1. Dr. Y.S.R Horticultural University, College of
Horticulture, Venkataramanna gudem,
West godavari (Dt), A.P

2. Integrated disease management of
vegetables
Submitted to
Dr E Padma
Associate Professor(Horti)
College of Horticulture
Venkataramanna gudem,
West godavari (Dt.), A.P
Presented by
V. Ramesh Naik, VHD/20-10
Ph.D Horticulture
Dept: Vegetable science
College of Horticulture
Venkataramanna gudem,AP

3. IDM
• Integrated disease management (IDM) is an approach that attempts to use
all available methods of control of a disease or of all the disease and pests
of a crop plant for best control but with the least coast and least damage
the environment.
• Integrated plant disease management is a decision based process
involving coordinated use of multiple tactics for optimizing the control of
pathogen in an ecologically and economically.
The implications of IDM are:
Simultaneous management of multiple pathogens
Regular monitoring of pathogen effects and their natural enemies and
antagonists as well
Use of economic or treatment threshold when applying chemicals
Integrated use of multiple, suppressive tactics.

4. Principle of plant disease control
1. Avoidance : Prevents disease by selecting a time of the year or a site
where there is no inoculum or where the environment is not favorable for
infection.
2. Exclusion : Prevents the introduction of inoculum.
3. Eradication : eliminates, destroy or inactivate the inoculum.
4. Protection : Prevents infection by means of a toxicant or some other barrier
to infection.
5. Resistance : Utilizes cultivars that are resistant to or tolerant of infection.
6. Therapy : Cure plants that are already infected.

5. Plant disease management
Disease initial
inoculum
Decrease rate or Duration of
infection
Pathogen Host Environment
Exclusion Eradication Therapy Resistance Protection Avoidance
Dispersal Survival Disease Infection Penetration Inoculation/Prote
ction
Quarantine
certification
pathogen
free stock
Crop rotation
fumigation
rouging
booming
Heat
treatment
chemotherapy
Chemical
agent
Biological
agent cross
protection
forecasting
Race specific,
Non race
specific
Pathogen
derived host
nutrition
Time of
sowing seed
depth
irrigation site
Plant density
R.P Singh (2018)

6. Components of integrated disease management
1. Quarantine and regulatory measures
2. Cultural control
3. Physical and mechanical control
4. Biological control
5. Chemical control
6. Host resistance

7. Components of integrated disease management
1. Quarantine and regulatory measures
Plant quarantine is the legally forced restriction on the movement of disease plant materials
or fungi, bacteria or viruses that disease in plants.
Quarantine and regulatory measures is a tool of Exclusion, one of the Principles of Plant
Disease Control.
2. Cultural control
Cultural practices usually influence the development of disease in plants by affecting the
environment. Such practices are the intended to make the atmospheric, edaphic or
biological surroundings favorable to the crop plant, unfavorable to its parasites. Cultural
practices that leads to disease control have little effect on the microclimate of the crop
plants in a field. Three stages of parasites life cycle namely, survival between crops,
production of inoculum for the primary cycle and inoculation can be following preventive
measures.
i. Deep ploughing
Deep ploughing of the field results in exposure of propagules to elevated temperature and
physical killing of the pathogen. This can be regarded as dry soil solarization.
Summer ploughing was effective at reducing populations of cyst nematodes and increasing
wheat yield.

9. Cultural control
ii) Flooding of the field
Flooding of the field somewhat resembles soil disinfestation. long term
summer soil flooding , with or without paddy culture is found to be
decreased populations of soil borne pathogens.
iii) Crop rotation
Crop rotation is a very important practice, especially for soil borne
disease control. For many soil borne disease, at least a 3 year rotation
using a non host crop greatly reduces pathogen populations.
iv) Other good culture practices
In order to reduce dispersal of soil borne pathogens between field, stakes
and farm equipment should be decontaminated before moving from one
filed to the next.
Avoid soil movement from one site to another to reduce the risk of
moving pathogens.
weed control is important for the management of viral diseases. Weeds
may be alternate/ collateral hosts for many important vegetable viruses.

