Barley diseases and their management- an Indian perspective

Abstract

Barley is an important coarse cereal, cultivated in Rabi season,
particularly in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh,
Bihar, Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir.
Currently, it covers an area of about 0.66 million hectares under
rainfed and irrigated crop. Seventy per cent produce is used for cattle
and poultry feed, 25% in industries for manufacturing malt and malt
extracts and rest 5% for human consumption. The straw is also used
for animal feed, bedding and to cover roofs of houses. Barley grains
demand is increasing continuously because of its various uses and high nutritive value. Therefore, a substantial yield gains will be needed
over the next several decades. A number of biotic and abiotic factors
pose a challenge to increase production of barley. Barley diseases
prominently rusts, net blotch, spot blotch, Septoria speckled leaf
blotch, stripe disease, powdery mildew, barley yellow dwarf and molya
disease are the major biotic constraints in enhancing the barley grain
production. Other diseases like black point and smuts, are important
from industrial point of view because these deteriorate the quality of
malt and beer. This review seeks to provide an overview of different
barley diseases and their management.

Full text

138
Wheat and Barley Research
10(3):138-150 Review Article
Barley diseases and their management: An Indian perspective
Om P. Gangwar1, Subhash C. Bhardwaj1*, Gyanendra P. Singh2, Pramod Prasad1 and Subodh
Kumar1
1ICAR-Indian Institute of Wheat and Barley Research, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, India
2ICAR-Indian Institute of Wheat and Barley Research, Karnal, India
Article history
Received: 09 Oct., 2018
Revised : 29 Nov., 2018
Accepted: 22 Dec., 2018
Citation
Gangwar OP, SC Bhardwaj, GP
Singh, P Prasad and S Kumar.
2018. Barley disease and their
management: An Indian perspective.
Wheat and Barley Research 10(3):
138-150. doi.org/10.25174/2249-
4065/2018/83844
*Corresponding author
Email: scbfdl@hotmail.com
©
Society for Advancement of Wheat and Barley Research
Abstract
Barley is an important coarse cereal, cultivated in Rabi season,
particularly in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh,
Bihar, Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir.
Currently, it covers an area of about 0.66 million hectares under
rainfed and irrigated crop. Seventy per cent produce is used for cattle
and poultry feed, 25% in industries for manufacturing malt and malt
extracts and rest 5% for human consumption. The straw is also used
for animal feed, bedding and to cover roofs of houses. Barley grains
demand is increasing continuously because of its various uses and high
nutritive value. Therefore, a substantial yield gains will be needed
over the next several decades. A number of biotic and abiotic factors
pose a challenge to increase production of barley. Barley diseases
prominently rusts, net blotch, spot blotch, Septoria speckled leaf
blotch, stripe disease, powdery mildew, barley yellow dwarf and molya
disease are the major biotic constraints in enhancing the barley grain
production. Other diseases like black point and smuts, are important
from industrial point of view because these deteriorate the quality of
malt and beer. This review seeks to provide an overview of different
barley diseases and their management.
Keywords: Barley, blotches, diseases, plant pathogens, rusts, smuts
1. Introduction
Barley (Hordeum vulgare L. ssp. vulgare, 2n=14) is a member
of family Poaceae. It is grown in Rabi season, particularly
in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh,
Bihar, Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu &
Kashmir. Barley is considered fourth largest cereal crop in
the world after maize, rice and wheat with a share of 7 %
of global cereal production. In 2017-18, 1.77 million tonnes
of barley was produced in India from 0.66 million ha
land area with productivity of 2679 kg/ha (eands.dacnet.
nic.in). It is also known as poor man’s crop because of its
low input requirement and better adaptability to drought,
salinity, alkalinity and marginal lands (Verma et al., 2012).
This cereal is adapted to dry areas characterized by erratic
rain and poor soil fertility which are often described as
low-input barley (LIB) production systems (Gyawali et
al., 2018). Barley in India is mainly used as cattle and
poultry feed followed by its utilization for malting and
beverages. Only 5% of the total production is used for
human consumption (Singh et al., 2016). In addition, it is
also consumed as energy drinks like bournvita, horlicks,
and biscuits, prepared from malt extract. In rural areas
of India, barley grains are used for preparing sattu and
missi roti especially in the tribal areas of hills and plains
(Verma et al., 2012). Barley is categorized as hulled
and hulless barley on the basis of grain type. In hulled
barley the lemma and palea are fused to the pericarp
whereas in hulless the chaff is easily separated from the
grain (Manjunatha et al., 2007). Hulless barley is mainly
preferred as food for human consumption. Because of its
multifarious utilities, nutritive value and ever-increasing
Homepage: http://epubs.icar.org.in/ejournal/index.php/JWR

Barley disease and their management an India prespective
139
industrial demand, a substantial yield gains will be needed
over the next several decades. But, a number of biotic and
abiotic stresses pose a challenge to increase the production
of barley. Like the other cereals, barley also encounter
different plant pathogens and succumb to various diseases
which result in signicant yield reduction and poor grain
quality. Mathre (1997) mentioned about 80 different
diseases caused by infectious agents in his ‘Compendium
of Barley Diseases’, however, of this number, mainly
yellow and brown rusts, covered smut, powdery mildew,
net-blotch, spot blotch, speckled leaf blotch, barley stripe,
barley yellow dwarf and molya disease are economically
important in Indian context (Table 1). Barley diseases like
yellow rust, molya and foot/root rot were also prevalent
Fungal diseases Symbol of identied major R-gene
Anthracnose Colletotrichum cereale
Common root rot and seedling blight Cochliobolus sativus
(Bipolaris sorokiniana)
Covered smut Ustilago hordei Ruh
Crown rust Puccinia coronata f. sp. hordei
Downy mildew (Crazy top) Sclerophthora rayssiae
Dwarf bunt Tilletia controversa
Ergot Claviceps purpurea
False loose smut Ustilago avenae (U. nigra)
Kernel blight (Black point) Alternaria spp., Cochliobolus sativus
Fusarium spp.
Leaf (brown) rust Puccinia hordei Rph
Loose smut Ustilago tritici (U. nuda)Run (un)
Net Type Net Blotch (NTNB) Pyrenophora teres f. teres Rpt
Powdery mildew Blumeria graminis f.sp. hordei Ml (Mla/MILa/Mlo/Reg)
Pythium root rot Pythium arrhenomanes, Pythium graminicola,
Pythium tardicrescens
Rhizoctonia root rot Rhizoctonia solani, R. oryzae
Scab (Fusarium Head Blight, FHB) Fusarium graminearum fb
Scald Rhynchosporium secalis Rrs (Rh)
Spot blotch Bipolaris sorokiniana (Drechslera sorokiniana),
Cochliobolus sativus (Teleomorph) Rcs
Spot Type Net Blotch (STNB) Pyrenophora teres f. maculata
Stem (black) rust P. graminis f. sp. tritici Rpg
Puccinia graminis f. sp. secalis
Stripe disease Drechslera (Pyrenophora) graminea Rdg (Rhg)
Septoria speckled leaf blotch (SSLB) Septoria passerinii Rsp
Take-all Gaeumannomyces graminis var tritici
Tan spot Pyrenophora tritici-repentis
Yellow (stripe) rust P. striiformis f. sp. hordei Rps
Bacterial diseases
Bacterial stripe Pseudomonas syringae pv. striafaciens
Bacterial leaf blight Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae
Basal glume rot Pseudomonas syringae pv. atrofaciens
Black chaff and bacterial streak Xanthomonas translucens pv. translucens
Nematode diseases
Cereal root knot nematode (Barley
root Knot nematode) Meloidogyne naasi, Meloidogyne chitwoodi
Molya disease Heterodera avenae, Heterodera lipjevi Rha
Root lesion nematode Pratylenchus spp.
Stunt nematode Merlinius brevidens, Tylenchorhynchus dubius
Viral diseases
Barley mosaic Barley mosaic virus (BMV)
Barley stripe mosaic Barley stripe mosaic virus (BSMV) Rsm (sm)
Barley yellow dwarf Barley yellow dwarf virus (BYDV) Ryd
Barley yellow streak mosaic Barley yellow streak mosaic virus (BYSMV)
Phytoplasmal diseases
Aster yellows Aster yellows phytoplasma
Table 1: List of barley diseases and their causal organism
and destructive at higher altitude in Ladakh region of
India (Vaish et al., 2011). Diseases occur when a susceptible
host is exposed to a virulent pathogen under favourable
environmental conditions and they may affect barley
yields from 1 to 100% depending on the susceptibility of
varieties, virulence level of pathogens, growth stage of crop

