Field Pea (<i>Pisum sativum</i>) Diseases of Major Importance and Their Management in Ethiopia, a Review

Zenebe Wubshet Hordofa; Zelalem Tamiru

doi:doi:10.11648/j.aff.20231205.11

| Peer-Reviewed

Field Pea (Pisum sativum) Diseases of Major Importance and Their Management in Ethiopia, a Review

Zenebe Wubshet Hordofa, Zelalem Tamiru

Published in Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (Volume 12, Issue 5)

Received: 28 August 2023 Accepted: 15 September 2023 Published: 27 September 2023

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

The field pea (Pisum sativum), is a significant legume crop that enhances soil fertility while providing curtail human nourishment. However, due to biotic factors like diseases, its productivity is quite low (1.67 t/ha). Hence, the objective of this study is to provide insight into the economic significance, distribution, and current management strategies for these most significant diseases as well as to establish future approaches. The current significant diseases affecting field pea production include fungal diseases such Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta pisi), powdery (Erysiphe pisi), and downy mildews, Fusarium wilt, and rust. The most severe of these are Aschochyta blight and powdery mildew, which on field pea in larger areas result in significance yield losses (30-75% and 50-86%, respectively), and under favorable environmental conditions, 100% losses can be expected. The majority of small-scale farmers in impoverished nations like Ethiopia, where these pests cause serious losses, cannot afford the chemical pesticides that are the mainstay of existing pest control tactics. Therefore, research on host pant resistance for these pests’ management techniques and farmers to better understand frequent symptoms, whether on the field or in storage conditions, must be major areas of focus for reducing impact in the future.

Published in	Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (Volume 12, Issue 5)
DOI	10.11648/j.aff.20231205.11
Page(s)	134-144
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Ascochyta Blight, Powdery Mildew, Disease Complex, Field Pea, Management