11. Some pathogens can only enter the host through wounds, situations that
promote plant injury should be avoided.
The pathogen inoculum can be reduced by roving plant material (infected and
healthy) after harvest.
3. Physical and mechanical control
Mechanical and physical controls kill a pathogen directly or make the
environment unsuitable for it. The common methods are:
1. Collect and destroy the disease infected plant parts.
2. Hot water treatment: Some seed borne diseases like loose smut of wheat
(520 C for 11 min), leaf scald (500 C for 2-3 h), red rot (540 C for 8 h) of
sugarcane, black rot of crucifer (500 C for 20-30 min) etc. Can be treated by
immersing infected seeds in hot water at recommended temperature and
time.
3. Hot air treatment is given to remove excess of moisture from plant organs
and protect them from fungal and bacterial attack. Several virus infected
dormant plants are treated by hot air treatment at a temperature ranging
from 35-540 C for 8 hours.

12. 4. Refrigeration ( Low temperature treatment ) is most common method used
to prevent post harvest disease of perishables fruits and vegetables.
5. Soil solarization at 50-60 0 C for about 30 minutes kills the all soil borne
pathogens.
4) Biological control:
The biological agents in disease management is increasing, especially
among organic growers. These products are considered safer for the
environment.
Examples of commercially available biological agents include the fungi
Trichoderma viride and Gliocladium virens, actinomycete streptomyces
griseoviridis, and a bacterium Bacillus subtilis.
Bacteriophages have been found to be an effective biological agent for
management bacterial spot on tomato.
Paecilomyces lilacinus is common saprobic filamentous has detected in the
rhizosphere of many crops. The fungus has shown promising results for
use as a bio- control agent to control the growth of destructive root – knot
nematodes.

13. Commercially available bio-control products to control plant disease.
Bio control
products
Source Target pathogens
Bacterial
Galltrol Agrobacterium radiobacter stain 84 Crown gall (A. tumefaciens)
Dagger G Pseudomonas fluroscens Pythium, Rhizoctonia
Actinovate Streptomyces lydicus Soil borne pathogen
Messenger Erwinia amylovora hairpin protein Wide spectrum
Kodiak Bacillus subtillis strain GB 03 Fusarium, Rhizoctonia, Altmeria
etc.
Bio- save 10 Pseudomonas Post harvest Botrytis
LP 110 Syringae Mucor, Penicillium
Blightban Psudomonas Erwinia amylovora
A-506 Fluorescens A-506 Russeting bacteria frost injury

15. Commercially available bio-control products to control plant disease
Bio control
products
Source Target pathogens
Fungi
Kalisena Asperigillus niger, AN-27 Rhizoctonia solani
Biotrox C Fusarium oxysporum (non- pathogenic ) Fusarium oxysporum
Root shield Trichoderma Pythium, Fusarium,
Plant shield Harzianum strain, Rhizoctonia
T-22 planter KRL-AG2 (T-22)
Soil gard Trichoderma virens Rhizoctonia solani
Gliogard GL-21 Pythium
Trichodex Trichoderma harzianum Collectotritichum, Plasmopara,
Sclerotinia
Trichopei Trichoderma harzianum and T. viride Armillaria, Botryosphaeria,
Fusarium
Trichojet Trichodrma and T. viride Pythium, Rhizoctonia
Aspire Candida oleophila 182 Botrytis spp and Penicillum spp

16. Common soil borne fungal pathogen

18. Chemical control
• When all the above methods are not effective and pathogens cause destructive loss of
the crops then we should go for chemical measures.
• Fungicides and bactericides are an important component of many disease management
programs. It is important to remember that chemical use should be integrated with all
other appropriate tactics.
• Information regarding a fungicides physical mode of action helps producers improves
fungicides can be classified into four categories:
• 1. Protective 2. After infection
• 3. Presymptom, and 4. Anti-sporulant (Post- symptom)
• Depending on the kind of pathogen they affect, the chemical are called fungicides,
bactericides, nematicides, viricides, pesticides and herbicides.
• Earlier the chemical applied on plants organs only protected them from being infected
and did not stop or cure a disease after it had started. These chemical are protective in
action and majority of them effective only in the plant area to which they have been
applied hence they are localized in action and not absorbed and translocate by the
plant eg: Bordeaux mixture, Burgundy mixture etc.
• The real break through came in 1960s and onwords when many new chemicals like
benzimidazoles were developed that showed therapeutic action and were absorbed
and translocate through tissue inside the plant, such chemicals are called systemic
fungicide or bacteriocide.