140
Wheat and Barley Research
at the time of infection, favourable weather conditions and
time of availability of inocula and nutrients. All diseases
are not important in different agro-ecological zone of
India. Stripe rust is a scourge to barley in cooler and humid
areas i.e. North Western Plain Zone (NWPZ), whereas, leaf
rust like warmer climate as in Central Zone (CZ). Powdery
mildew and smuts are of importance in cooler and humid
climate. Spot blotch, speckled leaf blotch and net blotch
are important diseases in North Eastern Plain Zone
(NEPZ) where warm and humid climate exists (Singh,
2017). In barley, the yield losses due to stripe disease were
in the range of 20–70% during 1992–1993 (Kumar et al.,
1998). Net blotch is second biotic stress, which can lead to
losses between 20 and 30%. The losses due to spot blotch
and net blotch in barley in Haryana, India were 53% in
case of susceptible cultivars (Singh, 2004). The purpose of
this review is to provide a brief summary of some of the
major diseases impacting barley in India. This updated
overview highlights the general importance of the diseases,
brief symptomatology, epidemiology, pathogen biology
and disease management strategies.
2. The barley rusts
Rust fungi are obligate biotrophic organisms that are
completely dependent on living host cells for their
nutritional requirement and the most devastating
pathogens of crop plants (Cummins and Hiratsuka,
2003; Duplessis et al., 2011). These pathogens have
evolved further to many distinct physiologic races or
pathotypes. These pathotypes cannot be distinguished
morphologically, however, can be determined by
testing host response to infection on an established set of
differentials carrying different resistance genes or their
combinations (Prashar et al., 2014). In addition, molecular
marker based methods are also used to differentiate these
physiologic forms. There are four barley rust diseases,
namely stem, stripe, leaf and crown rust, all caused by
members of the genus Puccinia, family Pucciniaceae,
order Pucciniales, class Pucciniomycetes, subphylum
Pucciniomycotina, Phylum Basidiomycota and kingdom
Fungi (Bauer et al., 2006).
Yellow (stripe) rust: Yellow rust of barley caused by Puccinia
striiformis Westend. f. sp. hordei Eriks. & Henn. (Psh), is
an important foliar disease of northern India. Yellow rust
is a disease that has devastated barley for a long time in
southern Asia, eastern Africa, Western Europe, and the
Middle East. In 1975, a race of this disease that affects
primarily barley was found for the rst time in Bogota,
Colombia (Dubin and Stubbs, 1986). Severe epidemics of
the barley yellow rust have been reported in north-western
and central European countries, India, Bangladesh,
Nepal, China and Japan (Chen et al., 1995). Since then,
the pathogen has spread throughout world. In India, rst
pathotype that infecting to barley, was identied in 1939
from Nilgiri hills, Tamil Nadu and designated as 4S0 (G).
In India, early incidence of yellow rust can cause very
heavy losses in the crop and can sometimes prevent the
ear head emergence or the grain formation/development
(Prakash and Verma, 2009). Yellow rust is principally a
disease of barley in cooler climates (2-15°C), where the
leaves are wet for prolonged periods (8-10 hours) and
provide optimum conditions for infection. The pustules
contain yellow to orange-yellow uredospores and form
narrow stripes on the leaves (Fig. 1a).
Fig. 1 Barley rust diseases a) Yellow rust b) Leaf rust c) Stem rust
d) Crown rust
The stripes continue to enlarge as the fungus is partially
systemic. It may also develop on leaf sheaths, necks, and
glumes. In conducive conditions (temperature 10-15°C,
intermittent rain or dew), pustules erupt within 8-14 days
after infection and freshly released uredospores become
airborne which facilitate secondary infection and faster
disease development (Prashar et al., 2015). Black telia
readily develop from uredia as infected barley plants
approach maturity. The uredial and telial spore stages
of P. striiformis f. sp. hordei occur on barley and various
Hordeum species (Marshall and Sutton, 1995). The pycnial
and aecial spore stages of Psh are not documented so far.
Volunteer plants, autumn-sown barley crops and wild
Hordeum species can serve as inoculum reservoirs for
barley yellow rust (Dubin and Stubbs, 1986; Marshall
and Sutton, 1995).
Brown (leaf) rust: Brown rust caused by Puccinia hordei
Otth., is a sporadic but most common disease of barley.
Generally brown rust occurs in all the barley growing areas
of India, but this pathogen seldom causes severe epidemics
over a wide area. Still, signicant yield losses can occur
in susceptible cultivars when the inoculum arrives early
and levels are high. Under experimental conditions, over
60% yield losses were reported in highly susceptible barley
cultivars (Das et al., 2007 ). The uredia of P. hordei are
small orange brown pustules, which are scattered mainly
on the upper leaf surface but also on the lower side of