References

[1]	Abayechew, D., Guteta, N. and Wariyo, A., 2022. Efficacy of Fungicides against Powdery Mildew (Pseudoidium jatrophae) at Alage and Koka Districts of Ethiopia. J Plant Pathol Microbiol, 13, p. 623.
[2]	Abo Ertiro, T., 2020. Genetic variability and traits association among field pea (pisum sativum l.) genotypes evaluated at Asasa and Bekoji, south east highlands of Ethiopia (Doctoral dissertation, Haramaya University).
[3]	Ahmed, H., Chang, K. F., Hwang, S. F., Fu, H., Zhou, Q., Strelkov, S., Conner, R. and Gossen, B., 2015. Morphological characterization of fungi associated with the ascochyta blight complex and pathogenic variability of Mycosphaerella pinodes on field pea crops in central Alberta. The Crop Journal, 3 (1), pp. 10-18.
[4]	Ahmed, H. F., Seleiman, M. F., Al-Saif, A. M., Alshiekheid, M. A., Battaglia, M. L. and Taha, R. S., 2021. Biological control of celery powdery mildew disease caused by Erysiphe heraclei DC in vitro and in vivo conditions. Plants, 10 (11), p. 2342.
[5]	Ale-Agha, N., Boyle, H., Braun, U., Butin, H., Jage, H., Kummer, V. and Shin, H. D., 2008. Taxonomy, host range and distribution of some powdery mildew fungi (Erysiphales). Schlechtendalia, 17, pp. 39-54.
[6]	Andualem, M., Zegeye, W., Asaye, G., Dires, G., Birhanie, M. and Legesse, Z., 2020. Fungicidal Management of Field Pea (Pisum sativam L.) Powdery Mildew (Erysiphe polygoni DC) Disease. Abyssinia Journal of Science and Technology, 5 (2), pp. 29-37.
[7]	Anonymous. 2008. Ascochyta blights of field peas. Online. Ministry of Agric., Gov. of Saskatchewan, Regina, SK, Canada.
[8]	Attanayake, R. N., Glawe, D. A., McPhee, K. E., Dugan, F. M. and Chen, W., 2010. Erysiphe trifolii–a newly recognized powdery mildew pathogen of pea. Plant pathology, 59 (4), pp. 712-720.
[9]	Assen, K. Y., 2020. Response of Field pea (Pisum sativum L.) Genotypes to Ascochyta Blight (Mycosphaerella pinodes) disease in Arsi highlands, Southeastern Ethiopia. EPH- International Journal of Science and Engineering (ISSN: 2454-2016), 6 (4), pp. 01-12.
[10]	Bailey, K. L., Gossen, B. D., Lafond, G. P., Watson, P. R. and Derksen, D. A., 2001. Effect of tillage and crop rotation on root and foliar diseases of wheat and pea in Saskatchewan from 1991 to 1998: Univariate and multivariate analyses. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 81 (4), pp. 789-803.
[11]	Ball BC, Bingham I, Rees RM, Watson CA, Littlerock A., 2005. The role of crop rotations in determining soil structure and crop growth conditions. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 85, 557–577.
[12]	Barilli, E., Cobos, M. J. and Rubiales, D., 2016. Clarification on host range of Didymella pinodes the causal agent of pea Ascochyta blight. Frontiers in plant science, 7, p. 592.
[13]	Berhane, T. M., Levy, J., Krekeler, M. P. and Danielson, N. D., 2016. Adsorption of bisphenol A and ciprofloxacin by palygorskite-montmorillonite: effect of granule size, solution chemistry and temperature. Applied Clay Science, 132, pp. 518-527. 83.
[14]	Bowness, R., Gossen, B. D., Chang, K. F., Willenborg, C. J., Conner, R. L. and Strelkov, S. E., 2021. Effect of fungicide application technology on seed yield in field pea under variable Mycosphaerella blight pressure. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology, 43 (5), pp. 680-693.
[15]	Bradshaw, M., 2020. Epidemiology and biology of powdery mildews and their host plants. University of Washington, pp 1-10.
[16]	Bretage, T. W., Keane, P. J. and Price, T. V., 2006. The epidemiology and control of ascochyta blight in field peas: a review. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 57 (8), pp. 883-902.
[17]	Chilvers, M. I., Rogers, J. D., Dugan, F. M., Stewart, J. E., Chen, W., and Peever, T. L. 2009. Didymella pisi sp. nov., the teleomorph of Ascochyta pisi. Mycol. Res. 113: 391-400.
[18]	CSA (Central Statistics Agency), 2020. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Central statistical agency agricultural sample survey, Pp39.
[19]	Davidson, J. A. and Kimber, R. B., 2007. Integrated disease management of ascochyta blight in pulse crops. In Ascochyta blights of grain legumes (pp. 99-110). Springer, Dordrecht.
[20]	Davidson, J. A., 2012. Epidemiology and management of ascochyta blight of field pea (Pisum sativum) in South Australia (Doctoral dissertation).