19. Advantages
1. Promotes sound structures and healthy plants
2. Promotes the sustainable bio based disease management alternatives.
3. Reduces the environment risk associated with management by
encouraging the adoption of more ecologically being control tactics
4. Reduces the potential for air and ground water contamination
5. Reduces the need for pesticides and fungicides by using several
management methods
6. Reduces or eliminates issues related to pesticide residue
7. Reduces or eliminates re-entry interval restrictions
8. Decreases workers, tenants and public about pest and pesticide related
practices.
9. Maintains or increases the cost- effectiveness of disease management
programs.

20. Review of research work

21. Table-1 : Effect of fungicides, bio-agents, botanicals and organic amendments on
pre-emergence seed rot and post emergence seedling mortality in brinjal.
Sr.
No
Treatment Rate Germina
tion (%)
Rot/mortality (%) Average
mortality
(%)
Reduction over
control (%)
Average
reduction
(%)
PESR PESM PESR PESM
T1 Vitavax ST@3g/kg
seed
68.00
(55.55)
32.00
(34.45)
37.00
(37.46)
34.15
(35.76)
51.99
(46.14)
46.71
(43.71)
49.35
(44.63)
T2 Penconazol
e
ST@1g/kg
Seed
63.33
(52.73)
36.66
(37.26)
44.61
(41.91)
40.63
(39.60)
45.00
(42.13)
35.75
(36.72)
40.37
(39.45)
T3 Thiram ST@3g/kg
Seed
60.00
(50.77)
40.00
(39.98)
41.23
(39.98)
40.64
(39.61)
39.33
(39.19)
40.55
(39.55)
40.24
(39.45)
T4 Captan ST@3g/kg
Seed
70.00
(56.79)
30.00
(33.21)
40.65
(39.60)
35.32
(36.46)
54.99
(47.85)
41.46
(40.03)
48.22
(43.98)
T5 P.
fluorescens
ST@10g/kg
Seed
58.00
(49.60)
42.00
(40.40)
41.11
(39.88)
41.55
(40.14)
36.99
(37.46)
40.79
(39.69)
38.89
(38.98)
T6 T. Viride ST@10g/kg
Seed
60.00
(51.15)
39.34
(38.85)
43.33
(41.17)
41.33
(40.01)
40.98
(39.80)
37.60
(37.82)
39.29
(38.82)
T7 Mustard
leaves
ST@50g/kg
Soil
56.66
(48.83)
43.33
(41.17)
46.66
(43.08)
44.99
(42.12)
34.99
(36.27)
32.80
(34.94)
33.89
(35.60)
T8 Neem seed
cake
SA@50g/kg
Soil
50.00
(45.00)
50.00
(45.00)
43.49
(41.26)
46.74
(43.13)
24.99
(29.99)
37.37
(37.68)
31.18
(30.94)
T9 Neem leaf
extract
(20%)
SD@20ml/k
g Soil
50.00
(45.00)
50.00
(45.00)
49.99
(44.99)
49.99
(44.99)
24.99
(29.99)
28.00
(31.95)
26.94
(30.98

