Effects on macronutrient contents in susceptible and resistant ridge gourd cultivars against induced population of root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita

  • Ritu Kumari PandeyEmail author
  • Dhirendra Kumar Nayak
Research Article


Macronutrient changes in Ridge gourd varieties inoculated with root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita were investigated. Observations were recorded on macronutrient modifications relating to various parameters like nitrogen, crude protein, phosphorus and potassium content during post infection periods. The variation in nitrogen, crude protein, phosphorus and potassium content in five cultivars i.e. Priya, BSS-1009, Aneeta, Aarti and Harsha were studied 30 days after inoculation. Reduced percentage of nitrogen, crude protein and phosphorus contents were observed in inoculated shoot samples than the healthy counterparts, whereas it increased in root samples. However, an increase in amount of potassium contents was observed in the diseased tissues.


Macronutrient contents Meloidogyne incognita Ridge gourd cultivars 


  1. Chakraborti V, Mishra SD (2002) Evaluation of biochemical parameters for screening resistance of chickpea cultivars against Meloidogyne incognita. Indian J Nematol 32(1):26–29Google Scholar
  2. Devaranjan K, Rajendran G (2002) Biochemical alternations in resistant and susceptible banana clones due to the burrowing nematode. Indian J Nematol 32(2):159–161Google Scholar
  3. Evans JR (1983) Nitrogen and photosynyhesis in the flag leaf of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Plant Physiol 72:297–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ganguly AK, Dasgupta DR (1983) Chemical changes in brinjal plants induced by root knot nematode Meloidogyne incognita. Indian J Entomol 45:45–47Google Scholar
  5. Howell RK, Krusberg LR (1966) Changes in concentrations of nitrogen and free and bound amino acids in alfalfa and pea infected by Ditylenchus dipsaci. Phytopathology 56:1170–1177Google Scholar
  6. Hunter AH (1958) Nutritional absorption and translocation as influenced by root-knot nematode. Soil Sci 86:245–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Krusberg LR (1963) Host response to nematode infection. Annu Rev Phytopathol 1:219–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Mohanty KC, Swain SC, Pradhan T (1995) Biochemical variations in resistant and susceptible brinjal varieties infected by root-knot nematode, M. incognita. Indian J Nematol 25:142–146Google Scholar
  9. Nayak DK (2006) Biochemical evaluation of various metabolites as influenced by root-knot nematode, M. incognita in susceptible and resistant brinjal cultivars, Ph.D. thesis submitted to the Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, BhubaneswarGoogle Scholar
  10. Nayak DK (2015) Effects of nematode infection on contents of phenolic substances as influenced by root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita in susceptible and resistant brinjal cultivars. Agric Sci Digest 35:163–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Vaitheeswaran M, Mohamed Ibrahim S, Lakshmi Narasimhan K (2005) Organic amendments for the control of root-knot nematode on Phaseolus mungo. Indian J Nematol 35(2):112–119Google Scholar
  12. Williamson VM, Gleason CA (2003) Plant-nematode interactions. Curr Opin Plant Biol 6(4):327–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Zaki F, Bhatti DS (1986) Effect on root-knot nematodes on nitrogen, phosphorus and potash in roots of susceptible and resistant bidi tobacco seedlings. Indian J Nematol 16:103–105Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Phytopathological Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Nematology, College of AgricultureOdisha University of Agriculture and TechnologyBhubaneswarIndia

Personalised recommendations