[21]	Davidson, J. A., Krysinska-Kaczmarek, M., Wilmshurst, C. J., McKay, A. and Scott, E. S., 2011. Distribution and survival of ascochyta blight pathogens in field-pea-cropping soils of Australia. Plant disease, 95 (10), pp. 1217-1223.
[22]	Davidson, J. A., Walela, C., Day, S., Roberts, P. and McMurray, L., 2022. Evaluation of economic fungicide strategies for control of ascochyta blight in field pea in southern Australia. Australasian Plant Pathology, 51 (5), pp. 495-505.
[23]	Elsharkawy, M. M., Kamel, S. M. and El-Khateeb, N. M., 2014. Biological Control of Powdery and Downy Mildews of Cucumber Under Greenhouse Conditions. Egyptian Journal of Biological Pest Control, 24 (2).
[24]	Ertiro, T. A. and Haile, G. A., 2022. Field pea Production and constraints in the Highlands of Ethiopia a Review Article, pp: (59-71).
[25]	Esmaeili Taheri, A., Chatterton, S., Foroud, N. A., Gossen, B. D. and McLaren, D. L., 2017. Identification and community dynamics of fungi associated with root, crown, and foot rot of field pea in western Canada. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 147 (3), pp. 489-500.
[26]	Farr, D. F., Rossman, A. Y., Palm, M. E., and McCray, E. B. 2010. Fungal Databases. Online. Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory, USDA-ARS, Washinton, DC.
[27]	Fondevilla, S., Rotter, B., Krezdorn, N., Jüngling, R., Winter, P. and Rubiales, D., 2014. Identification of genes involved in resistance to Didymella pinodes in pea by deep Super SAGE transcriptome profiling. Plant molecular biology reporter, 32 (1), pp. 258-269.
[28]	Gebreslassie, B. and Abraha, B., 2016. Distribution and productivity of Dekoko (Pisum sativum var. abyssinicum A. Braun) in Ethiopia. Glob J Sci Front Res Biol Sci, 16, pp. 45-57.
[29]	Gorfu, D. and Sangchote, S., 2005. Fungi associated with field pea seeds from Ethiopia and seed transmission of Ascochyta pinodes. Seed Science and Technology, 33 (2), pp. 387-396.
[30]	Gossen, B. D., Peng, G., Wolf, T. M., and McDonald, M. R. 2008. Improving spray retention to enhance the efficacy of foliar applied disease and pest management products in field and row crops. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 30: 505–516.
[31]	Gudero Mengesha, G., Terefe, H., Yae, A. J., Arato, A. A., Betire, M. G., Samuel Shago, T., Bires, Z. F., Borano, B. B. and Abebe, S. M., 2022. Integration of host resistance and fungicides reduced ascochyta blight pressure and minimised yield loss in field pea (Pisum sativum L.) in southern Ethiopia. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Soil & Plant Science, 72 (1), pp. 971-986.
[32]	Gufi, Y., Tsegay, A., Ruelle, M. L., Teka, K., Tewold Berhan, S. and Power, A. G., 2022. Field pea diversity and its contribution to farmers' livelihoods in northern Ethiopia. Legume Science.
[33]	Humphry M, Reinstädler A, Ivanov S, Bisseling T, Panstruga R., 2011. Durable broad-spectrum powdery mildew resistance in pea er1 plants is conferred by natural loss-of-function mutations in PsMLO1. Mol Plant Pathol doi: 10.1111 /J.13 64-3703.2011.00718.
[34]	Hwang, S. F., Conner, R. L., Chang, K. F., Gossen, B. D., Su, H., Howard, R. J. and Turnbull, G. D., 2006. Impact of seeding rate and depth on Mycosphaerella blight and seed yield of field pea. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 86 (3), pp. 845-853.
[35]	Jarvis WR, Gubler WD, Grove GG., 2002. Epidemiology of powdery mildews in agricultural pathosystem. In: Bélanger RR, Bushnell WR, Dik AJ, Carver TLW (eds) The powdery mildews, a comprehensive treatise. APS Press, St. Paul, pp 169–199.
[36]	Jha A. C., Sonika J., Reena, Anil. and Parmendra S., 2019. Loss Assessment caused by Economically Important Pea (Pisum sativum L.) Diseases and their Management in Hills of Doda (Jammu & Kashmir) under Field Condition, pp 170-176.
[37]	Kebede, E., 2020. Grain legumes production and productivity in Ethiopian smallholder agricultural system, contribution to livelihoods and the way forward. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 6 (1), p. 1722353.
[38]	Keirnan, E. C., Davidson, J. A., Correll, R. L. and Scott, E. S., 2020. Host range investigation of Phoma koolunga, a causal agent of ascochyta blight of field pea. Australasian Plant Pathology, 49 (6), pp. 707-719.
[39]	Keneni, G. and Jarso, M., 2008. Performance of Released Faba Bean and Field Pea Varieties for Important Traits under Sole and Mixed Cultures III. Diseases incidence. Trop. Agric, 41 (3216), pp. 010065-009.