22. Continue..
Sr.
No
Treatment Rate Germina
tion (%)
Rot/mortality (%) Average
mortality
(%)
Reduction over
control (%)
Average
reductio
n (%)
PESR PESM PESR PESM
T10 Parthenium
leaf extract
(20%)
SD@20ml
/kg soil
43.33
(41.17)
56.67
(48.83)
48.45
(44.11)
52.56
(46.47)
14.98
(22.77)
30.22
(33.35)
22.62
(28.39)
T11 Vitavax +
Thiram
ST@1g/kg
Seed
70.00
(56.79)
30.00
(33.21)
40.10
(39.29)
35.05
(36.30)
54.99
(47.86)
42.25
(40.54)
48.62
(44.21)
T12 Vitavax +
Thiram + NSC
ST@3g/kg
Seed
76.66
(61.11)
23.34
(28.89)
36.18
(36.98)
29.76
(33.06)
64.98
(53.72)
47.89
(43.79)
56.43
(48.69)
T13 Vitavax +
Thiram + P.
fluorescens +
NSC
ST@1g/kg
Seed
80.00
(63.43)
20.00
(26.57)
31.18
(33.94)
25.60
(30.40)
69.96
(56.76)
55.19
(47.98)
62.37
(52.16)
T14 Control ST@1g/kg
Seed
33.33
(35.26)
66.66
(54.73)
69.44
(56.44)
68.05
(55.58)
_ _ _
SEm+ 4.08 2.08 2.09 2.08 4.81 5.72 5.26
CD (at 5%
level)
12.30 6.30 6.31 6.16 14.48 14.48 15.86
*Means of 3 replications, Figure in parentheses are angular transformed values, Dia=diameter(mm),PESR=Post
emergence seed rot, PESM= Pre emergence seedling mortality, ST= Seed treatment, SD= Soil drenching, SA=Soil
application
Navasari Patel (2001)

23. Table 2 : Integrated management of stem rot of chilli in pot culture
Tr.
No
Treatment details Stem rot incidence on
plant (%)
Per cent disease
control over check
T1 Seed treatment with Sixer 75%WP@3g/kg seed 69.67 (56.63) 22.58
T2 Soil drenching with Sixer 75% WP @ 2000 ppm 3.83 (11.29) 95.74
T3 Addition of Pseudomonas fluorescens @ 10 ml 45.67 (42.51) 49.25
T4 Drenching with Naffatia 10 % 56.67 (48.83) 37.03
T5 Drenching of Butter milk 5% 25.33 (30.18) 71.85
T6 Application of Sixer @ 3g/kg seed +
Pseudomonas fluorescens @10 ml+Naffatia
10%+Butter milk 5%
0.00 (0.00) 100
T7 Control 99.94 (88.99) _
T8 Contorl (Un inoculated) 0.00 (0.00)
SEm+ 0.98
C.D at 5 % level 2.93
C.V % 4.87
Average of three replications
All fungicide applied as Soil drenching
Navasari Singh (2016)

24. Damping and Phytophthora fruit rot of Chilli

25. Table 3: Integrated Disease management of Downy mildew disease in Bottle Gourd
Treat
ments
Treatments with different chemical composition PDI
(Downy
mildew)
Yield
Q/ha
T1 ST-seed pro @ 25g/kg + SD-@ 5% 18.96
(25.75)*
276.2
T2 ST-carbendazim 12%+mancozeb63% @3g/kg+SD-captan 70%+ Hexaconazole 5% WP @ 0.1
%
16.61
(23.98)
285.5
T3 ST-seed pro @ 25g/kg+SD-seed pro @5%+capatan 70%+Hexaconazole 5% WP @ 0.1%
(Imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 7.5 ml/15 l + Neem Oil 0.2%)
7.32
(15.16)
310.4
T4 ST-seed pro @ 25 g/kg+SD-seed pro @ 5% (Imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 7.5 ml/15 l + Neem Oil
0.2%) +Tebuconazole 50%+Trifloxystrobin 25%@1g/l Fosetyl-AL@0.1% + (Imidacloprid 17.8
SL @ 7.5 ml/15 l + Neem Oil 0.2%)
9.63
(18.12)
301.3
T5 ST-carbendazim 12%+mancozeb63@3g/kg+SD-captan 70%+Hexaconazole 5% WP @
0.1%+Tebuconazole 50%+Trifloxystrobin 25% @ 1g/l+ (Imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 7.5 ml/15 l +
Neem Oil 0.2%) followed by Fosetyl-Al @0.1% at 10 days interval
4.09
(11.50)
338.5
T6 ST-carbendazim 12%+Mancozeb 63% @g/kg+SD-captan 70%+Hexaconazole 5% WP @ 0.1%
(Imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 7.5 ml/15 l + Neem Oil 0.2%) + captan 70%+Hexaconazole 5%
WP@0.1+Fosetyl-Al @ 0.1% (Imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 7.5 ml/15 l + Neem Oil 0.2%) %)
followed by Fosetyl-Al @0.1% at 30 days intervals
4.79
(12.47)
324.8
T7 Control 28.54
(32.16)
225.7
SEM+ _ 1.50 32.16
CD at _ 0.528 11.29

