**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.

**Sl.**

**No Genotypes Shattering % Grade Sl No Genotype Shattering % Grade**

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

21. EC-109923 75.0 VHS 63. JS-72-44 44.3 MS 22. EC-322536 20.7 TO 64. JS-75-46 55.0 HS 23. EC-241778 36.7 MS 65. JS-76-205 31.9 MS 24. EC-241780 63.3 HS 66. JS-80-21 67.0 HS 25. EC-34092 16.0 TO 67. JS-90-41 55.7 HS 26. EC-118420 61.3 HS 68. JS-93-105 19.0 TO 27. EC-34101 22.0 TO 69. JS-87-25 31.7 MS 28. EC-251449 72.7 HS 70. KB-79 30.0 MS 29. Lee 15.0 TO 71. Pusa-20 32.7 MS 30. MACS-13 43.0 MS 72. Pusa-22 16.3 TO 31. MACS-330 72.7 VHS 73. Pusa-24 33.0 HS 32. MACS-450 57.3 MS 74. Pusa-37 62.3 HS 33. MACS-57 46.0 MS 75. Pusa-40 74.7 HS 34. MAUS-47 85.0 VHS 76. Samrat 31.3 MS 35. MAUS-68 73.0 HS 77. T-49 71.7 HS 36. MAUS-2 19.0 TO 78. VLS-1 12.1 TO 37. NRC-7 19.7 TO 79. VLS-2 25.3 TO 38. NRC-12 26.3 MS 80. VLS-21 31.7 MS 39. PK-1024 80.0 VHS 81. VLS-47 17.0 TO 40. PK-1029 32.0 MS 82. JS-335 (C) 10.3 TO 41. Punjab-1 93.3 VHS 83. KHSb-2(C) 43.5 MS 42. Pusa-16 23.7 TO 84. Monetta (C) 90.7 VHS

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

**3.2. Screening for rust resistance**



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

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

**3. Experimental results**

176 Soybean - Pest Resistance

**Sl.**

**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

**No Genotypes Shattering % Grade Sl No Genotype Shattering % Grade**

1. Alankar 58.7 HS 43. EC-392536 16.0 TO 2. Ankur 47.0 MS 44. EC-394839 45.3 MS 3. AGS-34 59.7 HS 45. G-48 15.0 TO 4. AGS-50 52.7 HS 46. G-479 35.0 MS 5. Bragg 15.3 TO 47. G-482 51.7 HS 6. Local black soybean 78.3 VHS 48. G-7340 83.7 VHS 7. CO-1 80.3 VHS 49. G-26 35.7 MS 8. CO-2 57.0 HS 50. G-5-1 61.7 HS 9. CGP-76 15.3 TO 51. Hardee 46.0 MS 10. CGP-248 62.0 HS 52. Hara soya 17.3 MS 11. CGP-2037 46.0 MS 53. Himsoya-1560 8.7 TO 12. DSb-1 46.3 MS 54. Himsoya-1514 11.8 TO 13. DSb-2 41.7 MS 55. Improved pelican 83.3 VHS 14. DSb-3-4 44.3 MS 56. Indira Soya 9 32.0 MS 15. DSb-5 48.7 MS 57. C-39506 51.7 HS 16. DSb-6-1 37.7 MS 58. IC-49859 56.7 HS 17. DSb-7 56.0 HS 59. IC-104877 46.3 MS 18. DSb-8 45.0 MS 60. JS-2 83.0 VHS 19. DS-17-5 35.3 MS 61. JS-71-05 18.0 TO 20. EC-103369 58.3 MS 62. JS-72-280 36.7 MS

that none of the genotypes were immune or resistant to pod shattering.

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


G-479, G-482, G-7340, G-26, G-5-1, Hardee, Harasoya, Himsoya-1560, Improved pelican, Indirasoya, IC-39506,

**Sl. No.**

resistant.

**Sl.**

**Reaction**

**Grade (0-9)**

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

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

**Number of**

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

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

**No Genotypes PDI\* Reaction Sl No Genotype PDI\* Reaction**

1. Alankar 9.25 MR 43. EC-392536 27.00 S 2. Ankur 0.75 R 44. EC-394839 42.12 S 3. AGS-34 8.21 MR 45. G-48 15.25 MS 4. AGS-50 7.68 MR 46. G-479 17.25 MS 5. Bragg 8.58 MR 47. G-482 25.65 S 6. Local black soybean 61.25 HS 48. G-7340 32.15 S 7. CO-1 3.58 MR 49. G-26 9.12 MR 8. CO-2 7.54 MR 50. G-5-1 42.12 S 9. CGP-76 15.61 MS 51. Hardee 39.15 S 10. CGP-248 19.25 MS 52. Hara soya 33.89 S 11. CGP-2037 9.21 MR 53. Himsoya-1560 19.14 MS 12. DSb-1 25.23 S 54. Himsoya-1514 40.01 S 13. DSb-2 32.15 S 55. Improved pelican 42.15 S