[40]	Khan, T. N., Timmerman-Vaughan, G. M., Rubiales, D., Warkentin, T. D., Siddique, K. H. M., Erskine, W. and Barbetti, M. J., 2013. Didymella pinodes and its management in field pea: challenges and opportunities. Field Crops Research, 148, pp. 61-77.
[41]	Khani, M., 2015. Aspects of epidemiology of Phoma koolunga (ascochyta blight of field pea) (Doctoral dissertation).
[42]	Khani, M., Davidson, J. A., Sosnowski, M. R. and Scott, E. S., 2016. Survival, transmission and control of Phoma koolunga in field pea seed and reaction of field pea genotypes to the pathogen. Australasian Plant Pathology, 45 (1), pp. 91-102.
[43]	Kiss, L., Vaghefi, N., Bransgrove, K., Dearnaley, J. D., Takamatsu, S., Tan, Y. P., Marston, C., Liu, S. Y., Jin, D. N., Adorada, D. L. and Bailey, J., 2020. The recent introductions and multiple hosts range expansion events to the rediscovery of Salmonomyces as a new lineage of the Erysiphales. Frontiers in microbiology, 11, p. 1571.
[44]	Lahlali, R., Ezrari, S., Radouane, N., Kenfaoui, J., Esmaeel, Q., El Hamss, H., Belabess, Z. and Barka, E. A., 2022. Biological control of plant pathogens: A global perspective. Microor- ganisms, 10 (3), p. 596.
[45]	Lee, R. C., Grime, C. R., O'Driscoll, K., Khentry, Y., Farfan-Caceres, L., Tahghighi, H. and Kamphuis, L. G., 2022. Field pea (Pisum sativum L.) germplasm screening for seedling ascochyta blight resistance and genome wide association studies reveal loci associated with resistance to Peyronellaea pinodes and Ascochyta koolunga. Phytopathology,
[46]	Liu, N., Xu, S., Yao, X., Zhang, G., Mao, W., Hu, Q., Feng, Z. and Gong, Y., 2016. Studies on the control of Ascochyta blight in field peas (Pisum sativum L.) caused by Ascochyta pinodes in Zhejiang Province, China. Frontiers in microbiology, 7, p. 481.
[47]	McDonald, G. K. and Peck, D., 2009. Effects of crop rotation, residue retention and sowing time on the incidence and survival of ascochyta blight and its effect on grain yield of field peas (Pisum sativum L.). Field crops research, 111 (1-2), pp. 11-21.
[48]	Mieslerova, B., Cook, R. T., Wheater, C. P. and Lebeda, A., 2022. Ecology of Powdery Mildews–Influence of Abiotic Factors on their Development and Epidemiology. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 41 (6), pp. 365-390.
[49]	Mihiretu, A. and Assefa, N., 2019. Comparative evaluation and demonstration of field pea production practices in intermediate altitudes of Northeastern Amhara, Ethiopia. Turkish Journal of Agriculture-Food Science and Technology, 7 (11), pp. 1901- 19 07.
[50]	Nisar M, Ghafoor A, Khan MR, Qureshi AS (2006). Screening of Pisum sativum L. germplasm against Erysiphe pisi. Botany 48 (2): 33-37.
[51]	Ogaji, Y. O., Lee, R. C., Sawbridge, T. I., Cocks, B. G., Daetwyler, H. D. and Kaur, S., 2022. De Novo Long-Read Whole-Genome Assemblies and the Comparative Pan-Genome Analysis of Ascochyta Blight Pathogens Affecting Field Pea. Journal of Fungi, 8 (8), p. 884.
[52]	Ondrej M, Dostálová R, Odstrčilová L, 2005. Response of Pisum sativum germplasm resistant to Erysiphe pisi to inoculation with Erysiphe baeumleri, a new pathogen of peas. Plant Prot Sci 41: 95–103.
[53]	Pande, S., 2009. Integrated foliar diseases management of legumes.
[54]	Parihar, A. K., Dixit, G. P., Bohra, A., Sen Gupta, D., Singh, A. K., Kumar, N., Singh, D. and Singh, N. P., 2020. Genetic Advancement in dry pea (Pisum sativum L.): retrospect and prospect. In Accelerated Plant Breeding, Volume 3 (pp. 283-341). Springer, Cham.
[55]	Rana, C., Sharma, A., Rathour, R., Bansuli, Banyal, D. K., Rana, R. S. and Sharma, P., 2023. In vivo and in vitro validation of powdery mildew resistance in garden pea genotypes. Scientific Reports, 13 (1), p. 2243.
[56]	Salam, M. U., Galloway, J., Diggle, A. J., MacLeod, W. J. and Maling, T., 2011a. Predicting regional-scale spread of ascospores of Didymella pinodes causing ascochyta blight disease on field pea. Australasian Plant Pathology, 40 (6), pp. 640-647.
[57]	Salam, M. U., MacLeod, W. J., Salam, K. P., Maling, T. and Barbetti, M. J., 2011b. Impact of climate change in relation to ascochyta blight on field pea in Western Australia. Australasian Plant Pathology, 40 (4), pp. 397-406.