26. Integrated disease management of Foliar bight disease of onion
Treatment combination were as follows
F0P0B0 No Treatment (control)
F0P0B1 ST by root dip with T. viride (Tv-1)
F0P0B2 ST by root dip with T.harzianum (Th-1)
F0P1B0 Three sprays with C.indica
F0P1B1 ST by root dip with T.viride (Tv-1)+ 3 sprays with C. indica
F0P1B2 ST by root dip with T.harzianum (Th-1)+ Three sprays with C. indica
F0P2B0 Three sprays with C.longa
F0P2B1 ST by root dip with T.viride (Tv-1)+ 3 sprays with C. longa
F0P2B2 ST by root dip with T.harzianum (Th-1)+ 3 sprays with C. longa
F1P0B0 Three sprays with mancozeb
F1P0B1 ST by root dip with T.viride (Tv-1)+ 3 sprays with mancozeb
F1P0B2 ST by root dip with T.harzianum (Th-1)+ 3 sprays with mancozeb
F1P1B0 Two sprays with mancozeb + one spray with C.indica
F1P1B1 ST by root dip with T.viride (Tv-1)+ two sprays with mancozeb+ One spray with C.indica
Efath Shahanz et al. (2012),
Kashmir

27. Continue..
F1P1B2 ST by root dip with T. harzianume (Th-1)+ two sprays with mancozeb + One spray with C. indica
F1P2B0 Two sprays with mancozeb + one spray with C. longa
F1P2B1 ST by root dip with T.viride (Tv-1)+ two sprays with mancozeb+ One spray with C. longa
F1P2B2 ST by root dip with T. harzianum (Th-1)+ two sprays with mancozeb+ One spray with C. longa
F2P0B0 Three sprays with hexaconazole
F2P0B1 ST by root dip with T.viride (Tv-1)+ Three sprays of hexaconazole.
F2P0B2 ST by root dip with T. harzianum (Th-1)+ Three sprays of hexaconazole
F2P1B0 Two sprays with hexaconazole + one spray with C. indica
F2P1B1 ST by root dip with T.viride (Tv-1)+ Two sprays with hexaconazole + one spray with C. indica
F2P1B2 ST by root dip with T. harzianum (Th-1)+ Two sprays with hexaconazole + one spray with C. indica
F2P2B0 Two sprays with hexaconazole + one spray with C. longa
F2P2B1 ST by root dip with T.viride (Tv-1)+ Two sprays with hexaconazole + one spray with C. longa
F2P2B2 ST by root dip with T. harzianum (Th-1)+ Two sprays with hexaconazole + one spray with C. longa
* ST= Seed treatment Efath Shahnaz et al. (2012) Kashmir

