roots.

Gopal and Kumutha, 2010, Coimbatore

Treatments Total alkaloid (%)Total alkaloid yield

(mg/plant)

T1- Azospirillum(AAs-11) 1.18 56

T2- Azotobacter(AAz-3) 1.12 48

T3- Bacillus(APb-1) 1.13 49

T4- Pseudomonas(APs-1) 1.15 51

T5-T1+T2 1.20 59

T6-T1+T3+T4 1.29 71

T7-T2+T3+T4 1.26 67

T8-T1+T2+T3 1.23 62

T9-T1+T2+T3+T4 1.42 87

T10-Uninoculated control 1.10 44

S.E.± 0.10 5.33

C.D. (P=0.05) 0.22 11.13

Table 24: Effect of rhizobacterial inoculation on Withaferin-A content of ashwagandha (var. Jawahar 20) roots by HPLC.

Gopal and Kumutha, 2010, Coimbatore

Treatments

Withaferin-A content (mg /100g of roots)

T1- Azospirillum (AAs-11) 44.80

T2- Azospirillum (AAs-11) + Azotobacter (AAz-3) 57.80

T6- Azospirillum (AAs-11) + Bacillus (APb-1) + Pseudomonas (APs-1)

66.42

T9- Azospirillum (AAs-11) + Azotobacter (AAz-3) + Bacillus (APb-1) + Pseudomonas (APs-1)

110.00

T10- Uninoculated control 40.40

Treatments Root knot Index (RKI)

Untreated control 3.33a

Trichoderma harzianum (2x108 cfu/g)@0.9 kg/bed 0.66cd

Cow urine @4.5 L/bed 0.83cd

Vermicompost @4.5 kg/bed 1.33bc

Neem oil seed cake @ 0.36 kg/bed 1.16bc

Cow urine + T. harzianum 0.33d

Vermicompost + T. harzianum 0.66cd

Neem oil seed cake + T. harzianum 0.33d

Table 25: Influence of organic and biological amendments on root knot index in Withania somnifera L.

Pandey et al., 2011, Lucknow

Mean in each column followed by same letters do not differ significantly (P= 0.05) according to Duncan’s multiple range test.

Treatments Shoot dry weight (kg/m2)Root dry weight

(kg/m2)

Untreated control 1.3f 0.15h

Trichoderma harzianum (2x108 cfu/g) @0.9kg/bed 2.3d 0.25e

Cow urine @4.5L/bed 2.7b 0.28d

Vermicompost @4.5 kg/bed 2.3d 0.29bc

Neem oil seed cake @ 0.36kg/bed 2.5c 0.23f

Cow urine + T. harzianum 2.8ab 0.30b

Vermicompost + T. harzianum 2.9a 0.32a

Neem oil seed cake + T. harzianum 2.8ab 0.29bc

Table 26: Effect of different organic and biological amendments on the root & Shoot dry weight (kg) of Withania somnifera.

Pandey et al., 2011, Lucknow

Mean in each column followed by same letters do not differ significantly (P= 0.05) according to Duncan’s multiple range test.

Conclusion

• Biological approach could be practiced to obtain maximum

yield, quality and to manage pest & diseases

• Different AM- fungi and PGPR improve growth, forskohlin

and withaferin- A in coleus and ashwagandha, respectively

• Chrysoperla carnea, Trichogramma chilonis, Beauveria

bassiana and Bacillus thuringiensis are effective in pest

management

• Trichoderma harzianum found to be effective in controlling the

population of Meloidogyne incognita and Rhizoctonia

bataticola

Use Bioagents

For Healthy and living soil

seminar-1 on role of bio-agents on coleus and ashwagandha

Education