Barley disease and their management an India prespective
141
leaf blades and on leaf sheaths of barley (Fig. 1b). These
pustules may be surrounded by chlorotic halos or green
islands. In case of severe infection under high inoculum
load, symptoms may also appear on stems, glumes, and
awns can also be infected. Later in the season, particularly
on leaf sheaths but also on stems, heads, and leaf blades,
blackish-brown telia are formed usually in stripes and
covered by the epidermis (Park et al., 2015). The uredial
and telial spore stages of leaf rust pathogen occur on barley
and various wild Hordeum spp., and the pycnial and aecial
spore stages have been reported on alternate hosts of
the Liliaceae family, such as Ornithogalum, Leopoldia, and
Dipcadi (Clifford, 1985). A temperature ranging from 20-
25 ℃and prolonged wet weather are pre-requisite for faster
spread of the disease. Under such conditions, new uredia
are generally formed within 7 to 10 days after infection
and the cycle of spore production is repeated.
Stem (Black) rust: Barley stem rust caused by Puccinia
graminis Pers. f. sp. tritici Eriks. & Henn. (Pgt) and Puccinia
graminis Pers. f. sp. secalis Eriks. & Henn. (Pgs) is primarily
a disease of the Central and Peninsular India. It often
infects the crop late in the season and, therefore, the
losses are minimal. The uredial pustules are much larger,
reddish-brown, elongated and develop predominantly
on the stem, leaf blade, sheath and occasionally on spike
(Fig. 1c). One of the most characteristic features of stem
rust that helps to separate it from the other two rusts is
that the uredia tear the plant tissue, giving the affected
stem and leaf a distinctly tattered appearance. Severe
infections with many stem lesions may weaken plant stems
and result in breaking of stem from the severe infection
point. Late in the season, rust coloured pustules turn into
black telia containing teliospores (Bhardwaj et al., 2017).
Optimal conditions for infection are a temperature range
of 15-28°C and 6-8 hours of free moisture on the leaf
surface. Disease spreads rapidly if wet weather persists
and temperature remained in the range of 26-30°C.
Several cycles of uredospore production occur during
the growing season. The uredial and telial spore stages
of this pathogen occur on the barley, wheat and other
grass hosts. The pycnial and aecial spore stages occur
on Berberis spp. (barberry) and Mahonia spp. which act as
alternate hosts. The alternate host species of Berberis and
Mahonia can provide a source of primary inoculum in
the form of aeciospores, although this spore is generally
disseminated over short distances (Roelfs et al., 1992). In
India, the functional alternate hosts (susceptible Berberis
and Mahonia spp.) are absent, therefore, the source of
primary inoculum has been remained the Nigiris hills,
where it must be surviving on volunteer plants or summer
crop in the form of uredospores or some other grasses/
plants in the catchment areas (Bhardwaj et al., 2016). North
Indian hills do not play any role in the epidemiology of
barley black rust in India.
Crown rust: Barley crown rust caused by Puccinia coronata
f. sp. hordei Jin & Steff. This disease was rst observed on
barley in the 1950s but the pathogen was not described
as a new forma specialis (f. sp.) until 1991 when crown
rust appeared in epidemic form in south central Nebraska,
U.S.A. (Jin and Steffenson, 1999). Uredial pustules are
linear, oblong, orange-yellow in colour and occur mostly
on the leaf blades but occasionally occur also on leaf
sheaths, peduncles and awns (Fig. 1d). Extensive chlorosis
is generally associated with the uredia. Telial pustules are
mostly linear, black to dark brown, and are covered by
the host epidermis. The Barley crown rust has not been
reported from India so far.
Pathotypes of barley rust pathogens: First pathotype of
Puccinia striiformis f. sp. hordei, named G(4S0), was
identied from Nilgiri hills in 1939. Subsequently, ve
other pathotypes viz. Q (5S0), 24 (0S0-1), 57 (0S0), M
(1S0) and G-1 (4S0-3) were also described over the years
(Nayar et al., 1997; Bhardwaj and Gangwar, 2012). New
pathotypes 6S0 and 7S0 of Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici,
which were characterized recently, also found virulent
on barley genotypes and currently are being used for
characterising rust resistance in barley (Gangwar et al.,
2016). Most of the Indian Psh pathotypes do infect
some wheat cultivars/ accessions and similarly, few Pst
pathotypes (70S0-2, 6S0 and 7S0) infect barley host. Chen
et al. (1995), using random amplied polymorphic DNA
(RAPD), demonstrated that the two formae speciales (Pst
and Psh) are different but closely related to each other.
Line (2002) also observed that some wheat cultivars
were very susceptible to Psh and some barley cultivars
were very susceptible to Pst. In case of P. hordei, ve
isolates designated as H1, H2, H3, H4 and H5, are being
maintained and used for characterising rust resistance in
barley. Efforts are going on to design a system for race
identication for brown rust of barley. Since, barley and
wheat stem rust is caused by the same pathogen (Puccinia
graminis f. sp. tritici), therefore, the pathotypes are also
similar. Predominant pathotypes of Puccinia graminis
tritici occurring on barley are same as those occurring
on wheat in India.
Characterization of rust resistance in barley: As the rust
pathogens evolve to neutralize resistance, we must
continue to explore the sources of resistance. Screening
often must be done using virulent pathotypes identied
in the pathogenicity survey. Each year, barley advance
lines (NBDSN, EBD SN) are subjected to multi-pathotype

142
Wheat and Barley Research
breaks dormancy and begins to grow systemically within
the developing barley plant. All oral parts of plant
are infected at ear emergence and replaced by massive
smut spores (teliospores). Disease spread by wind-blown
teliospores from smutted ear to adjacent healthy owering
ears of barley. The teliospores germinate and invade the
female parts of barley owers and eventually colonise the
developing embryo. Once the infected seed matures, the
pathogen goes dormant until the cycle is repeated with
the germination of barley seed.
Fig. 2 Barley smut diseases a) Loose smut, b) covered smut
Covered smut: Covered smut of barley is caused by the
fungus Ustilago hordei (Pers.) Lagerh. They are recognizable
by their blackened ears that emerge from the leaf sheaths.
All the ears in a diseased plant and all the grains in a
diseased ear are infected. All the infected grains in a
diseased ear are transformed into masses of teliospores
which are held in place by persistent, tough, greyish-white
membrane (Fig. 2b). The covered masses of teliopores
are not released from their enclosing membranes
until threshing time, unless the membrane is broken
accidentally. When the infected ears are broken open
during threshing, innumerable teliospores are released.
Many of these lodge on healthy kernels and remain
dormant until the seed is sown (Externally seedborne).
Germination of teliospores take place readily in water
or damp soil by the formation of a septate promycelium
during which meiosis of the diploid nucleus takes place.
A large number of sporidia (basidiospores) are produced
which multiply by budding, germinate by germ tubes,
or fuse with each other producing dikaryotic condition.
As the barley seed begins to germinate the teliopores
also germinate and infect the seedling along the epicotyl
by dikaryotic infection hyphae. After the pathogen has
entered the seedling, its hyphae continue to grow with
the shoot and eventually replace the grains by masses
of teliopores. A warm, moist, acid soil favours seedling
infection. The greatest number of seedlings are infected
at a soil temperature range of 10°C to 21°C. Because of
routine use of seed treatments with effective fungicides,
smut diseases of barley are not common in India. However,
testing. The selected /differentiating pathotypes of three
barley rust pathogens are used.
The seedlings are grown in aluminum bread pans (29
cm long x 12 cm wide x 7 cm deep size) in a mixture
of ne loam and farmyard manure (3:1) that had been
sterilized by autoclaving (600C) for one hour. These trays
are sufciently large to accommodate 18 barley lines,
including a susceptible check to respective rust. For
each barley line, about 5-6 seeds are sown in hills. The
seedlings are raised in spore-proof chambers (indoors) at
22±20C, 50-70% relative humidity and 12-hour daylight.
When the seedlings become one week old with fully
expanded primary leaves, they are inoculated using a glass
atomizer that contained 10 mg uredospores, suspended
in 5 ml light grade mineral oil (Soltrol 170)® (Chevron
Phillips Chemicals Asia Pvt. Ltd., Singapore). The oil
is allowed to evaporate for 5 minutes. Plants are then
sprayed with a ne mist of water and incubated overnight
in dew chambers at 20±20C℃for black and brown rust
and at 16±20C temperature for yellow rust. Saturated
relative humidity and 12 hours daylight were maintained
during the incubation. The plants are then transferred to
a glasshouse and grown at 22±20C with relative humidity
of 40-60% and illuminated at about 15,000 lux for 12
hours for brown and black rusts, whereas, 16±20C℃for
yellow rust. Infection types on the test lines are recorded
16-18 days after inoculation (Nayar et al., 1997). Infection
types 0 to 2 (small hypersensitive ecks to small-moderate
uredial pustules with chlorosis) are considered resistant
and infection types of 3 to 3+ (moderate to large uredial
pustules without chlorosis) as susceptible. Infection type
33+ classied where both 3 and 3+ pustules are found
together. The experiment is repeated to conrm the
reaction types.
3. The barley smuts
Loose smut: Loose smut of barley, like wheat, is caused by
the fungus Ustilago tritici (Pers.) Rostr. {(U. nuda ( Jens.)
Rostr)}. However, the particular isolate of loose smut
pathogen that attacks wheat, does not attack barley and
vice-versa. Until ear (spike) emergence affected plants
often do not exhibit symptoms. Affected ears usually
emerge before healthy ones and all the grains are replaced
with a mass of dark brown teliospores (Fig. 2a). The
teliopores are initially loosely held by a thick membrane
that soon breaks releasing the teliospores onto other
ears (spikes). Infection occurs under moist conditions at
temperatures around 16-22°C. The pathogen survives
from one season to next as dormant mycelium within
the embryo of barley seeds (internally seedborne). At
germination of infected and untreated seeds, pathogen