28. Table 4: Main effect of different treatments in the integrated disease
management of onion foliar blight
Per cent disease intensity at different standard weeks
Main effects 6 SW 8 SW 10 SW 12 SW
1st
year
2nd
year
Pooled 1st year 2nd
year
Pooled 1st year 2nd
year
Pooled 1st
year
2nd
year
Pooled
F0 21.19 12.35 16.77 21.10 13.84 17.47 24.43 14.66 19.54 43.20 15.81 29.50
F1 17.42 8.27 12.85 17.63 9.69 13.66 20.73 11.11 15.93 32.16 12.91 22.55
F2 18.00 9.01 13.51 18.36 10.57 14.47 21.27 11.76 16.51 32.35 13.59 22.97
C.D (p=0.05) 0.48 0.64 0.44 0.54 0.61 0.45 0.43 0.51 0.37 1.41 0.42 0.84
B0 19.83 10.74 15.29 19.83 12.28 16.05 22.99 13.32 18.16 38.77 14.80 26.78
B1 18.41 9.55 13.98 18.70 10.96 14.84 21.99 11.99 16.99 34.94 13.68 24.31
B2 18.38 9.35 13.86 18.56 10.86 14.71 21.46 12.20 16.83 34.04 13.82 23.93
C.D (p=0.05) 0.48 0.64 0.44 0.54 0.61 0.45 0.43 0.51 0.37 1.41 0.42 0.84
P0 17.62 8.66 13.14 17.97 10.18 14.08 21.11 11.53 16.32 32.97 13.23 23.09
P1 19.54 10.56 15.05 19.58 11.98 15.78 22.80 13.06 17.93 37.95 14.55 26.24
P2 19.46 10.42 14.94 15.54 11.94 15.74 22.55 12.92 17.74 36.82 14.53 25.68
C.D (p=0.05) 0.48 0.64 0.44 0.54 0.61 0.45 0.43 0.51 0.37 1.41 0.42 0.84
Efath Shahanz et al. (2012),
Kashmir

29. Table 5: Evaluation of Integrated disease management practices against the Powdery
mildew, Anthracnose and Die back disease of Chilli.
Table 5: Effect of IDM module
Treatments Powdery
mildew
incidenc
e %
Per cent
disease
control as
compared
to without
IDM
Anthracn
ose
incidenc
e on
leaves
(%)
Per cent
disease
control as
compared
to without
IDM
Fruit
infection
(%)
Per cent
disease
control as
compared to
without IDM
Plant
mortality
/ die back
(%)
Per cent
disease
control as
compared
to without
IDM
NS-1701 with
IDM
2.5 60.3 13.2 40.8 16.3 47.6 4.6 55.4
NS-1701
without IDM
6.3 22.3 31.1 16.1
VNR-435 with
IDM
3.1 47.5 17.4 45.9 21.3 44.2 2.6 77.2
VNR-435
without IDM
5.9 32.2 38.2 11.4
Tejaswini with
IDM
5.1 54.5 22.6 51.2 31.4 28.5 9.7 34.4
Tejeswini
without IDM
11.2 46.3 43.9 23.8
CD at (0.05) 1.51 7.92 9.48 39.0 5.23
S.C Yadav et al. (2013) Chhattisgarh

30. Table 6: Evaluation of different fungicide modules for the management diseases in
Tomato (Damping off, Fusarium wilt, Collar rot (2014-2017)
Treat
men
ts
Treatment combinations
T1 Treatment with biological control
i) ST –seed pro, seed priming @ 4g/kg ii) soil application @10 g/kg, ii) SD @ 5% and three sprays with seed pro (1.0)
at 10 days interval
T2 Treatment with fungicides:
ST- captan 50% WP (2g/kg)+SD-Fosetyl A1 80% WP @ 0.1%+spray copper hydroxide 77% WP (2.0g/l) at 3-5 leaf
stage. Seedling dip with 0.1% (carbendizam 12%+Mancozeb 63% WP)+Spray copper hydroxide 77% WP (2.0g/l) on
25 DAT+spray with Fenamidone 10% + Mancozb 50% WDG (0.25%) two to three times fro 45 DAT at 10 days intrvals
T3 Treatment with Insecticides:
Main field treatment : spray with Acephate 75% WP @ 1.5 g/l on 10 DAT+ spray with Fipronil 5% SC @ 1.5 ml/l on
20 DAT+sprays with Imidaclopride 70% WG @ 2g/l 15 l on 40 DAT.
T4 Treatment with fungicides and insecticides
ST- captan 50% WP (2g/kg)+SD-Fosetyl A1 80% WP @ 0.1%+spray copper hydroxide 77% WP (2.0g/l) at 3-5 leaf
stage. Seedling dip with 0.1% (carbendizam 12%+Mancozeb 63% WP)+Spray copper hydroxide 77% WP (2.0g/l) on
25 DAT+spray with Fenamidone 10% + Mancozb 50% WDG (0.25%) two to three times fro 45 DAT at 10 days intrvals
and Main field treatment : spray with Acephate 75% WP @ 1.5 g/l on 10 DAT+ spray with Fipronil 5% SC @ 1.5 ml/l
on 20 DAT+sprays with Imidaclopride 70% WG @ 2g/l 15 l on 40 DAT
T5 Integrated disease management
Treatment with biological control
i) ST –seed pro, seed priming @ 4g/kg ii) soil application @10 g/kg, ii) SD @ 5% and three sprays with seed pro (1.0)
at 10 days interval
D Anitha Kumari et al. (2014-18),
Telangana