[58]	Sellitto, V. M., Zara, S., Fracchetti, F., Capozzi, V. and Nardi, T., 2021. Microbial biocontrol as an alternative to synthetic fungicides: Boundaries between pre-and postharvest applications on vegetables and fruits. Fermentation, 7 (2), p. 60.
[59]	Sharma, K. K., Sharma, L., Rana, D. S., Sharma, G., Rawat, S. and Sharma, P., 2022. Current Status of Vegetable Pea (Pisum Sativum Var. Hortense) Diseases and Their Management Strategies. In Diseases of Horticultural Crops (pp. 523-544). Apple Academic Press.
[60]	Singh, J., Dhall, R. K. and Aujla, I. S., 2015. Characterization of resistance response of garden pea (Pisum sativum L.) against powdery mildew (Erysiphe pisi DC) in sub-tropical plains of India. Sabrao J. Breed. Genet, 47, pp. 384-393.
[61]	Skoglund, L. G., Harveson, R. M., Chen, W., Dugan, F., Schwartz, H. F., Markell, S. G., Porter, L., Burrows, M. L. and Goswami, R., 2011. Ascochyta blight of peas. Plant Health Progress, 12 (1), p. 29.
[62]	Smith PH, Foster EM, Boyd LA, Brown JKM,. 1996. The early development of Erysiphe pisi on Pisum sativum L. Plant Pathol.
[63]	Teshome, A., 2015. Pea weevil (Bruchus pisorum L.) resistance and genetic diversity in field Pea (Pisum sativum L.) (No. 2015: 81).
[64]	Teshome, A., Mendesil, E., Geleta, M., Andargie, D., Anderson, P., Rämert, B., Seyoum, E., Hillbur, Y., Dagne, K. and Bryngelsson, T., 2014. Screening the primary gene pool of field pea (Pisum sativum L. subsp. sativum) in Ethiopia for resistance against pea weevil (Bruchus pisorum L.). Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 62 (4), pp. 525-538.
[65]	Teshome, E. and Tegegn, A., 2017. Comparative Study of Powdery Mildew (Erysiphe polygoni) Disease Severity and Its Effect on Yield and Yield Components of Field Pea (Pisum sativum L.) in the Southeastern Oromia, Ethiopia. J Plant Pathol Microbiol, 8 (410), p. 2.
[66]	Tivoli, B. and Banniza, S., 2007. Comparison of the epidemiology of ascochyta blights on grain legumes. In Ascochyta blights of grain legumes (pp. 59-76). Springer, Dordrecht.
[67]	Tran, H. S., 2017. Black spot disease complex in field pea–pathogens involved and interactions with host resistance.
[68]	[USDA] United State Department of Agriculture. 2022. World agricultural production. Circular Series WAP 4–22, Foreign Agricultural Service, United State Department of Agriculture. pp. 37. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/ circulars/ produ- ction.pdf
[69]	Villegas-Fernández, Á. M., Amarna, A. A., Moral, J. and Rubiales, D., 2021. Crop diversification to control powdery mildew in pea. Agronomy, 11 (4), p. 690.
[70]	Walters DR, Bingham IJ, 2007. Influence of nutrition on disease development caused by fungal pathogens: Implications for plant disease control. Annals of Applied Biology 151, 307–324.
[71]	Warkentin, T. D., Smýkal, P., Coyne, C. J., Weeden, N., Domoney, C., Bing, D. J., Leonforte, A., Xuxiao, Z., Dixit, G. P., Boros, L. and McPhee, K. E., 2015. Pea. Grain legumes, pp. 37-83.
[72]	Yimam, K., Robsa, A., Yilma, G. and Abo, T., 2020. Evaluation of Field Pea (Pisum sativum L.) genotypes for yield and yield attributing traits at high land of Arsi, South East Ethiopia. Science Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, 8 (6), pp. 73-80.
[73]	Zhang, J. X., Fernando, W. G. D. and Xue, A. G., 2005. Effect of residue type and burial depth on survival of Mycosphaerella pinodes in Manitoba. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology, 27 (1), pp. 132-136.
[74]	Zhu, L., Wang, Y., Lu, J., Liu, S., Min, Y., Liu, X., Qiu, Y., Hu, H. and Zhou, R., 2021. Complete genome sequence of Bacillus badius NBPM-293, a plant growth-promoting strain isolated from rhizosphere soil. Microbiology Resource Announcements, 10 (45), pp. e00977-21.
[75]	Wspanialy, P. and Moussa, M., 2016. Early powdery mildew detection system for application in greenhouse automation. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 127, pp. 487-494.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Zenebe Wubshet Hordofa, Zelalem Tamiru. (2023). Field Pea (Pisum sativum) Diseases of Major Importance and Their Management in Ethiopia, a Review. Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 12(5), 134-144. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20231205.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Zenebe Wubshet Hordofa; Zelalem Tamiru. Field Pea (Pisum sativum) Diseases of Major Importance and Their Management in Ethiopia, a Review. Agric. For. Fish. 2023, 12(5), 134-144. doi: 10.11648/j.aff.20231205.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Zenebe Wubshet Hordofa, Zelalem Tamiru. Field Pea (Pisum sativum) Diseases of Major Importance and Their Management in Ethiopia, a Review. Agric For Fish. 2023;12(5):134-144. doi: 10.11648/j.aff.20231205.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.aff.20231205.11,