Barley disease and their management an India prespective
143
if untreated susceptible cultivars are grown in Northern
parts of India, then, these diseases especially covered smut
can cause considerable yield losses. Additionally, if carried
through the malting process, smut spores can negatively
affect the beer quality.
4. Foliar diseases of barley
Foliar diseases of barley are one of the main constraints
to successful barley production. These diseases destroy
green leaf area and thus restrict the barley plant’s ability
to set and ll grain. The main barley foliar diseases in
India are Powdery mildew, netted and spotted forms of
net blotches, spot blotch, speckled leaf blotch and stripe
disease. Among these diseases, blotches are considered
economically very important because of their air borne
nature, ability to spread widely and to cause epidemic.
Powdery mildew: Powdery mildew, a common disease of
barley, is caused by the fungus Blumeria graminis (DC.)
Speer f. sp. hordei Marchal. The disease is most prevalent
in early sown crops with good canopy cover. Symptoms
are usually rst observed at tillering stage but the disease
does not normally persist beyond spike emergence. Losses
are minimal in India, but can be as much as 25 percent
in heavily infected crops. Both winter and spring barley
crops can be affected by powdery mildew, resulting in
losses typically ranging from 1% to 14%. Losses exceeding
14% can occur when disease onset is early and inoculum
pressure is high. Apart from yield loss, powdery mildew
infection can also reduce kernel weight, numbers of
tillers and spikes, and root growth (Mathre, 1997). The
powdery mildew fungus is a biotrophic pathogen and
unique in that it can infect barley without the presence of
free moisture. In general, the disease is favoured by cool
(15°C -25°C) and humid weather but can also occur in
warmer, semiarid environments. Germ tubes from both
conidia and ascospores can penetrate the host cuticle
directly. The most diagnostic features of the disease are
the pathogen signs. They initially appear as fuzzy, whitish
tufts of fungal mycelium. Later, powdery or uffy white
pustules of conidial chains develop from the mycelium
(Fig. 3).
Fig. 3 Powdery mildew sign on leaf (a), Cleistothecia on leaf (b)
Mycelium and conidia may turn gray or even slightly
brownish in color with age. Under severe epidemics,
the entire spikes of plants can be infected with powdery
mildew in addition to the leaves and leaf sheaths. Late in
the growing season, the black, globose-shaped cleistothecia
(the structure containing the sexual spores) of the fungus
will form within the cottony masses of mycelium and
conidia. The disease perpetuates on volunteers and grasses
from one season to the next.
Net Blotch: Net blotch is an important and destructive
foliar disease of barley. The disease occurs in two forms:
net form of net blotch (NFNB) and spot form of net
blotch (SFNB). The fungi Pyrenophora teres Drechs. f. teres
Smedeg. and Pyrenophora teres Drechs. f. maculata Smedeg.,
cause the net (NFNB) and spot form (SFNB) of net blotch
of barley, respectively. Generally, only one of the two
forms of net blotch will predominate in a given area and
this is due to the cultivars grown and also perhaps due to
management practices and environment. SFNB develops
as small circular or elliptical dark brown spots surrounded
by a chlorotic zone of varying width (Fig. 4a).
Fig. 4 Leaf blotch diseases- a) Spot Form Net Blotch b) Net Form
Net Blotch c) Spot blotch d) Septoria speckled leaf blotch
The diameter of SFNB spots varies from 3mm to 6mm.
The net form of net blotch (NFNB) begins as pinpoint
brown lesions, later on, elongate and produce ne, dark
brown streaks along and across the leaf blades, forming a
distinctive net-like pattern (Fig. 4b). Older lesions often are
surrounded by a yellow margin, and continue to elongate
along leaf veins. The symptoms produced by both forms
of net blotch can vary greatly depending on the isolate
of the pathogen, genotype and growth stage of the host
and environment (McLean et al. 2009). Net blotch has the
potential to cause total loss in susceptible cultivars under
conducive environmental conditions, but, in general,
yield losses have been reported from 10-44% in infected
barley crops (Steffenson et al., 1991; Jayasena et al., 2007;
Murray and Brennan, 2010). The fungus can overseason
as mycelium and pseudothecia on host stubble and then
produce conidia and/or ascospores that can infect the
next season’s crop. Moreover, infected volunteer plants of
barley or wild Hordeum species may also serve as sources
of primary inoculum for newly sown crops. Infection by