31. Table 6: Evaluation of different fungicide modules for the management diseases in
Tomato (Damping off, Fusarium wilt, Collar rot (2014-2017)
Treat
men
ts
Early blight PDI Mean
Late blight PDI Mean
Bacterial leaf spot PDI Mean
2014-
15
15-16 16-17 17-18 2014-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 2014-
15
15-16 16-17 17-18
T1
18.23
(25.25)
20.60
(26.88)
15.00
(22.71)
18.00
(25.09)
17.96
(24.98)
15.30
(23.04)
10.47
(18.51)
10.00
(18.42)
12.50
(20.70)
12.07
(20.17)
7.80
(16.19)
10.73
(19.06)
5.00
(12.74)
5.73
(13.81)
7.32
(15.4
5)
T2
18.93
(25.51)
20.97
(26.76)
15.00
(22.59)
16.20
(23.73)
17.78
(24.65)
12.40
(20.57)
8.37
(16.74)
7.33
(15.65)
10.00
(18.42)
9.53
(17.85)
10.50
(18.88)
12.50
(20.67)
6.00
(14.04)
6.83
(15.14)
8.96
(17.1
8)
T3
25.70
(30.42)
26.10
(30.64)
21.33
(27.50)
24.27
(29.49)
24.35
(29.51)
20.10
(26.60)
15.37
(22.90)
13.00
(21.06)
15.57
(23.23)
16.01
(23.45)
11.20
(19.45)
13.43
(21.42)
5.00
(12.74)
5.10
(13.04)
8.68
(16.6
6)
T4
12.90
(20.96)
14.83
(22.37)
8.33
(16.75)
11.00
(19.36)
11.77
(19.86)
14.00
(21.94)
8.63
(17.02)
7.00
(15.10)
10.23
(18.64)
9.97
(18.18)
6.30
(14.34)
8.30
(16.68)
4.00
(11.28)
4.50
(12.21)
5.78
(13.6
3)
T5
14.87
(22.61)
12.43
(20.61)
6.67
(14.89)
7.17
(15.50)
10.28
(18.40)
12.30
(20.48)
6.63
(14.78)
4.67
(12.13)
7.03
(15.37)
7.66
(15.69)
5.70
(13.70)
6.00
(14.14)
3.67
(10.76)
3.33
(10.50)
4.68
(12.2
8)
T6
24.10
(29.38)
28.53
(32.23)
24.67
(29.77)
27.33
(31.52)
26.16
(30.73)
22.50
(28.28)
18.60
(25.53)
14.33
(22.21)
17.00
(24.32)
18.11
(25.09)
12.30
(20.46)
14.50
(22.24)
6.67
(14.89)
8.40
(16.82)
10.47
(18.6
0)
CD
(5%)
3.99 7.42 4.15 2.15 2.41 2.66 6.11 4.91 1.79 1.18 3.46 4.29 NS 1.39 1.74
CV 8.53 15.35 10.20 6.81 8.85 6.25 17.47 17.47 8.15 6.40 2.62 12.36 13.51 13.51 15.12
D Anitha Kumari et al. (2014-18), Telangana