**genotypes Genotypes responded**

IC-49859, IC-104877, JS-2, JS 71-05, JS 72-280, JS 72-44, JS 75-46, JS 76-205, JS 80-21, JS 90-41, JS 93-105, JS 87-25, KB-79, Le, MACS-13, MACS-330, MACS-450, MACS-57, MAUS-47, MAUS-68, MAUS-2, NRC-7, NRC-12, PK-1024, PK-1029, Punjab-1, Pusa-16, Pusa-20, Pusa-22, Pusa-24, Pusa-37, Pusa-40, Samrat, T-49, VLS-1, VLS-2, VLS-21,

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

179

VLS-47, JS-335 (C), KHSb-2 (C), Monetta (C).

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)**

**Sl.**

178 Soybean - Pest Resistance

<sup>3</sup> 25-50% pod shattering

<sup>4</sup> 51-75% pod

**Sl. No.**

<sup>3</sup> Moderately resistant

<sup>5</sup> Moderately Susceptible

**No. Category Resistant reaction**

2 < 25% pod shatteringShattering tolerant 20

1 No pod shattering Shattering resistant 00 -

Moderately shattering

shattering Highly shattering <sup>21</sup>

shattering

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

**Grade (0-9)**

2 Resistant 1 02 EC- 241778, EC- 241780

3 00 -

7 00 -

1 Immune 0 00 -

4 Susceptible 5 00 -

<sup>5</sup> >75% pod shattering Very highly

**Reaction**

6 Highly Susceptible 9 82

**Number of**

32

11

**Number of**

**genotypes Genotypes**

VLS-1, VLS-2, VLS-47, JS-335(C)

Pusa-24, Pusa-37, Pusa-40, T-49

Monetta (C)

**genotypes Genotypes responded**

Bragg, CGP-76, EC-322536, EC-34092, JS 71-05, JS-93-05, Lee, MAUS-2, WEC-7, EC-34101, EC-392536, G-26, Himsoya-1560, Himsoya-1514, Pusa-16, Pusa-22,

Ankur, CGP-2037, DSb-1, DSb-2, DSb-3-4, DSb-5, DSb-6-1, DSb-8, PS-17-5, EC-103369, EC-241778, IC-104877, JS 72-280, JS 72-44, JS 76-205, JS 87-25, KB-79, MACS-13, MACS-450, MACS-57, NRC-12, PK-1029, EC-394839, G-48, G-7340, Hardee, Harasoya, Indira soya, Pusa-20, Samrat, VLS-21, KHSb-2 (C).

Alankar, AGS-34, AGS-50, CO-2, CGP-248, DSb-7, EC-241780, EC-118420, IC-39506, IC-49859, JS 75-46, JS 80-21, JS 90-41, MAUS-68, EC-251449, G-479, G 5-1,

Local black soybean, CO-1, EC-109923, JS-2, MACS-330, MAUS-47, PK-1024, G-482, Improved pelican, Punjab-1,

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,

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.



**Scale Description Category**

<sup>0</sup> No symptoms on plants

> 1% or less plants exhibiting symptoms

1-10% plants exhibiting symptoms

11-20% plants exhibiting symptoms

21-50% plants exhibiting symptoms

51% or more plants exhibiting symptoms

**4.1. Screening for pod shattering resistance**

1

3

5

7

9

**4. Discussion**

**Number of**

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

Immune 00 -

22

10

12

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

**Table 5.** Grouping of genotypes into different categories for soybean yellow mosaic virus resistance

Resistant 12

Moderately resistant

Moderately susceptible

Highly susceptible

Susceptible 28

**genotypes Genotypes**

Ankur, EC-103369, EC-322536, EC-241778, Indirasoya 9, MACS-450, MACS-57, MAUS-47,

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

181

Alankar, AGS-34, Bragg, AGS-50, CO-1, CO-2, CGP-2037, DSb 3-4, PS-17-5, EC-241780, EC-251449, G-26, IC-39506, JS 80-21, JS 87-25, KB-79, MACS-13, Punjab-1, Pusa-16, Pusa-20,

CGP-76, CGP-248, DSb-6-1, EC-34101, G-48, G-479, Himory-1560, IC- 49859, JS-93-105,

DSb-1, DSb-2, DSb-7, DSb-8, EC-34092, EC-118420, EC-392536, EC-394839, G-7340, G-482, G-5-1, Hardee, Harasoya, Improved pelican, JS 71-05, JS 72-44, JS 75-46, Lee, MAUS-2, Pusa-37, Pusa-40, Samrat, VLS-1, Himsoya-1514, VLS-21, VLS-47, JS-335(C),

Local black soybean, DSb-5, EC-109923, IC-104877, JS-2, JS 72-280, JS 76-205, JS 90-41,

MACS-330, MAUS-68, T-49, VLS-2

NRC-7, PK-1024, PK-1025, Pusa-22

Pusa-24, Monetta (Check).