144
Wheat and Barley Research
pathogen is favoured by humid periods lasting 10 or more
hours and temperatures in the range of 15–20°C. Conidia
formed from the lesions on the infected leaves can serve
as secondary inoculum and facilitate the spread of disease.
Spot blotch: Spot blotch, caused by Bipolaris sorokiniana
(Sacc.) Shoemaker {(Cochliobolus sativus (Ito and
Kuribayashi) Drechs. ex Dastur)} is important foliar disease
of barley in India. The pathogen has been described as
the most important fungal pathogen of barley (Arabi and
Jawhar, 2004; Valjavec-Gratian and Steffenson, 1997).
The pathogen has a wide host range and pathogenicity is
variable in nature. It has many physiologic races that differ
greatly in virulence and ability to attack specic cereals
and grasses. Yield losses ranging from 10% to 30% are
common in susceptible barley cultivars but can exceed
the 30% level under highly favourable environments
(Fetch and Steffenson, 1994). Spot blotch damage can
reduce grain yield by 10% to 20% when the temperature
is between 15 °C and 22 °C during the rst two weeks
after the appearance of full ears (Steffenson, 1997). The
yield loss due to the disease is very signicant under
warm and humid environmental conditions especially in
Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Assam and
plains of North-Eastern states of India. Extended warm
periods (> 16 h) of and moist weather are conducive to
epiphytotic development. Incubation period for disease
development is 3-6 days, depending on environmental
conditions. Early and heavy infection on ag leaf result
in the greatest losses in grain yield. Early symptoms are
characterized by small, dark brown lesions ranging 1-2
mm long without chlorotic margin. The typical lesions
are round to oblong, 2-5 x 15-20 mm restricted in width
by leaf veins, dark brown and chlorotic at their margins
(Fig. 4c). In susceptible genotypes, these lesions extend
very quickly in oval to elongated blotches (2-20mm)
that may coalesce into larger irregular patches. Heavily
infected leaves dry out and die prematurely. The kernel
blight phase (Black point) of this disease may develop if
inoculum is available and the environmental conditions
are conducive to infection. This fungus also produces
toxins (mainly prehelminthosporol), which are capable
of causing disease symptoms (Kumar et al., 2002). The
sexual state is rare in nature, however, pseudothecia can
be produced articially in the laboratory by inoculating
boiled barley grains on mineral salt agar with a suspension
of compatible mating types. Pseudothecia are black and
globose and have erect beaks, asci are hyaline, 4-10 septate
and spirally exed within the ascus. The pathogen survives
on the seeds, crop residue and other grass hosts. Initial
leaf infections in the eld result from airborne conidia
produced either on wild grasses or on crop residue.
Septoria speckled leaf blotch (SSLB): This disease caused by
the fungus Septoria passerinii Sacc., is an important disease
of North Eastern Plains Zone. Yield losses of 23-38 per
cent due to SSLB have been reported (Toubia-Rahme and
Steffenson, 1999). The disease also affects test weight and
kernel weight signicantly. Symptoms vary depending
upon the growth stage of barley. Lesions on leaves are
initially mildly chlorotic, then become grey-green to straw
coloured, elongated and often coalesce. On seedlings,
lesions sometimes may not contain pycnidia. Necrotic
blotches appear irregular and contain very small dot like
dark brown pycnidia as the lesions become older (Fig.
4d). The masses of pycnidia on areas killed by the fungus
are diagnostic character of the disease and pycnidia
often develop in lines parallel to veins. At heading stage,
light grey to white rectangular lesions delimited by veins
are produced. On mature plants, large grey spots with
many pycnidia develop on senescent leaves and sheaths.
Pycnidia may develop on the awns but rarely occur on
grain (Green and Dickson 1957). Lesions on the upper
leaves and glumes signicantly reduce photosynthetic
activity of the plants as well as yield. The grains may
become shrivelled and chaffy at harvest (Tekauz, 2003).
Hosts of Septoria passerinii include a number of Hordeum
spp. and wild grasses. Infected plants residue on soil
surface or below ground play a pivotal role in over-
seasoning of the pathogen. Inoculum is dispersed short
distances by rain splash and infested straw which may
move from one eld to another by wind gusts. After crop
maturity, new pycnidia developed between 15 and 30°C
but only within existing lesions (Lutey and Fezer, 1960).
More than 48 h of continuous moisture may be required
for spore germination and leaf infection. Additionally,
the incubation period for Septoria passerinii is 19 days or
longer and therefore, disease is important only in years
when favourable conditions persist for long periods.
Seasonal rainfall at or above the normal along with low
temperatures that lengthened the vegetative phase of
growth is associated with severe disease during this period
(Green and Dickson 1957).
Stripe disease: Stripe disease is caused by the fungus
Drechslera graminea (Rabenh.) Shoemaker. The disease
occurs only on barley. Unlike spot blotch and net blotch,
the stripe disease produces a systemic infection that affects
the whole plant. The rst symptom of stripe disease is the
appearance of small, pale lesions on seedling leaves. If
severely infected seeds of a susceptible barley variety is
sown, some of the seedlings may be killed by the stripe

Barley disease and their management an India prespective
145
pathogen. The characteristic long, narrow and yellowish
to straw coloured streaks or stripes appear on the leaves
as they unfold. Parallel stripes, may extend the entire
length of the blade. The light yellow streaks soon turn
brown (Fig. 5).
Fig. 5 Barley stripe-initially yellow stripe, later on turn brown
The browning is usually followed by a drying-out and
lengthwise splitting of the leaf blade. The streaks extend to
the leaf sheath when the leaves are mature. Stripe-affected
plants are severely stunted with few tillers and usually
spike do not emerge or produce seed. The ears that do
emerge are greyish brown, withered, twisted, often barren,
and erect. Generally, all the leaves of a diseased plant are
affected. Infected plants, shrivel and die prematurely.
Large numbers of spores (conidia) of the stripe fungus are
produced in the dark grey to olive grey stripes on dead
barley leaves. These conidia are carried by air currents
or splashing rain to the spikes of healthy barley plants at
or soon after owering. The conidia lodge near the tips
of the glumes, germinate and produce mycelial growth
in moist weather. The mycelium starts to grow between
the hulls and the kernels and may penetrate the embryo.
Infection can occur any time before the spike emergence
at soft dough stage and under varying temperature and
moisture conditions. The pathogen remains dormant as
mycelium on or within the dry barley grains until the
seed germinates. The stripe fungus then resumes active
growth, progressing into the sheath surrounding the rst
seedling leaf, from that into the next leaf, and continuing
until all of the leaves are infected. The spores of the stripe
pathogen can remain alive for as long as 34 months. Seed
transmission is high at soil temperatures below 12°C.
The transmission is reduced or prevented when the
temperature is above 15°C.
Root and crown diseases
Rhizoctonia root rot: Barley is highly susceptible to
rhizoctonia root rot, caused by Rhizoctonia solani Kuhn.
AG8 and R. oryzae Ryker & Gooch. R. solani AG8
has a wide host range, including wheat and barley.
Aboveground symptoms include yellowing and purpling
of the leaves and stunting, which can often occur in
patches in the eld, hence the names rhizoctonia patch,
purple patch, bare patch, or barley stunt. Below ground,
root tips are brown, and crown root tips are rotted or
tapered to a point, hence the name spear tipping. Under
extreme conditions, where seedling growth is slowed by
cool temperatures, Rhizoctonia can also cause damping-off.
Rhizoctonia can survive on living plants via a green bridge
on grassy weeds or volunteers plants (Smiley et al., 1992).
Because the fungus has a wide host range, therefore, its
survival becomes very easy.
Common root rot and seedling blight: Common root rot is
caused by Bipolaris sorokiniana (Sacc.) Shoemaker. The
pathogen forms brown lesions on the roots and especially
on the subcrown internode. These lesions can extend
to the crown and leaf sheaths and eventually affected
seedlings may killed. Under severe conditions, these
lesions become almost black. This pathogen also causes
spot blotch on the leaves and kernel blight or black point
on seeds. Infected plants are stunted, with reduced
tillering and reduced yield. White heads (spikes) can be
formed, and heads contain fewer kernels that are small
and shrivelled. This pathogen survives in the soil via
thick-walled conidia, which can persist in the soil for many
years. In most areas, soilborne inoculum from conidia is
the primary source of infection. Infection is initiated from
conidia in the soil. Conidia germinate in the presence of
a host and can infect the emerging coleoptile or primary
roots. The fungus can produce phytotoxins, which aid in
the pathogenesis and colonization of the root. Seedborne
inoculum can be important in more humid areas. The
pathogen can survive on roots of grassy weeds and some
dicots or on host debris.
Viral diseases
Barley yellow dwarf (BYD): Barley yellow dwarf is important
virus disease of barley caused by Barley yellow dwarf virus
(BYDV). Losses due to this disease can be 100% if infection
of the crop occurs on early crop growth stage (Mathre,
1997). BYDV infections cause leaf yellowing and stunting,
initially conned to single plants scattered randomly in a
eld but later developing into distinct circular patches as
secondary spread occurs (Fig. 6).
Fig. 6 BYD yellowing on Barley