  author = {Zenebe Wubshet Hordofa and Zelalem Tamiru},
  title = {Field Pea (Pisum sativum) Diseases of Major Importance and Their Management in Ethiopia, a Review},
  journal = {Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries},
  volume = {12},
  number = {5},
  pages = {134-144},
  doi = {10.11648/j.aff.20231205.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20231205.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.aff.20231205.11},
  abstract = {The field pea (Pisum sativum), is a significant legume crop that enhances soil fertility while providing curtail human nourishment. However, due to biotic factors like diseases, its productivity is quite low (1.67 t/ha). Hence, the objective of this study is to provide insight into the economic significance, distribution, and current management strategies for these most significant diseases as well as to establish future approaches. The current significant diseases affecting field pea production include fungal diseases such Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta pisi), powdery (Erysiphe pisi), and downy mildews, Fusarium wilt, and rust. The most severe of these are Aschochyta blight and powdery mildew, which on field pea in larger areas result in significance yield losses (30-75% and 50-86%, respectively), and under favorable environmental conditions, 100% losses can be expected. The majority of small-scale farmers in impoverished nations like Ethiopia, where these pests cause serious losses, cannot afford the chemical pesticides that are the mainstay of existing pest control tactics. Therefore, research on host pant resistance for these pests’ management techniques and farmers to better understand frequent symptoms, whether on the field or in storage conditions, must be major areas of focus for reducing impact in the future.},
 year = {2023}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Field Pea (Pisum sativum) Diseases of Major Importance and Their Management in Ethiopia, a Review
AU  - Zenebe Wubshet Hordofa
AU  - Zelalem Tamiru
Y1  - 2023/09/27
PY  - 2023
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20231205.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.aff.20231205.11
T2  - Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
JF  - Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
JO  - Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
SP  - 134
EP  - 144
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2328-5648
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20231205.11
AB  - The field pea (Pisum sativum), is a significant legume crop that enhances soil fertility while providing curtail human nourishment. However, due to biotic factors like diseases, its productivity is quite low (1.67 t/ha). Hence, the objective of this study is to provide insight into the economic significance, distribution, and current management strategies for these most significant diseases as well as to establish future approaches. The current significant diseases affecting field pea production include fungal diseases such Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta pisi), powdery (Erysiphe pisi), and downy mildews, Fusarium wilt, and rust. The most severe of these are Aschochyta blight and powdery mildew, which on field pea in larger areas result in significance yield losses (30-75% and 50-86%, respectively), and under favorable environmental conditions, 100% losses can be expected. The majority of small-scale farmers in impoverished nations like Ethiopia, where these pests cause serious losses, cannot afford the chemical pesticides that are the mainstay of existing pest control tactics. Therefore, research on host pant resistance for these pests’ management techniques and farmers to better understand frequent symptoms, whether on the field or in storage conditions, must be major areas of focus for reducing impact in the future.
VL  - 12
IS  - 5
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Zenebe Wubshet Hordofa

Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Phytopathology and Natural Resource Research Departments, Jimma, Ethiopia
Zelalem Tamiru

Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Phytopathology and Natural Resource Research Departments, Jimma, Ethiopia

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Zenebe Wubshet Hordofa, Zelalem Tamiru. (2023). Field Pea (Pisum sativum) Diseases of Major Importance and Their Management in Ethiopia, a Review. Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 12(5), 134-144. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20231205.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Zenebe Wubshet Hordofa; Zelalem Tamiru. Field Pea (Pisum sativum) Diseases of Major Importance and Their Management in Ethiopia, a Review. Agric. For. Fish. 2023, 12(5), 134-144. doi: 10.11648/j.aff.20231205.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Zenebe Wubshet Hordofa, Zelalem Tamiru. Field Pea (Pisum sativum) Diseases of Major Importance and Their Management in Ethiopia, a Review. Agric For Fish. 2023;12(5):134-144. doi: 10.11648/j.aff.20231205.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.aff.20231205.11,
  author = {Zenebe Wubshet Hordofa and Zelalem Tamiru},
  title = {Field Pea (Pisum sativum) Diseases of Major Importance and Their Management in Ethiopia, a Review},
  journal = {Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries},
  volume = {12},
  number = {5},
  pages = {134-144},
  doi = {10.11648/j.aff.20231205.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20231205.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.aff.20231205.11},
  abstract = {The field pea (Pisum sativum), is a significant legume crop that enhances soil fertility while providing curtail human nourishment. However, due to biotic factors like diseases, its productivity is quite low (1.67 t/ha). Hence, the objective of this study is to provide insight into the economic significance, distribution, and current management strategies for these most significant diseases as well as to establish future approaches. The current significant diseases affecting field pea production include fungal diseases such Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta pisi), powdery (Erysiphe pisi), and downy mildews, Fusarium wilt, and rust. The most severe of these are Aschochyta blight and powdery mildew, which on field pea in larger areas result in significance yield losses (30-75% and 50-86%, respectively), and under favorable environmental conditions, 100% losses can be expected. The majority of small-scale farmers in impoverished nations like Ethiopia, where these pests cause serious losses, cannot afford the chemical pesticides that are the mainstay of existing pest control tactics. Therefore, research on host pant resistance for these pests’ management techniques and farmers to better understand frequent symptoms, whether on the field or in storage conditions, must be major areas of focus for reducing impact in the future.},
 year = {2023}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Field Pea (Pisum sativum) Diseases of Major Importance and Their Management in Ethiopia, a Review
AU  - Zenebe Wubshet Hordofa
AU  - Zelalem Tamiru
Y1  - 2023/09/27
PY  - 2023
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20231205.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.aff.20231205.11
T2  - Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
JF  - Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
JO  - Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
SP  - 134
EP  - 144
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2328-5648
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20231205.11
AB  - The field pea (Pisum sativum), is a significant legume crop that enhances soil fertility while providing curtail human nourishment. However, due to biotic factors like diseases, its productivity is quite low (1.67 t/ha). Hence, the objective of this study is to provide insight into the economic significance, distribution, and current management strategies for these most significant diseases as well as to establish future approaches. The current significant diseases affecting field pea production include fungal diseases such Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta pisi), powdery (Erysiphe pisi), and downy mildews, Fusarium wilt, and rust. The most severe of these are Aschochyta blight and powdery mildew, which on field pea in larger areas result in significance yield losses (30-75% and 50-86%, respectively), and under favorable environmental conditions, 100% losses can be expected. The majority of small-scale farmers in impoverished nations like Ethiopia, where these pests cause serious losses, cannot afford the chemical pesticides that are the mainstay of existing pest control tactics. Therefore, research on host pant resistance for these pests’ management techniques and farmers to better understand frequent symptoms, whether on the field or in storage conditions, must be major areas of focus for reducing impact in the future.
VL  - 12
IS  - 5
ER  -

Copy | Download