NRC-12

KHSb-2 (Check)

\* 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


**Table 5.** Grouping of genotypes into different categories for soybean yellow mosaic virus resistance

### **4. Discussion**

**Sl.**

180 Soybean - Pest Resistance

\* Percent disease incidence

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

**No Genotypes PDI\* Reaction Sl No Genotype PDI\* Reaction**

14. DSb-3-4 15.25 MR 56. Indira Soya 9 0.45 R 15. DSb-5 75.25 HS 57. C-39506 7.12 MR 16. DSb-6-1 13.25 MS 58. IC-49859 62.15 HS 17. DSb-7 27.85 S 59. IC-104877 75.12 HS 18. DSb-8 26.32 S 60. JS-2 46.12 S 19. DS-17-5 16.25 MR 61. JS-71-05 78.98 HS 20. EC-103369 0.75 R 62. JS-72-280 46.25 S 21. EC-109923 39.25 HS 63. JS-72-44 29.12 S 22. EC-322536 0.52 R 64. JS-75-46 89.12 HS 23. EC-241778 0.49 R 65. JS-76-205 8.81 MR 24. EC-241780 9.85 MR 66. JS-80-21 90.12 HS 25. EC-34092 45.25 S 67. JS-90-41 11.85 MS 26. EC-118420 37.12 S 68. JS-93-105 8.82 MR 27. EC-34101 13.25 MS 69. JS-87-25 7.81 MR 28. EC-251449 8.25 MR 70. KB-79 6.23 MR 29. Lee 46.3 S 71. Pusa-20 7.15 MR 30. MACS-13 5.12 MR 72. Pusa-22 0.92 R 31. MACS-330 81.21 HS 73. Pusa-24 8.25 MR 32. MACS-450 0.89 R 74. Pusa-37 7.10 S 33. MACS-57 0.48 R 75. Pusa-40 29.12 S 34. MAUS-47 0.56 R 76. Samrat 36.57 S 35. MAUS-68 85.12 HS 77. T-49 86.21 HS 36. MAUS-2 31.25 S 78. VLS-1 40.25 S 37. NRC-7 0.78 R 79. VLS-2 79.85 HS 38. NRC-12 16.25 MS 80. VLS-21 33.25 S 39. PK-1024 0.85 R 81. VLS-47 30.5 S 40. PK-1029 0.52 R 82. JS-335 (C) 30.96 S 41. Punjab-1 5.23 MR 83. KHSb-2(C) 28.25 S 42. Pusa-16 6.12 MR 84. Monetta (C) 7.6 MR

#### **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].

**Author details**

, S. D. Tyagi2

and Z. A. Dar3

Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad; 2002.

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

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

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

183

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

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

[1] Agrawal AP, Salimath PM, Patil SA. Soybean Pod Growth Analysis and its Relationship with Pod Shattering. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences 2004; 17(1) 41-45. [2] Basavaraja GT. Studies on induced mutagenesis in soybean. PhD thesis. University of

[3] Bromfield KR, Yang CY. Soybean rust: Summary of available knowledge In: Expanding the use of Soybean. (Editors: Roberts,M.Goodman). INTSOY Series No.10, Illionis; 1976.

[4] Dashell KE, Bello L. Screening for resistant to pod shattering. IITA Grain Legume Improvement Programme. Annual report for 1986.Ibadan, Nigeria; 1988. p.120. [5] Hundekar AR. Studies on some aspects of soybean rust caused by Phakopsora pachyrizi Syd. PhD thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad; 1999.

[6] Koranne KD, Tyagi PC. Screening of soybean germplasm against yellow mosaic

[7] Mayee CR, Datar VV. Phytopathametry, Maharashtra Agricultural University,

[8] Miles MR, Bonde MR, Nester SE, Berner DK, Frederick RD, Hartman GL. Character‐ izing Resistance to Phakopsora pachyrhizi in Soybean. Plant Disease 2011; 95(5)

[9] Patil PV, Basavaraja GT. A prospective source of resistance to soybean rust. Karnataka

[10] Pham TA, Miles MR, Frederick RD, Hill CB, Hartman GL. Differential Responses of Resistant Soybean Entries to Isolates of Phakopsora pachyrhizi. Plant Disease 2009;

diseases. Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding 1985; 45(1) 30-33.

Parbhani, Technical Bulletin No.1, 1986; pp: 145-146.

Journal of Agricultural Sciences 1997; 10 1241-1243.

M. H. Khan1

gar, India

India

India

**References**

pp.161-163.

577-581.

93(3) 224-228.

#### **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 M3 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.