146
Wheat and Barley Research
Barley leaves often turn bright yellow. Other symptoms
include upright and stiff barley leaves with serrated leaf
borders, reduced tillering and owering, sterility and
failure to ll kernels, which results in fewer and smaller
kernels and corresponding yield losses. The viruses that
cause barley yellow dwarf (BYD) are hexagonal and
typically 25-28nm in diameter. They are composed of two
proteins that encapsulate the single-stranded ribonucleic
acid (ssRNA) genome. The viruses are restricted to the
phloem of host plants. A typical disease symptoms develop
due to the death of infected phloem cells which inhibits
translocation, and loss of chlorophyll. Spread of BYDV
from infected grasses and volunteer cereals to barley and
plant to plant is facilitated by at least 25 different species of
cereal aphids. The viruses is not transmitted mechanically
(by rubbing) and do not multiply in their aphid vectors.
Thus, all aphids must acquire the viruses by feeding on
infected plants. The viruses move up from aphid’s stylet
to the gut, where they are transported into hemocoel. The
viruses then circulate through the hemocoel to the aphid’s
accessory salivary gland where they mixed with saliva
and can be expelled into the phloem of another plant.
The viruses can not be transmitted by an aphid until they
travel through the body of the insect. Therefore, usually,
an aphid takes the several hours from viruses acquirement
to become capable of transmitting them. This duration
is called the latent period. A single viruliferous aphid can
spread the virus to many plants as it moves and feeds.
High light intensity and relatively cool temperatures
15-18ºC, generally favour expression of symptoms, such
as leaf discoloration which may attract aphid vectors to
virus-infected plants.
Nematode diseases
Molya disease: Barley, like most other cereal crops,
suffers from damage by parasitic nematodes. Cereal cyst
nematode (Heterodera avenae Woll.), causing molya disease
is a sedentary endoparasite that infects the roots of many
crops belonging to family Poaceae including barley. Cereal
cyst nematode (CCN) can cause substantial yield losses,
particularly in north eastern Rajasthan and adjoining
Haryana. Cereal cyst nematodes cause short branching
and swelling (knots) on the roots of seedlings of wheat but
do not cause distinctive root symptoms on barley, other
than a bushier root system (Fig. 7).
Fig. 7 CCN infected barley roots, white cycts
Aboveground, the plants are severely stunted, usually
with a patchy distribution and show symptoms of nutrient
deciency. Juveniles gain entry to the root, and females
set up a feeding site in the vascular system of the root.
The females become swollen, produce eggs and are
transformed into cysts, which protrude through the roots.
These cysts are white when young and then turn brown.
The eggs are formed within the cyst and the cysts can
survive for long periods of time and overwinter. Eggs hatch
out the following season. H. avenae is widely distributed
throughout the world. In addition, a new species was
detected in Oregon in 2008, Heterodera lipjevi (Smiley et
al., 2008). Cysts can spread by the movement of soil with
wind, transplants, shoes, tubers, machinery, harvesters,
and so on. Cereal cyst nematodes have only one life cycle
per year. However, each cyst contains several hundred
eggs, so populations can increase rapidly on susceptible
barley cultivars. The disease is reduced by rotation with a
non-host for 1–2 years, including controlling grassy weeds.
In general, barley is more tolerant to cyst nematode than
wheat or oats.
Management strategies of barley diseases
Disease management is best achieved by knowledge of the
pathogens involved and manipulation of the interacting
factors. Resistant varieties provide the easiest and most
effective option to manage the major diseases. For effective
disease management, it is important to use the integrated
disease management practices that focus on the factors
affecting disease.
Genetic resistance: The principle mechanism of control
of the cereal rusts has been through the use of resistant
cultivars. There are two types of genes that used for
breeding disease resistant barley cultivars. The rst is
R-genes, these are pathogen race specic in their action,
and effective at all plant growth stages. The second is
called adult plant resistance genes (APR-genes) because
resistance is functional only in adult plants. In contrast to
most R-genes, the levels of resistance conferred by single
APR-genes are only partial and allow considerable disease
development (Ellis et al., 2014). The agronomic lifespan
of a resistant cultivar is about 4-5 years where an active
breeding programme exists. For instance, barley stem
rust has been managed successfully in the northern Great
Plains of the U.S. and Canada due to deployment of the
stem rust resistance gene Rpg1 in 1942. Since then, this
gene has provided durable protection against this disease
in widely grown barley cultivars. However, emergence of
new races for this resistance gene resulted in some losses in
late sown barley (Steffenson, 1992). For the deployment of
resistant cultivars, one must be aware of level of resistance

Barley disease and their management an India prespective
147
in barley cultivars against different diseases and severity
of occurrence of diseases in different agro-climatic zones
of India. The cultivars grown in North western plain
zones are not yielding good in North eastern plain zones
due to heavy attack on these by spot blotch pathogen
under warmer conditions. Likewise, varieties bred for
other zones may suffer badly due to attack of stripe rust
in Northern hills and plains zones. In India, barley crop
improvement has been obtained through the utilization of
genetic resources available as land races of indigenous or
exotic origin. Exotic germplasm of barley received from
ICARDA has been remained an important base material
for the development of barley varieties either as direct or
their utilization in the development of new barley varieties.
The varieties namely, LSB 2, HBL 113, Dolma, VLB 118,
BHS 400 and BHS 380 have been released directly for the
cultivation in Northern Hill zone of India. Several barley
varieties viz. BHS 169, DL 88, BH 393, NDB 1173 and
VLB 56 have been developed by adopting hybridization
followed by selection in the segregating generations for
targeted traits (Singh et al., 2016). To identify the sources
of disease resistance in barley, a rigorous evaluation in
greenhouse and multilocational adult plant screening
is undertaken. Use of all the prevalent cultures of the
pathogens is made in evaluation. Recently, 336 barley
genotypes from ICARDA (International Center for
Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas) were evaluated
against barley yellow rust at ICAR-IIWBR, Shimla. Twelve
barley genotypes viz. ARAMIR/COSSACK, Astrix,
C8806, C9430, CLE 202, Gold, Gull, Isaria, Lechtaler,
Piroline, Stirling, and Trumpf were resistant to barley
yellow rust at the seedling and adult-plant stages (Verma
et al., 2018). Both seedling and adult plant resistance
are considered for the promotion of barley varieties.
Substantial diversity for resistance to rusts occurs also in
Advance Varietal Trial material. A major challenge for
barley breeders is to pyramid multiple disease resistance
genes into high yielding, high quality germplasm. Some
important targets include: yellow and leaf rust, powdery
mildew, net blotch and spot blotch. Singh (2008) reported
that barley cultivars RD 2508, RD 2035, DWRUB 52,
RD 2552 and RD 2624 have multiple disease resistance
in India. The cultivar like DWRUB52, DWRB73,
DWRUB64, DWRB91 and DWRB92 are yellow rust
resistant and effective in NWPZ and NHZ. Cultivar RD
2035, RD2052 and RD2592 are molya disease resistant
(CCN) and recommended in disease affected areas of
Rajasthan and Haryana. Resistant/tolerant varieties such
as DWRUB52, DWRB73, DWRUB64 and RD2552 are
being promoted in NEPZ where foliar diseases (net blotch
and spot blotch) are the major constraints.
Innovative approaches: Molecular technologies will facilitate
designing better strategies for developing disease resistance
in crop plants. Mutation, marker assisted selection (MAS),
gene cloning, genomics, recombinant DNA technology,
targeted induced local lesions in genome (TILLING)
and virus induced gene silencing (VIGS) are now being
followed by breeders to develop effective resistance in
cultivated crops within a short period of time. TILLING,
being a non- transgenic method, is expected to become
the most powerful tool for developing disease resistant
cultivars (Hussain, 2015).
Rotation and stubble management: Diseases such as spot-type
net blotch and net- type net blotch, spot blotch, SSLB are
stubble-borne. Crop rotation with a non-host crop will
minimise initial inoculum levels for next season’s crop.
Cultural practices such as incorporating the crop residue
into the soil or removing it completely by burning will
reduce the abundance of the pathogen and the disease
pressure. Molya disease is reduced by rotation with a
nonhost for 1–2 years.
Green bridge management: Three major diseases, barley
rusts, powdery mildew and barley yellow dwarf virus
(BYDV), persist on living hosts. Barley rusts survive on
barley volunteers, powdery mildew on barley volunteers
and stubble and BYDV on cereal regrowth and perennial
grasses. This is also most effective cultural technique for
reducing the initial inoculum of many soilborne pathogens.
A green bridge of self-sown barley leading into the
cropping season provides host material for these diseases
and the aphid vector of BYDV and increases the risk of
their early onset. Removing this green bridge will greatly
reduce the risk of early crop infection.
Seed health: The net-type net blotch (NTNB), loose smut
and covered smut are seed-borne diseases. Sowing infected
seed can introduce disease into a healthy crop. Therefore
clean seed should be used wherever possible. Fungicide
treatment can reduce the risk associated with sowing
infected seed, particularly for smuts.
Fungicidal disease management: Fungicide seed dressings or
fungicides applied in-furrow with fertiliser can be useful
in disease protection or suppression of early seedling
infection. The selection of fungicide should be determined
by the target diseases. The purpose of foliar fungicide
application in the crop is to delay disease development
and to maintain green leaf area. It reduces disease impact
on yield and grain quality. The cost effectiveness of
foliar fungicide applications depends on disease severity,
susceptibility of the variety, yield potential of the crop,
grain quality outlook and the environment where the