32. Conclusion
From the forgoing discussion it can be concluded that cultural, biological, physical and
chemical management practices are promising techniques to reduces the plant
diseases. Hence, Integrated disease management (IDM) strategies proved to be for
the management of these diseases together and reduce the problems of plant
health hazards and environmental pollution.
The integrated disease control application of
 Soil solarization,
 Bio-control agents (T. viride, T. harzianum, Bacillus subtilis, Pseudomonas
fluorencens, Paecilomyces lilacinus etc.)
 Botaniclas ( Naffatia and neem extract)
 Fertilizers and organics (Neem seed cake, Pongamia glabra, NPK PSB) green leaf
manures like neem,Eucalyptus, citriopra etc)
 Fungicides (carbndazim, vitavax, pyraclostrobin, copper oxychloride etc) and
 Bactericide (strepto cycline, Plantomycin) by the different methods like seed
treatment, soil application, seeding dip and drenching not only manage the soil
borne diseases but also enhance growth and production of vegetable crops

33. References
• References
• Bhagat S, Tripathi AK, Ahmad I, Birah A, Sharma OP, Singh N. Integrated disease management for tomato in
island ecosystem of Andaman, Indian Journal of Horticulture. 2015; 72(1):67-72.
• Chaerani R, Groenworld R, Stam P, Voorrips RE. Assessment of early blight (Alternaria solani) resistance in
tomato using a droplet inoculation method, Journal of General Plant Pathology. 2007; 73:96-103.
• Datar VV, Mayee CD. Assessment of loss in tomato yield due to early blight, Indian Phytopathology. 1981;
34:191- 195.
• Latunde Dada AO. Biological control of southern blight disease of tomato caused by Sclerotium rolfsii with
simplified mycelia formulations of Trichoderma koningii, Plant Pathology. 1993; 42:522-529.
• Lebeda A, Buczkowski J. Fusarium oxysporum, Fusarium solani (tube test). In: Lebeda A. (ed.). Methods of
Testing Vegetable Crops for Resistance to Plant Pathogens, VHJ Sempra, Research Institute of Vegetable
growing and Breeding, Olomouc, Czech Republic. 1986, 247-249.
• Mandal AK, Maurya PK, Dutta S, Chattopadhyay A. Effective Management of Major Tomato Diseases in the
Gangetic Plains of Eastern India through Integrated Approach , Agricultural Research & Technology: Open
Access Journal. 2017; l(10): 5.
• Manoranjitham SK, Prakasam V, Rajappan K, Amutha
• G. Effect of two antagonists on damping off disease of tomato, Indian Pyhtopathology. 2000; 53(4):441-
443.
• Mayee CD, Datar VV, Phytopathometry, Technical Bulletin-1 (Special Bulletin-3) Marathwada Agricultural
University, Parbhani, Maharashtra, India, 1986, 95.
• Mudyiwa RM, Paul C, Marjory T, Primrose N. Evaluation of Trichoderma harzianum in controlling damping-
off (Pythium spp) on tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) seedling varieties. Annals of Biological Research,
2016; 7(6):6-11.

34. • Muniyappa V, Jalikop SH, Saikia AK, Chennarayappa, Shivashankar G, Ishwarabhat A, Ramappa HK.
Reaction of Lycopersicon cultivars and wild accessions to Tomato leaf curl virus. Euphytica, 199l; 56:37-41.
• Nowicki M, Kozik EU, Foolad MR. Late blight of tomato. Translational genomics for crop breeding, volume I:
biotic stress. 1st edn. Varshney RK, Tuberosa R (eds) Wiley, Hoboken, 2013
• Ramyabharathi SA, Meena B, Raguchander T. Induction of chitinase and b-1,3- glucanase PR proteins in
tomato through liquid formulated Bacillus subtilis EPCO 16 against Fusarium wilt. Journal of Today’s
Biology Science Research and Review 2012; 1(1):50-60
• Sadashiva AT, Reddy M, Reddy K, Krishna M, Singh TH. Breeding tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) for
combined resistance to bacterial wilt and tomato leaf curl virus. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Vegetables India, 2002, 125-133.
• Sharma RC, Sharma JN. Challenging problems in horticulture and Forest pathology. New Delhi: Indus
publishing Company, 2005.
• Sokhi SS, Thind TS, Dhillon HS. Late Blight of potato and tomato. Punjab Agricultural University,
Ludhiana. Directorate of research publication. 1993, 19.