148
Wheat and Barley Research
crop is growing. When susceptible varieties are grown
in disease prone areas or high rainfall seasons, fungicide
can be cost effective in reducing the disease impact
where yield potential is over 2.0 t/ha. For controlling
initial load of inoculums or under high incidence of
barley rust diseases, fungicides belonging to triazole
group such as Azoxystrobin 25% EC (Amistar), Bayleton
25%EC (Triadimefon), Difenoconazole 25% EC (Score),
Propiconazole 25% EC (Tilt) and Tebuconazole 25% EC
(Folicur) have been found effective at the rate of 0.1 per
cent i.e. 1ml in 1litre of water (Bhardwaj et al., 2017).
Seed borne diseases particularly covered and loose
smuts, can be managed effectively by seed treatment with
Carboxin (Vitavax)/ or Carbendazim (Bavistin) @ 2.5 g/
kg seed for loose smut and Vitavax and Thiram (1:1)/ or
Tebuconazole @1.5 g/kg seed for covered smut. Bayleton,
Tilt and Folicur are broad spectrum fungicides, are also
effective against foliar diseases like powdery mildew, spot
blotch and net blotch besides of rusts (at the rate of 0.1
per cent).
Conclusions
Barley is affected by a number of airborne, seedborne and
soilborne pathogens which causes various diseases and
considerable loss to grain yield and quality. Among these,
brown and yellow rusts, both type of net blotches, spot
blotch, Septoria speckled leaf blotch, barley yellow dwarf
and molya disease are important in Indian perspective.
In general, barley diseases are best managed by adopting
integrated disease management strategies. Growing
resistant/tolerant cultivars with minimum number
of chemical sprays are the best way to manage these
diseases. However, It is difcult to manage the soilborne
pathogens because of the lack of distinctive symptoms
for identication and lack of soil-applied fungicides or
nematicides that are effective or economic on a relatively
low-value crop such as barley. Genetic resistance or
tolerance to most of these generalized wide host range root
rotting pathogens is also lacking. Thus, growers must rely
on a number of cultural methods to manage these diseases.
References
1. Arabi MIE and M Jawhar. 2004. Identification of
Cochliobolus sativus (Spot Blotch) isolates expressing
differential virulence on barley genotypes in Syria.
Journal of Phytopathology 152: 461-464.
2. Bauer R, D Begerow, JP Sampaio, M Weib and F
Oberwinkler. 2006. The simple-septatebasidiomycetes:
a synopsis. Mycological Progress 5:41–66.
3. Bhardwaj SC and OP Gangwar. 2012. Seedling
resistance evaluation and concept of pathotyping for
barley rusts. In: Verma et al. (eds) Compendium on
malting quality improvement in barley sorghum and
corn. Compendium no. 5, DWR, Karnal, India, pp
78-83.
4. Bhardwaj SC, P Prasad, OP Gangwar, H Khan and S
Kumar. 2016. Wheat rust research-then and now. Indian
Journal of Agricultural Sciences 86(10):1231-1244.
5. Bhardwaj SC, OP Gangwar, P Prasad, H Khan and S
Kumar. 2017. Understanding wheat rusts and managing
them strategically. In: HR Gautam and SK Gupta (eds)
Diseases of commercial crops in India. Neoti Book
Agency Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, India, pp 9-29.
6. Chen XM, RF Line and H Leung. 1995. Virulence and
polymorphic DNA relationships of Puccinia striiformis f.
sp.hordei to other rusts. Phytopathology 85(11): 1335-1342.
7. Clifford BC. 1985. Barley leaf rust. In: AP Roelfs
and WR Bushnell (eds) The Cereal Rusts: Diseases,
Distribution, Epidemiology, and Control, Vol. 2.
Academic Press, New York, pp 173–205.
8. Cummins G B and Y Hiratsuka. 2003. Illustrated Genera
of Rust Fungi. APS Press, USA, pp 223.
9. Das MK, CA Griffey, RE Baldwin, CM Waldenmaier,
ME Vaughn, AM Price and WS Brooks. 2007. Host
resistance and fungicide control of leaf rust (Puccinia
hordei) in barley (Hordeum vulgare) and effects on
grain yield and yield components. Crop Protection 26:
1422–1430.
10. Dubin HJ and RW Stubbs. 1986. Epidemic spread of
barley stripe rust in South America. Plant Disease 70:
141–144.
11. Duplessis S, CA Cuomo, YC Lin, A Aerts et al. 2011.
Obligate biotrophy features unraveled by the genomic
analysis of rust fungi. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108(22):
9166–9171.
12. Ellis JG, ES Lagudah, W Spielmeyer and PN Dodds.
2014. The past, present and future of breeding rust
resistant wheat. Frontiers in Plant Science 5: 641.
13. Fetch TG and BJ Steffenson. 1994. Identication of
Cochliobolus sativus isolates expressing differential
virulence on two-row barley genotypes from North
Dakota. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology 16: 202–206.
14. Gangwar OP, S Kumar, P Prasad, SC Bhardwaj, H
Khan and H Verma. 2016. Virulence pattern and
emergence of new pathotypes in Puccinia striiformis f.

Barley disease and their management an India prespective
149
sp. tritici during 2011-15 in India. Indian Phytopathology
69 (4s): 178-185.
15. Green GJ and JG Dickson. 1957. Pathological histology
and varietal reactions in Septoria leaf blotch of barley.
Phytopathology 47: 73-79.
16. Gyawali S, RPS Verma, S Kumar, SC Bhardwaj, OP
Gangwar, R Selvakumar, PS Shekhawat, S Rehman and
D Sharma-Poudyal. 2018. Seedling and adult-plant stage
resistance of a world collection of barley genotypes to
stripe rust. Journal of Phytopathology 166(1): 18–27.
17. Hussain B. 2015. Modernization in plant breeding
approaches for improving biotic stress resistance in
crop plants. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry
39: 515-530.
18. Jayasena KW, A Van Burgel, K Tanaka, J Mejewski and
R Loughman. 2007. Yield reduction in barley in relation
to spot-type net blotch. Australasian Plant Pathology 36:
429–433.
19. Jin Y and BJ Steffenson. 1999. Puccinia coronata var. hordei
var nov.: morphology and pathogenicity. Mycologia 91:
877-884.
20. Kumar J, P Schafer, R Huckelhoven, G Langen, H
Baltruschat, E Stein, Nagarajan S and KH Kogel. 2002.
Bipolaris sorokiniana, a cereal pathogen of global concern:
Cytological and molecular approaches towards better
control. Molecular Plant Pathology 3(4):185–195.
21. Kumar V, I Hooda and GS Sindhan. 1998. Estimation
of yield losses in barley due to Drechslera graminae the
causal agent of stripe disease. Indian Phytopathology 51
(4): 365–366.
22. Line RF. 2002. Stripe rust of wheat and barley in North
America: A retrospective historical review. Annual
Review of Phytopathology 40: 75-118.
23. Lutey RW and KD Fezer. 1960. The role of infested
straw in the epiphytology of Septoria leaf blotch of
barley. Phytopathology 50: 910-913.
24. Manjunatha T, IS Bisht, KV Bhat and BP Singh. 2007.
Genetic diversity in barley (Hordeum vulgare L. ssp.
vulgare) landraces from Uttaranchal Himalaya of India.
Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 54: 55-65.
25. Marshall D and RL Sutton. 1995. Epidemiology of stripe
rust, virulence of Puccinia striiformis f. sp. hordei, and yield
loss in barley. Plant Disease 79: 732–737.
26. Mathre DE. 1997. Compendium of Barley Diseases.
American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, MN.
27. McLean MS, BJ Howlett and GJ Hollaway. 2009.
Epidemiology and control of spot form of net blotch
(Pyrenophora teres f. maculata) of barley: a review. Crop &
Pasture Science 60(4): 303-315.
28. Murray GM and JP Brennan. 2010. Estimating disease
losses to the Australian barley industry. Australasian Plant
Pathology 39: 85– 96.
29. Nayar S K, M Prashar and SC Bhardwaj. 1997. Mannual
of current techniques in wheat rusts. Research Bulletin
No.2, 32P. Regional Research Station, Directorate of
Wheat Research, Flowerdale, Shimla 171002.
30. Park RF, PG Golegaonkar, L Derevnina, KS Sandhu,
H Karaoglu, HM Elmansour, PM Dracatos and D
Singh. 2015. Leaf rust of cultivated barley: pathology
and control. Annual Review of Phytopathology 53: 565–89.
31. Prakash V and RPS Verma. 2009. Inheritance of yellow
rust resistance in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Indian J.
Genet. Plant Breed. 69(2): 99-101.
32. Prashar M, SC Bhardwaj, OP Gangwar and SK Jain.
2014. Virulence distribution and frequency of Puccinia
striiformis f. sp. hordei, causing stripe rust of barley in
northern parts of India. Indian Phytopathology 67 (1):
38-41.
33. Prashar M, SC Bhardwaj SC, SK Jain and OP Gangwar
2015. Virulence diversity in Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici
causing yellow rust on wheat (Triticum aestivum) in India.
Indian Phytopathology 68 (2): 129-133.
34. Roelfs AP, R Singh and EE.Saari. 1992. Rust diseases of
wheat: concepts and methods of disease management.
CIMMYT, Mexico, pp 81.
35. Singh DP. 2004. Assessment of losses due to leaf blights
caused by Bipolaris sorokiniana (Sacc.) Shoemaker and
Helminthosporium teres (Sacc.) in Barley. Plant Disease
Research 19: 173–175.
36. Singh DP. 2008. Evaluation of barley genotypes against
multiple diseases. SAARC Journal of Agriculture 6:117–120.
37. Singh DP. 2017. Strategic disease management in wheat
and barley. In: DP Singh (ed) Management of wheat and
barley diseases. Apple Academic Press, USA, pp 3-38.
38. Singh J , C Lal, D Kumar, A Khippal, L Kumar, V
Kumar, R Malik, S Kumar, AS Kharub, RPS Verma
and I Sharma. 2016. Widening the genetic base of indian
barley through the use of exotics. International Journal of
Tropical Agriculture 34(1): 1-10.
39. Smiley RW, AG Ogg and RJ Cook. 1992. Inuence of
glyphosate on Rhizoctonia root rot, growth, and yield of
barley. Plant Disease 76:937–942.

150
Wheat and Barley Research
40. Smiley RW, GP Yan and ZA Handoo. 2008. First record
of the cyst nematode Heterodera lipjevi on wheat in
Oregon. Plant Disease 92:1136.
41. Steffenson B. 1997. Spot Blotch. In: DE Mathre (ed)
Compedium of Barley Diseases, second ed. American
Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minnesota, pp
35-36.
42. Steffenson BJ, RK Webster and LF Jackson. 1991.
Reduction in yield loss using incomplete resistance to
Pyrenophora teres f. teres in barley. Plant Disease 75: 96–100.
43. Steffenson BJ. 1992. Analysis of durable resistance to
stem rust in barley. Euphytica 63:153-167.
44. Tekauz A. 2003. Diseases of Barley. In: Bailey et al.
eds Diseases of Field Crops in Canada. Canadian
Phytopathological Society, Moncton, pp 30–53.
45. Toubia-Rahme H and BJ Steffenson. 1999. Sources of
resistance to Septoria passerinii in Hordeum vulgare and
H. vulgare subsp. spontaneum. In Proceedings of the 5th
international workshop on Septoria and Stagonospora
diseases of cereals. Sept. 20-24, 1999, El-Batan, Mexico.
46. Vaish SS, SB Ahmed and K Prakash. 2011. First
documentation on status of barley diseases from the
high altitude cold arid Trans-Himalayan Ladakh region
of India. Crop Protection 30: 1129-1137.
47. Valjavec-Gratian M and BJ Steffenson. 1997. Pathotypes
of Cochliobolus sativus on barley in North Dakota. Plant
Disease 81:1275-1278.
48. Verma RPS, R Selvakumar, OP Gangwar, PS
Shekhawat, SC Bhardwaj, S Rehman, D Sharma-
Poudyal and S Gyawali. 2018. Identication of additional
sources of resistance to Puccinia striiformis f. sp. hordei
(PSH) in a collection of barley genotypes adapted to
the high input condition. Journal of Phytopathology 166:
355–364.
49. Verma RPS, V Kumar, B Sarkar, AS Kharub, D Kumar,
R Selvakumar, R malik and I Sharma. 2012. Barley
cultivars releases in India: names, parentages, origins
and adaptations. Research bulletin no 29, DWR, Karnal,
India, pp 26.